Poverty, Policy, and Federal Administrative Discourse: Are Bureaucrats Speaking Equitable Antipoverty Policy Designs into Existence?

• Published date: 01 November 2020
• Author: Anthony M. Starke
• Date: 01 November 2020
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13191

Poverty, Policy, and Federal Administrative Discourse 1087

Public Administration Review,

Vol. 80, Iss. 6, pp. 1087–1099. © 2020 by

The American Society for Public Administration.

DOI: 10.1111/puar.13191.

Anthony M. Starke Jr.

University of Colorado Denver

Poverty, Policy, and Federal Administrative Discourse:

Are Bureaucrats Speaking Equitable Antipoverty

Policy Designs into Existence?

Abstract: Non-elected, non-appointed federal employees, referred to as “bureaucrats,” are among the many policy

actors that participate in policy discourse. This article investigates whether bureaucrats’ administrative discourse

promotes economic equality, as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. envisioned. Based on a qualitative analysis of data from

congressional testimonies (n = 34) before and after the enactment of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity

Reconciliation Act of 1996, this study discusses the role of public administrators as contributors to welfare policy

discourse and the resulting implications for the fight for equality and equal citizenship. It finds that bureaucrats’

welfare policy discourse marginalized vulnerable populations, particularly African American women.

Evidence for Practice

• At its core, the discourse of welfare policy is embroiled in concepts such as citizenship, equity, and

democracy.

• Understanding the impact and influence of bureaucrats’ language leads to the construction of an equitable

and culturally competent public service lexicon.

• Getting to the root of economic disparity begins by altering the way(s) in which we construct and discuss

poverty.

• Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. called attention to a moral dilemma: either the nation must come to terms with

the fact that its practices are in stark opposition to its current policies and economic structure, or changes

need to be made to align the two.

• Administrative discourse should consider equity within the context of the national ethos, highlighting the

dissonance between what we say we value and what our policies do.

At its core, the discourse of welfare policy is

embroiled in concepts such as citizenship

(who is entitled to government assistance),

equity (what is fair), and democracy (who is

to decide) (Soss, Hackler, and Mettler 2007).

The research examining welfare policy discourse

and the social construction of welfare recipients

lacks enough understanding of the discursive

contributions of career public administrators in

the policy-making process. Traditional views

of public administration delimit its scope to

the administration and management of public

programs (Denhardt and Denhardt 2009). This

approach perpetuates a false dichotomy between

administration and politics. It implies that

bureaucrats are neutral and objective providers of

technical expertise guided by a chain of command

to ensure that decisions are made by the appropriate

authority (i.e., the people vis-à-vis elected officials)

(Simon, 1946; Simon, Drucker, and Waldo 1952;

Waldo 1952; Wilson 1887).

In practice, however, public programs operate under

the authority of policy goals and means as formally

approved by the legislature. Public administrators

are not just implementing policy and managing

programs, they are also actively shaping and making

public policy (Lipsky 2010; Maynard-Moody and

Musheno 2000, 2012). This contradicts the previously

held modernist proposition that there ought to be a

politics-administration dichotomy. Moreover, public

administrators are not held to the same accountability

standards as elected officials. Citizens do not have

direct oversight of bureaucrats in the same way they

do elected representatives (Miller and Fox 2007).

It is imperative that studies of the policy process

do not understate the pivotal role of public

administrators as policy makers. Administrators

contribute to and influence the policy-making

process. The Friedrich-Finer debate offers two

competing perspectives with differing implications

of the administrators’ role in policy making (Plant

Anthony M. Starke Jr. is assistant

professor in the School of Public Affairs at

the University of Colorado Denver. His work

broadly orbits around issues of democracy,

identity, citizenship, and social equity.

His research includes specific interests in

vulnerable and traditionally marginalized

populations, public service education/civic

literacy, and liberation.

Email: anthony.starke@ucdenver.edu

Research

Symposium:

Pursuit of Civil

Rights and Public

Sector Values in

the 21st Century:

Examining

Dr. Martin Luther

King Jr.’s Vision in

the Trump Era