Race in representative bureaucracy theory: A problematizing review

• Published date: 01 November 2023
• Author: Eiko Strader,Vernicia Griffie,Patrick C. Irelan,Leslie Y. Kwan,Emma Northcott,Sanjay K. Pandey
• Date: 01 November 2023
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13640

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Race in representative bureaucracy theory: A problematizing

review

Eiko Strader | Vernicia Griffie | Patrick C. Irelan | Leslie Y. Kwan |

Emma Northcott | Sanjay K. Pandey

Trachtenberg School of Public Policy and Public

Administration, George Washington University,

Washington, DC, USA

Correspondence

Eiko Strader, Trachtenberg School of Public

Policy and Public Administration, George

Washington University, Washington,

DC 20052, USA.

Email: strader@gwu.edu

Abstract

This study is an epistemic reflexive examination of race in representative bureau-

cracy theory, responding to the criticism that its conceptualization has been nar-

row. To counter socially reinforced ways of thinking, we use a problematizing

review method to read broadly and selectively. Reviewing a sample of articles

published in public administration (immediate research domain); political science

(neighboring domain); sociology and Asian/cultural/ethnic studies (indirectly rele-

vant domains) between 2017 and 2021 and paying attention to social construc-

tionism, we examined how race and ethnicity are conceptualized. While the

articles in public administration focused on a binary conception of race, treating

differential outcomes as natural, articles sampled from other domains explained

how ethnoracial categories were constructed, highlighted the contextual nature of

differential outcomes, and engaged with the issue of racialization. To expand the

conception of race in public administration, we must explore the process in which

racial constructs became associated with unequal outcomes.

Evidence for Practice

•The paradigm-bound nature of disciplinary knowledge makes it difficult to

reveal widespread assumptions and question normative arguments and

practices.

•The problematizing review methodology, which is built on the ideal of reflexivity,

is a valuable alternative to conventional reviews that reinforce compartmentalized

thinking in a particular knowledge domain for scrutinizing taken-for-granted

terminologies.

•Public administration scholars and practitioners need to question the use of race

as a causal explanatory factor and examine how racial constructs become associ-

ated with differential outcomes with the goal of unmasking underlying mecha-

nisms of inequality.

The theory of representative bureaucracy has achieved heg-

emonic status in public administration (Gooden, 2015;

Moloney et al., 2023; Portillo et al., 2022). The concept of

representative bureaucracy was put forward by Kingsley

(1944), who was concerned about the plutocratic nature of

the British Civil Service based on the disproportionately

high share of administrators “closely identified with the his-

toric ruling class”(148). Recognizing the power bureaucrats

wield in the creation and implementation of policy, he

argued for the recruitment of high-level public servants

from all social classes so that the goals of bureaucrats

reflect the views of their constituents (Kingsley, 1944). There

was no consensus as to whether representative bureau-

cracy was possible, but early work posited potential bene-

fits such as promoting equal opportunities, instilling a

sense of shared democratic values in the public sector, and

enhancing the legitimacy of the government (Lipset, 1950;

Long, 1952;Riper&Paul,1958). As scholarship evolved, var-

ious definitions of representation emerged (Lipsky, 1980;

Pitkin, 1967; Thompson, 1976) alongside a growing embrace

of representative bureaucracy as a framework for addressing

social inequality.

Earlier works such as Mosher (1968) included race as a

peripheral concern, but in response to the cultural shifts

Received: 27 June 2022 Revised: 27 February 2023 Accepted: 1 March 2023

DOI: 10.1111/puar.13640

Public Admin Rev. 2023;83:1687–1703. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/puar © 2023 American Society for Public Administration. 1687

spurred by the civil rights era, race began to garner atten-

tion among public administration scholars in the 1970s

(Bradbury & Kellough, 2008; Rosenbloom &

Kinnard, 1977). Despite the enduring interest in addres-

sing racial inequality over the last 50 years, critics argue

that most published studies on representative bureau-

cracy suffer from narrow conceptualization of race, over-

looking the ways in which whiteness, masculinity, and

coloniality predominate our thinking (Bhati, 2022; Bishu &

Kennedy, 2020; Moloney et al., 2023; Pandey et al., 2022;

Portillo et al., 2022). These diagnoses are not surprising

given the tendency among scholars to “overexploit popu-

lar concepts by adding more and more vague and poorly

defined meanings to them”(Alvesson & Blom, 2022,

p. 58), but there are some antidotes.

One approach to unpack hegemonic ways of thinking

is to purposefully seek out divergence and scrutinize

taken-for-granted terminologies (Alvesson & Blom, 2022).

Social constructionism and structuration theory assert that

the process of knowledge production is socially derived and

maintained (Berger & Luckmann, 1966; Giddens, 1984).

Hence, field-specific knowledge is always partial as

researchers become entrenched in the field and their prac-

tices are marred with collective unconscious biases

(Bourdieu, 2004; Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992; Harding, 1991;

Maton, 2003; Sweet, 2020). We use the problematizing

review methodology (Alvesson & Sandberg, 2020)toenact

epistemic reflexivity and interrogate hegemonic ideas and

terminology used to discuss racial inequality within the

framework of representative bureaucracy. A problematizing

review purposefully draws from the immediate,neighboring,

and indirectly relevant fields, but unlike systematic reviews, its

aim is to read selectively and carefully, look for alternative

perspectives, and engage in productive dissensus.

We learned that articles sampled from the immediate

domain—public administration scholarship examining

racial inequality within the framework of representative

bureaucracy—relied on prevailing racial classification

schemes with little to no deliberation about the terminol-

ogy used to examine racialized disparities, treating racial

inequality as given. We observed a similar but less pro-

nounced tendency among the papers sampled from polit-

ical science (neighboring domain), while the modal

approach in sociology and Asian/cultural/ethnic studies

(indirectly relevant domains) was to acknowledge the pro-

cess of racialization, treating race and ethnicity as socially

constructed concepts that became dynamically associ-

ated with differential outcomes.

The rest of the paper is structured as follows. First, we

summarize the conceptualization of race in representative

bureaucracy theory. We then describe the methodological

steps we have taken to look for alternative conceptions of

race and counter socially reinforced ways of thinking, in

line with the aims and method of a problematizing

review. The notion that review authors are social actors

with the power to employ epistemic reflexivity is central

to our methodology. Going outside the immediate

domain, we draw from critiques made about the treat-

ment of race in social scientific research and describe

how we looked for ways to be attentive to sociohistorical

and comparative factors, hidden whiteness, and field-

specific assumptions underlying the narrow conceptuali-

zation of race. We close with a call for collective reflexivity

in public administration.

CONCEPTUALIZATION OF RACE IN

REPRESENTATIVE BUREAUCRACY THEORY

We begin with a brief overview of representative bureau-

cracy as an analytical framework, followed by a discussion

about its handling of race. As noted earlier, many trace

the beginning of representative bureaucracy theory to

Kingsley (1944), linking the economic and social hierar-

chies in England with the large presence of public admin-

istrators from elite social circles, whom he believed would

act in opposition to the interests of the greater popula-

tion. This way of thinking deviated from earlier research

that characterized bureaucrats as neutral actors whose

actions were unaffected by personal experiences and

values (Weber, 1958).

Over the next three decades, various formulations of

representation were put forward. Mosher (1968) distin-

guished passive and active representation, where the for-

mer refers to parity between the composition of

bureaucrats and the population they serve, and the latter

denotes the use of administrative positions to advance

the interests of the group they identify with. Mosher

(1968) was wary of active representation, but he argued

that adequate passive representation may signal a well-

functioning democracy. Representation thus holds sym-

bolic importance on perceptions of citizens toward public

institutions, though it also means competing subjective

interpretations of representation can arise (Pitkin, 1967).

Next was the consideration of street-level bureaucrats,

conjecturing that those who directly interact with the

public have greater levels of administrative discretion

than other bureaucrats (Lipsky, 1980), which in turn made

them an ideal group for testing the existence of active

representation (Thompson, 1976). Formulations of repre-

sentation have changed over the years, but interest in

representative bureaucracy theory and research had

remained steady.

Alongside these developments, some began to argue

that “minority bureaucrats”are more perceptive to “minor-

ity group problems”and can address “the needs of their

clientele group”better (Rosenbloom & Kinnard, 1977),

which ushered in the consideration of race within the

framework of representative bureaucracy (Bradbury &

Kellough, 2008). Prior to the 1990s, the bulk of studies

explored these ideas in the context of “Black”and White

bureaucrats, but gradually the underrepresentation of

“Latino”bureaucrats also began to garner attention

(Meier, 1993).

1

As female and minoritized bureaucrats

1688 EXAMINATION OF RACE IN REPRESENTATIVE BUREAUCRACY THEORY