Representative Bureaucracy and Perceptions of Social Exclusion in Europe: Evidence From 27 Countries

• Author: Luciana Cingolani
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/00953997221137562
• Published date: 01 March 2023
• Date: 01 March 2023
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/00953997221137562

Administration & Society

2023, Vol. 55(3) 515 –540

© The Author(s) 2022

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/00953997221137562

journals.sagepub.com/home/aas

Article

Representative

Bureaucracy and

Perceptions of Social

Exclusion in Europe:

Evidence From 27

Countries

Luciana Cingolani1

Abstract

Representative bureaucracy theory predicts that mirroring social groups

in the composition of the bureaucracy will lead to inclusive policies and

less overall exclusion of diverse individuals. While supporting evidence on

policy outcomes is abundant, findings on subjective perceptions are mixed.

This study tests three hypotheses linking representative bureaucracy to

perceived same-group discrimination in the general population. It introduces

a novel multidimensional index of bureaucratic underrepresentation, and

uses mixed effects hierarchical models to approximate answers. Exploratory

findings suggest an “awareness” mechanism may explain the counterintuitive

relationship between underrepresentation and feelings of exclusion, in

which more diverse public sectors develop alongside higher awareness of

discrimination.

Keywords

representative bureaucracy, Europe, discrimination, social equity

1Hertie School, Berlin, Germany

Corresponding Author:

Luciana Cingolani, Hertie School, Friedrichstraße 180, Berlin 10117, Germany.

Email: cingolani@hertie-school.org

1137562AAS0010.1177/00953997221137562Administration & SocietyCingolani

research-article2022

516 Administration & Society 55(3)

Introduction

The last decade has seen vibrant discussions around the role of public admin-

istrations in the pursuit of social equity (e.g., Frederickson, 2010; Gooden,

2015; Guy & McCandless, 2012). A prominent aspect in these debates relates

to the way the social composition of the civil service matters for different

democratic and social outcomes. Systematic reviews on the topic show that

more representative bureaucracies lead to beneficial societal outcomes (Bishu

& Kennedy, 2020; Bradbury & Kellough, 2011; Riccucci & Van Ryzin,

2017). These outcomes often take the form of organizational achievements

(e.g., Andrews & Ashworth, 2015; Andrews et al., 2014), but are more gener-

ally reflected on the efficiency, efficacy, and legitimacy of public services

and policies (Liang et al., 2020; Meier et al., 1999; Meier & Nicholson-

Crotty, 2006; Riccucci & Van Ryzin, 2017, among others).

In advancing its propositions, the literature on representative bureaucra-

cies has sought to elucidate how representativeness affects bureaucratic

behavior and clients’ attitudes differentially (Nicholson-Crotty et al., 2016).

In that sense, while most works have focused on the former (e.g., Kennedy,

2013), citizen attitudes have been comparatively much less studied (e.g.,

Riccucci et al., 2014, 2018).

The study of individual perceptions acquires fundamental importance in

the evolving context of representative organizations, where discussions have

moved from equality and diversity toward the idea of inclusion (Andrews &

Ashworth, 2015; Oswick & Noon, 2014). A number of studies address how

diversity affects feelings of exclusion or discrimination within public organi-

zations (e.g., Andrews & Ashworth, 2015; Bae et al., 2017; Ritz & Alfes,

2018), with some scholars showing a complex and nuanced picture (e.g.,

Alteri, 2020; Choi & Rainey, 2010; Naff, 1995).

Most noteworthy is, perhaps, the marked lack of research on how the rep-

resentativeness of bureaucracies affects feelings of exclusion beyond organi-

zational boundaries and into the general population. Representative

bureaucracy theory presents several arguments by which more closed civil

services may lead to concrete exclusions for the underrepresented groups. At

a basic level, democratic governance considers the bureaucracy a critical

arena where social power is deployed, and hence, inequalities of access to the

civil service can be interpreted as unequal access to power (Kennedy, 2014).

Similarly, a key tenet of representative bureaucracy is that the makeup of the

civil service will determine whether broad social interests are considered in

the design and implementation of public policy (Kennedy, 2014; Selden,

1997). Beyond representation, the composition of the civil service has the

potential to alter the daily administrative procedures citizens engage in. There