Representative Bureaucracy: A Lever to Enhance Social Equity, Coproduction, and Democracy

• Author: Gregg G. Van Ryzin,Norma M. Riccucci
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12649
• Published date: 01 January 2017
• Date: 01 January 2017

Representative Bureaucracy: A Lever to Enhance Social Equity, Coproduction, and Democracy 21

Public Administration Review,

Vol. 77, Iss. 1, pp. 21–30. © 2016 by

The American Society for Public Administration.

DOI: 10.1111/puar.12649.

Gregg G. Van Ryzin is professor in the

School of Public Affairs and Administration

at Rutgers University in Newark. His

research focuses on the use of surveys and

experimental methods to understand how

citizens evaluate and respond to public

services and institutions.

E-mail: vanryzin@rutgers.edu

Norma M. Riccucci is the Board of

Governors Distinguished Professor in the

School of Public Affairs and Administration

at Rutgers University in Newark. Her

research interests lie in the area of public

management and social equity. She is a

fellow of the National Academy of Public

Administration.

E-mail: riccucci@rutgers.edu

Theory to Practice

Abstract : Scholars and practitioners have long questioned whether the race, ethnicity, and gender of public bureau-

crats matter to the efficacy and legitimacy of public services. Representative bureaucracy theory and research provide

a growing body of empirical evidence that it does. This article examines some of the rich scholarly work that has been

generated on representative bureaucracy and its implications for practice. A significant aspect of recent research focuses

on the notion of symbolic representation, whereby the mere existence of a passively represented bureaucracy can itself

improve outcomes by influencing the attitudes and behaviors of clients, regardless of bureaucratic actions or results.

This article is intended to help both students and public managers understand the importance of representativeness in

public organizations for a broad spectrum of practices and goals, from the coproduction of services to democratic rule.

Practitioner Points

• Representative bureaucracy can promote diversity within government organizations and, more broadly, social

equity throughout the nation.

• Bureaucracies that are representative of the people they serve can enhance citizens’ trust in government and

foster the achievement of democratic goals.

• Through its effects on legitimacy and trust, representativeness can influence the extent to which clients and

citizens cooperate and comply with government, thus coproducing important policy outcomes.

• Increasing the representation of women and people of color in government can promote bureaucratic

accountability.

Hal G. Rainey, Editor

Norma M. Riccucci

Gregg G. Van Ryzin

Rutgers University–Newark

Representative Bureaucracy:

A Lever to Enhance Social Equity, Coproduction,

and Democracy

T he theoretical foundation of representative

bureaucracy can be traced back to Donald

Kingsley ’ s 1944 work on representation in

the English civil service, in which he argued that

class representation was critical for democratic rule.

As Britain evolved from an aristocracy to a more

middle-class society, Kingsley argued, it was necessary

for the bureaucracy to reflect this new social order.

Picking up on the normative threads of Kingsley ’ s

thesis, Mosher ( 1968 ) posited that bureaucracies were

expected to push for the needs and interests of their

sociological counterparts in the general population,

a process he referred to as active representation.

Mosher also pointed to the importance of passive

representation, whereby the demographics of the

bureaucracy mirror those of society, as this enhanced

the legitimacy of government. Mosher ’ s explication

of representative bureaucracy also suggested that race

and ethnicity would be especially significant foci for

representativeness in the United States.

The works of Kingsley and Mosher set in motion

a series of empirical studies to test the veracity of

representative bureaucracy theory (see Meier 1975 ,

1993b ). The purpose of this article is to highlight

some of the efforts made by public administration

scholars over the last several decades to validate and

extend this theory. It begins by addressing two forms

of representative bureaucracy that have received a

good deal of attention in the literature: passive and

active representation. Next, it addresses the newest

iteration of representative bureaucracy: symbolic

representation. The article illustrates how the

progression of research in representative bureaucracy

adds value to both theory and practice. For example,

passive representation indicates the extent to which

public workforces have become more diverse. Active

representation indicates whether the representation or

diversity translates into critical public policy outcomes

or outputs. Symbolic representation suggests

that diversity in government workforces (passive

representation) helps promote policy outcomes by

enhancing the legitimacy of government and thus the

cooperation of citizens.

The significance of this article further lies in our

presentation of the practical application of the

theoretical constructs of representative bureaucracy. It