Representative Bureaucracy Theory and the Implicit Embrace of Whiteness and Masculinity

• Published date: 01 May 2022
• Author: Shannon Portillo,Nicole Humphrey,Domonic A. Bearfield
• Date: 01 May 2022
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13477

594 Public Administration Review • May | June 2022

Public Administration Review,

Vol. 82, Iss. 3, pp. 594–597. © 2022 by

The American Society for Public Administration.

DOI: 10.1111/puar.13477.

Shannon Portillo

Nicole Humphrey

Domonic A. Bearfield

Representative Bureaucracy Theory and the Implicit Embrace

of Whiteness and Masculinity

Abstract: Throughout much of representative bureaucracy literature, scholars have primarily focused on the

representation of people seen as other in the professional workforce—people of color and women. However, whiteness

and masculinity have been central to the development of public administration as a field of scholarship and practice.

As a field, we have often avoided explicit discussions regarding the impact whiteness and masculinity. We argue that

silences around race and gender have significant implications. Using representative bureaucracy as a frame, we seek

to highlight how acknowledging whiteness and masculinity in our scholarship can help provide a more comprehensive

understanding of race and gender in public administration.

Evidence for Practice

• Traditionally discussions of representation in public administration focus on women and people of color,

overlooking the ways that whiteness and masculinity have shaped outcomes in our field.

• By directly addressing whiteness and masculinity in public administration scholarship, the field can gain a

deeper understanding of race, gender, and inequity.

Representative bureaucracy scholarship largely

began as a normative discussion about the

makeup of bureaucracies and how they should

be more inclusive in western democratic nations.

Initially conceived by Kingsley to address problems

of class and gender representation in the British

civil service (1944), the early focus of representative

bureaucracy scholarship centered on legitimacy—

workforces reflecting the community would be seen

as more legitimate in modern democratic societies.

Kingsley(1944) made these arguments without

regard to race—he was largely focused on class issues.

Reflecting on the bureaucracy, Long (1952) wrote of

the democratic nature of the federal civil service and

his belief that it could effectively reflect the will of the

public. Building on these early normative arguments,

Van Riper(1958) and Krislov(1967) argued in the

1950s and 60s that representative bureaucracy could

also be used to explore the under-representation of

people of color, specifically Black constituents, in

American public sector positions. Underlying these

early normative arguments was the assumption

that bureaucratic organizations that reflect their

constituents, reflect the interests of those constituents

(Kingsley1944; Krislov1967; Long 1952).

Mosher’s(1968) work in the late 1960s shifted

the discussion from a purely normative one to

a theoretical framework that could be tested

empirically by arguing for a distinction between

passive and active representation (Rosenbloom and

Featherstonhaugh1977). Research has since primarily

focused on these two forms of representation, passive

and active. Passive representation emphasizes that

bureaucracies reflect the demographic characteristics

of constituents (Selden1997; Sowa and Selden2003),

while active representation emphasizes attempting

to reflect constituents’ interests (Keiser et al.2002).

Scholars have also explored symbolic representation in

public management. Symbolic representation suggests

“that the mere existence of a passively represented

bureaucracy can itself translate into benefits for

the citizenry—without any actions being taken by

bureaucrats” (Riccucci and Van Ryzin2017, 25).

Prior research suggests that symbolic representation

is associated with enhanced government legitimacy

(Riccucci and Van Ryzin2017; Riccucci, Van Ryzin,

and Jackson2018). More recent literature has

contributed additional nuance to this discussion,

speaking to the complex dimensions of representative

bureaucracy and the significance of individual lived

experiences (Headley et al.2021).

Whether normative, theoretical, or empirical,

representative bureaucracy scholarship has historically

focused on who is missing from public employment.

This focus on who has been left out is important

University of Kansas

University of Miami

Rutgers University-Newark

Domonic A. Bearfield is an Associate

Professor in the School of Public Affairs

and Administration at Rutgers University-

Newark. His research interests include the

study of race, gender and public sector

personnel.

Email: d.bearfield@rutgers.edu

Nicole Humphrey is an Assistant

Professor at the University of Miami.

Email: n.humphrey@miami.edu

Shannon Portillo is a Professor at the

University of Kansas.

Email: sportillo@ku.edu

Viewpoint Article

[Correction added on 14

March 2022, after first online

publication: Domonic A.

Bearfield’s affiliation has been

corrected in this version.]