The Perceived Fairness of Active Representation: Evidence From a Survey Experiment

• Published date: 01 November 2021
• Author: Gregg G. Van Ryzin
• Date: 01 November 2021
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13412

Research Article

1044 Public Administration Review • November | D ecember 2 021

Abstract: Representative bureaucracy has been investigated empirically and debated normatively, but there exists

little evidence about how the general public views representative bureaucracy—especially the legitimacy of active

representation. Using a survey experiment, this article explores people’s fairness judgments of active representation in

two important social and policy contexts: education and gender, and policing and race. Results from an online sample

of U.S. adults show that, in the case of education, a female teacher helping a female student was judged to be unfair,

with the negative effect mainly coming from the male respondents in the study. In the case of policing, a white officer

acting favorably toward a white citizen was judged to be unfair, with the negative effect driven largely by black and

Hispanic respondents in the study. Implications for representative bureaucracy theory and research, as well as policy

and practice, are discussed.

Evidence for Practice

• Public perceptions of the fairness of identical acts of bureaucratic discretion to help a client (active

representation) are shaped in part by the social identities (such as the gender and race) of the bureaucrat and

the client involved.

• Moreover, the social identity of the observer or audience judging a bureaucratic encounter also influences

fairness perceptions of identical acts and actors.

• Thus, agencies and administrators face a complex reality in terms of how gender and racial representation

in their ranks, combined with the social identities of the clients they serve, shape the perceived fairness and

legitimacy of their activities in the eyes of various segments of the public.

• In addition, the ways in which identities shape fairness judgments seem to differ across policy areas.

Research on representative bureaucracy has

generated a growing body of evidence that a

more representative bureaucracy, often studied

in terms of gender or race, can result in better outcomes

for represented groups (Kennedy 2014; Meier 2019).

For example, studies suggest that the representation

of female teachers in math instruction has positive

effects on the performance of female students in public

schools (Keiser et al. 2002), although the translation of

passive into active representation seems to turn on the

extent to which the policy area is gendered as well as

the extent of bureaucratic discretion (Wilkins 2007).

And studies of policing suggest that the representation

of minority officers improves the treatment of

minority citizens by the police (Hong 2017; Lasley

et al. 2011), although contradictory effects have

also been observed (Nicholson-Crotty, Nicholson-

Crotty, and Fernandez 2017; Smith 2003; Wilkins

and Williams 2008). While there may be various

direct and indirect mechanisms by which passive

representation produces substantive effects (Lim 2006;

Riccucci and Van Ryzin 2017), the focus of much of

this research remains on active representation facilitated

by bureaucratic discretion in street-level encounters

(Meier 2019; Sowa and Selden 2003). For example,

a female teacher may make a special effort to help the

learning of female students, or a black police officer

may show more compassion toward black citizens.

As originally defined by Mosher (1968), active

representation refers to a situation in which “individuals

(or administrators) are expected to press for the

interests and desires of those whom they are presumed

to represent, whether they be the whole people or some

segment of the people” (Mosher 1968/82, 14).

But some concerns about representative bureaucracy,

particularly active representation, have been raised

on the grounds that such actions may run counter

to democratic norms of impartiality and procedural

justice (Peters, Schröter, and von Maravić 2015).

Indeed, Rothstein (2011) defines good governance

precisely in terms of the impartiality of the decisions

and actions of civil servants and other public officials.

In his landmark book, Mosher (1968/82, 15) observed

Gregg G. Van Ryzin

Rutgers University-Newark

Public Administration Review,

Vol. 81, Iss. 6, pp. 1044–1054. © 2021 by

The American Society for Public Administration.

DOI: 10.1111/puar.13412.

Gregg G. Van Ryzin is a professor in the

School of Public Affairs and Administration,

Rutgers University, Newark, NJ. His work

employs experimental and behavioral

approaches to a range of issues in public

administration, including performance

measurement and evaluation, citizen

satisfaction and trust of government,

coproduction of public services, and

representative bureaucracy.

Email: vanryzin@rutgers.edu

The Perceived Fairness of Active Representation:

Evidence From a Survey Experiment