LIST OF WORKSHOPS

Representative bureaucracy raises questions about the link between the composition of the public sector workforce and administrative performance. More fundamentally, the proposed workshop topic brings society back into the comparative study of public administration. As issues of ethnicity, multi-culturalism, gender or social equity have become increasingly salient to political discourses, representative bureaucracy also has become more significant to the study of the public sector.

The workshop builds on specific strands of research and publications and is designed to foster integration of those different bodies of work so as to provide a fuller framework within which to explore the contemporary policy problems, solutions and settings of representative bureaucracy.

This proposed workshop is meant to address the core questions of the research agenda in representative bureaucracy. It builds on the well-established research community within public administration, and attempts to raise a number of new questions for research. In particular, the comparative emphasis in the proposed workshop also emphasizes the multiple interpretations of this concept, and the importance of understanding context when attempting to understand representative bureaucracy.

The workshop topic is deeply rooted in and departs from the classic concern with the capacity of public bureaucracies to serve as representative institutions. This concern can be traced back to Kingsley (1944) who claimed that “bureaucracies, to be democratic, must be representative of the groups they serve” (1994: 305). While Kingsley’s focused on the middle- and upper-class bias of the British higher civil service, attention has since then shifted so as to include gender-based issues, questions of sexual orientation, cleavages between religious groups, linguistic communities, and particularly racial and ethnic minority groups (see for the underpinnings of representative bureaucracy Mosher 1968, Krislov 1974, Meier 1975; see also for overviews van der Meer 1996, Dolan and Rosenbloom 2003, Groeneveld and van der Walle 2010).

Central to this debate has been the distinction between ‘passive (or sociological)’ representation and ‘active (or responsible) representativeness (Mosher 1968). It flows from this that subsequent research has sought to explore the relationship between the two dimensions and to establish the factors and conditions that lead administrators to adopt a minority representative role (Selden, Brudney and Kellough 1998).

The link between representativeness and administrative performance has attracted much scholarly attention (see Selden and Selden 2001). The impact of minority representation has been shown, for example, with regard to better education and minority school teachers (Meier and Stewart 1992, Meier 1993, Pitts 2005), racial minorities in the police force (Meier and Hawes 2008), better protection against employment discrimination (Hindera 1993), more child support (Wilkins and Keiser 2006), more effective handling of rape crimes (Meier and Nicholson-Crotty 2006) and general satisfaction with local government services (Bradbury and Kellough 2008).

The rich body of literature on ‘diversity management’ has also contributed to the understanding of representative bureaucracy in that it emphasizes the consequences for internal human resource management, the effectiveness of diverse teams, the attractiveness of employers with diverse workforces or the effects of ‘diversity’ on the level of job satisfaction (see Cox and Blake 1991, Ely 2004).

Additional impetus for researching the effect of representativeness on administrative output has been provided by the performance-related public management literature in the wake of the ‘new public management’ movement. This strand of the literature is, for example, represented in the work of Andrews et al. 2005.

The established strands of the literature, however, also help to identify the deficiencies and blind spots of the scholarly discourse on representative bureaucracy: (1) Much of the empirical work comes out of the US-American political science and public administration communities, while country cases and organizational examples from other regions of the world are still significantly under-researched and genuinely comparative studies tend to be rare; (2) the available literature highlights service-oriented organizations, yet it still does not reflect the full range of policy fields, functions and types of organizations in the public sector; (3) the individual strands of the literature – coming from public management, public policy analysis, diversity management or comparative politics – appear to be unduly separated from each other.

Types of papers required

The workshop is designed to enrich our empirical knowledge of how ‘representative bureaucracy’ works in different in contexts and to advance our theoretical understanding of the political and organizational dynamics of ‘representative bureaucracy’. In doing so, we are interested in theoretical and empirical papers that present findings on how representativeness in public sector organizations relates to administrative performance, analyze the institutional arrangements in which representative bureaucracies operate, and discuss the changing political, societal and cultural contexts of diversity and representativeness in the public sector. Contributions that pursue a genuinely comparative perspective – across countries, over time, across levels of government, comparing policy fields and types of public organizations – will be particularly welcome.

Empirical papers that apply their data to theoretical models designed to illuminate and dissect the multi-faceted drivers and effects of representative bureaucracy are particularly encouraged. While the focus of the workshop is on empirical analyses, there is also scope for papers that address relevant conceptual or methodological issues.

Likely participants and follow-up plans

The proposed workshop can already build upon an established network of interested and engaged scholars who have collaborated with the proposers in research projects, participated in organized panels on ‘representative bureaucracy’ at international scholarly conferences (such as APSA, IPSA, MPSA and most recently IPPA 2017) or contributed chapters to recently edited volumes on representative bureaucracy involving the proposers (von Maravic, Peters, Schröter 2013 and Peters, von Maravic, Schröter 2015).

It goes without saying that the current network of interested academics is open to new members and is meant to be extended in preparation for the IPPA International Workshop on Public Policy. The workshop is geared to get additional scholars interested in the theoretical and empirical study of ‘representative bureaucracy’ with an eye to attracting younger researchers in particular.

The proposed workshop will have sessions on theoretical and methodological considerations of the study of representative bureaucracy as well as empirical sessions focusing on the impact of national and/or organizational context. The proposers are planning to organize a follow-up workshop in 2019 and develop the papers into an edited volume.

References

Andrews, R., Boyne, G. A., Meier, Kenneth J., O’Toole, J. and Walker, R. M. (2005). Representative Bureaucracy, Organizational Strategy, and Public Service Performance: An Empirical Analysis of English Local Government. Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory, 15 (4), 489-504.

Bradbury, M. D. and Kellough, J. E. (2008). Representative Bureaucracy: Exploring the Potential for Active Representation in Local Government. Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory, 18 (4), 697-714.

Dolan, J., and Rosenbloom, D. H. (eds) (2003). Representative Bureaucracy - Classic Readings and Continuing Controversies, New York: M.E. Sharpe.

Ely, R. J. (2004). A field study of group diversity, participation in diversity education programs, and performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25 (6), 755-780.

Groeneveld, S. and van der Walle, S. (2010). A Contingency Approach to Representative Bureaucracy: Power, Equal Opportunities and Diversity. International Review of Administrative Science, 76 (2), 239-258.

Hindera, J. J. (1993). Representative Bureaucracy: Further Evidence of Active Representation in the EEOC District Offices. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 3 (4), 415-429.

Kingsley, J. D. (1944). Representative Bureaucracy. An interpretation of the British Civil Service. Yellow Springs Ohio: The Antioch Press.

Krislov, S. (1974). Representative Bureaucracy. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall Inc.

Meier K. J. and Hawes D. P. (2008). Ethnic conflict in France.  A case for representative bureaucracy? American Review of Public Administration,39 (3), 269-285.

Meier, K. J. (1975). Representative Bureaucracy: An Empirical Analysis. The American Political Science Review 69 (2), 526-542.

Meier, K. J. and  Stewart, Jr., J. (1992). Active representation in educational bureaucracies: Policy impacts. American Review of Public Administration, 22 (2), 157-171.

Meier, K. J. and Nicholson-Crotty, J. (2006). Gender, representative bureaucracy, and law enforcement: The case of sexual assault. Public Administration Review, 66 (6), 850-860.

Mosher, F. C. (1968). Democracy and the Public Service. New York: Oxford University Press.

Peters, B. G., von Maravic, and Schröter, E. (eds) (2015), The Politics of Representative Bureaucracy: Power, Legitimacy, Performance, Edward Elgar: Cheltenham.

Pitts, D. W. (2005). Diversity, Representation, and Performance: Evidence about Race and Ethnicity in Public Organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 15 (4), 615-631.

Selden, S. C. and Selden, F. (2001). Rethinking Diversity in Public Organizations for the 21st Century. Administration & Society 33 (2), 303-329.

Selden, S. C., Brudney J. L, and Kellough, J. E. (1998). Bureaucracy as a Representative Institution: Toward Reconciliation of Bureaucratic Government and Democratic Theory, American Journal of Political Science, 42 (3), 719-44

van der Meer, F. M., and Roborgh, R. L. J. (1996). Civil Servants and Representativeness. Civil Service Systems in Comparative Perspective, 119-136. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Wilkins, V. M., and Keiser, L. R. (2004). Linking Passive and Active Representation by Gender: The Case of Child Support Agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 16 (1), 87-102.

von Maravić, P., Peters, B. G. and Schröter, E. (eds.) (2013). Representative Bureaucracy in Action: Country Profiles from the Americas, Europe, Africa and Asia (Cheltenham:  Edward Elgar).

Representative bureaucracy raises questions about the link between the composition of the public sector workforce and administrative performance. More fundamentally, the proposed workshop topic brings society back into the comparative study of public administration. As issues of ethnicity, multi-culturalism, gender or social equity have become increasingly salient to political discourses, representative bureaucracy also has become more significant to the study of the public sector.

This proposed workshop seeks to advance the comparative study of representative bureaucracy. The concern with representativeness within the public sector is a general phenomenon but it is interpreted and implemented differently in different settings. Individual country studies can illustrate why and how the issue of ‘representativeness’ and ‘diversity’ matters in public sector employment, and what driving forces propel the debate forward. Not only traditional migration countries have to cope with questions of the ethnic-cultural compositions of their societies but essentially European countries with a growingly diversified ethnic-cultural composition, often enough concomitantly to the existing linguistic-ethnic cleavages. How issues of representativeness play out institutionally varies significantly between the countries but also what representativeness actually means and to which groups it refers to.

In addition to national and institutional contexts, the answers to questions of ‘how representative bureaucracy works’ also seem to be contingent on the specific aspect of administrative performance and the type of public sector organization under investigation. Representative bureaucracy is expected to shape administrative performance in various ways: Inside organizations, ‘representativeness’ may change the awareness and perception of co-workers towards minorities, and – more generally – influence the working climate and organizational culture. On top of that, representative bureaucracy is understood to have significant effects on the organizational output in terms of decision-making, service delivery and the quality and intensity of relations with clients groups. In broader terms, the possible effects of representative bureaucracy can be couched in terms of political legitimacy and power-sharing arrangements.

While ‘representative bureaucracy’ has been most frequently studied in service-delivery organizations – often locally based – that allow professional street-level bureaucrats high degrees of discretion, the workshop also aims at broadening the empirical base of findings from different types of public bodies, e.g. state or central government departments, planning and/or regulatory agencies, and international or supranational organizations.

The workshop is designed to enrich our empirical knowledge of how ‘representative bureaucracy’ works in different in contexts and to advance our theoretical understanding of the political and organizational dynamics of ‘representative bureaucracy’. In doing so, we are interested in theoretical and empirical papers that present findings on how representativeness in public sector organizations relates to administrative performance, analyze the institutional arrangements in which representative bureaucracies operate, and discuss the changing political, societal and cultural contexts of diversity and representativeness in the public sector. Contributions that pursue a genuinely comparative perspective – across countries, over time, across levels of government, comparing policy fields and types of public organizations – will be particularly welcome.

Representative bureaucracy raises questions about the link between the composition of the public sector workforce and administrative performance. More fundamentally, the proposed workshop topic brings society back into the comparative study of public administration. As issues of ethnicity, multi-culturalism, gender or social equity have become increasingly salient to political discourses, representative bureaucracy also has become more significant to the study of the public sector.

The study of representative bureaucracy is concerned with the multi-faceted relationships between the make-up of public sector workforces and the socio-structural and -cultural characteristics of the societies they serve. It directs the attention to the demographic, linguistic or ethnic cleavages of modern societies and to the extent to which public personnel mirror the diversity of the communities in which they operate. What are the consequences of ‘representativeness’ – or the lack of it – for the quality of service delivery, for relations to citizens, and for the management of human resources within public organizations? And what are the implications for the levels of public trust, the legitimacy of government, and for power-sharing arrangements in state and society?

This proposed workshop seeks to advance the comparative study of representative bureaucracy. The concern with representativeness within the public sector is a general phenomenon but it is interpreted and implemented differently in different settings. Individual country studies can illustrate why and how the issue of ‘representativeness’ and ‘diversity’ matters in public sector employment, and what driving forces propel the debate forward. Not only traditional migration countries have to cope with questions of the ethnic-cultural compositions of their societies but essentially European countries with a growingly diversified ethnic-cultural composition, often enough concomitantly to the existing linguistic-ethnic cleavages. How issues of representativeness play out institutionally varies significantly between the countries but also what representativeness actually means and to which groups it refers to.

Eckhard Schröter is professor of public administration in the Department of Public Management and Governance at Zeppelin University Friedrichshafen (Germany) where he also serves as head of academic programs in politics, administration, and international relations. His major research interests are in comparative public sector reform, new public management, administrative culture, and metropolitan governance. His recent publications include “Representative Bureaucracy in Action” (2013) and “The Politics of Representative Bureaucracy” (2015) (E-Elgar; both co-edited with B. Guy Peters and Patrick von Maravic).

Maximilian Nagel is research associate and Ph.D. candidate at the Chair of Administrative Science and Modernization at Zeppelin University Friedrichshafen, Germany. He earned a Master in Politics and Public Management and a Bachelor in Public Management and Governance, both from Zeppelin University Friedrichshafen. His research and teaching center on representative bureaucracy, urban governance, public policy analysis and administrative culture. His dissertation examines the voluntary engagement of private firms in municipalities and analyzes the perception of high officials upon it. Primarily, his research leverages survey experiments, expert interviews, and participatory observations.