Representative bureaucracy examines how identity impacts bureaucratic decision-making. Under certain circumstances, identity congruence between government officials and citizens will result in positive outcomes. This article explores how representative bureaucracy literature studies the effects of gender identity and matching. Although studies demonstrate that context and organizational environment impact identity, scholars don’t systematically analyze how outcomes are affected by gender, rely predominantly on binary gender variables, seldom acknowledge organizations as masculine spaces, and don’t problematize masculinity. Using critical gender theory, we offer new proposals for how to expand our understanding of institutionalized gender norms as they relate to public sector decisions.
AckerJ. (2006). Inequality regimes: Gender, class, and race in organizations. Gender & Society, 20(4), 441–464.
2.
AckerJ. (2012). Gendered organizations and intersectionality: Problems and possibilities. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 31(3), 214–224.
3.
AndrewsR.AshworthR.MeierK. J. (2014). Representative bureaucracy and fire service performance. International Public Management Journal, 17(1), 1–24.
4.
AndrewsR.MillerK. (2013). Representative bureaucracy, gender and policing: The case of domestic violence arrests. Public Administration, 91(4), 998–1014.
5.
AtkinsD. N.WilkinsV. M. (2013). Going beyond reading, writing, and arithmetic: The effects of teacher representation on teen pregnancy rates. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 23(4), 771–790.
6.
BachrachP.BaratzM. S. (1962). Two faces of power. The American Political Science Review, 56(4), 947–952.
7.
BemS. L. (1981). Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of sex typing. Psychological Review, 88(4), 354–364.
8.
BishuS. G.AlkadryM. G. (2017). A systematic review of the gender pay gap and factors that predict it. Administration & Society, 49(1), 65–104.
9.
BishuS. G.KennedyA. R. (2019). Trends and gaps: A meta-review of representative bureaucracy. Review of Public Personnel Administration. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1177/0734371X19830154
10.
BowlingC. J.KelleherC. A.JonesJ.WrightD. S. (2006). Cracked ceilings, firmer floors, and weakening walls: Trends and patterns in gender representation among executives leading American state agencies, 1970-2000. Public Administration Review, 66(6), 823–836.
11.
BradburyM.KelloughJ. E. (2008). Representative bureaucracy: Exploring the potential for active representation in local government. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18, 697–714.
12.
BradburyM.KelloughJ. E. (2011). Representative bureaucracy: Assessing the evidence on active representation. The American Review of Public Administration, 41(2), 157–167.
13.
BrittonD. M. (2000). The epistemology of the gendered organization. Gender and Society, 14(3), 418–434.
14.
BrudneyJ. L.HebertF. T.WrightD. S. (2000). From organizational values to organizational roles: Examining representative bureaucracy in state administration. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10(3), 491–512.
15.
BurnsJ. P. (1980). “Representative bureaucracy” and the senior civil service in Hong Kong. Hong Kong Journal of Public Administration, 2(1), 2–20.
16.
ButlerJ. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and subversion of identity. Routledge.
17.
ChanJ.DoranS.MarelC. (2010). Doing and undoing gender in policing. Theoretical Criminology, 14(4), 425–446.
18.
CollinsonD. L.HearnJ. (1996). Men as managers, managers as men: Critical perspectives on men, masculinities, and managements. Sage.
19.
ConnellR. (2006). Glass ceilings or gendered institutions? Mapping the gender regimes of public sector worksites. Public Administration Review, 66(6), 837–849.
20.
ConnellR. W.MesserschmidtJ. W. (2005). Hegemonic masculinity: Rethinking the concept. Gender and Society, 19(6), 829–859.
21.
D’AgostinoM. J.RubinM. M. (2018). Governing in a global world: Women in public service. Routledge.
22.
DeeT. S. (2005). A teacher like me: Does race, ethnicity, or gender matters?American Economic Review, 95(2), 158–165.
23.
DeeT. S. (2007). Teachers and the gender gaps in student achievement. Journal of Human Resources, 42(3), 528–554.
24.
DolanJ. (2002). Representative bureaucracy in the federal executive: Gender and spending priorities. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 12(3), 353–375.
25.
DometriusN. C. (1984). Minorities and women among state agency leaders. Social Science Quarterly, 6(1), 127–137.
26.
DometriusN. C.SigelmanL. (1984). Assessing progress toward affirmative action goals in state and local government: A new benchmark. Public Administration Review, 44(3), 241–246.
27.
Duerst-LahtiG.KellyR. M. (1995). Gender power, leadership, and governance. The University of Michigan Press.
28.
EaglyA. H.JohnsonB. T., (1990). Gender and leadership style: A meta-analysis. Pyschological Bulletin, 108(2), 233-256.
29.
EaglyA. H.KarauJ. S. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109, 573–598.
30.
EkinsR.KingD. (2006). The transgender phenomenon. Sage.
31.
Fausto-SterlingA. (2000). The five sexes, revisited: The emerging recognition that people come in bewildering sexual varieties is testing medical values and social norms. Sciences, 40(4), 18–23.
32.
FeinbergL. (1996). Transgender warriors: Making history from Joan of Arc to Dennis Rodman. Beacon Press.
33.
FergusonK. (1984). The feminist case against bureaucracy. Temple University Press.
34.
GarfinkelH. (1963). A conception of and experiments with “trust” as a condition of stable concerted actions. In HarveyO. J. (Ed.), The production of reality: Essays and readings on social interaction (pp. 381–392). Sage.
35.
GidengilE.VengroffR. (1997). Representative bureaucracy, tokenism and the glass ceiling: The case of women in Quebec municipal administration. Canadian Public Administration, 40(3), 457–480.
36.
GillJ.MeierK. J. (2000). Public administration research and practice: A methodological manifesto. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10(1), 157–199.
37.
GoodenS.PortilloS. (2011). Advancing social equity in the Minnowbrook tradition. Public Administration Review, 21(S1), i61–i76.
38.
GrissomJ. A.Nicholson-CrottyJ.KeiserL. (2012). Does my boss’s gender matter? Explaining job satisfaction and employee turnover in the public sector. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22(4), 649–673.
39.
GrosfuguelR. (2013). The structure of knowledge in westernized universities: Epistemic racism/sexism and the four genocides/epistemicides of the long 16th century. Human Architecture: Journal of the Sociology of Self-Knowledge, 11(1), 73–90.
40.
GuulT. S. (2018). Individual-level effect of gender matching in representative bureaucracy. Public Administration Review, 78(3), 398–408.
41.
GuyM. E.NewmanM. A. (2004). Women’s jobs, men’s jobs: Sex segregation and emotional labor. Public Administration Review, 64(3), 289–298.
42.
HecklerN. (2019). Whiteness and masculinity in nonprofit organizations: Law, money, and institutional race and gender. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 41, 266–285.
43.
JohnstonK.HoustonJ. (2018). Representative bureaucracy: Does female police leadership affect gender-based violence arrests?International Review of Administrative Sciences, 84(1), 3–20.
44.
KanterR. M. (1975). Women and the structure of organizations: Explorations in theory and behavior. Sociological Inquiry, 45(23), 34–74.
45.
KanterR. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. Basic Books.
46.
KeiserL. R.WilkinsV. M.MeierK. J.HollandC. A. (2002). Lipstick and logarithms: Gender, institutional context, and representative bureaucracy. American Political Science Review, 96(3), 553–564.
47.
KennedyB. A. (2013). Sorting through: The role of representation in bureaucracy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 23(4), 791–816.
48.
KennedyB. A. (2014). Unraveling representative bureaucracy: A systematic analysis of the literature. Administration & Society, 46(4), 395–421.
49.
KesslerS. J.McKennaW. (1978). Gender: An ethnomethodological approach. John Wiley.
50.
KimC. K. (2003). Representation and policy outputs: Examining the linkage between passive and active representation. Public Personnel Management, 32(4), 549–559.
51.
KingsleyJ. D. (1944). Theoretical framework. Antioch Press.
52.
KoenigA. M.EaglyA. H., (2005). Stereotype threat in men on a test of social sensitivity. Sex Roles, 52(7-8), 489-496.
53.
KruschkeJ. K. (2012). Bayesian estimation supersedes the T test. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142(2), 573–603.
54.
LevitanD. M. (1946). The responsibility of administrative officials in a democratic society. Political Science Quarterly, 61, 562–598.
55.
LimH. (2006). Representative bureaucracy: Rethinking substantive effects and active representation. Public Administration Review, 66, 193–205.
56.
LinsteadS., (2000). Gender blindness or gender suppression? A comment on Fiona Wilson’s research note. Organization Studies, 21(1), 297-303.
57.
LippaR. A.MartinL. R.FriedmanH. S. (2000). Gender-related individual differences and mortality in the Terman longitudinal study: Is masculinity hazardous to your health?Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(12), 1560–1570.
58.
LongN. E. (1952). Bureaucracy and constitutionalism. American Political Science Review, 46(3), 808–818.
59.
LowiT., (1972). Four systems of policy, politics, and choice. Public Administration Review, 32, 298-310.
60.
MeierK. J. (2018). Theoretical frontiers in representative bureaucracy: New directions for research. Perspectives on Public Management and Governance, 1(2), 39–56.
61.
MeierK. J.BohteJ. (2001). Structure and discretion: Missing links in representative bureaucracy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 11(4), 455–470.
62.
MeierK. J.FunkK. D. (2017). Women and public administration in a comparative perspective: The case of representation in Brazilian local governments. Administration & Society, 49(1), 121–142.
63.
MeierK. J.Nicholson-CrottyJ. (2006). Gender, representative bureaucracy, and law enforcement: The case of sexual assault. Public Administration Review, 66(6), 850–860.
64.
MeierK. J.NigroL. G. (1976). Representative bureaucracy and policy preferences: A study in the attitudes of federal executives. Public Administration Review, 36(4), 458–469.
65.
MosherF. C. (1968). Democracy and the public service. Oxford University Press.
66.
MulveyL. (1975). Visual pleasure and narrative cinema. Screen, 16(3), 6–18.
67.
NaffK. C.CapersK. J. (2014). The complexity of descriptive representation and bureaucracy: The case of South Africa. International Public Management Journal, 17(4), 515–539.
68.
NewmanM.A., (1994). Gender and Lowi’s thesis: Implications for career advancement. Public Administration Review, 54(3), 277-284.
69.
PascoeC. J., (2007). Dude, you’re a fag: Masculinity and sexuality in high school. University of California Press.
70.
PetersB. G.SchröterE.von MaravicP. (Eds.). (2015). Politics of representative bureaucracy: Power, legitimacy and performance. Edward Elgar.
71.
PiniB.PeaseB. (2013). Men, masculinities, and methodologies. Palgrave Macmillan.
72.
PitkinH. F. (1967). The concept of representation. University of California Press.
73.
RehfussJ. (1986). A representative bureaucracy? Women and minority executives in CA career service. Public Administration Review, 46, 454–460.
74.
RiccucciN.Van RyzinG. G.LiH. (2015). Representative bureaucracy and the willingness to coproduce: An experimental study. Public Administration Review, 76(1), 121–130.
75.
RiccucciN. M.SaidelJ. R. (1997). The representativeness of state-level bureaucratic leaders: A missing piece of the representative bureaucracy puzzle. Public Administration Review, 57(5), 423–430.
76.
RiccucciN. M.Van RyzinG. G.LavenaC. F. (2014). Representative bureaucracy in policing: Does it increase perceived legitimacy?Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 24(3), 537–551.
77.
RubinM. M.BartleJ. R. (2005). Integrating gender into government budgets: A new perspective. Public Administration Review, 65(3), 259–272.
78.
SabharwalM. (2015). From glass ceiling to glass cliff: Women in senior executive service. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25(2), 399–426.
79.
SaidE. W. (1979). Orientalism. Random House.
80.
ScheinV. E. (1975). Relationships between sex role stereotypes and requisite management characteristics among female managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60(3), 340–344.
81.
ScheinV. E. (2001). A global look at psychological barriers to women’s progress in management. Journal of Social Issues, 57(4), 675–88.
82.
ScheinV. E.MuellerR. (1992). Sex role stereotyping and requisite management characteristics: A cross cultural look. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13(5), 439–447.
83.
SeldenS. C.BrudneyJ. L.KelloughJ. E. (1998). Bureaucracy as a representative institution: Toward a reconciliation of bureaucratic government and democratic theory. American Journal of Political Science, 42(3), 717–744.
84.
SingletonR. A.Jr.StraitsB. C. (2010). Approaches to social research. Oxford University Press.
85.
SmithD. E. (1987). The everyday world as problematic: A feminist sociology. University of Toronto Press.
86.
SongM. (2016). Gender representation and student performance: Representative bureaucracy goes to Korea. American Review of Public Administration, 48(4), 346–358.
87.
StearnsE.BottiaM.DavalosE.MickelsonR.MollerS.ValentinoL. (2016). High school math and science teachers and girls’ success in STEM. Social Problems, 63, 87–110.
88.
StevensA. (2009). Representative bureaucracy—What, why and how? Evidence from the European commission. Public Policy and Administration, 24(2), 119–139.
89.
StiversC. (1993). Gender images in public administration: Legitimacy and the administrative state. Sage.
90.
StiversC. (2000). Bureau men, settlement women: Constructing public administration in the progressive era. University of Kansas Press.
91.
StiversC. (2002). Gender images in public administration: Legitimacy and the administrative state (2nd ed.). Sage.
92.
StiversC. (2010). A tactless question. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 32(2), 220–224.
93.
ThielemannG. S.StewartJ. (1996). A demand-side perspective on the importance of representative bureaucracy: AIDS, ethnicity, gender, and sexual orientation. Public Administration Review, 56(2), 168–173.
94.
U.S. Office of Personnel Management. (2016). Federal employee viewpoint survey (FEVS).
WalbyS.ArmstrongJ.StridS., (2012). Intersectionality: Multiple inequalities in social theory. Sociology, 46(2), 224-240.
97.
Watkins-HayesC., (2011). Race, respect, and red tape: Inside the black box of racially representative bureaucracies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(2), i233-i251.
98.
WilkinsV. M. (2007). Exploring the causal story: Gender, active representation, and bureaucratic priorities. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 17(1), 77–94.
99.
WilkinsV. M.KeiserL. R. (2006). Linking passive and active representation by gender: The case of child support agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16(1), 87–102.
100.
WilkinsV. M.WilliamsB. N. (2008). Black or blue: Racial profiling and representative bureaucracy. Public Administration Review, 68(4), 654–664.
