This study systematically reviews the literature to explore the conditions under which gender-based passive representation is translated into active representation. The findings reveal that women’s active representation varies across policy domains and hierarchical levels. Existing research, however, is largely confined to a narrow set of domains and countries, limiting the generalizability of conclusions. Moreover, systematic categorization of contextual moderators remains underdeveloped, restricting our understanding of the conditions facilitating this translation. To address this gap, this review highlights the need for future research to organize and investigate individual, organizational, and environmental factors that influence gender-based active representation, particularly within underexplored contexts.
AgyapongE. (2018). Representative bureaucracy: Examining the effects of female teachers on girls’ education in Ghana. International Journal of Public Administration, 41(16), 1338–1350. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2017.1388255
3.
AlderdenM. A.UllmanS. E. (2012). Gender difference or indifference? Detective decision making in sexual assault cases. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27(1), 3–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260511416465
4.
AndrewsR.AshworthR. (2015). Representation and inclusion in public organizations: Evidence from the U.K. civil service. Public Administration Review, 75(2), 279–288. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12308
5.
AndrewsR.MillerK. J. (2013). Representative bureaucracy, gender, and policing: The case of domestic violence arrests in England. Public Administration, 91(4), 998–1014. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12002
6.
AnS.SongM.MeierK. J. (2022). Representative bureaucracy and the policy environment: Gender representation in forty-four countries. Public Administration, 100(4), 900–922. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12789
7.
ArvateP.CabralS.McgahanA. M.ReisP. R. (2022). Structural advocacy organizations and intersectional outcomes: Effects of women’s police stations on female homicides. Public Administration Review, 82(3), 503–521. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13478
8.
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. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mut001
9.
BakerD. B.HassanS. (2021). Gender and prosecutorial discretion: An empirical assessment. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 31(1), 73–90. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muaa017
10.
BishuS. G.KennedyA. R. (2020). Trends and gaps: A meta-review of representative bureaucracy. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 40(4), 559–588. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371x19830154
11.
BishuS. G.Osei-KojoA. (2024). Representative bureaucracy and family planning service delivery in tanzania. Public Administration Review, 84(2), 274–292. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13687
12.
BroughP.ChatawayS.BiggsA. (2016). ‘You don’t want people knowing you’re a copper!’ a contemporary assessment of police organisational culture. International Journal of Police Science and Management, 18(1), 28–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461355716638361
13.
CarliL. L.EaglyA. H. (2001). Gender, hierarchy, and leadership: An introduction. Journal of Social Issues, 57(4), 629–636. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00232
14.
ChildsS. (2004). New labour’s women MPs: Women representing women. Routledge.
15.
ChildsS.KrookM. L. (2009). Analysing women’s substantive representation: From critical mass to critical actors. Government and Opposition, 44(2), 125–145. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-7053.2009.01279.x
16.
D'AgostinoM. J.LevineH. (2010). Women in public administration: Theory and practice. Jones & Bartlett Learning.
17.
Darling-AduanaJ. (2021). A remote instructor like me: Student–teacher congruence in online, high school courses. AERA Open, 7, 23328584211018719. https://doi.org/10.1177/23328584211018719
18.
DaviesA.ThomasR. (2002). Gendering and gender in public service organizations: Changing professional identities under new public management. Public Management Review, 4(4), 461–484. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616670210163024
DeeT. S. (2007). Teachers and the gender gaps in student achievement. Journal of Human Resources, XLII(3), 528–554. https://doi.org/10.3368/jhr.xlii.3.528
21.
DemirkolI. C.NallaM. K. (2020). Police culture: An empirical appraisal of the phenomenon. Criminology and Criminal Justice, 20(3), 319–338. https://doi.org/10.1177/1748895818823832
22.
De VriesH.BekkersV.TummersL. (2016). Innovation in the public sector: A systematic review and future research agenda. Public Administration, 94(1), 146–166. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12209
23.
DhillonA.MeierK. J. (2022). Representative bureaucracy in challenging environments: Gender representation, education, and India. International Public Management Journal, 25(1), 43–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/10967494.2020.1802633
24.
DoornkampL.GroeneveldS.GroeneveldM. G.Van der PolL. D.MesmanJ. (2023). Understanding the symbolic effects of gender representation: A multi-source study in education. International Public Management Journal, 26(6), 829–851. https://doi.org/10.1080/10967494.2021.1991534
25.
DulaL. (2022). Gendered funding: United way board composition and the funding of women- and girl-serving organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 51(5), 967–985. https://doi.org/10.1177/08997640211057406
FernandezS.MalatestaD.SmithC. R. (2013). Race, gender, and government contracting: Different explanations or new prospects for theory?Public Administration Review, 73(1), 109–120. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2012.02684.x
28.
GadeD. M.WilkinsV. M. (2013). Where did you serve? Veteran identity, representative bureaucracy, and vocational rehabilitation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 23(2), 267–288. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mus030
29.
GainsF.LowndesV. (2018). Gender, actors, and institutions at the local level: Explaining variation in policies to address violence against women and girls. Governance, 31(4), 683–699. https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12329
30.
GerringJ. (Ed.). (2016). Case study research: Principles and practices (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
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. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mus004
33.
GroeneveldS.AndrewsR.MeierK. J.SchröterE. (2015). Representative bureaucracy and public service performance: Where, why and how does representativeness work?SSRN.
34.
HansenJ. A.TummersL. (2020). A systematic review of field experiments in public administration. Public Administration Review, 80(6), 921–931. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13181
35.
HedlundG. (2013). New public management and gender in Swedish local government. In PiniB.McDonaldP. (Eds.), Women and representation in local government: International case studies (pp. 193–209). Routledge.
36.
HongS. (2021). Representative bureaucracy and hierarchy: Interactions among leadership, middle-level, and street-level bureaucracy. Public Management Review, 23(9), 1317–1338. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2020.1743346
37.
InnesM.RobertsC.LoweT.InnesH. (2020). Neighbourhood policing: The rise and fall of a policing model. Oxford University Press.
38.
JassalN. (2020). Gender, law enforcement, and access to justice: Evidence from all-women police stations in India. American Political Science Review, 114(4), 1035–1054. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055420000684
JohnstonK.HoustonJ. (2018). Representative bureaucracy: Does female police leadership affect gender-based violence arrests?International Review of Administrative Sciences, 84(1), 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852315619222
41.
KangI.JilkeS. (2024). Mapping out the motivational basis of active representation as intergroup behavior. Public Administration, 102(1), 164–187. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12908
42.
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. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055402000321
43.
KennedyB. (2014). Unraveling representative bureaucracy: A systematic analysis of the literature. Administration & Society, 46(4), 395–421. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399712459724
44.
KimC. K. (2003). Representation and policy outputs: Examining the linkage between passive and active representation. Public Personnel Management, 32(4), 549–559. https://doi.org/10.1177/009102600303200406
45.
KrøtelS. M. L.AshworthR. E.VilladsenA. R. (2019). Weakening the glass ceiling: Does organizational growth reduce gender segregation in the upper tiers of Danish local government?Public Management Review, 21(8), 1213–1235. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2018.1550107
46.
LægreidP. (2017). Nordic administrative traditions. In NedergaardP.WivelA. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of Scandinavian politics (pp. 80–91). Routledge.
47.
LipskyM. (2010). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public service. Russell Sage Foundation.
48.
Maynard-MoodyS.MushenoM. (2003). Cops, teachers, counselors: Stories from the front lines of public service. University of Michigan Press.
49.
McCreaA. M. (2021). The cost of representation: Insurance status, gender, and cardiac outcomes in emergency department care. Public Administration Review, 81(6), 1092–1101. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13354
50.
MeierK. J. (2019). Theoretical frontiers in representative bureaucracy: New directions for research. Perspectives on Public Management and Governance, 2(1), 39–56. https://doi.org/10.1093/ppmgov/gvy004
51.
MeierK. J.BohteJ. (2001). Structure and discretion: Missing links in representative bureaucracy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 11(4), 455–470. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a003511
52.
MeierK. J.CapersK. M. (2012). Representative bureaucracy: Four questions. In Guy PetersB.PierreJ. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of public administration (pp. 420–430). Sage Publications Ltd.
53.
MeierK. J.DhillonA. (2022). Gender and the state politics of policy implementation in education: The interaction of bureaucratic and legislative representation in India. State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 22(3), 344–370. https://doi.org/10.1017/spq.2021.30
54.
MeierK. J.MortonT. S. (2015). Representative bureaucracy in a cross-national context: Politics, identity, structure and discretion. In Guy PetersB.von MaravićP.SchröterE. (Eds.), Politics of representative bureaucracy: Power, legitimacy and performance (pp. 94–112). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://www.elgaronline.com/view/edcoll/9780857936004/9780857936004.00009.xml
55.
MeierK. J.Nicholson-CrottyJ. (2006). Gender, representative bureaucracy, and law enforcement: The case of sexual assault. Public Administration Review, 66(6), 850–860. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00653.x
MeierK. J.StewartJ. (1992). The impact of representative bureaucracies: Educational systems and public policies. American Review of Public Administration, 22(3), 157–171. https://doi.org/10.1177/027507409202200301
58.
MeierK. J.XuX. (2023). Critical thoughts about critical mass in representative bureaucracy: A theoretical exploration and empirical illustration. Governance, 36(3), 887–907. https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12711
59.
MillerA. R.SegalC. (2019). Do female officers improve law enforcement quality? Effects on crime reporting and domestic violence. Review of Economic Studies, 86(5), 2220–2247. https://doi.org/10.1093/restud/rdy051
60.
MorabitoM. S.PattavinaA.WilliamsL. M. (2017). Active representation and police response to sexual assault complaints. Journal of Crime and Justice, 40(1), 20–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/0735648x.2016.1216730
61.
MosherF. C. (1982). Democracy and the public service. Oxford University Press.
62.
MuterekoS.ChitakunyeP. (2015). Discretion and autonomy: Public administrators’ dilemmas in the implementation of national curriculum statements. International Journal of Public Administration, 38(2), 143–155. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2014.934835
ParkS. (2021). Gender and performance in public organizations: A research synthesis and research agenda. Public Management Review, 23(6), 929–948. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2020.1730940
65.
ParkS.LiangJ. (2021). A comparative study of gender representation and social outcomes: The effect of political and bureaucratic representation. Public Administration Review, 81(2), 321–332. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13092
66.
ParkS.MwihambiY. C. (2022). Intergovernmental representation at different levels of government: The effect of gender representation. Public Administration Review, 82(4), 721–732. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13440
67.
PetersB. G.von MaravićP.SchröterE. (2015). The comparative study of representative bureaucracy: An analytical framework. In Guy PetersB.von MaravićP.SchröterE. (Eds.), Politics of representative bureaucracy: Power, legitimacy and performance (pp. 24–40). Edward Elgar Publishing.
68.
PyoS.LeeH. (2024). Gender representation in police organizations: Do upper-level and street-level female bureaucrats differ in their roles?Governance, 37(1), 241–259. https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12758
69.
RaineyH. G. (2003). Understanding and managing public organizations. Jossey-Bass.
70.
RiccucciN. M.MeyersM. K. (2004). Linking passive and active representation: The case of frontline workers in welfare agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 14(4), 585–597. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muh038
71.
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. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muu006
72.
RitzA.BrewerG. A.NeumannO. (2016). Public service motivation: A systematic literature review and outlook. Public Administration Review, 76(3), 414–426. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12505
73.
RosenthalC. S.BellL. C. (2003). From passive to active representation: The case of women congressional staff. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 13(1), 65–82. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mug008
74.
SandbergS. (2023). The role of administrative tradition in government responses to crises : A comparative overview of five Nordic countries. In IhlenØ.LindholmJ.JohanssonB.Blach-ØrstenM. (Eds.), Communicating a pandemic : Crisis management and covid-19 in the nordic countries (pp. 31–50). Nordicom, University of Gothenburg.
75.
SchuckA. M. (2018). Women in policing and the response to rape: Representative bureaucracy and organizational change. Feminist Criminology, 13(3), 237–259. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085117753668
76.
ShinB. (2018). The formation and sustenance of authoritarianism in China : Approach to comparative political thought of authority. Korean Political Science Review, 52(5), 171–191. https://doi.org/10.18854/kpsr.2018.52.5.007
77.
SilvestriM. (2017). Police culture and gender: Revisiting the ‘cult of masculinity’. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 11(3), 289–300. https://doi.org/10.1093/police/paw052
78.
SongM. (2018). Gender representation and student performance: Representative bureaucracy goes to korea. American Review of Public Administration, 48(4), 346–358. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074016676888
79.
StearnsE.BottíaM. C.DavalosE.MickelsonR. A.MollerS.ValentinoL. (2016). Demographic characteristics of high school math and science teachers and girls’ success in stem. Social Problems, 63(1), 87–110. https://doi.org/10.1093/socpro/spv027
80.
StevensA. (2007). Women power and politics. Palgrave.
81.
StiversC. (Ed.). (2002). Gender images in public administration: Legitimacy and the administrative state (2 ed.). Sage Publications, Inc.
82.
TaieS.LewisL. (2022). Characteristics of 2020–21 public and private k–12 school principals in the united states: Results from the national teacher and principal survey. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2022/2022112.pdf
TattariniG.GrottiR. (2022). Gender roles and selection mechanisms across contexts: A comparative analysis of the relationship between unemployment, self-perceived health and gender. Sociology of Health & Illness, 44(3), 641–662. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566.13449
85.
TheobaldN. A.Haider-MarkelD. P. (2008). Race, bureaucracy, and symbolic representation: Interactions between citizens and police. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19(2), 409–426. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mun006
ThompsonF. J. (1976). Minority groups in public bureaucracies: Are passive and active representation linked?Administration & Society, 8(2), 201–226. https://doi.org/10.1177/009539977600800206
88.
WalfieldS. M. (2016). When a cleared rape is not cleared: A multilevel study of arrest and exceptional clearance. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 31(9), 1767–1792. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260515569062
89.
WilkinsV. M. (2006). Exploring the causal story: Gender, active representation, and bureaucratic priorities. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 17(1), 77–94. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muj012
90.
WilkinsV. M.WilliamsB. N. (2008). Black or blue: Racial profiling and representative bureaucracy. Public Administration Review, 68(4), 654–664. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25145649
91.
WrightJ. E.HeadleyA. M. (2020). Police use of force interactions: Is race relevant or gender germane?American Review of Public Administration, 50(8), 851–864. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074020919908
92.
XuX.MeierK. J. (2022). Separating symbolic and active representation: A mixed methods study of gender and education in china. Public Management Review, 24(9), 1429–1451. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2021.1900352
93.
YangF.HuangX.LiZ. (2022). Gender, situational visibility, and discretionary decision-making of regulatory street-level bureaucrats under pandemic emergency: An experimental study in china. Public Management Review, 24(8), 1312–1329. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2021.1886316
94.
YinR. K. (Ed.). (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Sage.
95.
ZackaB. (2017). When the state meets the street. Harvard University Press.
96.
ZamboniL. M. (2020). Expanding the theoretical boundaries of active representation: Clients’ deservedness of service in the 911 emergency system. Public Administration, 98(2), 465–479. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12624
97.
ZhangY. (2019). Representative bureaucracy, gender congruence, and student performance in china. International Public Management Journal, 22(2), 321–342. https://doi.org/10.1080/10967494.2018.1428702
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
