A now well-established link exists between passive representation of racial and gender minorities in certain bureaucracies and substantive benefits for the represented groups. However, few quantitative studies have distinguished between the multiple possible mechanisms by which passive representation might produce such effects. We conduct a novel set of empirical analyses aimed at determining whether or not passive representation produces effects only for those clients who directly interact with bureaucrats who share their demographic characteristics or if passive representation produces broader organizational-level effects. We find strong evidence that minority clients’ outcomes are positively associated with representation in portions of the bureaucracy with which they do not directly interact. This suggests that either passive representation produces substantial bottom-up, organizational-level effects or that managers who recruit minority personnel also adopt policies that are favorable toward minority clients.
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, 771-790.
2.
BradburyM.KelloughJ. (2011). Representative bureaucracy: Assessing the evidence on active representation. The American Review of Public Administration, 41, 157-167.
3.
BraddockJ. H.IIMcPartlandJ. M. (1987). How minorities continue to be excluded from equal employment opportunities: Research on labor market and institutional barriers. Journal of Social Issues, 43, 5-39.
4.
ClarkR. C.OchsH. L.FrazierM. (2013). Representative bureaucracy: The politics of access to policy-making positions in the federal executive service. Public Personnel Management, 42, 75-89.
5.
ColemanS.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, 717-744.
6.
ElmoreR. F.BurneyD. (1997). Investing in teacher learning: Staff development and instructional improvement in Community School District #2, New York City. New York, NY: National Commission on Teaching & America’s Future.
7.
FryR. A.GonzalesF. (2008). One-in-five and growing fast: A profile of Hispanic public school students (Vol. 92; Tech. Rep.). Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center.
8.
GutmannA.Ben-PorathS. (1987). Democratic education. New York, NY: John Wiley.
9.
HanushekE. A.KainJ. F.RivkinS. G. (2004). Why public schools lose teachers. Journal of Human Resources, 39, 326-354.
10.
HendersonL. J. (1979). Administrative advocacy: Black administrators in urban bureaucracy. Palo Alto, CA: R & E Research Associates.
11.
KeiserL. R.WilkinsV. M.MeierK. J.HollandC. A. (2002). Lipstick and logarithms: Gender, institutional context, and representative bureaucracy. American Political Science Review, 96, 553-564.
12.
KingsleyJ. D. (1944). Representative bureaucracy. Yellow Springs, OH: Antioch Press.
13.
LevitanD. M. (1946). The responsibility of administrative officials in a democratic society. Political Science Quarterly, 61, 562-598.
14.
LewisG. B.PittsD. W. (2011). Representation of lesbians and gay men in federal, state, and local bureaucracies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21, 159-180.
15.
LimH.-H. (2006). Representative bureaucracy: Rethinking substantive effects and active representation. Public Administration Review, 66, 193-204.
16.
LipskyM. (1980). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
17.
LittleJ. W. (1989). District policy choices and teachers’ professional development opportunities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11, 165-179.
18.
LongN. E. (1952). Bureaucracy and constitutionalism. The American Political Science Review, 46, 808-818.
19.
MansbridgeJ. (1999). Should Blacks represent Blacks and women represent women? A contingent “yes.”Journal of Politics, 61, 628-657.
20.
MansbridgeJ. (2003). Rethinking representation. American Political Science Review, 97, 515-528.
21.
Maynard-MoodyS.MushenoM. (2003). Cops, teachers, counselors: Stories from the front lines of public service. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
22.
MeierK. J. (1975). Representative bureaucracy: An empirical analysis. The American Political Science Review, 69, 526-542.
23.
MeierK. J. (1984). Teachers, students, and discrimination: The policy impact of black representation. The Journal of Politics, 46, 252-263.
24.
MeierK. J. (1993a). Latinos and representative bureaucracy testing the Thompson and Henderson hypotheses. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 3, 393-414.
25.
MeierK. J. (1993b). Representative bureaucracy: A theoretical and empirical exposition. In PerryJ. (Ed.), Research in public administration (pp. 1-35). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
26.
MeierK. J. (2002). A research agenda on elections and education. Educational Policy, 16, 219-230.
27.
MeierK. J.DoerflerC.HawesD.HicklinA. K.RochaR. R. (2006). The role of management and representation in improving performance of disadvantaged students: An application of bum Phillips’s “Don Shula Rule.”Review of Policy Research, 23, 1095-1110. doi:10.1111/j.1541-1338.2006.00251.x
28.
MeierK. J.Nicholson-CrottyJ. (2006). Gender, representative bureaucracy, and law enforcement: The case of sexual assault. Public Administration Review, 66, 850-860.
29.
MeierK. J.NigroL. G. (1976). Representative bureaucracy and policy preferences: A study in the attitudes of federal executives. Public Administration Review, 36, 458-469.
30.
MeierK. J.StewartJ.Jr. (1992). The impact of representative bureaucracies: Educational systems and public policies. The American Review of Public Administration, 22, 157-171.
31.
MeierK. J.WrinkleR. D.PolinardJ. (1999). Representative bureaucracy and distributional equity: Addressing the hard question. The Journal of Politics, 61, 1025-1039.
32.
MillerW. E.StokesD. E. (1963). Constituency influence in congress. The American Political Science Review, 57, 45-56.
33.
MosherF. C. (1982). Democracy and the public service (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
34.
Nicholson-CrottyS.GrissomJ. A.Nicholson-CrottyJ.ReddingC. (2016). Disentangling the causal mechanisms of representative bureaucracy: Evidence from assignment of students to gifted programs. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 26, 745–757.
35.
ParkS. (2013). Does gender matter? The effect of gender representation of public bureaucracy on governmental performance. The American Review of Public Administration, 43, 221-242.
36.
PitkinH. F. (1967). The concept of representation. Berkeley: University of California Press.
37.
PittsD. W. (2007). Representative bureaucracy, ethnicity, and public schools: Examining the link between representation and performance. Administration & Society, 39, 497-526.
38.
RaffelJ. A. (2007). Why has public administration ignored public education, and does it matter?Public Administration Review, 67, 135-151.
39.
RiccucciN. M.SaidelJ. R. (1997). The representativeness of state-level bureaucratic leaders: A missing piece of the representative bureaucracy puzzle. Public Administration Review, 57, 423-430.
RochC. H.PittsD. W. (2012). Differing effects of representative bureaucracy in charter schools and traditional public schools. The American Review of Public Administration, 42, 282-302.
42.
RochC. H.PittsD. W.NavarroI. (2010). Representative bureaucracy and policy tools: Ethnicity, student discipline, and representation in public schools. Administration & Society, 42, 38-65.
43.
RonfeldtM.LoebS.WyckoffJ. (2013). How teacher turnover harms student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 50, 4-36. doi:10.3102/0002831212463813
44.
ScheinE. H. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
45.
SchlagerM. S.FuscoJ. (2003). Teacher professional development, technology, and communities of practice: Are we putting the cart before the horse?The Information Society, 19, 203-220.
46.
SeldenS. C. (1997). The promise of representative bureaucracy: Diversity and responsiveness in a government agency. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
47.
SharpE. B. (1980). Toward a new understanding of urban services and citizen participation: The coproduction concept. The American Review of Public Administration, 14, 105-118. doi:10.1177/027507408001400203
48.
SmithA. E.MonaghanK. R. (2013). Some ceilings have more cracks representative bureaucracy in federal regulatory agencies. The American Review of Public Administration, 43, 50-71.
TheobaldN. A.Haider-MarkelD. P. (2009). Race, bureaucracy, and symbolic representation: Interactions between citizens and police. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19, 409-426. doi:10.1093/jopart/mun006
51.
ThielemannG. S.StewartJ. J. (1996). A demand-side perspective on the importance of representative bureaucracy: Aids, ethnicity, gender, and sexual orientation. Public Administration Review, 56, 168-173.
WhitakerG. P. (1980). Coproduction: Citizen participation in service delivery. Public Administration Review, 40, 240-246.
54.
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, 87-102.
55.
WilkinsV. M.WilliamsB. N. (2008). Black or blue: Racial profiling and representative bureaucracy. Public Administration Review, 68, 654-664.
56.
WilkinsV. M.WilliamsB. N. (2009). Representing blue: Representative bureaucracy and racial profiling in the Latino community. Administration & Society, 40, 775-798.
