The translation of passive into active representation assumes that bureaucrats are willing to serve the interest of their social group when developing and implementing policies. However, the assumption does not account for organizational socialization—the process of being taught what is important in an organization. In addition, there is a comparative paucity of theoretical and conceptual frameworks to explain why and how bureaucrats decide to become active representatives. In this study, I develop a framework for analyzing the decision to engage in active representation. The framework recognizes that active representation conflicts with organizational role and is based on the assumption of public choice theory that humans are utility maximizers. Bureaucrats are not totally devoted to active representation, but instead find an optimal point at which their self-interest is maximized in interrole conflict.
ArgersingerP. H. (1989). The value of the vote: Political representation in the gilded age. The Journal of American History, 76, 59-90.
2.
BarnardC. I. (1938). The function of the executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
3.
BlauP. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York, NY: John Wiley.
4.
BradburyM. D.KelloughJ. E. (2011). Representative bureaucracy: Assessing the evidence on active representation. American Review of Public Administration, 41, 157-167.
5.
BuchananJ. M.TullockG. (1962). The calculus of consent: Logical foundations of constitutional democracy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
6.
ChristensenR. K.WrightB. E. (2011). The effects of public service motivation on job choice decisions. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21, 723-743.
7.
CookB. J. (2014). Bureaucracy and self-government: Reconsidering the role of public administration in American politics. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
8.
DahlerupD. (1988). From a small to a large minority: Women in Scandinavian politics. Scandinavian Political Studies, 11, 275-298.
9.
DolanJ. (2002). Representative bureaucracy in the federal executive: Gender and spending priorities. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 12, 353-375.
10.
DornbuschS. M.ScottW. R. (1975). Evaluation and the exercise of authority. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
EllisA. M.BauerT. N.ErdoganB. (2015). New-employee organizational socialization: Adjusting to new roles, colleagues, and organizations. In GrusecJ. E.HastingsP. D. (Eds.), Handbook of socialization (pp. 301-322). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
13.
GerberA.GreenD.LarimerC. (2010). An experiment testing the relative effectiveness of encouraging voter participation by inducing feeling of Pride or Shame. Political Behavior, 32, 409-422.
14.
GestR.MarantoR. (2000). Gaining practical insights from experiences: Reflections on cases of racial discrimination in federal services. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 20, 55-67.
15.
GoslingJ. J. (2009). Budgetary politics in American governments (5th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
16.
HendersonL. J. (1979). Administrative advocacy: Black administrators in urban bureaucracy. Palo Alto, CA: R & E Research Associates.
17.
HendersonL. J. (1988). Urban administrators: The politics of role elasticity. In KarnigA. K.McClainP. D. (Eds.), Urban minority administrators: Politics, policies, and style (pp. 15-31). New York, NY: Greenwood.
18.
HinderaJ. J.YoungC. D. (1998). Representative bureaucracy: The theoretical implications of statistical interaction. Political Research Quarterly, 51, 655-671.
19.
HsiehC.WinslowE. (2006). Gender representation in the federal workforce: A comparative among groups. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 26, 276-294.
20.
ImT.CampbellJ. W.ChaS. (2013). Revisiting Confucian bureaucracy: Roots of the Korean government’s culture and competitiveness. Public Administration and Development, 33, 286-296.
21.
KahnemanD.TverskyA. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263-291.
22.
KanterR. M. (1977a). Men and women of the corporation. New York, NY: Basic Books.
23.
KanterR. M. (1977b). Some effects of proportions on group life: Skewed sex ratios and responses to token women. American Journal of Sociology, 82, 965-990.
24.
KarpowitzC. F.MendelbergT.MattioliL. (2015). Why women’s numbers elevate women’s influence, and when they do not. Politics, Groups, and Identities, 3, 140-177.
25.
KeiserL. R.WilkinsV. M.MeierK. J.HollandC. A. (2002). Lipstick and logarithms: Gender, institutional context, and representative bureaucracy. The American Political Science Review, 96, 553-564.
26.
KimP. S. (1993). Toward gender equality in the Korean civil service. Public Personnel Management, 22, 403-419.
27.
KingsleyJ. D. (1944). Representative bureaucracy: An interpretation of the British civil service. Yellow Springs, OH: Antioch Press.
KrislovS.RosenbloomD. H. (1981). Representative bureaucracy and the American political system. New York, NY: Praeger.
30.
Kristof-BrownA. L.ZimmermanR. D.JohnsonE. C. (2005). Consequences of individuals’ fit at work. Personnel Psychology, 58, 281-342.
31.
LevitanD. M. (1946). The responsibility of administrative officials in a democratic society. Political Science Quarterly, 6, 562-598.
32.
LimH. (2006). Representative bureaucracy: Rethinking substantive effects and active representation. Public Administration Review, 66, 193-204.
33.
LindblomC. E. (1959). The science of ‘muddling through.’ Public Administration Review, 19, 79-88.
34.
LongN. E. (1952). Bureaucracy and constitutionalism. American Political Science Review, 46, 808-818.
35.
LongN. E. (1962). The administrative organization as a political system. In MailickS.Van NessE. H. (Eds.), Concepts and issues in administrative behavior (pp. 110-121). Englewood Cliff, NJ: Prentice Hall.
36.
LouisM. R. (1980). Surprise and sense making: What newcomers experience in entering unfamiliar organizational settings. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25, 226-251.
37.
MarchJ. G.SimonH. A. (1958). Organizations. New York, NY: John Willey.
38.
MeierK. J. (1979). Politics and the bureaucracy: Policymaking in the fourth branch of government. North Scituate, MA: Duxbury Press.
39.
MeierK. J. (1993). Latinos and representative bureaucracy: Testing the Thompson and Henderson hypotheses. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 3, 393-414.
40.
MeierK. J.BohteJ. (2001). Structure and discretion: Missing links in representative bureaucracy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 11, 455-470.
41.
MeierK. J.Nicholson-CrottyJ. (2006). Gender, representative bureaucracy, and law enforcement. Public Administration Review, 66, 850-860.
42.
MeierK. J.NigroL. G. (1976). Representative bureaucracy and policy preferences: A study in the attitudes of federal executives. Public Administration Review, 36, 458-469.
43.
MeierK. J.StewartJ.Jr. (1992). The impact of representative bureaucracies: Educational systems and public policies. American Review of Public Administration, 22, 157-171.
44.
Ministry of Security and Public Administration. (n.d.). Annual report on Korean central civil service (From 2005 to 2010). Retrieved from http://www.mois.go.kr/
45.
MosherF. C. (1968). Democracy and the public service. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
46.
Nicholson-CrottyJ.GrissomJ. A.Nicholson-CrottyS. (2011). Bureaucratic representation, distributional equity, and democratic values in the administration of public programs. Journal of Politics, 73, 582-596.
47.
NiskanenW. A. (1971). Bureaucracy and representative government. Chicago, IL: Aldine-Atherton.
48.
OberfieldZ. W. (2014). Becoming bureaucrats: Socialization at the front lines of government service. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
49.
OppenheimerJ. (2012). Principles of politics: A rational choice theory guide to politics and social justice. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.
50.
PerrowC. (1979). Complex organizations: A critical essay (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Random House.
51.
PescosolidoA. (2001). Informal leaders and the development of group efficacy. Small Group Research, 32, 74-93.
52.
PitkinH. F. (1972). The concept of representation. Berkeley: University of California Press.
53.
RawlsJ. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
54.
RehfussJ. A. (1986). A representative bureaucracy? Women and minority executives in California career service. Public Administration Review, 46, 454-460.
55.
RidgewayC. A. (2011). Framed by gender: How gender inequality persists in the modern world. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
56.
RileyM. W.CohnR. (1958). Control networks in informal groups. Sociometry, 21, 30-49.
57.
RosenbloomD. H.FeatherstonhaughJ. G. (1977). Passive and active representation in the federal service: A comparison of blacks and whites. Social Science Quarterly, 57, 873-882.
58.
RourkeF. E. (1984). Bureaucracy, politics, and public policy. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.
59.
ScottW. R.DavisG. (2007). Organizations and organizing: Rational, natural, and open system perspectives. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
60.
SeldenS. C. (1997). The promise of representative bureaucracy: Diversity and responsiveness in a government agency. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
61.
SelznickP. (1948). Foundation of the theory of organization. American Sociological Review, 13, 25-35.
62.
SelznickP. (1957). Leadership in administration. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson.
63.
ShibutaniT. (1962). Reference groups and social control. In RoseA. M. (Ed.), Human behavior and social processes (pp. 128-147). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
64.
SimonH. A. (1957). Administrative behavior (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Macmillan.
65.
SmithC. R.FernandezS. (2010). Equity in federal contracting: Examining the link between minority representation and federal procurement decisions. Public Administration Review, 70, 87-96.
66.
SongM. (2018). Gender representation and student performance: Representative bureaucracy goes to Korea. American Review of Public Administration, 48, 346-358.
67.
SowaJ. E.SeldenS. C. (2003). Administrative discretion and active representation. Public Administration Review, 63, 700-710.
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.
70.
ThielemannG. T.StewartJ.Jr. (1996). A demand-side perspective on the importance of representative bureaucracy: AIDS, ethnicity, gender, and sexual orientation. Public Administration Review, 56, 168-173.
71.
ThompsonF. J. (1976). Minority groups in public bureaucracy: Are passive and active representation linked?Administration and Society, 8, 201-226.
72.
ThompsonJ. D. (1967). Organizations in action. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
73.
TummalaK. K. (2003). Comparative bureaucratic systems. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
74.
TverskyA.KahnemanD. (1991). Loss aversion in riskless choice: A reference dependent model. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106, 1039-1061.
75.
TylerT. R. (1993). The social psychology of authority. In MurnighanJ. K. (Ed.), Social psychology in organizations: Advances in theory and research (pp. 141-160). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
76.
Van MaanenJ.ScheinE. H. (1979). Toward a theory of organizational socialization. In StawB. M. (Ed.), Research in organizational behavior (pp. 209-264). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
77.
Van RiperP. P. (1958). History of the United States civil service. Evanston, IL: Row Peterson.
78.
WanousJ. P. (1992). Organizational entry: Recruitment, selection, and socialization of newcomers. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
79.
WhiteI. K.LairdC. L.AllenT. D. (2014). Selling out? The politics of navigating conflicts between racial group and self-interest. American Political Science Review, 108, 783-800.
80.
WildavskyA. (1964). The politics of budgetary process. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.
81.
WildavskyA. (1988). The new politics of the budgetary process. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.
82.
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.
83.
WilkinsV. M.WilliamsB. N. (2008). Black or blue: Racial profiling and representative bureaucracy. Public Administration Review, 68, 654-664.
84.
WinnM. (1989). Black administrators and racial roadblocks in public organizations. International Journal of Public Administration, 12, 797-819.
