The idea of symbolic representation suggests bureaucratic representativeness can enhance citizens’ willingness to coproduce public services, though this effect is not always observed in real settings. While scholars have explored boundary conditions for limited effects of symbolic representation on coproduction, they typically assume fully staffed bureaucracies. How personnel status variations within representative bureaucracy affect represented citizens’ perceptions and their willingness to engage in coproduction is still unknown. This study examines how labor shortage in representative bureaucracy may shape the effect of symbolic representation on coproduction. Using rational choice and compassion theories, it develops competing hypotheses regarding the interaction between labor shortage and symbolic representation in shaping citizen coproduction and tests them through a survey experiment in the context of female bureaucratic representation and domestic violence. The perceived labor shortage is found to mitigate the positive effect of symbolic representation on women’s coproduction willingness, but only for the simplest coproduction activity.
AnS. H.SongM.MeierK. J. (2022). Representative bureaucracy and the policy environment: Gender representation in Forty-Four countries. Public Administration, 100(4), 900–922.
2.
AndrewsR.Johnston MillerK. (2013). Representative bureaucracy, gender, and policing: The case of domestic violence arrests in England. Public Administration, 91(4), 998–1014.
3.
AnsellR.MullinsJ. P. (2021). COVID-19 ends longest employment recovery and expansion in CES history, causing unprecedented job losses in 2020. Monthly Labor Review, 144, 1.
4.
ArrowK. J.CapronW. M. (1959). Dynamic shortages and price rises: the engineer-scientist case. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 73(2), 292–308.
5.
AsseburgJ.HombergF. (2020). Public service motivation or sector rewards? Two studies on the determinants of sector attraction. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 40(1), 82–111.
6.
AtkinsP. W.ParkerS. K. (2012). Understanding individual compassion in organizations: The role of appraisals and psychological flexibility. Academy of Management Review, 37(4), 524–546.
7.
BarberaC.SiciliaM.SteccoliniI. (2016). What Mr. Rossi wants in participatory budgeting: two R’s (responsiveness and representation) and two I’s (inclusiveness and interaction). International Journal of Public Administration, 39(13), 1088–1100.
8.
BentonM. (2020). Representation is not enough: Symbolic representation and perceptions of the police. Administration & Society, 52(5), 794–822.
9.
BradburyM. D.KelloughJ. E. (2008). Representative bureaucracy: Exploring the potential for active representation in local government. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), 697–714.
10.
BriffaultR.ReynoldsL.DavidsonN. M.ScharffE. A.SuR. (2022). Cases and materials on state and local government law. West Academic Publishing.
11.
BrudneyJ. L.EnglandR. E. (1983). Toward a definition of the coproduction concept. Public Administration Review, 43, 59–65.
12.
BrudneyJ. J. L.ChengY.MeijsL. (2022). Defining and measuring coproduction: Deriving lessons from practicing local government managers. Public Administration Review, 82(5), 795–805.
13.
BovairdT. (2007). Beyond engagement and participation: User and community coproduction of public services. Public Administration Review, 67(5), 846–860.
14.
BovairdT.LoefflerE. (2012). From engagement to co-production: The contribution of users and communities to outcomes and public value. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 23, 1119–1138.
CampbellJ. C.GarzaM. A.GielenA. C.O’campoP.KubJ.DienemannJ.JonesA.S.JafarE. (2003). Intimate partner violence and abuse among active duty military women. Violence Against Women, 9(9), 1072–1092.
17.
ChaneyC. K.SaltzsteinG. H. (1998). Democratic control and bureaucratic responsiveness: The police and domestic violence. American Journal of Political Science, 745–768.
18.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Erlbaum.
19.
CordesJ.VogelR. (2023). Comparing employer attractiveness of public sector organizations to nonprofit and private sector organizations: An experimental study in Germany and the U.S. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 43(2), 260–287.
20.
DingF.LuJ.RiccucciN. M. (2021). How bureaucratic representation affects public organizational performance: A meta-analysis. Public Administration Review, 81(6), 1003–1018.
21.
DunstonR.LeeA.BoudD.BrodieP.ChiarellaM. (2009). Co-production and health system reform–from re-imagining to re-making. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 68(1), 39–52.
22.
ErezE.BelknapJ. (1998). In their own words: Battered women’s assessment of the criminal processing system’s responses. Violence and Victims, 13(3), 251.
23.
FaveroN. (2024). Bureaucratic beliefs and representation: Linking social identities, attitudes, and client outcomes. The American Review of Public Administration, 54(4), 337–353.
24.
FischerK.RoseM. (1995). When “enough is enough”: Battered women’s decision making around court orders of protection. Crime & Delinquency, 41(4), 414–429.
25.
FritzC. O.MorrisP. E.RichlerJ. J. (2012). Effect size estimates: Current use, calculations, and interpretation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141(1), 2.
26.
GadeD. M.WilkinsV. M. (2012). Where did you serve? Veteran identity, representative bureaucracy, and vocational rehabilitation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 23(2), 267–288.
27.
GreenT.KelsoC. (2010). Police discretion in domestic violence incidents. The American Association of Behavioral and Social Sciences Journal, 14, 24–44.
28.
GregoryR. G.BorlandJ. (1999). Recent developments in public sector labor markets. Handbook of Labor Economics, 3, 3573–3630.
29.
HeadleyA. M.WrightJ. E.MeierK. J. (2021). Bureaucracy, democracy, and race: The limits of symbolic representation. Public Administration Review, 81(6), 1033–1043.
30.
HsiehY. C.HiangS. T. (2004). A study of the impacts of service quality on relationship quality in search-experience-credence services. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 15(1), 43–58.
31.
HsuL. C.HenkeA. (2021). COVID-19, staying at home, and domestic violence. Review of Economics of the Household, 19(1), 145–155.
32.
HungM. S.LamS. K. (2020). Antecedents and contextual factors affecting occupational turnover among registered nurses in public hospitals in Hong Kong: A qualitative descriptive study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(11), 3834.
33.
JakobsenM.LøkkeA. K.KeppelerF. (2023). Facing the human capital crisis: A systematic review and research agenda on recruitment and selection in the public sector. Public Administration Review, 83(6), 1635–1648.
34.
KangI.LeeC. (2024). Recategorization: An approach to extending the symbolic benefits of bureaucratic representation to the majority group. The American Review of Public Administration, 54(2), 163–179.
35.
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.
36.
KennedyB. (2014). Unraveling representative bureaucracy: A systematic analysis of the literature. Administration & Society, 46(4), 395–421.
37.
KeppelerF.PapenfußU. (2023). Employer value propositions for different target groups and organizational types in the public sector: Theory and evidence from field experiments. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 43(4), 701–726.
38.
KervynN.FiskeS. T.MaloneC. (2012). Brands as intentional agents framework: How perceived intentions and ability can map brand perception. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22(2), 166–176.
39.
KittilsonM. C.Schwindt-BayerL. (2010). Engaging citizens: The role of power-sharing institutions. The Journal of Politics, 72(4), 990–1002.
40.
LangtonL.BerzofskyM.KrebsC. P.Smiley-McDonaldH. (2012). Victimizations not reported to the police, 2006-2010 (p. 18). US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
41.
LaustsenL.BorA. (2017). The relative weight of character traits in political candidate evaluations: Warmth is more important than competence, leadership and integrity. Electoral Studies, 49, 96–107.
42.
LawlessJ. L. (2004). Politics of presence? Congresswomen and symbolic representation. Political Research Quarterly, 57(1), 81–99.
43.
LayneK. (1989). Perfect partners: Co-production and crime prevention. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department.
44.
LazarusR. S. (1991). Cognition and motivation in emotion. American Psychologist, 46(4), 352.
45.
LeeE.Nicholson-CrottyS. (2022). Symbolic representation, expectancy disconfirmation, and citizen complaints against police. The American Review of Public Administration, 52(1), 36–45.
46.
LeeS.NaC. (2024). Why citizens engage in co-production: A theoretical framework and experimental evidence. Public Performance & Management Review, 47(2), 419–448.
47.
LetkiN.SteenT. (2021). Social-psychological context moderates incentives to co-produce: evidence from a large-scale survey experiment on park upkeep in an urban setting. Public Administration Review, 81(5), 935–950.
48.
LiD. (2024). Critical mass condition of majority bureaucratic behavioral change in representative bureaucracy: A theoretical clarification and a nonparametric exploration. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 34(3), 387–403.
49.
LiangJ.ParkS.LiJ. (2024). Weathering the cutbacks: The buffering role of representative bureaucracy in environmental policy implementation. Public Management Review, 1–23.
50.
LimH. H. (2006). Representative bureaucracy: Rethinking substantive effects and active representation. Public Administration Review, 66(2), 193–204.
51.
MarschallM. J.RuhilA. V. (2007). Substantive symbols: The attitudinal dimension of black political incorporation in local government. American Journal of Political Science, 51(1), 17–33.
52.
McCraryJ.SangaS. (2021). The impact of the coronavirus lockdown on domestic violence. American Law and Economics Review, 23(1), 137–163.
53.
MeierK. J.MortonT. S. (2015). Representative bureaucracy in a cross-national context: Politics, identity, structure and discretion. In Politics of representative bureaucracy (pp. 94-112). Edward Elgar Publishing.
54.
MeierK. J.Nicholson-CrottyJ. (2006). Gender, representative bureaucracy, and law enforcement: The case of sexual assault. Public Administration Review, 66(6), 850–860.
55.
MeierK. J.StewartJ.Jr. (1992). The impact of representative bureaucracies: Educational systems and public policies. The American Review of Public Administration, 22(3), 157–171.
56.
MeierK. J.XuX. (2023). Critical thoughts about critical mass in representative bureaucracy: A theoretical exploration and empirical illustration. Governance, 36(3), 887–907.
MillerS. M.SongM.KeiserL. R. (2023). The effect of human versus automated interaction on willingness to participate in government programs: The role of representation. Public Administration, 101(4), 1349–1366.
59.
MonaghanS.LavelleJ.GunnigleP. (2017). Mapping networks: Exploring the utility of social network analysis in management research and practice. Journal of Business Research, 76, 136–144.
60.
MorganR. E.TrumanJ. L(2019). Criminal victimization, 2018. Bureau of Justice Statistics, 845, 11–18.
61.
MosherF. C. (1968). Representative bureaucracy. In MosherF. C. (Ed.), Democracy and the public service (pp. 19–22). Routledge.
62.
NabatchiT.SancinoA.SiciliaM. (2017). Varieties of participation in public services: The who, when, and what of coproduction. Public Administration Review, 77(5), 766–776.
63.
OsborneS. P.StrokoschK. (2013). It takes two to Tango? Understanding the co-production of public services by integrating the services management and public administration perspectives. British Journal of Management, 24, S31–S47.
64.
ParkS. (2024). A representative-represented matrix: Exploring the symbolic effect of minority representation. Public Management Review, 26(4), 949–969.
65.
ParradoS.Van RyzinG. G.BovairdT.LöfflerE. (2013). Correlates of co-production: Evidence from a five-nation survey of citizens. International Public Management Journal, 16(1), 85–112.
66.
ParsellC.ClarkeA. (2019). Agency in advanced liberal services: Grounding sociological knowledge in homeless people’s accounts. The British Journal of Sociology, 70(1), 356–376.
67.
PiperC.LewisD. E. (2023). Do Vacancies Hurt Federal Agency Performance?. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 33(2), 313–328.
68.
PiqueroA. R.RiddellJ. R.BishoppS. A.NarveyC.ReidJ. A.PiqueroN. L. (2020). Staying home, staying safe? A short-term analysis of COVID-19 on Dallas domestic violence. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 45, 601–635.
69.
PitkinH. F. (1967). The concept of representation. University of California Press.
70.
PyoS. (2024). Symbolic effects of representative bureaucracy in policing: An experimental replication in a Korean context. Governance, 37(3), 825–843.
71.
RasulI.RoggerD. (2015). The impact of ethnic diversity in bureaucracies: Evidence from the Nigerian civil service. American Economic Review, 105(5), 457–461.
72.
RiccucciN. M.Van RyzinG. G. (2017). Representative bureaucracy: A lever to enhance social equity, coproduction, and democracy. Public Administration Review, 77(1), 21–30.
73.
RiccucciN. M.Van RyzinG. G.JacksonK. (2018). Representative bureaucracy, race, and policing: A survey experiment. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 28(4), 506–518.
74.
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.
75.
RiccucciN. M.Van RyzinG. G.LiH. (2016). Representative bureaucracy and the willingness to coproduce: An experimental study. Public Administration Review, 76(1), 121–130.
76.
RichardsT. N.NixJ.MourtgosS. M.AdamsI. T. (2021). Comparing 911 and emergency hotline calls for domestic violence in seven cities: What happened when people started staying home due to COVID-19?Criminology & Public Policy, 20(3), 573–591.
77.
RochC. H.ElsayedM. A.EdwardsJ. (2018). Students’ and parents’ perceptions of disciplinary policy: Does symbolic representation matter?. The American Review of Public Administration, 48(4), 329–345.
78.
SchererN.CurryB. (2010). Does descriptive race representation enhance institutional legitimacy? The case of the US courts. The Journal of Politics, 72(1), 90–104.
79.
SchinkelM. P.TóthL.TuinstraJ. (2020). Discretionary authority and prioritizing in government agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 30(2), 240–256.
80.
SchneiderB. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40(3), 437–453.
81.
Schwindt-BayerL. A.MishlerW. (2005). An integrated model of women’s representation. The Journal of politics, 67(2), 407–428.
82.
SievertM. (2021). A replication of “representative bureaucracy and the willingness to coproduce.”Public Administration, 99(3), 616–632.
83.
SievertM. (2023). The limited impact of reference groups’ symbolic gender representation on willingness to coproduce. Public Administration Review, 83(3), 587–602.
84.
SievertM.VogelD.FeeneyM. K. (2022). Formalization and administrative burden as obstacles to employee recruitment: consequences for the public sector. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 42(1), 3–30.
85.
SmithR.WightR.HomerC. S. (2018). ‘Asking the hard questions’: Improving midwifery students’ confidence with domestic violence screening in pregnancy. Nurse Education in Practice, 28, 27–33.
86.
SomersS.DesmidtS. (2024). Increasing the effectiveness of job advertisements: how the use of imagery language impacts perceived organizational attractiveness. Review of Public Personnel Administration. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X241304686
87.
StanleyJ. C.CampbellD. T. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Chicago: R. McNally.
88.
StrackR.BaierJ.FahlanderA. (2008). Managing demographic risk. Harvard Business Review, 86(2), 119–128.
89.
SunI. Y. (2007). Policing domestic violence: Does officer gender matter?Journal of Criminal Justice, 35(6), 581–595.
90.
SzydlowskiG.De BoerN.TummersL. (2022). Compassion, bureaucrat bashing, and public administration. Public Administration Review, 82(4), 619–633.
91.
TheobaldN. A.Haider-MarkelD. P. (2009). Race, bureaucracy, and symbolic representation: Interactions between citizens and police. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19(2), 409–426.
92.
TurpinK. V.FolandE.PattonT.GuterlJ.ZapakinM.GreenamyerJ. (2022). Impact of COVID-19 on cancer caregivers: Results from the Global Carer Well-being Index. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 40, 460–460. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2022.40.6_suppl.460
93.
Van EijkC. J.SteenT. P. (2014). Why people co-produce: Analysing citizens’ perceptions on co-planning engagement in health care services. Public Management Review, 16(3), 358–382.
94.
Van EijkC.SteenT. (2016). Why engage in co-production of public services? Mixing theory and empirical evidence. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 82(1), 28–46.
95.
Van RyzinG. G.RiccucciN. M.LiH. (2017). Representative bureaucracy and its symbolic effect on citizens: A conceptual replication. Public Management Review, 19(9), 1365–1379.
96.
VilendrerS.AmanoA.Brown JohnsonC. G.FavetM.SafaeiniliN.VillasenorJ.ShawJ. G.HertelendyA. J.MahoneyM. (2021). An app-based intervention to support first responders and essential workers during the COVID-19 pandemic: Needs assessment and mixed methods implementation study. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 23(5), e26573.
97.
VinopalK. (2018). Understanding individual and organizational level representation: The case of parental involvement in schools. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 28(1), 1–15.
98.
WalbyS.ArmstrongJ.StridS. (2010). Physical and legal security and the criminal justice system: A review of inequalities. Manchester: Equality and Human Rights Commission.
99.
WallaceD.EasonJ. M.WalkerJ.TowersS.GrubesicT. H.NelsonJ. R. (2021). Is there a temporal relationship between COVID-19 infections among prison staff, incarcerated persons and the larger community in the United States?. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(13), 6873.
100.
WangY. (2025). Does symbolic representation matter? A meta-analysis of the passive-symbolic representation link. Public Administration, 103, 3–24.
101.
ZeoliA. M.NorrisA.BrennerH. (2011). A summary and analysis of warrantless arrest statutes for domestic violence in the United States. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26(14), 2811–2833.
102.
ZhangY.WangH. (2025). Symbolic bureaucratic representation and client cooperation: Experimental insights from four daily public service scenarios in China. Public Administration. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.13042
