A contingency approach to representative bureaucracy: power, equal opportunities and diversity
| DOI | 10.1177/0020852309365670 |
| Author | Sandra Groeneveld,Steven Van de Walle |
| Published date | 01 June 2010 |
| Date | 01 June 2010 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Sandra Groeneveld is Assistant Professor in the Department of Public Administration, Erasmus
University Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Steven Van de Walle is Associate Professor in the
Department of Public Administration, Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
© The authors, 2010. Reprints and Permissions: http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
Vol 76(2):239–258 [DOI:10.1177/0020852309365670]
International
Review of
Administrative
Sciences
A contingency approach to representative bureaucracy:
power, equal opportunities and diversity
Sandra Groeneveld and Steven Van de Walle
Abstract
In this article we develop a contingency approach to representative bureaucracy.
We argue that representative bureaucracy is a multidimensional and changing
concept, and that in the academic and policy debate on representative bureauc-
racy three different dimensions are intermingled: power, equal opportunities and
diversity. These dimensions not only reflect a particular view on the role of the
state and the relation between the state and citizens, they also diverge in the
motives for making the bureaucracy representative. Even the conception of what
representation means can be totally different. We conclude that modern diversity
management approaches alone may not contribute to nation -building because
these mainly emphasize organizational performance. Approaches to representative
bureaucracy in nation-building must also be built on moral arguments and under-
line the exemplary role of the state. In addition, the political viability of managerial
and moral approaches needs to be taken into account through acknowledging
political realities and existing distributions of power in society.
Points for practitioners
Through using a contingency approach we show how representative bureaucracy
has been used as a political and administrative answer to quite different social,
political and administrative problems and challenges. Through analysing these
contingencies, this article contributes to nation-builders’ quest for a fitting con-
cept of representative bureaucracy in the contexts in which they are working. The
instruments used to make the bureaucracy representative need to be aligned with
dominant conceptions of the state, politics, and citizens.
240 International Review of Administrative Sciences 76(2)
Keywords: democracy, diversity, equal opportunity, legitimacy, nation-building,
power, representative bureaucracy
Introduction
Representative bureaucracy is concerned with the demographic composition of public
organizations in order to mediate tensions between democracy and bureaucracy. It
is often denoted by a series of virtues; virtues that facilitate the building of a state
and a nation. Representative bureaucracy would bring among other things legitimacy,
implementation capacity and effectiveness.
Representative bureaucracy as a field of study has a long history of theoretical as
well as empirical research, as what follows in the article illustrates. Yet many studies
continue to focus on single (national) cases and the Anglo-Saxon dominance is often
quite strong. These approaches, models and concepts do not always translate easily
to other national settings, especially when these settings are quite different from a
Western or even US-American environment. Employment in the public sector is often
a topic of political contention, and this extends to issues of representative bureauc-
racy. Passive representation may be regarded as an aspirational aim for making the
bureaucracy more democratic or to alleviate social tensions, but it is just as often
regarded as a denial of individual merit-based recruitment and individual citizenship
rights (Meier and Hawes, 2009). There also is extensive debate about the thin line
between active representation and abandoning administrative neutrality and distance
(Lim, 2006).
In this article we develop a contingency approach to representative bureaucracy.
By this we mean that changes in the use of the concept ‘representative bureaucracy’
can be understood by looking at the context within which the public administration
operates.1 We show how representative bureaucracy has been used as a political
and administrative answer to quite different social , political and administrative prob-
lems and challenges. Through analysing these contingency factors, this article aims to
contribute insights into when and how representative bureaucracy can be used for
nation-building.
To this end we analyse, using historical examples and recent developments in the
literature, three different dimensions of representative bureaucracy. The first is found
in the political literature which highlights a certain conception of representation of
the civil service as the ruling class, because it helps states to establish control and
guarantee harmony and stability ( Kingsley, 1944; Tilly, 1975). The second is found in
the public administration literature, with its strong emphasis on reconciling bureauc-
racy with democracy and on equal opportunities, and its distinction between active
and passive representation (Mosher, 1968; Coleman Selden et al., 1998; Dolan and
Rosenbloom, 2003). The growing body of diversity management literature that is
applied to the administrative context is the third and most recent strand in the litera-
ture. It focuses on the benefits of diversity for the performance of public sector organ-
izations (Pitts, 2005; Wise and Tschirhart, 2000). Governments’ talk and action about
representative bureaucracy can be situated within these three dimensions. These are
not mutually exclusive, and share characteristics, yet they demonstrate major changes
in thinking about representative bureaucracy.
To continue reading
Request your trial