Acceso usuarios
Representative bureaucracy scholarship has operated in an academic silo, largely separate from the policy subfields where it is applied, specifically when testing passive and active representation. Despite scholarly research around representation in health, social work, environmental policy and other fields, representative bureaucracy has not fully used the theoretical and empirical findings from these fields to inform its own body of knowledge. Reviewing research from policy subfield experts can enhance our understanding of the benefits and limits of bureaucratic representation. This can allow us to (i) better understand how representation shapes service outcomes in less explored policy fields, (ii) identify gaps in empirical evidence, (iii) identify shortcomings in the current methodology and understanding, and (iv) identify future directions for the field. We review existing theoretical and empirical work across health services and environmental justice to find new ways of conceptualizing the benefits, mechanisms, and limits of a representative workforce. In conceptualizing representation, the paper's primary focus is on workforce demography, specifically gender and minoritized identities. These two subfields were selected for several reasons. Administrative actors in both fields exercise considerable discretion linked to salient identities. Further, health and environmental inequities experienced by marginalized groups have long been acknowledged and actively prioritized by scholars and practitioners in these fields. We find key areas of overlap and differences between the subfields and representative bureaucracy. We use these areas of overlap and difference to better understand current limitations and direct new areas of research in the field of representative bureaucracy.
