Individual Submission Summary
Share...

Direct link:

Does Symbolic Representation Differ in Bureaucratic and Political Contexts?

Fri, September 6, 8:00 to 9:30am, Marriott Philadelphia Downtown, 412

Abstract

Symbolic representation has been widely discussed as a means to achieve social equity in both bureaucratic and political contexts. Research has shown that the mere presence of individuals from specific social groups, often those who are socially disadvantaged, in public bureaucracy and political office can result in benefits for the citizens they represent, such as increased trust, willingness to collaborate, and ultimately more effective policy outcomes, without any action taken by the bureaucratic or political representatives. However, it is not well understood how such descriptive representation in bureaucratic or political positions translates into benefits for the represented. Does symbolic representation work differently between bureaucratic and political institutions? If so, what shapes the different mechanisms of symbolic representation? This study aims to answer these questions by systematically reviewing the literature on representative bureaucracy and political representation of various socially disadvantaged groups and applying legitimacy theory to explain the impact of symbolic representation. Our argument is that symbolic representation operates differently between bureaucratic and political institutions due to the different mechanisms by which bureaucratic and political representatives gain legitimacy from the public they represent. Therefore, the symbolic effects of bureaucratic and political representation differ in terms of citizen trust, satisfaction, cooperation, and coproduction. To test our hypotheses, we conducted a meta-analysis of all quantitative studies on bureaucratic and political symbolic representation. This study contributes to the literature on representative bureaucracy by distinguishing the mechanism of bureaucratic symbolic representation as distinct from its political counterpart.

Authors