Descriptive and Substantive Representation in the White House

• In Event: Presidential Appointments

Abstract

Scholars have long debated the efficacy of descriptive representation in both legislatures and street-level bureaucracies. Little-to-no work has investigated diversity in the presidency and its implications. Presidents retain almost complete control of the hiring of their most immediate 300-500 employees. Using new data on White House staff employment and diversity between 1993-2023, we investigate both the selection and direct policy output of the presidency. We examine two key labor pools for the selection of White House aides -- Congress and the federal bureaucracy -- and report factors which lead to the hiring of more diverse presidential staff. We find, inkeeping with expectations, that Democratic presidents have much more diverse White House staffs, and that they tend to elevate and pay people with under-represented backgrounds more than their Republican counterparts. We then examine the within-administration policy output of the White House, distinguishing between "symbolic" and "substantive" actions. Our findings will shed light on the critical question: does diversifying the White House lead to substantive gains for under-represented communities, or are those gains purely symbolic?

Authors

• Kenneth Lowande, University of Michigan

• Karla Magaña, University of Michigan