Women in Public Policy and Public Administration? Karen Johnston, Faculty of Business and Law University of Portsmouth Richmond Building Portland Street Portsmouth PO1 3DE Keywords: gender, equality, representation, representative bureaucracy, public administration Abstract This article explores the persistence of gender inequality in public administration in the UK and globally. The implications for the continued under-representation of women are explored. The data reveals vertical and horizontal occupational gender segregation, which the article argues, drawing upon representative bureaucracy research, has policy outcomes for beneficiaries of public services. Impact The recent social movement campaigns and media coverage about sexual violence against women (e.g. MeToo) has highlighted the prevalence of this egregious issue; the publication of the gender pay gaps in UK organizations despite the Equal Pay Act (1970) demonstrates continued inequalities; and as this article demonstrates the data on women in public administration reveals the persistence of gender inequality in public sector employment. This has implications for public administration institutions. The article argues that the lack of representation of women and other minorities has policy outcomes for the legitimacy, trust, integrity in public institutions, and public policy productivities and performance (Kingsley, 1944; Epp et al, 2014; Riccucci, Van Ryzin and Lavena, 2014; Peters, Schröter and von Maravic, 2015; Hong, 2016a; 2016b). Introduction: Women in Public Policy and Public Administration? There is persistent under-representation of women in public administration as secondary data reveals that across the globe there is variance in the representation of women within public sector organizations (see Figure 1). Central and Eastern Europe have relatively high rates of female representation in public administration institutions. This is explained by the communist legacy of the feminization of the workforce, women’s higher educational attainment, state support for childcare and an egalitarian approach to female labour force participation (Pollert, 2005). The under-representation of women also reflects the paucity in female careers to leadership and senior decision-making positions (see Figure 2). So, while Ukraine may have 75% representation of women within the ranks of its public administration only 13% of women are represented in senior leadership levels and similarly in Russia where 71% of women are employed only 13% of women have reached leadership positions within its public administration (Ernst and Young, 2013). Other countries such as South Africa and Botswana are approaching parity in terms of overall representation of women in leadership positions. In the case of South Africa this is largely due to affirmative action policies and in Botswana the investment in education and public administration. As expected in more patriarchal cultures such as those of the Middle East the role of women in paid employment is restricted or even prohibited due to socio-cultural and religious mores. In liberal democracies with traditions of greater equality such as the UK, Belgium, France, Netherlands and Germany there is an under-representation of women in public administration, despite decades of equality legislation and European Union (EU) policy directives. The lack of female representation in these countries is partly explained by a number of factors. In many of these countries there is a significant pay differential between public and private sectors. For example, in Germany women in the public sector can expect to earn 23% less than their male colleagues (Ernst and Young, 2013; Eurostat, 2018). Other factors which affect female paid employment and labour market participation is the relatively high level of childcare costs (Ernst and Young, 2013); poor policy implementation of equality policy (Stratigaki, 2005); and extant masculine organizational cultures reinforced by Anglo-Saxon public administration reforms of New Public Management (NPM) (Stivers, 2002). [insert Figure 1 and 2 about here] The paper argues that women remain under-represented and under-employed in many public institutions of administration with implications for public policy and service delivery. The paper therefore first outlines the research method used to provide evidence for the argument. Second, the paper provides a review of extant research and literature on representative bureaucracy to substantiate the argument. Finally, the paper concludes with a research agenda and the view that the continued under-representation of women (and other minorities) in public bureaucracies undermines the performance and trust in public institutions. Research Method The research method for the paper involved a comprehensive review of secondary data on the representation of women in public administration and a systematic literature review (see Denyer and Transfield, 2009) of representative bureaucracy research. The secondary data collection on the descriptive representation of women in public administration involved searches on websites of national governments, supranational organizations, and third sector and consultancy reports. The website searches involved collating data on the representation of women from datasets available from the UNDP, OECD, World Bank, European Commission, national government offices (e.g. South African Public Service Commission, UK Office of National Statistics), and publicly available reports (e.g. Fawcett Society, Ernst and Young) using the search terms: ‘female’; ‘women’; ‘representation’; ‘government’; ‘public administration’; ‘public sector’; ‘public management’ and/or ‘public leadership’. While there was readily available data on female representation in legislatures there was less data on female representation in public administration. The collated data is represented in the figures and tables within this paper. The systematic literature review first involved a literature search on the representative bureaucracy from Google Scholar, Emeraldinsight, Ingenta, JSTOR, ProQuest, ScienceDirect, Wiley Online Library and Web of Science. The search was limited to English-language books, book chapters and double-blind peer-reviewed journal publications to ensure the inclusion of robust empirical research. The first stage of systematic literature review examined year of publication; title; author(s); research focus; methodology; context of the study and research findings. It was observed that much of the research emanated from the United States of America (US) within the education sector and focused on African-Americans as a minority demographic group. The second stage of the systematic literature review was to categorize the research findings. An analysis of the research revealed three categories of research findings: (1) service outcomes for beneficiaries of representative bureaucracies; (2) legitimacy, trust and integrity of bureaucracies through improved representation; and (3) productivities and performance of representative bureaucracies. This categorization of the research is reviewed and discussed within this paper under sub-headings. The final stage of the systematic literature review was to assess the research gaps and suggest a research agenda. Female Representation in Public Administration The lack of female representation in public administrations reveals vertical and horizontal occupational gender segregation. Vertical occupational gender segregation is often referred to as ‘glass ceilings’ where women struggle to reach leadership and senior decision-making positions (McTavish and Miller, 2006). In many public bureaucracies women tend to be concentrated in lower level and lower paid positions within the public sector hierarchy with paucity in career trajectories to the upper echelons (McTavish and Miller, 2006). Horizontal occupational gender segregation is when women are concentrated in specific sectors or professions of public administrations such as education and health sectors. This is referred to as ‘glass walls’ with women stereotypically associated with feminine professions such as caring roles (Guy and Newman 2004; Kerr et al 2002). There is also intra-professional gender segregation. For example, in the medical profession women tend to be concentrated in general practice careers, while men in careers perceived to be more prestigious such as surgery (Miller and Clark, 2008). The result of occupational gender segregation is often the under-value and under-employment of women. A case in point is UK public administration. In terms of vertical occupational gender segregation women constitute 31% of civil service permanent secretaries, 40% of the senior civil service, 33% of local government chief executives, 28% of university vice-chancellors, 38% of secondary head teachers and 43% of National Health Service (NHS) chief executives (Fawcett Society, 2018). The data reveals paucity of female career progression to leadership positions despite the fact that the overall number of female employees in UK public administration since 2001 outnumbered men (Fawcett Society, 2018). Despite the headcount number of female employees accounting for 68% of the UK public sector workforce (see Table 1), women face barriers to attaining leadership positions. Similarly, in local government where women constitute 78% and in the NHS 77% of the workforce women struggle to reach leadership positions (Fawcett Society, 2018). In terms of horizontal occupational gender segregation, women tend to be concentrated in health, education and social care with high proportion of the workforce being women. As Table 2 demonstrates the UK civil service has approached gender parity, but a disaggregation of data reveals that women are less represented in the Cabinet Office, Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Chancellor’s departments which are Great Offices of State; departments of Defense, International Trade and Transport; and regulatory agencies such as Food Standards Agency, National Crime Agency, Office of Rail and Road, and UK Export Finance. These types great offices and regulatory agencies are often associated with masculinity (see Newman, 1995). The secondary data provides descriptive statistics on the lack of female representation at leadership levels and in certain sectors and professions in public administration. What are the possible explanations for vertical and horizontal occupational gender segregation? [insert Tables 1 and 2 about here] Barriers to Female Representation in Public Administration Much has been written about the barriers to women in organizations and progression to leadership positions and in professions. The barriers range from discrimination, prejudice, harassment, stereotyping gender roles, work-life conflicts, unconscious bias, to organizational culture, structures, and processes such as performance evaluation regimes and some reforms. The barriers to women in employment stem mainly from the social construction of gender in society (Walby, 1989). Gender is the societal values assigned to biological sex categories of male and female (Walby, 1989). Sex roles are translated into gender roles in society and the workplace (Rhode, 2003). Gender involves values and qualities attributed to masculinity or femininity (Duerst-Lahti and Kelly 1995). Women’s femininity is associated with their reproductive, maternal, caring and domestic roles (Gamble et al, 2006; Hakim, 2004). In most societies the social construction of sex creates gender roles where a patriarchal power structure is maintained (Nicolson 1996). Most societies value patriarchy with men in positions of power and women in subordinate roles. According to King (1995) societies value masculine behaviours of assertiveness, aggression and leadership above feminine values associated with nurturance, submissiveness and dependence. Some observers argue that public life is considered the domain of men with women excluded or regarded as ‘other’ (Duerst-Lahti and Kelly, 1995; Mazur and Pollock, 2009). Public administrations like any other organization are gendered since the organizational dominance of men and control of power is to the disadvantage of women (Duerst-Lahti and Kelly, 1995; Ferguson, 1985; Kelly and Newman, 2001; Savage and Witz, 1992). King (1995) has identified four ways in which masculine power manifests in public administrations: (1) organizations are the domain of men because men are more likely to be leaders; (2) organizations are the masculine domain since expectations about gender is embedded in culture which leads to a preference for the masculine over the feminine; (3) the state is a masculine domain and therefore governance, politics and the administrative state reflects the cultural preference for masculine over feminine; and (4) leadership and management is a masculine domain since society’s cultural preference for masculine can be seen in definitions of leadership such as being assertive and aggressive. Organizations value masculinity and associated agentic behaviours such aggression, assertiveness, control, ambition, dominance, forcefulness, independence, self-confidence, and competitiveness (Eagly et al, 2001). In an organizational context agentic behaviours include speaking assertively, competing, influencing and making problem-solving suggestions are valued (Eagly et al, 2001:783). Men who display agentic behaviours in organizations are valued and rewarded. While femininity associated with communal behaviours such as having concern for others, being helpful, kind, sympathetic, having interpersonal sensitivity, and being nurturing and gentle is less valued by organizations (Eagly et al, 2001:783). Studies have shown reward systems and work processes which privilege masculine traits and male working patterns reinforce organizational masculinity (Maier, 1999; Sheridan, 2004). Much of the barriers to women’s vertical and horizontal career progression in public administrations stems from the social construction of the biological categories of sex with masculinity being valued. The outcomes of the lack of representation in public administrations is demonstrated by extant research of representative bureaucracies. Representative Bureaucracy Representative Bureaucracy Theory The theory of representative bureaucracy distinguishes between passive and active representation (Mosher, 1982). Passive representation refers to the extent to which a public institution includes individuals from demographic groups such as women, racial and ethnic minorities within the ranks of the bureaucratic organization (Bradbury and Kellough, 2011). Passive representation is the extent to which the public bureaucracy employs the proportionate share of population demography within its ranks (Riccucci and Saidel, 1997). Active representation as when a bureaucrat ‘stands for’ a demographic group by virtue of connection, resemblance and reflection (Pitkin, 1967:61). Thus the bureaucrat, consciously or unconsciously, ensures a citizen or group’s interests with shared demographic identity included in policy-making (Bradbury and Kellough, 2011). The advocacy of citizens by bureaucrats of the same demographic group in the policy process is to ensure decisions benefit these citizens or is actively represented (Hindera, 1993; Keiser et al, 2002; Sowa and Seldon, 2003). For active representation to take place, passive representation has to be present. Bureaucrats of the same demographic background as citizens they serve are influenced by socialization experiences and the development of values, attitudes and opinions, which influence their policy decisions (Bradbury and Kellough, 2007; Meier, 1993; Saltzstein, 1979). According to Meier and Nigro (1976:458) bureaucratic attitudes and values are determined by their social environment. When bureaucrats and the public share value orientation then bureaucrats will pursue and advocate courses of action for those citizens (Meier and Nigro, 1976). A number of studies have shown that passive representation with active representation has beneficial outcomes for minority groups (Brudney, Herbet and Wright, 2000; Dolan, 2000; Dolan and Rosenbloom, 2003; Hindera, 1993; Hindera and Young, 1998; Keiser et al, 2002; Meier, 1975; Meier and Nicolson-Crotty, 2006; Rehfuss, 1986; Riccucci, 1987; Riccucci and Saidel, 1997; Saltzstein, 1983; 1986; Selden, Brudney and Kellough, 1998; Thielemann and Stewart, 1996; Weldon, 2002; Wilkins, 2006; Wilkins and Keiser, 2004; Wise, 2003). Representative Bureaucracy: Outcomes Meier, Stewart and England (1990) empirically demonstrated that as the number of African- American teachers increased across public school districts (passive representation), the inequitable segregation of African-American students into lower ability tracks and disciplinary measures decreased (active representation). Further studies by Meier and Stewart (1992) and Meier (1993) of other US school districts reached similar conclusions. Meier, Wrinkle and Polinard (1999) also found that in 350 school districts in the US both minority and non-minority students perform better in the presence of a representative bureaucracy. They concluded that the increased presence of African-American and Latino teachers did not have detrimental outcomes for white students and that both minority and majority groups benefitted in school performance by higher levels of minority representation. Similarly, Riccucci (2002) found that diversity in public sector organizations has beneficial outcomes for minority and majority groups from improved organizational performance. Research by Wilkins (2006) and Wilkins and Keiser (2004) found that female child support enforcement supervisors provided active representation to female clients who directly benefitted from increased child support collections. Keiser et al’s (2002) research of female administrators and teachers in schools found that there were higher test scores and advance placement rates for girls since female bureaucrats identified with their sex as opposed to the organization. Bradbury and Kellough (2007:712) similarly found that attitude congruence between African-American bureaucrats and citizens proved to be a powerful predictor for active representation. Thus, attitudes and values shaped by socialization, as opposed to adherence to bureaucratic organizational norms, was important to active representation. Extant research that has empirically demonstrated the benefits of representative bureaucracies have found that there are factors which enable passive representation to be translated in active representation. Meier’s (1993) study concluded that representation is enhanced when there is political support and a critical mass of representation. Critical mass concerns the proportionality of representation (Kanter 1977). Kanter (1977) in her research of men and women in organizations found that an organization can have skewed representation when a majority group has preponderance over another; tilted representation occurs when ratio of majority to minority is closer; and balanced representation when there is equal proportionality between groups. Kanter (1977) found that organizations have mostly skewed representation with ‘dominants’ and ‘tokens’. Kanter (1977) argued that women were ‘tokens’ in organizations as they were regarded as ‘different’ and risked exclusion from the dominant group (men) if they did not conform or where perceived to be disloyal (Kanter, 1977). Kanter (1977) argued that women’s relative ‘newness’ in the labour market and workplace required adjustment from men in the organization, but as women become a more ‘fixed’ presence and increased in number in the workplace, men would learn to accommodate women in the organization. Kanter (1977) therefore argued for a critical mass of representation where women’s representation in the workplace and organization increased to the extent the ‘skew-ness’ was addressed. Hindera and Young (1998) found that critical mass was a factor for active representation. They found that within US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) district offices there was an over-representation of minorities, which created a critical mass. Critical mass created an opportunity for cross-socialization with one group of bureaucrats affecting other’s decision making (Hindera and Young, 1998:664). Hindera and Young (1998:668) showed that when: (1) the situational critical mass threshold was not exceeded, active representation could not take place; (2) critical mass was exceeded but there was no plurality of African-Americans, active representation emanated from passive representation at a basic level of policy implementation; (3) there is plurality but no majority of African-Americans, active representation results from passive representation from both African-American and white bureaucrats; and (4) African-Americans constitute a majority or is the dominant group in the organization, there is a hyper-responsiveness of active representation. However, much of the research on critical mass and representative bureaucracies aggregate findings for the organization or examines to critical mass at one level of a public organizations such as street level (see Lipsky, 1980). Few studies have attempted to disaggregate outcomes of representative bureaucracy at various levels of the organizational hierarchy. For example, while Andrews and Johnston Miller (2013) found active representation of women by female police officers at lower levels of the police hierarchy, Johnston and Houston (2018) found that active representation of women at leadership levels of the police did not hold true. Another factor that influences active representation is discretion (Meier and Bohte, 2001). A study by Thielemann and Stewart (1996) found that there was beneficial provision of services to people living with AIDS at the level where bureaucrats and citizens interact. At street-level discretionary power enabled active representation (Keiser et al, 2002:556). Meier (1993) argues that bureaucracies which are more rule-bound, active representation is restricted as bureaucrats have fewer opportunities to shape services to benefit a particular minority group. Research by Seldon (1997) and Seldon, Brudney and Kellough (1998) also found discretion to be an important factor in the translation of passive to active representation. They found that within the US Department of Agriculture the Farmers’ Home Administration Rural Housing Loan Program, African-Americans were awarded a larger proportion of loans in districts with a higher number of African-American county supervisors. Sowa and Seldon (2003) found that minority supervisors in the Farmers’ Home Administration Rural Housing Loan Program would actively represent minorities if there were administrative discretion and minority role identification with the citizens. Furthermore, there were beneficial outcomes for a minority group when traditional bureaucratic rule adherence and standard operating procedure compliance were superseded (Sowa and Seldon, 2003). Keiser et al (2002: 562) found that policy salience was important for active representation. They argued that active representation of women occurs when female bureaucrats identify with the women as clients of public services and when the policy issue influences the client-bureaucratic relationship (Keiser et al, 2002:556). A policy issue is gendered or regarded as ‘women’s issues’ when: (1) the policy directly benefits women as a class; (2) the gender of the bureaucrat changes the client-bureaucratic relationship; or (3) the issue is identified as a women’s issue by the political class (Keiser et al, 2002). Sexual violence is considered a gendered policy issue and more likely that female bureaucrats would act in the interests of female victims (Andrews and Johnston Miller, 2013). A study by Meier and Nicholson-Crotty (2006) for example found that a larger percentage of female police officers were associated with a greater willingness among women as clients to report sexual assaults. There was evidence of active representation with higher sexual assault arrest rates by female police officers. Meier and Nicholson-Crotty (2006) concluded that female police officers shared a set of values about the seriousness of rape because they had a common set of gender related experiences (Meier and Nicholson-Crotty, 2006:858). A similar study by Andrews and Johnston Miller (2013) empirically proved that where there were higher levels of passive representation for women at street-level in English police forces there was a higher arrest rate for domestic violence. Collectively the research demonstrated that passive representation of women had resulted in improved service delivery for women as victims of sexual violence. As mentioned above socialization and group identification is important in translating passive to active representation. However, identification and socialization can be mediated by organizational socialization (Johnston and Houston, 2018). Organizational context, structure, hierarchy, rules and regulations and norms may depersonalize relationships making bureaucrats less likely to identify with groups outside the bureaucracy (Ferguson, 1985; Keiser et al, 2002). Keiser et al (2002: 557- 562) found that representative bureaucracy worked better for females in less hierarchical organizations. Keiser et al (2002:563) conclude that ‘for those seeking to increase active representation on the basis of gender, attention must be paid to not only increasing overall passive representation but also the structure of the organization and the representation at upper levels of the organization.’ Similarly, Johnston and Houston’s (2018) research found that senior female police officers, socialized in a masculine police organizational culture, adopted masculine values and norms, and were less likely to actively represent women in addressing sexual violence. Kim (2003) research also found organizational socialization an important factor, which could affect active representation. Kim’s (2003) study of the passive representation of women in the US Senior Executive Service (SES) showed that the allocation of line-item budgets benefitted women and minorities in the presidential request budget for the period 1979 to 1999. Kim (2003:556) argues that passive representation was necessary, but not sufficient since organizational socialization, recruitment processes, organizational rules and peer pressure restrain bureaucrats of certain demographics and social backgrounds from exercising active representation. Kim (2003) concludes that street-level bureaucrats are subject to less organizational socialization and will use their discretion at this level to advocate the interests of those who share the same demographic origins. Dolan’s (2000; 2001; 2004) studies of female passive representation in the SES also found that men and women held comparable responsibilities with women rating their influence of over policy in distributive agencies higher than those of men. Dolan (2001) found that the policy preferences of women in the SES was congruent with those of women as a minority group, suggesting that organizational socialization did not eroded SES women in senior positions from actively representing women. In a later study, Dolan (2004:305) argued that distributive agencies were more conducive to female leadership and women progressed in these organizations by adopting strategies that worked for men. Another study by Rehfuss (1986) on the representation of women and minorities in executive positions of the California career civil service found women and minorities appear to share a ‘management ideology’ with their white male counterparts. This ideology is developed during organizational socialization and works against active representation (Rehfuss, 1986:459). Wilkins and Williams’ (2008) study demonstrated the affect of organizational socialization on active representation. They found that African-Americans and Latinos in the San Diego Police Department were racial profiling in the case of vehicle stops. Of significance was the finding that as the presence of black police officers increased so did the racial disparity in vehicle stops (Wilkins and Williams, 2008:660). The researchers found that in a bureaucracy, such as the police, where there are high levels of formal and informal organizational socialization, it is less likely that active representation will take place (Wilkins and Williams, 2008). The extant scholarly research demonstrated that passive representation is important to the active representation of minority citizens and demographic groups. A review the research shows that critical mass, policy salience, discretionary power, and organizational structure and socialization are important factors for ensuring active representation and beneficial outcomes for recipients of public services. Representative Bureaucracy: Trust and Legitimacy In addition to beneficial service outcomes of representative bureaucracies, the extant research also demonstrates important implications for trust in public institutions. In most societies, women constitute approximately 52% of the population (UNDP, 2014), if half of a country’s population is under-represented in its institutions of public administration, arguably it is not representative of the population it serves. Kingsley (1944) first argued, when writing about the British civil service, that a bureaucracy cannot be representative of society if its public administration is disproportionately drawn from elites. Thus, the notion of a public service that serves all of the public is questionable when it does not represent the population. Public administrations that do not represent the society it serves, erodes trust and legitimacy in government (Peters, Schröter and von Maravic, 2015). Society may legitimately question whether its public administration, disproportionately drawn from one particular demographic group, can be trusted to make decisions and deliver services in the interests of society as a whole. Epp et al (2014) book entitled, ‘Pulled Over’ has shown how stop and searches by police in the US has severe implications for African-Americans’ trust and legitimacy in the police. The riots in the US after members of the African-American community were shot by the police when ‘pulled over’ is evidence of communities’ loss trust in the police to protect, serve and uphold the rule of law and justice. Similarly, research by Hong (2016a) of UK police forces showed that an increase in ethnic representation resulted in a decrease in conduct complaints against the police. Hong (2016b) argues that a representative police force that reflects the community it serves may effectively catalyze bureaucratic integrity. Riccucci, Van Ryzin and Lavena (2014) also found that increasing the number of women in domestic violence police unit, increased female perceptions of trust, fairness and job performance of the public bureaucracy. Representative Bureaucracy: Public Policy Productivities and Performance A second and related outcome of unrepresented public administration is poor policy making. If policy makers do not include a broad spectrum of the populace, then societal interests as a whole would not be included the policy process. There is an input deficit in policy making. The quality of decision-making suffers, resulting in poor policy outcomes, service delivery and public sector organizational performance (Johnston Miller and McTavish, 2014). Scholarly research has shown that more representative bureaucracies are better performing organizations. Pitts (2005; 2009) for example found that more representative bureaucracies had higher levels of job satisfaction, which impacted upon organizational performance. Andrews, Ashworth and Meier (2014) found that more representative UK fire authorities tended to be more effective organizations. Peters, et al (2015) also found that representative bureaucracy improved quality of organizational output. This is explained by the fact that diverse bureaucrats contribute a diverse set of skills, knowledge and experience to the organization (Peters et al, 2015). They argue that there is a positive association between representation and overall organizational performance (Peters et al, 2015). Hong (2016b) found that there is increased organizational efficiency from greater diversity of viewpoints or ideas within an organization and therefore a wider array of resources is available for problem solving. A longitudinal study by Fernandez and Lee (2016) of South African national public administration departments from 2006 to 2013 found that organizations which were more representative of the population, in a post-apartheid dispensation, achieved a higher percentage of organizational goals. They found empirical evidence that the more representative public bureaucracies were more effective organizations (Fernandez and Lee, 2016). Andrews and Johnston Miller (2013) showed that more representation of female police officers resulted in more domestic violence arrest rates. Riccucci (2002) and Bradbury and Kellough (2008) research also found that more representative bureaucracies tended overall to be better performing organizations. Although the benefit of representative public administrations is evident from extant research with implications for trust, legitimacy and performance, there remains a persistent lack of women and other minorities in public institutions despite legislation such as the UK Equality Act (2010) and EU gender equality policy directives (Miller, 2009). Thus, legislation in itself will not necessarily increase representation of public bureaucracies. The challenge for governments is to address the dominant masculine paradigm. Globally, governments have adopted neo-liberal public sector reforms such as NPM (Stivers, 2002) and a ‘management ideology’ (Rehfuss, 1986) in an attempt to improve the performance of the public sector. However, a paradox emerges. Governments attempts improve the performance of the public sector through NPM reforms reward and reinforce masculinity, which negates the gains of representative bureaucracies. Research is needed on the mitigating impact of public sector reforms on representation of women and minorities. Research Agenda: Improving Representation A review of secondary data and extant research reveals scope for future research to improve representation in public administration. First, there be a systematic evaluation of governments to increase the passive and active representation of women (and other minorities). In order to understand how to improve representation baseline data is needed. There is a research deficit on a global scale as well as a longitudinal analysis of the representation of women in public administrations. While the supranational bodies such as the UNDP, OECD and European Commission have raised the issue of gender equality and placed it on the policy agenda, there often lacks a sustained and systematic effort to study representation, career progression and policy outcomes for women. The collection and collation of secondary data for this paper, proved that there needs a database of female representation in public administrations across the globe over a number of years. The dataset could include data on representation at national and sub-national levels as well as types of public institutions (e.g. police). The data would prove useful for national governments and public administrations in benchmarking representation and what actions are needed to redress the lack of representation. Thus, across countries, levels of government and types of public institutions (e.g. distributive, regulatory, etc.) lessons could be learned and better practices shared. For example, the data has shown that Botswana has made gains in female representation, but beyond the descriptive analysis there should be further research on how these gains were achieved and implications for women as public sector employees and recipients of services. Similarly, at sub-national level in the UK the Scottish First Minister (a woman) has appointed a gender balanced government with a female Permanent Secretary. Here too are lessons to be learned across devolved polities of whether passive representation has resulted in active representation and the implications for women. The outcomes for women employed and as beneficiaries of types of public sector organizations (e.g. distributive versus regulatory) would offer valuable comparative data. A related and second research agenda issue is to address a research deficit of the impact of political culture and architecture on the representation of bureaucracies. There has been research, from a political science perspective, on the influence of feminist movements on public policy (see Mazur, 2002) and how political culture and architecture can enable or hinder the representation of women in public policy (Haussman et al, 2010; Chappell 2002). For example, Haussman et al’s (2010) found that the political culture and architecture creates opportunities for women’s political activism through access to multiple policy making sites; enables forum shopping which allows women to work around blockages at one level of governance to take advantage of another; and policy innovations in one jurisdiction are transferred to others. There is scope for further research on the extent to which a masculine political culture inhibits the passive and active representation of women in public sector employment as well as women as beneficiaries of public services. Similarly, research is needed on the extent to which the political architecture of a country with sub-national polities enables or inhibits passive and active representation. A third issue for a research agenda is to disaggregate organizational hierarchies and analyse intra- organisational and intra-professional representation. As mentioned previously much of the research is conducted at the lower levels of the hierarchy and within one public sector organization. More meaningful organizational interventions could be made if there was a holistic analysis of representation within organizations, professions and across public sector organizations. Furthermore, an analysis of the impact of critical mass, where it may exist, at various levels of an organization could provide a more nuanced insights of critical mass within contemporary public sector organizations. The examination of critical mass and representation at all levels of an organization would also offer opportunities for lessons to be learned and knowledge to be transferred. Finally, it is worth noting that much of the research on representation stems from the US. There is scope for comparative international studies, drawing on the suggested dataset (see above), to understand representation within contexts and cultures of various societies. Globally, policy or knowledge transfer on ways in which to improve representation in public administration is needed. Finally, while this paper focussed on the representation of women in public administration there is scope for research beyond gender or race (mostly evident from the US). Research on the lack of other minorities as well as the intersectionality of identities is needed (Breslin, Pandey and Riccucci, 2017). Conclusion The paper collated and analyzed secondary data outlining patterns of gender inequality within public administrations. Despite years of gender equality legislation and policies, particularly in liberal democracies, there remains persistent gender discrimination and occupational segregation. Moreover, the data belies egregious outcomes for women as employees and as recipients of public services. The paper also reviewed literature and extant research, which showed the beneficial outcomes of a representative bureaucracy for public sector performance, trust and legitimacy. Although the benefits of representative bureaucracy have been demonstrated by extant research, the dominant masculine paradigm in public administration mitigates these gains. As Meier (2018) argues representative bureaucracies could be a solution to improve the overall performance of public administrations. A research agenda was therefore suggested as ways to improve representation in public administration, providing opportunities to exchange knowledge of better practices with improving performance through representative public value. References: Andrews, R. and Johnston Miller, K. (2013), Representative Bureaucracy, Gender and Policing: The Case of Domestic Violence Arrests, Public Administration, 91, 4, p. 998-1014. Andrews, Ashworth and Meier (2014), Representative Bureaucracy and Fire Service Performance, International Journal of Public Management, 17, 1, p. 1-24. Bradbury, M.D., and Kellough, J.E. (2007), Representative bureaucracy: Exploring the potential for active representation, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18, p. 697- 714. Bradbury, M. and Kellough, J.E. (2011), Representative Bureaucracy: assessing the evidence on active representation, The American Review of Public Administration, 41, 2, p. 157-167. Breslin, R. A., Pandey, S., & Riccucci, N. M. (2017), Intersectionality in public leadership research: A review and future research agenda. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 37, 2, p.160-182. Brudney, J.J, Herbert, F.T and Wright, D.S. (2000), From Organizational Values to Organizational Roles: Examining Representative Bureaucracy in State Administration, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10, 3, p. 491-521. Chappell, L. (2002b), Gendering Government; Feminist Engagement with the State in Australia and Canada. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press. Denyer, D. and Tranfield, D. (2009), Producing a Systematic Review in D. Buchanan (ed.) The Sage Handbook of Organizational Research Methods, London: Sage. Dolan, J. (2000), The Senior Executive Service: Gender, Attitudes, and Representative Bureaucracy, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10, 3, p. 513-529. Dolan, J. (2001), Women in the Executive Branch: A Review Essay of Their Political Impact and Career Opportunities, Women & Politics, 22, 4, p. 89-104. Dolan, J. (2004), Gender Equity: Illusion or Reality for Women in the Federal Executive Service, Public Administration Review, 64, 3, p. 299-308. Dolan, J. and Rosenbloom, D.H. (eds.) (2003), Representative Bureaucracy: Classic Readings and Continuing Controversies. Armonk, N.Y.: M.E. Sharpe. Duerst-Lahti, G. and Kelly, R.M. (ed.) (1995), Gender, Power, Leadership and Governance, Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press. Eagly, A.H. and Johannesen-Schmidt, M.C. (2001), The Leadership Styles of Women and Men, Journal of Social Issues, 57, 4, p. 781-797. Epp, C.R., Maynard-Moody, S. and Haider-Markel, D. (2014), Pulled Over, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Ernst and Young, (2013), Worldwide Index of Women as Public Sector Leaders, New York: EYGM Ltd. Eurostat (2018), Gender Pay Gap, http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/data/database, accessed 18 June 2018. Fawcett Society (2018) Sex and Power, https://www.fawcettsociety.org.uk/Handlers/Download.ashx?IDMF=ea2cb329-e6e0-4e0f- 8a0b-5022f99bc915, accessed 22 June 2018. Fernandez, S. and Lee, H. (2016), The transformation of the South African Public Service: exploring impact of racial and gender representation on organizational effectiveness, Journal of Modern African Studies, 54, 1, p. 91-116. Ferguson, K. E. (1985), The Feminist Case Against Bureaucracy, Philadelphia: Temple University Press. http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/data/database https://www.fawcettsociety.org.uk/Handlers/Download.ashx?IDMF=ea2cb329-e6e0-4e0f-8a0b-5022f99bc915 https://www.fawcettsociety.org.uk/Handlers/Download.ashx?IDMF=ea2cb329-e6e0-4e0f-8a0b-5022f99bc915 Gamble, R., Lewis, S. and Rapoport, R. (2006), The Myth of Work-life Balance: The Challenge of our time for Men, Women and Societies, Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Guy, M.E. and Newman, M.A. (2004), Women’s Jobs, Men's Jobs: Sex Segregation and Emotional Labor, Public Administration Review, 64, 3, p. 289-298. Hakim, C. (2004), Key Issues in Women’s Work, London: Glasshouse Press. Haussman, M., Sawer, M. and Vickers, J. (eds.) (2010), Federalism, Feminism and Multilevel Governance. Farnham: Ashgate. Hindera, J. J. (1993), Representative bureaucracy: Further evidence of active representation in the EEOC district offices, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 3, p. 415-430. Hindera, J.J. and Young, C.D. (1998), Representative Bureaucracy: The Theoretical Implications of Statistical Interaction, Political Research Quarterly, 51, 3, p. 655-671. Hong, S. (2016a), Does increasing Ethnic Representativeness Reduce Police Misconduct?, Public Administration Review, 77, 2, p. 195-205. Hong, S. (2016b), Representative bureaucracy, organizational integrity, and citizen coproduction: Does an increase in police ethnic representativeness reduce crime?, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 35, 1, p. 11-33. Johnston, K., and Houston, J. (2018), Representative bureaucracy: does female police leadership affect gender-based violence arrests?, International Review of Administrative Sciences, 84, 1, p. 3-20. Johnston Miller, K. and McTavish, D. (2014), Representative bureaucracy: A typology of normative institutional strategies for the representation of women, Policy & Politics, 42, 4, p. 531-546. Kanter, R.M. (1977), Men and Women of the Corporation, New York: Basic Books. Keiser, L.R., Wilkins, V.M., Meier, K.J. and Holland, C. (2002), Lipstick and Logarithms: Gender, Institutional Context, and Representative Bureaucracy, American Political Science Review, 96, 3, p. 553-564. Kelly, R.M. and Newman, M. (2001), The Gendered Bureaucracy: Agency Mission, Equality of Opportunity, and Representative Bureaucracies, Women & Politics, 22, 3, p. 1-33. Kerr, B., Miller, W. and Reid, M. (2002), Sex Based Occupational Segregation in the US State Bureaucracies 1987-97, Public Administration Review, 6, 4, p. 412-423. Kim, C.K. (2003), Representation and Policy Outputs: examining the linkage between passive and active representation, Public Personnel Management, 32, 4, p. 549-559. King, C.S. (1995), Sex-Role Identity and Decision Styles: How Gender Helps Explain the Paucity of Women at the Top in G. Duest-Lahti and R.M Kelly (eds.), Gender, Power, Leadership and Governance, Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press. Kingsley, J.D. (1944), Representative Bureaucracy. Yellow Springs, OH: Antioch Press. Lipsky, M. (1980), Street-level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services. New York: Russell Sage. Maier, M. (1999), On the gendered substructure of organizations: dimensions and dilemmas of corporate masculinity in Powell, G. (ed.), Handbook of Gender & Work, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Mazur, A.G. (2002), Theorizing Feminist Policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mazur, A. G. and Pollock, M.A. (2009), Gender and Public Policy in Europe, Comparative European Politics, 9,1, p.1-11. McTavish, D. and Miller, K. (eds.) (2006), Women in Leadership and Management, New Horizons in Management Series Editor: Cary L. Cooper, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Meier, K.J. (1975), Representative Bureaucracy: An Empirical Analysis, The American Political Science Review, 69, 2, p. 526-542. Meier, K.J. (1993), Latinos and Representative Bureaucracy: Testing the Thompson and Henderson Hypotheses, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 3, 4, p. 393- 414. Meier, K.J. and Bohte, J. (2001), Structure and Discretion: Missing Links in Representative Bureaucracy, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 11, 4, p. 455-470. Meier, K.J. and Nicholson-Crotty, J. (2006), Gender, Representative Bureaucracy, and Law Enforcement: The Case of Sexual Assault, Public Administration Review, 66, 6, p. 850-860. Meier, K.J. and Nigro, L. G. (1976), Representative Bureaucracy and Policy Preferences: A Study in Attitudes of Federal Executives, Public Administration Review, 36, 4, p. 458-69. Meier, K.J. and O’Toole, L.J. Jnr. (2006), Bureaucracy in a Democratic State, Baltimore MD: John Hopkins University Press. Meier, K.J. and Stewart, J, Jr. (1992), The Impact of Representative Bureaucracies: Educational Systems and Public Policies, American Review of Public Administration, 22, 3, p. 157-171. Meier, K.J., Stewart, J. and England, R.E. (1990), Race, class and education: the politics of second generation discrimination. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. Meier, K.J., Wrinkle, R.D. and Polinard, J.L. (1999), Representative Bureaucracy and Distributional Equity: addressing the hard questions, Journal of Politics, 61, 4, p. 1025-1039. Meier, K. J. (2018), Theoretical Frontiers in Representative Bureaucracy: New Directions for Research, Perspectives on Public Management and Governance, 1, 1, p. 1-18 Miller, K. (2009), Public policy dilemma—gender equality mainstreaming in UK policy formulation, Public Money & Management, 29 1, p. 43-50. Miller, K. and Clark, D. (2008), “Knife before wife”: An exploratory study of gender and the UK medical profession, Journal of Health Organization and Management, 22, 3, p. 238-253. Mosher, F. (1982), Democracy and the public service, 2nd ed., New York: Oxford University Press. Newman, M. A. (1995), The Gendered Nature of Lowi’s Typology; or, Who Would Guess You Could Find Gender Here? in G. Duerst-Lahti and R.M. Kelly (eds.) Gender Power, Leadership, and Governance, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Nicolson, P. (1996), Gender, Power and Organization, London: Routledge. Office of National Statistics (2018), Civil Service employment; by department, profession and gender,https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/publicsectorpersonn el/adhocs/005344civilserviceemploymentbydepartmentprofessionandgender, accessed 22 June 2018. Peters, B. Guy, Schröter, E. and von Maravic, P. (eds.) (2015), Politics of Representative Bureaucracy: power, legitimacy and performance, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Pitkin, H.F. (1967), The Concept of Representation, Berkeley: University of California Press. Pitts, D.W. (2005), Diversity Representation and Performance: Evidence About Race and Ethnicity in Public Organizations, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15, 4, p. 615-631. Pitts, D.W. (2009), Diversity management, job satisfaction and performance: evidence from US federal agencies, Public Administration Review, 69, 2, p. 328-338. Pollert, A. (2005), Gender, Transformation and Employment in Central and Eastern Europe, European Journal of Industrial Relations, 11, 2, p. 213-230 Rehfuss, J.A. (1986), A Representative Bureaucracy? Women and Minority Executives in California Career Service, Public Administration Review, 46, 5, p. 454-460. Rhode, D.L. (ed.) (2003), The Difference ‘Difference’ Makes: Women and Leadership, Stanford: Stanford University Press. Riccucci, N. (2002), Managing Diversity in Public Sector Workforces, New York: Westview. Riccucci, N.M. (1987), Black Employment in Municipal Workforces, Public Administration Quarterly, 11, 1, p. 76-89. Riccucci, N.M. and Saidel, J.R. (1997), The Representativeness of State-Level Bureaucratic Leaders: A Missing Piece of the Representative Bureaucracy Puzzle, Public Administration Review, 57, 5, p. 423-430. Riccucci, N. M., Van Ryzin, G. G. and Lavena, C. F. (2014), Representative bureaucracy in policing: Does it increase perceived legitimacy?, Journal of public administration research and theory, 2, 3, p. 537-551. Saltzstein, G.H. (1979), Representative Bureaucracy and Bureaucratic Responsibility: Problems and Prospects, Administration and Society, 10, 4, p. 464–75. Saltzstein, G.H. (1983), Personnel Directors and Female Employment Representation: A New Addition to Models of Equal Opportunity Policy?, Social Science Quarterly, 64, 4, p. 734-746. Savage, M. and Witz, A. (eds.) (1992), Gender and Bureaucracy, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. Selden, S.C. (1997), The Promise of Representative Bureaucracy, Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe. Selden, S.C., Brudney, J.L. and Kellough, J.E. (1998), Bureaucracy as a Representative Institution: Toward a Reconciliation of Bureaucratic Government and Democratic Theory, American Journal of Political Science, 42, 3, p. 717-744. Sheridan, A. (2004), Chronic Presenteeism: The Multiple Dimensions to Men’s Absence from Part-Time Work, Gender, Work and Organization, 11, 2, p. 207-225. Sowa, J.E. and Selden, S.C. (2003), Administrative Discretion and Active Representation: An Expansion of the Theory of Representative Bureaucracy, Public Administration Review, 63, 6, p. 700-710. Stivers, C. (2002), Gender Images in Public Administration: Legitimacy and the Administrative State, Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications. Stratigaki, M. (2005), Gender Mainstreaming vs. Positive Action, European Journal of Women Studies, 12, 2, p. 165-186. Thielemann, G.S. and Stewart, J. (1996), A Demand-Side Perspective on the Importance of Representative Bureaucracy: AIDS, Ethnicity, Gender, and Sexual Orientation, Public Administration Review, 56, 2, p. 168-173. UNDP (2014), Gender Equality in Public Administration, New York: UNDP. Walby, S. (1989), Theorizing Patriarchy, Sociology, 23, 2, p. 213-234. Weldon, S. (2002), Beyond Bodies: Institutional Sources of Representation for Women in Democratic Policymaking, The Journal of Politics, 64, 4, p. 1153-1174. Wilkins, V. M. (2006), Exploring the Causal Story: Gender, Active Representation, and Bureaucratic Priorities, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 17, 1, p.77-94. Wilkins, V.M. and Keiser, L.R. (2004), Linking Passive and Active Representation by Gender: The Case of Child Support Agencies, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16, 1, p.87-102. Wilkins, V., and Williams, B. (2008), Black or Blue: Racial Profiling and Representative Bureaucracy, Public Administration Review, 68, 4, p. 654–664. Wise, L.R. (2003), Representative Bureaucracy in B.G. Peters and J. Pierre (eds.), Handbook of Public Administration, Thousand Oaks, California: Sage. Figure 1: Percentage of Female Representation in Public Administrations (2010 – 2015) Sources: Ernst & Young (2013); European Commission (2016); UNDP (2014) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Figure 2: Percentage of Female Public Administration Leaders Sources: Ernst & Young (2013); European Commission (2016); UNDP (2014) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Table 1: Gender Representation in UK Public Sector (2015) Public sector employment by gender: Headcount Male Female Total 1,722 3,637 5,359 32% 68% Part time public sector employment by gender: Headcount1 Male Female Total 244 1,874 2,118 12% 88% 1: Public Sector Employment Survey: part time is defined as working less than the organisation's normal weekly hours. Source: Office for National Statistics (2018) Table 2: Gender Representation of UK Civil Service (2017) Senior Civil Service Level Grade 6 and 7 Senior and Higher Executive Officers Executive Officers Administrative Officers and Assistants Male Female % Female Male Female % Female Male Female % Female Male Female % Female Male Female % Female Total % Fema le Attorney General's Departments 120 120 50% 241 50% Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy 200 160 44% 360 44% Cabinet Office 110 80 42% 190 42% Other Cabinet Office agencies 60 50 45% 120 110 48% 140 180 56% 50 70 58% 20 30 60% 832 53% Chancellor's other departments 40 20 33% 50 50 50% 80 60 43% 30 20 40% 0 10 100% 362 44% Charity Commission 0 0 0% 20 20 50% 80 80 50% 30 50 63% 10 10 50% 302 53% Communities and Local Government 50 40 44% 450 360 44% 370 380 51% 160 170 52% 100 130 57% 2,212 49% Culture, Media and Sport 20 30 60% 120 130 52% 100 130 57% 50 60 55% 0 10 100% 652 55% Defence 280 90 24% 3,420 1,430 29% 11,660 6,640 36% 5,570 3,880 41% 10,89 0 8,010 42% 51,87 1 39% Department for Exiting the EU 20 10 33% 40 50 56% 30 30 50% 10 20 67% .. .. 212 52% Department for International Trade 50 40 44% 230 160 41% 250 160 39% 80 70 47% 20 30 60% 1,092 42% Education 80 120 60% 780 960 55% 890 1,330 60% 400 600 60% 60 130 68% 5,352 59% Environment, Food and Rural Affairs 60 50 45% 560 420 43% 1,240 1,250 50% 670 870 56% 610 1,100 64% 6,832 54% ESTYN .. .. 40 30 43% .. 10 10 10 50% .. 10 111 54% Food Standards Agency 10 10 50% 80 60 43% 200 190 49% 410 80 16% 10 20 67% 1,072 34% Foreign and Commonweal th Office 290 120 29% 850 540 39% 1,290 760 37% 440 450 51% 280 370 57% 5,392 42% Health 350 360 51% 960 1,350 58% 1,020 1,870 65% 300 820 73% 260 700 73% 7,992 64% HM Revenue and Customs 210 160 43% 3,180 2,410 43% 9,610 8,710 48% 7,300 9,610 57% 10,82 0 18,330 63% 70,34 2 56% HM Treasury 70 40 36% 350 270 44% 450 380 46% 60 120 67% 30 30 50% 1,802 47% Home Office 140 80 36% 1,140 960 46% 3,190 3,100 49% 5,930 5,800 49% 3,090 4,680 60% 28,11 2 52% International Development 50 40 44% 560 660 54% 250 350 58% 70 140 67% 50 60 55% 2,232 56% Justice 150 120 44% 1,010 1,000 50% 4,340 5,040 54% 5,200 4,510 46% 18,10 0 18,150 50% 57,62 2 50% The National Archives .. .. 30 30 50% 130 150 54% 60 60 50% 80 50 38% 592 49% National Crime Agency 30 10 25% 200 80 29% 1,170 570 33% 1,190 850 42% 140 210 60% 4,451 39% Northern Ireland Office 10 10 50% 10 10 50% 10 30 75% 10 10 50% .. 10 112 62% Office for Standards in Education 20 10 33% 240 290 55% 150 380 72% 80 120 60% 80 160 67% 1,532 63% Office of Gas and Electricity Markets 30 20 40% 200 160 44% 140 130 48% 80 90 53% 20 20 50% 892 47% Office of Rail and Road 10 10 50% 110 40 27% 40 40 50% 10 10 50% 10 10 50% 292 38% Office of Qualifications and Examinations Regulation 10 10 50% 30 40 57% 30 60 67% 10 10 50% .. .. 202 59% Office of Water Services 10 10 50% 20 20 50% 50 50 50% 10 20 67% .. .. 192 52% Scotland Office 10 10 50% 20 30 60% 20 10 33% .. 10 10 10 50% 131 53% Scottish Government 110 80 42% 960 1,010 51% 2,570 2,470 49% 2,600 1,770 41% 2,450 3,020 55% 17,04 2 49% Transport 100 60 38% 830 420 34% 1,770 1,050 37% 2,700 1,330 33% 2,430 3,520 59% 14,21 1 45% UK Statistics Authority 40 10 20% 300 230 43% 540 690 56% 210 390 65% 730 920 56% 4,062 55% UK Export Finance 10 .. 50 20 29% 90 40 31% 10 20 67% 10 20 67% 271 37% UK Supreme Court .. 0 .. .. 10 10 50% .. 10 .. .. 31 66% Wales Office .. 0 .. 10 10 10 50% .. .. .. .. 31 66% Welsh Government 90 60 40% 470 430 48% 960 1,560 62% 400 590 60% 310 530 63% 5,402 59% Work and Pensions 140 90 39% 1,510 1,290 46% 4,260 6,210 59% 12,190 26,230 68% 10,73 0 24,110 69% 86,76 2 67% All employee 3,000 2,100 41% 22,570 18,800 45% 51,000 47,850 48% 48,310 62,460 56% 62,69 0 86,860 58% 405,6 42 54% Source: raw data from Office of National Statistics (2018), calculations by author Keywords: gender, equality, representation, representative bureaucracy, public administration Abstract Conclusion References: Sources: Ernst & Young (2013); European Commission (2016); UNDP (2014) Figure 2: Percentage of Female Public Administration Leaders