The emergence of externally active representative bureaucracy, a narrative review

Abstract

This article analyzes the evolution of governance models within public administrations as they respond to complex socio-political challenges. It emphasizes the need to enhance the legitimacy and representativeness of decision-making processes in the face of persistent issues, social fragmentation, increasing inequalities, and political polarization. The study discusses two primary models: citizen participation, which promotes a more engaged form of democracy, and representative bureaucracy, which seeks to ensure that public administration reflects socio-demographic diversity. However, these frameworks have flaws, particularly in achieving representativeness and maintaining administrative efficiency. To address these issues, the concept of “Externally Active Representative Bureaucracy” (EARB) is proposed, which involves incorporating citizens directly into administrative structures to address specific challenges while improving the legitimacy and representativeness of decisions. The article reviews 155 academic articles to explore the various dimensions and effects of representative bureaucracy and citizen participation. The objective is to illustrate that EARB provides an innovative approach to public administration that bridges bureaucratic efficiency with citizen inclusion, inviting further research into this hybrid model to enhance our understanding of the operation of modern public administrations.

Keywords:

• Representative bureaucracy
• citizen participation
• externally active representative bureaucracy
• public administration
• representativeness
• diversity
• public deliberation
• narrative review
• public accountability
• bureaucratic transformation

Introduction

Public administrations are increasingly confronted with “wicked problems” characterized by complexity, ambiguity, and interdependence (Denford et al., 2022; Head, 2022). These challenges are compounded by social fragmentation (Noto et al., 2023; Savas & Uzun, 2022), escalating inequality (Maidin, 2022; Selg et al., 2022), and intensifying political polarization (Dye, 2023; Klasche, 2023). In this context, there is an urgent call to fortify the legitimacy and representativeness of decision-making processes (Liakopoulos, 2023; Zeigermann & Ettelt, 2023). This imperative is echoed in a July 2023 White House memorandum, which underscores the necessity of augmenting citizen involvement and enhancing the representativeness of government agencies (Revesz, 2023).

Exploiting innovative governance models is essential, given the inherent complexity of these issues and their resistance to straightforward solutions. The scholarly and administrative discourse primarily orbits around two paradigms. The first, citizen participation, advocates for a more direct form of democracy through increased citizen engagement in decision-making processes (Butzlaff, 2023; Krzyżanowski et al., 2023; Pogrebinschi, 2023). The second, representative bureaucracy, seeks to shape public administration to more accurately mirror the socio-demographic composition of the populace it serves (Gooden, 2023; Meier, 2023; Winn, 2023).

However, both citizen participation and representative bureaucracy present distinct limitations and challenges. Citizen participation, while offering democratic opportunities, often faces issues related to representativeness and efficacy. Marginalized groups may find themselves underrepresented in these participatory processes (Gherghina et al., 2021; González & Mayka, 2023), and the time required for participative decision-making can impede urgent actions (Arnstein, 2019; Mohammadi et al., 2018). Conversely, though contributing to increased equity and legitimacy, representative bureaucracy is not immune to inherent biases. It may achieve demographic diversity but often falls short in actively advocating for the diverse interests of various social groups (Kennedy & Bishu, 2022; Lee & Nicholson-Crotty, 2022; Webeck & Lee, 2022).

A review of the academic literature indicates a notable gap in theoretical and operational frameworks that effectively integrate the strengths of citizen participation and representative bureaucracy to offset their respective weaknesses (Blume, 2023; Cingolani, 2023; Dacombe & Parvin, 2021; Zilla, 2022). While there have been initiatives to enhance the representativeness of citizen participation and to infuse a proactive approach within representative bureaucracy, these efforts often operate in isolation, lacking a unified methodological foundation. This lack of integration results in conceptual fragmentation, diminishing the potential effectiveness of each model in tackling the multifaceted challenges confronting public administrations.

To address these identified limitations, our research delves into the “Externally Active Representative Bureaucracy” (EARB), a concept we initially introduced in a 2022 article. EARB distinguishes itself by citizens’ purposeful and situational incorporation into administrative structures for tackling complex issues. Our prior investigation illuminated EARB’s efficacy in developing a universal basic income project within a French administrative context. This approach proved instrumental in managing the intricacies and multiple dimensions of the project, concurrently strengthening the legitimacy and representativeness of the resultant decisions.

The EARB concept has garnered attention and discussion in academic forums, notably at the 2023 colloquia of the Midwest Political Science Association (MPSA) in Chicago and the Administrative Sciences Association of Canada (ASAC) in Toronto. The discourse centered on elucidating the intersections and distinctions between EARB, citizen participation, and representative bureaucracy, as their boundaries appeared indistinct.

In response, our study conducts a narrative review of 155 seminal academic articles and books. This endeavor serves a dual purpose: firstly, to construct a comprehensive theoretical framework that benefits from a thorough critique and comparison of the existing models. Secondly, to formulate more definitive guidelines for the research and implementation of public policy, leveraging the strengths and acknowledging the limitations of the scrutinized concepts.

Method

For this narrative review, we employed a methodology based on Arksey & O’Malley (2005) framework, with substantial modifications inspired by Westphaln et al. (2021). These modifications were necessary to accommodate the ongoing evolution of our research topic. Our methodological approach aligns with the abductive reasoning delineated by Magnani (2009) and Schvaneveldt & Cohen (2010), facilitating a dynamic and adaptable expansion and refinement of our research scope. This flexibility is essential in assimilating novel findings and integrating feedback from manuscript reviewers, ensuring that our research remains current and relevant to the shifting paradigms of public administration.

Data collection and abductive adaptation

To clarify the links and differences between citizen participation, representative bureaucracy, and the EARB concept, our initial strategy involved identifying the most cited articles on Google Scholar (Gusenbauer, 2019; Jacsó, 2005; Martin-Martin et al., 2017). While this approach successfully pinpointed seminal works, it inherently favored older publications, potentially overlooking recent developments. Therefore, while retaining the initial selection, we complemented it with a subsequent, more focused wave of research.

Addressing the nascent nature of EARB, which has limited direct literature, posed a secondary challenge. Recognizing that aspects of EARB might have been previously discussed under different terminologies, we broadened our search parameters in collaboration with a librarian. This expansion incorporated terms associated with representative bureaucracy (such as equal opportunities, diversity, social equity, co-production, democracy, perceptions of automated decision-making, active representation in local government, civil servants’ social backgrounds, passive and active representation, street-level representation and performance, gender representation) and citizen participation (including co-production of services, citizen science, administrative participation, citizenship and public governance, online participation, democratic and developmental outcomes, direct decision-making, community involvement in social welfare policy, scientific citizenship and public competence). This comprehensive approach was designed to encompass relevant literature, even where the term EARB was not explicitly used, ensuring a holistic review of the field.

To analyze the reviewed articles, we used social network analysis (SNA) (Kirke, 2009) to identify key conceptual nodes and highlight relevant studies. Our methodological trajectory was inherently abductive, molding itself to the insights gleaned from the literature. This adaptive process facilitated continually refining our objectives, aligning them with the evolving discourse in the field and ensuring that our analysis remained pertinent to the latest theoretical developments.

For the second wave of our research, we focused on selecting peer-reviewed articles that have substantially contributed to administrative theories and have been published since 2017. A detailed list of these articles is provided in the appendix. This dynamic approach to literature review enabled us to construct a more encompassing and contemporary understanding of the interplay among the concepts under study, thus offering an up-to-date perspective on the field of public administration.

Data analysis and results synthesis

In the final phase of our study, we compiled, summarized, and presented our findings, guided by the methodologies recommended by Lawarée et al. (2019). This stage transcended mere descriptive analysis of the literature’s volume and characteristics, embracing an abductive interpretation of the results. Consequently, our synthesis and conclusions were not solely based on the data amassed. However, they were also a product of an iterative and dynamic comprehension of the field, continuously enriched through feedback and adaptation.

The review methodology adopted in this study has proven to be an evolving process, facilitating constant adaptation and expansion in light of discoveries and theoretical advancements. This approach has been instrumental in ensuring a comprehensive and contextually relevant analysis tailored to the ongoing developments within the field.

Our research encompassed an examination of 155 articles and books, specifically analyzing 81 works on citizen participation and 74 on representative bureaucracy. The selection process conducted abductively and in collaboration with a librarian was grounded on two pivotal criteria. Firstly, it included fundamental and highly cited publications, ensuring comprehensive coverage of established knowledge within the field. Secondly, the process incorporated recent studies, with 68 works published since 2020, to capture and reflect contemporary trends and discourses. An appended table details this selection, offering an insightful overview of the sources and their pertinence to our research objectives.

Representative, passive, active, external bureaucracy and citizen participation: conceptual clarifications

Externally active representative bureaucracy (EARB)

The “Externally Active Representative Bureaucracy” (EARB) is an innovative concept we introduced in 2022, representing a synthesis of active representative bureaucracy and citizen participation, which will be elaborated on subsequently.

In practical application, EARB systematically incorporates citizens into administrative operations on an ad hoc basis, adhering to the principles of representativeness. The primary objective of this approach is to infuse external perspectives and values into the decision-making process and public interest representation. This translates to the proactive engagement of external voices and viewpoints, such as those from citizens or community groups, by civil servants and administrative bodies in the formulation and execution of policies.

In our prior research, EARB manifested by including citizens who mirrored a region’s social and economic diversity into a pilot project for a universal basic income in France. These individuals were selected based on their capacity to represent typically underrepresented groups, including recipients of minimal social benefits, unemployed or untrained youth, and single-parent mothers. Collaborating with civil servants and experts, these citizens contributed their unique perspectives and experiences in joint working groups, enriching the policy development process with diverse insights.

Furthermore, in implementing the EARB model, both civil servants and citizens engaged in dialogues with community groups and civil society organizations. This aimed to understand better the needs and concerns surrounding the universal basic income initiative. Citizen involvement was extensive and integral, extending to developing a legislative proposal. Subsequently, civil servants assumed the responsibility of incorporating and championing the citizens’ concerns in the formal legislative process.

This paradigm shift redefines the role of bureaucrats. Under the EARB model, bureaucrats are not perceived merely as impartial administrators; instead, they are recognized as active members of society. EARB encourages civil servants to engage proactively with external communities, using insights from these interactions to inform and guide their work. Thus, EARB seeks to elevate the representativeness of the bureaucracy. This is not limited to achieving sociotypical diversity but also encompasses a more profound commitment and accountability to society. This enhanced interaction and resulting societal engagement are pivotal in fostering a more inclusive and responsive administrative process.

The Externally Active Representative Bureaucracy serves not only as a conceptual approach but also as a pragmatic methodology. This method, noted for its flexibility and non-sequential nature, nonetheless necessitates several phases. A pivotal initial step involves determining representativeness. In this context, representativeness is understood as a contextual and dynamic concept subject to reevaluation on a project-by-project basis rather than being confined to a rigid, universally applicable typology. Each project or policy initiative requires a tailored identification and engagement of relevant stakeholders.

In the case of the universal basic income initiative, the concept of diversity was broadened to encompass a range of values. This methodological decision allowed for grouping individuals based on sociotypical traits and their initial attitudes toward the project’s goals. Consequently, the composition of the working group was balanced to represent perspectives both in favor of and against the concept of universal income equally.

Two critical aspects warrant emphasis: first, the recognition of individuals’ right to opt out of public deliberative processes, as discussed by Blondiaux & Sintomer (2009); second, the understanding of representativeness should focus more on diversity of perspectives rather than on mere statistical proportionality, as argued by Rosanvallon (2006). Therefore, it may be necessary to engage with individuals one-on-one to create diverse groups that genuinely reflect the different segments of the population involved.

Representative bureaucracy

The “Externally Active Representative Bureaucracy” (EARB) concept expands upon the foundational principle of representative bureaucracy, an administrative model that aims to mirror the population’s diversity (Kingsley, 1945). This model underscores the significance of incorporating diverse demographic representation in public administration, encompassing varied social, ethnic, and gender groups, to enrich decision-making and bolster the legitimacy of public policies.

As Meier (1975) outlined, a bureaucracy achieves representativeness when its composition mirrors the population’s demographics, a principle known as passive representation. This approach is centered on demographic congruence but does not necessitate proactive engagement from bureaucrats. Conversely, as highlighted by Krislov (1974) and Selden et al. (2003), active representation advocates for a more deliberate role for bureaucrats. In this model, bureaucrats actively work to influence policy outcomes and advocate for the interests of the groups they represent. Understanding this distinction between passive and active representation is essential for comprehending the objectives of the EARB model.

“Active” representative bureaucracy

Active representation in bureaucracy is characterized by a proactive stance taken by bureaucrats in advocating for the groups they represent (Bradbury & Kellough, 2011). Riccucci & Saidel (1997) underscored the critical role public managers play in attaining objectives related to equity and inclusion. This concept contrasts with passive representation, directly influencing policy formulation and implementation to foster more inclusive policies (Bishu & Kennedy, 2020).

The idea of active representation has sparked considerable debate. On one hand, concerns have been raised about the potential compromise of bureaucrats’ objectivity (Banks & Weingast, 1992). On the other, there are arguments asserting that the integration of diverse perspectives is essential for strengthening democracy (Bradbury & Kellough, 2011; Watkins-Hayes, 2011).

The prevailing thought is that an administration reflective of the population’s diversity is more adept at understanding and addressing a variety of needs (Kingsley, 1945), thereby fostering more equitable policies (Krislov, 1974) and enhancing communication between the administration and citizens (Meier, 1975). Active representation, particularly in defending the interests of marginalized groups, is seen as a contributor to social justice (Watkins-Hayes, 2011) and organizational effectiveness (Lim, 2006).

This section lays the groundwork for understanding the Externally Active Representative Bureaucracy (EARB) by delineating the differences between passive and active representation and demonstrating their impacts. EARB synthesizes these elements, aiming to achieve a more inclusive and effective model of public governance.

Citizen participation

Citizen participation, which has become a significant feature of contemporary democracies, focuses on the direct involvement of citizens in political decision-making. This involvement manifests in various forms, including public consultations, participatory budgets, opinion polls, and neighborhood councils. As societal stakeholders, the core premise is that citizens possess the right to engage actively in decisions to impact their lives.

Citizen participation is multifaceted, encompassing diverse aspects, models, and outcomes. Arnstein’s (1969) spectrum of citizen participation delineates a range from nonparticipation to complete involvement characterized by citizen control. Fung (2006) identified multiple participation levels, from basic consultation to more collaborative and inclusive methods. Pateman’s (1970) work accentuated participation significance in democratic theory, suggesting it bolsters citizen involvement and fairness in decision-making processes. In a subsequent analysis, Pateman (2012) reconsidered these concepts in light of evolving participatory democratic practices.

Cornwall (2008) underscored the necessity of dissecting various participation models and interpretations to fully comprehend their intricacies, aligning with Pretty (1995) notion of participatory learning. Rowe & Frewer (2005) emphasized the need for a typology of public engagement mechanisms to discern different participation forms and their efficacy effectively.

The efficacy and legitimacy of citizen participation remain the subject of vigorous debate. Irvin & Stansbury (2004) scrutinized its genuine merit, while Michels (2011) explored its contributions to enhancing democracy. Cooke & Kothari (2003) critiqued participation as a form of “new tyranny.” Conversely, Boyte (2004) advocated for the re-engagement of citizens in everyday public affairs. Gastil & Levine (2005) proposed strategies for effective civic involvement, and Smith (2009) introduced democratic innovations to invigorate citizen participation.

Newman et al. (2004) underscored the significance of public participation and collaborative governance in achieving balanced and inclusive decision-making. They posited that integrating diverse perspectives through citizen participation enhances decision-making quality and fosters mutual understanding. Fishkin (2011) and Dryzek (2012) further reinforced the role of public consultation within the framework of deliberative democracy.

Additionally, scholars such as Innes & Booher (2004) and Warren (2002) have developed new strategies for public participation, delving into the deeper meaning of democratic engagement beyond its technical facets. Pateman (1970) illustrated how citizen participation empowers individuals, leading to more equitable and balanced decisions. Mansbridge et al. (2012) argued for the benefits of systemic deliberative democracy, which, centered around citizen participation, can elevate decision quality by incorporating a range of viewpoints. Neblo et al. (2010) examined the various actors in participation and their motivations. Furthermore, citizen participation has been identified as a critical component of transparency and accountability in governance (Nabatchi & Leighninger, 2015). Fung (2015) highlighted the imperative of reinstating the public at the core of governance, affirming the critical role of citizen participation in future governance models.

Understanding citizen participation is essential to appreciate the “Externally Active Representative Bureaucracy fully” (EARB) model. EARB integrates the tenets of citizen participation into its framework, enriching its approach to decision-making and enhancing the effectiveness of public governance.

Conceptual differences and similarities

Table 1 presents the evolution of citizen engagement and the evolving role of civil servants across different governance models. In the passive representative bureaucracy model, citizens are primarily viewed as recipients of public services. Conversely, active representative bureaucracy encourages the direct involvement of citizens, particularly those from underrepresented groups, in decision-making—the citizen participation model positions citizens as central actors in the decision-making process. “Externally Active Representative Bureaucracy” (EARB) further extends this perspective, seeing citizens as partners and collaborators in policy formation, blending bureaucratic efficiency with citizen inclusion.

Table 1. Summary of key conceptual differentiators between concepts.

	Passive representative bureaucracy	Active representative bureaucracy	Citizen participation	Externally active representative bureaucracy
Object	Deliver public services and implement policies effectively, efficiently, equitably, and in a manner appropriate to the public concerned.	Actively reflect the diversity of the population within institutions and ensure that this diversity influences decision-making and public policy.	Involve citizens directly in the decision-making process	Broaden representation by groups outside the bureaucracy, improve effectiveness and efficiency through active participation
The role of citizens	Generally passive, citizens are mainly consumers of public services	Public servants, especially those from underrepresented groups, are encouraged to participate actively in decision-making.	Active citizens are involved in decision-making.	Active citizens and civil servants are seen as partners and collaborators in the decision-making process, not as consultants but as players from the inside.
The role of civil servants	Civil servants are key players in policy implementation	Public servants proactively engage with their communities and ensure diverse and representative perspectives inform policies.	Civil servants facilitate and support citizen participation	Civil servants act as facilitators and collaborators with citizens and other stakeholders
Main concerns	Efficiency, fairness, representativeness, responsibility	Policy accountability, public servant accountability, inclusion of diverse groups, and service efficiency	Citizen engagement, inclusion, empowerment, deliberation	Efficiency, inclusion, collaboration, transforming bureaucracy
Decision-making mechanisms	Largely dependent on institutional guidelines and regulations	Largely dependent on institutional guidelines and regulations	Depends on deliberation and consultation processes	Combining institutional guidelines and deliberative processes
Accountability	Mainly upwards, toward political decision makers	Shared with clear and measurable expectations regarding representation and policy outcomes.	Shared between citizens and the administration	To citizens and political decision makers alike
Transparency	Variable level, often limited by the need for operational confidentiality	Necessary for legitimacy and efficiency, with efforts to ensure that processes and decisions are accessible and understandable to all.	High, as a prerequisite for effective participation	High level of effective collaboration
Impact assessment	Focus on service efficiency and compliance with corporate standards.	Measured by the ability of policies to meet the needs of various groups and improve their satisfaction.	Evaluated in terms of the degree of citizen participation and the relevance of contributions to the decision-making process.	Judged by the quality of the citizen group’s involvement and influence on political reform.
Innovation process	Often limited by regulations and institutional tradition.	Encourages innovation in response to the needs of underrepresented groups but remains limited by administrative tradition.	Citizen participation can bring innovative perspectives but depends on the institutional will to integrate them.	Stimulate innovation by opening the bureaucracy to outside ideas and collaborating with nontraditional players.
Conflict Management	They are generally managed through formal administrative processes and hierarchical channels.	They are generally managed through formal administrative processes and hierarchical channels.	Involve participative resolution and consensus-building initiatives.	Dealt with external groups, using collaborative approaches to find mutually beneficial solutions.
Adaptability and flexibility	Rigid structures can hamper adaptability in the face of rapid change.	Structures remain rigid in rapid change, but sensitivity to social dynamics is heightened.	It depends on citizens’ ability to influence change and the responsiveness of bureaucratic structures.	Greater adaptability thanks to integrating diverse external perspectives and the ability to respond more rapidly to societal needs.
Performance measurement	Assessment based on the ability to deliver services according to guidelines, focusing on operational efficiency and financial management.	Analysis of the impact of public policies on the diversity of social groups and institutional responsiveness to specific needs.	Assessment of the quality and effectiveness of political decisions resulting from participatory processes.	The evaluation focused on integrating external input into policy design and reform, measuring the effectiveness of induced changes and their sustainability.
Inclusion, diversity, and representativeness	Monitoring of beneficiary demographic indicators to ensure equity of access to public services.	Measuring the proportionality of the minority group representation in decision-making processes and policy outcomes.	Assessment of the effective participation of various civil society groups and its influence on policy design and implementation.	Monitoring the impact of interactions with external entities on broadening representativeness and enhancing the value of minority voices in public policy-making

Concurrently, the role of civil servants undergoes a significant transformation. Their role is primarily confined to executing public policies in a passive bureaucratic setup. However, under citizen participation and active representative bureaucracy models, they assume the roles of facilitators and collaborators, actively engaging with citizens in policy development and implementation. EARB harmonizes these roles, integrating institutional direction with a deliberative approach to enhance decision-making processes.

EARB integrates the advantages of the other two models. It aims to preserve the efficiency characteristic of representative bureaucracy while embracing the inclusivity and engagement inherent in citizen participation. This hybrid model employs decision-making mechanisms that uphold institutional norms while encouraging citizen deliberation and consultation.

In addressing contemporary challenges and complex issues, adaptability and innovation become indispensable. Passive representative bureaucracy, often constrained by rigid structures, may find it challenging to respond adeptly to crises. Active representative bureaucracy, though more attuned to social dynamics, can face hurdles due to traditional constraints. Citizen participation, emphasizing diverse viewpoints, fosters innovation, but its effectiveness hinges on the institutional integration of these citizen inputs. By synthesizing institutional guidance with open deliberation, EARB offers a more flexible and innovative approach to tackling complex and evolving challenges.

The table further underscores the increasing significance of transparency within the EARB framework. Traditional bureaucratic models might restrict transparency for operational reasons, but transparency is essential in an environment characterized by collaboration and active citizen participation. Ensuring that government processes and decisions are accessible and understandable is vital for achieving legitimate and effective governance.

The key conceptual differentiators between various governance models, namely Passive Representative Bureaucracy, Active Representative Bureaucracy, Citizen Participation, and Externally Active Representative Bureaucracy (EARB) can be summarized as follows:

Passive representative bureaucracy

• Citizens are viewed primarily as beneficiaries of public services.

• Civil servants act as executors of public policy, with minimal active engagement in societal needs or diversity representation.

Active representative bureaucracy

• Encourages direct participation of bureaucrats, especially from underrepresented groups, in decision-making.

• Civil servants take on a more dynamic role, acting as facilitators who reflect societal diversity and work toward equitable policy outcomes.

Citizen participation

• Positions citizens as actors in the decision-making process, involving them directly in various forms of governance activities.

• Civil servants collaborate with citizens, facilitating their involvement and integrating their inputs into policy development and implementation.

Externally active representative bureaucracy (EARB)

• Recognizes citizens as partners and collaborators in policy-making, merging bureaucratic efficiency with citizen inclusion.

• Civil servants balance institutional guidance with a deliberative approach, harmonizing their traditional roles with active citizen deliberation and consultation engagement.

• Seeks to integrate the efficiency of representative bureaucracy with the inclusivity and commitment of citizen participation, employing decision-making mechanisms that respect institutional norms while facilitating citizen input.

Implications for administrative theory

Our analysis begins with exploring recent citizen participation and representative bureaucracy developments, concentrating on scholarly contributions from 2017 to 2023. This section is dedicated to examining theoretical progressions and practical applications, emphasizing understanding the influence of these models in the current landscape of public governance. The objective is to discern prevailing trends and develop forward-looking proposals. This review endeavors to elucidate the evolution of these approaches, assessing their current applicability and potential modifications to address contemporary and forthcoming challenges in public governance. By scrutinizing the latest academic discourse and implementations, we aim to provide a comprehensive understanding of how these governance models have advanced and how they can be refined or adapted to enhance their effectiveness in the evolving context of public administration.

Recent trends in studies of representative bureaucracy

Representativeness in direct interactions

The significance of representativeness in direct professional-public interactions is a prominent subject in contemporary research. Recent studies have underscored the profound impact of such representativeness in various relational contexts, including between patients and doctors or teachers and students. McCrea (2022) demonstrated that gender representativeness in medical settings can, under specific circumstances, contribute to a reduction in patient mortality. Similarly, Capers & Smith (2021) observed improvements in the academic performance of students who perceived a sense of representation by their teachers, a finding echoed by Penn (2021) regarding the dynamic between educators and immigrant communities. Vinopal (2020) broadened this perspective to include socioeconomic representation, mainly focusing on the experiences of disadvantaged students. Guul (2018) also noted positive outcomes in one-on-one meeting scenarios.

However, Zamboni (2020) introduces a critical perspective, indicating that while representativeness can have a markedly positive effect in emergency medical contexts, its influence appears more neutral in policing. This observation suggests that the benefits of representativeness may vary significantly depending on the professional context. Both Zamboni and McCrea agree on the role played by the work environment, particularly emphasizing that fair conditions pre-established within public organizations are essential determinants of the effectiveness of representativeness in professional-public interactions. This body of research collectively highlights representativeness context-dependent nature in direct professional-client relationships.

Gender diversity and the intersectional approach

Incorporating gender diversity and intersectional perspectives has become increasingly central in research focusing on representative bureaucracy. Mau (2020) underscores the necessity of integrating diverse gender perspectives, particularly in leadership positions. Kennedy et al. (2020) explored the multifaceted nature of gender by analyzing feminism, masculinity, and active representation within public bureaucracy. In a study by Yu & Lee (2023), the experiences of LGBTQ+ personnel in the US federal service were examined, revealing a general perception of low inclusivity. Collectively, these studies underscore the importance of adopting an intersectional lens for a more comprehensive and inclusive representation in bureaucratic structures.

Furthermore, An et al. (2022), in their analysis of 44 countries, caution that the positive correlation between gender representation and overall representativeness is contingent upon a supportive political environment. This finding highlights the complex interplay between gender dynamics and political contexts in shaping representative bureaucracy.

Parallel to these findings, research has also illuminated the impact of female leadership. Dula (2022) investigated the influence of women on boards of directors, discovering a direct association between female leadership and the adoption of gender-friendly strategic decisions. This study corroborates the growing recognition of gender diversity and the necessity of an intersectional approach to understanding and implementing representative bureaucracy. These insights collectively affirm the evolving role of gender diversity and intersectionality in shaping modern bureaucratic practices and policies.

Representation of disadvantaged populations

Representing disadvantaged groups within bureaucratic systems has emerged as a focal point in contemporary research. Friedman (2023) investigated the impediments individuals from working-class backgrounds face in advancing their careers within the British Civil Service, uncovering prevalent class-based inequalities. Similarly, Fay et al. (2021) delved into the representation and responsiveness of bureaucracies in the context of higher education, with a specific focus on intersectionality and equity.

Jamil & Baniamin (2020) explored the underrepresentation of ethnic minorities in Nepal’s bureaucratic system, advocating for more inclusive practices. Gooden (2023) highlighted the disparity between the aspirational goals of representation and the actual accomplishments, emphasizing the critical need to fortify social equity in bureaucratic representation. Additionally, Simon & Moltz (2023) identified the challenges faced by individuals with migrant backgrounds in securing public sector employment and the long-lasting impacts of these challenges across generations.

Collectively, these studies shed light on the complexities surrounding access to education and the resultant disparities in public sector recruitment processes. They accentuate the urgency of enhancing diversity and inclusion within bureaucratic systems to ensure equitable representation of all societal segments. This body of research underscores the necessity of addressing these systemic barriers to foster a more representative and equitable public administration.

Issues in research on representative bureaucracy

This analysis foregrounds two critical areas in the study of representative bureaucracy: enhancing internal diversity and broadening the scope of societal issues addressed.

First, reinforcing diversity and representativeness within bureaucratic structures is paramount. This encompasses increasing the representation of women, embracing gender diversity, and ensuring the inclusion of ethnic and racial minorities, as well as individuals from working-class backgrounds. The objective is to create a bureaucracy that authentically mirrors the diverse composition of the population it serves. Such representativeness could lead to more inclusive and equitable decision-making, a deeper understanding of various social groups’ needs, and improved efficacy in critical sectors like health and education.

Second, public administrations need to tackle significant societal challenges, and representative bureaucracy is well positioned to offer novel solutions. Addressing global issues such as globalization, minority rights, technological advancements, and sustainable development is imperative. By expanding the spectrum of issues encompassed by representative bureaucracy, public administrations can more effectively respond to the intricate and interconnected challenges of the modern world.

Additionally, the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) in public decision-making is an area that remains underexplored in contemporary literature. Incorporating AI could unveil new perspectives and tools to enhance governance and decision-making within the framework of representative bureaucracy. This integration could be instrumental in leveraging technology to optimize the efficiency and responsiveness of public administration in an increasingly digital world.

Recent trends in studies of citizen participation

Citizen participation and responses to global crises

The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly reshaped public administrations and their approaches to citizen participation. Contemporary research underscores the importance of civic engagement and access to reliable information in managing health crises. Tan et al. (2022) emphasized the pivotal role of citizen science in pandemic preparedness, linking public participation directly to effective health crisis management. Ohme et al. (2021) delved into the media’s influence and the public’s perceptions of misinformation during the pandemic, revealing the substantial impact of media on citizen engagement.

Integrating citizen participation into public governance and crisis management has proven to be a key factor in bolstering democracy and societal resilience. Lima (2020) and Bispo Júnior & Morais (2020) proposed that digital innovations and community involvement in combating COVID-19 can fortify the healthcare system while enhancing social protection and democratic processes.

Child (2021) observed that expanding participation in organizational decision-making could lead to economic and social improvements, particularly when confronting shared challenges. Acasandre (2020) argued for the modernization of public administration to enhance public participation and communication with citizens. Research by Pantić et al. (2021), Gabrini (2021), and Borbáth et al. (2021) analyzed the forms and dynamics of civic and political participation during the COVID-19 crisis. These studies indicate that the pandemic had a dual effect on citizen engagement, simultaneously demobilizing and activating different groups while preserving preexisting political and civic involvement patterns.

Interaction between citizen participation and institutions in crisis recovery

The dynamics between citizen participation and institutional response in crisis management have become a focal point in contemporary research. The role of citizen involvement in shaping and executing public policies, mainly through democratic innovations in the aftermath of crises, is gaining increasing prominence. Lima (2020) highlighted how digital innovations can bolster democracy by mobilizing the populace and promoting techno-democratic engagement. This technological advancement enables citizens to maintain participatory spaces and collaborate in sustaining active citizenship. Bispo Júnior & Morais (2020) emphasized the need to balance utilitarianism with social justice in community involvement, aiming to reinforce both the healthcare system and social safeguards.

Nonetheless, research also reveals that bureaucratic structures can sometimes impede citizen participation. Gourgues et al. (2021) criticized the tendency for participatory processes to augment administrative burdens in public institutions. Voinea et al. (2022) noted that the pandemic had diminished the influence of citizen groups, thereby creating new barriers to participation and co-creation in public services.

The place of citizen participation in the governance of administrations (Gabrini, 2021) and the involvement of civil society institutions (Marchuk et al., 2021) are also elements of participatory crisis management (health, environmental, democratic, economic, and social). These interactions indicate a growing trend toward inclusive and transparent strategies, essential for building trust, civic engagement, and community resilience, especially post-crisis periods (Kuhlmann et al., 2021). The emerging trend underscores the importance of participatory approaches in crisis response and highlights the potential benefits of such strategies in enhancing governance and societal robustness.

Citizen participation and sustainable development

The intersection between citizen participation and sustainable development, as outlined in the United Nations’ 17 Sustainable Development Goals, is garnering increased attention (Maidin, 2022). Citizens are recognized as playing a role in environmental protection and management, contributing to sustainable development even during crises (Heinen et al., 2022). Vainio (2020), however, cautions against “cruel optimism,” a scenario where overestimating the universal benefits of citizen participation could lead to a degradation in dialogue quality and the marginalization of certain groups.

Pantić et al. (2021) propose a blended model of traditional and virtual participation in urban planning, aiming to engage a more diverse array of participants. This approach aligns with the framework for citizen participation in smart and sustainable cities, as Alamoudi et al. (2022) and Bingöl (2022) identified. According to Lee et al. (2023), inclusive and representative citizen participation can enhance democratic governance and promote equality (Candra et al., 2022) and community resilience (Branquinho et al., 2022).

Goto et al. (2022) and Kishimoto & Kobori (2021) have observed a decline in citizen engagement in environmental initiatives. While there is a decrease in participation numbers, the depth and quality of engagement appear to rise. Chen & Wan (2023) underscore the reciprocal relationship between community involvement and sustainable development, particularly in the context of heritage conservation. Branquinho et al. (2022) note that young people involved in active citizenship are encouraged to engage in discussions on diversity, culture, and housing, thereby contributing to supporting sustainable urban environments. This body of research highlights the evolving nature of citizen participation, emphasizing its role in fostering sustainable development across various contexts.

Prospects for research into externally active representative bureaucracy (EARB)

The trends identified in this narrative review suggest avenues for further work on active representative bureaucracy orchestrated outside the traditional public apparatus. The synergy between citizen participation and representative bureaucracy creates governance that is both inclusive and responsive.

Table 2 details the two major issues and the associated research themes, questions, and hypotheses. Firstly, “Externally Active Representative Bureaucracy” (EARB) can restore trust and citizen engagement, contributing to more efficient administrations adapted to today’s challenges. Secondly, it can improve administrations’ ability to manage increasingly complex and interconnected problems, often described as “wicked.”

Table 2. Prospects and lines of research for externally active representative bureaucracy.

Research topics	Research questions	Assumptions
Challenge 1: Restoring trust
ICT and Active Representative Bureaucracy	How do ICTs influence representativeness and citizen participation in governance?	Integrating ICT into governance improves representativeness and civic engagement.
The Evolving Role of Bureaucrats	How are the roles of bureaucrats changing in participatory processes?	Bureaucrats actively engaging in participatory processes contribute to more inclusive and practical solutions.
Impact of Diversity on Inclusion and Equity	How does bureaucratic diversity impact the equity and effectiveness of sustainable development policies?	Greater diversity within bureaucracies leads to more equitable and effective policies for sustainable development.
Barriers to Citizen Participation	What are the main barriers to citizen participation in bureaucracies?	Systemic barriers to citizen participation limits the effectiveness and representativeness of bureaucracies.
Longitudinal Evaluation of Effects	What is the long-term impact of externally active representative bureaucracy on governance and citizen satisfaction?	Representative bureaucracy has a lasting positive impact on administrative governance and citizen satisfaction.
Issue 2: Managing Wicked Problems
Analysis of Public Policies in Response to Local and Global Problems	How does bureaucratic composition affect public policy in the face of complex local challenges, social cohesion, and climate crises?	An externally active representative bureaucracy is more effective in formulating responses to complex local problems, promoting social cohesion, and responding proactively to climate crises.
Innovative Models of Bureaucracy for Sustainable Development	What innovative models of bureaucracy promote sustainable development and social cohesion?	Innovative models of representative bureaucracy lead to more sustainable, cohesive, and effective public policies.

The proposed research avenues can explore how EARB can effectively strengthen citizen trust and involvement in public governance. In addition, it is essential to examine how this approach can improve the ability of administrations to respond effectively to increasingly complex societal issues. These questions pave the way for future research to optimize public governance models to be more inclusive, responsive, and effective in managing contemporary challenges.

Restoring public trust and involvement

Restoring citizen trust and involvement is one of the challenges of public administration reform. Redefining the roles of citizens and bureaucrats is at the heart of this transformation. Citizens, as co-creators of public policy, require civil servants to act as facilitators and collaborators. This evolution calls for greater skills in mediating and facilitating civic engagement to consolidate trust and activate effective participation. Therefore, civil servants’ training should be adapted to teach them these new skills.

Diversity within the bureaucracy strengthens public trust and broadens citizen participation, leading to more inclusive and equitable policies. The challenges posed by the global pandemic highlight the importance of evaluating citizen-bureaucrat collaboration to rebuild institutional trust. It is essential to explore the effectiveness and impact of these collaborative initiatives on long-term democratic trust.

The ability of bureaucrats to integrate and act on citizen concerns, particularly those of traditionally marginalized groups, needs to be examined. Research should also assess the sustainability of these interactions. The necessary ad hoc citizen participation in the EARB raises the question of the arrangements’ sustainability.

Managing “wicked problems” and the sustainable development goals

Active management of complex issues and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) call for social inclusion and equity to be placed at the heart of political issues. Including diverse social groups in decision-making should lead to innovative and more equitable solutions. Beyond a symbolic measure, institutional diversity is essential for a cohesive society. Adequate representation of social diversity ensures public policies are more receptive to the needs and aspirations, strengthening social cohesion.

In the face of climate crises, citizen participation is also a factor in steering governance toward sustainable environmental policies. Citizen involvement in these initiatives underlines their importance and urgency. Collaboration between citizen participation and representative bureaucracy generate more relevant environmental policies, integrating local knowledge and perspectives.

This collaboration highlights the need to review public communication policies, reconcile transparency, and protect confidentiality. EARB thus proposes a reconciliation between representativeness and effectiveness, calling into question the traditional dichotomy between these two objectives. The definition and evaluation of effectiveness should be questioned in this context, assessing the impact of citizen participation and collaboration on the performance of public services.

Evaluation of double links

At this point, we would like to add a more personal note by highlighting the importance of evaluative processes. A closer look at the 155 studies reveals the contribution of feedback mechanisms in enriching our understanding of the benefits of diversity and participation. Nevertheless, it is observed that the evaluations carried out tend to focus on the performance of the participatory process or the success of the project as such. The simultaneous evaluation of these two aspects raises three essential questions: 1. how effective is the governance in place? 2. how effective is the program or project resulting from the participatory process? 3. what impact does governance have on improving the program’s effectiveness and equity?

Therefore, it is appropriate to rethink the definition of performance and efficiency to encompass the dimensions of representativeness and diversity. In this respect, the notion of “being and feeling at home” offers a form of conciliation. When everyone feels sufficiently comfortable, and at home in processes, that is an efficiency that can be pursued. As an illustration, the work of Jacobson (2010) highlights the correlation between the desire to get involved in society and the more intimate experience of “feeling at home.” Herzog-Punzenberger et al. (2012) confirm this link by directly connecting effective participation with a sense of belonging and integration, essential to cultivating the experience of “being at home.” Thus, “feeling at home” emerges as a central indicator, serving as both premise and purpose in the quest for optimized performance of participatory and inclusive administrative processes.

Conclusion

The concept of “Externally Active Representative Bureaucracy” (EARB) marks a significant evolution in our understanding of public administration. This concept distinguishes and combines three forms of public governance: representative bureaucracy (passive and active), citizen participation, and EARB. This distinction makes it possible to understand the contemporary dynamics of public administration and analyze these trends and their impact more precisely.

Representative bureaucracy focuses on the diversity of civil servants and administrative employees, mainly reflecting a variety of social, ethnic, and gender groups. Citizen participation is characterized by the direct involvement of citizens in the administration, up to and including their participation in decision-making.

EARB combines the key elements of the two previous models. In this model, representation is assured, and citizens play an active role by being represented and actively participating in decision-making. This approach broadens the concept of representativeness by incorporating an external dimension that recognizes the role of social actors.

However, it is important to recognize the limitations of our study. Our approach, based on a narrative review, although effective in synthesizing a wide range of literature, does not guarantee the systematicity of a systematic review. This selection process may omit some relevant studies and introduce bias. Furthermore, although our review offers an overview of key concepts, it does not replace the empirical studies needed to test the viability of these models in specific contexts. Moreover, future developments may reveal new perspectives or challenges not captured in this review.

Despite these limitations, this narrative review provides an essential analysis of diverse research to build a coherent understanding of the current research landscape in this field. This approach raises questions and offers a fresh perspective on the interaction between citizens and public administration. We encourage the scientific community to explore the concept of EARB further, hoping to stimulate constructive debate and further research to enrich our understanding of public administration in the context of citizen participation and active representativeness.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Sebastien Keiff

Sébastien Keiff is a research lecturer at the École nationale d'administration publique in Quebec. His research focuses on integration, collaborative governance, and collective intelligence. Before entering academia, he spent 15 years in French public administration, holding leadership roles responsible for sustainable development, citizen participation, evaluation, and public innovation. He teaches organization management as well as research and intervention methods.