Theory Of Representative Bureaucracy

The theory of representative bureaucracy considers that the bureaucratic power can be more aligned with citizens, whether the public administrators know the sociodemographic characteristics of the community they are serving. From the point of view of this theory, the impacts of power that does not represent the characteristics of the community on democracy can be diminished when considering the representative bureaucracy. The inclusion approach of the characteristic aspects of society in the bureaucracy leads to the creation of values and beliefs, based on those characteristics. The representation of these values and beliefs in the bureaucracy generates a connection between the community and the government, because citizens see their values
In this sense, administrative discretion allows public workers to carry out political actions representative of the values and beliefs that they share with the community (Sowa & Coleman,
The first refers to the differences in the social origins of public workers, which lead to different experiences of socialization. The second mentions that different experiences of socialization influence political attitudes. The third mentions that political attitudes are related to the behavior of the public employee. However, critics of the theory suggest that it presents weaknesses. The first failure refers to the lack of a clear definition of the representation approach, since the authors of the theory have not reached an agreement regarding the focus group that should be represented, some authors mention that the dominant forces of society must be represented and other authors states that the whole society should be represented. The second weakness of the theory indicates that the political controls of bureaucratic representativeness are based on the traditional controls of public administration, which are ineffective. The third gap in the theory refers to the little knowledge about the relationship between social origins and the experiences of socialization of individuals. In the same way, the fourth weakness is the little relationship between the postulate of the theory about social origins and the political attitude. Likewise, the fifth criticism argues about the discussion of psychologists on the postulate of the theory related to the influence of attitudes on political behavior. Finally, the sixth