Suchergebnisse

The representative bureaucracy theory literature has often focused on the viewpoints, attitudes, and actions of minoritized groups rather than the racial majority, with studies predominately analyzing representative capacities tied to race, ethnicity, and gender. The current research employs both racial and lived experience representation lenses to analyze the viewpoints of non-Hispanic white public servants regarding the deservingness of white, Black, and unidentified clients. Using the opioid crisis as the context, results from an exploratory analysis of a nationwide survey experiment of first responders show that white law enforcement workers view white clients with opioid use disorder as more deserving than Black and unidentified clients. Both indirect and direct lived experiences with substance use disorder predict positive attitudes toward clients. Direct lived experience nullifies the negative beliefs white law enforcement workers express about Black clients, highlighting the significance of the intersection of racial and lived experience representation. Practical implications include promoting organizational practices that leverage the strength of shared lived experience to mitigate racial biases and encourage compassion for clients.

Abstract
Representative bureaucracy theory has mainly been used to understand how identities related to race, ethnicity, and gender influence how bureaucrats administer public services. Although representation through lived experience has expanded the scope of the theory, this theoretical thread has mostly focused on the perspectives of management. The purpose of this article is to employ lived experience representative bureaucracy theory to understand the influence of first responders' experiences with substance use disorder (drug addiction) on their viewpoints regarding the humanness and deservingness of clients with opioid use disorder. We analyze data from a survey of emergency medical services (EMS)-providers and police officers in the United States (N = 3,500) with ordinary least squares regression and Hayes' PROCESS macro to test for mediation. Results show that indirect and direct lived experiences—respectively, having a family member or friend who has experienced addiction and believing addiction has had a direct impact on respondents' lives—predict increases in client deservingness, mediated by ascribed humanness and driven largely by EMS-providers. However, responding to opioid overdoses—an on-the-job lived experience—is associated with reduced deservingness and ascribed humanness. The study adds to the literature by expanding representative bureaucracy theory beyond race, ethnicity, and gender; broadening representation through lived experience beyond a focus on managers to include street-level bureaucrats; and incorporating concepts from social and political psychology that have yet to be integrated into representative bureaucracy studies.

ABSTRACTWe draw from the Theory of Fundamental Causes to examine social equity and community resilience in public administration. We analyze the effect of social capital and social vulnerability on COVID‐19 vaccination rates in United States' counties, as well as social capital's influence in counties with varying social vulnerabilities. Findings show that bonding social capital and socioeconomic status (SES) vulnerability negatively predict vaccine uptake. Bonding's negative association is most pronounced in counties with minority status and language (MS&L) vulnerabilities, and specifically, Hispanic communities, with its influence disappearing in high SES vulnerability counties and Black communities. Linking social capital increases vaccination rates in Black communities and those with SES vulnerability, but not in Hispanic communities or those with MS&L vulnerabilities. The article highlights the nuances of social connections as a resource to enhance resilience. Variations across communities of color and those with varying social vulnerabilities demonstrate the complexity of social equity.