Feminist Theory of Public Administration

Camilla Stivers,
Cleveland State University

The theory that interprets or explains public administration or its various aspects from a feminist
perspective. Although feminism includes a wide range of viewpoints, most, if not all, feminists
maintain a critical prspective on womenfs current economic and social status and prov~""t" employ
gender as a central element in social andysis, and are committed to the idea that men and women
should share equally '*in the work, in the privileges, in the defining and the dreaming of the world"
eder1~er 1984, p. 33). Feminist theories of ptrblic adminiskation, then, use gender as a lens through
which to analyze critically women's current status and role in public agen'ies, bring to light wqs in
which gender bias inhabits ideas and practices in the field, and formulate ncw theoretical
approaches.

Two types of femb~istheory can be obsaved in the fiterature of public aclministratio~~. Descriptke
theory, based on empirical study, reports on hOw gender influences currex~t practice in puhlic
age""-, especially its eKect on women's access to and status in public agency employment, and
sometimes attempts to account for observed differences between men" and kvorrren" employment
experiences. Conceptual theory aims to use gender to rethink the existing philosophy of public
administration, focwiPlg on such issues as the politics-administration dichotomyf public bureaucratic
structure and practice, the bases for defending the legitimacy of ihe administrative state,
professiona[ism, leadersl-tip, ar~d citi- zenship in public administration. fnitial fenninist theorizjng in
public administration was largely descript-ive; more recent literaturrz includes both $escripti\re a"td
co~~ceptclal theories.

Descriptive Theories
In comparison to closely related fields such as political science md business management; public
administration was relatively slow to develop feminist perspectives, hut beghning in the mid-IBTOs
work "oegan to appear that documented federal, state, and local government discrinnination against
women in public employment, This early work notably included a 1976 symposium in Pzkblic
Ad~~zi~i~fraCEon Rcoiew edited by Nesta M. Gallas on "Wome~~ in Public Ahinistratior~.'" Galfas
was serving at the time as t-he first female preside17.t of the American Society for Public
Acdmkistration (ASPA). In ilddition to two ar(icles ilssessing the status of womn in ASPA itself, the
symposiw included analyses of why so few women had by that time mmaged to land top jobs in
federal agencies; the role of affirmalive action in overcoming employnnent dischmjnalion against
women; strategies to help women administrators perform effectively; and the idea of women"
srights as a basis for public policy.

Other examples of early feminist critives of the status of women in public employment ir~clude
Lorraine D. Eyde f1973), 'The Status of Wornell in State and Local Goven~me~~l;" in which she
critically examined the segregation of women in, low-level jobs, and Jmdith Mohr (1973), '*Wy Not
Morc? Women City Managcrs'l" in which she fomd only seven women out: of mare than 2,300 city
managers.

Dehra Stewart (1990) reviewed a number of qumtitativo analyses of the proportions of women
found at various grade levels in public agencies and found that in the 1980s there was a shift in
vantitatbe malysis from a straightforward description of public executi\ses"~Ie?; to ar~
investit;gation and understanding of the important differe~~ces between male and femde
executivesbttit-udes about their work ar~d how they achieve advmcement; thus tmderstmdhg the
forces that drive them, in order to better predict alternative strategies for change. An exanzple of
the type of comparative mnlysis rekrred to by Stewat is Mary E. Guy" eedited. collection (19921,
which presftnts results of several. studies fhding consistent differences beween the status of men
md women managers in the governments of six states with widely vasying political cultures, thus
suggesting Lhe persister~ce of factors that work against the equality of women in public
employment, The arljcles in the collection, reflecting the focus on differences between men" sand
wmen's stabs characteristic of descriptive femhist theory, cover career patter~~s, perw11"l
characteristics, the impact of domestic respo~~sibiliticzs on individualsf ability to cope with work
demands, mer~toring, sexual harassment, and mmagernent style preferences and behaviors. Guy
has concluded: "Only through a process of significant change md reform cm we expect to see a more
equitable balance between the ntrmbers af female and male managers in state agencies" (p. 211).
Her recommended strategies include joh enrichment for women managers, mentorkg, eliminating
sexual harassmen& job restructuring to facilitate family obligations, a~d promoting child cm and
family leave policies.

Conceptual Theories
Descriptive theories take for grmted existing modes of thought in public adrnivristratian and examke
the extent to which kvornen have gained access to the world of practice, but conceptual theories call
into question the frameworks within which public administration is typically understood. The basic
psemise of conceptual feminist theories is that exisling pervectives, for alf their apparel71:
objectivity, co~~tai~li hidden gender biases. Tah"ig gender into account, therefore, involves mre
Lhan simply adding wmen to pu:biic agencies; instead it ent-ai:ls rethinkillg fundamental theoretical
assumptions, appmaches, and concepts. h early exmple of this appmach to the theory of public
admkistratian is that af Robert B* Denhardt and Jan Perkirrs (1976), who argued that mainstream
organizational analysis works from within a paradigm in which the reignjng means-ends mode% of
rationality, though puryortedly universal-neutral, is in actuality culturally masculine, DeAardt and
Perkins suggested that feminist t-heory pro"idewan altemtive paradigm in which process replaces
task -as the primary orientation, and hiermhy is challenged by an egalitarian framework. They noted
that sisnply adding women to public organizations will not be enough to dislodge the "'ad~ainistrativ
manrr paradigm; instead, a change of consciausness is mcessary; onc. that replaces traditionill ideas
of pmfessiomal expertise with the felninist notion of the author* of persmal experience as the
ethical basis of administrative practice.

Kathy Fergusm (29M) expanded the idea that liberal reforms, such as increasing the mnnher of
women in mmagement positions, is not enough to md gender bias in public &ministration; real
change entails a new approach- grounded in the historical-cultural experiences of women. Ferguson
argued t-hat to encow~ter bureaucracy or1 its owi~ terms, such -as by integrating women into public
orgm~izations, preclude" decisive attack on typical bwaucratic patterr~s of hierwhy. Only womer~~s
"marginal" prspective, kvhich has emerged as a result of their historical exclusion from the public
realm, offers the hope af real transformation, redefirrhg notions af power, rationality, and
leadership. As Ferguson has noted., "'To challcazgc; bureaucracy in the nme of the values and goals
of feminist discourse is to undermine the chain of comm;and, equalize the parljcipants, slrbvert the
monopoly of information and secrecy of decision-making, a~d esser~tially seek to democratize t-he
orgm~ization'" (pp. 20&--2W

Suzanne Frmzway, Dinnne Court, and R. W. Conneil (3989) brought femhist theory to bear on the
idea of the bureaucratic state, viewing it as an agent in sexual politics, mahtainhg and perpetuating
through its policies gmder bias in s0ciet.y at large md, in. turn, being shaped by this bias. The
'bu~aucratic state, in other words, is not "outside" ssuciety but erneshed in it, including its patterns
of gender ~lations. The authors maintained that no theory of the state can avoid issues of sex and
gender; they are prwent, if mi always visible, as grounding assumptions or limitations to arprner~t.
The bmaucrratic state supports the interests of men over those of wornern not only directly through
po:iicies but also ideologically, through characterizing what are actually gender-biased state
processes as being skply impersonal and neutral.

Camilla Stivers (1993) presented a feminist readkg of the literatznre on the legitimacy of the
administrative state, a central them of current public administration scholarship. Ske argued that
ideas of expertise, leadership, and virtue that mrk defenses of administrahe power have culturally
mascdine features that privikge masculhity over femi~~inity. This charactcirisiic mascutinity of public
adrnir"tistral-ion, t-ltough ig~ored by most fheorists, cor~tributes to and is sustained by gmder bins
in ssckty at large. In Stivers"(1993) \4ew, "'As long as we go an viewing the enterprise af
admkistration as genderless, women will continue to face their present Hobson's choice, kvhich is
either to adopt a masculine adrnivristrative identity or arcep t ma~inalization in the bu~aucratic
hierarchy" (p. 10). Even though scholars of public administration tend to praise its differences from
private bushess, Stivcrs argued, the publicness of public adminiskation is prohiematic becausc. of the
histr~ricili and theoretical ex- clusion of wmen from the public sphere, which has barred issues such
as the division of household labor from policy debate. The administrative state car1 o~1.l~ function
as it does because women bear a lopsided share of the burden of domestic work, withoul which
society would grind to a halt; thus public administrative structures and practimdepend for their
coherence md their effectiveness on the oppression of women.

Conceptual theorists agree that simply adding women to the bureatrcsacy will not be enough to end
enduring patterns of gendcr bias; instead, new modes of thought are required, ones that call into
question the neutrality of such central ideas as professionalism, leadership, and the pUblic inte~st.
The extent to which administratjve agency policies and practices can change wit:i also depend partiy
or1 such larger social transfornations arr; lfie sexual division of iabor in the household, a sphere that
shages and is shaped by the administrative state.

Future feminist theorizing in public administration is likely to continue to proceed on both

descriptive and conceptual fronts; and kdeed, careful empirical study of existing practices k go\
~mment agencies and concepkral decmstrldction and recmstruction reinforce one another. Empirical
data. on the status of women in public administralion have the potential to reshape understanding
of issucs and justify the need for conceptual tra~~sformalio~~ and new, gender-conscious modes of
&ought can revamp field resemch appmaches in fruitful ways, oper7ing researchers' eyes to new
questions and new foms of evidex~ce. Empiricai and conceptual work in. this area to date strongly
suggests not only &at gender is a cuttkg edge issue in public admkistration but: also that there is a
g~at deal of work still to be done.