Civil Service Employment and Race: Bureaucracy Bashing and the Threat to Economic Growth in Minority Communities
Neal Turpin, Ph.D.
Introduction
Since at least the mid-1960s, civil service positions have provided minorities in the United States an enormous opportunity for economic mobility. Government positions were seen as stable and served as an equalizing force to expand the black middle class (Laird, 2017; Landry & Marsh, 2011). This was the case until the last decade, when a recession created enormous issues for budgets at all levels of government. As funding tightened, many of these stable, well-paying civil service positions were cut, which in turn hurt a reliable vehicle for economic growth in minority communities. This process was likely aided by a phenomenon called bureaucracy bashing, where the effectiveness or efficiency of civil service workers is called into question, often in a humorous yet unfounded manner. As bureaucracy bashing becomes common, civil service positions are seen as expendable rather than something to be fought for.
Minorities in the Civil Service
It has been shown that civil service employment affects minorities at much higher rates than whites. Cooper et al. (2012) found that minorities are over-represented in the public sector compared to the private sector, and Pitts (2011) found that public agencies are the single largest employer of black men, and the second largest employer of black women, with over one in five black adults holding a government job. Overall, the federal government workforce is 63.5% white and 18.75% black, while the state and local workforce is 64.8% white and 18.5% black (EEOC, 2014, 2015). At all levels, more white men are employed than white women and more black women are employed than black men. While the gender breakdown is off, the racial breakdown is very similar to the US population as a whole.
As government jobs are perceived as good, secure positions, governments have been led to use their hiring power toward social goals (Kettl, 2015). These goals include redressing past patterns of discrimination, fighting income inequality, and making the bureaucracy more representative of the general population. The economic opportunities presented by the public sector contrast starkly with those in the private sector (Tomaskovic-Devey & Stainback, 2007). While hiring practices did become more equitable following the passage of the Civil Rights Act and the creation of the EEOC, gains made by racial minorities stalled in the 1980s, showing the persistence of racial discrimination in the private sector. Government jobs have offered minorities some level of reprieve from hiring practices in the private sector.
Beyond job attainment, the civil service is also advantaged in terms of wages. Previous work has shown that for minorities, salaries in the public sector are higher than those in the private sector, and the wage gap between black and white workers is much smaller (Cooper et al., 2012; Pitts, 2011). Public sector employment has specifically offered more opportunity in terms of higher paying managerial positions, increasing the chances of inter-generational transfers of wealth (G. Wilson & Roscigno, 2015; G. Wilson, Roscigno, & Huffman, 2013). Civil service positions are also more likely to be unionized, offering further protections and benefits to workers. In 2016, 34.4% of public sector workers were members of unions, compared to just 6.4% of private sector workers (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2017b). This difference is significant when salaries are considered, as union workers make around $200 more a week than non-union workers (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2017a). When these workers and their positions are attacked, it’s not just the civil service that is harmed, but also a historic and effective vehicle for economic growth for communities which have typically been excluded. When budget cuts happen, they affect everyone, but they affect minorities more.
Representative Bureaucracy
Civil service positions are a vehicle for economic mobility for minorities. But diversity in the public sector also serves the broader public interest. In this sense, it helps if the civil service mirrors the general population, an idea known as representative bureaucracy. The benefits to diversity in the civil service are well documented (Riccucci & Van Ryzin, 2017). A diverse workforce may put people in position to make better policy and expose policy makers to new viewpoints. Representative bureaucracy can increase citizen cooperation, trust, and accountability, and cause the public to view policy decisions as more legitimate.
This is an international focus, with one OECD report finding that “By improving representation in government of the different social groups, diversity in policy plays a part in maintaining core public values, increasing managerial efficiency, improving policy effectiveness, raising the quality of public services, and enhancing social mobility” (OECD, 2011, p. 168).
Bureaucracy Bashing
Bureaucracy bashing is a phenomenon dealt with by a significant segment of public administration literature. This concept, however, is not new or even American. As Kettl (2015) points out, it is at least as old as the New Testament, where Jesus is criticized for his association with tax collectors (or publicans) such as Matthew and Zacchaeus. In this context, bureaucrats were grouped alongside prostitutes, adulterers, thieves and rogues.
Much of this bashing comes in the form of seemingly harmless jokes. The frequency often picks up during election season, with politicians looking to score easy points by talking about the inefficiency of government (and government workers by extension). However, what sets this idea apart from so many other aspects of administration is that it has very little basis in fact. Much of the fodder for bureaucracy bashing is anecdotal, and one frustrating experience trying to get a pothole fixed can cause citizens to paint the entire civil service with the same inaccurate brush.
Furthermore, bureaucracy bashing is far from harmless. After years of jokes about the DMV or the IRS, people start to believe in the falsehood of inefficiency. This makes it easier for politicians to cut funding and jobs and steers quality applicants away from good jobs where they can effect real change. And as minorities are employed in the civil service at a disproportionate rate compared to the private sector, any cuts will have a disproportionate effect on the economic strength of the minority community. One route taken by policy makers in making cuts is privatization. It is often believed that the private sector can provide public goods more efficiently than the public sector can. This is true in certain situations. A major concern with privatization, however, is that levels of diversity in private organizations will not be as great as in the public sector (Tomaskovic-Devey & Stainback, 2007). As this private, business model of service provision creeps into the civil service, it reestablished the employment structures which perpetuated inequality in the first place (G. Wilson et al., 2013).
There may be legitimate reasons to criticize a bureaucracy. Corruption, ineffectiveness, or a lack of accountability are all issues that should be addressed, and should cause an agency to rightfully come under additional levels of scrutiny. Bureaucrats, like any other occupation, will occasionally be bad at their job. But it is not fair to generalize these issues to the broader civil service population. Bureaucracy may also be opposed for philosophical reasons. Some may wish to guard against a large government and its possible effect on personal liberties. Others may feel private sector solutions are more effective ways to distribute goods and services. Still others may simply wish not to pay taxes.
In public sector bureaucracies, as with private sector bureaucracies, there is always room for improvement. Yet it is illogical to assume that a lack of total efficiency indicates complete inefficiency. Most bureaucrats are competent and effective workers who do their jobs well, and public bureaucracies enable us to have a functioning civil society (J. Q. Wilson, 1989). Regardless of the reason, be it philosophical or political posturing, when bureaucracies are attacked, minorities are hurt. And unfortunately, in American politics, it is all too easy to accept minorities as collateral damage.
Moving Forward and Caution
It should be noted that, despite the benefits, government positions are not a panacea for racial income inequality. Even within the civil service, women and minorities tend to be concentrated in lower level, lower paying positions (Kettl, 2015; Riccucci, 2009). Furthermore, when government policies are implemented, they do not always have racially equitable effects, even when bureaucracies are representative. There is evidence that demographic trends will naturally alter the level of minorities and women in higher level positions. As older managers begin to retire, they are likely to be replaced by a younger, more diverse generation. Governments should not, however, assume that this transition will happen without any effort. Current managers and officials should actively recruit a more diverse workforce soon so that they have the skills and experience necessary to take the reins when the time comes.
While there is ample research regarding the benefits of civil service employment for minorities, future research should examine how governments at all levels are preparing themselves for the future. Helping government officials plan for a more diverse civil service can help meet the needs of a more diverse citizenry. Studies should include the effect of active recruitment efforts, not just of the hiring process. Giving preference to minority candidates will not be of much use if minority candidates do not apply in the first place.
Further research should also be done to try and quantify the effect of bureaucracy bashing. Researchers should examine to what extent these anecdotes of inefficiency and ineffectiveness affect citizen’s support of government agencies, or if it merely feeds into existing political inclinations.
Conclusion
African-Americans are overrepresented in a sector of the economy that is shrinking (Laird, 2017). Current trends put both economic opportunity and intergenerational wealth in jeopardy. Making the civil service more diverse has long been a goal of government agencies, but managers must also deal with budget cuts and a long-running lack of public support for bureaucrats. Dealing with these issues going forward will be difficult. While admitting that, as organizations, bureaucracies can and should improve, we must understand that they work well, keep society running, and even help to move it forward. Dismissing the civil service outright, whether through sincerely held ideology or through baseless attempts at bureaucracy bashing, is harmful for everyone—especially minorities.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2017a). Table 2. Median weekly earnings of full-time wage and salary workers by union affiliation and selected characteristics. Washington, D.C.: Economic News Release Retrieved from www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.t02.htm.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2017b). Table 3. Union affiliation of employed wage and salary workers by occupation and industry. Wasahington, D.C.: Economic News Release Retrieved from www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.t03.htm.
Cooper, D., Gable, M., & Austin, A. (2012). The Public-Sector Jobs Crisis. Retrieved from Washington, D.C.:
EEOC. (2014). Annual Report on the Federal Work Force Part II: Work Force Statistics Fiscal Year 2014. Retrieved from Washington, D.C.: www.eeoc.gov/federal/reports/fsp2014_2/index.cfm#ID
EEOC. (2015). State and Local Government Information, Table 1. Retrieved from www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/statistics/employment/jobpat-eeo4/2015/table1/table1.html
Kettl, D. F. (2015). Politics of the Administrative Process (6 ed.). Canada: Sage Publications.
Laird, J. (2017). Public Sector Employment Inequality in the United States and the Great Recession. Demography, 54(1), 391-411.
Landry, B., & Marsh, K. (2011). The Evolution of the New Black Middle Class. Annual Review of Sociology, 37(1), 373-394.
OECD. (2011). Fostering Diversity in the Public Service. Paris: OECD Publishing.
Pitts, S. (2011). Black Workers and the Public Sector Work in the Black Community. Berkley, California: University of California Berkley Center for Labor Research and Education.
Riccucci, N. M. (2009). The Pursuit of Social Equity in the Federal Government: A Road Less Traveled? Public Administration Review, 69(3), 373-382.
Riccucci, N. M., & Van Ryzin, G. G. (2017). Representative Bureaucracy: A Lever to Enhance Social Equity, Coproduction, and Democracy. Public Administration Review, 77(1), 21-30.
Tomaskovic-Devey, D., & Stainback, K. (2007). Discrimination and Desegregation: Equal Opportunity Progress in U.S. Private Sector Workplaces since the Civil Rights Act. ANNALS- AMERICAN ACADEMY OF POLITICAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCE, 609, 49-84.
Wilson, G., & Roscigno, V. (2015). End of an era? Managerial losses of African American and Latinos in the public sector. Social Science Research, 54(1), 36-49.
Wilson, G., Roscigno, V. J., & Huffman, M. L. (2013). Public Sector Transformation, Racial Inequality and Downward Occupational Mobility. Social Forces, 91(3), 975-1006.
Wilson, J. Q. (1989). Bureaucracy : What Government Agencies Do and Why They Do It. New York: Basic Books.
