<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<record
    xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
    xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim http://www.loc.gov/standards/marcxml/schema/MARC21slim.xsd"
    xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim">

  <leader>01498nam a2200181Ia 4500</leader>
  <controlfield tag="008">181130s2018    xx            000 0 und d</controlfield>
  <datafield tag="100" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Guul, Thorbjorn Sejr</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="245" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">The individual-level effect of gender matching in representative bureaucracy</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="260" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="c">2018</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="300" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">p.398-408.</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="504" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="d">May/Jun</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">A substantial literature links passive bureaucratic gender representation to better outcomes for represented citizens. However, because existing studies have been carried out primarily at the organizational level, it is not known whether these effects are caused by individual?level interaction or by organizational processes. This article investigates whether gender matching in individual relationships affects citizen outcomes. The context of the study is a program in which young job seekers without vocational training were assigned to a job counselor for one?on?one meetings. The article finds that gender matching has a positive effect on citizen outcomes and that this effect is partly explained by an increased level of effort on the part of the citizen. This implies that citizen outcomes can be improved by matching bureaucrats and citizens of the same gender or by providing training to bureaucrats to enable them to better serve citizens of the opposite gender. - Reproduced.</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Bureaucracy</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Representative bureaucracy</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Women in bureaucracy</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="773" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Public Administration Review</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="906" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Bureaucracy</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="999" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="c">506906</subfield>
    <subfield code="d">506906</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="0">0</subfield>
    <subfield code="1">0</subfield>
    <subfield code="4">0</subfield>
    <subfield code="7">0</subfield>
    <subfield code="a">IIPA</subfield>
    <subfield code="b">IIPA</subfield>
    <subfield code="d">2018-12-07</subfield>
    <subfield code="h">78(3), May/Jun, 2018: p.398-408.</subfield>
    <subfield code="p">AR118701</subfield>
    <subfield code="r">2018-12-07</subfield>
    <subfield code="w">2018-12-07</subfield>
    <subfield code="y">AR</subfield>
  </datafield>
</record>
