IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ids/ijpubp/v12y2016i3-4-5-6p297-315.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Public policy, bureaucracy and prejudices: evidence of prevalence of biased attitudes among bureaucrats

Author

Listed:
  • Sangeeta Goel

Abstract

This study gives evidence of biased attitudes of bureaucracy deployed in public sector. 229 bureaucrats of varied seniority and decision making levels were deployed and using a standardised inventory, and the hypotheses were tested. Results showed that both male and female bureaucrats across the country harboured strong bias, irrespective of age, seniority and decision levels. The 'sex' of the bureaucrats was a significant predictor of differences. Study has policy implications since bureaucrats, by virtue of authority and power, they exercise, need to be impartial. The results suggest that bureaucrats despite education, sensitisation and public policies, fail to rise above their own cognitive biases, which might be, adversely impacting the functioning of public sector. Using cognitive perspective and a theoretical framework drawn from psychology, to study, a key factor which precedes agency's behaviour, have been rare in policy sciences. Besides the use of real participants, the study also uncovers the dark side of bureaucracy.

Suggested Citation

  • Sangeeta Goel, 2016. "Public policy, bureaucracy and prejudices: evidence of prevalence of biased attitudes among bureaucrats," International Journal of Public Policy, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 12(3/4/5/6), pages 297-315.
    • Handle: RePEc:ids:ijpubp:v:12:y:2016:i:3/4/5/6:p:297-315
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.inderscience.com/link.php?id=79768
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ids:ijpubp:v:12:y:2016:i:3/4/5/6:p:297-315. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sarah Parker (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.inderscience.com/browse/index.php?journalID=97 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.