CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 84African Studies and EthnographyPolitical Conflict and GovernancePublic Administration and Governance

Ethnic Politics, Representative Bureaucracy and Development Administration: The Zambian Case

Dresang, Dennis L.·1974·American Political Science Review
DOI 10.2307/1959945
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Ethnic groups argue that a certain proportion of administrative positions should be filled by their members. This concern assumes that a bureaucrat applies to his tasks the values and interests of his social background. Evidence from Zambia, a country in which ethnic and regional differences have been highly politicized, suggests that this assumption lacks empirical support. The fundamental guidelines that appear to shape administrative behavior in Zambia are the calculations of what must be done to achieve individual career advancement. Administrators are, in addition, constrained from pursuing parochial interests by the range of authority and discretion attached to their particular positions. Although bureaucrats do not appear to provide ideal representatives for ethnic interests, the ethnic composition of the most visible echelons of the government is of critical political significance. This is particularly evident in a country like Zambia where ethnically defined groups are contending for positions in the new postcolonial society. The symbols of power can be as important as power itself.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2307/1959945

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The secondary source literature on Zambia and Malawi contains many references to political and social divisions between Chewas and Tumbukas in Malawi but is silent on their relations in Zambia.

    “The secondary source literature on these countries is full of references to the political and social divisions between these groups in Malawi but entirely silent on the nature of their relations in Zambia (which one would have to take as evidence that cleavage between them is not important).”

    From The Political Salience of Cultural Difference: Why Chewas and Tumbukas Are Allies in Zambia and Adversaries in Malawi (2004) · cites this paper as Dresang 1974

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 36 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Dresang, D. L.
Affiliations
University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
Corresponding author
Dresang, Dennis L.
Venue
American Political Science Review
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Published
1974-12
Volume
68
Issue
4
Pages
1605-1617
ISSN
  • 0003-0554 (ISSN-L)
  • 1537-5943
DOI
10.2307/1959945
OpenAlex
W2278793761
Cited by
84
References
36
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 4 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
13.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.cambridge.org/core/terms (unspecified, 14155 d)
Locations
  • American Political Science Review (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › African Studies and Ethnography
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Political Conflict and Governance
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Public Administration and Governance
Keywords
ethnic politics, representative bureaucracy, ethnic quotas, bureaucratic behavior, career development, administrative discretion, postcolonial politics, Zambia

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review