Bureaucratic behavior in developing countries remains poorly understood. Why do some public servants—yet not others—work hard to deliver public services, misuse state resources, and/or participate in electoral mobilization? A classic answer comes from Weber: Bureaucratic structures shift behavior toward integrity, neutrality, and commitment to public service. Our study conducts the first survey experimental test of the effects of bureaucratic structures. It does so through a conjoint experiment with public servants in the Dominican Republic. Looking at merit examinations and job stability, we find that Weber was right—but only partially. Recruitment by examination curbs corruption and political services by bureaucrats, while enhancing work motivation. Job stability, by contrast, only decreases political services: Tenured bureaucrats are less likely to participate in electoral mobilization. Examinations thus enhance the quality of bureaucracy (motivation and lower corruption) and democracy (electoral competition); job stability only enhances the quality of democracy.
AndersenL. B. (2009). What determines the behaviour and performance of health professionals? Public service motivation, professional norms and/or economic incentives. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 75, 79-97.
3.
AndersonC. J.TverdovaY. V. (2003). Corruption, political allegiances, and attitudes toward government in contemporary democracies. American Journal of Political Science, 47, 91-109.
4.
AshrafN.BandieraO.LeeS. (2014). Do-gooders and go-getters: Career incentives, selection, and performance in public service delivery (STICERD-Economic Organisation and Public Policy Discussion Papers Series No. 54). Retrieved from http://sticerd.lse.ac.uk/dps/eopp/eopp54.pdf
5.
BeckerG.StiglerG. (1974). Law enforcement, malfeasance, and compensation of enforcers. The Journal of Legal Studies, 3, 1-18.
BoteroJ.PonceA.ShleiferA. (2013). Education, complaints, and accountability. The Journal of Law & Economics, 56, 959-996.
8.
BuelensM.Van den BroeckH. (2007). An analysis of differences in work motivation between public and private sector organizations. Public Administration Review, 67, 65-74.
9.
CalvoE.MurilloM. (2004). Who delivers? Partisan clients in the Argentine electoral market. American Journal of Political Science, 48, 742-757.
10.
CarnesN.LupuN. (2016). Do voters dislike working-class candidates? Voter biases and the descriptive underrepresentation of the working class. American Political Science Review, 110, 832-844.
11.
CharronN.DahlströmC.FazekasM.LapuenteV. (2017). Careers, connections, and corruption risks: Investigating the impact of bureaucratic meritocracy on public procurement processes. The Journal of Politics, 79, 89-104.
CingolaniL.ThomssonK.de CrombruggheD. (2015). Minding Weber more than ever? The impacts of state capacity and bureaucratic autonomy on development goals. World Development, 72, 191-207.
DahlbergS.DahlströmC.SundinP.TeorellJ. (2013). The Quality of Government Expert Survey 2008-2011. Gothenburg, Sweden: Quality of Government Institute.
17.
DahlströmC.LapuenteV.TeorellJ. (2012a). The merit of meritocratization: Politics, bureaucracy, and the institutional deterrents of corruption. Political Research Quarterly, 65, 656-668.
18.
DahlströmC.LapuenteV.TeorellJ. (2012b). Public administration around the world. In HolmbergS.RothsteinB. (Eds.), Good government: The relevance of political science (pp. 40-67). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
19.
Dal BóE.FinanF.RossiM. (2013). Strengthening state capabilities: The role of financial incentives in the call to public service. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 128, 1169-1218.
20.
DavisC. L.CampR. A.ColemanK. M. (2004). The influence of party systems on citizens’ perceptions of corruption and electoral response in Latin America. Comparative Political Studies, 37, 677-703.
21.
DumasV.LafuenteM. (2015). Gestion de los Recursos Humanos del Estado [Management of Human Resources in the State]. In PratJ.BeverinottiJ. (Eds.), Una Mirada al Gasto Social en Centroamerica, Panama y Republica Dominicana (pp. 27-65). Washington, DC: Inter-American Development Bank.
EvansP.RauchJ. (1999). Bureaucracy and growth: A cross-national analysis of the effects of “Weberian” state structure on economic growth. American Sociological Review, 64, 748-765.
24.
FinanF.SchechterL. (2012). Vote-buying and reciprocity. Econometrica, 80, 863-881.
25.
FolkeO.HiranoS.SnyderJ. (2011). Patronage and elections in U.S. states. American Political Science Review, 105, 567-585.
26.
FrankB.LambsdorffG. J.BoehmF. (2011). Gender and corruption: Lessons from laboratory corruption experiments. The European Journal of Development Research, 23, 59-71.
27.
FukuyamaF. (2014). Political order and political decay: From the industrial revolution to the globalization of democracy. London, England: Profile Books.
28.
GalloN.LewisD. E. (2012). The consequences of presidential patronage for federal agency performance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22, 219-243.
29.
GeddesB. (1996). Politician’s dilemma: Building state capacity in Latin America. Berkeley: University of California Press.
30.
GerringJ.ThackerS. (2004). Political institutions and corruption: The role of unitarism and parliamentarism. British Journal of Political Science, 34, 295-330.
31.
GingerichD. (2013a). Governance indicators and the level of analysis problem: Empirical findings from South America. British Journal of Political Science, 43, 505-540.
32.
GingerichD. (2013b). Political institutions and party-directed corruption in South America: Stealing for the team. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
33.
GrindleM. (2012). Jobs for the boys: Patronage and the state in comparative perspective. Cambridge, UK: Harvard University Press.
34.
Grzymala-BusseA. (2007). Rebuilding leviathan: Party competition and state exploitation in post-communist democracies. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
35.
HainmuellerJ.HangartnerD.YamamotoT. (2015). Validating vignette and conjoint survey experiments against real-world behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112, 2395-2400.
36.
HainmuellerJ.HopkinsD. J. (2015). The hidden American immigration consensus: A conjoint analysis of attitudes toward immigrants. American Journal of Political Science, 59, 529-548.
37.
HainmuellerJ.HopkinsD. J.YamamotoT. (2014). Causal inference in conjoint analysis: Understanding multidimensional choices via stated preference experiments. Political Analysis, 22, 1-30.
38.
HendersonJ.HulmeD.JalilianH.PhillipsR. (2007). Bureaucratic effects: “Weberian” state agencies and poverty reduction. Sociology, 41, 515-532.
39.
HolleyJ. (1977). Tenure and research productivity. Research in Higher Education, 6, 181-192.
40.
HoustonD. (2014). Public service motivation in the post-communist state. Public Administration, 92, 843-860.
41.
JamesO.JilkeS.Van RyzinG. (2017). Experiments in public management research: Challenges and contributions. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
KimS.VandenabeeleW.WrightB. E.AndersenL. B.CeraseF. P.ChristensenR. K.. . . De VivoP. (2013). Investigating the structure and meaning of public service motivation across populations: Developing an international instrument and addressing issues of measurement invariance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 23, 79-102.
KitscheltH.KselmanD. (2013). Economic development, democratic experience, and political parties’ linkage strategies. Comparative Political Studies, 46, 1453-1484.
47.
KitscheltH.WilkinsonS. (2007a). Citizen–politician linkages: An introduction. In KitscheltH.WilkinsonS. (Eds.), Patrons, clients and policies—Patterns of democratic accountability and political competition (pp. 1-49). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
48.
KitscheltH.WilkinsonS. (2007b). Patrons, clients and policies: Patterns of democratic accountability and political competition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
49.
KopeckýP.MairP.SpirovaM. (2012). Party patronage and party government in European democracies. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
50.
KopeckyP.Meyer SahlingJ.-H.PanizzaF.ScherlisG.SchusterC.SpirovaM. (2016). Party patronage in contemporary democracies: Results from an expert survey in 22 countries from five regions. European Journal of Political Research, 55, 416-431.
51.
KruegerA. (1988). The determinants of queues for federal jobs. ILR Review, 41, 567-581.
52.
LarreguyH.OleaC.QuerubinP. (2014). The role of labor unions as political machines: Evidence from the case of the Mexican teacher’s union [Typescript]. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
53.
LawsonC.GreeneK. F. (2014). Making clientelism work: How norms of reciprocity increase voter compliance. Comparative Politics, 47, 61-77.
54.
LewisD. E. (2007). Testing Pendleton’s premise: Do political appointees make worse bureaucrats?The Journal of Politics, 69, 1073-1088.
55.
LindstedtC.NaurinD. (2010). Transparency is not enough: Making transparency effective in reducing corruption. International Political Science Review, 31, 301-322.
56.
LupuN. (2015). Party polarization and mass partisanship: A comparative perspective. Political Behavior, 37(2), 331-356.
57.
ManningN. (2001). The legacy of the New Public Management in developing countries. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 67, 297-312.
58.
Meyer-SahlingJ.-H.MikkelsenK. S. (2016). Civil service laws, merit, politicization, and corruption: The perspective of public officials from five East European countries. Public Administration, 94, 1105-1123.
59.
MoeT. (1985). The politicized presidency. In ChubbJ.PetersonP. (Eds.), The new direction in American politics (pp. 235-271). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
60.
MontinolaG.JackmanR. (2002). Sources of corruption: A cross-country study. British Journal of Political Science, 32, 147-170.
61.
MorrisS.KlesnerJ. (2010). Corruption and trust: Theoretical considerations and evidence from Mexico. Comparative Political Studies, 43, 1258-1285.
62.
MurilloM. V.OliverosV.VaishnavM. (2010). Electoral revolution or democratic alternation?Latin American Research Review, 45(3), 87-114.
63.
NeshkovaM. I.KostadinovaT. (2012). The effectiveness of administrative reform in new democracies. Public Administration Review, 72, 324-333.
64.
NistotskayaM.CingolaniL. (2016). Bureaucratic structure, regulatory quality, and entrepreneurship in a comparative perspective: Cross-sectional and panel data evidence. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 26, 519-534.
65.
O’DwyerC. (2006). Runaway state-building: Patronage politics and democratic development. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
66.
OliverosV. (2016a). Making it personal: Clientelism, favors, and the personalization of public administration in Argentina. Comparative Politics, 48, 373-391.
67.
OliverosV. (2016b). A working machine: Patronage jobs and political services in Argentina (Unpublished manuscript). Tulane University, New Orleans, LA.
PeisakhinL. (2012). Transparency and corruption: Evidence from India. The Journal of Law & Economics, 55, 129-149.
70.
RauchJ. (1995). Bureaucracy, infrastructure, and economic growth: Evidence from U.S. cities during the progressive era. The American Economic Review, 85, 968-979.
71.
RauchJ.EvansP. (2000). Bureaucratic structure and bureaucratic performance in less developed countries. Journal of Public Economics, 75, 49-71.
72.
RobinsonJ.VerdierT. (2013). The political economy of clientelism. The Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 115, 260-291.
73.
Rose-AckermanS. (1999). Corruption and government: Causes, consequences, and reform. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
74.
Rose-AckermanS. (2004). Governance and corruption. In LomborgB. (Ed.), Global crises, global solutions (pp. 301-362). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
75.
RothsteinB. (2011). The quality of government: Corruption, social trust, and inequality in international perspective. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
76.
SchusterC. (2014). Strategies to professionalize the civil service—Lessons from the Dominican Republic. Washington, DC: Inter-American Development Bank.
77.
SchusterC. (2016a). What causes patronage reform? It depends on the type of civil service reform. Public Administration, 94, 1094-1104.
78.
SchusterC. (2016b). When the victor cannot claim the spoils: Institutional incentives for professionalizing patronage states (Vol. IDB-WP-667). Washington, DC: Inter-American Development Bank.
StokesS. (2007). Political clientelism. In BoixC.StokesS. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of comparative politics (pp. 604-627). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
81.
StokesS.DunningT.NazarenoM.BruscoV. (2013). Brokers, voters, and clientelism: The puzzle of distributive politics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
SwamyA.KnackS.LeeY.AzfarO. (2001). Gender and corruption. Journal of Development Economics, 64, 25-55.
84.
TendlerJ. (1997). Good government in the tropics. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
85.
TorglerB.ValevN. T. (2010). Gender and public attitudes toward corruption and tax evasion. Contemporary Economic Policy, 28, 554-568.
86.
TreismanD. (2007). What have we learned about the causes of corruption from ten years of cross-national empirical research?Annual Review of Political Science, 10, 211-244.
WeberM. (1978). Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology. Berkeley: University of California Press.
90.
Weitz-ShapiroR. (2014). Curbing clientelism in Argentina: Politics, poverty, and social policy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
91.
WiesehomeierN.BenoitK. (2009). Presidents, parties, and policy competition. The Journal of Politics, 71, 1435-1447.
92.
Willis-ShattuckM.BidwellP.ThomasS.WynessL.BlaauwD.DitlopoP. (2008). Motivation and retention of health workers in developing countries: A systematic review. BMC Health Services Research, 8, Article 247.
93.
WintersM. S.Weitz-ShapiroR. (2013). Lacking information or condoning corruption: When do voters support corrupt politicians?Comparative Politics, 45, 418-436.
94.
World Bank. (2008). Public sector reform: What works and why?—An IEG evaluation of World Bank support. Washington, DC: Author.
95.
WrightB. (2004). The role of work context in work motivation: A public sector application of goal and social cognitive theories. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 14, 59-78.
96.
ZarazagaR. (2014). Brokers beyond clientelism: A new perspective through the Argentine case. Latin American Politics and Society, 56(3), 23-45.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
