Why should ensuring merit in public appointments be an important element of public service reform? What can human resources specialists contribute to the debate about corruption and patronage? This paper from the University of Manchester’s Institute for Development Policy and Management analyses the theoretical perspectives of economics, political science and organisational psychology on this debate. It offers suggestions for governments wishing to strengthen appointments based on merit.
Merit – the appointment of the best person for any given job – is an important element in public sector reform. However, the reasons for this are still not widely recognised. The 1997 World Development Report identified connections between merit appointments and bureaucratic capability, as well as their importance in anti-corruption strategies. There is a well-established correlation between good selection methods and the subsequent performance of staff appointed using them, and they also have value in strengthening voice. Obstacles to merit include political patronage and nepotism, discrimination, faulty definitions of merit, and its politicisation.
Economics, with its emphasis on abolishing or privatising public appointments, can do little to help the move from patronage to merit. Devolution of a centralised staffing function in developing countries can increase opportunities for corruption rather than decrease them. Political science and psychology are more useful due to their respective stress on institutional arrangements and the actual practice of selection. In the light of research and organisational practice, a good, simple appointment structure, appropriate for use in developing and transitional countries, will have the following elements:
- A job analysis leading to a job description and a person specification, to form the basis of an advertisement distributed to eligible groups.
- A standard application form, and a scoring system based on the person specification, as well as a short listing procedure to reduce applications to a manageable number, if necessary.
- A final selection procedure, based on the person specification, and including a panel interview (if well done, a panel interview can be as valid as an assessment centre).
- An appointment procedure based on the scoring scheme.
- Notification of results to both successful and unsuccessful candidates.
Strengthening appointment on merit appears to be a simple, powerful, yet neglected way in which governments can both improve their effectiveness and reduce the incidence of corruption and patronage. Governments should think seriously about taking the following steps:
- Determine what merit means to them.
- Be clear about the circumstances in which it is not appropriate to use merit (for example, elected officials or political appointments, affirmative action or internal appointments and transfers).
- Be clear about the nature and strength of the forces that oppose it.
- Audit existing practices to remove institutional discrimination.
- Establish appropriate institutional arrangements and voice mechanisms.
- Establish good practice selection procedures.
