Economics of Governance

, Volume 20, Issue 2, pp 159–181 | Cite as

Selection rates and bureaucratic performance

  • Daniel GibbsEmail author
Original Paper


Bureaucratic personnel policy influences agency performance by affecting both the types of bureaucrats who are selected for employment and the actions that bureaucrats take. An effective policy selects intrinsically motivated bureaucrats for promotion or retention and provides incentives for bureaucrats to exert a high level of effort. I investigate a retention and promotion policy used in a number of U.S. government agencies in which only a previously specified percentage of bureaucrats in a cohort are retained after one period. The proportion of bureaucrats retained after a review is referred to as a “selection rate”. Using a formal model, I show that the adoption of a selection rate facilitates the separation of intrinsically motivated and unmotivated bureaucrats where they would otherwise pool, allowing bureaucratic personnel managers to screen out unmotivated bureaucrats. Effective screening by itself, however, is not welfare-enhancing because screening removes unmotivated bureaucrats’ incentives to exert effort. Compared to alternative welfare-reducing screening mechanisms which bring about screening through monitoring or wage policy, selection rates facilitate welfare-enhancing screening by inducing motivated types to exert additional effort in order to distinguish themselves from unmotivated bureaucrats. I find that selection rates are most effective where material or ego rents from government employment are high and where the policy rewards that motivated bureaucrats realize are low. These properties of selection rates explain their adoption in several U.S. government agencies’ personnel systems, most notably the military officer corps.


Bureaucracy Public personnel administration Intrinsic motivation 

JEL Classification

D73 H83 M51 


  1. Ashworth S (2005) Reputational dynamics and political careers. J Law Econ Organ 21(2):441–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Banks JS, Sundaram RK (1998) Optimal retention in agency problems. J Econ Theory 82(2):293–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Banuri S, Keefer P (2016) Pro-social motivation, effort, and the call to public service. Eur Econ Rev 83:139–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barro R (1973) The control of politicians: an economic model. Public Choice 14(1):19–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Benabou R, Tirole J (2003) Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Rev Econ Stud 70(3):489–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Besley T (2006) Principled agents? The political economy of good government. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  7. Brehm J, Gates S (1999) Working, shirking, and sabotage: bureaucratic response to a Democratic Public. University of Michigan Press, Ann ArborGoogle Scholar
  8. Cho IK, Kreps D (1987) Signaling games and stable equilibria. Q J Econ 102(2):179–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Coate S, Morris S (1995) On the form of transfers to special interests. J Polit Econ 103(6):1210–1235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cowen T, Glazer A (1996) More monitoring can induce less effort. J Econ Behav Organ 30(1):113–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dal Bo E, Finan F, Rossi M (2013) Strengthening state capabilities: the role of financial incentives in the call to public service. Q J Econ 128(3):1169–1218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Downs A (1967) Inside bureaucracy. Little, Brown, BostonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fearon J (1999) Electoral accountability and the control of politicians: selecting good types versus sanctioning poor performance. In: Przeworski A, Stokes S, Bernard M (eds) Democracy, accountability, and representation. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. Ferejohn J (1986) Incumbent performance and electoral control. Public Choice 50(1–3):5–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fox J, Van Weelden R (2012) Costly transparency. J Public Econ 96(1–2):142–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gailmard S, Patty J (2007) Slackers and zealots: civil service, policy discretion, and bureaucratic expertise. Am J Polit Sci 51(4):873–889CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gailmard S, Patty J (2013) Learning while governing: expertise and accountability in the executive branch. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gavazza A, Lizzeri A (2007) The perils of transparency in bureaucracies. Am Econ Rev 97(2):300–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ghosh S, Waldman M (2010) Standard promotion practices versus up-or-out contracts. RAND J Econ 41(2):301–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gibbons R (1998) Incentives in organizations. J Econ Perspect 12(4):115–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Golden M (2000) What motivates bureaucrats? Politics and administration during the Reagan Years. Columbia University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kahn C, Huberman G (1988) Two-sided uncertainty and ‘up-or-out’ contracts. J Labor Econ 6(4):423–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Levy G (2007) Decision making in committees: transparency, reputation, and voting rules. Am Econ Rev 97(1):150–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Maskin E, Tirole J (2004) The politician and the judge: accountability in government. Am Econ Rev 94(4):1034–1054CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Naff K, Crum J (1999) Working for America: does public service motivation make a difference? Rev Public Pers Adm 19(4):5–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Parcell A, Kraus A (2010) Recommendations from the CNGR implementation plan: exploring the requirements of DOPMA and ROPMA. CNA, ArlingtonGoogle Scholar
  27. Perry J (2000) Bringing society in: toward a theory of public service motivation. J Public Adm Res Theory 10(2): 471–488Google Scholar
  28. Prat A (2005) The wrong kind of transparency. Am Econ Rev 95(3):862–877CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Prendergast C (1993) The role of promotion in inducing specific human capital aquisition. Q J Econ 108(2):523–534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Prendergast C (2007) The motivation and bias of bureaucrats. Am Econ Rev 97(1):180–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rostker B, Thie H, Lact J, Kawata J, Purnell S (1993) The defense officer personnel management act of 1980. RAND Corporation, Santa MonicaGoogle Scholar
  32. Rothstein J (2015) Teacher quality policy when supply matters. Am Econ Rev 105(1):100–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Schirmer P, Thie H, Harrell M, Tseng M (2006) Challenging time in DOPMA: flexible and contemporary military officer management. RAND Corporation, Santa MonicaGoogle Scholar
  34. Spain E, Mohundro J, Banks B (2015) Intellectual capital: a case for cultural change. US Army War Coll Q Parameters 45(2):77–92Google Scholar
  35. Staiger D, Rockoff J (2010) Searching for effective teachers with imperfect information. J Econ Perspect 24(3):97–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Vandenabeele W (2007) Toward a public administration theory of public service motivation. Public Manag Rev 9(4):545–556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Visser B, Swank O (2007) On committees of experts. Q J Econ 122(1):337–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Waldman M (1990) Up-or-out contracts: a signaling perspective. J Labor Econ 8(2):230–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PoliticsPrinceton UniversityPrincetonUSA

Personalised recommendations