European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research

, Volume 22, Issue 3, pp 499–523 | Cite as

Measuring Meritocracy in the Public Sector in Europe: a New National and Sub-National Indicator

  • Nicholas Charron
  • Carl DahlströmEmail author
  • Victor Lapuente


Since the late nineteenth century, the presence of an independent and meritocratic bureaucracy has been posited as an advantage for effective bureaucratic behaviour and a means of limiting patrimonial networks and corruption, among other benefits. There is little consensus on how the features of an independent and meritocratic bureaucracy should be measured across countries, however, and broad empirical studies are therefore rare. What is more, the few such studies that exist have advanced measures which are constructed exclusively on expert surveys. Although these have indeed contributed to the knowledge in the field, the data on which they are built come with problems. This paper proposes a set of novel measures that complement existing measures and thus fill important gaps in this burgeoning literature. The measures we present are not based on expert assessments but on perceptions of public sector employees’ and citizens’. We create two measures—that can be combined into one—from a recent survey (2013) of over 85,000 citizens in 24 European countries. One is purely based on the assessments from public sector employees’ and the other is based on perceptions of citizens working outside the public sector. The paper also discusses the survey and explores the external validity of the measures provided here, showing correlations with alternative measures based on expert opinions, as well as variables from the literature that we would expect to correlate highly with a meritocratic bureaucracy.


Bureaucracy Corruption Europe Meritocracy Sub national 


  1. Adcock, R., & Collier, D. (2001). Measurement validity: A shared standard for qualitative and quantitative research. The American Political Science Review, 95(3), 529–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aghion, P., & Tirole, J. (1997). Formal and Real Authority in Organizations”. Journal of Political Economy, 105, 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alesina, A., & Tabellini, G. (2007). “Bureaucrats or Politicians? Part I: A Single Policy Task”. American Economic Review, 97, 169–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Charron, N., Dijkstra, L., & Lapuente, V. (2015). Mapping the Regional Divide in Europe: A Measure for Assessing Quality of Government in 206 European Regions”. Social Indicators Research, 122(2), 315–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Charron, N., Dijkstra, L., & Lapuente, V. (2014). Regional Governance Matters: Quality of Government within European Union Member States”. Regional Studies, 48(1), 68–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Charron, N., Lapuente, V., & Rothstein, B. (2013). Quality of Government and Corruption from a European Perspective: A Comparative Study of Good Government in EU Regions. Cheltenham: Elgar.Google Scholar
  7. Cingranelli, J., & Richards, D. L. (2013). Ciri dataset 2008. Accessed Sept 2015.
  8. Dahlström, C., Lapuente, V. (2014). “Organizing Leviathan”. Paper presented at the 72nd annual Midwest Political Science Association Conference, Chicago.Google Scholar
  9. Dahlström, C., Lapuente, V., & Teorell, J. (2012). The Merit of Meritocratization Politics, Bureaucracy, and the Institutional Deterrents of Corruption”. Political Research Quarterly, 65(3), 656–668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dahlström, C., Teorell, J., Dahlberg, S., Hartmann, F., Lindberg, A., & Nistotskaya, M. (2015). The QoG Expert Survey Dataset II. University of Gothenburg: The Quality of Government Institute.Google Scholar
  11. Dollar, D. (1992). Outward-Oriented Developing Economies Really Do Grow More Rapidly: Evidence from 95 LDCs, 1976-1985. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 40(3), 523–544.Google Scholar
  12. Evans, P., & Rauch, J. (1999). Bureaucracy and Growth: A Cross-National Analysis of the Effects of ‘Weberian’ State Structures on Economic Growth. American Sociological Review, 64(5), 748–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Frankel, J. A. & Romer, D. (1999). Does Trade Cause Growth? The American Economic Review, 89(3), 379–399.Google Scholar
  14. Frant, H. (1993). Rules and Governance in the Public Sector: The Case of Civil Service. American Journal of Political Science, 37(4), 990–1007.Google Scholar
  15. Galbraith, J., & Garcilazo, E. (2005). Pay Inequality in Europe 1995-2000: convergence between countries and stability inside. The European Journal of Comparative Economics, 2(2), 139.Google Scholar
  16. Henderson, J., Hulme, D., Jalilian, H., & Phillips, R. (2007). Bureaucratic Effects: ‘Weberian’ State Agenciesand Poverty Reduction”. Sociology, 41(3), 515–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Horn, M. (1995). The Political Economy of Public Administration: Institutional Choice in the Public Sector. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jacobs, R., Goddard, M., Smith, P. (2006). Public services: are composite measures a robust reflection of performance in the public sector?. University of York, Centre for Health Economics Research Paper.Google Scholar
  19. Krause, G., Lewis, D., & Douglas, J. (2006). Political Appointments, Civil Service Systems, and Bureaucratic Competence: Organizational Balancing and Executive Branch Revenue Forecasts in the American States”. American Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 770–787.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Krugman, P. (1991). Geography and Trade. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  21. Kuznets, S. (1955). Economic growth and income inequality”. American Economic Review, 45(1), 1–28.Google Scholar
  22. Lewis, D. (2008). The Politics of Presidential Appointments: Political Control and Bureaucratic Performance. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Miller, G. (2000). Above Politics: Credible Commitment and Efficiency in the Design of Public Agencies”. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10(2), 289–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Myrdal, G. (1957). Economic Theory and Underdeveloped Regions. Methuen: London: University Paperbacks.Google Scholar
  25. Northcote, S., & Trevelyan, C. (1853). Report on the Organization of the Permanent Civil Service. London: House of Commons.Google Scholar
  26. Olsen, J. P. (2005). Maybe it is Time to Rediscover Bureaucracy”. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16(1), 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Parrado, S. (2000). “The Development and Current Features of the Spanish Civil Service System”. In H. Bekke & Frits van der Meer (eds.). Civil Service Systems in Western Europe. Bodmin: MPG Books. Google Scholar
  28. Persson, T., & Tabellini, G. (2005). The Economic Effects of Constitutions. Munich Lectures in Economics. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  29. Peters, B. G., & Pierre, J. (Eds.). (2001). Politicians, bureaucrats and administrative reform. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  30. Peters, B. G., & Pierre, J. (Eds.). (2004). Politicization of the Civil Service in Comparative Perspective. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  31. Pollitt, C. (2011). Moderation in all thing: international comparisons of governance quality”. Financial Accountability and Management, 27(4), 437–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Prud'homme, R. (1995). The dangers of decentralization”. The World Bank Observer, 10(2), 201–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rauch, J., & Evans, P. (2000). Bureaucratic structure and bureaucratic performance in less developed countries. Journal of Public Economics, 75(1), 49–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rokkan, S. (1970). Citizens, Elections, Parties: Approaches to the Comparative Study of the Process of Development. New York: David McKay.Google Scholar
  35. Rothstein, B. (2011). The Quality of Government: Corruption, Social Trust and Inequality in International Perspective. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rothstein, B., & Teorell, J. (2012). Defining and measuring quality of government. In S. Holmberg & B. Rothstein (Eds.). Good Government: The Relevance Of Political Science. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  37. Silberman, B. (1993). Cages of Reason: The Rise of the Rational State in France, Japan, the United States, and Great Britain. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Snyder, R. (2001). Scaling down: The subnational comparative method”. Studies in Comparative International Development, 36(1), 93–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sotiropoulos, D. (2004). Two Faces of Politicization of the Civil Service: The Case of Contemporary Greece”. In G. Peters & P. Jon (Eds.), Politicization of the Civil Service in Comparative Perspective. London: The Quest for Control.Google Scholar
  40. Sundström, A. (2013). Women’s local political representation within 30 European countries. University of Gothenburg, QoG Working Paper Series, 2013:18.Google Scholar
  41. Tabellini, G. (2008). Institutions and Culture”. Journal of the European Economic Association, 6, 255–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Teorell, J, Charron, N,. Dahlberg, S,. Holmberg, S,. Rothstein, B,. Sundin, P. & Svensson. R. (2013). The Quality of Government Dataset, version 15May13. University of Gothenburg: The Quality of Government Institute,
  43. Teorell, J., Dahlström, C., & Dahlberg,.S. (2011). The QoG Expert Survey Dataset. University of Gothenburg: The Quality of Government Institute.Google Scholar
  44. Treisman, D. (2007). What Have We Learned About the Causes of Corruption from Ten Years of Cross-National Empirical Research?”. Annual Review of Political Science, 10, 211–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Weber, Max 1978[1922]. Economy and Society. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  46. Wilson, W. (1887). Study of Administration. Political Science Quarterly, 2, 197–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Williamson, J. (1965). Regional Inequality and the Process of National Development: A Description of the Patterns”. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 13(4), 3–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nicholas Charron
    • 1
  • Carl Dahlström
    • 1
    Email author
  • Victor Lapuente
    • 1
  1. 1.The Quality of Government Institute, Department of Political ScienceUniversity of GothenburgGothenburgSweden

Personalised recommendations