Civil service is a relatively new term used to describe an old governmental feature that is becoming increasingly important in modern political systems. The phrase was first used in British administration in India and was popularized by Sir Charles Trevelyan a little more than a century ago. When the principle of open competitive examination was introduced in Great Britain in 1854, the phrase “civil service” was also carried over and was applied to the officials serving the state in a professional capacity, except for those in the military and judicial services. Of course, equivalent bodies of officials have served states throughout history, long before the term “civil service” was applied to them. Civil service is not a precise concept. It is similar to, but not identical in meaning with, other terms, such as public service and public bureaucracy. Although it has the advantage of familiarity, there are several difficulties in its use. Perhaps the chief difficulty is the distinction built into the term between the civil and military segments of the public service. In some governments this dividing line is becoming blurred and the interrelationships between civil and military services are growing more intimate, especially in the newly independent nations. The definition does place emphasis on the professional character of the service as against work performed for the state on a sporadic, voluntary, or forced basis. As used in Great Britain, and to a certain degree elsewhere, the term “civil service” refers to officials serving the central government or its agencies rather than local units of government. Even when “civil service” is considered to include officials in local units, it is customary to exclude teachers, despite the large number of people engaged in this government-supported profession. The term itself does not specify conditions as to professional preparation, methods of recruitment, social and economic origins, or other crucial matters, but it is now customarily associated with a merit system, as contrasted with a patronage system, and with a service open to all citizens on the basis of talent and proved capacity. Despite the vagueness in accepted definition and variations in its usage, “civil service” does identify the expanding corps of trained manpower that must be maintained by every modern polity to carry out governmental functions. The trend is world-wide, despite differences in cultural, political, historical, geographic, and other factors, for the scope and range of these governmental functions appear to be increasing. The result is usually described by such terms as “welfare state,” “administrative state,” and “big government.” Inevitably, the civil service plays a crucial role in the operation of modern governmental systems, whether in Western or non-Western states, in countries in the communist or noncommunist blocs, and in developed or developing nations. In all of them, the civil service is the core of modern government, growing in its power position vis-à-vis other political organs and therefore posing grave problems of control and accountability. At the same time that its contributions have become more essential, the question of the proper placement of the civil service in the governmental system has grown more difficult. While the external relationships of the civil service have been changing, its internal characteristics have also been modified in ways that transcend differences in the political systems generally. A consistent trend is that the proportion of the total work force that is encompassed by the civil service has been growing in most countries. Another is that the requirements of the civil service call for the services of a constantly expanding variety of occupational and technical specialists, representing all or most of those available in the society. These developments, in turn, have led to a trend toward professionalization among civil servants that affects their attitudes and behavior in ways that are significant both for the conduct of civil service activities and in the relationships of the civil service with other political groupings. Common features Certain requisites can be identified for the establishment and maintenance of any civil service system. Some kind of legal basis for the system must be provided. This may be largely customary and uncodified; it may take the form of ministerial regulations, as in Great Britain; or it may be set forth in considerable detail in a written constitution for the political jurisdiction, as is the case in Michigan and some other American states. More likely, it will have a statutory base, either in an elaborate civil service code, such as has existed in Germany for many years, or in a collection of civil service laws adopted at intervals and probably revealing some internal inconsistencies, as in the national civil service in the United States. Another common feature is provision for a personnel agency or agencies charged with responsibility for maintenance of the system. The British practice, which has influenced arrangements in many other countries, is to divide this task between the Civil Service Commission, which is concerned solely with the selection of entrants into the service, and the Treasury, which is the central control agency in other personnel matters. Many countries with a British administrative tradition have adopted this bifurcated system, with selection functions assigned to a civil service or public service commission and other personnel functions usually allocated to the home or finance ministry. In the United States, the preference has been to set up a semiautonomous civil service commission with combined responsibility for supervision of all aspects of personnel management, although in recent years there has been some inclination to confine the independent commission to quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial functions and to assign most personnel functions to a staff agency responsible to the chief executive. The Continental tradition has been to avoid a full-fledged central personnel agency and rely upon each ministry or department to carry out its own personnel program within the framework of uniform civil service legislation. However, France abandoned this approach after World War II and created the Direction de la Fonction Publique, or Civil Service Directorate, to initiate reforms in civil service policy and exercise personnel controls over the various ministries. Whether or not there is a central personnel agency for the civil service system as a whole, the primary departments or ministries and their major subdivisions require specialized personnel units. A developed civil service system calls for the installation of well-established procedures for the conduct of common personnel transactions, such as selection, promotion, compensation, performance evaluation, discipline, and separation. These standardized methods are intended to provide objectivity in the choice of entrants to the civil service from citizens who compete and to provide equity in treatment for those who already belong to the service. The system must also provide status guaranties and establish canons of conduct for civil servants. Achievement of such qualities as competence and continuity in the civil service rests upon some assurances to the public servant that his status will be protected, provided he observes the standards of conduct that have been set for him. The social position of civil servants varies from country to country. The Continental tradition, as in Germany and France, is for the higher civil servant to consider himself as a representative of the sovereign state and to expect considerable deference and respect. In Great Britain and the United States, there is more of a tendency to regard the official as a servant of the public, with a consequent reluctance to confer special status or privileges. An imbalance in either direction can cause difficulties. In the first case, the civil servant may be tempted to take advantage of the situation by an elaboration of prerogatives and safeguards, which stresses bureaucratic self-interest rather than the public interest. In the second, the prestige of the civil service may be too low to attract sufficient talent. Finally, the role of the civil service must be defined in the political system generally. The universal expectation is that the civil service should be neutral in the sense that it is loyal to the basic political order in the state but at the same time is amenable to shifts in political leadership from time to time. Devices for trying to achieve this vary a great deal from country to country, but responsiveness by the administrative staff to the directives of political leaders is an objective commonly sought, even among political regimes that differ greatly in other respects. Civil service system patterns Modern civil service systems are largely the products of developments in western Europe, with European patterns then being exported to, or copied by, nations in other parts of the world. In turn, European practices can be traced to historical antecedents in medieval and ancient times. China, Egypt, Greece, and Rome have all contributed something to present-day public administration, but Roman law and Roman administrative institutions have exerted by far the greatest influence. The Roman Empire provided legal principles and the rudiments of an administrative structure that have carried over into modern times. The emergence of the civil service from ancient and medieval antecedents has been accurately described as a gradual transformation of the royal household into the public service. This occurred earliest and progressed furthest in Europe, particularly in Prussia and in France, where absolute monarchies laid the basis for centralized and professionalized bureaucracies. In Prussia, as early as the middle of the seventeenth century, Frederick William, the great elector of Brandenburg, had succeeded in uprooting feudal administration and creating an efficient administrative organization staffed by trained civil servants selected on a competitive basis. The eighteenth-century Prussian civil service is considered to be the first of the modern civil service systems, and the scientific study of government administration received much attention and formed the basis for training officials. In France, a parallel but weaker development of the administration under the monarchy gave way to the French Revolution and the Napoleonic administrative reforms, which replaced the king with the nation and converted the royal service into the public service. The Napoleonic administrative features of rationality, hierarchy, and competence became models for reform in other countries in Europe and later elsewhere. The Prussian and French systems of administration and civil service, despite their differences, can be grouped together as the European pattern, which continues to be one of the strongest and most influential. This pattern emphasizes the role of the civil servant as the agent of the state, the professionalized and career nature of membership in the civil service, the importance of safeguards to civil service status and tenure, and the crucial contribution of the civil service to continuity in the administration of state affairs. Great Britain developed another influential pattern of civil service. Administrative evolution was slower, however, because political struggles turned more on issues of parliamentary versus royal ascendancy and of safeguarding individual liberties against the claims of political authority. Although the administrative apparatus became increasingly complex, it continued to be staffed primarily from the aristocracy on a patronage basis and without much regard to administrative efficiency, until the drastic reform measures that were taken in the middle of the nineteenth century. The TrevelyanNorthcote report of 1854 led the following year to the order-in-council that established the Civil Service Commission and laid the basis for civil service reform. The objectives were to abolish patronage, to admit candidates into the service at prescribed ages and through competitive examinations appropriate for the class of civil servant being recruited, and to stress the selection of outstanding Oxford and Cambridge graduates in the classics, history, science, and mathematics for appointment to the higher administrative class. The main features then adopted have been retained and have earned for the British civil service a deserved reputation for combining talent, integrity, and political responsiveness. In the United States, civil service reform came later and took a somewhat different direction, although it was strongly influenced by the British experience. The patronage system was closely tied to political parties and resulted in frequent rotation in office as party control changed. The price of the “spoils system,” in terms of administrative performance, was as a result higher than it had been in Great Britain. Following the Civil War, a civil service reform movement gathered momentum that led in 1883 to passage of the Pendleton Act at the national level and to subsequent reforms in state and local units of government, although substantial segments of the American civil service at these levels continue even today to be operated in the spoils system tradition. The United States civil service tends to reflect characteristics of the governmental system and social system generally. As a consequence, features include considerable mobility of personnel, recruitment on a position rather than a career basis, practical tests rather than examinations stressing broad cultural attainments, a relatively low prestige ranking for membership in the public service, and quasi independence for the central personnel agency. However, there are noticeable changes under way in all these areas, and the tendency seems to be for the American civil service to become more like the British, rather than for the differences between them to increase. In the Soviet Union and other communist countries, the environment in which public employment exists is so markedly different that to make comparisons with other civil service systems is difficult. The scope of public administration is nearly allinclusive, and the state has almost a monopoly on employment. The party is dominant in the operation of the administrative apparatus, and the line between party bureaucracy and state bureaucracy is hard to draw except in formal terms. Administration is carried on in a highly political context, and control agencies over administration have proliferated. For the ambitious young person, a choice between public and private employment is not possible since a career in the state service is the only career available. Nevertheless, the Soviet civil service exhibits many operating characteristics common to bureaucracies everywhere, and methods have been developed in the Soviet Union as elsewhere for maintaining and controlling the personnel system. The main agency responsible for personnel policy and practices is the Central Establishments Administration in the U.S.S.R. Ministry of Finance, with subordinate agencies in the republics. These are not recruiting bodies, however. Employment is the responsibility of the various ministries and agencies. Each sector has its own schools and institutes, and recruitment and placement are closely tied in with the educational system, with graduates of the training schools obligated to serve for a prescribed period in assigned posts. Civil service examinations are not given, nor are panels of candidates provided for appointment. Job evaluation and description are apparently well developed, with wage scales attached to job categories but with variations according to the qualifications of the incumbents. The civil servant is protected from dismissal by a code similar to those in other countries, and an elaborate grievance procedure has been established by law. Within the strict limitations imposed by the political system on choice of career and job mobility, opportunities for advancement are provided for those who can demonstrate loyalty and talent, and the bureaucratic elite enjoys a privileged position in Soviet society. Major problem areas A number of recurrent issues have had to be dealt with by most civil service systems. These issues continue to be subject to controversy in regard to principle and subject to variation in practical operations. Some of the most important ones will be discussed briefly. A central problem is that of selection of qualified personnel for the civil service. Even where competitive selection based on demonstrated competence is accepted as the proper approach, there are sharp differences as to how this should be done. The preference both on the Continent and in England has been to recruit graduates of educational institutions at an early age and on a career basis and, after a period of probation, arrange for the systematic advancement of those whose performance warrants promotion. The selection process is closely geared to the educational system, although there may be different views as to what kind of educational preparation is most appropriate for the future higher civil servant. The historical inclination in the United States, on the other hand, has been to keep opportunities open for entry into the service at all levels, rather than to require a career choice at the time of graduation, and to emphasize training that is closely related to the professional or technical specialty required on the job. Nonmerit considerations continue to affect selection in numerous ways. In countries such as the United States, with its spoils background and a multiplicity of governmental jurisdictions, political party affiliation sometimes may still be decisive. In European countries, recruitment may be largely confined, as a matter of practice, to candidates from middle and upper social and economic groups rather than carried out on a basis that is more representative of the whole populace. All countries impose some standards of political loyalty. In communist countries, this identification with the ruling party becomes a primary consideration, although there is considerable evidence that professional qualifications receive increasing attention in choosing from among those meeting the political requirements. In developing countries where the supply of qualified manpower falls far short of existing and foreseeable needs, there is a tendency to overstress education as shown by degrees held and to relate placement in the civil service almost exclusively to this factor rather than to capacity to perform the work of the government. Another common dilemma is how to make arrangements for status and for pay within the service. A complex modern bureaucracy must have a method for relating officials to one another in some systematic way. By far the most common system is one that utilizes a small number of broad classes within the service and then assigns ranks to the civil servants in each of these categories. Both Great Britain and France have four such general classes common to the ministries and departments, with the division based on clearly defined standards of education and training and with only limited movement upward from one category to another. The status of the civil servant is determined by his rank and the class to which he belongs, rather than by the particular assignment that he has at any given time. He is considered as primarily a member of a corps of career officials, rather than as the occupant of a particular position. There are indications that the rank system has advantages that make it more attractive to many of the newly independent states. A contrasting approach is used in the United States, Canada, Brazil, and a few other countries influenced by American practice. Here the basic element in the civil service structure is the position, which is defined as a cluster of duties and responsibilities calling for the services of an individual. The position held determines status in such a duties classsification system, and similar positions are grouped into classes of positions, the occupants of which receive common treatment in matters of selection, pay, and so forth. These two systems are not mutually exclusive, however, and in many countries are employed together in various combinations. Adequate compensation for civil servants, particularly in the higher categories, is essential to attract and hold qualified people. Only a few countries have succeeded in maintaining such pay levels and other perquisites. The best record has been made in the well-established and prestigious career services of western Europe. In the United States, compensation levels are competitive in the lower and middle levels but are grossly inadequate for the higher administrative, professional, and technical positions. In most of the developing countries, low salary scales are a major factor in explaining prevalent conditions of petty corruption, overstaffing, and low production. The setting of suitable standards of conduct for civil servants is another common problem area in all systems. As an agent of the state, and in return for tenure and other guarantees, the civil servant is usually subjected to special regulations on matters such as the ethical standards he is expected to observe, the extent of permissible union activity, and participation in political life. Ethical norms in the civil service reflect, of course, the ethics of the society as a whole and vary widely from culture to culture [seeEthics]. The general expectation is that the public servant should more than meet the standards prevalent in the community, and this is reflected in civil service regulations even where it is not achieved in practice. Integrity of behavior is part of the tradition in well-established civil service systems, such as the British system. In contrast, laxity in ethics often is a major problem in some developing countries, where temptation is great and administrative self-control is lower. Organized activity by civil servants to negotiate with the state as employer is ordinarily accepted but frequently is restricted to a narrower compass than in the private sector. Officially sponsored machinery for joint consultation between management and staff has often been provided, the most successful example being the Whitley councils set up in Great Britain after World War I and copied elsewhere. But the usual channel is civil service unionism. In most countries, the right of association in unions has been established and with it the right of civil service unions to affiliate with the general trade union movement, but resort to the strike as a weapon by civil servants is not normally accepted, and in several countries, including the United States, it is expressly forbidden by law. Policy concerning the political rights of civil servants is not uniform. Some European countries impose hardly any restrictions, even allowing the civil servant to serve in legislative bodies, including the national parliament, although with varying provisions concerning his civil service status while in office. Great Britain categorizes civil servants according to their policy-making functions and the public sensitivity of their duties and has a differential policy that frees a large proportion of civil servants for normal political activities and prohibits others only from membership in the House of Commons. The United States has a much more restrictive approach, with national legislation barring not only most civil servants in the national government but also state and local officials paid from federal funds from active participation in political management and in political campaigns. Most local governmental units with merit systems impose similar limitations on their civil servants. The relationship of the civil service to other instrumentalities of government and to outside interest groups is a topic of concern in any political system. In the Western democracies, the role of the bureaucracy is fairly well defined and the problem is essentially one of maintaining an existing balance, which has been worked out over a long period of time. Despite apprehension in some quarters that the civil service has gained undue policy-making power, the principle that the career officials must be responsive to political leadership is clearly recognized. In the communist countries, the monolithic nature of the political system leaves no doubt as to the subservient position of the state bureaucracy, although as these polities mature, the bureaucracy may be able to build up a more influential role and protect it in competition with other power centers. The most interesting current question has to do with the place of the career public service in the newly independent developing countries. Ordinarily in these nations the civil service has been the most fully matured governmental institution at the time of independence. Particularly in former British colonies such as India, Pakistan, and Nigeria, a strong civil service had already been built up, including native as well as expatriate officials. This undoubtedly has facilitated the transition to self-government, but it also has caused concern as to the long-run prospects for democratic development in the Western pattern. The reasons include an alleged carry-over from the colonial period of attitudes of superiority and disdain toward the public and a preoccupation with law and order considerations rather than with programs of economic development and social welfare. But the main argument is that the professionalization and expansion of the civil service has outpaced the growth of executive, legislative, and judicial organs of government, not to mention the development of interest groups in the private sector. This has led some to advocate a deliberate slowdown in further improvements of the public service until the rest of the political system has had a chance to catch up. Despite the superficial appeal of this thesis, it probably reflects an overoptimistic view of the adequacy of most transitional bureaucracies to meet the extraordinary demands pressed upon them, and it rests on what is still an unproved assumption that relatively weak bureaucratic institutions will give other political institutions a better chance to grow. At any rate, it is evident that the career civil service occupies a position of crucial importance in determining the political future of the non-Western developing countries. Approaches and trends in writing and research Both past and present literature on civil service reflects the stages through which contemporary civil service systems have evolved. Emphasis will be placed on American sources because they are most voluminous, as well as representative of what has been done in other countries. After the middle of the nineteenth century, when systematic attention was first given to civil service issues, the initial concern was almost exclusively with a reform or “fight the spoilsmen” approach. The movement had the twin objectives of cleaning up politics and improving the quality of administration, and the British model was advocated with modifications to fit the American circumstances. The writings of those involved in the reform movement were highly significant in the accomplishment of civil service reforms. After merit systems had been widely adopted, attention shifted to personnel management as a technical specialty, with concentration after the turn of the century on such subjects as examination techniques, position classification, promotion criteria, performance rating, employee relations, and organization for personnel administration. Personnel work became a professional field of specialization with its own standards and criteria for judging performance. A parallel development was the linkage between personnel administration in public and private employment, with interchange of techniques based on the assumption that there were no fundamental differences between the two spheres. In recent years a dominant theme, which began in the late 1920s and early 1930s and is usually associated with the “Hawthorne experiments” conducted at the Western Electric Company, has been to give special attention to human relations aspects of civil service operations and to apply findings from sociopsychological research to the relationships between productivity and motivation, smallgroup behavior, and supervisory practices. This led to a marked reorientation of personnel programs toward more emphasis on factors affecting work performance and relatively less emphasis on selection, status, and separation processes. Notable current trends, which give every indication of continuing, include sociological studies of civil services as bureaucratic systems; reconsideration of public policies concerning such controversial matters as civil service unionism, political activity, and ethical standards; and increasing attention to problems of civil service contributions to the future development of the developing nations. All of these interests have encouraged the pursuit of comparative studies between public and private sectors of administration within nations and across national boundaries among civil service systems. These are healthy tendencies that should lead to a better understanding and to the future improvement of the civil service in diverse political settings
Posted on: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 12:34:11 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015