Smalskys Urbanovicoxfordenc

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/322231331
Civil Service Systems
Article · December 2017

DOI: 10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.160
CITATIONS READS
2 7,783
2 authors, including:
Jolanta Urbanovic
Mykolas Romeris University
16 PUBLICATIONS 83 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Civil Service reform View project
Resposible School Management View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Jolanta Urbanovic on 06 June 2018.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics

Vainius Smalskys and Jolanta Urbanovič
Subject: Policy, Administration, and Bureaucracy Online Publication Date: Dec 2017
DOI: 10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.160
Summary and Keywords
Civil service consists of civil servants and their activity when implementing the assigned
functions and decisions made by politicians. In other words, it is a system of civil servants
who perform the assigned functions of public administration. The corpus of civil servants
consists of people who work in central and local public administration institutions. The
concept and scope of civil service in a particular country depends on the legal framework
that defines the areas of public and private sectors and their relationship. In many
countries, civil service consists of an upper level, a mid-level, and civil servants who work
for coordinating, independent, and auxiliary institutions. However, the scope of civil
service in different countries varies. When analyzing/comparing civil service systems of
different countries, researchers often categorize them as Western European, continental
European, Anglo-American, Anglo-Saxon, Eastern European, Scandinavian,
Mediterranean, Asian, or African.
All European Union member states can be classified into two groups: the career system—
dominant in continental Europe, with the prevalence of traditional-hierarchical public
administration, rational bureaucracy, and formalized operational rules—and the position
system—dominant in Anglo-Saxon countries, with the prevalence of managerial
principles, pragmatic administration, and charismatic leadership. Neither of the two
models exists in pure form. If features of the career model dominate in the civil service of
a country, it is identified as a country with the career CS model; if elements of the
position model dominate the country is identified as a country with the position civil
service model. An intermediate version of this model, characteristic of a number of
countries, is the mixed/hybrid model.
Page 1 of 18
PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, POLITICS (politics.oxfordre.com). (c) Oxford University Press
USA, 2016. All Rights Reserved. Personal use only; commercial use is strictly prohibited. Please see applicable Privacy Policy
and Legal Notice (for details see Privacy Policy).
Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 03 January 2018

Many civil service researchers claim that in the case of two competing systems of civil
service—closed (the career model) and open (the position model)—reforms of the open
civil service system win. It has been argued that the organizing principles of the open,
result-oriented civil service system (the position model), which is under the influence of
“new public management,” will permanently “drive out” the closed, vertically integrated
and formal procedure-oriented career model. Scholars argue that civil servants of the
future will have to be at ease with more complexity and flexibility. They will have to be
comfortable with change, often rapid change. At the same time, they will make more
autonomous decisions and be more responsible, accountable, performance-oriented, and
subject to new competency and skill requirements.
Keywords: civil service, public administration, career civil service system, position civil service system, mixed civil
service system, new public management, civil service reform
Introduction
Civil service (CS) plays an important role in the state. Civil service systems (CSS) are a
constituent part of our system of government. Modern governments still depend to a
great extent on the work of the national civil services and their employees (Demmke,
2010). Civil servants’ qualifications and expertise to a large extent determine the quality of
implemented public policy decisions and thus the quality of life in the state. Furthermore,
“civil services have a democratic and ethical function; they should serve society and the
law, protect the population as well as function in a sustainable manner” (Demmke, 2010, p.
5). For all of these tasks and duties in all countries, there are established specific civil
services.
In recent decades, CSS have come under intense scrutiny. There is a debate that “the
central position of civil servants in the political–administrative and societal systems is
eroding. It is argued that the supposed monopoly of the civil service in public service
delivery has gradually broken down” (Raadschelders, Toonen, & van der Meer, 2007, p. 1).
Civil service is affected by both internal and external factors, which promote changes in
the system. Citizens, who have recently become more active and educated, increasingly
demand a “voice” and solutions that are adequate to solve social problems; awareness of
the impact of decision centers on the societal and governmental levels has increased; and
information exchange has become more rapid (Raadschelders et al., 2007). Internationally,
change processes, which have weakened the dominance of the unified nation-state,
include “the growing effects of globalization, transnational economic and demographic
movements, efforts at controlling cross border movement and constraining, for example,
international terrorism, etc.” (Farazmand & Pinkowski, 2006). On the other hand, at the
beginning of the 21st century, a period of global economic crisis and terrorist activity, the
criterion of loyalty to the state was often set for civil service personnel management
Page 2 of 18

under the guise of national security requirements (Riccucci & Thompson, 2008). This
resulted in the civil service system once again becoming more closed.
Altogether, these changes account for the conceptual shift from unified, national state
government to multi-level governance (Raadschelders et al., 2007). Caspar van den Berg
and Theo Toonen (2007) suggest that multi-level governance rests on three pillars: lack of
a single center of authority; the involvement of non-state actors in policymaking and
policy implementation; and interaction in the public realm not so much guided by
constitutional arrangement but, instead, being fluid, informal, and horizontal.
Although private actors, citizens, interest groups, non-profit organizations, enterprises,

etc., are considered as important as public sector actors, the majority of administrative
functions and decisions that protect the public interest nevertheless belong to the civil
servants (Peters & Pierre, 2004). Besides, civil servants assume the role of
“intermediaries” or “negotiators” between a wide range of non-profit and private
stakeholders. Therefore, it can be stated that the expertise requirements for civil servants
have increased.
It is obvious that various external and internal factors change the concept, purpose, and
scope of civil service. However, in different countries the same factors can lead to
different consequences. This depends on each country’s historical experience, economic
and social situation, and, of course, state governance model. In seeking a typology for CS,
scientists look for characteristic criteria that would facilitate grouping, analysis, and
comparison of CSS of different countries and look for (non)success factors. Here we
examine differences in the perception of the concept of CS, CSS reform trends in various
countries, and the main types of CSS.
The Concept of Civil Service

The most general description of civil service would involve civil servants and their activity
while implementing the assigned functions and decisions made by politicians. In other
words, it is a system of civil servants who perform the assigned functions of a public
administration.
The concept and scope of civil service in a particular country depend on the legal
framework, which defines the areas of public and private sectors and their relationship.
In some countries, such as the United Kingdom and Ireland, the boundaries between the
two sectors are not distinct (Auer, Demmke, & Polet, 1996); therefore, the organizational
and social environments of civil servants and private sector employees in those countries
have many similarities. Other countries (such as France and Germany) have distinct
personnel management systems in the private and public sectors.
Page 3 of 18

The corpus of civil servants consists of civil servants who work in central and local public
administration institutions. In many countries, civil service consists of upper-level civil
service, mid-level civil service, and civil servants who work for coordinating, independent,
and auxiliary institutions. However, as has already been mentioned, the scope of civil
service in different countries varies. Some states apply a narrow concept of the national
civil service (e.g., Ireland and Poland), whereas others use a broad definition (e.g.,
France, Finland, the Netherlands) (Demmke, 2010). In some countries (such as Lithuania),
civil service includes state (various central government departments) and local
administration; other countries (such as Poland) have only state administration (various
central government departments, i.e., a narrower concept). However, there are countries
(such as Italy), where civil service is a broader concept and covers not only central and
local government officials who perform administrative functions but also public sector
employees who provide public services, such as employees of educational institutions,
doctors, etc.
Nevertheless, all countries are characterized by the fact that the purpose of civil service,
regardless of the political situation and changes of governments, is to ensure efficient,
professional, transparent, and politically neutral implementation of the objectives of the
state. The saying that “politicians change, but the administration (civil servants) remains”
will be always relevant. A non-politicized and professional civil service, when political
forces change, guarantees continuity of activity and commitment to society (Smalskys,
2016). Every state must ensure the high quality of performance of employees who come to
work in the civil service and be sure that only qualified civil servants are accepted to the
civil service through the selection process, competition, or appointment.
Civil Service Reforms

Traditional civil service was a hierarchical, vertically integrated, and closed corporation.
This conservative structure was based on loyalty to the central state institutions, service,
and immediate superiors and only thereafter to the citizens as users of the administrative
services. With the liberalization of Western societies and the beginning of globalization,
this model of civil service did not meet modern requirements. It was necessary to reform
and change civil service into something more effective, results-oriented, and open to the
public.
CSS worldwide has changed considerably in recent decades: “Whatever the nature of
these changes, the desire for a solid and reliable civil service, based on the rule of law,
has been pivotal to public sector reforms in various regions of the world, and certainly in
Central and Eastern Europe, Asia, and Africa” (Raadschelders et al., 2007, p. 299). In
Western Europe and Anglo-American countries, the reform efforts were more focused on
new public management (NPM) reforms: “Where systems have not been able to achieve
Page 4 of 18

solid results to developing and maintaining a CSS strategy aimed at reform, especially
when such reforms are not anchored in a Rechtsstaat tradition, deformation and
regression have become more likely outcomes than reform and
progression” (Raadschelders et al., 2007, p. 299).
Due to implementation of reforms based on the NPM ideology, such terms as

“government by contract,” “contract-based public management,” “contract-like
arrangements,” and “new contractualism” were introduced. Implementation of principles
of the private sector in civil service systems was easier in Anglo-Saxon countries, which
did not have a separate administrative branch of law. Each of these countries is
characterized by stability of the political system, predominantly a two-party system,
infrequent coalition governments, and a politically neutral civil service at all times. New
Zealand, among all Western countries, extensively uses contracts in civil service and the
public sector. NPM reforms are characteristic of Sweden, although it must be stressed
that in Sweden the resistance to these reforms was great and the reforms were
implemented in different ways than in Anglo-Saxon countries (Green-Pedersen, 2002, pp.
271–294). The perception of the welfare state and responsibility for the care of citizens
was different in Sweden and New Zealand and other Anglo-Saxon countries. In Anglo-
Saxon countries, historically, it was easier to adapt to the liberal welfare model, give less
state care for state programs, and switch to a contract-based civil service personnel
policy.
The Western countries of continental Europe, which at times have had non-democratic
governance (Germany, Spain, Portugal, France [the Vichy regime during World War II])
and less stable political systems than Anglo-Saxon countries, adopted a “tougher” model
of civil service, oriented toward strong social guarantees for civil servants. Central and
Eastern European countries, which liberated themselves from communism, acted in a
similar way. In the initial stage of formation of civil service, they chose the model of civil
service characteristic of the continental tradition.
Some scholars argue that the nature of the activity of civil service, and the entire public
sector, does not allow managerial experience gained in business organizations to be
easily applied. The concept of responsibility to the public common to civil servants is alien
to business organizations. Such skills as knowledge of rights and duties, principles of
social equality, and involvement of citizens in governance cannot be acquired in business
organizations. It would be incorrect and irresponsible to organize civil service personnel
management by mechanically transferring principles of business organizations (Długosz,
2008, pp. 256–257).
Opponents of reform argue that the introduction of contracts and competition into civil
service can lead to unnecessary competition among employees. Competition creates
tension in the organization and ruins working relationships between employees. Constant
competition to achieve results and the resultant psychological stress have a significant
effect on the quality of work. Failure to ensure stronger social guarantees for civil
servants and comparability of working conditions in the public and private sectors can
Page 5 of 18

lure the best managers and servants away to work in the private sector, and thus the
quality of decisions made in the public sector will suffer. Finally, the main goal of
managers of business organizations is the pursuit of maximum profit and non-attachment
to work in one organization. Business managers often change jobs, and their loyalty to
the employer is short term. A similar personnel policy in public sector organizations and
civil service would lead to instability, especially in senior positions, and it would not serve
the implementation of the organization’s strategic goals. Thus, reforms do not necessarily
produce better outcomes (Demmke & Moilanen, 2010). It can be argued that using reforms
based on the NPM principles as an attempt to solve problems in the public sector
(including civil service) is an illusion. There are always various influences, interests, and
ideological aspects of the reform. Therefore, convergence of various models of public
governance is necessary for successful reforms (Bach & Bordogna, 2011, pp. 2281–2294).
Christoph Demmke and Timo Moilanen analyzed CSS of the EU member states and in
2010 published the results of the two-year study (Demmke & Moilanen, 2010). As each
country has its own specific public governance environment, researchers found that in
some policies similar reform trends and reform outcomes can be observed, whereas in
other fields differences prevail. Despite the differences between countries, researchers
were able to identify a number of common features of CSS reforms. The study confirms
an OECD (2008) analysis, which maintains that there is:
• A transition from a centralized to decentralized determination of employment

condition
• A shift from statutory to contractual or managerial governance
• A development from career systems to post-bureaucratic (position) systems
• A delegation of responsibilities to managers
• An alignment of pay levels with the private sector practices
• A change of special retirement schemes
Thus, we see a clear shift toward CSS managerialism—establishment of more flexible and
efficient civil service systems. Nevertheless, the same reform principles can have
different reform outcomes in different countries. This confirms the assumptions of path
dependency, political culture, rational choice, neo-institutionalism, Europeanization, and
convergence theories at the same time.
Civil Service Models

Researchers note that it becomes increasingly difficult to classify different countries into
traditions or geographical or civil service clusters. When analyzing/comparing civil
service systems of different countries, researchers often group them into Western
Page 6 of 18

European, continental European (Demmke, 2010), Anglo-American (Halligan, 2007), Anglo-

Saxon, Eastern European, Scandinavian, Mediterranean (Demmke, 2010), Asian (Burns,
2007), or African (Adamolekun, 2007).
Demmke (see Auer et al., 1996; Demmke, 2010; Demmke & Moilanen, 2010), who examined
civil service systems of various countries, distinguished several key features according to
which all European Union member states would be classified into two groups (Auer et al.,
1996):
• Career system—dominant in continental Europe, with the prevalence of traditional-

hierarchical public administration, rational bureaucracy and formalized operational
rules
• Position system—dominant in Anglo-Saxon countries, with the prevalence of
managerial principles, pragmatic administration, and charismatic leadership
The main features of the two systems are presented in Table 1.
Some researchers refer to career and position systems simply as open and closed
systems: the career system is equivalent to a closed career system, whereas the position
system is an open career system. As they claim, “In the course of increasing
Europeanization, emphasis should be put on the criterion of the extent to which the
different systems are open to non-nationals from other Member States” (Auer et al., 1996,
p. 133).
Table 1. Typical Elements of Traditional Career (Closed) and Position (Open) CSS
Career System/Closed Position System/Open

System System
Conditions for Recruitment only to entry Recruitment also to mid-career

Access positions jobs
Specific diplomas and No specific diplomas, but

educational background for specific skills set as
specific careers requirements for the particular
post
Maximum age limit No maximum age limit
Procedures in Formal recruitment No formal procedures, but

Recruitment procedures recruitment methods same as in
the private sector
Page 7 of 18

Career No recognition of Recognition of professional

Development professional experience experience outside the public
outside the public sector sector
Training periods for No training period for just

beginners recruited staff
Set promotion system No set promotion system
Rights and Lifelong employment Employment on a contractual

Duties basis, no lifetime job
Remuneration Statutory remuneration Individual payment based on

System scheme collective agreements
Set progression after Progression only through

certain waiting periods negotiations
Seniority system No seniority system
No performance-related pay Performance-related pay
Labor Special regulations for Same negotiation position as in

Legislation labor negotiations the private sector
Pension system Special pension scheme No special pension scheme
Source: Auer et al., 1996.
The career model reflects the continental European administrative culture, i.e., the
Romano-Germanic or German-French administrative access to the public sector and civil
service governance. Here the legal-hierarchical principles of organization of civil service
dominate.
The career model is characterized by centralized selection of candidates to civil service

(usually to entry positions). After a preparatory or trial period a person acquires an
indefinite employment guarantee (until retirement) and the status of a civil servant. The
career model (e.g., in France and Spain) is referred to as a model of low delegation
individualization. Civil service activities and principles of employees’ work, remuneration,
and vacation are comparable and legally regulated for the entire civil service.
For instance, in Germany remuneration of civil servants is regulated by law. Payment

consists of several components: basic remuneration and family or other additional
payments. Bonuses for activities can be paid depending on the labor market conditions.
Page 8 of 18

The longer servants work, the higher the basic remuneration is, and it reaches a
maximum at the age of 49–53. Additional payments for family depend on the individual
family situation. In addition to the common state benefit paid for children, extra payment
is allocated for each child in the family. The bonus scheme for exceptional performance
(depending on the activities carried out) is quite similar for all civil servants. Thus, the
motivation of gifted and well-performing employees is likely to increase. Only a certain
number of servants can be motivated by this means (10%). Bonuses for performance (up
to 7% of the basic remuneration) are viewed as a reward for exceptional performance and
cannot be paid for longer than a year. The bonus is regarded as payment for remarkable
performance, thus there is no risk that it will be taken for granted. The constitution
provides civil servants with guarantees of adequate pension. Participation in the pension
scheme is voluntary. Both employed servants and retired civil servants receive a special
bonus once a year. Employed civil servants get up to 50%, whereas the retired get 70%
payment to cover medical expenses (Federal Ministry of the Interior, 2017).
Weaknesses of the career model include:
• When civil servants have strong social guarantees, they do not have the motivation to
ensure the quality of their work. Competition for specific positions does not exist; it
can be hard to dismiss a person. In other words, a civil servant can be employed “for
life.”
• Maintenance costs of civil service are high. As a civil servant is guaranteed
employment and remuneration rises depending on the length of service or qualification
grade, it is not easy to maintain such service. A large number of civil servants receive
similar remuneration. Dismissal is not possible; it is not possible to set a wider pay
scale (depending on performance) (Czaputowicz, 2008, pp. 253–261).
These countries traditionally have been more amenable to political influence over
appointments to the civil service, but they also have strong legal norms of administrative
impartiality (Peters & Pierre, 2004).
The position model, characteristic of the U.K. civil service, involves selection of
employees to fill specific positions. Open competitions are applicable not only to the
highest civil service positions. In this model, employment of a civil servant commonly
involves a contract. Promotion, reward for work, etc. depend on assessment of the
employee performance, qualifications, competence, and skills rather than belonging to a
particular qualification class or category (Auer et al., 1996).
The position model does not have a developed hierarchical system—there is more
teamwork and decisions are based on discussions between the manager and
subordinates; employees are more available to the public. Business management methods
in personnel management (the influence of new public management) make persons who
have experience only in the private sector eligible for public office. During the selection
process managerial skills rather than formalized criteria are assessed.
Page 9 of 18

The position model (in, e.g., Great Britain, New Zealand, and Australia) is characterized
by application of the criteria of delegation and individualization to the civil service. Public
sector institutions set out the principles of human resource management (Czaputowicz,
2008, pp. 271–276). The amount of remuneration, other incentives, and guarantees depend
on the individual performance and participation of the employee in the implementation of
objectives of a particular public sector organization.
For instance, in the Netherlands a NPM-type reform of the remuneration of civil servants
was implemented in the 1990s. The automatic system of raising salaries was replaced by
salary bonuses depending on final performance. The bonus system was “borrowed” from
the private sector. The system of the Dutch ministries and agencies is quite decentralized,
so managers have the ability to promote officials at their discretion.
Although the position model may seem modern and efficient, nevertheless it has a
number of weaknesses(Czaputowicz, 2008, pp. 253–261):
• Weak attachment of civil servants to the institution (contracts do not encourage long-
term loyalty); selection from the external environment is not always compatible with
the interests of the state or classified information
• Low efficiency of implementation of the long-term strategy (due to regular turnover
of employees)
Analysis of these two models (career and position) suggests that in career civil service the
specific status of a civil servant is based on stability, neutrality, engagement in service,
and professionalism. In the career model, civil servants are not inclined to risk their low
wages, enjoy strong social guarantees and benefits, and are largely satisfied with the
employment situation. However, European countries have adapted more and more
elements of the position model to their own civil service management. At the end of the
20th century and the beginning of the 21st century, various European countries (not only
the United Kingdom and Scandinavian countries) have introduced civil service contracts
and salaries based on performance and have reduced the number of positions and
employees in the corpus of civil servants.
As mentioned above, neither of the two models exists in pure form. If features of the
career model dominate the civil service of a country, it is identified as a country with a
career CS model; if elements of the position model dominate, the country is identified as
a country with the position CS model. An intermediate version of this model, which is
characteristic of a number of countries, is the mixed/hybrid model. It is dominated by
career model elements (recruitment to posts, promotions to higher positions and other
duties for an indefinite period of time without competition, a system of qualification
classes, continuity by guaranteeing another position in case of redundancy, a strict
hierarchy of positions, a higher salary linked with higher positions, etc.). However, it
contains elements of the position model as well (recruitment to any level without
demanding experience in civil service, a common system of social security for all
Page 10 of 18

employees, etc.). In recent years, more and more elements of the position system have
been introduced.
Countries of continental Europe (e.g., Germany, France, Belgium, Greece, Luxembourg,

Spain, and Portugal; Auer et al., 1996) and Central European countries (e.g., Slovenia,
Bulgaria, Romania, and Slovakia) predominantly have the career civil service model. In
Cyprus, the career model also dominates. The hybrid model of civil service functions in
Malta, Poland, Lithuania, the Czech Republic, and Latvia. Under the influence of new
public management, the position model is applied in certain Anglo-Saxon countries (e.g.,
New Zealand, Australia, the United States, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and
Sweden). The civil service systems of Finland, Denmark, and Estonia have many elements
of the position model. The current reforms in Ireland and Austria are oriented toward a
hybrid model with elements of the position model.
In comparison with Western countries, the civil service systems of Central and Eastern
European countries (CEE) are characterized by certain unique features. Most CEE
countries adopted a traditional bureaucratic career system in the early 1990s. However,
many Eastern European states are still struggling with many different reform concepts
and do not know which reform path to take (Demmke, 2010). In the development of civil
service systems, however, CEE states have mostly stayed close to continental European
systems or to systems strongly enshrined in legislation and borrowing heavily from pre-
communist traditions (Verheijen & Rabrenovic, 2007). This approach has created
interesting reform hybrids. Today, most Eastern European states have mixed systems with
“fragile career systems (if at all), less job security for civil servants than in other Member
States, no specific pension systems for civil servants, flexible recruitment systems and
mobility flows that are too large (given the fact that work in the public services is not
very attractive)” (Demmke, 2010, p. 9).
Analysis of the development of civil service in Central and Eastern European countries
reveals one common factor: the politicization of civil service. In many CEE civil service
systems, senior management arrangements in most CEE and CIS countries are still fairly
politicized and do not allow a permanent senior civil service to develop. Frequent
government reshuffles have resulted in the turnover of a substantial number of senior
civil servants, with the majority usually being replaced after the arrival of a new minister
(Verheijen, 2001). This hinders the continuity of programs and reduces the efficiency of
civil service.
Changes in the civil service system also take place in Latin American countries. For
instance, in 1990, President Collor of Brazil ordered a reduction in the size of the
governing apparatus. The essential focus of these reforms was the reduction of 360,000
civil servant posts. Some administrative agencies were disbanded; each minister was
directed to reduce ministry positions by 30%. Moreover, there were attempts to reduce
the expenditures for civil service. Some civil servants who had fixed social guarantees
had to go on forced leave (em disponibilidade). Prior to reforms, the Brazilian civil service
Page 11 of 18

was based on the career model; later it gradually incorporated elements of the position
model.
To remove corruption, the Brazilian civil service institutions introduced “ethics

committees” (which had great powers to inform the courts on the facts of corruption).
While President da Silva was in power (2003–2011), much attention was paid to the
importance of “consultative democracy” in governance (under the influence of new
governance): cooperation between civil service and citizens was promoted and politicians
were encouraged to listen to the opinion of civil service employees.
Chile at the end of the 20th century also carried out reforms on civil service employee
reduction. During the present democratic governance period, Chile has a mixed civil
service model. Civil service positions are divided into career and contract (under the
influence of the position system, employees work under contracts). Contracts have been
introduced for 20% of civil servants (at the local level and for those who provide
administrative services). Chile also has officers of trust (senior administrative managers
of various ranks) appointed by the president of the Republic. The selection of servants is
decentralized (each institution has a right to recruit staff).
The situation in the developing African countries is even more complicated, as after
gaining independence they did not have adequate administrative potential (professional
employees in the public sector) and were overwhelmed by corruption and tribalism.
According to Brol (2011, pp. 79–91), the major reasons for the inefficiency of the public
sector in northern and central African countries are corruption, ineffective bureaucracy,
use of public resources for private interests, tribalism, favoritism and nepotism, and lack
of transparency and democratic procedures.
Northern and central African countries are not the only ones to face such problems—
southern African countries have had the same challenges. For example, Mervis (2014), a
researcher from Harare University in Zimbabwe, assessing the efficiency of the “reforms
of the new public management,” claims that NPM reforms yielded negative results in the
country’s economy and management as a result of the lack of political will to implement
the reforms under non-democratic governance conditions. The state government selected
those NPM principles that were useful for itself and its environment. Corruption of public
authorities and embezzlement of state property together with the consequent permanent
public finance crisis prevented the conditions necessary to fund the reforms of
governance modernization. The evaluation of civil service performance remained formal,
while the bureaucracy was inefficient. In other words, the attempt to link performance
evaluation with civil servants’ motivation failed. Poorly developed information
technologies did not allow civil servants to carry out performance monitoring.
Introduction of NPM elements based on business management methods in light of the

high degree of corruption became problematic, and attempts were made to create an
alternative to the entrepreneurial “new public management” and make the public
governance of developing countries as well as the quality of administering international
aid programs more efficient. The concept of “good governance” was expected to help
Page 12 of 18

fight poverty and provide for the modernization of Third World countries. The main
criteria of good governance include the development of administrative potential in
developing countries, the improvement of macro-economic indicators, the reduction of
social exclusion and poverty, and the involvement of society and its groups in the
governance of public sector institutions (Ministerstwo Rozwoju Regionalnego, 2008).
The South African Republic (one of the more advanced African countries), after the
abolition of racial segregation, carried out a reform of its civil service (under the
influence of the position model). To ensure the quality of civil service activities,
performance-oriented principles were chosen. The implemented tasks are evaluated at
the end of the year and employees are promoted (financially). If the quality of the
implemented tasks is poor, the degree of competency is determined and employees work
to improve those competencies in training courses. A guidance manual introducing
performance-based governance has been published that lists the stages of introducing
such governance. Moreover, senior civil service has been introduced—various positions
managing ministries and departments. These posts are competitive. The maximum
duration of the contract is three to five years. The senior civil service includes 3,452
managers, of whom 31% are women.
Pressures and Challenges Confronting Civil

Service Systems
Many civil service researchers (e.g., Bossaert, Demmke, Nomden, Polet, & Auer, 2001;
Czaputowicz, 2008) claim that of the two competing systems of civil service—closed (career
model) and open (position model)—the reforms of the open civil service system win. It has
been argued that the organizing principles of the open, results-oriented civil service
system (the position model), under the influence of new public management, will
permanently drive out the closed, vertically integrated, and formal procedure–oriented
career model. Scholars have argued that the civil servants of the future will have to be at
ease with more complexity and flexibility. They will have to be comfortable with change,
often rapid change. At the same time, they will make more autonomous decisions; be
more responsible, accountable, and performance-oriented; and be subject to new
competency and skill requirements (Demmke, 2010).
However, it should be emphasized that various crisis phenomena in the economy and
uncontrolled migration from unstable states inevitably strengthen the neo-Weberian
trends of vertically (top-to-bottom) integrated governance and enhance the elements of
the career model in civil service. On the other hand, due to the aging population, the civil
services of different countries will face problems of personnel selection. Governance
responsibilities will not only be distributed within public sector organizations but will also
involve civil and non-governmental organizations. Such multi-level governance
Page 13 of 18

environments also place civil servants in an entirely new light: “they are not just
subordinates, quiet yet persistent experts (cf. ‘Yes, Minister’), or policy drafters, but also
network managers” (Raadschelders et al., 2007, p. 7).
The management practices of post-communist countries also suggest that implementation

of the open civil service system faces obstacles inherited from the past: widespread
nepotism (especially at the local governance level), irresponsible public financial
management, self-discrediting public procurement, and other manifestations of
corruption. Therefore, it is not possible to firmly assert that an open civil service system,
based on the position model, can be implemented in the civil services of most European
countries (especially in Central and Eastern Europe). The lack of transparent employee
selection and objectively measured annual evaluations of civil servants will not allow
creation of a “purified” open civil service system. In most countries the hybrid model of
state service, with elements of both the open and closed civil service models (perhaps
already functioning), will dominate.
In the public sector, and civil service in particular—an integral part of this sector, it is not
possible to replace vertically integrated governance with horizontal relationships
between departments and give up the formalized operational rules (especially in the
continental governance tradition).
Post-communist Central European countries and Latin American countries face similar
challenges. In Brazil and Argentina, civil servants have secured social guarantees and
earn more than employees of private companies. However, nepotism and politicized
dismissals (inherited from the military junta government traditions), regardless of civil
servants’ qualifications and competence, which over many decades have become
widespread, make the civil service in these countries unattractive. On the other hand, the
largest Latin American countries also search for a “happy medium” and try to avoid
radical reforms such as the ones carried out in Brazil in the 1990s, when unbalanced,
populist dismissals of civil servants contributed to the economic downturn and crisis in
the public sector of the country (Minkevičius & Smalskys, 2008).
Nevertheless, in a number of countries there are noticeable trends to create more open
and flexible personnel management systems in the public sector. With more and more
recent criticism of the NPM, it would be expedient to talk about a kind of “renaissance” of
the traditional hierarchical model of public governance. The neo-Weberian style of
governance emerged in the context of new public governance reforms. In response to the
economic crisis it was necessary to harmonize such provisions as citizens’ participation in
public governance and tighter centralized government control (particularly in the
financial sector) as well as honest and accountable resource allocation. Meanwhile, it was
necessary to preserve such NPM principles as the focus of civil servants and public sector
organizations on performance. In continental Europe, neo-Weberian governance is a new
approach that seeks to adapt NPM reform principles to European public administration
tradition (Dunn & Miller, 2007, pp. 345–347). In the neo-Weberian model, control and
hierarchy in governance are combined with citizens’ participation and the performance
Page 14 of 18

evaluation system “borrowed” from NPM. The neo-Weberian style is a synergy of all styles
of public governance, while one of the main challenges for civil service in the 21st
century is to create a balance between flexibility in personnel selection and employee
accountability (Lagreid & Wise, 2007). To achieve employee professionalism and civil
service depoliticization, neo-Weberian governance can benefit from the centralization of
civil servant selection (in an institution responsible for civil service policy).
Implementation of centralization principles makes it possible to eliminate nepotism,
corruption, etc., from the service (especially at local governance levels).
This model of civil service can be described as moderate and results-oriented, or a

moderate position model. It guarantees the modernization of civil service and at the same
time maintains social stability without creating psychological tension among civil
servants.
References
Adamolekun, L. (2007). Africa: Rehabilitating civil service institutions—main issues and
implementation progress. In J. C. N. Raadschelders, T. A. J. Toonen, & F. M. van der Meer
(Ed.), The civil service in the 21st century (pp. 82–96). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Auer, A., Demmke, C., & Polet, R. (1996). Civil service in the europe of fifteen: Current
situation and prospects. Maastricht, The Netherlands: EIPA.
Bach, S., & Bordogna, L. (2011). Varieties of new public management or alternative
models? The reform of public service employment relations in industrial democracies. The
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22(11), 2281–2294.
Bossaert, D., Demmke, C., Nomden, K., Polet, R., & Auer, A. (2001). Civil services in the
Europe of fifteen: Trends and new developments. Maastricht, The Netherlands: EIPA.
Brol, M. (2011). Współczesne problemy krajów Afryki Północnej a jakość sektora

publicznego. Ekonomja i Prawo. Rocznik, Tom VII, 79–91.
Burns, J. P. (2007). Explaining civil service reform in Asia. In J. C. N. Raadschelders, T. A.

J. Toonen, & F. M. van der Meer (Ed.), The civil service in the 21st century (pp. 65–81).
New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Czaputowicz, J. (2008). Slużba cywilna w procese integracji europejskiej [Civil service in

the European integration process]. In J. Czaputowicz (Eds.), Administracja publiczna:
Wyzwania w dobie integracji europeijskiej (pp. 253–274). Warsaw: Europejski Instytut
Administracji Publicznej.
Czaputowicz, J. (2015). Public administration models: Conceptualization under conditions

of Central and Eastern Europe. Viešasis administravimas [Public Administration], 1–2(45–
46), 8–16.
Page 15 of 18

Demmke, C. (2010). EIPASCOPE 2010/2. http://aei.pitt.edu/

29755/1/20101022095936_Eipascope_2010_2_Article1.pdf
Demmke, C., & Moilanen T. (2010). Civil services in the EU of 27: Reform outcomes and
the future of the civil service. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Demmke, C., & Moilanen T. (2012). Effectiveness of ethics and good governance in
central administration of EU–27: Evaluating reform outcomes in the context of financial
crisis. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Długosz, D. (2008). Kadry w administracji publicznej [Personal management in public

administration]. In J. Hausner (Ed.), Administracja publiczna (pp. 233–257). Warsaw:
Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
Dunn, W. N., & Miller, D. Y. (2007). A critique of the new public management and the neo
Weberian state: Advancing a critical theory of administrative reforms. Public Organization
Review, 7(4), 354–357.
Farazmand, A., & Pinkowski J. (Eds.). (2006). Handbook of globalization, governance, and
public administration. Boca Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis.
Federal Ministry of the Interior. (2017). The public service in Germany: An overview.
Federal Ministry of the Interior. Retrieved from http://www.bmi.bund.de/DE/Home/
startseite_node.html
Green-Pedersen, C. (2002). New public management reform of the Danish and Swedish
welfare states: The role of different social democratic responses. Governance: An
International Journal of Policy, Administration and Institutions, 15(2), 271–294.
Halligan, J. (2007). Anglo-American systems: Easy diffusion. In J. C. N. Raadschelders, T.

A. J. Toonen, & F.M. van der Meer (Ed.), The civil service in the 21st century (pp. 50–64).
Lagreid, P., & Wise, L. R. (2007). Reforming human resource management in civil service
systems: Recruitment, mobility, and representativness. In J. C. N. Raadschelders, T. A. J.
Toonen, & F. M. van der Meer (Ed.), The civil service in the 21st century (pp. 169–183).
Ministerstwo Rozwoju Regionalnego. (2008). Koncepcja good governance—refleksje do

dyskusji. Ministerstwo Rozwoju Regionalnego Departament Koordynacji Polityki
Strukturalnej, Warszawa, wrzesień 2008 roku. http://watchdog.org.pl/wwwdane/files/
koncepcja_good_governance_lkwi.pdf
Minkevičius, A., & Smalskys, V. (2008). Valstybės tarnyba užsienio šalyse: raida ir
tendencijos [Civil service in foreign countries: Development and tendencies]. Vilnius,
Lithuania: MRU.
Page 16 of 18

Mervis, Z. (2014). Understanding new public management within context of Zimbabwe.

International Review of Social Sciences and Humanities, 6(2), 246–253.
OECD. (2008). The state of the public service. Paris: OECD.
Peters, B. G., & Pierre, J. (2004). Politicization of the civil service: Concepts, causes,
consequences. In B. Guy Peters & Jon Pierre (Eds.), Politicization of the civil service in
comparative perspective: The quest for control (pp. 1–14). London: Routledge.
Raadschelders, J. C. N., Toonen, T. A. J., & Meer, F. M. van der (2007). Civil service
systems and the challenges of the 21st century. In J. C. N. Raadschelders, T. A. J. Toonen,
& F. M. van der Meer (Eds.), The civil service in the 21st century (pp. 1–15). New York:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Riccucci N. M., & Thompson F. J. (2008). The new public management, homeland security,
and the politcs of the civil service reform. Public Administartion Review, 68(5), 877–889.
Smalskys, V. (2016). Šiuolaikinė valstybės tarnyba [Modern civil service]. In A. Raipa, V.

Smalskys, S. Nefas, & V. Giedraitytė (Eds.), Šiuolaikinio viešojo administravimo pagrindai
[Handbook of modern public administration] (pp. 295–344). Vilnius, Lithuania: MRU.
Verheijen, T. J. G., & Rabrenovic, A. (2007). Civil service development in Central and
Eastern Europe and the CIS. Swiming with the ride. In J. C. N. Raadschelders, T. A. J.
Toonen, & F. M. van der Meer (Eds.), The civil service in the 21st century (pp. 17–34).
van den Berg, C. F., & Toonen, T. A. J. (2007). National civil service systems and the
implications of multi-level governance: Weberianism revisited? In J. C. N. Raadschelders,
T. A. J. Toonen, & F. M. Van der Meer (Eds.), The civil service in the 21st century:
Comparative perspectives (pp. 103–121). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Verheijen, T. (Ed.). (2001). Politico-administrative relations, who rules? Bratislava,

Slovakia: NISPAcee, 2001.
Vainius Smalskys
Institute of Public Administration, Mykolas Romeris University, Lithuania
Jolanta Urbanovič
Institute of Public Administration, Mykolas Romeris University, Lithuania
Page 17 of 18

Page 18 of 18
View publication stats

Smalskys Urbanovicoxfordenc

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Smalskys Urbanovicoxfordenc

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Civil Service Systems

Article · December 2017

Civil Service reform View project

Resposible School Management View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics

Summary and Keywords

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 03 January 2018

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 03 January 2018

Although private actors, citizens, interest groups, non-profit organizations, enterprises,

The Concept of Civil Service

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 03 January 2018

Civil Service Reforms

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 03 January 2018

Due to implementation of reforms based on the NPM ideology, such terms as

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 03 January 2018

• A transition from a centralized to decentralized determination of employment

Civil Service Models

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 03 January 2018

European, continental European (Demmke, 2010), Anglo-American (Halligan, 2007), Anglo-

• Career system—dominant in continental Europe, with the prevalence of traditional-

The main features of the two systems are presented in Table 1.

Career System/Closed Position System/Open

Conditions for Recruitment only to entry Recruitment also to mid-career

Specific diplomas and No specific diplomas, but

Maximum age limit No maximum age limit

Procedures in Formal recruitment No formal procedures, but

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 03 January 2018

Career No recognition of Recognition of professional

Training periods for No training period for just

Set promotion system No set promotion system

Rights and Lifelong employment Employment on a contractual

Remuneration Statutory remuneration Individual payment based on

Set progression after Progression only through

Seniority system No seniority system

No performance-related pay Performance-related pay

Labor Special regulations for Same negotiation position as in

Pension system Special pension scheme No special pension scheme

Source: Auer et al., 1996.

The career model is characterized by centralized selection of candidates to civil service

For instance, in Germany remuneration of civil servants is regulated by law. Payment

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 03 January 2018

Weaknesses of the career model include:

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 03 January 2018

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 03 January 2018

Countries of continental Europe (e.g., Germany, France, Belgium, Greece, Luxembourg,

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 03 January 2018

To remove corruption, the Brazilian civil service institutions introduced “ethics

Introduction of NPM elements based on business management methods in light of the

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 03 January 2018

Pressures and Challenges Confronting Civil

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 03 January 2018

The management practices of post-communist countries also suggest that implementation

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 03 January 2018

This model of civil service can be described as moderate and results-oriented, or a

Brol, M. (2011). Współczesne problemy krajów Afryki Północnej a jakość sektora

Burns, J. P. (2007). Explaining civil service reform in Asia. In J. C. N. Raadschelders, T. A.

Czaputowicz, J. (2008). Slużba cywilna w procese integracji europejskiej [Civil service in

Czaputowicz, J. (2015). Public administration models: Conceptualization under conditions

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 03 January 2018

Demmke, C. (2010). EIPASCOPE 2010/2. http://aei.pitt.edu/