When the Victor Cannot Claim the Spoils: Institutional Incentives for Professionalizing Patronage States

Christian Schuster
{"title":"When the Victor Cannot Claim the Spoils: Institutional Incentives for Professionalizing Patronage States","authors":"Christian Schuster","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2956685","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Merit-based selection of bureaucrats is central to state capacity building, yet rare in developing countries. Most executives instead favor patronage -political discretion- in public employment. This paper proposes and tests an original theory to explain when executives forsake patronage for merit. The theory exploits exogenous variation in the institutional design of patronage states. In some, constitutions and budget laws monopolize patronage powers in the executive; in others, patronage benefits accrue to the legislature and public employees. When institutions fragment patronage powers and challengers control other government branches, merit becomes more incentive-compatible: it enables executives to deprive challengers of patronage while enhancing public goods provision to court electoral support. Drawing on 130 face-to-face elite interviews, a comparison of reforms in Paraguay, the Dominican Republic and the United States validates the theory. How patronage states are institutionally designed thus shapes their reform prospects: fragmented control over bad government can incentivize good government reforms.","PeriodicalId":424829,"journal":{"name":"Inter-American Development Bank Research Paper Series","volume":"87 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"14","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Inter-American Development Bank Research Paper Series","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2956685","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 14

Abstract

Merit-based selection of bureaucrats is central to state capacity building, yet rare in developing countries. Most executives instead favor patronage -political discretion- in public employment. This paper proposes and tests an original theory to explain when executives forsake patronage for merit. The theory exploits exogenous variation in the institutional design of patronage states. In some, constitutions and budget laws monopolize patronage powers in the executive; in others, patronage benefits accrue to the legislature and public employees. When institutions fragment patronage powers and challengers control other government branches, merit becomes more incentive-compatible: it enables executives to deprive challengers of patronage while enhancing public goods provision to court electoral support. Drawing on 130 face-to-face elite interviews, a comparison of reforms in Paraguay, the Dominican Republic and the United States validates the theory. How patronage states are institutionally designed thus shapes their reform prospects: fragmented control over bad government can incentivize good government reforms.
当胜利者不能索取战利品:职业化庇护国家的制度激励
择优选拔官员是国家能力建设的核心,但这在发展中国家很少见。相反,大多数高管在公共就业中倾向于任人唯亲——政治上的自由裁量权。本文提出并检验了一个原创性的理论来解释管理者何时放弃任人唯贤。该理论利用了惠顾国家制度设计中的外生变异。在一些国家,宪法和预算法垄断了行政部门的庇护权;在其他情况下,立法机关和公职人员获得赞助利益。当机构分割赞助权,而挑战者控制其他政府部门时,绩效变得更加激励相容:它使高管能够剥夺挑战者的赞助,同时加强公共产品的提供,以赢得选举支持。通过对130位精英的面对面访谈,对巴拉圭、多米尼加共和国和美国的改革进行了比较,验证了这一理论。庇护国家的制度设计决定了它们的改革前景:对坏政府的分散控制可以激励好政府的改革。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信