Bureaucratic Selection and Weberian Values: Lab-in-the-Field Evidence from Indonesia

The meritocratic recruitment of bureaucrats is thought to promote “Weberian” values through two distinct properties. The first concerns the use of examinations to sort aspirants on the basis of traits considered desirable for bureaucrats. The second relates to nondiscretionary selection, whereby recruits do not owe their position to a politician’s patronage, making them less likely to be captured. Using a lab-in-the-field experiment among aspirants to the Indonesian bureaucracy, I disentangle the relative importance of these mechanisms by manipulating how “public officials” are chosen from groups to perform tasks on behalf of others. I find no differences on tasks gauging commitment to Weberian values across public officials selected via the merit system or lotteries—although both perform better than those selected under patronage. Because both the merit system and lotteries are nondiscretionary, the results question examinations as the ideal tool for selecting bureaucrats.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
The Journal of Politics
Published
2024-12-12
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1086/734258
Primary Topic
Corruption and Economic Development
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Bureaucratic Selection and Weberian Values: Lab-in-the-Field Evidence from Indonesia

Nicholas Kuipers
The Journal of Politics
Corruption and Economic Development
article

Bureaucratic Selection and Weberian Values: Lab-in-the-Field Evidence from Indonesia

Nicholas Kuipers
article en

Abstract

The meritocratic recruitment of bureaucrats is thought to promote “Weberian” values through two distinct properties. The first concerns the use of examinations to sort aspirants on the basis of traits considered desirable for bureaucrats. The second relates to nondiscretionary selection, whereby recruits do not owe their position to a politician’s patronage, making them less likely to be captured. Using a lab-in-the-field experiment among aspirants to the Indonesian bureaucracy, I disentangle the relative importance of these mechanisms by manipulating how “public officials” are chosen from groups to perform tasks on behalf of others. I find no differences on tasks gauging commitment to Weberian values across public officials selected via the merit system or lotteries—although both perform better than those selected under patronage. Because both the merit system and lotteries are nondiscretionary, the results question examinations as the ideal tool for selecting bureaucrats.

The Journal of PoliticsVol. 88(1)
Princeton University (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 63%
Corruption and Economic Development
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.