Tim Besley, Robin Burgess, Adnan Khan, Jonathan David Old, Guo Xu 08 November 2021
The seminal work on the role of institutions (Acemoglu and Robinson 2012) and state capacity (Besley and Persson 2011) has strengthened the paradigm that effective states are central to economic development. At the same time, whether and how having an effective bureaucracy supports development is an open question.
Bureaucracy through modern history
Historical accounts and empirical evidence support the claim that bureaucratic effectiveness and economic development are strongly correlated. And narrative evidence by historians and political scientists fuels the idea that establishing an effective bureaucracy has been vital to the development of modern nation states, particularly around functions such as national defence (Tilly 1985) and taxation (Levi 1988, Migdal 1988).
One of the most prominent early examples of a professional bureaucracy are the Chinese mandarins that were, for more than a millennium up to 1905, selected by a rigorous system of imperial examinations. Chen et al. (2020) have shown that this system has positive human capital effects even until today. Much later, many European states emulated this example and established professionalised civil services in an effort to build state capacity. A case in point in the UK was the Northcote-Trevelyan report of 1854, which led to the introduction of competitive exams for the entry into the national civil service, alongside promotions via fair and transparent rules, and the establishment of a permanent ‘home civil service’. Similar rules were established in the US with the 1883 Pendleton Act, which was instrumental for the rise of the modern state in the US (Van Riper 1958). More recently, the East Asian Miracle has often been regarded as a paragon for building state effectiveness to promote economic development (Wade 1990, Evans 1995). Several state institutions, such as Japan’s Ministry of International Trade and Industry and South Korea’s Economics Planning Board have gained particular attention for being selective, highly efficient institutions that played an essential role for industrial development (Johnson 1982, Cheng et al. 1998).
A glance at the facts
These historical accounts clearly suggest that bureaucracies matter for economic development. We get a window on the global importance of bureaucracies using cross-country evidence, in the spirit of Evans and Rauch (1999). We use a composite bureaucracy score ranging from 0 to 1 from the Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) project and relate this to economic development in 2016. Figure 1 shows for every level of GDP per capita, the lowest composite bureaucracy score among all countries that have at least that level of GDP (excluding oil-exporting countries). Not a single country that has reached high income status had a bureaucracy score below the mean of the data. In other words, there are no high income countries that have not also built effective bureaucracies by this measure. When we look at the relationship between specific components of bureaucratic quality and economic growth, we find that within countries, more meritocratic recruitment of bureaucrats was also associated with significantly higher economic growth over the post-war period. But such cross country patterns are, at best, suggestive and certainly cannot support causal claims.
Figure 1 For every level of GDP per capita, the figure shows the lowest composite bureaucracy score among all countries that have reached at least that level of GDP
Microeconomic evidence on bureaucratic output
To understand how bureaucracy affects development, a growing literature has studied bureaucracy at a more micro level, breaking it down into specific parts and studying, in particular, issues of selection and incentives. Many experimental studies have used RCTs to aid in identifying causal mechanisms behind interventions.
A first-order challenge for this microeconomic literature has been the measurement of performance. This is difficult because organisational goals in the public sector are often very broad, multi-dimensional and hard to verify or attribute to specific bureaucrats. Most commonly, studies have analysed clearly defined, measurable tasks, often restricting the analysis to specialised lower tier civil servants. Another set of papers has followed the CEO literature (Bertrand and Schoar 2003) to map individuals with more power to aggregate outcomes (Gulzar and Pasquale 2017, Jia 2017, Xu 2018). A more recent strand of the literature has used subjective performance measures generated from internal reports (Rasul and Rogger 2018, Limodio 2021) or assessment surveys (Bertrand et al. 2020). An important takeaway from this work is that the focus on straightforwardly measurable outcomes has limited studies to quite specific topics and settings.
A natural lever for improving bureaucratic output is greater use of incentives. These can be monetary (performance pay, promotions, firing) or non-monetary (prestige, image concerns). A substantial body of research has attempted to understand how such incentives affect bureaucratic performance. For example, compensation schemes based on student performance have been shown to create undesirable incentives for teachers (Glewwe, Ilias and Kremer 2010, Neal and Schanzenbach 2010). The role of performance-based promotions and relocations has been studied in various contexts (Bertrand et al. 2020, Jia 2017, Khan et al. 2019). Recent fieldwork has also shown how incentives affect performance in multi-tasking settings (Khan et al. 2016). Another powerful incentive is mission motivation – bureaucrats are often intrinsically motivated and care about their impact even if their compensation is not tied to it (Ashraf and Bandiera 2018, Besley and Ghatak 2018, Bénabou and Tirole 2006). Khan (2020) provides experimental evidence from healthcare workers in Pakistan that mission emphasis increases performance and improves outcomes even on dimensions that were not explicitly incentivized.
Another literature has studied the selection of bureaucrats. One important question addressed is how to attract qualified and motivated individuals for work in the public sector – this work is mostly experimental and focuses on front-line workers (Dal Bó, Finan, and Rossi 2013, Deserranno 2019, Ashraf and Bandiera 2018). A different strand of work studies the selection process itself, comparing how rule-based selection, such as competitive entry exams, changes outcomes compared to discretionary political appointments.
From micro to macro: Studying bureaucratic systems
Bureaucracies are large multi-layered organizations performing a large variety of complex, multi-faceted tasks. We argue that research needs to understand how micro-level mechanisms can be aggregated to the organization-level, effectively moving the ‘personnel economics’ (Finan et al. 2017) to an ‘organisational economics of the state’.
The first research agenda related to this is how tasks are coordinated within bureaucracies. This naturally follows the literature on organization design of large firms (Chandler 1977, Qian et al. 2006). An important question in this respect is whether bureaucracies should be hierarchically coordinated or decentralised. Studying these mechanisms could also help policymakers to understand how the insights of individual studies on selection and incentive mechanisms can be scaled up to the bureaucracy as a whole.
The relationship between bureaucracy and politics is another crucial aspect of understanding the formation of state capacity. While politicians are typically accountable to the citizens they serve, bureaucrats are accountable to politicians, creating a principal-agent relationship with significant inherent tension between politicians and – often more specialised – bureaucrats. This creates potential for the politicization of the bureaucracy via political appointments and transfer decisions (Iyer and Mani 2012, Spenkuchet al. 2021), especially because the line between politics and bureaucracy is often not clear cut.
Since firms are important drivers of economic growth, understanding their interactions with the state and bureaucracy that regulates them is vital. The seminal work of Evans (1995) discusses the relationship between state and civil society in the context of industrial development. According to his work, the most successful state is closely linked to civil society. This can have the positive effect that bureaucracy can use valuable information provided by firms to implement better regulation (Leff 1964, Bardhan 2017). On the other hand, firms can also capture the state (Stigler 1971, Peltzman 1976, Bates 1981). The empirical literature on this topic (Frye and Shleifer 1997, Hellman et al. 2003, Brown et al. 2009) does not always clearly delineate the roles of bureaucrats and politicians when it comes to discussions of state capture.
Finally, it is also important to understand the role of NGOs. NGOs may act as interest groups, trying to influence the outcomes of bureaucratic regulation. In addition, particularly in many developing countries, NGOs often provide public services in place of the government, an issue studied theoretically by Besley and Ghatak (2001) and Hart et al. (1997). In fragile countries, service delivery through international NGOs may have positive short-term effects, but prevent the formation of state capacity in the long run (Commission on State Fragility, Growth and Development 2018). Understanding how these interdependencies can be used while also creating a successful state is an interesting avenue for future research.
Over the last decade or so, the substantial body of research on personnel economics of the state and on bureaucratic reforms has produced valuable evidence. We argue that a transition from the study of microeconomic phenomena towards understanding larger, more complex mechanisms is an important next step to fully grasp how effective bureaucracies support development. To this end, we suggest three research agendas: First, gathering economy-wide micro-data to evaluate system-wide reforms would enable researchers to better study structural transformations. Recent progress in deploying large datasets, particularly administrative data, makes us optimistic that this is possible. Second, understanding how politics and the bureaucracy interact to generate state capacity has largely been ignored, but seems important given the unavoidable interactions and interdependencies between the two. Third, the examples of structural transformation in China and East Asia show that studying the relationship between the private sector and bureaucracy requires closer attention. Whether bureaucracies can innovate and adapt to future challenges will have important economic implications – we hope that future research will help tackle these challenges.
Acemoglu, D, and J A Robinson (2012), Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty. Currency.
Ashraf, N, and O Bandiera (2018), “Social Incentives in Organizations”, Annual Review of Economics 10: 439–463.
Bardhan, P (2017), “Corruption and Development: A Review of Issues”, in A J Heidenheimer and M Johnston (eds), Political Corruption: Concepts & Contexts, Routledge.
Bates, R H (1981), Markets and States in Tropical Africa: The Political Basis of Agricultural Policies, 1st edition, University of California Press.
Bénabou, R, and J Tirole (2006), “Incentives and Prosocial Behavior”, American Economic Review 96(5): 1652–1678.
Bertrand, M, and A Schoar (2003), “Managing with Style: The Effect of Managers on Firm Policies”, The Quarterly Journal of Economics 118(4): 1169–1208.
Bertrand, M, R Burgess, A Chawla, G Xu (2020), “The Glittering Prizes: Career Incentives and Bureaucrat Performance”, The Review of Economic Studies 87(2): 626–655.
Besley, T, and M Ghatak (2005), “Competition and Incentives with Motivated Agents”, American Economic Review 95(3): 616–636.
Besley, T, and M Ghatak (2018), “Government versus Private Ownership of Public Goods”, The Quarterly Journal of Economics 116(4): 1343–1372.
Besley, T, and T Persson (2011), Pillars of Prosperity: The Political Economics of Development Clusters, Princeton University Press.
Brown, D J, J S Earle, and S Gehlbach (2009), “Helping Hand or Grabbing Hand? State Bureaucracy and Privatization Effectiveness”, The American Political Science Review 103(2): 264–283.
Chandler Jr, A D (1977), The Visible Hand: The Managerial Revolution in American Business, Belknap Press/Harvard University Press
Chen, T, J K-s Kung and C Ma (2020), “Long Live Keju! The Persistent Effects of China’s Civil Examination System”, The Economic Journal 130(631): 2030–2064.
Cheng, T-J, S Haggard, and D Kang (1998), “Institutions and growth in Korea and Taiwan: The bureaucracy”, The Journal of Development Studies 34(6): 87–111.
Commission on State Fragility, Growth and Development (2018), Escaping the Fragility Trap.
Dal Bó, E, F Finan, and M A Rossi (2013), “Strengthening State Capabilities: The Role of Financial Incentives in the Call to Public Service”, The Quarterly Journal of Economics 128(3): 1169–1218.
Deserranno, E (2019), “Financial incentives as signals: experimental evidence from the recruitment of village promoters in Uganda”, American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 11(1): 277–317.
Evans, P B (1995), Embedded Autonomy: States and Industrial Transformation, Princeton University Press.
Evans, P B and J E Rauch (1999), “Bureaucracy and Growth: A Cross-National Analysis of the Effects of ‘Weberian’ State Structures on Economic Growth”, American Sociological Review 64(5): 748–765.
Finan, F, B A Olken, and R Pande (2017), “The Personnel Economics of the Developing State”, in A V Banerjee and E Duflo (eds), Handbook of Economic Field Experiments 2, North-Holland.
Frye, T, and A Shleifer (1997), “The Invisible Hand and the Grabbing Hand”, The American Economic Review 87(2): 354–358.
Glewwe, P, N Ilias, and M Kremer (2010), “Teacher Incentives”, American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 2(3): 205–27.
Gulzar, S, and B J Pasquale (2017), “Politicians, Bureaucrats, and Development: Evidence from India”, American Political Science Review 111(1): 162–183.
Hart, O, A Shleifer, and R W Vishny (1997), “The Proper Scope of Government: Theory and an Application to Prisons”, The Quarterly Journal of Economics 112(4): 1127–1161.
Hellman, J S, G Jones, and D Kaufmann (2003), “Seize the state, seize the day: state capture and influence in transition economies”, Journal of Comparative Economics 31(4): 751–773.
Iyer, L, and A Mani (2012), “Traveling Agents: Political Change and Bureaucratic Turnover in India”, Review of Economics and Statistics 94(3): 723–739.
Jia, R (2017), “Pollution for Promotion”, Working Paper.
Johnson, C (1982), MITI and the Japanese Miracle: The Growth of Industrial Policy, 1925-1975, Stanford University Press.
Khan, A Q, A I Khwaja, and B A Olken (2016), “Tax Farming Redux: Experimental Evidence on Performance Pay for Tax Collectors”, The Quarterly Journal of Economics 131(1): 219–271.
Khan, A Q, A I Khwaja, and B A Olken (2019), “Making Moves Matter: Experimental Evidence on Incentivizing Bureaucrats through Performance-Based Postings”, American Economic Review 109(1): 237–70.
Khan, M Y (2020), “Mission Motivation and Public Sector Performance: Experimental Evidence from Pakistan”, Working Paper
Leff, N H (1964), “Economic Development Through Bureaucratic Corruption”, American Behavioral Scientist 8(3): 8–14.
Levi, M (1988), Of Rule and Revenue, University of California Press.
Limodio, N (2021), “Bureaucrat Allocation in the Public Sector: Evidence from the World Bank”, The Economic Journal (forthcoming, ueab008).
Migdal, J S (1988), Strong Societies and Weak States: State-Society Relations and State Capabilities in the Third World, Princeton University Press.
Neal, D, and D Whitmore Schanzenbach (2010), “Left behind by design: Proficiency counts and test-based accountability”, The Review of Economics and Statistics 92(2): 263–283.
Peltzman, S (1976), “Toward a More General Theory of Regulation”, The Journal of Law & Economics 19(2): 211–240.
Qian, Y, G Roland, and C Xu (2006), “Coordination and Experimentation in M-Form and U-Form Organizations”, Journal of Political Economy 114 (2): 366–402.
Rasul, I, and D Rogger (2018), “Management of Bureaucrats and Public Service Delivery: Evidence from the Nigerian Civil Service”, The Economic Journal 128 (608): 413–446.
Spenkuch, J L, E Teso, and G Xu (2021), “Ideology and Performance in Public Organizations”, NBER Working Paper No. 28673.
Stigler, G J (1971), “The Theory of Economic Regulation”, The Bell Journal of Economics and Management Science 2(1): 3–21.
Tilly, C (1985), “War Making and State Making as Organized Crime”, in P B Evans, D Rueschemeyer, and T Skocpol (eds), Bringing the State Back, Cambridge University Press.
Van Riper, P (1958), History of the United States Civil Service, Row, Peterson / Company.
Wade, R (1990), Governing the Market: Economic Theory and the Role of Government in East Asian Industrialization, Princeton University Press.
Xu, G (2018), “The Costs of Patronage: Evidence from the British Empire”, American Economic Review 108(11): 3170–98.