Not Another Politics Podcast Can Meritocratic Hiring Fix the Bureaucracy?
Apr 10, 2025
In this discussion, economist Santiago Perez from UC Davis, who co-authored a notable paper on the Pendleton Act, sheds light on the complexities of meritocratic hiring in government. He reveals that while the Pendleton Act aimed to reduce corruption and enhance efficiency, its effectiveness has been questionable. The conversation focuses on the unintended consequences of merit-based exams, such as salary manipulations and political dynamics, raising the question of whether reintroducing these exams could address today's bureaucratic challenges or exacerbate them.
AI Snips
Chapters
Transcript
Episode notes
Bureaucracy and Politics
- The Trump administration's actions, like DOGE, challenge the traditional view of a meritocratic bureaucracy.
- They raise questions about the bureaucracy's independence from politics and its impact on democratic accountability.
Pendleton Act Overview
- The Pendleton Act introduced merit-based exams for federal employees to combat corruption and increase competence.
- It aimed to professionalize the civil service by selecting individuals based on merit rather than political connections.
Reduced Turnover
- Despite not granting tenure, the Pendleton Act reduced turnover, especially during political transitions.
- This suggests that limiting political discretion in hiring discouraged politically motivated firings.