Measuring Meritocracy in the Public Sector in Europe: a New National and Sub-National Indicator

Since the late nineteenth century, the presence of an independent and meritocratic bureaucracy has been posited as an advantage for effective bureaucratic behaviour and a means of limiting patrimonial networks and corruption, among other benefits. There is little consensus on how the features of an independent and meritocratic bureaucracy should be measured across countries, however, and broad empirical studies are therefore rare. What is more, the few such studies that exist have advanced measures which are constructed exclusively on expert surveys. Although these have indeed contributed to the knowledge in the field, the data on which they are built come with problems. This paper proposes a set of novel measures that complement existing measures and thus fill important gaps in this burgeoning literature. The measures we present are not based on expert assessments but on perceptions of public sector employees’ and citizens’. We create two measures—that can be combined into one—from a recent survey (2013) of over 85,000 citizens in 24 European countries. One is purely based on the assessments from public sector employees’ and the other is based on perceptions of citizens working outside the public sector. The paper also discusses the survey and explores the external validity of the measures provided here, showing correlations with alternative measures based on expert opinions, as well as variables from the literature that we would expect to correlate highly with a meritocratic bureaucracy.     

What’s Special about the Insult of Paternalism?

Law and Philosophy - A common assumption is that paternalism generates a special, and especially grievous, insult. Identifying this distinctive insult is then presented as the key to unlocking the...     

Beyond the sphere of the English facial approximation literature: ramifications of German papers on western method concepts

In the English literature, facial approximation methods have been commonly classified into three types: "Russian,"American," or "Combination." These categorizations are based on the protocols used, for example, whether methods use average soft-tissue depths (American methods) or require face muscle construction (Russian methods). However, literature searches outside the usual realm of English publications reveal key papers that demonstrate that the Russian category above has been founded on distorted views. In reality, Russian methods are based on limited face muscle construction, with heavy reliance on modified average soft-tissue depths. A closer inspection of the American method also reveals inconsistencies with the recognized classification scheme. This investigation thus demonstrates that all major methods of facial approximation depend on both face anatomy and average soft-tissue depths, rendering common method classification schemes redundant. The best way forward appears to be for practitioners to describe the methods they use (including the weight each one gives to average soft-tissue depths and deep face tissue construction) without placing them in any categorical classificatory group or giving them an ambiguous name. The state of this situation may need to be reviewed in the future in light of new research results and paradigms.