Matei, Ani and Matei, Lucica (2007): Meritocratic Aspects Concerning Performance Evaluation in the Public Sector - A Case Study for Romania.
Download (538kB) | Preview
The current paper approaches the theoretical and practical fundamental issues concerning the use of meritocratic criteria in public performance evaluation.
Based on papers dealing with the meritocratic approach for the creation and development of a civil service system or papers applying the statistical methodology concerning the meritocratic features in the private sector, our research inscribes within the area of NPM development, referring especially to performance evaluation, taking into consideration the meritocratic criteria.
The individual performance inscribes within the organisational performance for a public organisation, which represents by excellence a bureaucracy.
Therefore, the evaluation of the "distance" towards meritocracy will be achieved within an organisational framework, the conclusions being valid for the civil service system level, reflecting civil services development. The Romanian civil service system is analysed during a period of four years, thus representing an outstanding example for the theoretical considerations
|Item Type:||MPRA Paper|
|Original Title:||Meritocratic Aspects Concerning Performance Evaluation in the Public Sector - A Case Study for Romania|
|English Title:||Meritocratic Aspects Concerning Performance Evaluation in the Public Sector - A Case Study for Romania|
|Keywords:||civil service, meritocracy, bureaucracy, performance|
|Subjects:||D - Microeconomics > D7 - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making > D73 - Bureaucracy ; Administrative Processes in Public Organizations ; Corruption
C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods > C2 - Single Equation Models ; Single Variables > C23 - Panel Data Models ; Spatio-temporal Models
?? C42 ??
|Depositing User:||Lucica Matei|
|Date Deposited:||01. Dec 2009 07:07|
|Last Modified:||11. Aug 2015 22:14|
Allison, P.D., (1978), Measures of Inequality, American Sociological Review, no. 43: 865-80;
Bell, D., (1972), On Meritocracy and Equality, Public Interest, no. 29: 29 – 68;
Bell, D., (1973), The Coming of Post-Industrial Society: A Venture in Social Forecasting, Basic Books, USA;
Boudon, R., (1973), Education. Opportunity and Social Inequality, Wiley and Sons;
Bouckaert, G., (1995), Improving Performance Measurement, in Halachmi, A. Bouckaert, G (eds), The Enduring Challenges of Public Management: Surviving and Excelling in a Changing World, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco: 379-412;
Bouckaert, G., (1996), Measurement of public sector performance: Some European perspectives, pp 223-37, in Halachmi, A. and Bouckaert, G. (eds), Organisational performance and measurement in public sector, Quorum Books, London, UK;
Chevallier, J., (1994), Science administrative, P.U.F., Paris. France: 287;
Davis, K. Moore, W.E., (1945), Some Principles of Stratification, American Sociological Review, no. 10: 242 – 9;
Dunleavy, P., O’Leary, B., (2002), Theories of the State – The Politics of Liberal Democracy, (translation into Romanian language), Ed. Epigraf, Chisinau, Moldova: 135;
Evans, P., Rauch, J., (1999), Bureaucracy and Growth: A Cross-National Analysis of the Effects of „Weberian” State Structures on Economic Growth, American Sociological Review, Oct. 1999; 64,5: 748 – 65;
Evans, P., (1995), Embeded Autonomy, States & Industrial Transformation, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, USA;
Husen, T., (1974), Talent, Equality and Meritocracy, Martinus Nijhoff, USA: 284-7;
Hoffman, O., (2004), Sociology of Organisations, Economica Publishing House, Bucharest, Romania: 284-7;
Jencks, Ch. et al., (1972), Basic Books, USA Johns, G., (1998), Organisational Behaviour, Economica Publishing House, Bucharest, Romania: 152;
Krauze, T., Slomczynski, M.K., (1985), How Far to Meritocracy? Empirical Tests of a Controversial Thesis, Social Forces, USA, vol. 63, No. 3: 623- 42;
Lassman, P., (2004), The rule of man over man: politics, power and legitimation, in Turner, St. The Cambridge Companion to Weber, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK: 93;
Mahé de Boislandelle, H., (1998), Dictionaire de Gestion, Vocabulaire, Concepts et outils, Economica, Paris, France: 623;
Mallius, L., (1997), Management and Organizational Behaviour, London, Prentice Hall, New York, USA: 156;
Pollit C., Bouckaert G., (2000), Public Management Reform: A Comparative Analysis, (translation into Romanian language), Ed. Epigraf, Chisinau, Moldova, Chapter 4, Trajectories of modernisation and reform: 78 -116;
Sakoda, J.M., (1981), A Generalised Index of Dissimilarity, Demography, no. 18: 245 -50;
Theil, H., (1967), Economics and Information Theory, Rand Mc Nally;
Thurow, L.C., (1975), Generating Inequality: Mechanisms of Distribution in the US Economy, Basic Books;
Touraine, A. (1969), La Société Post-Industrielle, Editions de Seuil, Paris;
Vlasceanu, L, Zamfir, C. (coordinator), Dictionary of Sociology, Ed Babel, Bucharest, Romania, available on Internet: www.dictsociologie.netfirms.com;
Wrong, D.H., (1964), Social Inequality without Social Stratification, Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology”, no. 1: 5-16.