Comparing Different Civil Services: The Advantages of a Multi-Level Analysis for Comparing Canada with Mexico
| Published date | 01 December 1999 |
| Date | 01 December 1999 |
| Author | Maria Del Carmen Pardo,James Iain Gow |
| DOI | 10.1177/0020852399654002 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Comparing different civil services: the advantages of a
multi-level analysis for comparing Canada with Mexico
James Iain Gow and Maria del Carmen Pardo
In the social sciences, it is generally acknowledged that, in the absence of labora-
tory conditions, it is through comparison that the scientific or, at least, theoretical
quotient can be increased. Comparative public administration, after vigorous
and optimistic growth during the 1960s and early 1970s, was largely abandoned
by researchers, following disappointing theoretical and practical results.1The
comparative approach made headway in the areas of public finance and policy
analysis but in the human resource and global comparison sectors, it came to a
standstill.
Recently there has been renewed interest in comparative analysis of the civil
service. Furthermore, under pressure from globalization, together with regional
agreements, public administrations have started to observe one another and to
conduct practical comparisons. In the cases of Canada and Mexico, the entry into
force of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1994 increased
the number of contacts between academics in the United States’ two neighbour-
ing countries.
We propose to compare the civil services of these two countries, not because of
the similarities which exist between them, but rather the differences, since it is
these which inform us about the theoretical dimension.2Such a comparison clari-
fies our understanding of each national system. A good many studies have com-
pared developing countries with a more or less explicit western model, or with the
model of the former British or French colonial masters.3Copious literature about
administrative reform and anti-corruption measures compare different systems
more freely,4but there are very few studies that conduct such comparisons in a
more open framework.5We shall therefore test a non-normative theoretical
framework, aimed at facilitating a comparison of quite different civil service
systems.
We first tackle the problem of comparing civil services and then move on to
the political systems of Mexico and Canada. We next deal with the civil service
system, the situation of civil servants within the political system and within
society, recent reforms and a conclusion.
James Iain Gow is professor of political science at L’Univerité de Montréal. Maria del
Carmen Pardo is professor of public administration at El Colegio de Mexico.
International Review of Administrative Sciences [0020–8523(199912)65:4]
Copyright © 1999 IIAS. SAGE Publications (London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New
Delhi), Vol.65 (1999), 527–550; 010601
03_IRAS65/4articles 11/11/99 11:05 am Page 527
Relevant comparative analysis issues
One of the problems with comparative administration has been the complexity of
civil service systems and of national environments. Sometimes the aim was to
examine the relationship between the administration and its sociopolitical
environment,6and sometimes it was to classify bureaucratic systems according to
their internal characteristics.7Some studies recently carried out by researchers
under the direction of Bekke, Perry and Toonen are based on the theory that civil
service systems need to be studied on three different levels at once: operations,
collective choices and society.8The operational level deals with issues such as
career development, open or closed recruitment systems, selection, method of
remuneration and training for the élite. The collective choices level considers the
civil service as an instrument of governance, i.e. its participation in the collective
choices made by the government and the institutional reforms which affect its
‘prerogatives in the area of policy analysis’. At societal level, the civil service is
considered in the light of its constitutional role, legitimacy, prestige and symbolic
position.
Two other members of the same team suggest interesting additions to this
typology. Philip Morgan classifies systems according to a series of opposites: a
pro-state or anti-state society, an institutionalized or rudimentary, professional-
ized or politicized civil service before assessing the processes or results.9Heady,
for his part, used five variables to identify ‘configurations’ which constitute as
many models or ideal types. So, depending on whether a system is dominated
by a leader, party, pluralist society or even a planned or corporatist economy, it
is possible to deduce a number of characteristics from this.10 While using the
general typology of Bekke et al. to structure this article, we shall also examine the
roles assumed by Canada and Mexico according to the theories of Morgan and
Heady.
Administrative systems are at the same time sub-systems of the political
system and multiple centres of thought and action which have links outside the
country. According to Welch and Wong, globalization pressures not only have a
direct impact on a national administration, but also an indirect impact via the
national political, economic and social systems.11 These three national systems
act to filter out numerous outside influences. We consider that the political
system is particularly relevant as a filter through which numerous outside influ-
ences must pass. For example, it is an acknowledged fact that national admini-
strations must adapt administrative innovations from abroad to local conditions
before adopting them.12 During this process, we consider politicians to be in a
strategic position to impose their preferences and choices concerning the admini-
strative reforms to be adopted. And since the most intensive and fruitful
exchanges regarding administrative reform are those between politicians and
public administrators, we should be alert to the possibilities offered to each part-
ner to seize the other’s resources to support its own cause.13
528 International Review of Administrative Sciences 65(4)
03_IRAS65/4articles 11/11/99 11:05 am Page 528
To continue reading
Request your trial