IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/pubcho/v35y1980i1p85-95.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Efficiency and compensation of public officials

Author

Listed:
  • Uri Ben-Zion
  • Menahem Spiegel

Abstract

This paper recommends a system of rewards for public officials which is linearly related to the performance of the official. The main advantage of such a system of compensation is that it serves as a regular ‘self checking’ of the performance of an official and it reduces the need for a process of direct supervision. This is an important characteristic, since direct supervision by an ‘uninformed government’ is quite difficult, at least on a regular basis. On the other hand, judgement by result seems to be much easier to carry out. Furthermore, we suggest that the system of linear compensation could be improved with an ‘entrance fee’ which is determined in an auction among qualified candidates competing for the right to work for the Government. We have also shown that the dismissal practice on the basis of realized results will lead to an inappropriate choice of policy and inefficiency. We suggest, therefore, that this practice (of dismissal) should be limited only to a screening mechanism, where official can be dismissed for bad decision but not for bad ‘luck’. Bad decision is a choice of a non optimal policy by an incompetent official (i.e A i notA k ). While bad ‘luck’ is an occurrence of an undesired outcome (X ij ) eventhough the optimal policy A k was selected. This view of the role of dismissal suggests a need for a more detailed examination of the decision process before a dismissal takes place. As suggested by G. Tullock one can reduce the errors of dismissal by using a detailed survey of the actual choices facing the official for a sample of cases. Such a sample will include the non-random cases which otherwise require dismissal, as well as a random sample of other decisions. Another advantage of the random sample is that it may reveal some cases in which a ‘good outcome’ is a result of poor decision and good luck. In such cases an official may be dismissed for his poor decision despite his realized good performance. This procedure improves the automatic mechanism of screening suggested in our model. Finally, we have shown, that an incentive wage scheme can be used to insure the optimal level effort by an official on the job. Our compensation scheme may reduce the number of dismissals and it will lead to an increase in the use of wage reduction as well as wage increase as a function of observed performance. Under this proposal the official is more directly involved with his work and acts as a partner to the Government in the particular aspect of the job. Copyright Martinus Nijhoff Publishers bv 1980

Suggested Citation

  • Uri Ben-Zion & Menahem Spiegel, 1980. "Efficiency and compensation of public officials," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 85-95, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:kap:pubcho:v:35:y:1980:i:1:p:85-95
    DOI: 10.1007/BF00154751
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/BF00154751
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/BF00154751?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Sharon Megdal, 1983. "The determination of local public expenditures and the principal and agent relation: A case study," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 40(1), pages 71-87, January.
    2. Charles Knoeber, 1982. "Improving the behavior of public officials: Changing the method of compensation and changing officials," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 38(1), pages 21-33, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:pubcho:v:35:y:1980:i:1:p:85-95. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.