If I understand the question correctly, the argument is that political interests have adverse effects on the proper administering of government programs. Progressive era reformers believed that because political party bosses were notorious for doling out patronage.This meant they gave the best jobs to their most loyal supporters (often measured by campaign donations) or family members, not the people best qualified to perform the job. As a result, government work was often done inefficiently....
If I understand the question correctly, the argument is that political interests have adverse effects on the proper administering of government programs. Progressive era reformers believed that because political party bosses were notorious for doling out patronage. This meant they gave the best jobs to their most loyal supporters (often measured by campaign donations) or family members, not the people best qualified to perform the job. As a result, government work was often done inefficiently. Patronage also led to widespread corruption, as administrators in turned hired workers based on family ties or patronage. At its most extreme, rank and file workers were hired based on how they voted or party affiliation, not according to any system of merit.
The reformers advocated for an objective hiring system, such as an examination in which candidates would be ranked according to their qualifications and merits, not who they knew. This had existed since 1883 for federal government employees, after the passage of the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act, which led to the establishment of the PACE exam for federal government hiring. However, during the Progressive Era states and local governments did not have a similar law. The reformers wanted such a law to be more widespread.
The PACE exam was abolished in 1981. Arguably government hiring across the board is more based on patronage than it was after reforms were first enacted.
No comments:
Post a Comment