Chudnovsky Oxford

Latin American Public Administration
Mariana Chudnovsky, División de Administración Pública, Centro de Investigación y Docencia

Económicas
https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.1426
Published online: 29 October 2021
Summary
The reality of Latin American public administrations has surpassed many of the
categories that could be derived theoretically. In fact, a common feature of most public
administrations in the region is, precisely, their internal heterogeneity. The alternation of
“fashions and models” has left various (and at times contradictory) organizational
remnants: accumulated “geological layers” of different instruments (and modes) of
management—replaced by other “prettier and better” ones before concluding their cycle;
frustrated and/or interrupted reforms that generate daily confusion as a result of the
tensions caused between management systems; and half-implemented regulations
patched up with new laws that seek to resolve the failures of the previous ones, causing
complex regulatory mosaics for the future implementers of the new reforms. The
difficulty of professionalizing the civil service in the region is a good indicator of the
(continued) absence of consolidated Weberian administrative bureaucracies and a clear
expression of the coexistence of different public administration models and development
strategies.
Keywords: public administration and policy, Latin America, civil services, state, bureaucracy
Subjects: Policy, Administration, and Bureaucracy
Similarities Between Public Administrations in Latin America
Despite the enormous difficulty of addressing the heterogeneity of public administrations

(PAs) in the region, many identifiable structural commonalities do exist among Latin American
countries (Nef, 2003). Latin America’s state apparatuses are the result of a complex
interaction between administrative reforms, political fluctuations, social challenges,
developmental lags, and weak economies. It is thus important to consider Latin American PAs
as heterogeneous public organizations rather than only from the common perspective that
classifies them as “insufficient Weberian bureaucracies.” Internal heterogeneity is a central
feature of state apparatuses in Latin America.
Moreover, the reality of Latin American PAs has surpassed many of the categories that could
be derived theoretically. The alternation of “fashions and models” has left various (and at
times contradictory) organizational remnants: accumulated “geological layers” of different
Page 1 of 25
Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Politics. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a
single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 30 October 2021
instruments (and modes) of management—replaced by other “prettier and better” ones before
concluding their cycle; frustrated and/or interrupted reforms that generate daily confusion as
a result of tensions caused between management systems; and half-implemented regulations
patched up with new laws, which seek to resolve the failures of previous ones, causing
complex regulatory mosaics for the future implementers of the new reforms (Ramos et al.,
2021). In the 1990s, the new public management (NPM) model, which sought to transfer
private-sector management practices to the public sphere, resonated strongly in the region
(although also with marked differences in its implementation between countries). However,
this success was short-lived, and NPM as an administrative model—as well as other models—
changed PA less than what has been claimed by the “paradigm” itself. At most, it reinforced
the logic of internal heterogeneity, creating areas of different management strategies that
coexisted with the more traditional ones. Although various management practices from the
private sector have been implemented, PA in the region is characterized more by continuity
than by change.
To illustrate this point, this section examines the difficulty of professionalizing the civil service
in the region. Although this may be a direct indicator of the supposed “Weberian weakness,” it
is argued that the professionalization of the civil service reveals a complex tension between
criteria of merit and the needs of elected officials when taking office in an “already inhabited
house.” Latin American civil services have been characterized by high rotation of personnel,
unstructured career development, and patronage loyalties (Peters, 2002). During the 20th
century,
the civil service in Latin America has undergone several stages of reform as a result of
structural adjustment programs and conditional loans from international institutions,
which, together with the regions’ own political development, have created a complex
system of hybrid forms of civil service.
(Salazar-Morales & Lauriano, 2020, p. 1)
The first section of the discussion of PAs in Latin America comprises an overview of the
various narratives on PA in the region, as they have a constitutive effect on creating social
realities, and therein it is important to hear the voices of the actors themselves. Doing so also
allows for both the identification of the region as the protagonist and the recognition of its
own tradition of thought (and action). The second section presents a panorama of civil
services in the region. In Latin America, the efforts to develop professional civil services have
usually failed, and this is a good indicator of the absence of Weberian administrative
bureaucracies (Evans & Rauch, 1999; Panizza et al., 2019; Rauch & Evans, 2000).
Latin American Tradition of PAs
Is it possible to speak of a PA that is specific to Latin America? Even referring to “Latin

America” already implies an enormous oversimplification, given the diversity of administrative
apparatuses and principles. Nevertheless, as argued by Milanesi and Ramos (2016), it is
possible to identify certain common structural dimensions, which have given rise to the many
and successive waves of administrative reforms in the region. As will be observed, no
foundational milestones of PA as a discipline can be identified in the region, nor has it
Page 2 of 25
acquired a defined profile and academic status in the way that it has, for instance, in the
European or North American tradition. In Latin America, the state and its policies are more an
object of study than a specific academic discipline (Oszlak, 1997).
Although each Latin American country is different in terms of its level of development and
political dynamics, some common features are identifiable. One of the most salient of these is
the region’s levels of inequality, which are among the worst in the world (Economic
Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean, 2019; Inter-American Development Bank,
2020a). Another aspect of many countries in Latin America in the second half of the 20th
century relates to the repeated imposition of military dictatorships with a brief interregnum of
civil government and even briefer democratic-civilian regimes. The degree of political-
institutional instability and uncertainty has been linked not only to changes in political
regimes but also to almost all political administrative changes, even in democracies (M.
Chudnovsky, 2018). The vast majority of state apparatuses have been traversed and impacted
by continuous institutional instability and swings between constitutional and authoritarian
regimes in a growing spiral of violence.
The Study of PAs in Latin America: 1950–1990

A point of departure for reflection consists of a brief overview of the guiding questions
regarding PA in the region. The questions that have guided both the practice of and research
on PA in Latin America have focused less on its internal workings and/or efficiency and more
on its role in development. Much of the reflection on the state in the region has concentrated
on the study of the regime and political institutions and not on an analysis of the specificity of
PAs. However, the study of the relationship between a type of regime and the state presents
difficulties in formulating hypotheses on what proportion of variations in state capacities can
be explained by the nature of the regime (Oszlak, 1980). This is challenging, as many of the
characteristics of these relationships can be explained by an organizational logic that forms
part of the bureaucracy itself, and they are not necessarily affected by exogenous variables,
such as the characteristics of the regime. Thus, studies have begun to emerge that suggest
that the logic of intrabureaucratic organizational dynamics is independent of the political
dynamic. This, however, was not the central argument of the debate in the region until the
1980s. In fact, as will be seen, from the 1950s to the mid-1970s, the state was practically
forgotten by much of the academic debate in political science and economics.
This regional tendency is consistent with many of the concerns that confronted the developing
world in general. As indicated by Evans (1996), three broad waves of ideas on the role of the
state have be identified. The first, prevalent from the 1950s to the 1960s, understood the state
as a promoter of structural change. In the Latin American case, due to the economic lags
experienced by many of the countries in the region, the central question regarding the role of
the state revolved around its role in development. The negative results of state intervention,
together with the international crisis of the 1970s, gave rise to the second wave of ideas,
which characterized the state as an obstacle to development. The neoutilitarian arguments of
this period highlighted the risks of rent-seeking and state capture and proposed a reduced
state role that would guarantee contracts and control the failures of the market. The third
wave consisted of the recognition of the importance of the state as a partner in development,
but with emphasis on the importance of technical expertise, technocrats, and a durable and
Page 3 of 25
effective institutional structure. Thus, from the 1980s onward, there was a revindication of the
state as an object of study. Perhaps the Latin American states could formulate and implement
their own preferences, regardless of what happened in the economy and in society? The
remainder of this section analyzes these three waves.
During the decade of the 1950s, in order for the state to exercise a role in development or
influence society in some way, it had to become an actor with certain autonomy. This involved
a shift in reflections regarding the state, with strong Weberian influences. Weber (1996)
conceived a state whose autonomy from social interests is, in part, the source of its capacity.
The Weberian state administers, manages, and controls a territory and its inhabitants through
a form of bureaucratic organization, based on the monopolization of violence. This definition
implies (a) the recognition of the coercive and administrative capacity of the state; (b) an
autonomous organization that exceeds, at least in a coercive capacity, other actors in a given
territory; and (c) the political existence of an autonomous state. In contrast, Marxism
(Przeworski, 1987), which strongly influenced thought on the state, understood the state as an
arena with a social relation of domination. Other theoretical paradigms also analyzed the state
as a space for conflict resolution and excluded the possibility of considering it an actor
capable of implementing independent actions.
Within this context, “ECLAC’s structuralism” emerged strongly, led by Raúl Prebisch,
Executive Secretary of the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean
(ECLAC) from 1950 to 1963. The ECLAC position exerted considerable influence during the
1950s and 1960s as it confronted traditional economic thought, attached to liberalism and
monetarism, and was represented in multinational bodies such as the International Monetary
Fund. It also generated a critical reaction from Marxist authors, giving rise to what has
generically been referred to as “dependency theory” (Cardoso & Faletto, 1979), which argued
that the region attempted to show its condition of “dependency” in order to emancipate itself.
This stage coincided with the rise of “developmentalism,” consisting of a set of political ideas
and economic strategies to promote rapid industrialization. At the beginning of the 1960s, the
main argument of this position was that the promotion of economic development and the
consolidation of nationality constituted two interrelated aspects of a single emancipatory
process (Bresser-Pereira, 2019). The state was defined as such for its role in the economy if it
“views economic growth as its main objective, intervenes moderately in the market by
planning the economy’s non-competitive sector and by adopting strategic industrial policies,
operating an active macroeconomic policy by limiting budget deficits” (Bresser-Pereira, 2019,
p. 42). The role of the state was to promote economic growth.
Toward the end of the 1970s, the dominant theoretical paradigms no longer analyzed the state
as an organizational structure and/or as a potentially autonomous actor. The crisis
experienced by the Latin American states during the 1970s, within the context of
authoritarian regimes as well as the so-called lost decade of the 1980s, led to a shared
diagnosis of its weakening, both as a source of democratic legality as well as in terms of an
organizational apparatus (Cavarozzi, 1991). In a context of fiscal and recurrent balance-of-
payment crises, Latin America witnessed a strong trend against the “State-centric
matrix” (Acuña, 1995). The economic crisis suffered throughout the 1980s (and, for some
countries, continued well into the beginning of the following decade) and revealed an
Page 4 of 25
explosive combination of unpayable external debt, excessive fiscal deficit and inflation
volatility, and fixed exchange rates in the majority of the countries in the region. Within such a
context, the state was diagnosed as being in crisis.
Thus, the urgency for reforms arose. These would reduce the size of the state apparatus and
make it more agile, flexible, and efficient, in addition to more responsible, participative, and
closer to the society. The first wave of reforms was economic and introduced according to the
parameters of the “Washington Consensus.” This decalogue, proposed by Williamson (1990),
promoted fiscal discipline, privatization of state companies, trade openness, tax reform, and
the deregulation of labor relations, among others. Several countries struggled to implement
the various components of the reform package, while implementation was sometimes imposed
as a condition for receiving (highly needed) loans from the International Monetary Fund and
the World Bank. The results of these reforms were, and continue to be, much debated (D.
Chudnovsky, 1996; Rodrik, 2011). The main ideas were encapsulated in the idea of the “State
as a problem” (Evans, 1996)—permeating not only the ruling elites of vast regions of the
world but also public opinion in many Latin American countries.
In retrospect, it became clear that the many and successive waves of administrative reform
generally provided inadequate responses, given that they sought a universal fit. To start off,
the reforms centered on a deductive search for “the” formula, to then attempt to do the same
but inductively. The first stage, linked to the first generation of economic reforms that swept
the region, proposed deducing potential measures from abstract models with strong economic
budgets (M. Chudnovsky, 2018). These market reforms would supposedly have a “drag” effect
on political and institutional dynamics. The second stage of reforms, which arose out of the
recognition of the limits and failures of the first, focused attention on the institutional and
retook the importance of recognizing and valuing “good practices.” In this second period, the
power of the formula no longer rested on its logical-deductive consistency based on formal
models but on the learning and generalization of experiences that had been shown to be
successful. What was “exported” was the reverse: Conclusions and general recommendations
were induced from successful experiences, which were then presented as generalizable “good
practices” (Acuña, 2010; M. Chudnovsky, 2018).
The “first generation of reforms” was guided by the idea of a “minimal state,” which
contributed to the increasing undermining of the public-sector technical-bureaucratic
apparatus and weakened the political role of the state authority. The reforms showed a certain
disregard for operational management, as their central pillar was the macrodecisions related
to the opening of markets, privatization of public companies, and labor flexibility (M.
Chudnovsky, 2018). However, the return to a concern for the state was not long in coming, as
the inability of the market to generate the necessary (economic and social) development on its
own became evident. Gradually, together with other matrices, the idea of “State as solution”
returned to the scene (Evans, 1996) with the so-called second-generation reforms or reforms
of the state.
The “second generation of reforms,” contrary to the first, emphasized the importance of
institutions and, above all, the state and resulted in the incorporation of issues such as civil
society and its organizations into the research and teaching agenda, as well as analyses with
focus on micro-political-governmental fundaments (Acuña, 2010). At the same time that the
state was reduced, emphasis was placed on the fact that it should also be better managed,
Page 5 of 25
with the definition of “better” synonymous with what the private sector had been doing for
years. In almost all countries, there was a growing urgency to adapt private-sector tools to the
management of public affairs, and the provision of services tailored to the needs of citizens
was proposed with a focus on efficiency, competence, and effectiveness. “Good practices”
prevailed and the impact of the NPM paradigm became evident. The NPM incorporated the
“management” of the private into that of the public sector, including market management
practices, and transformed citizens into “clients.” Thus the reforms sought—through suspicion
of the political as “sources of inefficiency”—to grant power and autonomy to public managers.
In this way, the NPM established itself as a technical paradigm, understanding this as
politically neutral and universally valid (Iacoviello & Chudnovsky, 2015). As has been well
documented, the results were disturbing (Kliksberg, 2005; Stiglitz, 2003).
Over and above the inherent weaknesses of the approach, the NPM provided useful lessons,
such as the importance of incorporating certain basic elements for the modernization of the
public sector that had not been sufficiently present in previous models, such as efficiency, the
democratization of public service, and certain organizational flexibility.
It was toward the end of the 1980s and the beginning of the 1990s that a generalized interest
in the state returned, positioning it at the center of debates. The need for a state with the
capacity to formulate policies and to change reality in a mutually influential relationship with
society was discussed. In addition, its autonomy was recognized, and it was understood as an
important actor, without implying that this meant it had to be an organization completely
isolated from environmental influences. The “recovery” of the state in academic debate was
completed with the renewed interest shown by international bodies, which were focused on
institutional strengthening, following reflections regarding the failure of the “minimal state”
policies of the 1990s (World Bank, 1997).
The Study of PAs in Latin America: 1990–2021

The 1980s and 1990s thus witnessed great modernizing reforms in Latin America, generally
spearheaded by Anglo-American governments and disseminated by international organisms
(Dussauge Laguna & Del Carmen Pardo, 2018). These reform paradigms were presented as
overcoming the traditional Weberian model. The most prominent was the NPM (Hood, 1991),
coinciding with the rise of neoliberalism in the United States and England, and embodied in
the so-called Washington Consensus, with its emphasis on the primacy of the economic
market. This had an enormous impact on Latin America. The NPM, which perfectly reflected
the climate of the time, was also referred to as “managerialism” by Pollitt (1993) or the
“postbureaucratic paradigm” by Barzelay (1992). Although this model of public management
was mainly being developed in the United States, in Latin America, the role of the Welfare
State began to collapse; closed economies began to interconnect; and academics, Latin
American policymakers, and international organizations became the diffusers of the new
general consensus for neoliberal policies in the region (Walton, 2004; Weyland, 1998, 2004,
2005; Williams, 2002). The NPM sought to transfer private-sector management practices to
the public sphere and resonated strongly in the region (although also with distinct differences
in its implementation among countries). It led to studies on performance management, post-
NPM, and public service motivation, among others (De Vries and Nemec, 2013; Ramos &
Milanesi, 2020). It has also made way for studies on several crucial topics, such as open
Page 6 of 25
government, which has become a goal around the world and which had a particular impact in
Latin America, despite the lack of consensus and definition regarding what open government
actually means (Cejudo et al., 2018).
A second model with notable impact was the governance model. Within the field of PA, the
notion of governance is understood either as a new way of governing, one that is more open,
participative, and collaborative between the state, society, and private actors, or as a set of
political and management mechanisms, such as public-private networks and associations
(Dussauge Laguna, 2009; Pollitt, 2003). The governance model (Pierre & Peters, 2000;
Rhodes, 1996, 2000) argued for the need for governments to dialogue, propose, and
coordinate actions with the private and social sectors. Although it was implemented with
certain force, it was increasingly sidelined as national and international reform agendas
shifted to other concerns, such as big data, the anticorruption agenda, and risk management,
among others (Dussauge Laguna & Del Carmen Pardo, 2018).
Moreover, since the 2000s, a reform trend has emerged, referred to as post-NPM (Reiter &
Klenk, 2019). This label, however, appears to be more of an umbrella term used to prescribe
and/or describe different reform tendencies than a model in and of itself. It usually includes
administrative instruments, such as coordination improvements, the importance of
government centers, and human resource management, among other elements (Christensen
& Lægreid, 2007; Lodge & Gill, 2011). Reiter and Klenk (2019, p. 16) state “that post-NPM is
closely related to other ‘big concepts’, such as ‘whole-of-government’, ‘joined-up government’,
the ‘Neo-Weberian state’ or ‘digital-era governance’.”
Furthermore, another current has emerged that views the state as a partner. For example,
collaborative governance is an increasingly popular alternative for policy formulation (Kim &
Darnall, 2016). This approach involves interested public and private parties who associate and
participate in decision making, oriented toward consensus (Ansell, 2012; Blomgren Bingham,
2011; Emerson et al., 2011). In Latin America, this strategy has emerged as a possibility to
change mindsets and is strengthened by the context of reinstitutionalization in Latin American
governance (Ansell & Gash, 2007; Motta & Bandeira, 2018). There is also a strong tendency
toward open government and digital government. For example, Latin American governments
have adopted national agendas to promote e-government, and almost all countries in the
region have created web portals for services within the national or federal administration
(Criado & Gil-García, 2013).
In short, the era of great reforms passed from traditional Weberian PA to governance,
touching on new public management and a new era of digital globalization (Del Carmen
Pardo, 2005; Dussauge Laguna, 2009).
PA Emerging From Modernization Reforms

It seems that each attempt at reform was accompanied by a redefinition of the role of the
state and the need to reformulate its organizational logic. This dynamic created a state
apparatus with structures that were only barely able to articulate what remained of the
various and contradictory reforms, which were often changed shortly after their initial
implementation. Within this context, Oszlak’s now famous phrase, which maintained that state
Page 7 of 25
bureaucracy is the “administrative widow of successive governments and political regimes
(and) became an immense cemetery for political projects,” synthesized an important element
of the region’s PA singularity.
Oszlak had, in fact, argued since 1978 that Latin American state bureaucracy was analytically
indistinguishable from other organizations, and this appears to still hold true. Milanesi and
Ramos (2016) maintain that a distinctive feature of this is the coexistence of Weberian-
bureaucratic models with patrimonialism and large-scale patronage practices. This is evident
mostly in the civil service. Although regulated by laws inspired by criteria of merit and typical
characteristics of Weberian models, they coexist with all nature of informal practices that
threaten the consolidation of such criteria (Peters, 1999). Milanesi and Ramos (2016) further
state that it is very common to find systems of recruitment, promotion, and remuneration
outside meritocratic principles, as well as informal administrative practices inspired by
secrecy and subjectivity rather than the impartial application of a law. Bureaucratic
administrations in Latin America represent frequently interrupted attempts to develop a
rational, hierarchical, and merit-based bureaucracy capable of potentiating its technical
capacity (Iacoviello et al., 2010). This is particularly notable in the difficulty in developing
professional civil services, as shown in the following section.
In summary, PAs, even within the same country, are not homogeneous. They are witnesses to
intermittent and, at times, grueling developments. Latin American PAs have organizational
realities that combine patrimonial, bureaucratic, managerial management, and co-
management, revealing differentiations and persistent tensions between political actors,
sectors, and governmental bodies. That is, the state apparatus combines departments that are
not even able to achieve Weberian development with other management practices linked to
NPM (Barzelay, 2001; Cejudo, 2011). In fact, in many cases, centralized, decentralized,
concentrated, participative, nonparticipative, vertical, horizontal, clientele, and/or
professional strategies coexist within the same public agencies. Hence, the state as a
“cemetery of projects” largely describes the inheritance left by the grand reform models in
the arena of academic ideas as well as among policymakers.
Finally, whereas the previous central concern was the role of the state in development,
current problems revolve around combatting corruption (Arellano Gault, 2016, 2020; Arellano
Gault et al., 2015; Merino, 2013), the various policies of transparency and the exercise of
citizens’ rights to information (Andía et al., 2017; Balán, 2016; Cejudo & Ríos, 2019; Michener,
2015), accountability (Del Tronco, 2013; Merino & Morales, 2016; Peruzzotti, 2010), and
patronage (Oliveros, 2016), among the many other problems facing PA in Latin America. As
we have seen, there have been many and multiple administrative reforms and thus, also,
various studies of these processes (Casas-Zamora et al., 2016; Del Carmen Pardo & Cejudo,
2016; Dussauge Laguna & Del Carmen Pardo, 2018; Lora, 2007) and of the modernization of
the state (Blutman, 2013; Blutman & Cao, 2012; Gantus, 2017; Oszlak, 2020). Finally,
inequality and poverty continue to be serious issues, and the search for their resolution, for
example, implies developing an extensive research agenda, linked to the challenges of
coordination (intersectional and interjurisdictional) that confront both PAs as well as public
policy, to solve complex and multicausal problems that require connections between different
actions and public agencies (Acuña, 2010; Cejudo, 2018; Cejudo & Michel, 2015, 2016, 2017;
Martínez Nogueira, 2010).
Page 8 of 25
Professionalization of the Civil Services: A Regional Panorama
A central element of any PA is the quality of its civil service. This is a crucial aspect that needs
to be considered in order to achieve the potential of public policies and service delivery of any
state.
This section offers a clue for understanding the specifics of the region’s PAs: the difficulty of
professionalizing the civil service. When studying PAs in Latin America, it is necessary to
analyze the evolution of public employment, paying special attention to its composition in
terms of the merit-loyalty dichotomy. It is essential to distinguish between public servants who
enter the state through a system that requires that they demonstrate their suitability and
merit (such as through competitive examinations) and those who join through “alternative”
hiring channels (a variety of modalities that have in common the noncompliance with defined
public employment laws for the professional civil service), of which there are many (Oliveros,
2016). Consensus exists regarding the importance of the quality of civil service systems when
improving the quality of state action. Despite this, efforts to reform the civil service in Latin
America are scarce. Although the issue may appear on government agendas, few reforms are
actually approved and implemented (Schuster, 2017).
There is overwhelming evidence of the failure of many professionalization strategies due to

the maneuvering of different governments to award positions based on loyalty rather than on
merit (Chudnovsky & Cafarelli, 2018; Oliveros & Schuster, 2018). However, governments in
the region have demonstrated strong resistance to surrendering spaces for employment based
on loyalty (Grindle, 2012; Oszlak, 2003). For instance, there is an abundance of evidence of
the lack of competitiveness for director positions in the region, despite regulations on the
matter (M. Chudnovsky, 2017; Kopecký et al., 2016).
In Latin America, it is important to consider the notion of civil service proposed by the Latin
American Centre for the Administration of Development <https://clad.org/> (CLAD, per its
Spanish acronym). In 2003, CLAD published the Ibero-American Charter for the Public
Service (CIFP, per its Spanish acronym). It defines public service as a “set of institutional
arrangements through which public employment and those who comprise it are articulated
and managed, in a nationally determined reality” (Latin American Centre for the
Administration of Development, 2003, p. 5). It determines a broad scope for its application,
including the different sectors of the political-administrative system, the various levels of
government and administration, and the different degrees of functional decentralization.
Figure 1 shows the guiding criteria and principles of a professional civil service.
Page 9 of 25
Figure 1. Main guiding criteria and principles of the CIFP.
Source: CLAD (2003, pp. 8–9).
As can be seen, the CIFP combined principles from the bureaucratic model (merit, ability,
honesty, and integrity) with those of the NPM (efficiency, service, performance, responsibility,
and flexibility) given that these need to apply to state apparatus where various logics coexist.
The CIFP achieved a broad consensus between the vast majority of CLAD member countries,
and an analytical/methodological framework around it was developed, enabling the diagnosis
of Latin American PAs. These were adopted by the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) in
the surveys presented in the following section. Nevertheless, the gap between agreement with
the CIFP and the practical application of its principles continues to be the major challenge of
Latin American PAs.
Civil Services in Numbers

Regional empirical evidence on PAs is difficult to obtain as updated information is not
available for all countries in the region. Data come from a variety of sources, such as the IDB
(Cortázar Velarde et al., 2014), the World Bank (2019), the International Labor Organization
(ILO) (2018), and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)
(2020). However, these reports do not cover all countries, and in some cases, the indicators of
a particular element are not comparable as they correspond to different years. Furthermore,
the OECD information is limited, as only Chile, Colombia, and Mexico are members of this
1
organization. Finally, different information sources measure different aspects of PA: for
example, some focus on budget, others on management, and still others on public
2
employment.
The most direct available evidence consists of a series of civil service surveys in the region
conducted by the IDB between 2004 and 2013 (Cortázar Velarde et al., 2014; Inter-American
Development Bank, 2006). These studies measured the quality of civil service systems in 16
3
countries. An initial regional diagnosis from 2004 was used as a baseline and applied to a
Page 10 of 25
universe of 18 PAs. These data were complemented by successive surveys: in Peru and
Ecuador in 2011, in Central America and the Dominican Republic in 2012, and in the
remaining seven countries (Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Chile, Mexico, Paraguay, and Uruguay)
in 2013. Only three countries have been diagnosed since 2016 (Dominican Republic, Paraguay,
and Peru).
In the 2011–2013 surveys, it can be seen that the central governments of the region had
invested heavily in their personnel and employed a significant percentage of the labor force.
Expenditure in personnel in the 16 countries covered in the study was equivalent to 41% of
tax revenue and 26% of total public-sector spending (Cortázar Velarde et al., 2014, p. 9).
Spending on personnel in countries studied by the IDB accounted for, on average, 26% of the
total public expenditure in 2012, varying between 12% in Colombia and 46% in Paraguay
(Cortázar Velarde et al., 2014). Overall, wages and salaries in the public sector have
represented approximately 5.5% of gross domestic product (GDP) over the last 20 years.
Figure 2 shows that countries like Costa Rica, El Salvador, and Paraguay have maintained
higher shares that have actually increased over the years, while in larger economies like
Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, and Colombia, the share is about 2.5% (International Monetary
Fund, 2021).
Page 11 of 25
Figure 2. Central government wages as percentage of GDP in selected countries (2004 and
2012) and average annual growth rate of employment in the public sector of selected
countries (2011–2018).
Source: OECD (2020) based on ILOSTAT of the International Labor Organization (ILO) (no information is available for Bolivia in
2018, or for Nicaragua and Venezuela for either year).
That said, civil service dimensions are observed not only through dedicated budgets but also
by the number of people who compose the civil service. According to Cortázar Velarde et al.
(2014), in the 2011–2013 period, Latin American central governments employed
approximately 8%–15% of the labor force. According to the OECD, in 2018, employment in the
public sector as a percentage of total employment in the region accounted for between 4%
and 19% (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2020). Public
employment in the region grew less than total employment between 2011 and 2018, and the
average annual growth in the region was 1.5% (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and
Development, 2020).
In relation to the performance of civil services, the IDB (2004) regional diagnosis provides a
baseline with which to evaluate performance over the course of a decade in various countries
in the region. As shown in Figure 3, the regional average of the Civil Service Development
Index, obtained when applying the Human Resource Management Survey methodology,
4
increased between 2004 and 2013 from 32 to 38. In addition, the four countries in which
subsequent surveys were conducted, show an increase compared with the data of 2011–
5
2013. Considering all surveys conducted in the last 20 years, almost all countries have
improved the quality of their civil service, with the exception of Guatemala and Bolivia. A
trend cannot be assessed for Argentina and Venezuela, as these countries were only surveyed
once.
Page 12 of 25
Figure 3. Civil Service Index 2004–2011/2013–2019.
Source: IDB (2002, 2016, 2017, 2020b)) and Cortázar Velarde et al. (2014).
Countries can be classified into three levels of civil service development. Honduras, Ecuador,
Bolivia, Guatemala, Paraguay, Panama, El Salvador, and Nicaragua are located at the low level
of development. This group of countries has civil services with a high degree of discretion
regarding decision making in human resource management, highly limited or nonexistent
criteria of merit, severe difficulties in attracting and retaining personnel, and scarce general
strategic coherence. Although they have certain regulatory and technical instruments for
human resource management, these are either not implemented at all or only partially.
Mexico, Colombia, Uruguay, and Costa Rica are located at the medium level of development,
with mixed systems that combine professional segments and a certain degree of politicization.
These countries have a better use of merit criteria and a certain degree of application of
performance incentives (Iacoviello & Strazza, 2014). However, as there is no generalized
application of procedures, fragments of public apparatus with dynamics more typical of the
first group of countries can still be identified. Moreover, Mexico’s score did not change
throughout the decade, and Argentina and Venezuela were only measured before 2004.
Finally, only Chile and Brazil are located at the highest level, demonstrating solid strategic
coherence and greater presence of the criteria of merit and flexibility. In addition, “they have
governing bodies with the political capacity to place the issue of professionalization on the
Page 13 of 25
agenda, the technical capacity to design and implement policies, and the coordination
capacity to organize, guide and supervise the work of the human resources offices” (Iacoviello
& Strazza, 2014, p. 13).
In summary, according to the IDB surveys, general progress was evident between 2004 and
2011–2013. Of the 16 countries, 11 had better developed civil services in aspects such as the
gradual implementation of competitiveness, strengthening of planning procedures,
structuring of a system for workplaces, the establishment of training norms, and the
strengthening of strategic coherence of remunerations.
Furthermore, between 2016 and 2019, new surveys were conducted in three countries: Peru
in 2016, Paraguay in 2017, and the Dominican Republic in 2019. The three countries moved
from low to medium development. Peru rose from 29 to 41 in 2016, Paraguay increased its
average from 26 to 40 in 2017, and the Dominican Republic rose from 39 to 41 in 2019. It is
worth mentioning that in 2017, surveys of the development of civil services were conducted in
the Bahamas (19), Barbados (43), Jamaica (54), and Trinidad and Tobago (42), all of which
were found to have medium development (Inter-American Development Bank, 2018a, 2018b,
2018c, 2018d). Argentina was not included in the second survey; however, in 2002, with the
first survey, the country demonstrated a medium level of development (Iacoviello &
Chudnovsky, 2015, p. 2).
These data can be complemented with more recent information on three aspects of
professionalization, based on data from the OECD (2020). The first refers to recruitment and
selection processes based on merit, which tends to be one of the main principles for
professionalization (M. Chudnovsky, 2017). According to the OECD (2020), in Latin America,
recruitment based on merit is guaranteed with the publication of all vacancies (100% of
countries surveyed), structured interviews (83%), and standardized tests (83%). Despite
these, there are still groups of employees in the central PA of the region who seem to function
under a different set of rules from those of permanent staff. Some countries also tend to have
an extremely high proportion of non-“permanent” personnel.
Second, 83% of surveyed countries in Latin America had a legal framework that allowed for
the termination of the employment relationship with public servants, and in all countries, this
includes termination due to poor performance (although the OECD also reports that this is
rarely used). In Brazil and Uruguay, the law prohibits dismissals due to the restructuring of
the PA, and in Argentina, dismissal of employees is possible but only if their position is
eliminated within the organizational structure, together with associated positions, and if the
person cannot be relocated. However, despite the legal provisions to do so, firing of public
employees is not a common practice. According to results from the OECD (2020), only 33% of
countries that allow for the dismissal of employees due to restructuring, do so on a regular
basis (Chile, Guatemala, Mexico, and the Dominican Republic). Another 33% rarely lay off
employees (Colombia, El Salvador, Jamaica, and Peru), while 9% do it occasionally (Costa
Rica). It is likely that, due to these rigidities, countries have chosen to establish alternative
mechanisms for the restructuring of public-sector personnel, resulting in the infamous
“parallel bureaucracies.” This is a common practice in the region, as it appears to resolve the
issue by recruiting personnel with fixed term contracts (instead of permanent contracts), for
whom there are fewer legal and procedural restrictions when terminating a contract. It is
worth noting that no comparative data exist on the percentages of “parallel” recruitment,
Page 14 of 25
even though it represents a significant portion of public employment. The OECD (2020) has
suggested that it comprises 24% of employment in the countries of the region. It has also
indicated that large differences exist between countries: In El Salvador, there is no fixed term
employment, while in the Dominican Republic, this accounts for 92% of positions. Other
countries show an extremely high proportion of nonpermanent employees: For example, in
Chile, they make up 57% of the civil service; in Peru, 40%; and in Argentina, 34%. These data
reflect the importance of governments focusing on the effective implementation of rules based
on merit for recruitment and selection.
Third, performance evaluation is important as it allows for the planning, motivation, and
evaluation of employees’ contribution to public-sector performance, although these
evaluations are often difficult to implement. Their analysis requires coverage measures for the
whole civil service, identification of measuring instruments used, a definition of what is
measured, and the use of specific rules to evaluate personnel and the impact of the evaluation
results on other areas of human resource management, such as professional development.
Regarding coverage, 92% of Latin American countries measured by the OECD (2020) report
having some type of performance evaluation for all, or almost all, public officials. However, in
many cases, these high coverage levels only reflect a legal mandate implemented for
compliance purposes and lack a solid evaluation methodology and the effective use of results.
Performance evaluations could, hypothetically, have a major impact on layoffs due to poor
performance, but all Latin American countries reported that this rarely occurs. Only Chile
(with an average of 22 cases per year during the 2013–2017 period) and Costa Rica (with 0.5
cases per year for the 2013–2018 period) report data, in both cases of approximately 1 in
10,000 public servants. In any case, as a proportion of the size of the civil service, these
terminations are negligible (Organisation for Cooperation and Development, 2020).
Although these data show relative progress across various indicators, the professionalization
of civil services in the region remains low. In summary, improving the quality of civil services
remains a critical goal as it is fundamental for the development of state capacity.
PAs in Latin America: Final Reflections
The revision of Latin American PAs through the lens of the brief history of ideas in Latin
America shows interdependence with economics, political science, and social sciences. This
may be due to the nature of the issues the region has faced in the past, and that it continues
to face. As argued by Nef (2003):
Any profound understanding of public administration in Latin America must by

necessity explore the long run cycle. Moreover, the study of administrative reform and
change is, by its very nature, historical analysis, where the past is always present.
(. . .) Even, the seemingly “modern”, yet schizophrenic, patterns of administrative
behavior of early 21st century Latin America can be traced back to a colonial tradition
of obedience without compliance. (p. 2).
Latin American states have confronted titanic tasks: For example, they have had to spearhead
development, rebuild societies after each economic crisis, confront inequality and poverty,
survive military regimes and the resulting escalation of violence, develop the capacity to pay
Page 15 of 25
huge debts, and combat their own patrimonial and informal history when conforming their
civil services. In addition, the region has been trapped between economic crises and
authoritarian regimes. Shortly after the economic crisis of the 1980s, and within the
framework of the structural economic reforms of the 1990s (through globalization), the NPM
began to resonate strongly in Latin America. Despite this, the traditional Weberian model is
still partially in place and coexists.
Latin American states are complex and contradictory, with parallel structures, uneven
development, and enormous heterogeneity in terms of progress toward any of the dominant
paradigms and in any of the periods under examination. “Geological layers” of interrupted
reforms have accumulated. Hierarchical practices are combined with participative spaces.
Patrimonialism coexists with efficiency; informality with formality; merit with patronage; and
an interesting, complex, and challenging articulation of diverse organizational cultures,
products of each attempt at administrative reform.
Furthermore, the distinction between politicians and public servants in Latin America is not
sufficient to explain what occurs in the PA, mostly because within the second category, there
are many hiring mechanisms not based on meritocratic criteria and various paths for entering
PA. This complex composition of public service, which should be based on a “meritocracy” but
is not, reveals the real challenge to the professionalization of Latin American civil services.
This is partially explained by technical challenges but also by the political challenges facing
institutional reforms in general, and those of the civil service in particular (Pritchett et al.,
2010). It is difficult to modify the organization of civil services, not only because public
servants are socialized based on certain preexisting rules but also because they are mediated
by union representation. In addition, organizational changes are challenging, and results tend
to transcend political periods. This generates tension for new governments, given that they
face the dilemma of improving civil servants’ capacity within a limited time. This carries short-
term costs and resistance, with long-term results that may only be felt once the governments
are no longer in power.
Finally, and in relation to the horizons for the study of PA in Latin America, it is interesting to
note that the discipline is becoming increasingly consolidated. In any case, Latin America
owes recognition to its own authors and traditions of thought. This is another outstanding
debt.
References
Acuña, C. (1995). La nueva matriz política argentina [The new Argentinian political matrix].
Ediciones Nueva Visión.
Acuña, C. (2010). Los desafíos de la Coordinación y la Integralidad para las Políticas y la Gestión
Pública en América Latina. Una Introducción [The challenges of coordination and integrality for
policies and public management in Latin America. An introduction]. In C. Acuña, R. Martínez
Nogueira, & F. Repetto (Eds.), Programa de Modernización del Estado: Los desafíos de la
coordinación y la integralidad de las políticas y gestión pública en América Latina [State
Modernization Project: The challenges of the coordination and comprehensiveness of public
policies and management in Latin America] (pp. 9–12). Jefatura de Gabinete de Ministros.
Page 16 of 25
Andía, M. G., Nuñez, P., & Valsangiacomo, A. (2017, September). Transparencia en las empresas
públicas: De lo deseable a lo posible [Transparency in public companies: From the desirable to
the possible] (Public Policy Document, Analysis No. 191). CIPPEC.
Ansell, C. (2012). Collaborative governance. In D. Levi-Faur (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of

governance (pp. 498–511). Oxford University Press.
Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2007). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public
Administration Research and Theory, 18, 543–571.
Arellano Gault, D. (2016). Corrupción como proceso organizacional: Comprendiendo la lógica de

la desnormalización de la corrupción <http://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?
script=sci_abstract&pid=S0186-10422017000300810&lng=pt&nrm=iso&tlng=en> [Corruption
as an organizational process: Understanding the logic of the denormalization of corruption].
Contaduría y Administración, 62(3), 810–826.
Arellano Gault, D. (2020). Corruption in Latin America. Routledge.
Arellano Gault, D., Hernández Galicia, J. F., & Lepore, W. (2015). Corrupción sistémica: Límites y
desafíos de las agencias anticorrupción. El caso de la oficina Anticorrupción de Argentina
[Systemic corruption: Limits and challenges of anti-corruption agencies. The case of the
Argentinian Anticorruption Office]. Revista del CLAD Reforma y Democracia, 61, 75–106.
Balán, M. (2016). Transparencia en América Latina: Nuevos desafíos, la misma agenda

[Transparency in Latin America: New challenges, the same agenda]. Iberoamericana, 16(62),
199–203.
Barzelay, M. (1992). Breaking through bureaucracy. University of California Press.
Barzelay, M. (2001). La nueva gerencia pública. Un ensayo bibliográfico para estudiosos

latinoamericanos (y otros) [The new public management. A bibliographic essay for Latin
American scholars (and others)]. Revista del CLAD Reforma y Democracia, 19, 1–35.
Blomgren Bingham, L. (2011). Collaborative governance. In M. Bevir (Ed.), The Sage handbook
of governance (pp. 386–401). SAGE.
Blutman, G. (2013). Ensayos truncos de reforma y modernización del Estado en Argentina

[Interrupted reforms and modernization of the state in Argentina]. In M. Cesar Madurerira (Ed.),
Handbook de Administración Pública (pp. 2257–2273). INA Editora.
Blutman, G., & Cao, H. (2012). Hoja de ruta sobre reforma y modernización del estado:
Repasando algunos términos del debate [Roadmap on state reform and modernization:
Reviewing some terms of the debate]. Revista Aportes, 30, 15–42.
Bresser-Pereira, L. C. (2019). Modelos de estado desarrollista [Models of the developmental

state]. Revista de la CEPAL, 128, 39–52.
Cardoso, F. H., & Faletto, E. (1979). Dependency and development in Latin America. University
of California Press.
Page 17 of 25
Casas-Zamora, K., Vidaurri, M., Muñoz-Pogossian, B., & Chanto, R. (Eds.). (2016). Reformas
políticas en América Latina: Tendencias y casos [Political reforms in Latin America: Trends and
cases]. General Secretariat of the Organization of American States.
Cavarozzi, M. (1991). Más allá de las transiciones a la democracia en América Latina [Beyond
transitions to democracy in Latin America]. Revista de Estudios Políticos, 74, 85–112.
Cejudo, G. M. (2011). Nueva gestión pública [New public management]. Siglo Veintiuno
Editores.
Cejudo, G. M. (2018). La fragmentación de la acción gubernamental: Intervenciones parciales

frente a problemas complejos [The fragmentation of government action: Partial interventions in
the face of complex problems]. In F. Nieto & E. Velasco (Eds.), Una agenda para la
Administración Pública: Reconocimiento a la trayectoria de María Del Carmen Pardo [An agenda
for public administration: Recognition of the career of María Del Carmen Pardo] (pp. 25–42). El
Colegio de México—Centro de Estudios Internacionales.
Cejudo, G. M., & Michel, C. L. (2015). Resolviendo problemas sociales complejos mediante la
integración de políticas. El caso de la Cruzada Nacional contra el Hambre en México [Solving
complex social problems through policy integration. The case of the national crusade against
hunger in Mexico]. Revista del CLAD Reforma y Democracia, 63, 33–64.
Cejudo, G. M., & Michel, C. L. (2016). Coherencia y políticas públicas. Metas, instrumentos y
poblaciones objetivo [Coherence and public policies. Goals, instruments and target populations].
Gestión y Política Pública, 25(1), 3–31.
Cejudo, G. M., & Michel, C. L. (2017). Addressing fragmented government action: Coordination,
coherence, and integration <https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11077-017-9281-5>.
Policy Sciences, 50, 745–767.
Cejudo, G. M., Michel, C. L., Sobrino, A., & Vázquez, M. (2018). Observing and measuring
government openness. A conceptual discussion and application to Mexico. Gobernar: The
Journal of Latin American Public Policy and Governance, 2(1), 4.
Cejudo, G. M., & Ríos, A. (2019). El acceso a la información gubernamental: Análisis empírico de
políticas de transparencia en cuatro países centroamericanos [Access to government
information: Empirical analysis of transparency policies in four Central American countries].
Revista de Gestión Pública, 2(2), 335–381.
Christensen, T., & Lægreid, P. (2007). The whole-of-government approach to public sector
reform. Public Administration Review, 67(6), 1059–1066.
Chudnovsky, D. (1996). Límites de La Apertura [Limits of economic openness]. Alianza Editorial.
Chudnovsky, M. (2017). La tensión entre mérito y confianza en la Alta Dirección Pública de

América Latina [The tension between merit and trust in the senior public management of Latin
America]. Revista del CLAD Reforma y Democracia, 69, 5–40.
Chudnovsky, M. (2018). De las grandes reformas administrativas a los instrumentos en América

Latina [Major administrative reforms to instruments in Latin America]. In M. I. Dussauge
Laguna & M. Del Carmen Pardo (Eds.), De los modelos a los instrumentos de reforma
Page 18 of 25
administrativa [From models to administrative reform instruments] (pp. 289–320). Instituto
Nacional de Administración Pública.
Chudnovsky, M., & Cafarelli, M. L. (2018). Los cambios en las estructuras organizacionales del
Estado y su vínculo con la composición del empleo público. Argentina, 2003–2016 [Changes in
the organizational structures of the state and its link with the composition of public
employment. Argentina, 2003–2016]. Foro Internacional, 58(2), 275–312.
Cortázar Velarde, J. C., Lafuente, M., & Sanginés, M. (Eds.). (2014). Al servicio del ciudadano.
Una década de reformas del servicio civil en América Latina (2004–13) [Serving citizens: A
decade of civil service reforms in Latin America (2004–13)]. IDB.
Criado, J. I., & Gil-García, J. R. (2013). Gobierno electrónico, gestión y políticas públicas: Estado
actual y tendencias futuras en América Latina. Gestión y política pública, 22, 3–48.
De Vries, M., & Nemec, J. (2013). Public sector reform: An overview of recent literature and
research on NPM and alternative paths. International Journal of Public Sector Management,
26(1), 4–16.
Del Carmen Pardo, M. (2005). De la administración pública a la gobernanza. El Colegio de

México.
Del Carmen Pardo, M., & Cejudo, G. M. (Eds.). (2016). Trayectorias de reformas administrativas
en México: Legados y conexiones [Trajectories of administrative reforms in Mexico: Legacies
and connections]. El Colegio de México—Centro de Estudios Internacionales.
Del Tronco, J. (2013). Desconfianza y “accountability” ¿las causas del populismo en América
Latina [Distrust and accountability: The causes of populism in Latin America]? Latin American
Research Review, 48(2), 55–78.
Dussauge Laguna, M. I. (2009). La literatura comparada sobre reformas administrativas:

Desarrollos, limitaciones y posibilidades. Gestión y política pública, 18(2), 439–495.
Dussauge Laguna, M. I., & Del Carmen Pard, M. (Eds.). (2018). De los modelos a los
instrumentos de reforma administrativa [From models to administrative reform instruments].
Instituto Nacional de Administración Pública.
Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean. (2019). Panorama Social de
América Latina 2019 [Social panorama of Latin America 2019]. ECLAC.
Emerson, K., Nabatchi, T., & Balogh, S. (2011). An integrative framework for collaborative
governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22(1), 1–29.
Evans, P. (1996). El Estado como problema y como solución [The state as a problem and a
solution]. Desarrollo Económico, 35(140), 529–562.
Evans, P., & Rauch, J. E. (1999). Bureaucracy and growth: A cross-national analysis of the effects
of “Weberian” state structures on economic growth. American Sociological Review, 64(5), 748–
765.
Gantus, D. (2017). De la Reforma a la Modernización: continuidades y rupturas de las

transformaciones del Estado Federal en la Argentina del S. XXI [From the reform to
Page 19 of 25
modernization: Continuities and ruptures of the transformations of the federal state in
Argentina in the 21st century]. In J. M. Canales Aliende, G. Fontaine, & A. Romero Tarín (Eds.),
La transformación de los sistemas políticos y los estados. La visión y los retos en Europa y
América Latina en el contexto de la globalización [The transformation of political systems and
states. The vision and challenges in Europe and Latin America in the context of globalization]
(pp. 195–213). Grupo editorial Siglo XXI.
Grindle, M. S. (2012). Jobs for the boys. Patronage and the state in comparative perspective.
Harvard University Press.
Hood, C. (1991). A public management for all seasons? Public Administration, 69(1), 3–19.
Iacoviello, M., & Chudnovsky, M. (2015). La importancia del servicio civil en el desarrollo de
capacidades estatales en América Latina [The importance of the civil service in the development
of state capacities in Latin America] (Working Paper No. 2015/02). CAF.
Iacoviello, M., & Strazza, L. (2014). Diagnóstico del servicio civil en América Latina [Diagnostic
of the civil service in Latin America]. In J. C. Cortázar Velarde, M. Lafuente, & M. Sanginés
(Eds.), Al servicio del ciudadano: Una década de Reformas del Servicio Civil en América Latina
(2004–2013) [Serving citizens: A decade of civil service reforms in Latin America (2004–2013)]
(pp. 13–57). IDB.
Iacoviello, M., Zuvanic, L., & Rodríguez Gustá, A. L. (2010). The weakest link: The bureaucracy
and civil service systems in Latin America. In C. Scartascini, E. Stein, & M. Tommasi (Eds.), How
democracy works: Political institutions, actors, and arenas in Latin American policymaking (pp.
147–176). David Rockefeller Center for Latin American Studies, Harvard University.
Inter-American Development Bank. (2002). Diagnóstico Institucional de Sistemas de Servicio

Civil. Caso Argentina. Diálogo Regional de Políticas.
Inter-American Development Bank. (2006). Informe sobre la situación del servicio civil en
América Latina [Report on the situation of the civil service in Latin America]. IDB.
Inter-American Development Bank. (2016). Diagnóstico institucional del servicio civil en

América Latina: Perú. IDB.
Inter-American Development Bank. (2017). Diagnóstico institucional del servicio civil en

América Latina: Paraguay. IDB.
Inter-American Development Bank. (2018a). Building state capacity in the Caribbean. The state
of the civil service in the Bahamas. IDB.
Inter-American Development Bank. (2018b). Building state capacity in the Caribbean. The state
of the civil service in Barbados. IDB.
Inter-American Development Bank. (2018c). Building state capacity in the Caribbean. The state
of the civil service in Jamaica. IDB.
Inter-American Development Bank. (2018d). Building state capacity in the Caribbean. The state
of the civil service in Trinidad and Tobago. IDB.
Page 20 of 25
Inter-American Development Bank. (2020a). The inequality crisis: Latin America and the
Caribbean at the crossroads. IDB.
Inter-American Development Bank. (2020b). Diagnóstico institucional del servicio civil en

América Latina: República Dominicana. IDB.
International Labour Organization. (2018). Data <https://ilostat.ilo.org/es/data/>. ILOSTAT.
International Monetary Fund. (2021). Government finance statistics <https://data.imf.org/?

sk=3C005430-5FDC-4A07-9474-64D64F1FB3DC>. IMF.
Kim, Y., & Darnall, N. (2016). Business as a collaborative partner: Understanding firms’
sociopolitical support for policy formation. Public Administration Review, 76(2), 326–337.
Kliksberg, B. (2005). Public administration in Latin America: Promises, frustrations and new
examinations. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 71(2), 309–326.
Kopecký, P., Meyer Sahling, J. H., Panizza, F., Scherlis, G., Schuster, C., & Spirova, M. (2016).
Party patronage in contemporary democracies: Results from an expert survey in 22 countries
from five regions. European Journal of Political Research, 55, 416–431.
Latin American Center for Development Administration. (2003, June 26–27). Carta
Iberoamericana de la Función Pública [Ibero-American Charter of the Public Function]. V
Iberoamericana Conference of Ministers of Public Administration and State Reform.
Lodge, M., & Gill, D. (2011). Toward a new era of administrative reform? The myth of post-NPM
in New Zealand. Governance, 24(1), 141–166.
Lora, E. (Ed.). (2007). El estado de las reformas del Estado en América Latina [The state of state
reforms in Latin America]. Inter-American Development Bank.
Martínez Nogueira, R. (2010). La Coherencia y la Coordinación de las Políticas Públicas.

Aspectos Conceptuales y Experiencias [Coherence and coordination of public policies.
Conceptual aspects and experiences]. In C. Acuña, R. Martínez Nogueira, & F. Repetto (Eds.),
Programa de Modernización del Estado: Los desafíos de la coordinación y la integralidad de las
políticas y gestión pública en américa latina [State Modernization Project: The challenges of the
coordination and comprehensiveness of public policies and management in Latin America] (pp.
13–46). Jefatura de Gabinete de Ministros.
Merino, M. (2013). La captura de los puestos públicos [The capture of public positions]. Revista
Mexicana de Ciencias Políticas y Sociales, 58(219), 135–156.
Merino, M., & Morales, L. (2016). Política pública de rendición de cuentas para México: Una
propuesta necesaria [Public accountability policy for Mexico: A necessary proposal]. In M. Del
Carmen Pardo & G. Cejudo (Eds.), Trayectorias de reformas administrativas en México: Legados
y conexiones [Trajectories of administrative reforms in Mexico: Legacies and connections] (pp.
299–344). Colegio de México—Centro de Estudios Internacionales. Introduction.
Michener, G. (2015). Assessing freedom of information in Latin America a decade later:

Illuminating a transparency causal mechanism. Latin American Politics and Society, 57(3), 77–
99.
Page 21 of 25
Milanesi, A., & Ramos, C. (2016). Public management models, Latin America. In A. Farazmand
(Ed.), Global encyclopedia of public administration, public policy, and governance (pp. 1–8).
Springer International.
Motta, P., & Bandeira, M. (2018). Innovation challenges in Latin American administration. In U.
Comite (Ed.), Public management and administration. IntechOpen.
Nef, J. (2003). Public administration and public sector reform in Latin America. In B. G. Peters &
J. Pierre (Eds.), Handbook of public administration (pp. 523–535). SAGE.
Oliveros, V. (2016). Making it personal: Clientelism, favors, and the personalization of public
administration in Argentina. Comparative Politics, 48(3), 373–391.
Oliveros, V., & Schuster, C. (2018). Merit, tenure, and bureaucratic behavior: Evidence from a
conjoint experiment in the Dominican Republic. Comparative Political Studies, 51(6), 759–792.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2020). Panorama de las

Administraciones Públicas América Latina y el Caribe 2020 <https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/
governance/panorama-de-las-administraciones-publicas-america-latina-y-el-
caribe-2020_1256b68d-es> [Panorama of public administrations Latin America and the
Caribbean 2020]. OECD.
Oszlak, O. (1980). Políticas públicas y regímenes políticos: Reflexiones a partir de algunas

experiencias latinoamericanas [Public policies and political regimes: Reflections from some
Latin American experiences]. Estudios CEDES, 3(2), 30.
Oszlak, O. (1997, October 15–18). La administración pública como área de investigación: La

experiencia argentina [Public administration as a research area: The Argentine experience]
[Conference presentation]. Second Inter-American Congress on State Reform and Public
Administration, Isla Margarita, Venezuela.
Oszlak, O. (2003). El mito del Estado mínimo: Una década de reforma estatal en la Argentina
[The myth of the minimal state: A decade of state reform in Argentina]. Desarrollo Económico,
42(168), 519–548.
Oszlak, O. (Ed.). (2020). Reforma y Modernización del Estado en América Latina: Tendencias y
escenarios [Reform and modernization of the state in Latin America: Trends and scenarios].
CLAD.
Panizza, F., Peters, B. G., & Ramos Larraburu, C. R. (2019). Roles, trust and skills: A typology of
patronage appointments. Public Administration, 97(1), 147–161.
Peruzzotti, E. (2010). La política de accountability social en América Latina [The politics of

social accountability in Latin America]. In E. I. Vera & A. J. Olvera (Eds.), Democratización,
rendición de cuentas y sociedad civil [Democratization, accountability and civil society] (pp.
245–264). Pórrua.
Peters, B. G. (1999). La política de la burocracia [The politics of bureaucracy] (E. L. Suárez

Galindo, Trans.). Colegio Nacional de Ciencias Políticas y Administración Pública.
Peters, B. G. (2002). Politics of bureaucracy. Routledge.
Page 22 of 25
Pierre, J., & Peters, B. G. (2000). Governance, politics and the state. St. Martin’s Press.
Pollitt, C. (1993). Managerialism and the public service: The Anglo-American experience (2nd
ed.). Blackwell.
Pollitt, C. (2003). The essential public manager. Open University Press.
Pritchett, L., Woolcock, M., & Andrews, M. (2010, December). Capability traps? The mechanisms
of persistent implementation failure (CGD Working Paper No. 234). Center for Global
Development.
Przeworski, A. (1987). Marxismo y elección racional [Marxism and rational choice]. Revista Zona
Abierta, 45, 135.
Ramos, C., & Milanesi, A. (2020). The neo-Weberian state and the neodevelopmentalist
strategies in Latin America: The case of Uruguay. International Review of Administrative
Sciences, 86(2), 261–277.
Ramos, C., Milanesi, A., & Ibarra, D. G. (2021). Public administration in Uruguay: Modernization
in slow motion. In B. G. Peters, C. A. Tercedor, & C. Ramos (Eds.), The Emerald handbook of
public administration in Latin America (pp. 229–258). Emerald.
Rauch, J. E., & Evans, P. B. (2000). Bureaucratic structure and bureaucratic performance in less
developed countries. Journal of Public Economics, 75(1), 49–71.
Reiter, R., & Klenk, T. (2019). The manifold meanings of “post-New Public Management”—A
systematic literature review. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 85(1), 11–27.
Rhodes, R. A. W. (1996). The new governance: Governing without government. Political Studies,
44(4), 652–667.
Rhodes, R. A. W. (2000). The governance narrative: Key findings and lessons from the ESRC’s
Whitehall Programme. Public Administration, 78(2), 345–363.
Rodrik, D. (2011). The globalization paradox: Why global markets, states, and democracy can’t
coexist. Oxford University Press.
Salazar-Morales, D. A., & Lauriano, L. A. (2020). A typology of the Latin American civil servant:
Patronage appointee, technocrat, loyalist, or careerist. In H. Sullivan, H. Dickinson, & H.
Henderson (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of the public servant (pp. 41–62). Palgrave Macmillan.
Schuster, C. (2017). Legal reform need not come first: Merit-based civil service management in
law and practice. Public Administration, 95(3), 571–588.
Stiglitz, J. (2003). The roaring nineties. W. W. Norton.
Walton, M. (2004). Neoliberalism in Latin America: Good, bad, or incomplete? Latin American
Research Review, 39(3), 165–183.
Weber, M. (1996). Economía y Sociedad: Esbozo de Sociología Comprensiva [Economy and

society: Outline of comprehensive sociology]. Fondo de Cultura Económica.
Page 23 of 25
Weyland, K. (1998). Swallowing the bitter pill: Sources of popular support for neoliberal reform
in Latin America. Comparative Political Studies, 31(5), 539–568.
Weyland, K. (2004). Assessing Latin American neoliberalism: Introduction to a debate. Latin

American Research Review, 39(3), 143–149.
Weyland, K. (2005). Theories of policy diffusion. Lessons from Latin America pension reform.
World Politics, 57(2), 262–295.
Williams, M. E. (2002). Market reforms, technocrats, and institutional innovation. World

Development, 30(3), 395–412.
Williamson, J. (Ed.). (1990). Latin American adjustment: How much has happened. Institute for
International Economics.
World Bank. (1997). World development report 1997: The state in a changing world. Oxford
University Press.
World Bank. (2019, July 3). Worldwide bureaucracy indicators dashboard <http://
Worldbank.org>.
Notes
1. Costa Rica is in the process of joining; Brazil is a key partner of the organization; and Peru has a specific
cooperation program. Together with Argentina, the Dominican Republic, Panama, and Uruguay, these countries are
members of the OECD Development Center.
2. In 2020, the World Bank and the OECD published a study with information on public employment and resource
management. Data from Latin America are from 2018 and were gathered through an IDB-OECD survey in 2018 on
strategic human resource management. The survey was completed by 11 countries (Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia,
Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Jamaica, Mexico, Peru, and Uruguay). Data from OECD countries correspond to 36
surveyed countries in 2016, conducted through the 2016 Survey on Strategic Human Resources Management.
3. Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay,
Peru, the Dominican Republic, Uruguay, and Venezuela. Argentina and Venezuela were included in the 2004 diagnosis
but, due to governmental decisions, opted not to participate in the 2013 diagnosis. In order to ensure the
comparability of the 2004 and 2011–2013 results of the subsystems and indices, the analysis considers a universe of 16
countries.
4. The survey comprises a set of subsystems. Human Resources Planning is located on the top level. Five subsystems
are located at the intermediate level, arranged in a logical sequence: Work Organization, Employment Management;
Performance Management, Compensation Management, Development Management, and Human and Social Relations
Management, in turn connected with all the previously mentioned subsystems. Added to these subsystems is the
Human Resources Organizational Function. All are measured and expressed in five indices that allow for the survey of
different aspects of the general performance of the civil service system, namely, merit, effectiveness, functional
ability, integration capacity, and structural consistency (Cortazar Velarde et al., 2014, p. 16).
5. Ecuador and Peru in 2015, Paraguay in 2017, and the Dominican Republic in 2019.
Page 24 of 25
Related Articles
Bureaucracy in Latin America
Development and Public Administration
Central and Eastern European Public Administration
Page 25 of 25

Chudnovsky Oxford

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chudnovsky Oxford

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Latin American Public Administration

Mariana Chudnovsky, División de Administración Pública, Centro de Investigación y Docencia

Subjects: Policy, Administration, and Bureaucracy

Similarities Between Public Administrations in Latin America

Despite the enormous difficulty of addressing the heterogeneity of public administrations

(Salazar-Morales & Lauriano, 2020, p. 1)

Latin American Tradition of PAs

Is it possible to speak of a PA that is specific to Latin America? Even referring to “Latin

The Study of PAs in Latin America: 1950–1990

The Study of PAs in Latin America: 1990–2021

PA Emerging From Modernization Reforms

There is overwhelming evidence of the failure of many professionalization strategies due to

Civil Services in Numbers

PAs in Latin America: Final Reflections

Any profound understanding of public administration in Latin America must by

Ansell, C. (2012). Collaborative governance. In D. Levi-Faur (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of

Arellano Gault, D. (2016). Corrupción como proceso organizacional: Comprendiendo la lógica de

Arellano Gault, D. (2020). Corruption in Latin America. Routledge.

Balán, M. (2016). Transparencia en América Latina: Nuevos desafíos, la misma agenda

Barzelay, M. (1992). Breaking through bureaucracy. University of California Press.

Barzelay, M. (2001). La nueva gerencia pública. Un ensayo bibliográfico para estudiosos

Blutman, G. (2013). Ensayos truncos de reforma y modernización del Estado en Argentina

Bresser-Pereira, L. C. (2019). Modelos de estado desarrollista [Models of the developmental

Cejudo, G. M. (2018). La fragmentación de la acción gubernamental: Intervenciones parciales

Chudnovsky, D. (1996). Límites de La Apertura [Limits of economic openness]. Alianza Editorial.

Chudnovsky, M. (2017). La tensión entre mérito y confianza en la Alta Dirección Pública de

Chudnovsky, M. (2018). De las grandes reformas administrativas a los instrumentos en América

Del Carmen Pardo, M. (2005). De la administración pública a la gobernanza. El Colegio de

Dussauge Laguna, M. I. (2009). La literatura comparada sobre reformas administrativas:

Gantus, D. (2017). De la Reforma a la Modernización: continuidades y rupturas de las

Inter-American Development Bank. (2002). Diagnóstico Institucional de Sistemas de Servicio

Inter-American Development Bank. (2016). Diagnóstico institucional del servicio civil en

Inter-American Development Bank. (2017). Diagnóstico institucional del servicio civil en

Inter-American Development Bank. (2020b). Diagnóstico institucional del servicio civil en

International Labour Organization. (2018). Data <https://ilostat.ilo.org/es/data/>. ILOSTAT.

International Monetary Fund. (2021). Government finance statistics <https://data.imf.org/?

Martínez Nogueira, R. (2010). La Coherencia y la Coordinación de las Políticas Públicas.

Michener, G. (2015). Assessing freedom of information in Latin America a decade later:

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2020). Panorama de las

Oszlak, O. (1980). Políticas públicas y regímenes políticos: Reflexiones a partir de algunas

Oszlak, O. (1997, October 15–18). La administración pública como área de investigación: La

Peruzzotti, E. (2010). La política de accountability social en América Latina [The politics of

Peters, B. G. (1999). La política de la burocracia [The politics of bureaucracy] (E. L. Suárez

Peters, B. G. (2002). Politics of bureaucracy. Routledge.

Pollitt, C. (2003). The essential public manager. Open University Press.

Stiglitz, J. (2003). The roaring nineties. W. W. Norton.

Weber, M. (1996). Economía y Sociedad: Esbozo de Sociología Comprensiva [Economy and

Weyland, K. (2004). Assessing Latin American neoliberalism: Introduction to a debate. Latin

Williams, M. E. (2002). Market reforms, technocrats, and institutional innovation. World

Development and Public Administration

Central and Eastern European Public Administration

You might also like