Is the success of democratization efforts in developing countries tied to the quality of public administration? Based on an evaluation of three Central American countries (Honduras, Panama and Costa Rica), Donald Klingner claims that democratization and public personnel management are closely related. While each countries' development must be viewed in the light of its own conditions, public personnel management in these countries has evolved through a relatively uniform process, in three stages: (1) political patronage, (2) a transition to merit systems marked by passage of a civil service law, creation of an effective civil service agency, and elaboration of effective personnel policies and procedures; and (3) a dynamic equilibrium among the desirable but contradictory objectives that characterize public personnel management in developed countries. Because this process is essentially similar to the evolution of the field in the United States, it is possible that a general evolutionary model can be developed to predict or explain the relationship between democratization and enhanced public personnel management in developing countries.

The development of stable democratic societies in Central America has been a popular news topic and a primary U.S. foreign policy objective for the past decade. Democratization -- the process of creating and nurturing democratic institutions -- has been a focus of analysis by social scientists in general and by political scientists in particular.

In the United States, public personnel management is widely recognized as a critical element of democratic society and effective public administration. Yet despite this consensus on its importance in the United States, there is little published comparative research on the development of public personnel management and democratization in Central America.

Therefore, the purpose of this analysis is to: (1) describe public personnel management in three Central American republics (Honduras, Panama, and Costa Rica), (2) evaluate public personnel management in each country, (3) present recommendations to enhance its effectiveness, (4) propose a general model for the development of public personnel management in Central America, and (5) delineate the relationship between the development of public personnel management and the democratization process in Central America.

This article is based on qualitative analysis of data (documents and expert interviews) collected while the author was a Fulbright Senior Scholar under the Central American Republics Program (January-July, 1994).

Donald Klingner is professor of Policy and Management with the College of Urban and Public Affairs at Florida International University. He specializes in strategic human resource management, work force diversification and comparative Latin American public administration. He has written, taught, and consulted widely with local, state, national and international governments. He is a past Fulbright fellow.

Introduction

The development of stable democratic societies in Central America has been a popular news topic and a primary U.S. foreign policy objective for the past decade. "Democratization" has been a prime concern of social scientists in general (Barry, 1991; Booth, 1991; Booth & Seligson, 1989; Booth & Walker, 1989; Colburn, 1992; Coleman & Herring, 1991; Jonas, 1990; "Out of the ditch," 1992) and of political scientists in particular (Collier & Norden, 1992; Dix, 1991; Geddes, 1991 and 1994; Goodman et al., 1992; Graham, 1990; Karl, 1990; Lijphart, 1992; Mainwaring et al., 1992; Sloan, 1989; and Wynia, 1990).

In the United States, public personnel management is widely regarded as a critical element of democratic society (Mosher, 1982) and of effective public administration (Hays & Kearney, 1990; Shafritz, Riccucci, Hyde & Rosenbloom, 1992). Although U.S. interest and aid for Central America has faded with the Sandinista threat (Robinson, 1991; "Forgotten Central America," 1992), this region remains important. And public personnel management plays a critical role in four of the ten U.S. foreign policy objectives specified for the Central American democratization process during the 1990s (USAID, 1991: 9):

(1) improving the administration of justice by increasing the independence, professionalism and effectiveness of the judiciary and police by upgrading judicial personnel through promotion of higher selection standards and effective training programs; (2) strengthening the ability of legislatures to conduct appropriate legal, economic and technical analyses of proposed legislation by trained professional staff; (3) strengthening local and municipal governments' effectiveness by enhancing their control over financial and human resources; and (4) promoting honesty and efficiency in government through transparency of decision-making processes and heightened accountability of civil service structures.

Yet despite this consensus on the importance of public personnel management to the development of democratic government and society, there has been little comparative research on the development of public personnel management in Central America or of its relationship to democratization there. Comparative administration texts by Heady (1991) and Riggs (1964) do discuss civil service reform, though they do not focus specifically on this topic or region. Several authors have written studies of public personnel systems in particular countries: Siegel & Nascimento (1965) on Brazil, Brautigam (1985) on Costa Rica, and Kearney (1966) on the Dominican Republic. Though these studies often include persuasive conceptual analyses of the civil service reform process, they are by nature limited in comparative focus. Two works are both comprehensive and conceptual, though by now of primarily historical interest: Fonseca Pimentel's (1966) analysis of Latin American civil service reform, and Torres Padilla's (1968) description of Central American public personnel systems. Ruffing-Hilliard (1991) has written an excellent comprehensive conceptual analysis of the civil service reform process in Latin America, though its conclusions are documented by literature review rather than by original data.

Therefore, the purpose of this analysis is to:

1. describe public personnel management in three Central American republics (Honduras, Panama, and Costa Rica);

2. evaluate public personnel management in each country;

3. present recommendations to enhance its effectiveness;

4. propose a general model for the development of public personnel management in Central America; and

5. delineate the relationship between the development of public personnel management and democratization in Central America.

This qualitative research was conducted using source documents [References] and expert interviews [Note 1]. Multiple interviews were conducted with numerous scholars and administrators [Note 2]. The first interview was formal and structured [Note 3]. Other less structured interviews usually followed to cross-check facts and opinions. All initial and many follow-up interviews were recorded and transcribed by native-language speakers; the researcher took contemporaneous field notes of the others.

This research was guided by three assumptions appropriate to the study of comparative administration: (1) laws, organizations, policies and procedures should be understood and evaluated in context; (2) comparative analysis requires suspension of judgment, and (3) "improvements" will be implemented only if they are supported by the political leaders and government officials responsible for them.

1. Characteristics of Public Personnel Management: Honduras, Panama, and Costa Rica

The three Central American republics used as subjects in this research study are unique but related. All were originally part of the Spanish colonial empire; consequently they share a common language, culture, and history. They are all constitutional democracies with popularly elected presidents, national legislatures, centralized executive agencies, and judiciaries. But their geographic, demographic, political and economic characteristics differ as well, both today and historically.

The Republic of Honduras (Honduras) has long been relatively undeveloped politically, socially and economically. Though its continued development and stability is important to U.S. to the strategic interests, it has historically been considered the quintessential "banana republic" characterized by a history of dictatorships, external influences on domestic policies, and a lack of effective government (Rosenberg, 1988). Its willingness to be used as an American military base against the Sandinistas during the 1980s did not help this image.

The Honduran government has four branches (executive, judicial, legislative, and an electoral tribunal). According to the Presidential Commission on Modernizing the State and the World Bank (CPME & Banco Mundial, 1993), there are approximately 104,000 executive branch positions. Of these, some 68,300 positions are within the central administration and 35,700 in autonomous agencies (universities, telecommunications, and electric energy) and municipalities. This figure does not include the military, estimated at 15,000 to 26,000 positions. Honduras faces a difficult dilemma: public employment is low by Central American standards; nenetheless the country is under continual pressure from international lending agencies to reduce public expenditures in order to reduce foreign debt. Although public employment has increased from 78,000 to 104,000 positions in the past decade, education and health services remain underdeveloped.

The Republic of Panama (Panama) was originally part of the Spanish Latin American empire, then part of Greater Colombia, and more recently an international commerce and banking center. Its identity is closely tied to the economic and geographic importance of the Isthmus and to the United States' interest in the Canal. It enjoys the highest per capita income in Central America, yet this income is not evenly distributed. It is only now emerging from a period of dictatorship and political instability exacerbated by a series of North American interventions (Comité Ecuménico de Panamá, 1994). The development of effective public administration is critical because operational control over the Canal will be turned over completely to local authorities in the year 2000, amidst pride over national sovereignty and fears about corruption or mismanagement.

The Panamanian government has three branches: the legislative assembly, the executive branch with a central government and other independent agencies, and a judicial branch. There is also a comptroller's office, an electoral tribunal, and municipal and provincial governments. The Ministry of Planning and Economic Policies (MIPPE) has had public personnel management oversight responsibility for the approximately 140,000 public employees in the ministries, though these responsibilities were transferred to a new Administrative Career Directorate by the passage of an administrative career law in June, 1994 (Asamblea Legislativa, 1994). There are also autonomous agencies (such as electric power and telecommunications) and municipalities with an estimated 160,000 employees (MIPPE, 1993). Although public employment has grown at about 10% annually since 1990, unemployment is a significant social problem (Román de Ríos, 1990). And like Honduras, Panama is under pressure to reduce public expenditures and foreign debt.

Due to favorable historical conditions dating back over a century, The Republic of Costa Rica (Costa Rica) is the most advanced country in Central America -- politically, economically, and socially. The modern state of Costa Rica developed by the 1940s, characterized by universal education and health care, abolition of the military, and a stable political process. More recently, Costa Rica took the lead in achieving peace among Nicaragua, the United States, and other countries. It is now confronting its own fears about tying itself to the rest of Central America (Golcher, 1993). The Costa Rican economy is a diversified balance of industry, agriculture, and eco-tourism. Unemployment is quite low. However, development is uneven: literacy, infrastructure, and government effectiveness are higher in San José than in rural areas. It is also plagued by inflation and one of the highest per capita levels of foreign indebtedness in the world.

Under the Constitution of 1953, the state comprises executive, legislative, and judicial branches, and a Supreme Electoral Tribunal. The Executive Branch comprises the ministries directly under the President, and autonomous institutions that perform many functions performed by local government or the private sector in the United States (among them social security, insurance, banking, water and sewers, telephones, and electric power). Enactment of this constitution led to passage of a civil service law and creation of a civil service agency with responsibility for the ministries (República de Costa Rica, 1991). Personnel policies in the autonomous institutions and the private sector continued to be controlled by a pre-existing Labor Code (Dirección General de Servicio Civil [DGSC], 1993). There are about 169,364 permanent public positions in Costa Rica: 71,000 in the ministries, and 72,000 in the autonomous institutions (Ministerio de Hacienda, 1993). The rest belong to the Judicial Branch, the Legislative Branch, and municipalities.

The following table summarizes comparative conditions in these three Central American republics along a variety of demographic, political, economic and social variables:

2. Evaluation of Public Personnel Management: Honduras, Panama and Costa Rica

Honduras is now in the process of establishing an effective government and creating an effective civil service system. It has excellent civil service laws for administrative (Ley de Servicio Civil, 1968) and judicial employees (Ley de la Carrera Judicial, 1988). But the merit system procedures specified in these laws are frequently flouted by patronage practices at all levels of the bureaucracy (Programa de Las Naciones Unidas Para el Desarrollo [PNUD], 1991; Comisión Presidencial de Modernización del Estado [CPME], 1993). The public sector comprises a preponderance of unskilled workers as a result of a long-standing tradition of creating public positions to relieve chronic unemployment. Patronage pressures have also led to the hiring of political appointees with minimal education and experience, particularly in the ministries of education and public health.

Experts (including the Civil Service Director) recognize the necessity of merit reforms, but they face daunting difficulties. First, managers' ability to attract and retain personnel, especially in key professional and technical positions, is hampered by salaries that have deteriorated up to 50% in real terms since 1985. Second, because there are at least eight different employment systems and salary schedules, comprehensive reform would require the incorporation of these systems into the civil service, and the classification of municipal positions (begun in 1991 but not yet completed). Third, the management information system operated by the civil service agency only includes information about employees who are under that civil service system; and information is incomplete even for them. It is therefore difficult to reconcile tallies of actual employees with either official personnel records or authorized agency staffing levels. The autonomous institutions are generally characterized by the same problems as afflict the ministries, particularly a surplus of unskilled workers combined with a shortage of professional and technical employees.

The current state of government and public personnel management in Panama also reflects a combination of strengths and weaknesses. The Legislative Assembly recently (June 1994) approved an administrative career law, an Administrative Career Directorate, and a code of rights and responsibilities for public employees (Asamblea Legislativa, 1994). This law revitalizes a similar system established in 1955, but subsequently neglected when the Constitution of 1955 was replaced by a new one in 1972 (Quintero, 1994). Until now, because of pressures by various professional employee unions, a fragile and disorganized patchwork of laws, regulation and personnel procedures applied to different groups of employees, and to each autonomous agency (MIPPE, 1982).

Costa Rica's public personnel system made the transition from patronage to civil service over 41 years ago (DGSC, 1993). Because political appointments are limited to six positions in each ministry and autonomous agency, elections do not cause wholesale turnover or disruption of services and careers. Unemployment is low and agency performance is generally effective. Public personnel managers are preoccupied with "fine-tuning" existing policies and procedures. But some troublesome issues remain.

First, the bifurcation in public personnel law (a Civil Service Law for the ministries, and a Labor Code and labor contracts for other institutions and the private sector) has caused a steady divergence of personnel policy and practice for employees and agencies covered by each system. This includes wages and benefits, collective bargaining, and employee rights.

Second, this legal bifurcation means that organizational responsibility is split between the DGSC and the autonomous agencies with respect to overall personnel system evaluation (COREC, 1990: 121-122) and employee development (COREC, 1990: 127-8).

Third, though public personnel management in Costa Rica is the most advanced in Central America, its legal and structural characteristics have led to some increasingly troublesome concerns over public personnel management practice (COREC, 1990: 122, 123-7). In general, agencies do not manage human resources proactively. And though some decentralization of functions between the DGSC and ministries has occurred, ministries do not consider it effective because it is not broad enough, is not based on clear or uniform procedures, and does not recognizes differing needs of different agencies. Clear and established procedures for employee mobility do not exist, and agency managers may also approve applications for reassignment without taking into consideration either technical requirements or individual interests. There is no uniform structure for determining salaries based on job evaluation, performance appraisal, or individual qualifications. The salary-setting process is subjected to political pressure (Guevara & Jaramillo, 1992). And some civil service employees appear to be more concerned about stability and job protection than in improved performance or personal development.

3. Recommendations for Improvement

There is general agreement among experts on what needs to be done to enhance public personnel systems in these three nations. Honduras needs to continue to revitalize its government. In the field of public personnel management, suggested reforms include:

1.Establish under the Civil Service Directorate a complete management information system on all public employees and positions, for human resource management and budgetary control purposes (CPME & Banco Mundial, 1993).

2.Reform classification and salary systems, particularly for professional and technical employees (CPME & Banco Mundial, 1993).

3.Implement neutral and transparent recruitment, selection, evaluation and promotion policies that allow the country to develop a body of professional public managers, and allow employees to plan public careers (PNUD, 1991).

4.Improve long-range government effectiveness through teaching, research and training, including an M.A. in Political Science and Government (Casco Zelaya et al., 1993), a Center for Government Studies (CPME, 1994), and technical and financial assistance provided by outside universities and international organizations.

Assuming that the administrative career law is successfully implemented, possible next steps for improved public personnel management in Panama are:

1.Stimulate the development of the private sector, advance the process of privatization, and reduce the level of public employment within ministries and independent agencies (ICAP, 1991; Presidencia de la República, 1992 and 1993).

2.Enhance the Administrative Career Law and Administrative Career Directorate to include other related career systems (MIPPE, 1986).

3.Reduce abuses and inequities in salary and benefits within the Executive Branch, in ministries and autonomous agencies by passing a comprehensive salary reform law, as recommended by Article 9(4) of the new administrative career law, and by other proposals (MIPPE, 1985).

4.Within the civil service or administrative career law, develop a comprehensive plan for positions and employees of the Panama Canal(Román de Ríos, 1990).

Costa Rica should continue to maintain an appropriate balance between fragmented and unified personnel law, centralized and decentralized structure, flexible and inflexible procedures, and competing values:

1.Approve a Uniform Public Employment Law for all sectors of government, such as the public employment bill now being considered by the Legislature (Ministerio de Planificación [MIDEPLAN], 1994) that addresses employee mobility and efficiency, salaries and benefits, collective bargaining and strikes, and employee substantive and procedural rights (COREC, 1990: 13-20; Perlman, 1992).

2.Assign oversight responsibility for public personnel management to one agency, either a DGSC organizationally more independent of the President (COREC, 1990: 191-2, 194-5) or a new Civil Service Institute (COREC, 1990: 196). This agency would coordinate training and research (COREC, 1990: 196-198), and provide advice and technical assistance to ministries and autonomous institutions.

3.Within this unified legal standard and centralized organizational structure, leave implementation of personnel policies and processing of personnel actions to the ministries, autonomous institutions, and municipalities. Agencies would have the right and responsibility to manage their own human resources (with respect to issues such as location of positions, employee mobility within the agency, job evaluation and salaries, employee performance, performance evaluation, and training). Once legal and structural issues are addressed through the promulgation of a uniform legal standard and centralized oversight agency, it should be easier to implement decentralized public personnel management policies and procedures. This also implies a transition in the appropriate role for the Civil Service Agency, or of the new Civil Service Institute, from control to assistance in such areas as classification, performance measurement, research, and training. While this change in the appropriate role of central agency personnel specialists can be difficult to achieve (National Performance Review [NPR], 1993), it is worth the effort for them to do so.

4. A General Model for the Development of Public Personnel Management in Central America

Public personnel management in the United States has been studied extensively, from at least four perspectives (Klingner & Nalbandian, 1993). First, it is the functions (planning, acquisition, development, and sanction) needed to manage human resources in public agencies. Second, it is the processby which public jobs, as scarce resources, are allocated. Third, it is the interaction among fundamental societal values that often conflict. Responsiveness is best ensured through an appointment process that considers political or personal loyalty along with education and experience as indicators of merit. Efficiency means that staffing decisions should be based on ability and performance rather than political loyalty. Employee rights means that selection and promotion are based on merit, as defined by objective measures of ability and performance. And social equity means that public jobs are allocated proportionately based on gender, race and other designated criteria. Finally, public personnel management is personnel systems -- the laws, rules, organizations, and procedures used to express these abstract values in fulfilling personnel functions.

The development of public personnel management in the United States is complex because there are multiple levels of government and thousands of governments, each with its own personnel system. Nonetheless, there is general agreement among scholars that the development of public personnel management in the United States has proceeded according to a pattern (Heclo, 1977; Mosher, 1982; Fischer, 1945; Sayre, 1948; Hays & Kearney, 1990; Shafritz, Riccucci, Hyde & Rosenbloom, 1992). First, public jobs were allocated primarily among elites ("government by gentlemen"). Then, beginning with the Jacksonian era, allocation of public jobs based on political loyalty or party affiliation became more common. Next, civil service reformers and other political progressives forced a gradual transition from political patronage to "merit systems" that emphasized efficiency by defining personnel management as a neutral administrative function. Finally, collective bargaining emerged to represent collective employee rights (the equitable treatment of members by management through negotiated work rules over wages, benefits and working conditions); and affirmative action emerged to represent social equity through voluntary or court-mandated recruitment and selection practices to correct the under-representation of veterans, minorities and women in the work place. Today, public personnel management in the United States may be described as a dynamic equilibrium among these competing values, each championed by a particular personnel system, for allocating scarce public jobs in a complex and changing environment. As one might expect, this conflict exhibits a commingling of technical decisions (how to do a personnel function) with political ones (what value to favor or what system to use) (Nalbandian, 1981; Ban & Riccucci, 1991; Freedman, 1994).

Because countries differ in history, politics, economics, and social conditions, administrative models developed for the United States are not necessarily applicable to other countries (Kiggundu et al., 1983). However, this research supports the conclusion that public personnel management in these three Central American Republics has developed through a relatively uniform process similar to, yet not identical with, that found in the United States.

In Central America, patronage-based personnel systems constitute the first stage as political leaders seek to maximize political responsiveness (Kearney, 1966; and Ruffing-Hilliard, 1991). As pressures for efficiency (modernization) and employee rights (democratization) increase, the second stage is a transition to merit systems marked by three milestones: passage of a civil service law, creation of an effective civil service agency, and elaboration of effective policies and procedures (Fonseca Pimentel, 1966). Third, if and when this occurs, policy-makers must strive to maintain an appropriate balance among the desirable but contradictory objectives that characterize public personnel management in developed countries: (1) establish an optimum level of public employment, (2) protect public employees' rights yet achieve administrative efficiency, (3) achieve both uniformity and flexibility of personnel policies and procedures, and (4) balance conflicting values and personnel systems.

This proposed model is shown in Figure 1 below:

While the general developmental process in these three Central American republics appears similar to that found historically in the United States, there are two major differences. First, because in Central America unions are a potent political force against patronage, they emerge prior to (rather than after) the transition from patronage to civil service. Second, because public employment rights for minorities and women are not yet a critical public policy issue in Central America (except in relatively developed countries such as Costa Rica), social equity as a value does not yet have significant impact on personnel systems. So stage three in Central American republics is at present a dynamic equilibrium among three (rather than four) values and their respective public personnel systems.

Based on this model, Honduras and Panama are now in transition from patronage (stage one) to civil service (stage two). Each has approved an underlying law: Honduras created a civil service system in 1968, and Panama created an administrative career system in 1955 (and re-established it in 1994). Each has created an oversight organization entrusted with managing the effectiveness of public personnel management: Honduras with the creation of a Civil Service Directorate in 1968, and Panama with the initial creation of a Department of Human Resources in the Public Sector within MIPPE in 1961 and again with the creation of the Administrative Career Directorate in 1994. Due to historical trends in their political development (and problems with administrative formalism in Central America generally), each country is still confronting problems in implementing these systems: Honduras because of political corruption and the general weakness of government; and Panama because it has only recently approved an administrative career system, and because it has yet to effectively confront issues related to the level of public employment, nepotism, and strikes (Vega, 1994).

Costa Rica has been in stage three for many years. This country enacted a civil service law and created a Civil Service Directorate in 1953. Both the centralized ministries and the autonomous agencies have developed personnel policies and procedures over the past fifty years or more that effectively implement this merit system. Costa Rica now confronts the dilemmas typical of developed countries (such as the United States): striking a balance between employee rights and responsibilities, fragmented or unified law, centralized or decentralized organizational structure, procedural uniformity or flexibility, and the maximization of competing values.

5. Summary and Reflections: Public Personnel Management and Democratization in Central America

This comparative analysis allows us to establish some key points about the development of public personnel management, and about its relationship to the democratization process in Central America [Note 5].

First, each country evidences background characteristics that are similar to and yet different than the others. Among the similarities are a common language, history as parts of the Spanish colonial empire, and structure of government. Yet each also differs from the others in historical, social, political and economic characteristics. And understanding these similarities and differences is the key to understanding their laws, government structure, and personnel processes.

Second, the history of each country shows that the development of each country is influenced by complex and interactive pressures towards democratization and modernization. For example, there are internal pressures to allow greater political freedom (characterized by the development of political institutions), economic development (characterized by external investment and the creation of adequate private sector employment), and improved socio-economic well-being of the population (as measured by levels of income, health and education); and external pressures for enhanced governmental performance and stability, the growth of a stable and adequate economy, and the protection of human rights. While the conceptual and operational relationships between democratization and other variables are debated (Honey, 1968; Olson, 1993; Thurber & Graham, 1973), an examination of national characteristics demonstrates that a close relationship exists between the effectiveness of a government and the effectiveness of its public personnel system (Wiarda, 1995: 160-1).

Third, public personnel systems within these three Central American Republics have developed through a relatively uniform process similar to, yet not identical with, the evolution of the field in the United States (Figure 1). In the beginning there is a patronage system, then a transition toward merit marked by three milestones (passage of a civil service law; creation of a civil service agency with adequate location, staffing and funding; and implementation of effective personnel procedures). Although there has been little research into the process by which administrative innovations are developed or transferred from one country to another (Sierra, 1985; Sabet & Klingner, 1993), this developmental uniformity appears to be based on three factors: (1) conditions in developing countries, including pressures for modernization and democratization, may parallel (though lag behind) those in the United States, (2) personnel innovations tend to be exotic (introduced into developing countries by consultants from developed countries) rather than indigenous ("home grown"); and (3) international lenders often mandate administrative reform as a condition of continued credit.

Although this transition from patronage to merit is due to a number of external pressures, it is also spurred by internal consensus (among a coalition of administrators, academicians, political leaders and other "change agents") on the general disadvantages of patronage systems (Vargas Alfáro, 1993): (a) excessive political appointments are tied to government corruption (Villanueva, 1994); (b) the wholesale employee turnover that accompanies elections promotes inefficiency and wastes human resources ("Muy poco," 1994; Bermúdez Milla, 1994); and (c) the resultant instability, corruption and poor government performance discourage international investors and engender cynicism or apathy among the people (PNUD, 1991: "Honduras debe convertirse," 1994). The advantages of a merit system are also widely accepted by this reform coalition: (a) it allows governments to predict personnel expenses ("Gobierno anterior," 1994), and to control them within a prescribed budget ("Los 36 Millones," 1994); (b) adoption of a merit system allows each agency to manage its own human resources most effectively (COREC, 1990); and (c) it permits public employees in professional and technical positions to develop as individuals, and as a national resources (PNUD, 1991; and Román de Ríos, 1993).

Two additional characteristics of this developmental model of public personnel management may be mentioned in closing. First, it allows policy-makers and researchers to describe the level of a country's development at a point in time; to predict the transition from one stage to the other by examining changes in political, economic and social conditions; and possibly even to encourage transition from one stage to the other by specific public policies. Second, the evolutionary process is neither uniform or unidirectional. The speed of a country's transition from patronage to merit systems (and the capability with which it confronts stage three dilemmas) can be slowed or reversed by a deterioration in political, economic or social conditions, which in turn impedes democratization and modernization. For example, in the case of Panama it might be said that the transition from a spoils system to a merit system was hindered by the breakdown of democratic government during the dictatorships and the U.S. invasion that marked the 1970s and 1980s. And in the case of Honduras it could be said that the same transition was slowed because of the weakness of the state, the diversion of scarce resources from health and education to the armed forces, and U.S. intervention in the country's internal politics. And it also might be argued that the recent and rapid movement of both countries toward a merit system is a result of internal and external pressures for democratization and modernization.

It is hoped that this article will generate further research into questions that are interesting, yet beyond the scope of this article: How does the development of public personnel management in Central America compare with its development in other Latin American countries, or in other developing countries? How does the process by which public personnel management has developed in the United States compare with the developmental process in other developed countries? To what extent are findings about the relationship between democratization and public personnel management in Central America generalizable to the study of democratization in other developing countries?

1. This article is based on research conducted by the author as a Fulbright Fellow under the Central America Republics Program (January-July 1994). The author also acknowledges, with thanks, the award of a sabbatical leave by Florida International University during the spring semester of 1994, and the cooperation and support of host country sponsors: the Legislative Assembly and the Ministry of Planning and Economic Policy (MIPPE) in Panama, the Faculty of Economic Sciences of the University of Costa Rica (UCR), and the Faculty of Laws of the National Autonomous University of Honduras (UNAH).

2. Interviewees:

Georgina Argeñal de Rivera, Civil Service Directorate (DGSC)

Manuel Ernesto Bernales Alvarado, UNAH

Jorge Omar Casco Zelaya, UNAH

Juana Gutiérrez, DGSC

Florentino López Molla, DGSC

José Antonio Mejia Mejia, UNAH

Edgardo Orellana Osorio, Supreme Court

José Melchor Rodriguez Mendoza, DGSC

Rafael Valladares, Presidential Commission on Modernizing the State (CPME)

Irene Zavala de Montalvan, UNAH

Amilcar Zúñiga, DGSC

Donaciana Acosta, MIPPE

Armando Acosta F., MIPPE

Carlos Ayala M., National Federation of Public Employees (FENASEP)

Estela Fuentes, Legislative Assembly

Carlos Molina O., Central American Institute of Public Administration (ICAP)

Carmen Núñez V., United Nations Development Program (PNUD), ex-MIPPE

Gladys Stella Román de Ríos, University of Panama

Salvador Sánchez González, Legislative Assembly

Justo Aguilar F., UCR

Maritza Escamilla G., Bank of Costa Rica

Margarita Esquivel, Public/Private Social Service Agency (IMAS)

Carlos Fuentes B., Social Security Agency (CCSS)

Edgardo Jiménez, UCR

Ricardo Melendez T., UCR

Oscar Mena Redondo, UCR

Hernán Monterrosa R., Ministry of Planning (MINIPLAN)

Gerardo Morales B., Water and Sewer Authority (AyA)

Manuel Navarro B., Civil Service Directorate (DGSC)

Leonel Obando O., DGSC

Violeta Pallavicini C., UCR

Arnoldo Redondo, National Insurance Institute (INS)

Alfonso Rivera T., UCR

Mario Sáenz, UCR

Germán Vargas A., ex-DGSC, ex-Legislative Assembly

3. Interview Questions (translated and condensed):

a. What's your name? position? last academic degree? when did you earn it? where?

b. How long have you worked in this agency? in personnel management? in the public sector generally?

c. What are the general functions of your agency?

d. What are the specific functions of your position?

e. What laws, regulations, and procedures govern your agency generally? Which govern the practice of human resource management in your agency?

f. Which of the following personnel functions are most important in your agency at present? Why?

- human resource planning and budgeting

- job analysis, classification, and evaluation

- compensation and benefits

- recruitment and selection

- motivation and employee performance

- training and employee development

- performance evaluation

- employee health and safety

- rights and responsibilities of public employees

- collective bargaining and labor relations

- management information systems and program evaluation

- other (which?)

g. What's the worst personnel problem confronting your agency right now? Why?

h. What would have to happen to resolve this problem? Does the power to make this change lie within your agency (changes in policy or procedures), or does it depend on changes in the political, social or economic environment? Explain.

i. What personnel management successes have occurred in your agency during the last five years (new programs, or examples of changes which have increased agency effectiveness or employee performance). Why are they important?

4. Figures in Table 1 are drawn from several sources. "Area," "population," "GDP," "per capita GDP," "real growth rate," "inflation," "government revenues," "government expenditures," "external debt," "total employment" and "unemployment" are 1992 figures drawn from The World Factbook (1993). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, Office of Public and Agency Information, pp. 92-93, 171-173, and 301-302. "Public employment" figures are for 1993, based on interviews and corroborated by (respectively), the Ministerio de Hacienda (1993) for Costa Rica, MIPPE (1993) for Panama, and CPME/Banco Mundial (1993) for Honduras. "Human development" is a measure of real purchasing power, education and health (for 1991) developed by the United Nations Development Program, and cited in Latin American Weekly Report (London: Latin American Newsletter, 24 June, 1993, pp. 285-7. The range for this index in Latin America in 1991 was 22-137. "Political and civil rights" is the Freedom House ranking of political and civil rights (for 1990), cited in: James Wilkes, Alberto Contreras, and Christof Weber, eds., 1993. Statistical Abstract of Latin America 30. Los Angeles: UCLA Latin American Center Publications, Table 1004, part 1, p. 275-277. The range on each variable is 1-7.

5. The author wishes to thank colleagues for their helpful suggestions on previous drafts of this manuscript: Charles Frankenhoff, James D. Carroll, David H. Rosenbloom, Patricia Ingraham, and Jean-Claude Garcia-Zamor.

Figure 1: The Development of Public personnel Mangement in Central America

Asamblea Legislativa, 1994. Ley de la Carrera Administrativa. Panama.

Ban, Carolyn and Norma Riccucci, 1991. Public Personnel Management: Current Concerns, Future Challenges. New York: Longmans.

Barry, Tom, 1991. Central America Inside Out: The Essential Guide to its Societies, Politics and Economics. New York: Grove Weidenfeld.

Bermúdez Milla, Hector, 1994. "El Hombre para el Puesto (Opinión)." El Heraldo, Tegucigalpa (February 11), 16.

Booth, John, 1991. "Socioeconomic and Political Roots of National Revolts in Central America." Latin American Research Review, vol. 26 (January/February), 33-74.

Booth, John and Mitchell Seligson, 1989. Elections and Democracy in Central America. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

Booth, John and Thomas Walker, 1989. Understanding Central America. Boulder: Westview.

Brautigam, S., 1985. "Recursos Humanos: Su Capacitación e Institutionalización en el Régimen de Servicio Civil de Costa Rica." Revista Centroamericana de Administración Pública, vol. 8 (January-June), 97-107.

Casco Zelaya, Jorge, Manuel Bernales Alvarado, Germán Espinal Zuniga and Ernesto Paz Aguilar, 1993. Maestría en Ciencia Política y Gestión Estatal. Tegucigalpa, Honduras: UNAH, Facultad de Ciencias Jurídicas y Sociales, Dirección de Postgrado, Comisión Técnica, Comisión Presidencial de Modernización del Estado.

Colburn, Forrest, 1992. "The Fading of the Revolutionary Era in Central America." Current History, vol. 91 (February), 70-73.

Coleman, Kenneth and George Herring, 1991. Understanding the Central American Crisis: Sources of Conflict, U.S. Policy, and Options for Peace. Wilmington, DE: SR Books.

Collier, David and Deborah Norden, 1992. "Strategic Choice Models of Political Change in Latin America." Comparative Politics, vol. 24, 229-243.

Comité Ecuménico de Panamá, 1994. "Historia Política de Panamá." La Estrella de Panamá, Panama City (May 1), C6-C7, D4.

COREC (1990). Reforma del Estado en Costa Rica. San José, Costa Rica: Comisión de Reforma del Estado Costarricense (COREC), EDICOSTA, S.A.

CPME, 1994. Documento Preliminar: Programa de Modernización del Estado para el Período 1994-1998. Tegucigalpa, Honduras: Presidencia de la República, Comisión Presidencial de Modernización del Estado (CPME), Secretaria Ejecutiva.

CPME and Banco Mundial, 1993. Sobre Empleo y Salarios en el Sector Publico. Tegucigalpa, Honduras: CPME and the World Bank.

DGSC, 1993. "Notas Históricas: El Régimen de Servicio Civil en Costa Rica." Revista de Servicio Civil, vol. 1 (January-June), 5-8.

Dix, Robert, 1992. "Democratization and the Institutionalization of Latin American Political Parties." Comparative Political Studies, vol. 24, 488-512.

Fischer, John, 1945. "Let's Go Back to the Spoils System." Harper's, vol. 191 (October), 362-368.

Fonseca Pimentel, A., 1966. "La Administración de Personal en América Latina." International Review of Administrative Sciences, vol. 32, 197-202.

"Forgotten Central America," 1992. The New York Times, vol. 141 (May 26), A-16.

Freedman, Anne, 1994. "Commentary on Patronage." Public Administration Review, vol. 54 (May/June), 313.

Geddes, Barbara, 1991. "A Game Theoretic Model of Reform in Latin American Democracies." American Political Science Review, vol. 85, 371-393.

Geddes, Barbara, 1994. Politician's Dilemma: Building State Capacity in Latin America. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Golcher Barguil, Erika, 1993. Puntos Claves de la Política Exterior Costarricense (1950-1993). San José, Costa Rica: Universidad de Costa Rica (UCR), Facultad de Ciencias Sociales, Escuela de História y Geografía Cátedra, História de las Instituciones de Costa Rica, Comisión Editorial.

Goodman, Louis, 1992. Political Parties and Democracy in Central America. Boulder: Westview.

Graham, Lawrence, 1990. The State and Policy Outcomes in Latin America. New York: Praeger, and the Hoover Institution Press.

Guevara, Otto and César Jaramillo, 1992. Impacto de Laudos y Convenciones Colectivas en las Finanzas Públicas. San José, Costa Rica: Ministerio de Planificación (October 30).

Hays, Steven and Richard Kearney, 1990. Public Personnel Management: Problems and Prospects, 2nd. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

Heady, Ferrel, 1991. Public Administration: A Comparative Perspective, 4th. New York: Marcel Dekker.

Heclo, Hugh, 1977. A Government of Strangers. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.

"Honduras Debe Convertirse en Pilar de la Democracia en CA," 1994. El Heraldo, Tegucigalpa (February 25), 6.

Honey, John, 1968. Toward Strategies for Public Administration Development in Latin America. Ithaca: Syracuse University Press.

ICAP, 1991. Asistencia Técnica para la Formulación de un "Programa de Racionalización del Empleo Público" (PREP) en Panamá y Evaluación de su Cumplimiento. San José, Costa Rica: Instituto Centroamericano de Administración Pública (October).

Jonas, Susanne, 1990. "Central America in the Balance: Prospects for the 1990s." Monthly Review (June), 11-24.

Karl, Terry Lynn, 1990. "Dilemmas of Democratization in Latin America." Comparative Politics, vol. 23, 1-21.

Kearney, Richard, 1986. "Spoils in the Caribbean: the Struggle for Merit-Based Civil Service in the Dominican Republic." Public Administration Review, vol. 46 (March/April), 144-151.

Kearney, Richard, 1988. "Political Responsiveness and Neutral Competence in the Developing Countries." Review of Public Personnel Administration, vol. 8, 66-80.

Kiggundu, Moses, Jan Jorgensen and Taieb Hafsi, 1983. "Administrative Theory and Practice in Developing Countries: A Synthesis." Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 28, 66-84.

Klingner, Donald, 1993. "Reinventing Public Personnel Administration as Strategic Human Resource Management." Public Personnel Management, vol. 22 (Winter), 565-578.

Klingner, Donald and John Nalbandian, 1993. Public Personnel Management: Contexts and Strategies, 3rd. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Ley de Servicio Civil, Decreto No. 126, República de Honduras, 1968. Tegucigalpa, Honduras.

Ley de la Carrera Judicial, Reglamento de la Ley de la Carrera Judicial, Reglamento Interno del Consejo de la Carrera Judicial, 1988. Tegucigalpa, Honduras (December).

Lijphart, Arend, 1992. "The Southern European Examples of Democratization: Six Lessons for Latin America." Government and Opposition, vol. 25, 68-84.

"Los 36 Millones (Opinión Editorial)," 1994. La Tribuna. Tegucigalpa, Honduras (February 23), 12.

Mainwaring, Scott; Guillermo O'Donnell and Samuel Valenzuela, eds., 1992. Issues in Democratic Consolidation. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.

Ministerio de Hacienda, 1993. Puestos del Sector Público en Costa Rica: 1992. San José, Costa Rica: Ministerio de Hacienda, Secretaria Técnica, Autoridad Presupuestaría, Sección Organización Ocupacional.

MIDEPLAN, 1994. Proyecto: Ley del Régimen de Empleo Público. San José, Costa Rica: Ministerio de Planificación (March 23).

MIPPE, 1982. Compendio de Leyes Sobre Administración de Personal del Sector Público: 1955-1978. Panama: Ministerio de Planificación y Política Económica (MIPPE), Dirección de Planificación y Desarrollo Institucional, Departamento de Recursos Humanos del Sector Público, segunda reproducción (December).

MIPPE, 1985. Sistematización de la Administración de Salarios en el Sector Público (Propuesta). Panama: MIPPE (September).

MIPPE, 1986. Estatuto de Servicio Civil y Carrera Administrativa (Anteproyecto). Panama: MIPPE, Comisión de Carrera Administrativa, Comisión de la Carrera Administrativa (April).

MIPPE, 1993. Cantidad de Posiciones por Institución, Según Presupuesto 1993 y Funcionarios Cubiertos por Carreras Públicas, Enero 1993. Panama: MIPPE, Dirección de Planificación y Desarrollo Institucional, Departamento de Recursos Humanos del Sector Público (January).

Mosher, Frederick, 1982. Democracy and the Public Service, 2nd. New York: Oxford University Press.

"Muy Poco 'El Agua Bendita'," 1994. El Heraldo, Tegucigalpa (February 11), 6.

Nalbandian, John, 1981. "From Compliance to Consultation: The Role of the Public Personnel Manager." Review of Public Personnel Administration, vol. 1, 37-51.

NPR, 1993. Reinventing Human Resource Management. Washington, D.C.: National Performance Review.

Olson, Mancur, 1993. "Dictatorship, Democracy and Development." American Political Science Review, vol. 87 (September) 567-576.

"Out of the Ditch," 1992. The Economist. (June 6), 17-19.

Perlman, Bruce, 1992. Brief Consultant Report: Recommendations for New Civil Service Statute. San José, Costa Rica: Unpublished report (MIDEPLAN) (November 27).

PNUD, 1991. "Coloquio Nacional Sobre 'Perfeccionamiento Democrático y Readecuación Constitucional del Estado'." Informe de Resultados. Tegucigalpa, Honduras: Programa de Las Naciones Unidas Para el Desarrollo (PNUD) y Presidencia, Oficina del Programa de Mejoramiento de la Gestión del Estado, Proyecto Hon/90/501 (May).

Presidencia de la República, 1992. Decreto Ejecutivo No. 112: Por el cual se Deroga el Decreto Ejecutivo No. 2 de 29 de Enero de 1992 y se Adopta y Reglamenta el Programa de Retiro Voluntario del Servidor Público. Panama (December 22).

Presidencia de la República, 1993. Decreto Ejecutivo No. 41: Por el cual se Modifica el Decreto Ejecutivo No. 112 de 22 de Diciembre de 1992 y se Extiende el Programa de Retiro Voluntario. Panama (October 20).

Quintero, César, 1994. "La Ley de la Carrera Administrativa." La Prensa. Panama (March 1).

República de Costa Rica, 1991. Estatuto de Servicio Civil (Leyes Numeros 1581 de 30 de Mayo de 1953, 4565 de 4 de Mayo de 1970 y 6155 de 28 de Noviembre de 1977); Reglamento del Estatuto de Servicio Civil (Decreto Ejecutivo No. 21 de 14 de Diciembre de 1954); Leyes y Decretos Conexos. San José: Imprenta Nacional.

Riggs, Frederick, 1964. Administration in Developing Countries: The Theory of Prismatic Society. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.

Robinson, Linda, 1991. Intervention or Neglect: The United States and Central America Beyond the 1980s. New York: Council on Foreign Relations.

Román de Ríos, Gladys, 1990. "El Desempleo, Problema Económico y Social Más Agobiante en Panamá." La Prensa. Panama (November 11), 20A.

Román de Ríos, Gladys, 1993. "La Eliminación del Nepotismo en el Estado." La Estrella de Panamá. Panama (July 19), B1.

Rosenberg, Mark, 1988. Honduras in the Central American Conflict: Trends and Recent Developments. Miami: LACC, Florida International University.

Ruffing-Hilliard, Karen, 1991. "Merit Reform in Latin America: A Comparative Perspective." In Ali Farazmand (ed.), Handbook of Comparative and Development Public Administration. New York: Dekker.

Sabet, Mohamed and Donald Klingner, 1993. "Exploring the Impact of Professionalism on Administrative Innovation." Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, vol. 3, 252-266.

Sayre, Wallace, 1948. "The Triumph of Techniques Over Purpose." Public Administration Review, vol. 8, 134-137.

Schroeder, Richard, 1989. "New Approach to Central America." Editorial Research Reports, vol. 1 (May 5), 246-259.

Shafritz, Jay, Norma Riccucci, Albert Hyde and David Rosenbloom, 1992. Personnel Management in Government: Politics and Process, 4th ed. New York: Marcel Dekker.

Siegel, Gilbert and Kleber Nascimento, 1965. "Formalism in Brazilian Administrative Reform: The Example of Position Classification." International Review of Administrative Sciences, vol. 31, 175-184.

Sierra, Enrique, 1985. "Los Recursos Humanos y las Innovaciones Técnicas Administrativas." Revista Centroamericana de Administración Pública, vol. 9 (July/December), 81-92.

Sloan, John, 1989. "The Policy Capabilities of Democratic Regimes in Latin America." Latin American Research Review, vol. 24, 113-127.

Thurber, Charles and Lawrence Graham, eds., 1973. Development Administration in Latin America. Chapel Hill: Duke University Press.

Torres Padilla, Oscar, 1968. Recursos Humanos: El Sector Público y su Situación Actual en Centroamérica. San José, Costa Rica: ICAP/INV/821/590/68: Serie: Investigación No. 303.

USAID, 1991. Economic Assistance Strategy for Central America: 1991-2000. Washington, DC: U.S. Agency for International Development (January).

Vargas Alfáro, Germán, 1993. Exposición Sobre la Naturaleza y Efectos de un Sistema de Servicio Civil frente a los del Botín Político. Panama: Asamblea Legislativa, Segundo Seminario Sobre Carrera Administrativa, USAID and FIU, October 6).

Vega G., Ibeth, 1994. "Brigadas Celestes Inician Paro Indefinido de Labores," La Prensa. Panama (May 10), plana 5.

Villanueva, Armando, 1994. "Reina Crea Comisión de Alto Nivel Contra la Corrupción." El Heraldo. Tegucigalpa (February 17), 4.

Wiarda, Howard, 1995. Latin American Politics. Belmont: Wadsworth.

Wynia, Gary, 1990. The Politics of Latin American Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.