density of 38 percent compared to less than 9 percent in the private sector
(Thomason and Burton 2003 : 72 ).
The distinction between the sovereign and model employer approaches should
not obscure shared features of public administration. There has been an enduring
emphasis on ‘fairness’ which stems from the need for public accountability and the
high degree of probity required of public servants. The search for fairness is
reXected in the diYculties of establishing market rates of pay for occupations
that have no equivalents in the private sector. In the UK, for many years public
sector workers were paid comparable rates to those undertaking similar work in the
private sector. Similar principles applied in Germany until the 1990 s with changes
in pay and conditions for public sector workers covered by collective bargaining
agreements, usually transferred to the 38 percent of public sector employees with
civil servant (Beamte) status (Keller 2005 ).
Public sector organizations are often viewed in pejorative terms as ‘bureaucratic,’
but the use of standardized rules enabled government policies to be implemented in
a uniform manner with the intention of ensuring political accountability, preventing
corruption, and facilitating equality of access for all citizens. A number of employ-
ment practices resulted from these goals. Elaborate internal labor markets, high
levels of job security, and career progression based primarily on length of service and
initial qualiWcations ensured stability and conformance to explicit procedures.
A further dimension of the public administration tradition relates to the
signiWcance of professions in shaping HR practice. Mandated by the state, profes-
sional associations have often had a considerable grip on aspects of HR practice,
controlling entry into the profession, determining training standards, establishing
standards of performance, and in some instances, for example amongst doctors in
the UK, awarding merit payments on the basis of peer review. Consequently,
the HR issues involved in managing professions were given limited attention
because of the tradition of self-regulation and the assumption that public service
professionals were motivated by intrinsic rather than extrinsic factors.
Finally, the existence of centralized systems of pay determination usually left
little scope for managers to alter employment conditions. Involvement in HR
policy was therefore conWned to small groups of experts located at central level.
In countries in which dedicated personnel managers existed, their role was
circumscribed by detailed regulations leaving them a procedural role in imple-
menting national employment rules (Bach 1999 ). For example in the USA, before
the Clinton administration introduced increased devolution into federal govern-
ment HR practice, theFederal Personnel Manualran to over 10 , 000 pages of
detailed personnel guidance (Moynihan 2003 : 380 ).
This tradition was consolidated during the expansion of the public services
which occurred in many countries after 1945. Governments provided their citizens
with welfare services to cushion them from the type of economic crisis which
emerged with such devastating social consequences in the inter-war years.
474 stephen bach and ian kessler