bureaucracy vs meritocracy?

[caesar novus]

Ancient China was famous for it's tough civil service exams and they are still in use today. The author of http://www.booktv.org/Watch/13167/What+the+US+Can+Learn+from+China+An+OpenMinded+Guide+to+Treating+Our+Greatest+Competitor+as+Our+Greatest+Teacher.aspx further states that high national officials not only have to be the 1 in 5 that could pass that test, but additionally have to first prove merit in real world administration in terms of measurable results. This is proposed as a successful model, in contrast with corrupt and incompetant government at the LOCAL Chinese level.

 

So how do other governments thru history match up? For instance ancient Rome - was the most preparation you could expect was to have a Greek tutor, or sort of apprenticeship from your father? Besides many obviously unprepared emperors, was there a more organized tier below that?

Edited March 6, 2012 by caesar novus

[caldrail]

The Romans placed a great importance on merit, although they also had the idea that 'blocks off the old chip' had an advantage from the start. So we have politics generated by a contest between meritocracy and patrocracy. Later they developed a much bigger reliance on bureaucracy, and that form of organisation has one major failing in that it encourages the employment of those who don't actually do anything, the antithesis of merit.

[Kosmo]

Cursus honorum used by Romans insured that candidates for higher offices have gained practical experience in lower ranks and an opinion could be formed about their abilities. This is a system that I would love to see implemented today by setting up two ladders, one for the executive branch and one for the legislative.

The Chinese imperial examinations were focused on Confucius, not on practical knowledge. Anyway, this type of selection could produce competent scholars, not necessary able administrators. The exams insured that candidates were literate, have good memory and maybe served like a primitive IQ test like most school examinations do. The chinese writing system is very complex and I'm sure literacy during the imperial dynasties was far below that in Ancient Rome so the pool of potential candidates was fairly small. The worst part is that examinations insured rigid mental conformity to Confucianism across the bureaucracy.

[Ursus]

For instance ancient Rome - was the most preparation you could expect was to have a Greek tutor, or sort of apprenticeship from your father? Besides many obviously unprepared emperors, was there a more organized tier below that?

 

 

 

During the Republic, provincial governors seemed to have been advised informally by their circle of associates, both Roman and provincial natives.

 

The Empire did see some professionalization. In the early empire, educated Greek slaves and freedmen did a lot of the legwork. Toward the later empire, military and civilian power was formally divided for the first time in Roman history, and a background in law seems to have been a mark of success for high office in the civil service. I don't see any evidence that it was as formalized as China.

 

 

I have seen it said that a professional bureaucracy is one of the reasons why China endured and Rome didn't, and it does seem to have a ring of truth. On the other hand, an entrenched bureaucracy schooled in archaic texts isn't necessarily the most innovative or forward thinking social force, and perhaps China stagnated in later centuries because of it.