The Big Five Barriers Before Merit: A Conceptual Framework for Anti-Merit Recruitment in Public Administration

Merit-based public employment is widely associated with stronger bureaucratic competence, impartiality, and institutional legitimacy. Yet scholarships on anti-merit recruitment remain fragmented across separate literatures on nepotism, ethnic favoritism, religious discrimination, cronyism, and corruption. This article develops a conceptual framework that unifies these practices as rival principles of allocation operating before merit. The central argument is that merit in public employment rests on two jointly necessary foundations: competence and impartiality. Recruitment becomes anti-merit when sequentially; family ties, ethnic identity, religious affiliation, personal loyalty, or bribery become more decisive than qualification and fitness for office. The article theorizes these five distinct mechanisms through which merit is displaced: nepotism privileges kinship, tribalism privileges group identity, religion-based favoritism reshapes perceived fitness, cronyism rewards insider loyalty, and corruption commodifies access to employment. Although these mechanisms differ, they converge in weakening neutral competence, organizational trust, fairness in selection, and institutional legitimacy. The article contributes to public administration theory by integrating these barriers into a single framework of anti-merit recruitment. It distinguishes lawful inclusion from illegitimate favoritism, and clarifying the difference between religion as a basis for exclusion before appointment and religiosity as a possible source of motivation after appointment. It concludes by advancing a set of propositions for future empirical research and by outlining governance reforms that can strengthen merit-based recruitment in public institutions.

Meritocracy, public employment, nepotism, tribalism

1. Baekgaard, M., & George, B. (2018). Equal access to the top? Representative bureaucracy and politicians’ recruitment preferences for top administrative staff. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 28(4), 535–550. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muy038 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Bednarczuk, M. (2019). God in the workplace: Religiosity and job satisfaction among U.S. public servants. Journal of Public and Nonprofit Affairs, 5(3), 261–276. https://doi.org/10.20899/jpna.5.3.261-276 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Boräng, F., Cornell, A., Grimes, M., & Schuster, C. (2018). Cooking the books: Bureaucratic politicization and policy knowledge. Governance, 31(1), 7–26. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Carpenter, D. (2002). The forging of bureaucratic autonomy: Reputations, networks, and policy innovation in executive agencies, 1862–1928. Princeton University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Chassamboulli, A., & Gomes, P. (2021). Jumping the queue: Nepotism and public-sector pay. Review of Economic Dynamics, 39, 344–366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.red.2020.07.006 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Colonnelli, E., Prem, M., & Teso, E. (2020). Patronage and selection in public sector organizations. American Economic Review, 110(10), 3071–3099. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20181491 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Cornell, A., Knutsen, C. H., & Teorell, J. (2020). Bureaucracy and growth. Comparative Political Studies, 53(14), 2246–2282. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Dahlström, C., & Lapuente, V. (2017). Organizing Leviathan: Politicians, bureaucrats, and the making of good government. Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Di Stasio, V., Lancee, B., Veit, S., & Yemane, R. (2021). Muslim by default or religious discrimination? Results from a cross-national field experiment on hiring discrimination. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 47(6), 1305–1326. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2019.1622826 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. 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. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Freeman, P. K., & Houston, D. J. (2010). Belonging, believing, behaving: The religious character of public servants. Administration & Society, 42(6), 694–719. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399710377981 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Hollibaugh, G. E., Jr. (2015). Naïve cronyism and neutral competence: Patronage, performance, and policy agreement in executive appointments. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25(2), 341–372. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muu016 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Henderson, J., Hulme, D., Jalilian, H., & Phillips, R. (2007). Bureaucratic effects: Weberian state agencies and poverty reduction. Sociology, 41(3), 515–532. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. King, E. B., & Ahmad, A. S. (2010). An experimental field study of interpersonal discrimination toward Muslim job applicants. Personnel Psychology, 63(4), 881–906. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2010.01199.x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Kolvani, P., & Nistotskaya, M. (2025). On mechanisms of meritocratic recruitment: Competence and impartiality. Journal of Institutional Economics, 21, e12, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744137425000086 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Krause, G. A., Lewis, D. E., & Douglas, J. W. (2006). Political appointments, civil service systems, and bureaucratic competence: Organizational balancing and executive branch revenue forecasts in the American states. American Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 770–787. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Lewis, D. E. (2007). Testing Pendleton’s premise: Do political appointees make worse bureaucrats? The Journal of Politics, 69(4), 1073–1088. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Madrid, R., Merolla, J. L., Ruiz, A. Y., & Schroedel, J. R. (2022). The relevance of religion for political office: Voter bias toward candidates from different religious backgrounds. Political Behavior, 44, 981–1001. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-022-09782-6 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Miller, G. J., & Whitford, A. B. (2016). Above politics: Bureaucratic discretion and credible commitment. Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Nistotskaya, M., & Cingolani, L. (2016). Bureaucratic structure, regulatory quality, and entrepreneurship in a comparative perspective: Cross-sectional and panel data evidence. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 26(3), 519–534. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. O’Connor, K., & Shahwan, U. (2024). Religion and representative bureaucracy: Does religion guide administrative discretion? Public Policy and Administration, 39(4), 588–607. https://doi.org/10.1177/09520767241254869 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Oliveros, V. (2016). Making it personal: Clientelism, favors, and the personalization of public administration in Argentina. Comparative Politics, 48(3), 373–391. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Ongaro, E., & Tantardini, M. (2024). Contours of a research programme for the study of the relationship of religion and public administration. Public Policy and Administration, 39(4), 521–530. https://doi.org/10.1177/09520767241272897 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Rauch, J. E., & Evans, P. B. (2000). Bureaucratic structure and bureaucratic performance in less developed countries. Journal of Public Economics, 75(1), 49–71. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Shaheen, S., Bashir, S., & Khan, A. K. (2017). Examining organizational cronyism as an antecedent of workplace deviance in public sector organizations. Public Personnel Management, 46(3), 308–323. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091026017716655 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Simson, R. (2019). Ethnic (in)equality in the public services of Kenya and Uganda. African Affairs, 118(470), 75–100. https://doi.org/10.1093/afraf/ady034 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Weaver, J. (2021). Jobs for sale: Corruption and misallocation in hiring. American Economic Review, 111(10), 3093–3122. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20201062 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Wright, B. R. E., Wallace, M., Bailey, J., & Hyde, A. (2013). Religious affiliation and hiring discrimination in New England: A field experiment. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 34, 111–126. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Yu, J., & Jennings, E. (2021). Politics, competence, and performance: Evidence from U.S. state budget agencies. Public Administration Review, 81(3), 500–518. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• A Decadal Overview of Welfare Schemes in Telangana (2014–2024)
• Ubuntu and the Missed Development Goals in the Global South: Rethinking MDGs and SDGs through an African Philosophical Lens
• Exploring the Factors of Obesity: Insights from Johor State Civil Servants
• Navigating the Nexus: Challenges Faced by Part-Time Postgraduate Government Employees in Malaysia
• The Lived Experiences of Skilled Filipino Women Immigrants in Denmark