Bureaucratic politics in neopatrimonial settings: types of appointment and their implications in Ghana

This thesis investigated the extent to which types of civil service appointments shape the attitudes and behaviour of civil servants in neo-patrimonial settings, with a focus on the Ghanaian experience. Despite the theoretical view in public administration literature about the consequences of the type of a civil servants’ appointment on his/her attitude and behaviour, the empirical data is marginal in emerging democracies such as Ghana. Regarding the attitudes and behaviour of concern, the study focused on the level of bureaucrats’ autonomy, loyalty and responsiveness. To investigate this phenomenon, the study adopted a mixed-method approach to understand why civil servants, despite their apolitical cloak, demonstrate varied attitudes and behaviour in contravention with their professionalism and, in particular, determine how their type of appointment influenced such attitudes and behaviour. The findings confirmed the study’s hypothesis that the type of a bureaucrats’ appointment into the bureaucracy indeed influenced his/her attitudes and behaviour. However, further analysis of this finding impugned mainstream discourses regarding the expected impact of types of appointment. For example, the study found that regardless of how merit-based the process of appointing a bureaucrat is, his/her autonomy is limited in Ghana. Secondly, whilst the general theoretical predictions concerning patronage and hybrid appointments’ impact on loyalty and responsiveness were confirmed respectively, the findings also suggest that such loyalties and responsiveness are not absolute, due to regulatory mechanisms and competing interests. Furthermore, this study’s findings support the class of scholars who call into question the orthodox view in bureaucratic politics that patronage is damaging because this study finds otherwise. It therefore adds to discussions on the need to move beyond the monistic conception of patronage as negative to encompass its beneficial outcomes. The study also proposes legal-constitutional and policy reforms that go beyond the merit-principle to embrace patronage and hybrid considerations where necessary.