SUMMARY Acceptance of merit's pivotal role in establishing and maintaining effective bureaucracies has become second nature. In this paper I explore the association between merit and kinship in the Philippine civil service, although the conclusions that emerge are not peculiar either to the case of the Philippines or to the ‘developing’ world in general. I argue that merit is no less social than kinship; that its meaning for actors is broader, and the value of kinship and other ‘traditional’ social categories of behavior greater, than commentators and reformers often allow for. Indeed, when merit is narrowly defined (as it so often must be for practical reasons) and its complex dimensions ignored, it is socially divisive, produces deep inequalities, and leaves organizations less flexible and less capable of innovation. I suggest that, however paradoxical it might seem, more effective, humanitarian, flexible, and creative organizations thrive in what is often portrayed as an unsatisfactory transitional state between third‐world informality and Weberian‐style formality. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Philippine civil servants staff the country's executive agencies, the secretariats of the legislature, the five commissions, the judiciary, local government, and the organs of the Autonomous Muslim Region of Mindanao. They number some 1.3 million (1) of which some 18 000 are noncareer political appointees. (2) In spite of its faults, which are many, the civil service is essential to the life of the Philippines. Without it, the organs of government, inefficient though they may often be, would cease to function. Yet relatively little academic analysis has been directed at the Philippine civil service. Empirical data and field studies are fragmented, poorly disseminated, and often remain unpublished. Also, notwithstanding valuable contributions made by individual scholars, the conceptual basis of its study is narrow and uncertain when looked at in the round, and is heavily conditioned by a public administration approach. (3) This is concerned primarily with the delivery of services to the people through`cooperative human action' (de Guzman, 2003, page 4), whether in the public bureaucracy, the private sector, or nongovernmental organizations. Thus, the Philippine bureaucracy is viewed as only one amongst many sets of activities and organizations (public, private,

No abstract

Philippine political and bureaucratic organisations are usually presented as weak, permeable, distorted and corrupt and, as such, lie some way from a proper condition of formality. There is no question that informal behaviour can and does have a deleterious effect on the civil service and the organisations it staffs. But it is also clear that, within the bureaucracy, there is a deal of positive informal behaviour. It is suggested here that informality is essential to the day-to-day operation of bureaucratic organisations, a vital source of innovation, and the base material from which the formal is shaped. Possible explanations for the emergence of these qualities are also revealed. There are, in particular, overlapping and mutually reinforcing circumstances or conditionsnegative informality, divergent representations, divisions in authority, and overconformity -that appear to excite positive informality, and that may constitute useful elements in developing an explanatory model of informality in Philippine bureaucracy.

No abstract