|
Results for civil service
|
On this page:
|
Term generally referring to administrators paid for implementing the policies of national governments. The term derives from British civilian (as opposed to military) officials working in India in the nineteenth century. The UK civil service is the body of officials, paid for out of the public purse, who work in the departments of state and those associated bodies and agencies which are headed by a secretary of state in the cabinet. It developed out of the ad hoc system of service to the pre-nineteenth century executive and a number of historic departments, notably the Treasury, the Home and Foreign Offices, and the Board of Trade. The growth of governmental responsibilities from the late nineteenth century involved the creation of more departments: the majority, such as Education, Employment, and Environment, functionally defined; but some territorially defined, these being the Scottish, Northern Ireland, and Welsh Offices.
The origins of the civil service as a modern bureaucracy lie in the implementation of the Northcote-Trevelyan reforms in the second half of the nineteenth century. These ensured, first, that entrance to the civil service was by competitive examination, both for the administrative (highest) and executive (intermediate) classes. Promotion was also on merit. Secondly, the civil service became a life career and hence a profession for the educated to enter into. Thirdly, the tasks of civil servants were divided into the intellectual and routine. This meant that departments developed as hierarchic: those drawn from the administrative class filled senior policy advice positions; those from the executive class filled positions defined by their superiors; and those on clerical grades—the least intellectual—carried out routine work. Fourthly, the civil service as a permanent institution of government developed an ethos of political neutrality, willing and able to advise and serve an elected government of any party programme. This clearly closely mirrors Weber's ideal type of bureaucracy.
Unification of the civil service, with centralized schemes of recruitment, standardized terms of pay and conditions, scope for mobility and promotion between departments, and a corporate ethos, was achieved between 1919 and 1939. Responsibility lay chiefly with Sir Warren Fisher, who was both permanent secretary to the Treasury and head of the civil service, and established unity through the exertion of Treasury control. Apart from some modernization during the Second World War, the British civil service remained largely intact up until the 1970s.
Under the Conservatives after 1979, however, the British civil service changed markedly. Governmental growth was checked, and the privatization or marketization of some responsibilities led to contraction in some areas of government. Such quantitative change was matched by qualitative change. First, entrance to the civil service was widened to take in the employment of those who have been successful in the private sector. Secondly, this move to diversify recruitment weakened the idea of the civil service as a life career. It became more acceptable to move freely between work in the civil service and the private sector, and to enter the civil service at a later stage after attaining some ‘life experience’. Thirdly, civil servants were evaluated less by their pure intellectual power and more by their perceived management skills. At the same time, the departmental basis of the civil service was partly broken up. Departments of state were retained as core policy advice bodies, but those departmental functions which were considered to involve the mere implementation of ministerial policy were hived off into agencies, associated with their former department, but now with their own budget, mission statement, and cost centre manager. Fourthly, the political neutrality of the civil service came increasingly under attack. The Thatcher governments were accused of promoting civil servants on the basis of ‘Is he one of us?’ Controversies over the rights and duties of civil servants who disagreed with their minister or who thought the minister might be misleading Parliament led to the issue of new guidelines on the duties and responsibilities of civil servants in relation to ministers in 1985. These changes taken together weakened the unity of the civil service—a fact that pleased some and horrified others. The introduction of citizens' charters heralded a further development towards output-oriented management in which fragmentation was accompanied by a move to limit bureaucratic autonomy through customer performance review.
The Labour Government after 1997 endorsed the move to a new core-agency civil service and defined the next stage as combining bureaucratic flexibility with joined-up government to deal with problems which cut across departmental and agency boundaries. The development of e-government was identified as a key tool for these aims. At the same time a focus was put on developing target-setting and evaluation in civil service performance. Civil servants were encouraged into a culture of risk as a further extension of the innovation to be gained from use of private sector methods. These developments encouraged both further bureaucratic autonomy and central political control.
The changes wrought on the ‘classic’ British civil service appeared to have their origins in a number of factors. First, key changes were consistent with recommendations for greater efficiency and effectiveness in the Fulton Report (1968), which responded to demands for the modernization of government to arrest British relative decline by copying successful practice from other countries. Secondly, the changes were consistent with a more contemporary ideological preference for market or quasi-market forms of supply associated with the new right. In the case of Labour after 1997, this was related to third-way ideas of modernized social democracy that accepted market solutions to public policy problems. Thirdly, the move from hierarchic departments to functionally segregated agencies appeared to give a public sector mirror to the move from ‘fordist’ mass production methods to post-fordist ‘small is beautiful’ flexible production units in the private sector. Finally, fragmentation and politicization were entirely consistent with the result of elected governments believing that the civil service had a political agenda of its own that had undermined previous governments and must not be allowed its head again.
Australia, Canada, and France are examples of other countries with a more or less unified and hierarchical civil service. The United States displays a distinctly different pattern, because each incoming administration normally replaces the existing heads of each department and agency with its own nominees (see spoils system). The Weberian model therefore applies to lower-level civil servants but not to upper-level ones.
— Jonathan Bradbury
For more information on civil service, visit Britannica.com.
Despite repeated campaigns to reduce numbers, the civil service remains one of the great growth areas of modern Britain. In the 17th cent. the civil service—i.e. persons directly employed by the government—was tiny. The two secretaries of state had a staff of about fifteen.
The growth of the civil service in the 19th cent. was moderate and hardly kept pace with the rise in population. In 1815 there were 25, 000 civil servants; 39, 000 by 1851; 54, 000 by 1871; and 79, 000 by 1891. Some reforms were introduced piecemeal by departments. In the Treasury, North had launched the concept of promotion by merit (1776), Shelburne had inaugurated fixed salaries (1782), and in 1805 an assistant secretary was appointed, the forerunner of the permanent secretary. A comprehensive review waited for the Northcote-Trevelyan Report of 1854, which recommended a division of labour between graduate policy-makers and humble administrators; entry by competitive examination; transfer between departments; and promotion by merit based on assessment. A Civil Service Commission, to supervise recruitment, was set up in 1855.
The vast expansion of the civil service in the 20th cent. is not easy to calculate. Definitions are troublesome and one commentator has referred to the ‘statistical conjuring tricks’—e.g. recategorizing thousands of civil servants—to give the impression that numbers are falling. By 1939 the numbers had risen to 387, 000 and by 1979 to 730, 000. These developments were accompanied by further reports. Haldane in 1918 was concerned that senior civil servants had little time to think. Plowden in 1961 complained that the Treasury had no adequate system for controlling expenditure—a rather worrying observation—and the Fulton Committee in 1968 deplored the survival of the cult of the amateur gentleman. One consequence was the establishment of a Civil Service College in 1970 to conduct research and training.
Though the public image of the civil servant may remain a pin-striped bowler-hatted Whitehall mandarin, most civil servants work outside London and half of them are women. Of the non-industrial civil service, the large employers are the Ministry of Defence, the Department of Social Security, the Board of Inland Revenue, the Department of Education and Employment, the Department of the Environment, the Home Office, and Customs and Excise.
Civil Service, the term applied to the appointed civilian employees of a governmental unit, as distinct from elected officials and military personnel. Increasingly, most civil service systems in the United States are characterized by a merit system of employment based on technical expertise, as determined by competitive examinations, and on permanent tenure and nonpartisanship. A few positions in the federal civil service and many more in state and local governments are filled by employees who owe their appointments primarily to political considerations. Such employees and the offices that they fill are known as the patronage, and the appointment mechanism is known as the spoils system. Much of the history of the U.S. civil service has had to do with its transformation from a spoils system to a predominantly merit system—a struggle spanning more than a hundred years and still going on in some state and local jurisdictions.
Under President George Washington and his successors through John Quincy Adams, the federal civil service was stable and characterized by relative competence and efficiency. However, the increasingly strong pressures of Jacksonian egalitarian democracy after 1829 rudely adjusted the civil service of the founding fathers, and for more than a half-century the federal, state, and local services were largely governed by a spoils system that gave little or no consideration to competence.
The unprecedented corruption and scandals of the post–Civil War era generated the beginnings of modern civil service reform. Anact of 1871 authorized the president to utilize examinations in the appointing process, and President Ulysses S. Grant appointed the first U.S. Civil Service Commission in that year. But Congress refused appropriations; full statutory support for reform waited until 1883 and the passage of the Pendleton Act, which is still the federal government's central civil service law. This act reestablished the Civil Service Commission, created a modern merit system for many offices, and authorized the president to expand this system. Behind the reforms of the late 19th century lay the efforts of the National Civil Service League, supported by public reaction against the corruption of the times. Successive presidents, requiring more and more professional expertise to carry out congressional mandates, continued and consolidated the reform—notably Grover Cleveland, Theodore Roosevelt, and Herbert Hoover. By 1900 the proportion of the federal civil service under the merit system reached nearly 60 percent; by 1930 it had exceeded 80 percent.
The depression period of the 1930s saw both a near doubling of the federal civil service and some renaissance of patronage politics, especially in the administration of work relief. With public and congressional support during his second term, President Franklin D. Roosevelt was empowered to, and did, expand the competitive system to most positions in the new agencies. Moreover, Congress extended a version of the merit system to first-, second-, and third-class postmasters; federal agencies were all required to have personnel offices; the
After World War II, federal personnel management, which had formerly consisted mainly of administering examinations and policing the patronage, further expanded its functions. The operation of personnel management was largely delegated to well-staffed personnel offices of agencies. Improved pay and fringe benefits, training and executive development, a positive search for first-rate talent, new approaches to performance rating, equal employment opportunity, improved ethical standards, loyalty and security procedures, incentive systems, and special programs for the handicapped were major developments. These developments and a full-scale labor relations system based on a precedent-shattering executive order by President John F. Kennedy in 1962 have characterized the transformation of nineteenth-century merit system notions into public personnel management as advanced as that anywhere in the world. In a federal civil service of 3 million, there are fewer than 15,000 patronage posts of any consequence.
Beginning in the late nineteenth century, civil service reform came also to many state and local governments, although relatively more slowly and less completely. In 1883 New York State adopted the first state civil service act and was followed almost immediately by Massachusetts. By 1940 one-third of the states had comprehensive merit systems; by 1970 two-thirds had them. The reform spread, from the East, through cities as well, after several New York State and Massachusetts cities set up civil service commissions in the 1880s. Chicago followed in 1895. Most metropolitan centers and many of the smaller cities have modern merit systems. A few have systems for police and fire departments only. Most cities act under their own statutes, but in New York, Ohio, and New Jersey, there is general coverage of local jurisdictions by state constitutional or other state legal provision. In one-quarter of the states—notable among which is California—the state personnel agencies may perform technical services for localities on a reimbursement basis. Whereas a bipartisan civil service commission provides administrative leader-ship in most jurisdictions, the single personnel director is becoming more popular.
The most important twentieth-century developments in civil service have to do with federal-state cooperative personnel arrangements. In part, such arrangements stem from a 1939 amendment to the Social Security Act of 1935, which required the federal government to apply merit system procedures to certain state and local employees paid in whole or in part through grants-in-aid. A considerable number of similar statutes followed, so that by the 1970s perhaps a million state and local positions fell within personnel systems closely monitored by the federal government. Federal supervision was for many years managed by a bureau of the Social Security Administration and later by a division of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. The Intergovernment Personnel Act of 1970, signed by President Richard M. Nixonon 5 January 1971, relocated the supervision of grant-in-aid employees within the U.S. Civil Service Commission. But, equally important, this act authorized federal grants-in-aid to state and local governments in support of modern personnel systems within these jurisdictions. The function of handling these grants-in-aid is also with the U.S. Civil Service Commission. Thus, it has become the central personnel agency not only of the federal government but also, in many respects, of the entire intergovernmental system.
In size, the federal civil service has grown from an institution of a few hundred employees in 1789 to nearly 3 million. During major wars the federal civil service has doubled and even quadrupled; its peak occurred in 1945 when civil service employees numbered nearly 4 million. There has been a similar growth instate and local services. The federal civil service saw its greatest continuing expansion between 1930 and 1950; progressive expansion of state and local civil service rosters began in the late 1940s, when state and local governments started on the road to becoming the fastest growing segment of American enterprise, public or private. By the 1970s federal civil employees functioned almost entirely under merit system procedures, as did some 75 percent of those in state and local governments. Civil service reform is therefore nearly an accomplished fact in the United States, but budget cuts in the 1980s and 1990s have created a serious strain on the civil service's efforts to fulfill its duties. Critics of the civil service have described its members as out of-touch "government bureaucrats" who put their own narrow interests ahead of those of the American people. In an effort to reduce the size of the government, such critics have proposed and implemented significant reductions in the civil service budget. In light of such policies, civil service officers at both the state and federal levels face the challenge of meeting growing obligations with declining resources.
Notwithstanding budget concerns, civil service re-form in the United States has produced a uniquely open system, in contrast to the closed career system common to other nations—which one enters only at a relatively early age and remains within for a lifetime, in the manner associated in the United States mainly with a military career. The Pendleton Act of 1883 established this original approach, providing that the federal service would be open to persons of any age who could pass job-oriented examinations. Persons may move in and out of public service, from government to private industry and back again, through a process known as lateral entry. It is this openness to anyone who can pass an examination, this constant availability of lateral entry, that has set the tone and character of public service in the United States at all levels. One consequence of U.S. civil service policy has been to provide a notable route for upward mobility, especially for women and blacks. Thus, the U.S. civil service has reflected the open, mobile nature of American society and, in turn, has done much to support it.
Bibliography
In graham, Patricia W. The State of the Higher Civil Service after Reform: Britain, Canada, and the United States. Paris: OECD, 1999.
Johnson, Ronald N. The Federal Civil Service System and the Problem of Bureaucracy: The Economics and Politics of Institutional Change. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994.
Schultz, David A. The Politics of Civil Service Reform. New York: P. Lang, 1998.
—Paul P. Van Riper/A. G.
History
General Development
The use of competitive examinations to select civil officials was begun in China during the Han dynasty (206 B.C.–A.D. 220), and expanded to include all important positions during the Sung dynasty (960–1279; see Chinese examination system). In the West, however, selection of civil administrators and staff on the basis of merit examinations is a late development. Despite important contributions to administrative structure and procedure, the Roman Empire seems to have recruited and promoted officials largely on the basis of custom and the judgement of superiors.
The establishment of the modern civil service is closely associated with the decline of feudalism and the growth of national autocratic states. In Prussia, as early as the mid-17th cent., Frederick William, elector of Brandenburg, created an efficient civil administration staffed by civil servants chosen on a competitive basis. In France similar reforms preceded the Revolution, and they were the basis for the Napoleonic reforms that transformed the royal service into the civil service. Development of a professional civil service came several decades later in Great Britain and the United States.
In the United States
Owing doubtless in part to the spoils system so strongly established in the Jacksonian era, the United States lagged far behind other nations in standards of civil service competence and probity. Agitation for reform began shortly after the Civil War. In 1871, Congress authorized the President to prescribe regulations for admission to public service and to appoint the Civil Service Commission, which lasted only a few years. The scandals of President Grant's administration lent weight to the arguments of reformers George W. Curtis, Dorman B. Eaton, and Carl Schurz. President Hayes favored reform and began to use competitive examinations as a basis for appointment to office.
The assassination of President Garfield in 1881 by a disappointed office seeker precipitated the passage of the Pendleton Act in 1883, reestablishing the Civil Service Commission after a nine-year lapse. The commission draws up the rules governing examinations for those positions that Congress places in the classified civil service. All Presidents since Cleveland have expanded the classified list, and the great majority of federal employees during peacetime are now classified. In 1939 the merit system was extended to sections of state administration receiving federal grants. The Hatch Act of 1940 forbade campaign contributions by officeholders, with the intention of divorcing the civil service from politics. A 1993 revision of the act allows most civil servants to engage in political activity on their own time.
Appointive power is shared by the President, who appoints the heads of all government departments and may remove his appointees at will; by Congress, which controls its own employees; and by the Civil Service Commission and departmental-appointing officers, in whose charge are vacancies in the classified service. Important changes were made in the structure of the U.S. civil service as a result of the reports issued (1949, 1955) by the two commissions known as the Hoover Commission. The organization of the government bureaucracy was streamlined by the creation of the General Services Administration, combining the operations and activities of some 60 government agencies.
In Other Countries
Of the world's civil services, the most outstanding on several counts is still the British, extremely powerful because of its permanency, its extensive grants of power from Parliament, and its reputation for absolute honesty, although it is criticized for a lack of flexibility and for class exclusiveness in its upper ranges. A Civil Service Commission and the beginnings of a system of competitive examinations were established in Great Britain in 1855, and the influential Whitley Councils, representing both government employees and administrators in questions dealing with service conditions, were set up after World War II. British civil servants are strictly excluded from politics. In Communist nations, on the other hand, the official party and the civil service have tended to interpenetrate. The secretariat of the League of Nations and of the United Nations are possible precursors of an international civil service.
Bibliography
See W. A. Robson, The Civil Service in Britain and France (1956); P. Van Riper, History of the United States Civil Service (1958); E. A. Kracke, The Civil Service in Britain and France (1968); F. C. Mosher, Democracy and the Public Service (1968); A. Gartner et al., ed., Public Service Employment (1973).
The designation given to government employment for which a person qualifies on the basis of merit rather than political patronage or personal favor.
Civil service employees, often called civil servants or public employees, work in a variety of fields such as teaching, sanitation, health care, management, and administration for the federal, state, or local government. Legislatures establish basic prerequisites for employment such as compliance with minimal age and educational requirements and residency laws. Employees enjoy job security, promotion and educational opportunities, comprehensive medical insurance coverage, and pension and other benefits often not provided in comparable positions in private employment.
Most civil service positions are filled from lists of applicants who are rated in descending order of their passing scores on competitive civil service examinations. Such examinations are written tests designed to measure objectively a person's aptitude to perform a job. They are open to the general public upon the completion and filing of the necessary forms. Promotional competitive examinations screen eligible employees for job advancement. Veterans of the armed services may be given hiring preference, usually in the form of extra points added to their examination scores, depending upon the nature and duration of their service. Applicants may also be required to pass a medical examination and more specialized tests that relate directly to the performance of a designated job. Once hired, an employee may have to take an oath to execute his job in good faith and in accordance with the law.
Unlike workers in private employment, civil service employees may be prohibited from certain acts that would compromise their position as servants of the government and the general public. For example, the federal Hatch Act (5 U.S.C.A. § 7324 et seq. [1887]) makes participation by federal, state, and local civil service employees in designated public electoral and political activities unlawful.
The U.S. Civil Service Commission, created by Congress in 1883 and reorganized under the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C.A. § 1101 et seq.) as the Merit Systems Protection Board, established a merit system for federal employment and governs various aspects of such employment, such as job classification, tenure, pay, training, employee relations, equal opportunity, pensions, and health and life insurance. Most states have comparable bodies for the regulation of state and local civil service employment.
The nonmilitary personnel who work for a government, applying its laws and regulations.
A civil servant or public servant is a civilian career public sector employee working for a government department or agency. The term explicitly excludes the armed services, although civilian officials will work at "Defence Ministry" headquarters. The term always includes the (sovereign) state's employees; whether regional, or sub-state, or even municipal employees are called "civil servants" varies from country to country. In the United Kingdom, for instance, only Crown employees are civil servants, county or city employees are not.
Many consider the study of civil service to be a part of the field of public administration. Workers in "non-departmental public bodies" (sometimes called "QUANGOs") may also be classed as civil servants for the purpose of statistics and possibly for their terms and conditions. Collectively a state's civil servants form its Civil Service or Public Service.
No state of any extent can be ruled without a bureaucracy, but organizations of any size have been few until the modern era. Administrative institutions usually grow out of the personal servants of high officials, as in the Roman Empire. This developed a complex administrative structure, which is outlined in the Notitia Dignitatum and the work of John Lydus, but as far as we know appointments to it were made entirely by inheritance or patronage and not on merit, and it was also possible for officers to employ other people to carry out their official tasks but continue to draw their salary themselves. There are obvious parallels here with the early bureaucratic structures in modern states, such as the Office of Works or the Navy in 18th century England, where again appointments depended on patronage and were often bought and sold.
One of the oldest examples of a civil service based on meritocracy is the Imperial bureaucracy of China, which can be traced as far back as the Qin Dynasty (221–207 BC). During the Han Dynasty (202 BC–220 AD) the xiaolian system of recommendation by superiors for appointments to office was established. In the areas of administration, especially in the military, appointments would be based solely on merit.
After the fall of the Han Dynasty, the Chinese bureaucracy would regress into a semi-merit system known as the Nine-rank system, yet in this system noble birthright became the most significant prerequisite for one to gain access to more authoritative posts.
This system was reversed during the shortlived Sui Dynasty (581–618), which initiated a civil service bureaucracy recruited by written examinations and recommendation. The following Tang Dynasty (618–907) would adopt the same measures of drafting officials, and would decreasingly rely upon aristocratic recommendations and more and more upon promotion based on the written examinations.
However, the civil service examinations were practiced on a much smaller scale in comparison to the strong, centralized bureaucracy of the Song Dynasty (960–1279). In response to the regional military rule of jiedushi and loss of civil authority during the late Tang period and Five Dynasties(907–960), the Song emperors were eager to implement a system where civil officials would owe their social prestige to the central court and gain their salaries strictly from the central government. This ideal was not fully achieved since many scholar officials were affluent landowners and partook in many anonymous business affairs in an age of economic revolution in China. Nonetheless, gaining a degree through three levels of examination — prefectural exams, provincial exams, and the prestigious palace exams — was a far more desirable goal in society than becoming a merchant. This was because the mercantile class was traditionally regarded with some disdain by the scholar official class. This class of state bureaucrats in the Song period were far less aristocratic than their Tang predecessors. The examinations were carefully structured in order to ensure people of lesser means than candidates born into wealthy, landowning families were given a greater chance at passing the exams and gaining an official degree. This included the employment of a bureau of copyists who would rewrite all of the candidate's exams in order to mask one's handwriting and therefore make all candidates anonymous and unable to employ favoritism by graders of the exams who might be associated to them and recognize their handwriting. The advent of widespread printing in the Song period allowed many more candidates of the exams access to required Confucian texts which could be utilized in passing the exams.
The Chinese civil service became known to Europe in the mid-18th century, and influenced the development of European and American systems. Ironically, and in part due to Chinese influence, the first European civil service was not set up in Europe, but rather in India by the East India Company, distinguishing its civil servants from its military servants. In order to prevent corruption and favouritism, promotions within the company were based on examinations. The system then spread to the United Kingdom in 1854, and to the United States in 1883, with the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act.
The civil service in the United Kingdom only includes Crown employees; not those who
are parliamentary employees. Public sector employees such as teachers and
The civil service in France is often considered to include government employees, as well as employees of public corporations.
Other countries tend to use systems which vary between these two extremes. Germany makes a clear distinction, as in the U.S., between political and official posts (though the threshold is placed rather higher); also see Beamter.
Brazilian civil service is composed mostly of career servants, with nomination based on written examinations, but it is allowed for governants to freely nominate some posts, specially higher ones.
Employees of international organisations (e.g., the United Nations or the International Atomic Energy Agency) are sometimes referred to as international civil servants.
Civil service also means a form of legal conscientious objection. It should be noted that the Finnish "siviilipalvelus", Swedish "civiltjänst" and German "civildienst" all can be translated to "civil service".
This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)
Join the WikiAnswers Q&A community. Post a question or answer questions about "civil service" at WikiAnswers.
Copyrights:
 |
 | Dictionary. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2007, 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2007. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. Read more |
 |
| Political Dictionary. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics. Copyright © 1996, 2003 by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. Read more |
 |
| Britannica Concise Encyclopedia. Britannica Concise Encyclopedia. © 2006 Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. All rights reserved. Read more |
|
| British History. A Dictionary of British History. Copyright © 2001, 2004 by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. Read more |
 |
| US History Encyclopedia. © 2006 through a partnership of Answers Corporation. All rights reserved. Read more |
 |
| Columbia Encyclopedia. The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition Copyright © 2003, Columbia University Press. Licensed from Columbia University Press. All rights reserved. www.cc.columbia.edu/cu/cup/ Read more |
 |
| Law Encyclopedia. West's Encyclopedia of American Law. Copyright © 1998 by The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved. Read more |
 |
| Politics. The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition Edited by E.D. Hirsch, Jr., Joseph F. Kett, and James Trefil. Copyright © 2002 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin. All rights reserved. Read more |
 |
| Wikipedia. This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Civil service". Read more |
Search for answers directly from your browser with the FREE Answers.com Toolbar!
Click here to download now. 
Get Answers your way! Check out all our free tools and products.
Mentioned In:
Related Topics
