Serbia: documented application of the same framework
Academic research base
Why do capable people leave institutions - and why are employees not solely responsible for the decline of public administration?
Capable people leave when their work no longer depends on knowledge and results, but on political obedience, and there is no safe way to point out the problem. Some leave the institution, some move to a less visible place, and many remain silent because they have a family, credit and few other jobs.
Each departure further burdens the remaining employees and increases the power of personnel willing to adapt, so the deterioration only accelerates. That is why bad administration is not the sum of “bad officials”. It can be the product of rules that reward silence, punish professional objection and deny people real choice. In order to distinguish the political cause from a small salary or private reasons, one should monitor who is leaving, after what kind of event, who is progressing.
Capable people from institutions leave when they see that professional opinion is ignored, that progress depends on the relationship, that the salary is weak or that they bear the responsibility for the signature without the right to decide. Those who remain work in rules that they did not make themselves: with a lack of people, temporary leadership and political demands. That is why the deterioration of the administration is not a moral flaw of all employees, but a consequence of a system that punishes independence and consumes expertise.
How the finding is separated in the matrix
Reports on public administration reform record problems with staff retention, measurable employment, officials and limited participation of the expert public in decision-making.
The bad system makes a negative choice: the most adaptable are more easily advanced, the most skilled have more alternatives to leave, and overworked officials become the face of decisions they could not change.
Yes to the institutional mechanism; the precise reasons for departure differ between professions and people.
Employees retain personal responsibility for unlawful conduct. Understanding pressure is not an excuse for abuse, but an explanation of why the problem is not solved by simply replacing individuals.
People leave because of salary, family or private plans. The political cause should be shown through the time of departure, different treatment and testimony.
Works supporting this answer, with their evidence type and an explanation of how they relate to the claim.
surveys in several countries
Schuster, C. i dr. (2022), „Exit, Voice, and Sabotage: Public Service Motivation and Guerrilla Bureaucracy in Times of Unprincipled Political Principals“, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 32(2): 416–435.
- Contribution to this answer
- In a large survey of Brazilian civil servants, the authors show that people with a stronger motivation to work in the public interest are not necessarily the ones who will suffer the most from problematic political orders: they are more willing to try to stop them, but also to leave the job if they have to carry them out. The institution can thus lose precisely the people who care about its public task the most.
review more research
Dahlström, C. i Lapuente, V. (2022), „Comparative Bureaucratic Politics“, Annual Review of Political Science 25: 43–63.
- Contribution to this answer
- Shows why the quality of the institution cannot be explained only by the quality of individual employees: political control, professional autonomy and the rules under which bureaucracy systematically affects corruption, development and quality of services. People work within a structure that can make their professional conduct easier or more difficult.
review more research
Pepinsky, T. B., Pierskalla, J. H. i Sacks, A. (2017), „Bureaucracy and Service Delivery“, Annual Review of Political Science 20: 249–268.
- Contribution to this answer
- Pepinsky, Pierscalla and Sacks also shift the focus from “good and bad officials” to the organizational and social context in which they work. The quality of service depends on the institution, the relationship with citizens and the way in which the bureaucracy is incorporated into society, and not only on the personal ability or will of the employee.
comparing several countries or cases
Alon-Barkat, S., Gilad, S., Kosti, N. i Shpaizman, I. (2025), „Career Civil Servants’ Socially Embedded Responses to Democratic Backsliding“, Perspectives on Politics.
Alon-Barkat, S., Gilad, S., Kosti, N. i Shpaizman, I. (2025), “Career Civil Servants’ Socially Embedded Responses to Democratic Backsliding,” Perspectives on Politics.
- Contribution to this answer
- The authors show how democratic backsliding can only produce the loss of people from the institution: those who see change as a threat expect more politicization and less professional influence, more often they want to leave and see less sense in trying to change things from the inside. In subsequent monitoring, the intention of leaving was also related to the actual departure from the service.
comparing several countries or cases
Staroňová, K., Rybář, M. i Spáč, P. (2026), „Anticipating Illiberalism: Drivers of Bureaucratic Turnover Intention“, Public Money & Management 46(4).
Staroňová, K., Rybář, M. i Spáč, P. (2026), “Anticipating Illiberalism: Drivers of Bureaucratic Turnover Intention”, Public Money & Management 46(4).
- Contribution to this answer
- Staroová, Ryb and Spáč find a particularly worrying pattern: when they expect an illiberal government and a conflict over professional integrity, highly motivated and principled officials are more likely to think about leaving rather than staying and resisting. Thus, political change can weaken the institution even before anyone formally dismisses employees.
Sources supporting the Serbia example, with the claim they support and their limitations.
Regional NGO monitoring of public administration - Verified 21.08.2026
WeBER 2.0 / European Policy Centre. 2023. Western Balkan PAR Monitor 2021/2022. Belgrade: European Policy Centre.
WeBER 2.0 / European Policy Centre. 2023. Western Balkans PAR Monitor 2021/2022. Belgrade: European Policy Centre.
- What the source records
- For Serbia, there are persistent gaps between formal reform and the experience of citizens and officials, especially in employment, transparency and accountability.
- Claim it supports
- The claim that poor rules of retention, promotion and decision-making push professional people to leave and burden employees with responsibility without autonomy.
- Source limitation
- The regional methodology gives a comparison, but does not explain every institution or every bad result with political pressure.
Domestic NGOs Public Administration Analysis - Verified 21.08.2026
European Policy Centre (CEP). 2023. The Neverending Story of Senior Civil Service Depoliticisation in Serbia. Belgrade: CEP.
- What the source records
- At the end of 2021, officials accounted for 52% of the highest official positions, so temporary appointments became a common way of retaining political control.
- Claim it supports
- The claim that poor rules of retention, promotion and decision-making push professional people to leave and burden employees with responsibility without autonomy.
- Source limitation
- Follows the top of the state administration until 2021 and does not show that every acting person is unskilled or politically obedient.
Official international monitoring - Verified 21.08.2026
European Commission. 2025. Serbia 2025 Report. Commission Staff Working Document. Brussels: European Commission.
- What the source records
- The report notes weak election conditions, limited parliamentary scrutiny, strong political pressure on the judiciary and concerns that the president is in practice directing decision-making beyond the constitutional idea.
- Claim it supports
- The claim that poor rules of retention, promotion and decision-making push professional people to leave and burden employees with responsibility without autonomy.
- Source limitation
- The report is related to the EU accession process and describes a certain period; it does not represent a scientific causal study or a uniform assessment of the type of regime.
Reviewed scientific work - Verified 21.08.2026
Pavlović, Dušan. 2020. “The Political Economy Behind the Gradual Demise of Democratic Institutions in Serbia.” Southeast European and Black Sea Studies 20(1): 19–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/14683857.2019.1672929
Pavlović, Dušan. 2020. “The Political Economy Behind the Gradual Demise of Democratic Institutions in Serbia.” Southeast European and Black Sea Studies 20(1): 1939. https://doi.org/10.1080/14683857.2019.1672929
- What the source records
- The work links the weakening of democracy with the rules and economic incentives that enable the authorities to turn public resources into a political advantage.
- Claim it supports
- The claim that poor rules of retention, promotion and decision-making push professional people to leave and burden employees with responsibility without autonomy.
- Source limitation
- It is a causal interpretation of a long process; it does not cover developments beyond 2019 and does not exclude other explanations.
Is a relevant source missing? Send it to us.
Suggest a source or report an error in this answer →