IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/col/000547/020768.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Mérito, representatividad, y asimetrías en nombramientos de altos funcionarios públicos en Colombia 1991-2021

Author

Listed:
  • Ricardo Salas
  • Pablo Sanabria-Pulido
  • Catalina Rodríguez
  • Pilar Torres

Abstract

Desde la Constitución de 1991 Colombia ha tenido seis presidentes y 238 personas al frente de los ministerios. En este documento, a partir del análisis de las hojas de vida de los ministros y ministras en estas tres décadas, analizamos diferentes aspectos de representatividad y asimetría en la conformación de los altos cargos de dirección de la administración pública colombiana. Para tal fin recolectamos trayectorias profesionales y codificamos diversos aspectos sociodemográficos, profesionales y laborales que nos ayudaron a caracterizar el alto ejecutivo colombiano de la Colombia moderna. Nuestro análisis indica que la representación en los gabinetes en Colombia es asimétrica para diferentes variables. El sexo, el lugar de nacimiento, los estudios de pregrado, el lugar de posgrado y la vida profesional definen trayectorias y una mayor probabilidad de pertenecer a ciertos grupos en el camino hacia los altos cargos del sector público en Colombia. La participación de las mujeres incrementó, pero estas aún están subrepresentadas y se observa repetición en las mismas carteras. El 60 % de los ministros y ministras nacieron en cinco ciudades con una prevalencia sustancial de la capital del país. El lugar de estudios de pregrado y posgrado resulta determinante, tres de cada cinco personas estudiaron en Bogotá y una de cada cinco en el exterior. Los datos revelan importantes líneas de política sobre las cuales el sector público colombiano debe trabajar para mejorar la combinación de mérito y representatividad requerida en la alta dirección colombiana. ****** Six presidents and 238 ministers have been in office since the Colombian Constitution of 1991. We collected a dataset of the socioeconomic and CV traits of the ministries to analyze what matters in the confirmation of the presidential cabinet over three decades. Our analysis shows that cabinet representation is asymmetric to sex, place of birth, undergraduate and postgraduate studies, and determined professional trajectories. Women’s participation increased, despite being still underrepresented and appointed for specific sectors. Five cities were the place of birth of 60% of the ministers. Three out of each five of the totalsstudied in Bogotá their undergraduate degrees. These results show that better merit-representativeness measures could be achieved at the top of the public administration in Colombia.

Suggested Citation

  • Ricardo Salas & Pablo Sanabria-Pulido & Catalina Rodríguez & Pilar Torres, 2022. "Mérito, representatividad, y asimetrías en nombramientos de altos funcionarios públicos en Colombia 1991-2021," Documentos de trabajo 20768, Escuela de Gobierno - Universidad de los Andes.
  • Handle: RePEc:col:000547:020768
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://gobierno.uniandes.edu.co/sites/default/files/books/DT/DT-91.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Pablo Sanabria-Pulido, 2018. "Public Service Motivation and Job Sector Choice: Evidence from a Developing Country," International Journal of Public Administration, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 41(13), pages 1107-1118, October.
    2. M. Fourcade & E. Ollion & Y. Algan, 2015. "The Superiority of Economists," Voprosy Ekonomiki, NP Voprosy Ekonomiki, issue 7.
    3. Leopoldo Fergusson & Carlos Molina & James A. Robinson & Juan F. Vargas, 2017. "The Long Shadow of the Past: Political Economy of Regional Inequality in Colombia," Documentos CEDE 15445, Universidad de los Andes, Facultad de Economía, CEDE.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Andrew Mearman & Sebastian Berger & Danielle Guizzo, 2016. "Curriculum reform in UK economics: a critique," Working Papers 20161611, Department of Accounting, Economics and Finance, Bristol Business School, University of the West of England, Bristol.
    2. Karina Acosta & Hengyu Gu, 2022. "Locked up? The development and internal migration nexus in Colombia," Documentos de Trabajo Sobre Economía Regional y Urbana 19931, Banco de la República, Economía Regional.
    3. Goddard, Jessica J. & Kallis, Giorgos & Norgaard, Richard B., 2019. "Keeping multiple antennae up: Coevolutionary foundations for methodological pluralism," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 1-1.
    4. Thoma, Johanna, 2018. "Book review: economics rules," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 84173, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    5. Karl Beyer & Stephan Puehringer, 2019. "Divided we stand? Professional consensus and political conflict in academic economics," ICAE Working Papers 94, Johannes Kepler University, Institute for Comprehensive Analysis of the Economy.
    6. Jishnu Das & Quy-Toan Do, 2020. "US and them - The geography of academic research," Vox eBook Chapters, in: Sebastian Galliani & Ugo Panizza (ed.), Publishing and Measuring Success in Economics, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 1, pages 111-114, Centre for Economic Policy Research.
    7. Joshua Aizenman & Kenneth Kletzer, 2020. "Networking, citations of academic research, and premature death," Vox eBook Chapters, in: Sebastian Galliani & Ugo Panizza (ed.), Publishing and Measuring Success in Economics, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 1, pages 51-55, Centre for Economic Policy Research.
    8. Michael E. Rose, 2022. "Small world: Narrow, wide, and long replication of Goyal, van der Leij and Moraga‐Gonzélez (JPE 2006) and a comparison of EconLit and Scopus," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 37(4), pages 820-828, June.
    9. Ilan Noy & Shunsuke Managi, 2020. "It’s Awful, Why Did Nobody See it Coming?," Economics of Disasters and Climate Change, Springer, vol. 4(3), pages 429-430, October.
    10. Desbureaux, Sébastien & Brimont, Laura, 2015. "Between economic loss and social identity: The multi-dimensional cost of avoiding deforestation in Eastern Madagascar," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 10-20.
    11. Hendrik P. van Dalen, 2019. "Values of Economists Matter in the Art and Science of Economics," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 72(3), pages 472-499, August.
    12. Stan Liebowitz, 2020. "Our uneconomic methods of measuring economic research," Vox eBook Chapters, in: Sebastian Galliani & Ugo Panizza (ed.), Publishing and Measuring Success in Economics, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 1, pages 99-104, Centre for Economic Policy Research.
    13. Ambrosino, Angela & Cedrini, Mario & B. Davis, John, 2022. "Today’s economics: One, No One and One Hundred Thousand," Department of Economics and Statistics Cognetti de Martiis. Working Papers 202215, University of Turin.
    14. Brown, Craig O., 2020. "Economic leadership and growth," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 298-333.
    15. Gordon Menzies & Donald Hay & Thomas Simpson & David Vines, 2019. "Restoring Trust in Finance: From Principal–Agent to Principled Agent," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 95(311), pages 497-509, December.
    16. Florentin Gloetzl & Ernest Aigner, 2015. "Pluralism in the Market of Science? A citation network analysis of economic research at universities in Vienna," Ecological Economics Papers ieep5, Institute of Ecological Economics.
    17. John O’Hagan & Lukas Kuld, 2020. "Multi-authored journal articles in economics - Why the spiralling upward trend?," Vox eBook Chapters, in: Sebastian Galliani & Ugo Panizza (ed.), Publishing and Measuring Success in Economics, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 1, pages 93-98, Centre for Economic Policy Research.
    18. Ben Rosamond, 2020. "European Integration and the Politics of Economic Ideas: Economics, Economists and Market Contestation in the Brexit Debate," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(5), pages 1085-1106, September.
    19. Matthias Aistleitner & Jakob Kapeller & Stefan Steinerberger, 2018. "Citation Patterns in Economics and Beyond," Working Papers Series 85, Institute for New Economic Thinking.
    20. Etienne Farvaque & Frédéric Gannon, 2018. "Profiling giants: the networks and influence of Buchanan and Tullock," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 175(3), pages 277-302, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:col:000547:020768. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Alejandra Rojas Forero (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/egandco.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.