Policy Evaluation Model for Public Sector Wages and Salaries (Case Study: Civil Service Management Law)

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 PhD in Human Resource Management, Allameh Tabataba'i University, Tehran, Iran. 2. Associate Professor, Faculty of Management and Accounting, Allameh Tabataba'i University, Tehran, Iran.

2 Associate Professor, Faculty of Management and Accounting, Allameh Tabataba'i University, Tehran, Iran.

3 Professor, Faculty of Management and Accounting, Allameh Tabataba'i University, Tehran, Iran.

Abstract

Abstract
Policy evaluation models play a vital role in enhancing and reforming public policies. In the public sector, wage and salary systems are among the most influential sub-systems affecting employee motivation and administrative productivity. This study aims to design a comprehensive model for the efficient evaluation of wage and salary policies in the Iranian public sector. Using a qualitative approach and thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke), data were collected through 13 semi-structured interviews and 6 focus groups with senior managers and academic experts. The findings reveal that an efficient evaluation model comprises eight main dimensions: Contextual, Institutional, Infrastructural, Regulatory, Executive, Result, Outcome, and Impact. These dimensions include 30 organizing themes and 222 basic themes. The proposed systemic model provides a robust framework for evaluating and reforming compensation policies to ensure equity and efficiency.
Introduction
Public policy evaluation is a fundamental pillar of the policymaking process, serving as a tool for accountability and continuous improvement. Wage and salary expenditures constitute a significant portion of public spending, reaching over 80% of Iran's current budget in 2024. Despite its strategic importance, the lack of a comprehensive evaluation model has led to challenges such as severe pay inequalities between different government agencies and reduced employee commitment. This research addresses the existing theoretical and practical gap by developing a localized and systemic model for evaluating wage policies, specifically focusing on the Civil Service Management Law (CSML) as the primary legal framework for government employment in Iran.
Case study
The focus of this study is the Civil Service Management Law (CSML), particularly Chapter 10, which governs the payment system for government employees in Iran. The CSML acts as the cornerstone of the administrative system, determining fixed salaries, continuous benefits, and non-continuous bonuses based on variables such as education, experience, job complexity, and geographic location. However, implementation challenges and the emergence of "special regimes" and "extra-legal payments" have necessitated a systematic evaluation of this policy to identify deviations and improve fairness across the public sector.
Materials and Methods
This research is developmental in purpose and qualitative in nature. The methodology employed is Thematic Analysis following the approach of Braun and Clarke (2006). The study population consisted of senior managers from the Administrative and Recruitment Organization (ARO), researchers, and university professors specializing in administrative law and compensation. Data were gathered through:
1.Semi-structured Interviews: 13 interviews conducted until theoretical saturation was reached.
2.Focus Groups: 6 sessions held to refine and validate the identified themes. Data analysis involved a three-stage coding process (open, axial, and selective coding), resulting in the extraction of 441 initial codes, which were further refined into 222 basic themes and 30 organizing themes.
Discussion and Results
The results indicate that an efficient evaluation of wage policies requires a systemic view encompassing eight primary dimensions:
1.Contextual Criteria: Alignment with governance requirements and management of political bargaining.
2.Institutional Criteria: Authority and competence of the governing bodies (e.g., ARO).
3.Infrastructural Criteria: Strong theoretical foundations and data-driven infrastructures.
4.Regulatory Criteria: Based on the value of the job, employee, environment, performance, and market competition.
5.Executive Criteria: Gradual improvement, simplification, transparency, and anti-corruption measures.
6.Result Criteria: Livelihood security and equal pay for equal work.
7.Outcome Criteria: Policy sustainability and non-exceptability (preventing legal exemptions for specific agencies).
8.Impact Criteria: Perceived justice, stakeholder satisfaction, and improved national productivity. The study highlights that the failure of current wage policies is often rooted in weak governance and "income-dependency" (where agencies use their specific revenues to pay higher bonuses), rather than just the text of the law itself.
Conclusion
The proposed six-stage systemic model (Context, Input, Process, Result, Outcome, and Impact) offers a comprehensive diagnostic tool for policymakers. Unlike previous models that focused solely on the "design" of payment systems, this model provides a framework for "evaluating current policies." It suggests that to improve the Iranian public sector's wage system, the government must enhance the authority of central regulatory bodies, ensure budgetary discipline, and transition toward performance-based pay while maintaining a logical gap between the minimum and maximum salary levels. The model serves as a scientific basis for structural reforms in the national compensation system.

Keywords

References

منابع فارسی
بذرافشان، رضا؛ دعایی، حبیب اله؛ حدادی، ابراهیم؛ کیخا، عالمه؛ کشته گر، عبدالعلی. (1399). طراحی الگوی جبران خدمات و پاداش کارکنان و مدیران در بخش دولتی با تأکید بر اسناد بالادستی و چشم‌انداز 1404. دانش حسابرسی، 79(20)، 259–294.
حسن عابدی جعفری؛ محمد سعید تسلیمی؛ ابوالحسن فقیهی؛ محمد شیخ زاده. (۱۳۹۰). تحلیل مضمون و شبکه مضامین: روشی ساده و کارآمد برای تبیین الگوهای موجود در داده‌های کیفی.
دانایی‌فرد، حسن؛ شکری، زینب؛ فانی، علی‌اصغر؛ فروزنده، لطف‌الله. (1395). ارائه الگوی عوامل تأثیرگذار بر ارزشیابی کیفیت خط‌مشی‌های عمومی ایران. فصلنامه مدیریت نظامی، 16(64)، 42–66.
سبحانی، صادق. (1401). نقشه ارتباطات متغیرهای حقوق و مزایا در قانون مدیریت خدمات کشوری. گزارش‌های کارشناسی سازمان اداری و استخدامی.
سپهوند، رضا؛ باقرزاده خداشهری، راضیه؛ سپه وند، مسعود. (1398). حساسیت سیاسی و جبران خدمت مدیران ارشد: تحلیل نقش میانجی و تعدیل‌گر شبکه‌سازی سیاسی و فشار نهادی در وزارتخانه‌های دولتی ایران. مدیریت دولتی، (3)11، 431-454.
 https://doi.org/10.22059/jipa.2019.286531.2603
گرجی‌پور، حمیدرضا؛ خاشعی، وحید؛ اسلامبولچی، علی؛ اصغری‌صارم، علی. (1398). الگوی ارزشیابی فرایند خط‌مشی‌گذاری فرهنگی با رویکرد مطالعه کیفی اسناد فرهنگی جمهوری اسلامی ایران. مدیریت دولتی، 37(11)، 47–72.
مالکی، محمدرضا؛ فقیهی، ابولحسن؛ میرسپاسی، ناصر. (1398). نارسایی‌های نظام جبران خدمت کارکنان در بخش دولتی ایران. فصلنامه انجمن علوم مدیریت ایران، 14(54)، 1–29.
مجلس شورای اسلامی. (1386). قانون مدیریت خدمات کشوری
نارویی، نادر؛ کشته گر، عبدالعلی؛ ناصری، بهاره. (1401). ارائه الگوی ارزشیابی خط‌مشی‌های توسعه صنعتی با رویکرد بهره‌وری منابع انسانی. ماهنامه جامعه‌شناسی سیاسی ایران، 5(10)، 77–101. https://doi.org/10.30510/psi.2022.316635.2677
واعظی، رضا؛ محمدی, محسن. (1397). الگویی برای ارزیابی خط‌مشی‌های عمومی در ایران (مطالعه خط‌مشی مالیات بر ارزش‌افزوده). چشم انداز مدیریت دولتی، 72-47، (1)8.
 
References
Alan, S., Baysan, C., Gumren, M., & Kubilay, E. (2019). Are Public Sector Workers in Developing Countries Overpaid? Labor: Human Capital eJournal. https://doi.org/10.1596/1813-9450-8754
Andersen, L., Eriksson, T., Kristensen, N., & Pedersen, L. (2012). Attracting public service motivated employees: how to design compensation packages. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 78, 615 - 641. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852312455298
Antanovich, N.A., Mikhailovsky, V.S., Ilyina, E.M., & Parechina, S.G. (2020). Interdisciplinarity in the study of state institutions and public policy: on the interaction of political and legal sciences (world experience and practice of training specialists with the qualification “Political scientist-lawyer” at the Faculty of Law of BSU). Law and education at the Belarusian State University: history and modernity: to the 95th anniversary of the Faculty of Law: collection of scientific papers, 485-495.
Arbour, G. (2020). Frameworks for program evaluation: Considerations on research, practice, and institutions. Evaluation, 26, 422–437. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356389020920890
Bazrafshan, R., Hadadi, H., Keykha, A & Keshtegar, A. (2020). Designing a model for employee and manager compensation and reward systems in the public sector with emphasis on upstream documents and the 2025 vision. Audit Knowledge, 20(79), 259–294. (In Persian)
Bregn, K. (2008). Management of the new pay systems in the public sector. International Review of Administrative Sciences.
Chassamboulli, A., & Gomes, P. (2023). Public-sector employment, wages and education decisions. Labour Economics. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.labeco.2023.102345
Danaeifard, H., Shokri, Z., Fani, A. A., & Forouzandeh, L. (2016). Providing a model for factors affecting the evaluation of public policy quality in Iran. Military Management Quarterly, 16(64), 42–66. (In Persian)
 Davis, T., & Gabris, G. (2008). Strategic Compensation. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 28, 327 - 348. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X08322872
 DeMattee, A. (2019). Understanding Salary Differentials in Developing Countries.
DeMattee, A. (2019). Understanding Salary Differentials in Developing Countries.
Demirgüç-Kunt, A., Lokshin, M., & Kolchin, V. (2021). Effects of Public Sector Wages on Corruption: Wage Inequality Matters. World Bank. Retrieved from.
https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/387481619624669061/pdf/Effects-of-Public-Sector-Wages-on-Corruption-Wage-Inequality-Matters.pdf
E,H., Zahid, Baig, Muhammad Faisal Ali,Somani, Ravi, Van Acker, Wouter, Butnaru, Anca, Palacios, Robert J. ,Ortega,Daniel. (n.d.). Public Sector Employment and Compensation: An Assessment Framework . World Bank. Retrieved January 28, 2025
Ehrenberg, R., & Goldstein, G. (1975). A model of public sector wage determination. Journal of Urban Economics, 2, 223-245. https://doi.org/10.1016/0094-1190(75)90026-1
Fernández-De-Córdoba, G., Pérez, J., & Torres, J. (2009). Public and private sector wages interactions in a general equilibrium model. Public Choice, 150, 309-326. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1491480
 Giordano, R., Depalo, D., Pereira, M., Eugène, B., Papapetrou, E., Pérez, J., Reiss, L., & Roter, M. (2011). The Public Sector Pay Gap in a Selection of Euro Area Countries. European Central Bank Research Paper Series. https://doi.org/10.7866/HPE-RPE.15.3.1
Giordano, R., Depalo, D., Pereira, M., Eugène, B., Papapetrou, E., Pérez, J., Reiss, L., & Roter, M. (2011). The Public Sector Pay Gap in a Selection of Euro Area Countries. European Central Bank Research Paper Series. https://doi.org/10.7866/HPE-RPE.15.3.1
Gomes, P. (2015). Optimal Public Sector Wages. Public Economics: Miscellaneous Issues eJournal.
Gomes, P., & Wellschmied, F. (2020). Public-Sector Compensation over the Life Cycle. European Economics: Labor & Social Conditions eJournal.
Gorjipour, H., Khashaei, V., Eslaambolchi, A., & Asghari Sarem, A. (2019). Evaluation model for the cultural policymaking process: A qualitative study of cultural documents of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Public Administration, 11(37), 47–72. (In Persian)
Gottschalk, P., & Smeeding, T. (1997). Cross-National Comparisons of Earnings and Income Inequality. Journal of Economic Literature, 35, 633-687.
 Hasnain, Z., & Henryk, N. (2012). Performance-Related Pay in the Public Sector: A Review of Theory and Evidence. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper Series. https://doi.org/10.1596/1813-9450-6043
Hundley, G. (1991). Public‐ and Private‐Sector Occupational Pay Structures. Industrial Relations, 30, 417-434. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1468-232X.1991.TB00796.X
International Monetary Fund. (2024). How to Set Compensation for Government Employees. Retrieved from https://www.elibrary.imf.org/view/journals/061/2024/003/article-A001-en.xml
Islamic Parliament of Iran. (2007). The Iranian Civil Service Management Law. (In Persian)
Kamphuis, C., Forberger, S., Lien, N., Rehfuess, E., & Luszczynska, A. (2022). Development of a framework to guide research into policies promoting physical activity and healthy diets in the European context: The system-based Policy Evaluation Network (PEN) framework. The European Journal of Public Health, 32, 3–9. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckac068
 Kiger, M., & Varpio, L. (2020). Thematic analysis of qualitative data: AMEE Guide No. 131. Medical Teacher, 42, 846 - 854.  https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2020.1755030 
Lawless, A., Baum, F., Delany-Crowe, T., MacDougall, C., Williams, C., Mcdermott, D., & Eyk, H. van. (2017). Developing a Framework for a Program Theory-Based Approach to Evaluating Policy Processes and Outcomes: Health in All Policies in South Australia. International Journal of Health Policy and Management, 7, 510–521. https://doi.org/10.15171/ijhpm.2017.121
Ledvinka, C.B. (2008). The Enduring Importance of Public-Sector Compensation Special Issue Introduction. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 28(4), 304-307. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X08324080
Maleki, M., Faghihi, A., & Mirsapasi, N. (2019). Shortcomings in the compensation system for employees in the Iranian public sector. Quarterly Journal of Iranian Management Science Association, 14(54), 1–29. (In Persian)
 Mavlutova, I., & Olevsky, G. (2019). The role of service sector in compensation of job losses and the effects of wages on economy. **.
Narouei, N., Koshtegar, A., & Naseri, B. (2022). Proposing an evaluation model for industrial development policies with a focus on human resource productivity. Iranian Political Sociology Monthly, 5(10), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.30510/psi.2022.316635.2677 . (In Persian)
Oppio, A., Bottero, M., & Arcidiacono, A. (2018). Assessing urban quality: A proposal for a MCDA evaluation framework. Annals of Operations Research, 312, 1427–1444. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10479-017-2738-2
Paufler, N. A., & Sloat, E. F. (2020). Using standards to evaluate accountability policy in context: School administrator and teacher perceptions of a teacher evaluation system. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2019.07.007
Pollard, A., & Forss, K. (2022). Evaluation Quality Assessment Frameworks: A Comparative Assessment of Their Strengths and Weaknesses. American Journal of Evaluation, 44, 190–210.
https://doi.org/10.1177/10982140211062815
 Przekota, G., Janowski, A., & Szczepańska-Przekota, A. (2023). Causality in the Relationship between Economic Growth and Compensation. Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152316465
Przekota, G., Janowski, A., & Szczepańska-Przekota, A. (2023). Causality in the Relationship between Economic Growth and Compensation. Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152316465
Quinn, J. (1979). Wage Differentials among Older Workers in the Public and Private Sectors. Journal of Human Resources, 14, 41-62. https://doi.org/10.2307/145537
Resca, Y., & Munandar, A. A. (2022). Analysis of implementation: the payroll accounting system and employee wages. Fair Value, 4(10), 4564–4570. https://doi.org/10.32670/fairvalue.v4i10.1756
Risher, H. (1994). The Emerging Model for Salary Management in the Private Sector. Public Personnel Management.
 Roberts, K., Dowell, A., & Nie, J.B. (2019). Attempting rigour and replicability in thematic analysis of qualitative research data; a case study of codebook development. BMC medical research methodology, 19(1), 66. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-019-0707-y
 Rose, J., Low-Choy, S., Katz, I., & Homel, R. (2023). Enriching thematic analysis with clustering techniques: Applying mixed analysis to interviews about big data linkage.
 https://www.elgaronline.com/edcollchap/book/9781800887954/book-part-9781800887954-29.xml
Salama, C., & Picalarga, S. (2024). Promoting policy evaluation across government: The contribution of the OECD recommendation to public policy evaluation. Evaluation. https://doi.org/10.1177/13563890241234699
Sefil-Tansever, S., & Yılmaz, E. (2023). Minimum wage and spillover effects in a minimum wage society. LABOUR. https://doi.org/10.1111/labr.12259
Sepahvand, R., Bagherzadeh Khodashahri, R., & Sepahvand, M. (2019). Political sensitivity and senior manager compensation: Analyzing the mediating and moderating roles of political networking and institutional pressure in Iran’s ministries. Public Administration, 11(3), 431–454. https://doi.org/10.22059/jipa.2019.286531.2603 . (In Persian)
Simonson, S., Earl, B., & Frary, M. (2021). Establishing a Framework for Assessing Teaching Effectiveness. College Teaching, 70, 164–180. https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.2021.1909528
 Singh, P., & Mishra, R. (2013). Performance Related Pay in Central Public Sector Enterprises in India.
Sobhani, S. (2022). A communication map of variables in the remuneration system under the Iranian Civil Service Management Law. Expert Reports of the Administrative and Employment Organization.(In Persian)
Solomon, R. J. (1980). Determining the Fairness of Salary in Public Employment. Public Personnel Management.
Solomon, R. J. (1980). Determining the Fairness of Salary in Public Employment. Public Personnel Management.
Stufflebeam, D. L., & Coryn, C. L. S. (2014). Evaluation theory, models, and applications (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass/Wiley.
 Tanjung, H., Agustina, I., & Pradesa, H. (2022). Explaining Compensation Satisfaction Among Public Officers from Equity and Expectancy Perspective. Publik (Journal Ilmu Administrasi). https://doi.org/10.31314/pjia.11.1.28-44.2022
Thévenot, C., & Walker, S. (2024). How to Set Compensation for Government Employees. https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/imf-how-to-notes/Issues/ 2024/04/04/How-to-Set-Compensation-for-Government-Employees-547046
Van Voorst, S., & Mastenbroek, E. (2019). Evaluations as a decent knowledge base? Describing and explaining the quality of the European Commission’s ex-post legislative evaluations. Policy Sciences, 52, 625–644. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-019-09358-y
Walker, S., Griffin, S., Asaria, M., Tsuchiya, A., & Sculpher, M. (2019). Striving for a Societal Perspective: A Framework for Economic Evaluations When Costs and Effects Fall on Multiple Sectors and Decision Makers. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, 17, 577–590. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-019-00481-8
Weibel, A., Rost, K., & Osterloh, M. (2010). Pay for Performance in the Public Sector—Benefits and (Hidden) Costs. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20(2), 387–412.
https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mup009 
Wise, L. R., et al. (1988). Wage differentials between the public and private sectors. Journal of Public Economics.
World Bank. (2021). Public Sector Employment and Compensation: An Assessment Framework. Retrieved from.
https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/324801640074379484/pdf/Public-Sector-Employment-and-Compensation-An-Assessment-Framework.pdf
Zovko, V. (2023). Diskriminatorni aspekti politike plaća u javnom sektoru. Pravni vjesnik.

اینترنتی

[1] asriran.com/004FFO

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics