Working Paper: CEPR ID: DP13963
Authors: Hansjoachim Voth; Guo Xu
Abstract: Patronage is a byword for poor performance, yet it remains pervasive. We study the selection effects of patronage in the world’s most successful navy – the British Royal Navy between 1690 and 1849. Using newly collected data on the battle performance of more than 5,800 naval officers promoted – with and without family ties – to the top of the navy hierarchy, we find that connected promotees outperformed unconnected ones. Therewas substantial heterogeneity among the admirals in charge of promotions. Discretion over appointments thus created scope for ”good” and ”bad” patronage. Because most admirals promoted on the basis of merit and did not favor their kin, the overall selection effect of patronage was positive.
Keywords: patronage; management; performance; selection; Royal Navy; motivation
JEL Codes: N01; H11; L32
Edges that are evidenced by causal inference methods are in orange, and the rest are in light blue.
| Cause | Effect |
|---|---|
| connected officers (Y80) | performance (D29) |
| connected officers (Y80) | promotion to postcaptain (M51) |
| admiralty's information about abilities (Y50) | connected officers' performance (L25) |
| performance advantage (L25) | time (C41) |
| better assignments (C78) | performance of connected officers (H83) |
| connections (Y80) | performance (D29) |
| connections enhance performance (D29) | ability (G53) |