In Pakistan, the survey was undertaken at a single body, the Federal Board of Revenue, across multiple regional revenue collection centers. The FBR is a semi-autonomous agency responsible for the collection of revenue on behalf of the Government of Pakistan. It is the third-largest federal (attached) department, with roughly 10,000 basic pay scale employees, and has regional and sub-regional offices across the country. The survey used in this paper interviewed officials between grades 17 and 22 in the regional tax offices in Karachi, Lahore, Faisalabad and Islamabad.

The management of the FBR opposed the use of random sampling and felt it necessary to invite all civil servants in the target offices to undertake the survey. The survey was thus enumerated through e-mail, outlined by the survey firm as a key reason for the low uptake. The survey is included here to illustrate three important aspects of the wider civil servant survey agenda. First, using existing administrative data on civil servants, the research team was able to argue that the sample of respondents was equivalent on observables to those staff who had not responded, and were in that sense ‘representative’. Second, the Pakistan survey focuses tightly on a single sector, tax collection, and is therefore able to ask questions that investigate the subtleties of the sector in a more detailed way than with a more general survey. Third, the surveys were spread across regions, but all within tax offices, and therefore the sample is concentrated within a small number of organizations. We will utilise this third feature later on to explore variation in service experience within the same umbrella organization. Despite the advantages of including the survey, it is important to keep in mind the low response rate when interpreting the Pakistan statistics.

The following sections utilise the variation within these surveys to provide within-survey or -country comparisons. To complement these, cross-country comparisons are also presented. Given the different motivations for undertaking the surveys we utilise here and the lack of coordination across surveys, there are differences in how questions are framed and the topics they cover. A key concern in this paper, and in international comparisons more generally, is the validity of comparing survey responses across countries. I aim to document differences in question design throughout. As will be seen in subsequent sections, where questions are more closely aligned, our ability to understand differences is enhanced. Greater harmonization of surveys across settings, rather than risking unreasonable comparisons, would substantially strengthen the basis on which to make such comparisons. A more unified framework for surveying civil servants would be a contribution to our knowledge of the differences among civil services, rather than a narrowing of the lens through which we view them.

However, it is the perspective of this paper that comparisons across the countries we study is a worthwhile exercise despite of the differences in the surveys. There exists very limited information on the internal workings of government in the developing world. Thus, there are few benchmarks that can be used to appreciate the scale or importance of a feature of a particular service. How should we judge the skill profile of a particular developing country government? What is a ‘high’ level of trust within a civil service? To what extent is there a disproportionate amount of political interference in the bureaucracy? Cross-country comparisons provide an input to our understanding of a specific civil service. Comparisons across countries also allow us to assess what aspects of bureaucracy are more likely to be homogeneous across settings, and those more likely to differ. This provides an input to our developing a broader understanding of bureaucratic institutions in the developing world.

# **3 The Bureaucratic Environment**

The environment in which civil servants work varies significantly across the developing world, both within and across countries, and as we will see even within a single region. Rather than a homogenous stereotype, public service organizations are a mosaic of characteristics, facing distinct challenges. These 8