◎ Chen Yichen
Recently, news such as "the number of civil servant applicants has been cut in half" and "the iron rice bowl is no longer popular" are common. According to data from the Department of Examination and Selection, the number of applicants for the College Entrance Examination in 2015 was 53,869, which was significantly reduced compared to the past peak. Some people attribute it to the pension reform, while others think it is due to increased work pressure. However, if viewed from an economic perspective, there may be another explanation: it is not that civil servants suddenly became a bad job, but that the entire talent market has been "repriced."
The number of civil servant applicants has declined, significantly lower than past peaks. (File photo) The first thing to change is "opportunity cost." In the past, college graduates spent a year preparing for the national examination, and what they might have given up was a civilian job with a small salary gap. Nowadays, the technology, semiconductor, finance, information, and engineering industries offer more high salaries and career options. What young people give up in preparing for the national examination is not only salary, but also work experience, promotion, and time to accumulate professional capital. The better the external options, the higher the opportunity cost of choosing public office.
Second, the value of “low-risk” public office is changing. If careers are regarded as financial commodities, civil servants in the past were much like government bonds: the remuneration may not be the highest, but they have low volatility, low unemployment risk and stable cash flow; private enterprises are more like stocks, with higher risks, but also greater remuneration and room for growth.
Please read on...
The problem is not that this "public bond" loses value, but that when rewards in the external market increase, the premium young people are willing to pay for "stability" naturally decreases.
What is more noteworthy is the "price signal" of the public sector. In recent years, public governance has become increasingly complex. From disaster prevention, information security, public works to social welfare, public servants have increasingly shouldered professional, legal and public opinion responsibilities. However, salaries in the public service system are mainly regulated by grade, salary and seniority systems, and it is difficult to adjust as quickly as in the private market based on the scarcity of talents. When the cost of responsibility increases but the compensation is relatively fixed, talents will naturally vote with their feet.
Of course, the declining birthrate is also an important factor in the decline in the number of applicants, and all issues cannot be reduced to benefits or pension reform. But when the number of applicants drops, there are shortages in some professional subjects, and the public service system faces the problem of talent retention, I am afraid that what the government should really be concerned about is no longer "Why don't young people take the exams", but "What conditions should the country use to compete with the private market for talents?"
Civil service is still a stable job with public value, but when external salary, career options and work types have changed, talents will naturally recalculate this career investment.
This is the most basic principle of economics: when relative prices change, people's choices will change.
What the government should really be concerned about is probably not "why young people don't take the exam", but what conditions the country will use to compete with the private market. (File photo) Therefore, it is not that the iron rice bowl is no longer favourable, but that the talent market has been repriced. When the talent market has been repriced, the government's manpower system must also be repriced.
(The author is a director of the National Civil Service Association/part-time university lecturer)
