367 collection, a practice that was seldomupheld. The most important requirement was practical experience from the local administration which led to an extensive internal recruitment within the landsstat (county administration). This demand for practical working experience should be seen as a step on the way towards the rational bureaucracy. This demand distinguishes the Swedish administration of the 18th century fromthe ideal-type of an estate-characterized administration, where independent persons from higher ranks carried out the administrative tasks. Seniority was of little significance; instead the potential bailiff should preferably be personally known by the county governor who made the nominations. The right of appointment was held by kammarkollegiet (the Board of revenues). During the Age of Liberty, nominations of a single person were common, which indicates an older way of making appointments without any real applications. The existence of private deals, in spite of prohibitions against them, and the fact that the bailiffs could be succeeded by their sons and sons-in-law, show that the offices were still held to be private property. An important cause was the lack of an effective retirement system. This was a major impediment towards continued bureaucratization. To a high degree, we are looking at a pre-bureaucratic pattern of recruitment, where clear changes in the direction of greater bureaucratization, not least through the development of new rules, occurred during the period up until 1809. Internal recruitment was reflected in the exclusiveness of the local civil officials as a social group. Most of themcame fromfamilies of civil officials and to a certain extent, burghers. They married within the same social stratum and their children normally remained there. In terms of class, they belonged to the category non-noble persons of rank. In terms of economy, the local officials often climbed to membership in the local elite through purchase of land and other investments. The distance between them and the nobility was, however, significant - there are no examples of ennoblements. The distance between them and the peasants was equally great. The civil officials did not obtain their appointments on the basis of membership in a land-owning elite, which means that they in this important respect, deviate fromthe estate-characterized administration. The office as such was the source of their status and their income. The most important inheritance that the local officials left behind was thus not a material inheritance, but rather a social legacy. A large proportion of wage income was, through the indelningsverket (system of allotment), tied to individual peasants who were obliged to deliver grain, money or other goods. This feudal trait means that it is appropriate to speak of a prebendal type of wage system— that is, the civil officials dispose of a part of the rights of the governing authority over its subjects. The existence of wage payment in kind hindered a continued bureaucratization through a transition to wage payment solely in currency.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=