As part of the heated debate about a month ago about the European Union’s budget, questions were asked about the salaries and conditions of EU officials. Various journalists got hot under the collar about it, and the European Commission, in general, took a rather defensive line. The Commission made various attempts to “prove” that its officials are less well paid than perceived, but at the same time, Commission spokesman Anthony Gravili said that he couldn’t go into specific cases. See this New York Times article, for example. And this one, which was written for Private Eye.
A lot of the arguments going back and forth seemed to involve the selective quoting of numbers, but one point made by the Commission did seem highly relevant: if Commission officials are paid so well, why are there not more applications for plum EU jobs from countries such as Germany and the United Kingdom, where civil servants are also relatively well-paid?
The chart below helps to put this into context. The left column for each country (blue) shows that country’s share of the EU’s overall population. The middle column (red) shows that country’s nationals as a percentage of the applicants invited for assessment for a Commission job. The red column shows this percentage for 2010-12. The right column (yellow) shows the same thing but for 2012 only.
The chart shows some interesting differences between countries. It is a limited snapshot and there could be many explanations, of course. For example, eurosceptic countries, such as the Czech Republic and the UK, seem to supply relatively few applicants for EU jobs compared to their share of EU population. Belgium is over-represented in terms of applicants, but that is no surprise considering the EU presence in Belgium.
Particularly striking is that Italy and Spain are massively over-represented in terms of EU job applicants. So is Portugal. The obvious conclusion is that talented young people from the crisis-hit countries are getting out if they can, and the exodus seems to be speeding up, with a higher proportion of applications in 2012 then in 2010-12 overall. But Greece has 2.25% of the EU population, yet only supplied 2.22% of applicants invited for assessment in 2012. Ireland is also under-represented: 0.89% of the population, 0.74% of invited applicants in 2012.
Eastern European countries tend to be over-represented: Bulgaria, Hungary, Lithuania, Latvia, Romania and Slovakia. But Poland, strikingly, is not. It has 7.6% of the EU population but provided only 3.2% of applicants invited for assessment in 2012.
Western and northern European countries, meanwhile, tend to be under-represented: Germany, Denmark, France and the United Kingdom. But Finland, the Netherlands and Sweden are somewhat over-represented.
The most under-represented country (excluding Cyprus, Malta and Luxembourg, from where no applicants were invited for assessment in 2012) is the United Kingdom. As David Cameron and George Osborne have been working their magic and putting a cloud over future UK EU membership, there is no reason to think the number of UK applicants will rise in the next few years. After the UK, the most under-represented countries are Denmark and, perhaps surprisingly, France. The most over-represented are Belgium, Bulgaria and Portugal.
Of course, today’s applicants for Commission administrator posts are tomorrow’s top officials and heads of unit, so give it ten to 15 years and the EU, if still around, will be largely run by southern and eastern Europeans, with Italians and Spaniards especially prevalent. Extrapolating massively from the 2012 number for applicants called for assessment, the day could arrive when 45 percent of EU officials come from just three countries: Belgium, Italy and Spain.

#1 by Estelle Wolfers on March 10, 2013 - 8:22 pm
We were discussing this at the UACES conference last week but were making the assumption that the low application rate for the UK was down to poor language skills. That wouldn’t explain, say, Poland though.
#2 by jon livesey on March 11, 2013 - 12:43 am
Given how much of the EU is driven by national quotas, it’s odd that employment by the EU isn’t.
#3 by CL on March 15, 2013 - 12:38 pm
One can’t put national quota on talent, knowledge and expertise, for one. Furthermore, discrimination (or preference, for that matter) for reasons of origin or residence are absolute red flags in any EU context.
#4 by AJ on March 11, 2013 - 5:28 am
I’m confused. You say Poland is not over-represented but the graph and your article appear to only take into account the years 2010-2012. What about Polish officials recruited in the years 2004 -2010 – are these taken into account at all?
#5 by Stevo on March 11, 2013 - 6:48 pm
It’s just a limited snapshot based on available data.
#6 by Osvaldo on March 12, 2013 - 10:58 am
Maybe this illustration is a good one, but my point is that in EU institutions and especially in EU commission there is quite often present ” the nepotism” and this is already a vicious circle because even if there is a good candidate from one or another country, the priority will be given to a person from Spain, Italy or Belgium…i think and i’m sure that the principle of transparency in choosing candidates for EU Bodies is not respected anymore and that’s why there is a necessity to make some improvements and changes on this direction.
#7 by Stevo on March 11, 2013 - 6:53 pm
Anyway, I believe a number of other countries joined the EU at the same time as Poland, and they don’t show the same pattern.
#8 by Patrick on March 11, 2013 - 9:46 am
The graph is a good illustration of the consequences of the Kinnock reform of the EU civil service in 2004: (substantially) lower salaries for new arrivals, reduced levels of promotion, all recruitment to jobs at the lowest grade, far fewer competitions to recruit staff and pension cuts.
All in all, it makes the job far less attractive to the kind of staff that the EU wants to recruit, i.e. university-educated and multilingual, who find better paid jobs in the private sector. The problem is worse in the wealthier northern countries such as Germany and Denmark.
Another problem is that the system for recruiting people has changed, with the focus moving from knowledge to numerical and verbal reasoning tests. This is exploited by competition “specialists” who, whilst not knowing much about the subject of the competition, train themselves on these tests.
The UK’s low application rate is due to a variety of reasons – the declining attractiveness of the salary package, the language issue, euroscepticism and failure to promote EU careers.
#9 by Manuel on March 11, 2013 - 12:54 pm
Polish are not good in languages, neither are Hungarians or Lithuanians. In short, those that still consider themselves les grandes nations for whatever strange reasons.
#10 by Wojciech on March 13, 2013 - 11:35 am
Ah, I guess you have met two Poles, one Hungarian and one Lithuanian in your life and on this basis you have drawn your conclusion.
Let me tell you that contrary to the Spaniards or Portuguese who even after spending half of their life abroad are not able to reproduce most of the sounds in any foreign language, Poles (mostly young, I admit, i.e. those who started their education after 1989) master quite a lot of languages, and these are not only very similar ones like Czech or Slovak.
The Poles don’t apply for the posts in the institutions just because unlike some other ‘grandes nations’ they haven’t completely screwed up their economy, and can organise their life quite safely and comfortably at home.
By the way, is there any reason for Spain, Italy or Germany being une nation plus grande than Poland? I would be interested in hearing them.
#11 by Bastian on March 11, 2013 - 10:45 pm
Italy, Spain and Eastern Europe, these are countries where corruption is part of growing up. The EU is digging its own grave.
#12 by jon livesey on March 12, 2013 - 12:31 am
The “language issue” is a red herring in many ways. First, a lot of communication is written, and machine translation is advancing steadily. Google translation these days can be called stilted, but it’s pretty good. Second, too much emphasis on language skills tends to discriminate against people with other strong skills. We would not, for example, place too much emphasis on language skills in staffing CERN – we would consider skill in Physics instead. Thirdly, is a language a ‘unit’ or an area? In other words, weight language skills by the number of people who speak a language world-wide, and you would probably rank your candidates differently.
#13 by Sandro on March 12, 2013 - 10:55 am
Just an observation – the data for Bulgaria and romania might be a bit skewed upwards, as they are still filling the quota foreseeen at the enlargement (as was the case for EU10 in 2004-2010). And for small countries like Lithuania or Hungary it only takes few people to become “overrepresented”, say 15 instead of 11 recrutees.
#14 by N on March 12, 2013 - 2:31 pm
… “invited for assessment” means nothing more than what it says. A much more relevant information would be to have a distribution per nations of the EU staff… and then one can talk about over-representation and so on…
Those numbers used in the above “analysis” should be put in the context: X*10000 applications per x public administrator positions.
For me is a totally misleading article…
#15 by Raul J. on March 12, 2013 - 2:47 pm
N, you are right, I was on the edge of commenting along the same lines but you did it first. Totally agree with your comment.
Where is the statistics with the PRESENT distribution by nations of the EU official jobs and per grade as well. I would like to see how many directors and heads of unit are from UK, France, Germany and how many from East-European countries?
If for a job are called 15 Bulgarians, 12 Romanians, 8 Slovaks and one French and the job is give to the French, which is the relevance of the above “analysis”?
This is a misleading article.
#16 by Patrick on March 12, 2013 - 5:29 pm
This article is about recruitment over the last few years (in view of what the future EU civil service will look like), not those in post for a number of years.
In any event, the statistics about existing staff are here:
http://ec.europa.eu/civil_service/about/figures/index_en.htm
Belgians make up the largest group (18%), followed by Italians (10%), French (9%), Germans (8%), Spaniards (7%), Poles (5%), Brits (4%), Greeks and Romanians (3%), Czechs/Bulgarians/Finns/Irish/Hungarians/Dutch/Portuguese and Swedes (2%), Austrians/Danes/Lithuanians/Slovaks and Slovenes (1%), leaving Estonians, Latvians, Luxembourgers, Cypriots, Maltese and “others” (less than 1%).
#17 by Stevo on March 13, 2013 - 11:07 am
Impossible to please some people! As stated, the data is a limited snapshot, and the point is to illustrate the Commission’s claim that there are fewer people applying for jobs from countries where civil servants are well paid, Germany, UK, etc. — a claim which seems, to some extent, to be borne out.
#18 by Raul J. on March 13, 2013 - 2:22 pm
Given the analysis, as irelevant as it is, the conclusions are not correct.
The statistical link between the number of individuals called for asessment and the number of them which actually took the job still needs to be proved. Unless this link is proven with data, the assumed connection between the two figures not correct. The more Slovaks are called for assessment does not mean more Slovacks take EU official jobs.
#19 by Patrick on March 13, 2013 - 5:38 pm
@Raul
-Statistics from 2011 here in a document from the French govt:
http://www.sgae.gouv.fr/webdav/site/sgae/shared/05_Emplois_Carrieres/03_Stages_UE_fonctionnaires/Bilan_du_concours_EPSO_2011.pdf
@Gary
With the internet, EU job opportunities are easily and freely available and most university careers centres give info. As most countries (the UK excepted) have free or low-cost education, there’s no reason why the brightest can’t succeed.
@Naughton
-The UK civil service is exceptionally well-paid, certainly better than the EU one:
http://u4unity.eu/hoax.htm#comparison
#20 by Jesús Nieto on March 13, 2013 - 12:22 pm
Mr Gardner: very smart chart (on “as is data”) leading to interesting debate.
I remamber the Court of Auditors wrote a report about recruitment and one of the facts that were shown by data (sadly no chart, just a table http://eca.europa.eu/portal/pls/portal/docs/1/8034988.PDF#page=31) were that people from some countries applied a lot but had tendency to not appeared for the tests.
This could be a “problem” of your data which is of people invited for assesment.
#21 by BFrings on March 13, 2013 - 4:18 pm
I agree with Patrick (#7). This data, if anything, only proves that for the new class of fonctionnaire, the benefits package offered by the EU is less attractive than it once was and certainly not attractive enough to lure people from the wealthier countries of North-Western Europe. If the EU will be predominantly run by Southern and Eastern Europeans in the future, we have only the leaders of North-Western Europe to blame, with their insistence on cuts to the administrative budgets
#22 by Gary on March 13, 2013 - 4:53 pm
Really interesting article and graph.
Nationality aside, I’d also be interested in how rich they were before they became fonctionnaires. (Impossible to know but humour me…)
I can’t help but feel that EU institutions are staffed almost exclusively by people who were privileged to begin with. They are generally very well educated and competent – that’s not my complaint.
I just think that to be tuned in to job opportunities in Brussels – and perhaps to survive a few poorly paid internships or to pass through the College of Europe – you have to from a wealthy background.
The same problem exists in national civil services too but I think it might be even worse in Brussels given the geographical, linguistic and cultural distance to Gdansk or Glasgow.
The EU often strives to set standards for inclusion and equality so it could do more to make these jobs accessible to people with the right aptitude across Europe. Giving people the right skills is, I accept, mostly a national problem but EPSO needs to do more to reach potential candidates in lower socio-economic groups.
This would help address the much-talked-about disconnect between citizens and the perceived EU elite in Brussels.
#23 by M Naughton on March 13, 2013 - 5:02 pm
I have never in my life heard the UK civil service described as well-paid.
I do not doubt that 25,000 GBP are worth more than a civil servant’s salary in Talinn, but given the cost of life in London and the wider UK in general, civil servants live in relative poverty.
A civil servant’s salary is certainly not enough to save money or become well-off. It is pittance, especially for those in Whitehall…
#24 by eBry on March 16, 2013 - 1:37 pm
The chart shows the ratio of applicants not the ratio of actually hired ones. The latter could be radically different.
Considering the ongoing crisis in southern EC countries, it is understandable that a higher ratio of their population is looking for a safer position…
#25 by Jany on March 22, 2013 - 8:36 am
Call me blind but I can’t see from the graph how are the Lithuanians and Slovaks overrepresented.
#26 by Www.angelic-events.com on April 6, 2013 - 8:40 pm
What’s up, its pleasant paragraph concerning media print, we all know media is a wonderful source of information.