英文摘要 |
Merit-based promotion was an important element in the everyday functioning of the Han dynasty bureaucracy and a common method for officials to advance up the ranks. This paper aims to analyze the actual operations of the system of merit-based promotion and assess the role played by personnel evaluations. The term gongci 功次 describes a way of arranging officials within their ranks according to merit, and when a position opened within the bureaucratic rank above, a candidate was selected to fill it based on this ranking. The scope of merit falling under scrutiny differed between appointing institutions due to their unique requirements, and for positions higher in rank, generally became broader. The number of days an official was on duty in a given year, for example, was a basic criterion in assessing merit, and officials were subject to periodic evaluations, the results of which could cause one to lose or obtain additional merit. An official’s performance was thus quantified through the deducting or awarding of suan 筭, similar to modern points-based systems. Authorities who carried out the personnel evaluations awarded points to individual officials in numerous categories, tallying them together to produce a final score. Officials of the same rank and post who fell under the jurisdiction of the same administrative unit were divided into nine grades, each potentially containing multiple officials, based on their number of accumulated suan. The top three were called zui 最, whereas the bottom three were regarded as dian 殿, a process of which was termed “assigning dian and zui” 課殿最 in its entirety. Extra merit was then awarded to or deducted from bureaucrats designated as zui or dian, respectively. Therefore, personnel evaluation scores affected an official’s merit, and in concert with the number of days on duty, formed the merit-based promotion system, one of constant competition. Since officials could not count on guaranteed promotion after a certain period of holding a position or upon the accumulation of a fixed amount of merit, but rather had to compete for appointments through evaluations and wider contributions, the system fostered the selection of the most able individuals. |