GET Note: Public Sector Awards Programs "Recently Asked Questions" Series April 2010 Non-monetary Awards for Public Sector Programs and Institutions: Survey of Selected International Experience Joanna Watkins, Robert Beschel 56750 This guide presents a range of non-monetary award programs to recognize performance improvements in government programs, initiatives, and agencies. Nine award programs are drawn from Canada, Ireland, Abu Dhabi, the Philippines, the United States and Jordan. Each of the programs are analyzed along the following dimensions: objectives, target applicants, award categories, selection criteria, participation, selection process, type of reward, year of establishment, and number of awards given per year. Individual program details along these dimensions are available in Annex 1. The first section presents the theoretical background on how non-monetary award programs function, their expected benefits, and guiding principles to harness the potential benefits of such a program. The second section highlights the findings from the analysis of the nine programs along the key dimensions. Background Awards have been widely used throughout the public and private sector from monarchies and republics, to academia and non-governmental organizations. An extensive literature exists on the theory behind both monetary and non-monetary awards and incentives in psychology, economics, and management, but there is relatively little empirical work on the effects of non-monetary awards programs in the public sector, not least because of the inherent difficulty in evaluating the impact of such programs.1 A small literature in administrative science is devoted to public service awards and this note draws on much of the work done to date. For a broader discussion of the different types of monetary (base pay and allowances) and other types of incentives to link rewards and performance used in the public sector see the World Bank's Administrative and Civil Service Reform websites.2 While more work has been done on the effects of monetary incentives, particularly in economics, there is a literature, in psychology, which focuses on the cognitive and emotional dimensions of how non-monetary awards operate. It is widely acknowledged that individuals are both extrinsically and intrinsically motivated to work. Non-monetary awards motivate individuals through their intrinsic value. Such awards demonstrate an accomplishment, promoting pride in one's work. If publically acknowledged, the award is socially reinforced and has a signaling effect on talent. The expected benefits of GET Notes ­ Recently Asked Questions Series intends to capture the knowledge and advice from individual engagements of the World Bank's Global Expert Team on Public Sector Performance (PSP GET). The views expressed in the notes are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the World Bank. For more information about the PSP GET, contact the GET team leaders Bill Dorotinsky (wdorotinsky@worldbank.org) and Nick Manning (nmanning@worldbank.org) or go to http://pspget 1 Frey, Bruno. "Awards as Compensation," European Management Review, Volume 4, Number 1, 2007, pp. 6-14(9) Palgrave Macmillan. 2 See the World Bank's Administrative and Civil Service Reform Websites: http://go.worldbank.org/SN4QD69WR0 and http://go.worldbank.org/FVGH39FQG0 1 implementing a non-monetary awards program to an organization include the potential increase in productivity and innovation in exchange for a minor Box 1: UK Non-Monetary Awards outlay of resources, the creation of loyalty to the institution, and the signaling of talent within an Suggested principles of an effective organization, thereby creating role models for others. honors system in the UK include: - Excellence ­ in achievement The perceived value of the reward is critical because - Integrity ­ in administration no monetary price can be attached to it. In order to - Transparency ­ in decision-making preserve its intrinsic and/or psychological value, a - Dignity ­ in worth of the award number of general principles should be adhered to - Clarity ­ in understanding which are intended to protect the fidelity of the - Fairness ­ to everyone selection process and the fairness and impartiality of The UK public sector awards program the result. First, the fair and transparent selection of has a long, reputable history, granting individuals is of critical importance. The discretionary over 3,000 awards per year. A full time nature of awards means that they are only considered staff of roughly sixteen individuals serious when the selection process is seen to be fair comprises the Ceremonial Secretariat and transparent. Second, it has been noted in the in the Cabinet Office. This secretariat literature that as the number of awards increases, the manages the award process, supporting marginal benefit of the awards program decreases. the multiple awards committees in the One of the main weaknesses of awards is the selection of individuals. A 2004 difficulty of award givers to commit themselves to comprehensive review of the awards keeping the number of awards scarce and therefore system in the UK underscored the need valuable.3 Variation and limitation of the types and to communicate effectively with the frequency of awards is important. As illustrated by the public via websites such as the UK Nobel Prize, the focus is on the uniqueness of the honors system home page award. If given too frequently, the perception of the (www.honours.gov.uk); the need to value of the award diminishes. Third, reward systems differentiate between service awards should reflect the commitments and values of an (e.g. public, community, voluntary) organization. And finally, the program must be and distinction awards (e.g. excellence, supported by an effective communication plan. achievement); and to collect systematic statistical information on the honors A number of countries have established civil service system to ensure diversity and honor selection bodies to manage public sector transparency. The main findings of the awards. In the UK this body is called the Ceremonial 2004 report were to increase Secretariat (Box 1). Many have non-civil service transparency, independence and representation in their honors selection bodies with governance, and to ensure diversity in members selected for their impartiality and nominations. independence. For example, the Council of the Order Source: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm2 of Canada is chaired by the Chief Justice of Canada 00304/cmselect/cmpubadm/212/212.pdf and includes five outside members.4 The 3 Frey, 15. 4 House of Commons, Select Committee on Public Administration, 2004. A Matter of Honour: Reforming the Honours System. Fifth Report of Session 2003-4. London: Stationary Office. Available from: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmpubadm/212/212.pdf 2 independence of these selection committees or bodies is critical to ensuring credibility in the entire process. No single individual should be able to easily control the award outcome and likewise, the application process should be open to all. Checks should exist to ensure the independence of the entire process. Analysis of Programs This section presents the results of the analysis of nine award programs drawn from Canada, Ireland, Abu Dhabi, the Philippines, the United States and Jordan. The stated objectives of the majority of award programs promote innovation, a focus on results, quality service delivery, and best practices within government. Several of the award programs target government programs at all levels of government for inclusion, while a few focus on initiatives at the state and local levels. In particular, the Galing Pook Awards Program in the Philippines targets local government units. Many of the programs listed various award categories, some of which are defined according to key policy areas (e.g. local fiscal management), sector (e.g. health, education), type of entity, and even management areas of importance (e.g. innovation in citizen engagement and dialogue, excellence in policy, and management excellence). The award programs vary in the use of selection criteria. Many of the programs use a combination of the following: originality, creativity, efficiency & effectiveness, leadership, policy and strategy, processes, innovation, Box 2: Abu Dhabi Award for Excellence Process sustainability, and transferability. Most of the award programs are not compulsory, with the exception of Abu Dhabi and Jordan.5 The selection committees often consist of both civil servants and external reviewers. In the case of Abu Dhabi and the Philippines multiple screening processes are used, as well as on-site verification. Box 2 outlines the entire process from start to finish of the Abu Dhabi Award for Excellence Program (ADAEP), mapped according to the responsible party. The type of reward offered to recipients often centers around 5 In both awards programs all government departments are required to submit an application. 3 a high-level award ceremony attended by senior government officials and the media. In some cases, trophies and certificates are offered and winning programs are showcased in magazines, books, and websites with the intention of promoting good practices across government. For example, the winners of the State Information Resource Executives Recognition Awards are showcased on their website to disseminate state information technology best practices. Other forms of awards include plaques, personal letters of commendation, and merit certificates. Most of the award programs were established from 1986 onward as annual programs, with the exception of a bi-annual program in Ireland. The number of awards distributed through these programs varies between 1 to 33 depending on the scope of the program, with the exception of the compulsory award programs across government. Below is a brief synopsis of each award program along with resources for additional information. I. Canada Public Service Award of Excellence The Public Service Award of Excellence (PSAE) recognizes employees who have demonstrated excellence in the achievement of results for Canadians and reflect the priorities of the Public Service, while demonstrating Key Leadership Competencies. The Award is open to individuals and teams at all levels. Up to 32 awards are presented to recipients from across Canada and abroad. The award is non-monetary and consists of an inscribed trophy. Recipients are invited to participate in the awards ceremony, which is held during National Public Service Week every year. More information is available here: http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/arp/exc-eng.asp II. Philippines: Galing Pook Awards The Galing Pook Awards were launched in 21 October 1993 as a pioneering program that searches and recognizes innovative practices by the local government units. Finalists with outstanding initiatives are carefully selected and winners are recognized in a very prestigious awards ceremony. The award is conferred by the President of the Republic of the Philippines. The awardees of the Galing Pook are chosen from a national search of local governance programs, evaluated through a multilevel rigorous screening process based on positive results and impact, promotion of people's participation and empowerment, innovation, transferability and sustainability, and efficiency of program service delivery. More information is available here: http://www.galingpook.org/main/ III. United States Council of State Governments (CSG) Innovations Awards Program CSG's Innovations Awards Program was established in 1986 to bring greater visibility to 4 exemplary state programs and policies and to facilitate the transfer of those successful experiences to other states. More information is available here: http://www.csg.org/programs/innovations.aspx National Association of State Information Resource Executives (NASIRE) Recognition Awards Program NASIRE honors outstanding achievements in the field of information technology through its Recognition Awards Program. Emphasis is placed on recognizing those information technology initiatives which best assist government officials in innovatively executing their duties and providing cost-effective service to citizens. More information is available here: http://www.nascio.org/awards/#about Excellence.gov Awards The Excellence.Gov Awards Program was established by the American Council for Technology/Industry Advisory Council to recognize best practices in the federal government's management and use of information technology. The program recognizes those federal programs ­ and their managers ­ who have achieved exceptional results in the management of IT to support the government's mission and serve citizens. Since its establishment in 2002 over 150 federal e-government programs have been recipients of an Excellence.gov Award. For more information visit: http://www.actgov.org/EDUCATION/AWARDS/EXGOV/2010/Pages/default.aspx IV. Ireland Public Service Excellence Awards 2010 The Awards are held every two years to recognize and reward examples of excellence in the delivery of public services and/or administration, directly by public servants. Applications are invited from projects or initiatives that show one or more of the following: (a) Improvement to services delivered to the citizen and business customers, including through engagement with customers; (b) Innovation and creativity, through flexibility, teamwork, partnership and eGovernment; and / or (c) Increased effectiveness and efficiency, including better use of resources and shared services. More information is available here: http://www.onegov.ie/eng/Taoiseach's_Awards/ V. Abu Dhabi Abu Dhabi Award for Excellence in Government Performance The Abu Dhabi Award for Excellence in Government performance is a rigorous and demanding process, designed to focus the efforts of all government departments and guide them towards achieving the highest standards of government performance. It is compulsory for all Government departments in Abu Dhabi to participate annually in all or some of the award categories. The Award promotes understanding of the requirements for excellence in government and competitiveness for improvement throughout the government service, and sharing of information and knowledge of successful improvement strategies. More information is available here: 5 http://www.adaep.ae/sites/epa/English/Pages/default.aspx Complete handbook on the awards program: http://www.adaep.ae/sites/epa/Arabic/PublishingImages/Award%20program%20- %20book1-english.pdf VI. Jordan King Abdullah II Awards for Excellence in Government The King Abdullah II Award for Excellence in Government Performance and Transparency was established to enhance the role of the public sector in serving the Jordanian community with all its sectors and the investment community by promoting awareness of the concepts of comprehensive quality administration and distinguished performance, and to highlight the exceptional efforts of the public sector and present its accomplishments in the area of developing its systems and services. The King Abdullah II Award for Excellence in Government Performance and Transparency is considered the highest award of excellence for the public sector on the national level. The Award provides a reference guide and standards for measuring the level of progress and development of the performance of government departments and parties in the Kingdom, and which contribute to developing the government sector and raise the level of its performance. The Award helps promote the concepts of excellence, innovation, quality and transparency in all government departments and institutions. In addition to that, one of the objectives of the Award is to support development programs and strategic planning in government departments and parties. The Award is offered in three categories: best ministry; best independent public institution/department/authority; and best accomplishment. More information is available here: http://www.kaa.jo/Default.aspx?tabid=92 VII. International Awards International Innovations Awards Programme The International Innovations Awards Programme, sponsored by the Commonwealth Association of Public Administration and Management (CAPAM), promotes and supports new initiatives in government reform. The unique international programme provides countries with fresh and different perspectives on public service delivery - innovations which can be applied in varying environments. More information is available here: http://www.capam.org/awards/internationalinnovations/ 6 Annex 1: Non-Monetary Public Sector Awards Name Objectives Target Award Categories Selection Criteria Comp Selection Process Reward Year of # of Applicants ulsory Establish Awards (Y/N) ment (per yr) Canada -Public Recognize employees who have Open to There are ten categories for the Award, each Within each of the categories there are explicit N The Selection Committee reviews nominations using The award is non-monetary and consists Since Up to 33 Service Award demonstrated excellence in the individuals of which reflects an area of particular selection criteria. The Selection Committee the ten categories and gives particular attention to the of an inscribed trophy. Recipients are 2005 of Excellence achievement of results for and teams at importance for the Public Service: will also give particular attention to the candidates who will have acted in such a way as to invited to participate in the awards Canadians and reflect the all levels in 1. Outstanding Career candidates who will have acted in such a way support the Public Service Renewal Principles and ceremony, which is held during National priorities of the Public Service, the public 2. Management Excellence as to support the Public Service Renewal Priorities, as well as their Departmental Sustainable Public Service Week every year. The while demonstrating Key service. 3. Innovation Principles and Priorities, as well as their Development Strategy. Office of the Chief Human Resources Leadership Competencies 4. Excellence in Citizen-Focused Service Departmental Sustainable Development Officer (OCHRO) at Treasury Board of Delivery Strategy. Canada Secretariat (TBS) assumes the 5. Employment Equity and Diversity cost of the awards; the travel expenses 6. Official Languages for each award recipient to attend the 7. Excellence in Policy ceremony are defrayed by his or her 8. Youth department. 9. Exemplary Contribution under Extraordinary Circumstances 10. The Joan Atkinson Award Philippines - Recognize innovative practices by Local Award types: Positive Results 30% N Eligibility Screening: The GPF secretariat reviews LGU finalists with outstanding initiatives Since 10 Galing Pook the local government units. Government 1. Award for Continuing Excellence Promotion of People's Participation and whether the program submissions meet the eligibility are carefully selected and winners are 1993 Awards Units 2. Special Citation Empowerment 30% criteria. recognized in a very prestigious awards 3. Special Citation on Local Capacity Incentive Innovation 15% First Level Screening: The National Selection ceremony. The award is conferred by the Mechanisms for Good Governance Transferability and Sustainability 15% Committee (NSC) goes over all applications to initially President of the Republic of the 4. DBP Special Citation on Local Fiscal Efficiency of Program Service Delivery 10% screen and identify programs with high potential. Philippines. Management These programs will be turned over to the Regional 5. Special Citation on Local Capacity Selection Committee (RSC) for a more in-depth Innovations for the Millennium assessment and review. Development Goals Second Level Screening: The RSC evaluates and 6. Special Citation on Child Rights Responsive recommends programs for elevation to the next Local Governance screening level. 7. Special Citation on Gender Responsive Third Level Screening: The NSC reviews the RSC Local Governance recommendations and identifies the programs for site 8. Special Citation on Good Urban Local validation. Governance Site Validation: Assigned NSC members and (as 9. Special Citation on Local Initiatives for necessary) selected RSC members and GPF personnel Population, Health and Development validate program claims and clarify concerns raised in 10. Special Citation on Local Peace Building previous screening levels. Results of the validations Initiatives serve as basis for the NSC to select the programs to be 11. Special Citation on Productivity and subjected to the final presentation. Quality Responsive Local Governance Panel Interview: The local chief executives (LCEs) and/or program officers of qualified entries present and defend their programs before the NSC members and their co-finalists. US- Council of Bring greater visibility to Exemplary Infrastructure and Economic Development Newness - Will the program be between 9 N CSG receives hundreds of applications for Innovations The winning programs are traditionally Since 1 State exemplary state programs and to state Government Operations and Technology months and 5 years old by the submission Awards every year. CSG policy experts review the recognized in a ceremony during CSG's 1986 Governments facilitate the transfer of those programs Health & Human Services deadline? applications and select the finalists. Regional panels Annual Meeting. In addition, the winners (CSG) successful experiences to other Human Resources/Education Creativity - Does the program represent a new of state officials evaluate the finalists and select two are showcased in CSG's national Innovations states. Natural Resources and creative approach to solving a problem or award-winners within each CSG region. magazine, Capitol Ideas. Awards Program Public Safety/Corrections issue? Effectiveness - Has the program achieved its goals and purposes to this point? Transferability - Could the program be easily transferred to other states? Significance - Does the program address significant regional issues or problems which are regional in scope? 7 Name Objectives Target Award Categories Selection Criteria Comp Selection Process Reward Year of # of Applicants ulsory Establish Awards (Y/N) ment (per yr) US - National Honor outstanding information State Award Categories: 20% of total score - Contextual Principles - How N NASCIO's Awards committee is comprised of judges One Award Recipient in each category is 21 + years 10 Association of technology achievements in the government 1. Cross-Boundary Collaboration and well the nomination exemplifies best from NASCIO's state and corporate members.. They announced at an Annual Conference. State public sector IT initiatives Partnerships practices, supports the public policy goals of score each application. Award finalists and recipients are also Information 2. Data, Information and Knowledge state leaders, represents an innovative use of publicized in press releases and letters Resource Management existing technology or a use of new to governors and other elected officials. Executives 3. Digital Government: Government to technology, assists government officials to To better share these state information (NASIRE) Business (G to B) efficiently execute their duties, provides cost- technology best practices, all Recognition 4. Digital Government: Government to effective service to citizens and transfers to Recognition Award nominations are Awards Program Citizen (G to C) other agencies or units of government posted on the NASCIO website. To access 5. Digital Government: Government to 20% of total score - Section C - Description of the Best Practices Archive, visit Government (G to G) the Business Problem & Solution www.nascio.org/awards/archive.cfm. 6. Enterprise IT Management Initiatives 20% of total score - Section D - Significance of 7. Improving State Operations the Project 8. Information Communications Technology 40% of total score - Section E - Benefit of the (ICT) Innovations Project 9. Open Government Initiatives 10. RIsk Management Initiatives US - Recognize best practices in the federal Award Categories: 1. Lowering costs to deliver the mission ; N The nominations are judged by a panel consisting of Winners are recognized at an awards 2002 20 Excellence.gov federal government's programs -- 1. Efficiency in Mission Delivery Improved utilization of agency resources; senior executives from government and industry using lunch in Washington, DC. Awards management and use of and their 2. Multiple Stakeholder Collaboration Reduced or eliminated time to deliver pre-defined evaluation criteria for each of the award Each finalist receives: information technology assets. managers 3. Leveraging Technology and Innovation services; Improvements to process and categories. Five complimentary seats to the awards The Excellence.Gov Awards 4. Enhancing the Customer Experience methodology resulting in positive impact on lunch. program recognizes those federal mission delivery Recognition at the awards lunch and in programs -- and their managers -- 2. Improvements and/or expansion of mission appropriate publications on the ACT/IAC who have achieved exceptional services beyond historical constituency; web site, related publications, and in results in the management of IT Increased transparency and improved press releases. to support the government's governance between/among agencies and Invitation to display their program at the mission and service citizens. constituents; Innovation in acquisition to 2010 Management of Change Conference enable multi-sector (government-industry) to be held in Philadelphia, PA May 23 ­ workforce collaboration 25, 2010 and ONE complimentary 3. Innovative application of technologies to registration to the conference. deliver the mission; Green IT to lower carbon From among the finalists, five programs footprint of the mission; Security innovations will be selected as Overall Winners and in mission delivery will be invited to be on a panel at the 4. Enhance customer satisfaction and quality of May 2010 IAC membership meeting. experience during mission delivery; Enhance customer engagement for openness and transparency; Application of customer relationship management processes and/or system for mission delivery Ireland - Public To showcase and celebrate public public sector Applications are invited from projects or A selection committee is established to agree N A selection committee is established to agree on the Selected projects from among the Award bi-annual ~20 Service service projects that make a projects and initiatives that show one or more of the on the specific assessment criteria. specific assessment criteria and evaluate all winners have, traditionally, been Excellence particular difference to the way initiatives following: applications received. This committee will have an showcased at international "Quality Awards 2010 the citizen can avail of services. Improvement to services delivered to the independent chair and will include members with Conferences" as models of best practice. The Awards promote innovation citizen and business customers, including experience of the Public Service. The Awards for 2010 will be presented by and excellence. The creative use through engagement with customers; the Taoiseach at a special showcase of resources and the Innovation and creativity, through conference and reception in Dublin development of new efficiencies flexibility, teamworking, partnership and Castle on Wednesday, 31st March, 2010. are typical hallmarks of eGovernment; and / or successful entries. Increased effectiveness and efficiency, including better use of resources and shared services. 8 Name Objectives Target Award Categories Selection Criteria Comp Selection Process Reward Year of # of Applicants ulsory Establish Awards (Y/N) ment (per yr) Abu Dhabi Help improve organization's All Firstly: The Excellent Government Leadership; Policy and Strategy; People; Y An in-depth award process is followed. Assesor teams Winners are invited to attend a high- Annual Across Award for performance, practices, and government Department Partnerships and Resources; Processes; are created and trained to review applications, coduct level ceremony to honor the receipt of govern Excellence in capabilities and performance departments Secondly: Excellent Technical / Managerial Customer Results; People Results; Society site visits, and produce a final report for the jury's the award. ment Government based on a proven model of project Results; Key Performance Results; consideration. Performance Excellence Thirdly: Excellent Employees Deliver ever-improving value to government customers and all other stakeholders Facilitate and communicate and share best practice both nationally and internationally Develop people competencies, knowledge, skills and attitudes Raise the quality standards and reduce production costs via elimination of waste, thus achieving waste-free government Jordan - King To enhance the role of the public Ministry/Insti 1. Best Ministry Leadership, processes, people, knowledge, Y 60% for the Assessment Process (Participation report Winning the Award constitutes a high 2002 Across Abdullah II sector in serving the Jordanian tution 2. Best Public Institution / Department and finance including criteria answers and site visit assessment); level of accomplishment for the ministry govern Awards for community with all its sectors 3. Best Accomplishment 15% for the Mystery Shopper; / institution or government employee ment Excellence in and the investment community 4. Best Ministry / Public Institution 15% for the Customer Satisfaction Study and a clear acknowledgement of Government by promoting awareness of the Participating for the First Time 10% for the Employee Satisfaction Study: distinguished, effective and efficient concepts of comprehensive 5. Best Public Institution / Department for performance. In addition, it presents the quality administration and the First Time winner as a role model among the civil distinguished performance, and 6. Distinguished Government Employee community. to highlight the exceptional 7. Any other category the Board may assign Winners receive a trophy for the King efforts of the public sector and such as Comprehensive Distinguished Abdullah II Award for Excellence in present its accomplishments in Performance. Government Performance and the area of developing its Transparency, and a Certificate of systems and services. Appreciation as an honor and recognition for their distinguished performance. The Award is presented at a special ceremony held under the Royal Patronage. The winners have the right to use the Award's logo provided by the Center, on their publications for one year. After the results are declared, each participating ministry / institution receives a feedback report outlining the main strengths and areas for improvement. This report helps the ministry / institution improve on their systems and performance. CAPAM To demonstrate excellence, The Innovations in Public Service Management Innovation N A short list of semi-finalists is determined Finalists make a plenary session 1998 4 International innovation and quality service programme is and Accountability Appropriateness to Context · Finalists for each awards category are selected presentation at the CAPAM Biennial Innovations delivery in public administration. open to Innovations in Government Services and Effectiveness · Finalists will present their innovations to an Conference. Awards CAPAM Programmes Long Term Significance International Jury (Members of Innovations in Citizen Engagement and Transferable Lessons Learned · The jury will select winners for each awards the Dialogue category, and the overall gold medal winner Commonwea Innovative Use of Technology in the Public lth) members Service only 9 References Borins, Sandford. "Public Service Awards Programs; An Exploratory Analysis." Canadian Public Administration, vol. 3, issue 3: 321-342. 2000. Collins, M. A., Amabile, T. M. "Motivation and Creativity." In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of Creativity: 297-312. New York: Cambridge University Press. 1999. Guzzo, R. A., "Types of Rewards, Cognitions, and Work Motivation." The Academy of Management Review, 4: 75-86. 1979. Katzell, Raymond A.; Thompson, Donna E."Work Motivation: Theory and Practice." American Psychologist. Vol 45(2), Feb 1990, 144-153. Frey, Bruno, "Awards as compensation," European Management Review, Volume 4, Number 1, 2007 , pp. 6- 14(9) Palgrave Macmillan Frey, Bruno S. "Giving and Receiving Awards." Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1: 377-388. 2006. Frey, Bruno and Susanne Neckermann, "Academics Appreciate Awards: A New Aspect of Incentives in Research" CESIFO Working Paper No. 2531, Category 4: Labour Markets. 2009. Available from: http://econstor.eu/dspace/bitstream/10419/26576/1/592824616.PDF Hansen, Lee W., and Burton Weisbrod. "Toward a General Theory of Awards, or Do Economists Need a Hall of Fame?" Journal of Political Economy, 80: 422-431. 1972. House of Commons, Select Committee on Public Administration, 2004. A Matter of Honour: Reforming the Honours System. Fifth Report of Session 2003-4. London: Stationary Office. Available from: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmpubadm/212/212.pdf Jeffrey, Scott, "The Benefits of Tangible Non-Monetary Incentives." Working Paper, Graduate School of Business, University of Chicago, 2004. 10