Exposing Regional Disparities in Spain's Judiciary Civil Service Exams

The process of obtaining the position of _Gestor Procesal_ in the Spanish judicial system, a crucial step for career advancement within the civil service, consists of two multiple-choice tests and a written exam. While the selection process aims to ensure merit-based recruitment, our analysis reveals deep structural inconsistencies. Using public exam data and non-parametric statistical methods, we identify significant regional disparities in exam scores and pass rates. These disparities are not attributable to candidate performance alone, but reflect variations in jury evaluation criteria and regional resource allocation. The findings expose a fundamental tension in Spain’s governance model: despite being a decentralized state, recruitment procedures remain rigidly centralized. This mismatch—regionalized institutions paired with standardized national exams—produces unintended biases and undermines both procedural fairness and distributive justice. Human capital theory, which assumes success derives from individual preparation, fails to explain these outcomes; instead, structural and institutional factors play a defining role. Beyond its technical dimensions, this issue carries profound societal consequences, affecting social mobility, reinforcing labor market segmentation, and eroding public trust in democratic institutions. The uneven distribution of career opportunities risks deepening regional divides and perpetuating precarity among interim staff, many of whom remain in temporary positions for years without stable advancement. Our findings reveal a critical institutional paradox: while Spain’s governance is decentralized, the recruitment process remains centralized, producing regional disparities in outcomes. These are driven less by merit than by structural factors—such as inconsistent jury evaluations and unequal resources—which undermine fairness and distributive justice. The implications go beyond technical flaws: they hinder mobility, entrench precarity, and erode trust in public institutions. To address this, we recommend standardized grading criteria, greater transparency, and alignment between decentralized governance and recruitment practices.