post eu accession: the end of public administration reform in baltics? [email protected]
TRANSCRIPT
Main questions
Three Baltic States have been praised for their economic performance and public administration reforms (strategic management in Lithuania and Latvia, and E-Government in Estonia)
But what are the achievements? And what are the failures?
What explains them apart from size of the countries? Can achievements be replicated elsewhere?
What challenges ahead? Is administrative capacity of the Baltic States sufficient for effective functioning within the EU including management of the EU funds?
What achievements?
Re-establishment of the state (often under estimated factor in explaining reforms)
EU and NATO Membership (in many aspects drivers of the reforms so far)
Fast economic growth (on average around 10% per annum)
High degree of openness and participation Privatization completed Clear organization of public administration, well
structured roles and responsibilities Increasing focus on performance (in terms of policy
planning, programming and organizational accountability) Internal coordination system with some positive impacts
and significant potential Now – new system of HRM and pay
Successful reform initiatives
Legal and institutional reform New administrative process and courts Strong centre of Government (State Chancellery) New policy planning and coordination system Open decision making process enhanced by
various e-tools Programme budget with increasing emphasis on
non-financial performance information Strategic planning initiative integrating policy,
budget and operational planning MTEF (1+3 including financial and non-financial
information at the programme level)
Illustration of improved policy coordination 2001/2005
Where we have failed?
Trust in Government, politicians and the Civil Service
“Unequal” distribution of benefits of the reform
High level corruption (state capture)
People vote not only in elections but also through exit (50 – 100 000 of workforce left during recent years)
The Civil Service that hardly copes with attracting, maintaining and developing talent
Return of politization
Can our successes replicated? At technical level all these reforms can be
copied
Comprehensive PAR programmes modelled according to “best practice” examples are easy to propose and “write”
The question, however, is: Will they work in a particular context? Does it address the real needs of the place? Has this “best practice” been really understood?
The real question is – can reform be given sufficient space, time and incentives to be successful? And is there a self motivating and driving initiative for reform?
What explains success? 1
EU accession as one of the key external drivers, i.e. Latvia needed to catch-up with the first group of EU accession countries;
Previous reform initiatives have failed thus creating a platform for EU to talk about PAR: Civil Service Law Semi-commercial public enterprises Anti-corruption
Significant role played by the World Bank (within the framework of SAL)
What explains success? 2
The Latvian model has been driven by Civil Servants, not so much politicians
However, politicians provided space for that So one can talk about the combination of:
External pressures causing Internal political pressures Thus giving to the reform minded officials some freedom
to experiment A small group of senior and middle level officials who had
interest and passion in the reform (with their own motivations)
Quite receptive, flexible (and young) administration High quality external assistance
The process was inclusive – where it was not – reforms failed or failed partially
Where are the blockages?
There is a need for political support for reforms. When politicians lack incentives, reforms will most likely fail
There can be some serious counter incentives: Reforms requiring resources (pay reform) – always
unpopular; Merge of politics and business (state capture);
Lack of critical mass of people open to reform, “old cadre” dominate;
Lack of international language proficiency in the Civil Service; Insufficient technical competence and leadership (in Baltics it
has been limited to dozen of people in the Government’s centre) AND WILLINGNESS TO LEARN AND INNOVATE, NOT REPLICATE
Lack of political stability, i.e. continuity (most reforms require several years before bearing fruit)
Thinking that reforms can be done in the old command and control style
What challenges ahead? 1
Reversing politization process within the Civil Service and returning to competency and merit based appointments. There is a need for the role of the civil service
Re-thinking the Civil Service concept – the old structure is dead but its ethics relevant more than ever; the new concept is just emerging
HRM – dealing with increasing competition in the labour market
Possibly recruiting internationally Stabilizing Civil Service The old reformers get tired – need to find new
ones
What challenges ahead? 2
Continuing to focus on programme management improvement (deign, implementation, monitoring, accountability, evaluation)
Linking individual and organizational performance
Addressing trust issues: More equal distribution of benefits of growth Continuing with strong anti corruption policies
Conclusions
Past ISOLATED
INNOVATIONS WEAKENING
COORDINATION INCNTIVE
PROBLEMS RETURN OF
POLITIZATION
Future EMBEDING THE
SUCCESS STORIES FOCUSING ON RE-
BUILDING TRUST CAPACITY AND
INDEPENDENCE OF CIVIL SERVICE
INNOVATION AND OPENESS TO NEW WAYS OF WORKING
LEADERSHIP