post eu accession the end of public administration reform in baltics n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Post EU Accession: the End of Public Administration Reform in Baltics? PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Post EU Accession: the End of Public Administration Reform in Baltics?

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 13

Post EU Accession: the End of Public Administration Reform in Baltics? - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • Uploaded on

Post EU Accession: the End of Public Administration Reform in Baltics?. 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)

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Post EU Accession: the End of Public Administration Reform in Baltics?' - hadar

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
main questions
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
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
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)
where we have failed
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
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
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
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
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
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
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