Karen Hill SIGMA-EU event on Public administration reform challenges Skopje 11 March 2016

© OECD
AjointinitiativeoftheOECDandtheEuropeanUnion,
principallyfinancedbytheEU
Public Administration Reform Challenges
SIGMA
Baseline Measurement
2015
Karen Hill
Miroslawa Boryczka, Juhani Lemmik, Marian Lemke
11 March 2016, Skopje

What is SIGMA?
• SIGMA - Support for Improvement in Governance and
Management - is a joint initiative of the OECD and EU,
principally financed by the EU
• Active for almost 25 years, working with EU accession
countries and, since 2008, European Neighbourhood
countries
• Our overall objective is to support public governance reforms
and strengthen the capacity of public administrations.
2

What do we do?
Taking a long-term perspective of reforms, we provide countries
with short-term technical assistance that complements other EU
institution building instruments, including:
• Support in preparing strategies and reform plans
• Assistance on drafting and amending laws
• Advice on planning larger technical assistance projects
• Awareness raising events
• Advising key senior and middle managers
• Practitioner-to-practitioner support
• Sharing of experience e.g. regional events
• Peer reviews of specific systems or organisations
In addition, policy papers and studies on public governance
3

Principles of Public Administration
• Derived from EU acquis, international standards and
requirements, and good practice in EU/OECD countries,
SIGMA developed the Principles of Public Administration
• The Principles define what good public administration looks
like in practice and outline its main requirements as a guide
for countries in their reform processes, but also enable
benchmarking of performance
• The Principles comprise only key requirements and criteria,
not “nice to haves”

Overall framework of the Principles
18 key requirements outline general characteristics of good
public administration
49 Principles grouped under key requirements focus on:
• Implementation
• Evidence based monitoring
• Performance of the system in practice
Sub-principles then define more precisely which components
need to be in place
Analytical framework describes how application of the Principles
can be followed and measured

SIGMA Baseline Measurement
• In May 2015, SIGMA prepared a thorough analysis
against the Principles of Public Administration
• SIGMA baseline measurement (BM) reports are one
input to the EC Progress Reports
• The Principles are available on the SIGMA website
• The BM report was officially published only after the EC
Progress Reports were published in November 2015

SIGMA analysis in 2015
In 2015, we set baseline values for all indicators in the
monitoring framework, covering all six areas of the
Principles
Outcomes of 2015 review:
• State of play and overview of main developments
• Baseline values for indicators
• Brief analysis on where the country stands against
each Principle

SIGMA conclusions on key
strengths and weaknesses in
public governance
Key findings, recommendations, things
to tackle with the new PAR Strategy and
PFM Reform Programme

Strategic framework of PAR
• In 2015, PAR strategic framework was in place and covered
almost the full extend. Both, PAR Strategy and PAR Action Plan
(revised in 2012) expired in 2015
• The monitoring and reporting system was in place but was
mainly output orientated. Reports on progress were regular and
based on well-elaborated methodology.
• No outcome-level performance targets in either PAR Strategy or
PAR Action Plan.
• The overall implementation rate of PAR action Plan was 64,5%
New PAR Strategy should be prepared, addressing key challenges
and setting clear objectives and targets

Strategic framework of PAR
• Co-ordination structures established. General decision-making
forums used for this (Government sessions and General
Collegium of State Secretaries), not the specially created
Committee for Reforms of the State Administration
• MISA is a lead institution for PAR, no single unit in it is dedicated
to PAR design and monitoring
MISA should clearly distribute functions for PAR co-ordination and
monitoring within the units of the Ministry and engage in regular
capacity – building activities of the staff involved in PAR
management

Policy Development and Co-ordination
• All Centre of Government (CoG) functions established and
functional, except for co-ordination of policy content
• Most of the European Integration (EI) functions established. The
legal framework developed, with SEA having the authority to carry
out the actions assigned to it
The Government should nominate and strengthen the capacity of the
institution responsible for co-ordinating the policy content proposal
within the CoG and define a clear division of roles and responsibilities
between MISA and General Secretarial (GS)
GS and MISA should jointly develop a comprehensive system of co-
ordination of policy content
The capacities of SEA should be enhanced with the pace and actual
needs of the accession process

principallyfinancedbytheEU Policy Development and Co-ordination
Regional range

principallyfinancedbytheEU Policy Development and Co-ordination
Key findings
• System of medium-term policy planning is in place and produces
prioritised plans with indications of fiscal impacts
• Sectoral planning is undeveloped and sectoral strategies do not provide
information on costs
• Planned initiatives cover only a small proportion of the total number of
initiatives sent to the Government in 2014
• Scrutiny of Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) is only done for 11% of
cases required by the legislation and analysis does not cover fiscal
impacts
• Regulations clearly allocate policy development among ministries and
the top level management of each ministry

• No rules for the policy development process within ministries
• Less then 30% of staff deals with policy development and
substantial resources are allocated to implementation
• Formal process for preparation of the Government decision and
Parliamentary scrutiny is in place, but volume of the legislation
passed under the shortened procedure creates limitation for
Parliamentary scrutiny
• Information on the agenda of formal government session is not
public
• Reports on Government performance are regularly developed but
do not contain information about achievements against objectives
and are not shared with the public
Key findings

Key findings
• Regulation on public consultation is in place but its enforcement is
sporadic and inconsistent
• Primary and secondary legislation are available electronically but
official consolidated versions are rarely developed
• EI planning is in place. The NPAA is a comprehensive document with
costed activities but there is only a moderate rate of transposition,
with half of the initially planned activities not delivered
• Legislative framework establishes rules for transpositions of the
acquis but SEA is not a mandatory part of the quality control
process

Recommendations
• The transparency of Government performance should be
ensured
• Medium–term policy documents should be clearly aligned
with fiscal strategy
• Sufficient time for analysis and parliamentary debate
should be ensured
• RIA regulations should be fully implemented

Public service and HRM
Regional range

principallyfinancedbytheEU Public service and HRM
Key findings
• Upper level of the public service includes civil servants discretionarily
appointed to top positions who do not meet the criteria of merit;
their term ends with the term of the person who appointed them
• The direct conversion of temporary employees contracts into the
permanent contracts contravenes the merit Principle
• The remuneration system of public servants builds upon a clear
criteria, the method for allocation of allowances has to be adopted
• The approach to the professional development of public servants is
encouraging but the capacity to provide sufficient quality training
remains a challenge
• Despite the existence of general ethical for public servants, the
perception of corruption is high
• The new legislation fulfils most of the principles but due to the
implementation date (Feb 2015) was not assessed

principallyfinancedbytheEU Public service and HRM
Recommendations
• Full implementation of the new public employment legal
framework in needed
• The Agency of Administration should develop and
implement its capacities in the management of a merit-
based recruitment
• MISA should ensure that it has adequate recourses to
meet its responsibilities for the professional training and
development of public servants

Accountability
Regional range

principallyfinancedbytheEU Accountability
Key findings
• A legislative framework for the organisation of the public
administration exists but the distinction between different
governmental bodies is not clear and the administrative structure is
fragmented
• Accountability is blurred due to double reporting practices and the
fact that no results-orientated management is provided
• The number of the bodies being independent and accountable only
to the Parliament is unnecessarily high
• Legal guarantees for access to public information are in place but
practical implementation of the right to access information is
complicated
• Right to administrative justice is hampered by the limited number of
decisions on merit and by delays in the enforcement of court rulings

principallyfinancedbytheEU Accountability
Recommendations
• The Government should review the overall structure of
the state administration
• The Parliament should consider transferring responsibility
for supervision over certain agencies to the Government
• The Government should ensure that more institutions
disclose public data
• A comprehensive performance management scheme for
the state administration should be developed

Service Delivery
Regional range

Service Delivery
Key findings
• A comprehensive interoperability framework for e-services does
not exist but data is exchanged among the institutions based on
bilateral agreements
• Only 16% of institutions measure customer satisfaction
• A wide rage of services is offered to business through one-stop-
shops and online portals but the number of e-services for citizens
via e-government portal is limited
• A new LGAP, fully aligned with the principles of good
administrative behaviour, during the assessment was still under
the Parliamentary consideration

Service Delivery
Recommendations
• MISA should prepare and publish a comprehensive
inventory of public services offered to business and
citizens
• MISA should strengthen ongoing efforts to create an
interoperability framework compatible with the
European one and covering IT systems of public
administration

Public Financial Management
• Fiscal Strategy 2015-2017 does not fulfil the requirements of the
EU Directive on Budgetary Frameworks
• Links to the sectoral policy plans are not presented
• The annual budgeting legislation covers aspects of good
budgeting practice
The Ministry of Finance (MoF) should establish sector-specific
spending ceilings in the Fiscal Strategy

• Debt planning is well structured but planning of the total public
debt has not been accurate in 2014
• In-year reporting provides only aggregate data on revenues and
expenditure
A comprehensive, medium-term planning document for Public
Financial Management (PFM) should be prepared
Procedures and capacities for the application of ESA methodologies
for fiscal reporting should be developed

• The Financial Management and Control (FMC ) requirements for
smaller organisations are very complex and thus not fully
implemented
• Implementation of FMC has not received the full support of all
organisations
• There is little financial delegation below the level of ministries or
state secretaries
MoF should lighten the requirements for small budget organisations
Good practices of IPA management and control systems should be
expanded

principallyfinancedbytheEU Public Financial Management
• Basic quality assurance arrangements are not yet in place
• Audit reports focus on compliance and do not take the
opportunity to advise on changes in the internal control
procedures
A framework of long-term adequate training for internal auditors
should be developed
The basic quality assurance programme for IA should be established

External audit
• The independence, mandate and organisation of the State Audit
Office (SAO) are not established and protected by the Constitution
but only by the State Audit Law
• Only 40% of public funds are audited per year
• The SAO audits have limited impact, many of the recommendations
are not implemented and the Parliament does not use audit reports
to their full extend.
The SAO should develop a multi-annual audit strategy and continue its
efforts to co-operate with the Assembly
The SAO should communicate more proactively with the media and
wider public

Procurement and concessions
Regional range

Procurement and concessions
Key findings
Since the beginning of 2014 the legal framework has
undergone several amendments which have brought it
away from conformity with the aquis, which includes:
• Black listing procedures
• Compulsory use of e-auctions
• Lack of transposition of the Defence Directive

principallyfinancedbytheEU Procurement and concessions
Key findings
• The institutional set-up concerning the Public Procurement
Council has no basis in the EU Public Procurement Directives; it
adds complexity to the process without any evidence of better
value for money or greater participation
• Country’s remedies system formally complies with the aquis, but
some provisions have not been transposed
• There is no centralised purchasing body, procedural requirements
aiming equal treatment and transparency have limited effect

principallyfinancedbytheEU Procurement and concessions
Recommendations
• MoF should review and revise the PPL for full compliance
with the aquis and introduce necessary changes to the
system
• The State Appeals Commission should raise its ability to
address the substance of complaints in addition to purely
formal errors
• The penalties for procurement officials should be
softened in light of their inhibiting and demoralising
effect

principallyfinancedbytheEU Key Challenges
• The political situation and the slow advancement in relations
among the different communities in the country, weaken the
oversight capacity of the Assembly and does not create a
favourable environment to further reform the public
administration
• Public employment continues to be seen as an instrument for
political purposes
• Implementation of the accountability framework still remains a
challenge, in particular ensuring access to information and public
liability
• The public procurement system has moved away from
conformity with EU aquis
• A new PAR Strategy, as well as a reliable and useful Fiscal
Strategy, have to be developed

© OECD
principallyfinancedbytheEU Country Monitoring Assessment
2016
In 2016, the annual Assessment of progress in areas of PAR
in the Enlargement countries will concentrate on a small
number of key areas where there have been real change,
positive or negative. These areas are different for each
country.
In Macedonia, the areas accessed are:
1) Service Delivery
2) Public Procurement
The reports will be published in the autumn.

Thank you!

Karen Hill SIGMA-EU event on Public administration reform challenges Skopje 11 March 2016

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Karen Hill SIGMA-EU event on Public administration reform challenges Skopje 11 March 2016

Similar to Karen Hill SIGMA-EU event on Public administration reform challenges Skopje 11 March 2016 (20)

More from Support for Improvement in Governance and Management SIGMA

More from Support for Improvement in Governance and Management SIGMA (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Karen Hill SIGMA-EU event on Public administration reform challenges Skopje 11 March 2016