Successfully reported this slideshow.
Your SlideShare is downloading. ×

Added value-multi-level-governance

Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Loading in …3
×

Check these out next

1 of 22 Ad

Added value-multi-level-governance

Download to read offline

Presentation by Joaquim Oliveira Martins at the 1st Forum of the EU Strategy for the Adriatic and Ionian Region which took place in Dubrovnik, Croatia on 12-13 May 2016.
www.oecd.org/gov/regional-policy/

Presentation by Joaquim Oliveira Martins at the 1st Forum of the EU Strategy for the Adriatic and Ionian Region which took place in Dubrovnik, Croatia on 12-13 May 2016.
www.oecd.org/gov/regional-policy/

Advertisement
Advertisement

More Related Content

Slideshows for you (20)

Viewers also liked (11)

Advertisement

Similar to Added value-multi-level-governance (20)

More from OECD Governance (20)

Advertisement

Recently uploaded (20)

Added value-multi-level-governance

  1. 1. Unlocking the potential of the Adriatic and Ionian Region: the added value of multi-level governance Joaquim Oliveira Martins, Head Regional Development Policy Division, OECD
  2. 2. Why does Multi- level governance generate added value?
  3. 3. 3 Devolution of spending at lowers level of government is a feature of development AUS AUT BEL CAN CHL CZE DNK EST EU28 FIN FRA DEU GRC HUN ISL IRL ISR ITA JPN KOR MEX NDL NZL NOR OECD25 OECD34 OECD9 POL PRT SVK SVN ESP SWE CHE TUR GBR USA 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 110% 120% 130% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% GDPpercapitaasashareofUSGDPpercapita(%,based onGDPpercapitainUSDPPP) SNG expenditure as a % of public expenditure
  4. 4. Subnational Governments are key policy actors across the OECD 40% 63% 50% 59% 32% 20% Greece New Zealand Greece Chile Turkey Greece Canada Switzerland Canada Belgium Canada Canada 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Expenditure Staff expenditure Public procurement Investment Tax revenue Debt OECD average Minimum Maximum % of general government - 2013
  5. 5. The dramatic effect of the crisis on Public SNG investment across the OECD In volume, base year 2000 = 100 Change in 2013 (%) +0,1% -2,3% -0,8% +1,0% -1,4% +0,2% 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 GDP Total expenditure Direct investment Social benefits Staff expenditure Intermediate consumption
  6. 6. Policies
  7. 7. Multi-level Governance reforms: three interconnected dimensions Institutional: re-organising powers, responsibilities and resources Public management: re-organising administrative processes Territorial: re-organising territorial structures France Finland Italy New Zealand Japan
  8. 8. Most OECD countries are undertaking Multilevel Governance reforms Institutional reforms Fiscal reforms Territorial reform at regional level Territorial reform at intermediary level Municipal (mergers, Metropolitan) Australia X X State level Austria X State level Belgium X X Regional level Regional level Germany X X State level State level Spain X X + Regional level Chile X X X Czech republic X X Estonia X X X Finland X X X X France X X X ? X Greece X X X X Hungary X X X Iceland X X Ireland X X Italy X X X X Japan X X ? X Luxembourg X Netherlands X X ? X New Zealand X X Norway X X X X Poland X X ? X Portugal X X (infra-municipal) Sweden X X X X Turkey X United Kingdom X X X
  9. 9. • Negative impact of fragmentation can be reduced through organisations that coordinate policies in functional metro areas – Approximately half of the productivity penalty from municipal fragmentation disappears when governance bodies exist and have powers • Metropolitan governance bodies are common throughout the OECD, but only 18% have regulatory powers A strong case for improving governance of functional metro areas 9
  10. 10. Fragmented metro governance hinders city productivity 10
  11. 11. Fragmented metro governance increases segregation of people 11 -.05 0 .05 .1 .15 0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1 Administrative fragmentation
  12. 12. OECD Governance Models for rural-urban partnerships Explicit rurban partnerships  Rennes (France)  Geelong (Australia)  Nuremberg (Germany)  Central Zone of West Pomeranian Voivodeship (Poland  BrabantStad (Netherlands) Implicit rurban partnerships  Forlì-Cesena (Italy)  Extremadura (Spain)  Castelo Branco (Portugal)  Central Finland (Jyväskylä and Saarijärvi-Viitasaari) (Finland)  Lexington (United States)  Prague/Central Bohemia (Czech Republic) Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Delegated functions No delegated functions Delegated functions No delegated functions  Rennes (France)  Geelong (Australia)  Nuremberg (Germany)  Central Zone of West Pomerania Voivodeship (Poland)  BrabantStad (Netherlands)  Extremadura (Spain)  Forlì-Cesena (Italy)  Lexington (United States)  Prague (Czech Republic)  Central Finland (Jyväskylä and Saarijärvi-Viitasaari) (Finland)  Castelo Branco (Portugal)
  13. 13. OECD Tools
  14. 14. • Invest using an integrated strategy tailored to different places • Adopt effective co-ordination instruments across levels of government • Co-ordinate across SNGs to invest at the relevant scale Pillar 1 Co-ordinate across governments and policy areas • Assess upfront long term impacts and risks • Encourage stakeholder involvement throughout investment cycle • Mobilise private actors and financing institutions • Reinforce the expertise of public officials & institutions • Focus on results and promote learning Pillar 2 Strengthen capacities and promote policy learning across levels of government • Develop a fiscal framework adapted to the objectives pursued • Require sound, transparent financial management • Promote transparency and strategic use of procurement • Strive for quality and consistency in regulatory systems across levels of government Pillar 3 Ensure sound framework conditions at all levels of government OECD Recommendation on Effective Public Investment Across Levels of Government 14
  15. 15. Strengthening capacities for decision-makers: what priorities for the EUSAIR strategy? National & subnational governments:  Coordinate across sectors: Blue Growth, Connecting the Region, Environmental Quality and Sustainable Tourism are all cross- sectoral !  …all issues involve subnational governments, civil society and private actors  Identify a set of priorities with a macro-regional/transnational dimension: Assess the needs of the Macro-Region; identify investment priorities and risks  Align existing programmes/funding with the objectives and priorities of the Strategy: institutional mapping of all programmes/projects which could be connected to the Macro-Region  Avoid duplicating but rather seek to articulate the strategy with existing programmes
  16. 16. Macro-regional level:  Build credible governance mechanisms to develop & implement the Strategy: stable coordinating institutions, well-identified, not multiplied  Ensure political support  Connect the strategy with existing programmes/funding  Use the Strategy as a catalyst to foster coordination and align investment priorities  Communication: focus on the value added of the Macro-Regional approach compared to traditional approaches  Learn from other Macro-Regions Strengthening capacities for decision-makers: what priorities for the EUSAIR strategy?
  17. 17. 17 • Practical guidance for each of the 12 Public Investment Principles • Country profiles with data & indicators • Recent development s and good practices in countries • Checklist and self assessment tools • Peer learning and capacity-building: Disseminate examples of good practices , data and indicators and help governments at all levels diagnose key challenges for investment • Monitoring: Follow-up reforms and recent developments in this field Implementation Toolkit: Key objectives: Supporting the implementation: Toolkit, Indicators and Country studies
  18. 18. 18 Governance Indicators based on the OECD Public Investment Recommendation
  19. 19. 19 Governance dimensions: a quantification
  20. 20. 20 Australia Germany Mexico Spain Switzerland United States Chile Czech Republic Denmark Estonia Finland France Greece Hungary Italy Korea Netherlands New Zealand Norway Poland Portugal Slovak Republic Slovenia Sweden United Kingdom 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 Qualityofoverallinfrastructure MLCI Composite indicator (preliminary) on the existence of multi-level coordination (MLCI) The MLCI and the WEF Index on the quality of infrastructure
  21. 21. 21  Objective Reviewing and assessing multi-level governance challenges likely to hamper policy outcomes in support of the objectives set out in the Macro-Region Strategy  Scope: The project would involve 2 phases: (i) Step 1: a diagnosis multi-level governance frameworks in each of the eight countries involved in the Adriatic and Ionian Region (end 2016- 2017); (ii) Step 2: a methodology for monitoring progress in institutional and administrative capacity-building, (2017-end 2018)  Capacity building and Peer learning Identification of benchmarks in OECD countries which can benefit to the Macro-Region ; capacity building seminars OECD support to the EU strategy for the Adriatic and Ionian Region
  22. 22. THANK YOU! Joaquim.oliveira@oecd.org www.oecd.org/effective-public-investment-toolkit

×