This document analyzes ten pro-productivity institutions from different countries. It discusses some very preliminary thoughts based on interviews conducted so far. Key points include: there is no one-size-fits-all model and institutions need to adapt to national contexts. Political commitment is important to establish and maintain these institutions. Independence, transparency, and producing high quality work are important for legitimacy. The degree of institutionalization and ability to engage in evidence-based policymaking affects how effective these institutions can be. Sufficient funding is also important to attract talent and carry out various functions.

1. Pro-productivity institutions:
learning from national experience
Andrea Renda
2016 Conference of the Global Forum on Productivity
Lisbon, 8 July 2016

2. Introduction
• Promoting productivity: a daunting task
• Resistance from vested interests: losers are often
more powerful than winners
• “Awareness” problem + “image” problem: Difficult
to keep productivity under the spotlight, and hard
to convince stakeholders
• Short-term political cycles v. long-term thinking
• Productivity can clash with other policy objectives
• Different countries have different needs

3. Source: Banks (2015)

4. Scope of the paper
• Analysis of ten pro-productivity institutions
• Ad hoc productivity commissions established as standing
inquiry bodies (Australia, New Zealand, Mexico, Chile)
• “Temporary” productivity commissions (Denmark, Norway)
• Advisory bodies at the centre of government (France,
Ireland, United States, European Commission)
• Interviews with high-level staff members and with
external stakeholders (total 20 interviews)
• Lesson-drawing

5. Different timeframes
• Australia (since 1998, but predecessors date back to 1920s)
• New Zealand (since 2012)
• Chile (2015)
• Mexico (2013)
• Norway (2014-2016)
• Denmark (2014-2016, with a predecessor since 2005)
• France (2013, but predecessors date back to the 1940s)
• Ireland (1997)
• European Commission (2014, but experience goes back to 1989)
• United States (1946)

6. Current state of the work
• Desk research completed
• First four in-depth interviews completed
• Australian Productivity Commission
• New Zealand Productivity Commission
• United States Council of Economic Advisers
• European Political Strategy Centre
• Work will be completed by end August 2016

7. Very preliminary thoughts (1)
• No one-size-fits all recipe
• Need to adapt institutional and governance
arrangements to national legal and political culture
• Some countries have opted for independent bodies
with bipartisan support; others have bodies that
mostly advice the president (US, France, EU)
• All surveyed institutions care about transparency,
quality, and international cooperation
• And all critically depend on the accuracy and
robustness of the data they produce

8. Very preliminary thoughts (2)
• Political commitment is key
• In most cases PPIs were created after crises or bad economic
performance, with bipartisan support. The challenge is to
keep momentum over time
• Broad notion of productivity/competitiveness
• Most institutions go beyond the technical economic definition
of productivity, and are oriented towards well-being in the
long term
• Core business is long-term thinking
• Governments increasingly lack time and skills to engage in
prospective thinking

9. Very preliminary thoughts (3)
• Degree of institutionalization is important for the
effectiveness of these institutions, but it takes time to
consolidate
• Independence is essential, even when institutions are
based at the centre of government
• Independence, transparency and quality are key for
legitimacy. More specifically:
• Input legitimacy is boosted by multi-stakeholder composition
(when located at CoG), coupled with high level skills
• Output legitimacy is promoted by transparency, inclusiveness
and quality of deliverables

10. Very preliminary thoughts (4)
• Where a culture of evidence-based
policymaking is more developed, these
institutions can engage more effectively with
the executive, and be involved in the regulatory
governance cycle.
• This affects the extent to which independent pro-
productivity institutions can issue concrete policy
recommendations
• Involving pro-productivity institutions is increasingly
important to strengthen the evaluation function in
government, or outside government

11. Very preliminary thoughts (5)
• Budget has to be sufficient to allow for
• Attracting best talent (mostly, but not only economics)
• Engaging in extensive field work (in case of enquiries)
• Carrying out self-directed research programs
• Managing different enquiries, policy tasks or research
projects at the same time
• An important constraint is the capacity of the
public administration in managing and
operationalizing recommendations:
• Better central and peripheral administrations help the
effectiveness of pro-productivity institutions

12. Pro-productivity institutions:
learning from national experience
Andrea Renda
2016 Conference of the Global Forum on Productivity
Lisbon, 8 July 2016