Presentation on theme: "EIPA, Maastricht European Commission, 10 February 2012"— Presentation transcript:
1Civil Services in the EU of 27 Reform Outcomes and the Future of the Civil Service EIPA, MaastrichtEuropean Commission, 10 February 2012Prof Dr Christoph Demmke, EIPA
2Why this presentation? Comparative Study National Administrations How relevant is the reform process in the Member States for EU officials?Will the EU Institutions follow the reform trend in the Member states?If yes, in which areas? To what extend?How much will your work/job/status be concerned ?
3Comparison: How civil service is defined in the eu member states Similarities among Member StatesDifferences among Member States
4Similaritiesall Member States have a specific public law status for civil servants (also in Sweden, UK a specific case, CZ republic in reform vacuum), no abolishment of public law status despite all reformsall EU Member States employ civil servants and other categories of staff, no privatisation of Government (specific ethical obligations remain)In all Member States civil servants have specific working conditions (e.g., specific ethical requirements, enhanced job security, specific recruitment systems and selection requirements)Civil servants in most Member states still work in a specific hierarchical and organisational structure – Bureaucracy (slowly disappearing)In all Member States no trend towards a uniform public employment status but pluralisation of different statusesIn most Member States alignment between public employees and private sector employees working conditions (best case is job security)
5Differences among Member States Different definitions of the term civil service (narrow vs. broad) – Ireland vs. FranceProportion of civil servants in public employment varies significantly, between 0,5% - 100%in some countries all public tasks may be carried out by civil servants (no restrictions, case NL)some countries reserve specific functions only to civil servants (case D, in theory)in some countries, constitutions and civil service laws require that certain tasks should “as a principle!” be carried by civil servantstrend towards more flexibility (“loi de mobilité”, France)Working conditions vary significantly, reflecting common private-sector practices or specific public-sector traditionsMost Member States employ civil servants and public employees (and fixed-term employees)Employment of civil servants in administrative sectors differs considerably, trend towards a core civil service level
6Do these administrative sectors belong to central civil service or do they have their own civil service systems?
7Percentage of civil servants and other employees by Member State Czech Republic0% civil servants, 62% public employees, 38% officials in territorial self-governmental unitsSweden1% statutory civil servants, 99% contractual employeesLatvia6% civil servants, 94% public employeesPoland6% civil servants, 94% civil service employeesRomania6% civil servants, 1% specific civil servants, 93% public employeesUnited Kingdom10% civil service, 90% wider public sectorIreland13% civil servants, 87% public servants (*)Italy15% civil servants (under public law), 85% civil servants (under labour law)Portugal15% appointed civil servants (public law status), 85% civil servants (labour law status) **Hungary25% civil servants, 75% public employeesCyprus28% civil service, 17% education, 15% security, 14% craftsmen and labourers, 20% semi-government organisations, 6% local authoritiesSlovenia34 % civil servants, 66% public employeesDenmark36% civil servants, 66% public employeesGermany37% civil servants, 59% employees 59%, 4% soldiersBulgaria48% civil servants, 52% contractual staffMember statePercentage of civil servants and other employeesSpain (**)59% civil servants, 27% contracted personnel 14% other types of staff (regional and local level excluded)Lithuania67% civil servants, 28% employees under labour contract, 5% otherMalta67% civil servants, 33% public sector employeesFrance73% civil servants, 15% contract agents, 12% other specific staffGreece74% civil servants, 26% contractual personnelBelgium (**)75% civil servants, 25% contractual employeesLuxembourg77% civil servants , 23% public employeesFinland83% civil servants, 17% public employees (regional and local level excluded)Slovakia85% civil servants, 10% public employees, 5% contractual employeesEstonia90% public servants, 7% support staff, 3% non-staff public servantsNetherlands100% civil servants(*) In Ireland only those who work for the ministries are called civil servants, others are public servants.(**) These figures concern only the federal level administration (in Spain the regional level) and the central Government in Portugal.
8Identifying Major reform Trends Organisational ReformsHR Reforms
9Change of public employment and substance of public employment. Reduction of public employmentReduction of percentage of civil servants in total public employment (exceptions: Lux, Germany, Bulgaria)Blurring of boundaries: More public employees working in civil service functionsIncrease of flexible contracts or precarious employment (see also ECJ: 586/10) (a third class emerging?)alignment of civil servants‘ working conditions with other public employees and private sector
10Main differences between civil servants and other public employees by issue and Member State (1 = different, 2 = similar)
11Common Reform Trends in All EU Member States Grand Reform TrendsCommon Reform Trends in All EU Member Statesa broader process of debureaucratisation and organisational reformThis entailsdecentralisation of HR competencesresponsibilisation (increased discretion for line managers)reform of org. structures (careers) and flexibilisation (cases: recruitment procedures, career development, job security, pay)
12Decentralisation of powers, competences and responsibilities From central level to decentralised authorities (state level)From central responsibilities (at ministerial level) to decentralised responsibilities in ministries and agenciesFrom Top-level to middle management („let managers manage“)Brings more participative approaches
13Level of central regulation by policy and by EU Member State (1=Centrally regulated, 2=Not centrally regulated)A = Equality and diversity policyB = Legal statusC = Pension systemD = Basic salaryE = Recruitment procedureF = Performance appraisalsG = Career structureH = Career development policy
14Vertical decentralisation and multi-actor involvement in EU public administrations Source: Demmke, Hammerschmid and Meyer, Decentralisation and Accountability as Focus of Public Modernisation Reforms, Office of Official Publications of the EU, Luxemburg, 2006, p. 51
15Developments in top managers’ and middle managers’ responsibilities in recent years by HRM policy (1=lot more, 2=some more, 3=same, 4=some less, 5=lot less)A = Career development, B = Training, C = Relocating, D = Recruitment, E = Performance pay, F = Promotions, G = Working time, H = Diversity policy, I = Performance plans, J = Poor performance, K = Code of conduct, L = Dismissal, M = Discipline, N = Mean
16Consequence: Leadership more important and more problematic Expectations as to good leadership are risingEmployees are more critical and demanding but image (and dream?) of „charismatic“ leadership remainsFinancial crisis „Bringing the bad news“ and decline in trust in LeadershipWorkload increasingIn appraising peole, need for more discussion, feedback, communication, networking, allocation of HR tasksLeadership is not about strategies and „thinking“ , it is tough, ad-hoc and fragmented daily life decision-making (Mintzberg)Often, higher expectations are not matching skill developments. Overestimation authorities but classical image of sovereign and charismatic leader prevailingConclusion: Leadership more important but more problematic than ever
18From traditional, hierarchical and closed organisations to open and flexible org. structures no exclusive ladder-based recruitment system, abolishment of senioritypossibility of mid-career and top-level hiringrecognition of private-sector experience in career development, pay and pension calculation
19Relaxation of job security enhanced job security for civil servants still persistslifetime tenure gradually disappearingmore grounds for job terminationRecruitment of more fixed-term employees
20Termination of civil-servant employment by type of civil-service structure (Frequencies in parenthesis)Few grounds (1-2)Some grounds (3-5)Many grounds (6-7)TotalType of civil-service systemCareer structure50 (9)28 (5)22 (4)100 (18)Non-career structure0 (0)44 (4)56 (5)100 (9)33 (9)100 (27)
21Termination of civil-servant employment by EU Member State (1=Yes, 2=No) A = Disciplinary reasonsB = Poor performanceC = RestructuringD = DownsizingE = Re-organisationF = Economic difficultiesG = OtherH = Sum
22Increased mobilityorganisational mobility: reduction and abolishment of rigid and hierarchical careers > mobility enhancedindividual mobility: enhanced voluntary and obligatory job mobility (as basis for promotions)public-private mobility: enhanced mobility between public and private sectors (mostly in theory, in practice little mobility from private to public)International mobility still very low (check: case law on Art TFEU)
23Analysing Reform Outcomes Successes and challenges
24The context And the European Commission? Reformresistent Public Services – a Myth !Reformboom in most Member States.Reform of Public EmploymentReform of StatusReform of Working Conditions and Pay systemsOrganisational reforms (reform of recruitment systems)Pension Reforms etc.However, Public Services first and „easy“ target for austerity policies, many reforms (mostly cut-back policies) respond to public pressure and clichés (case: public sectors too big, too costly, too many privileges!)And the European Commission?
25New reforms. The Financial Crisis A widening gap (Germany vs. Portugal)Generally trend towards the freezing or reduction of salaries, less opportunities for promotion because of cuts in employment, longer working week, cut of allowances, longer working life= Impact on attractiveness of public employment? (in some countries more, in others less)
26Impact of austerity measures on workplace level (N=25)
27Effect of financial crisis on public trust (N=25) General government deficit/surplus2010 (% of GDP) MeanLow-level deficit (< -4,2) 3,00Middle-level deficit (-7.0 to -4,2) 3,75High deficit (> -7.0) 4,38(1=increased trust, 5=decreased trust)
28Reform outcomes in HR policies – Empirical findings Ambivalent outcomes, z.B. PRP, accountability, ethics and fight against corruption (more rules and standards but better effects?, politicisation, decentralisation and cohesion, impact of less job security, performance measurement, increase of performance management bureaucracy, new unfairness perceptions etc.Progress: Citizen orientation, Transparency, Anti-Discrimination, Working Time Flexibilisation, Combination Job-Family, Equality, Mobility, partly reduction of adm. burdensOverall: less progress in central europe (but what is the reference value? 1990?)
29Vulnerability of HR-reform trends to integrity violations (N=24)
30The case of Pay reforms: Unfairness in the Seniority System IndividualOrganizationalUnequal pay for equal workDiscrimination of young employeesFree-ridersUndifferential compensationAbove average performancepoor performanceLimited career optionsLittle alignment with private sector payment
31…to unfairness in the PRP System IndividualOrganizationalUnprofessional AssessmentMeasured variableFavouritismTransformation into benefitsQuotaDiscriminationGoal-settingFinancial insufficienciesInsecurityIntensification of workUnsteadiness of goalsIntransparencyPay differentiation within and across agenciesRewards at the cost of other employeesSocial immobility
32Findings and preliminary results: micro-level development How would you judge the development of the working conditions in your organisation?32
33FROM TRADITIONAL BUREAUCRACY TO POST-BUREAUCRACY Overall Reform OutcomesFROM TRADITIONAL BUREAUCRACY TO POST-BUREAUCRACY
34How to measure? Measuring traditional bureacuracy indicators (Weber, in: Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft)Main componentsComponent items (item’s relative weighting within component)1) Legal status2) Career structure3) Recruitment4) Salary system5) Tenure systempublic law status (100%)existence of career structure (50%)career development centrally regulated (20%)entrance from the bottom (15%)promotions to other positions at mid-career or top-level not possible (15%)special recruitment requirements (50%)recruitment centrally regulated (30%)private sector experience not relevant (20%)basic salary regulated by law (50%)wage system based on seniority (25%)wage system not based on performance (25%)lifetime tenure (high job security) (40%)termination rather difficult (40%)job security differs from private sector (20%)
35Moving away from traditional bureaucratic features But: no uniform trend towards a single new European administrative model, however (is “NPM” dead?)But: Member States showing different reform paths and reform prioritiesBut: new reforms are not necessarily producing better outcomes
36Traditional bureaucracy – post-bureaucracy continuum score by EU Member State
37Development of Administrative Models 0% = traditional bureaucracy, 100% = post-bureaucracy
38la bureaucratie est morte - vive la bureaucratie Future of civil service many anti-bureaucratic changes – but no new universally accepted reform modelless civil servantsless specific working conditionsMember States move away from hierarchical, rule-bound systems towards more open and more flexible systemsNo evidence showing that classical civil services have lower corruption levels and less politicisationDO WE STILL NEED CIVIL SERVANTS?
39Correlation Bureaucratic structures and Corruption 39
40Final remarksNo evidence showing new solutions and new systems are better: reforms produce both positive and negative outcomesNew Public Management did not produce the desired reform outcomes: some features of the traditional bureaucratic model still persist
42Managing efficiency – doing more with less? Public tasks may change, but do not disappearNew challenges (risks, threats…)Need for new jobs in certain sectors (health sector, social sector, IT – increasing shortages)Introduction of more austerity measures and ongoing budgetary constraints
43The proportion of elderly population (aged 65 and over) in five case countries, (% of the total population)
44Age Management: Designing new work structures, work mentalities, flighting discrimination – a new challenge (Source: Illmarinen)
45A new understanding of Fairness. Better or simply different? The era in which “treating everybody the same meant treating everybody fairly” is not anymore the paradigm of our times.The age of standardization were well suited for the belief in and practice that equal treatment for all is fair treatment.Postmodern challenge experts opinion on how to treat people unequally and yet to be fairA new discourse on distributional justice, procedural justice and interactional justice needed?
46The merit principle is dead. Long live the merit principle !!! Today, the Member States of the European Union have become more meritocratic and, at the same time, more polarized.Today, rising levels of inequality and problems with social mobility can lead to a loss of social capital, frustration, discontentment and alienaThe paradox with the principle of meritocracy lies with the problem that our systems which reward “talented people” leave no hiding place for those who do not succeed in the competitive struggle.
47Future of civil service CONCLUSIONS: HOW TO BETTER UNDERSTAND ALL OF THIS? UNINTENTIONAL REFORM EFFECTS/ DILEMMAS AND PARADOXES.
48Reform outcomesPublic Services are subject of many images and perceptions. Often not based on facts.Often, reforms are implemented because of reform fashions, perceptions and images but not because of knowledge of facts and rational analysis.For example. Bureaucracy is bad vs New Public Management is good, centralisation is bad vs decentralisation is good, rigidity is bad vs flexibility is good, rules are bad vs. deregulation is good, public services are efficient vs. private sector services are more efficientWhat do we actually know?48
49Analysing Reform outcomes Most Reform outcomes have paradoxical or unintentional effectsReform language is manipulativeFocus is on „trendy reforms“Many expectations to reforms are contradictoryReforms and institutional design must be seen together
51Paradoxes:Pollitt and Bouckaert Give priority to making savings/improving the performance of the public sector.Motivate staff and promote cultural change/weaken tenure and downsize.Reduce burden of internal scrutiny and associated paperwork/sharpen managerial accountability.Allocate new responsibilities to government/reduce the range of tasks that government is involved with.Create more single-purpose agencies/improve horizontal coordination (‘joined-up government’; ‘horizontality’).Decentralise management authority/improve programme coordination.Improve quality/cut costs. Bouckaert, Geert & Pollitt, Christopher (2011). Public Management Reform. A Comparative Analysis. Second edition. Oxford, p.164.
52Towards a better understanding of adminis- trative cultures and traditions tradition and administrative culture are still importanthow to explain convergence and Europeanisation trend and differentiation trend at the same time?significant differences between and within country groupsEastern European countries a heterogeneous groupMediterranean states a homogeneous groupScandinavian states quite post-bureaucratic, despite some variations among themAnglo-Saxon group of countries a quite heterogeneous groupContinental countries a rather homogeneous group with the exception of Netherlandsclassification of civil service-service systems into career vs. position system countries not fruitful anymore