PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REFORM: LESSONS FROM LATVIA Vita Tērauda Centre for Public Policy PROVIDUS

1991 independence from Soviet Union May 1, 2004 European Union Member State

Initially – poorest EU country: 33% of average per capita income in EU One of highest growth rates in Europe: 6,1% in million inhabitants, ethnically mixed: 58,5% Latvian, 29% Russian, 12,5% other

1993 – Launch of Public Administration Reform Inclusion of PAR priority early on in transition process Recognition of need to radically overhaul inherited Soviet system Political commitment (translating into financial commitment)

Broad issues Changing the individual’s experience in interacting with the state Bringing the public administration into line with the Constitution Professionalizing the civil service

Stages of Reform Stage One: –Design and launch of the PAR program –Leadership by the Ministry of State Reform Stage Two: –Backtracking on many aspects of PAR program –Redesign of Civil Service to mitigate backtracking –“migratory” phase – PAR leadership changing with every new government

Stage Three: –Second tier issues in PAR –Consolidation and sustainability of Civil Service Administration and School of Public Administration –PAR responsibility embedded within the State Chancellery

Stage One: priorities Bring institutions into line with the Constitution Develop strategic plan

Initial actions (based on Strategic Plan)  Establishment of Civil Service  Citizen’s outreach program  Freedom of Information  Conflicts of Interest  Administrative Procedures Law  Redesign of decision-making at Cabinet level

Civil service reform Career system Establishment of Civil Service Administration Issues to resolve: –Who qualifies? –Which positions are civil service? –How to change bureaucratic culture?

Civil Service Training One of main tools to change culture School of Public Administration In-service training concept Massive, universal initial training Centralized curriculum development, decentralized delivery

Positive factors: –Capacity development of training institutions –Flexibility combined w/control of content –Instilled sense that “times have changed” in civil servants

Problems –“free good” – level of commitment of civil servants as well as ministries not as high –School of Public Administration has not been as responsive to changing needs following the initial massive training effort

Changing the role of the citizen (further PAR activities) Citizen’s outreach program Freedom of information Administrative procedures Law

Changing practices in government (further PAR activities) Conflict of interest regulation Redesign of decision-making process at Cabinet level

Lessons Learned Ministry of State Reform was crucial in establishing framework and political leadership for the PAR effort Ambition to complete PAR in 2 years was severely flawed. Announcement of sunset clause was a costly mistake, as was failure to remedy this mistake when it was recognized

Lessons learned, cont. Lack of inclusivity of key civil service players in design of PAR strategy led to major resistance by civil servants to reforms Lack of upper/middle management commitment to reforms served to stall processes and encouraged backtracking during Stage Two

Lessons learned, cont. Budget constraints and inflexibility of originally envisaged Civil Service system hampered implementation Bureaucractic cultures change only if “forced” via redesigning systems, lines of communication Showing citizens real change in their interactions with the state is key to sustaining support for PAR

THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION! Vita Tērauda Centre for Public Policy PROVIDUS