© OECD
A j
oin
t i
nit
iati
ve o
f th
e O
EC
D a
nd
th
e E
uro
pe
an
Un
ion
,
pri
nc
ipall
y f
ina
nced
by t
he
EU
Public Administration Reform Challenges
SIGMA Baseline Measurement
2015
Karen Hill
Miroslawa Boryczka, Juhani Lemmik, Marian Lemke
11 March 2016, Skopje
A j
oin
t i
nit
iati
ve o
f th
e O
EC
D a
nd
th
e E
uro
pe
an
Un
ion
,
pri
nc
ipall
y f
ina
nced
by t
he
EU
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
A j
oin
t i
nit
iati
ve o
f th
e O
EC
D a
nd
th
e E
uro
pe
an
Un
ion
,
pri
nc
ipall
y f
ina
nced
by t
he
EU
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
A j
oin
t i
nit
iati
ve o
f th
e O
EC
D a
nd
th
e E
uro
pe
an
Un
ion
,
pri
nc
ipall
y f
ina
nced
by t
he
EU
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”
A j
oin
t i
nit
iati
ve o
f th
e O
EC
D a
nd
th
e E
uro
pe
an
Un
ion
,
pri
nc
ipall
y f
ina
nced
by t
he
EU
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
A j
oin
t i
nit
iati
ve o
f th
e O
EC
D a
nd
th
e E
uro
pe
an
Un
ion
,
pri
nc
ipall
y f
ina
nced
by t
he
EU
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
A j
oin
t i
nit
iati
ve o
f th
e O
EC
D a
nd
th
e E
uro
pe
an
Un
ion
,
pri
nc
ipall
y f
ina
nced
by t
he
EU
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
A j
oin
t i
nit
iati
ve o
f th
e O
EC
D a
nd
th
e E
uro
pe
an
Un
ion
,
pri
nc
ipall
y f
ina
nced
by t
he
EU
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
A j
oin
t i
nit
iati
ve o
f th
e O
EC
D a
nd
th
e E
uro
pe
an
Un
ion
,
pri
nc
ipall
y f
ina
nced
by t
he
EU
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
A j
oin
t i
nit
iati
ve o
f th
e O
EC
D a
nd
th
e E
uro
pe
an
Un
ion
,
pri
nc
ipall
y f
ina
nced
by t
he
EU
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
A j
oin
t i
nit
iati
ve o
f th
e O
EC
D a
nd
th
e E
uro
pe
an
Un
ion
,
pri
nc
ipall
y f
ina
nced
by t
he
EU
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
A j
oin
t i
nit
iati
ve o
f th
e O
EC
D a
nd
th
e E
uro
pe
an
Un
ion
,
pri
nc
ipall
y f
ina
nced
by t
he
EU
Policy Development and Co-ordination
Regional range
A j
oin
t i
nit
iati
ve o
f th
e O
EC
D a
nd
th
e E
uro
pe
an
Un
ion
,
pri
nc
ipall
y f
ina
nced
by t
he
EU
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
A j
oin
t i
nit
iati
ve o
f th
e O
EC
D a
nd
th
e E
uro
pe
an
Un
ion
,
pri
nc
ipall
y f
ina
nced
by t
he
EU
• 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
Policy Development and Co-ordination
Key findings
A j
oin
t i
nit
iati
ve o
f th
e O
EC
D a
nd
th
e E
uro
pe
an
Un
ion
,
pri
nc
ipall
y f
ina
nced
by t
he
EU
Policy Development and Co-ordination
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
A j
oin
t i
nit
iati
ve o
f th
e O
EC
D a
nd
th
e E
uro
pe
an
Un
ion
,
pri
nc
ipall
y f
ina
nced
by t
he
EU
Policy Development and Co-ordination
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
A j
oin
t i
nit
iati
ve o
f th
e O
EC
D a
nd
th
e E
uro
pe
an
Un
ion
,
pri
nc
ipall
y f
ina
nced
by t
he
EU
Public service and HRM Regional range
A j
oin
t i
nit
iati
ve o
f th
e O
EC
D a
nd
th
e E
uro
pe
an
Un
ion
,
pri
nc
ipall
y f
ina
nced
by t
he
EU
Public service and HRM Regional range
A j
oin
t i
nit
iati
ve o
f th
e O
EC
D a
nd
th
e E
uro
pe
an
Un
ion
,
pri
nc
ipall
y f
ina
nced
by t
he
EU
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
A j
oin
t i
nit
iati
ve o
f th
e O
EC
D a
nd
th
e E
uro
pe
an
Un
ion
,
pri
nc
ipall
y f
ina
nced
by t
he
EU
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
A j
oin
t i
nit
iati
ve o
f th
e O
EC
D a
nd
th
e E
uro
pe
an
Un
ion
,
pri
nc
ipall
y f
ina
nced
by t
he
EU
Accountability
Regional range
A j
oin
t i
nit
iati
ve o
f th
e O
EC
D a
nd
th
e E
uro
pe
an
Un
ion
,
pri
nc
ipall
y f
ina
nced
by t
he
EU
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
A j
oin
t i
nit
iati
ve o
f th
e O
EC
D a
nd
th
e E
uro
pe
an
Un
ion
,
pri
nc
ipall
y f
ina
nced
by t
he
EU
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
A j
oin
t i
nit
iati
ve o
f th
e O
EC
D a
nd
th
e E
uro
pe
an
Un
ion
,
pri
nc
ipall
y f
ina
nced
by t
he
EU
Service Delivery Regional range
A j
oin
t i
nit
iati
ve o
f th
e O
EC
D a
nd
th
e E
uro
pe
an
Un
ion
,
pri
nc
ipall
y f
ina
nced
by t
he
EU
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
A j
oin
t i
nit
iati
ve o
f th
e O
EC
D a
nd
th
e E
uro
pe
an
Un
ion
,
pri
nc
ipall
y f
ina
nced
by t
he
EU
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
A j
oin
t i
nit
iati
ve o
f th
e O
EC
D a
nd
th
e E
uro
pe
an
Un
ion
,
pri
nc
ipall
y f
ina
nced
by t
he
EU
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
A j
oin
t i
nit
iati
ve o
f th
e O
EC
D a
nd
th
e E
uro
pe
an
Un
ion
,
pri
nc
ipall
y f
ina
nced
by t
he
EU
Public Financial Management
• 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
A j
oin
t i
nit
iati
ve o
f th
e O
EC
D a
nd
th
e E
uro
pe
an
Un
ion
,
pri
nc
ipall
y f
ina
nced
by t
he
EU
Public Financial Management
• 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
A j
oin
t i
nit
iati
ve o
f th
e O
EC
D a
nd
th
e E
uro
pe
an
Un
ion
,
pri
nc
ipall
y f
ina
nced
by t
he
EU
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
A j
oin
t i
nit
iati
ve o
f th
e O
EC
D a
nd
th
e E
uro
pe
an
Un
ion
,
pri
nc
ipall
y f
ina
nced
by t
he
EU
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
A j
oin
t i
nit
iati
ve o
f th
e O
EC
D a
nd
th
e E
uro
pe
an
Un
ion
,
pri
nc
ipall
y f
ina
nced
by t
he
EU
Procurement and concessions Regional range
A j
oin
t i
nit
iati
ve o
f th
e O
EC
D a
nd
th
e E
uro
pe
an
Un
ion
,
pri
nc
ipall
y f
ina
nced
by t
he
EU
Procurement and concessions Regional range
A j
oin
t i
nit
iati
ve o
f th
e O
EC
D a
nd
th
e E
uro
pe
an
Un
ion
,
pri
nc
ipall
y f
ina
nced
by t
he
EU
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
A j
oin
t i
nit
iati
ve o
f th
e O
EC
D a
nd
th
e E
uro
pe
an
Un
ion
,
pri
nc
ipall
y f
ina
nced
by t
he
EU
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
A j
oin
t i
nit
iati
ve o
f th
e O
EC
D a
nd
th
e E
uro
pe
an
Un
ion
,
pri
nc
ipall
y f
ina
nced
by t
he
EU
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
A j
oin
t i
nit
iati
ve o
f th
e O
EC
D a
nd
th
e E
uro
pe
an
Un
ion
,
pri
nc
ipall
y f
ina
nced
by t
he
EU
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
A j
oin
t i
nit
iati
ve o
f th
e O
EC
D a
nd
th
e E
uro
pe
an
Un
ion
,
pri
nc
ipall
y f
ina
nced
by t
he
EU
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.
A j
oin
t i
nit
iati
ve o
f th
e O
EC
D a
nd
th
e E
uro
pe
an
Un
ion
,
pri
nc
ipall
y f
ina
nced
by t
he
EU
Thank you!
