Transcript DES22905 - Forumpa.it

FORUM P.A.
(8 – 12 May 2006: Rome)
The Growth of Agencies in Ireland:
Trends, Developments and
Implications
Dr. Peter Humphreys
Executive Director: Research
Institute of Public Administration
[email protected]
www.ipa.ie
Presentation Structure
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Personal Profile
Committee for Public Management Research
Public Service Modernisation in Ireland
Irish Agencies Research
Main Findings to date
International Perspective
What next?
Personal Profile
• Executive Director: Research at the Irish National Institute of
Public Administration (IPA): Dublin
• Over 30 years’ experience as senior manager/public servant and
professional researcher at national, regional and local
government levels.
• Author/co-author of major studies on public service
modernisation.
• Independent Expert Member of Government High-level Policy
Committees and Groups
• Irish National Public Service Modernisation Expert to UN,
OECD and EU.
Committee for Public Management
Research (CPMR)
CPMR established to support Irish Public Service
Modernisation Programme and comprises:
• Senior officials from Finance; Taoiseach;
Environment, Heritage & Local Government;
Transport; Health & Children; Communications,
Marine & Natural Resources; Social and Family
Affairs; Revenue Commissioners.
• Trinity College Dublin & University College Dublin
• Institute of Public Administration
CPMR Research (www.cpmr.gov.ie)
includes and copies available to download
free:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Delivering quality services
Governance and accountability
Management of cross-cutting issues
Performance measurement
Regulatory reform
Strategic & Business Planning
E-government and service decentralisation
Human Resource Management
Long-term policy development
‘Agencification’
Key goals for Irish public service
modernisation: 1994 onwards
• Provide an excellent service to the public
• Contribute to national development
• Make efficient and effective use of resources
Source: Delivering Better Government (1996)
Key reference: www.bettergov.ie
Public service modernisation
agenda … the approach to date
Excellent service
to Government &
Public
Quality
Customer
Service
Openness
Transparency
Accountability
Human
Resources
Management
Regulatory
Reform
Information
Systems
Management
Financial
Management
Reform of
Business
Environment
Internal Systems
Reform
Source: PA Consulting
2002
Some strands of the Irish
Modernisation Programme
•
•
•
•
Strategic Management Initiative (1994+)
Freedom of Information Act (1997)
Public Service Management Act (1997)
Quality Customer Service (QCS) Initiative (1997+),
including Customer Action Plans and Charters
• Equal Status Act (2000)
• Better Regulation (2004)
• Public Service Decentralisation (2004+)
Key elements of Irish approach to
date
• National strategy with supporting structures to underpin
and help drive forward modernisation
• Specific national/local initiatives to roll-out strategic
planning, Quality Customer Service etc.
• Identify and exploit drivers for change, e.g. National
Partnership Agreements
• Primarily driven by senior officials themselves
• No one size fits all
• Consensual/gradualist rather than radical/political
Some future modernisation
challenges
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Accountability of public bodies/individuals
Cross-organisational working
Customer focus
Less emphasis on inputs (HR, finance)
Increased focus on outputs/outcomes
Focus on improving and measuring performance
Continuous quality improvement
Ethics/values
Decentralisation
Irish Agencies Research
• Map the development of Irish agencies over
time to obtain a clearer understanding of the
range & variety of such bodies, including
their corporate governance arrangements
• Place this information within a wider
international context and
• Identify and discuss key and/or emergent
issues for the future.
Research approach
• Develop original database from secondary sources
• International research/evaluation review
• Web-based survey of national-level, non-commercial
bodies (1st. Phase): 2004/5
• Regional/local agencies (2nd Phase): 2005/6
• Commercial agencies (3rd Phase): 2006/7
• Case-studies: 360oapproach
• Cross-national comparisons
What is an ‘agency’?
There is no widely accepted definition of what exctly
•
•
•
•
•
•
constitutes an ‘agency’. For our research an ‘agency’
is defined as public sector organisation that has
some:
Structural differentiation
Capacity for autonomous decision-making
Expectation of continuity over time
Public function
Personnel and
Financial resources.
What is it not?
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
For this research exercise, agencies do not include:
Departments/Offices with Cabinet Minister
Local/regional branches of larger bodies
Defence Forces (Military)
Judiciary
Garda Siochana (Police)
Individual hospitals/education establishments
Tribunals of Inquiry
Cooperative societies and Non-Governmental Bodies.
Main features of Irish agencies
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
14 line departments legally quite strong (departmentalism) &
Finance de facto very powerful
Circa 610 agencies (incl. subnational); c. 210 national noncommercial agencies
Circa 80 agencies commercial
Agencies established often without clear legal definitions
Vast majority set up since 1990 but oldest 1708
Mainly health, natural resources, justice and education,
sometimes in response to ‘crisis’
50% service delivery, 25% advisory, 23% regulatory
No general policy on agencies (mainly ad hoc)
Some influence of general reform programs and of code of
practice.
EU influence significant
Irish Agencies research is being undertaken for the CPMR
but as part of a wider international research network:
•Australia
•Belgium
•Germany
•Ireland
•Italy
•Norway
•Sweden
•Netherlands
•USA
Autonomy of public agencies:
A three country comparison of
Norway, Ireland and Flanders
Prof. dr. Koen Verhoest, drs. Bram Verschuere,
Dr. Anne Marie Mc Gauran and dra. Kristin Rubecksen
Brief overview
• Norway – Flanders – Ireland
• Focus upon autonomy and accountability in 3 main
areas: Human Resource Management (HRM), Financial
Management and Policy
• 3 surveys conducted: similar questions lead to
comparable variables
• Describing, comparing, starting to explain
• Focus is on ‘similar’ agencies from a governance,
operational, financial and legal perspective to optimise
comparability
HRM autonomy: main findings
• Norway: high levels of HR autonomy because of
abolishment of generic detailed personnel statute and
general limits on numbers (even for salary levels)
• Ireland: mixed levels with some autonomy for softer
issues, but with strict case-by-case controls by Dep. of
Finance on salary/numbers: rather ‘meaningless’ autonomy
• ’Flanders: no strategic autonomy/no-high operational
autonomy because of generic ‘personnel statute’ and
‘framework’
Main findings financial management
autonomy
• Taking loans
• Norway: not allowed (no legal identity)
• Flanders and Ireland: less than half may take
loans within limits or after approval
• Shifting budgets over years
• Norway: because of budget reform overall ability
to shift budgets over years (5%)
• Flanders and Ireland: less than half may shift
budgets within limits or after approval
Main findings: policy autonomy
• High levels of policy autonomy: most
decisions concerning policy instruments
taken by agencies with some to little
involvement of minister/department
• Similar levels between countries: ‘policy
implementation’ involves important policy
decisions
Main international findings
• Difference in levels of management
autonomy related to existence of generic
input controls (finance/HR)
• Overall: highest management autonomy in
Norway (except loans)/ policy autonomy
quite high in all countries
• Management autonomy relates to size (but
some differences between countries e.g.
concerning board )
What next internationally?
www.publicmanagement-cobra.org
Over to you ….. any questions?