3 Drivers of Administrative Reform
3.3 Developing Strategic Management and Better Government
The transparency of associated processes has also been brought into question, most notably that of the Public Sector Benchmarking Body, which awarded an average 8.9 percent pay increase to public sector employees in 2002. The relevant bench- marks for these increases were not made public and drew heavily on management jargon with little specific information on how these conclusions were reached or how increased productivity would be obtained.
Although sometimes referred to as a “nebulous policy instrument,”32 the part- nership agreements have been effective in drawing what were fragmented unions into a single bargaining framework and contributing to a model for administrative decision making and implementation in other fora. The most recent agreement, Towards 2016, represents a shift in the way social and economic policy is formu- lated in Ireland. In place of the traditional pay deal with social objectives added on in a three-year agreement, it sets out a ten-year strategy and places emphasis on the necessity to maintain competitiveness. The agreement also contains significant public service reforms that state employees must support to qualify for basic pay increases. These reforms for the first time include removing a ban on outsourcing core public service work and openly advertising a certain percentage of senior civil service posts. When considering the content of and actors engaged in social part- nership, it is clear that the nature of agreements initiated since 1987 has certainly changed, and agreements are now driven by broader reform concerns and an evolv- ing institutional framework.
3.3 Developing Strategic Management
program. In tandem the strategy promoted a shift from a culture of secrecy under- pinned by the Official Secrets Act 1911 to a culture based on openness. In all, it was felt that there should be more attention to features of the model of corporate governance within Irish public administration and that such changes needed to be addressed within a legislative framework. The scope of administrative reform is illustrated in Table 5.3, which outlines the relevant legislative changes since 1990.
In March 1995, the government requested a coordinating group of secretaries to
“review existing systems for making decisions, allocating responsibility and ensur- ing accountability in the Irish Civil Service.”33 Recommendations, albeit within the thinking and principles that had informed earlier attempts at reform, were made for a set of mechanisms for facilitating and mandating change. These officials focused to a large degree on reform processes and outcomes in New Zealand and Australia, while taking into account the likely success of transferring such prac- tices to Ireland. Delivering Better Government was published in 1996 and sets out a strategic framework for change specifically within the civil service but with the intention of broadening the process to the wider public service to fully contribute to national development. The central precept of this report was the promise of greater openness and accountability, a mission of quality customer service, and efficient and fair operation of simplified regulations.
Greater attention to the features of corporate governance implied necessary amendment to the Ministers and Secretaries Act of 1924. This was addressed by the Public Services Management Act of 1997, which, drawing from the New Zealand experience, set out to enhance the management effectiveness and transparency of departments and provide for increased accountability of civil servants through the setting of key objectives and outputs, strategy statements, and business plans. The crux of this act is the intention to allocate authority and accountability for service
Table 5.3 Directions in Ireland’s Administrative Reform
Legislation Year
The Comptroller and Auditor General (Amendment) Act 1993
Launch of Strategic Management Initiative 1994
Ethics in Public Office Act 1995
Delivering Better Government 1996
The Public Services Management Act 1997
Freedom of Information Act 1997
Quality Customer Service Initiative 1997
Management Information Framework Initiative 1999
European Union (Scrutiny) Act 2002
Public Service Management (Recruitment and Appointments) Act 2004
Civil Service Regulations (Amendment) Act 2005
delivery to those who provide the service and develop a performance management culture and a results-oriented approach to decision making. In terms of roles and responsibilities, the role of the secretary general as an accounting officer is outlined in section 4 of the act, but it is questionable as to whether this is balanced with the constitutional requirement of governmental accountability to parliament. Peters and Pierre stressed that administrative reform has had a profound impact on the nature of politics within the public sector.34 However, in the Irish case it may be argued that despite some greater clarity, interactions between ministers and senior civil servants still remain a largely gray and undefined area. The Irish model con- tinues to be based on the principle that ministers are collectively accountable for the performance of the functions assigned to their departments and that secretar- ies general are accountable to their ministers. To a large degree, public manage- ment reform in the context of “letting the managers manage” does not alleviate the complexities of these relationships or necessarily sharpen accountability; instead, it would appear to complicate rather than clarify the nature of these relationships and accountabilities when controversies arise.xi
Embedding the strategic management process in the day-to-day management and operation of government organizations is therefore challenging.
Further support for the implementation of Ireland’s modernization program was set out in the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness, through which an Imple- mentation Group of Secretaries General undertake administrative oversight of the program and a Public Service Modernisation Division works in close cooperation with the Department of Finance. The SMI remains the bedrock of the modern- ization program, and the findings of an external evaluation undertaken in 2002 signalled that the civil service had evolved into a more effective organization but that implementation was incomplete.35 Nonetheless, it is evident that significant modernization of Ireland’s civil service has occurred. As recently as 15 years ago, regulatory reform did not exist, and only a limited number of departments would have produced a business plan based on a statement of strategy or regarded the public as customers—let alone have established customer charters. However, it has been acknowledged that although progress had been made on the more outward- facing themes, little progress had been realized on the more technical corporate support services.36 This has been remedied by some advancement on the latter with a Performance Management and Development System (PMDS), granting further delegation of financial authority to individual ministers within agreed parameters and criteria, and the introduction of accruals accounting.
This managerial focus on efficiency and effectiveness is somewhat at odds with the surprise announcement in December 2003 to decentralize the majority of cen- tral administration outside the capital city of Dublin. Decentralization was aimed at providing opportunities to enhance the modernization process, but from the very beginning it has encountered resistance from the civil service unions and fallen behind in its (costly) implementation. Proposals to decentralize central government administration involve the relocation of more than 10,300 posts within civil service
departments, offices, and agencies to more than 50 locations across 25 counties throughout the state and involve at least 8 government departmental headquarters to be moved from the capital. For a small state it is logical to assume that this process could damage the coherence of government and result in fragmentation and inefficiency. Major policy-making and implementing departments depend on networks of policy knowledge and flows of information that require close physi- cal proximity to operate. In addition, despite the learning achieved as a result of managerial reform, it would appear that no adequate risk assessment took place to assess the decentralization project. Furthermore, it does not optimally fit with Ireland’s National Spatial Strategy 2002–2020 for regional economic development.
The process is thus likely to produce significant wasted resources because those due for relocation cannot be forced to move from Dublin and must be replaced. This will produce direct and indirect costs, principally through significant increases in public pay. Such an approach appears in stark contradiction to the rhetoric and practice of reform introduced over the past decade.