3 Drivers of Administrative Reform
3.2 Social Partnership
In addition to EU accession, reform of Irish public administration has also been conditioned by the introduction of the social partnership approach as stimulated by domestic economic management. Attempts to construct a tradition of tripar- titeviii wage agreements were not successful until 1987, when the concept of social partnership was introduced and revised interpretation of the main aspects of Ire- land’s government and policy making.23 The system of social partnershipix involves trade unions, business and employer organizations, agricultural interests, and more recently community and voluntary groups reaching wage agreements to advance economic stability. It is widely agreed that the series of pay agreements introduced during economic crises have helped stabilize industrial relations and subsequently assisted with keeping the economy stable during an economic boom when real earnings increased.24 Table 5.2 identifies the names and time frames of the seven social partnership programs that contained the aforementioned pay agreements and contributed significantly to a stable Irish economy.
The principal feature of past agreements is based on an increase in basic pay rates in both public and private sectors, combined with changes to the tax system to raise disposable income and rooted in commitments to ensure greater harmony in industrial relations. Over time, however, social partnership has become part of decision-making and implementation processes whereby its emphasis on building consensus around key economic and social policy objectives has shaped the way in which policy making is now undertaken in Ireland. Therefore, social partnership is similar to the corporatist policy processes in continental European and Scandina- vian countries in which a consensus on economic and social policy is advanced and
agreement is followed through to proceed with a program of policy objectives.25 For some commentators, Ireland’s social partnership goes beyond continental corporat- ism in several important ways, because it is more inclusive insofar as it covers a large array of social interests, it is more strategic, and it is more firmly institutionalized.26 Moreover, there has been a tendency for each successive agreement to cover a wider and more diverse range of policies including infrastructure, the environment, pov- erty, health, and equality.
The process has undoubtedly injected greater expertise into the policy-mak- ing process with the engagement of a wider array of actors, and the model has been repeated at various other fora and levels. It should be acknowledged, however, that the government is not a neutral referee in this process, because it has a serious stake in relation to public service pay and conditions. In relation to administra- tive reform, it is acknowledged that the various social partnership agreements have played an important role in driving the modernization program across the public service through the implementation of performance management and development systems.27 Social partnership agreements have also played an influential role in spec- ifying key commitments to be achieved for each sector of the public service. For example, the social partnership program Sustaining Progress set out a mechanism for verifying progress at specific sectoral, organizational, and civil service grade lev- els through the establishment of Performance Verification Groups for each sector.
Such developments imply that social partnership has become embedded in the gov- ernmental process and that the whole of government as expressed in the ethos of the Strategic Management Initiative is strengthened by social partnership.28
Formal institutional innovation also reflects this, and the role of the National Economic and Social Council (NESC), an advisory body that predates the social partnership agreements, plays a strategic role in the analysis of contemporary eco- nomic and social challenges in its reports. The thrust of its role is to ensure that these concerns are dealt with in an integrated and interdependent fashion. What distinguishes the NESC from other governance mechanisms is that its reports have
Table 5.2 Social Partnership Agreements
Program Duration
Programme for National Recovery 1987–1990
Programme for Economic and Social Progress 1991–1993 Programme for Competitiveness and Work 1994–1996
Partnership 2000 1997–1999
Programme for Prosperity and Fairness 2000–2002
Sustaining Progress 2003–2005
Toward 2016 2006–2016|
become integral to the policy-making process and are the foundation on which social partnership builds its next agreement.29
Ireland’s administrative system provides continuity and coordination of these agreements through the Department of Taoiseach, and the secretary general of that department is also the chair of the NESC. The changing focus of the social part- nership agreements reflects how the economic and social environment in Ireland has transformed from the management of fiscal crisis to booming economy and the different range of problems associated with these respective socioeconomic condi- tions. Institutional adaptation and a widening array of actors have also followed within the partnership mechanisms, and in addition to NESC there is now an Economic and Social Forum (NESF). Established in 1993, the NESF was designed to contribute to the formulation of policy, in particular policies concerned with unemployment, equality, and social exclusion. The NESF has contributed to the social partnership agreements since 1998 and, with implementation of the Part- nership 2000 agreement, provides a forum for community and voluntary interests that gained direct representation through this agreement. This broadening of the process and the regional extension of the social partnership in locations of high unemployment and social exclusion through Area Partnerships reflect the develop- ment of new networks and changing patterns of governance.
The most recent institutional contribution to the social partnership structure is the National Centre for Partnership and Performance (NCPP) (2001), which promotes the partnership concept in the workplace. The NESC, NESF, and NCPP structures and their collective modus operandi have been referred to as a “unique set of institutional innovations for creative, dynamic and self-reflexive governance for social and economic development.”30 In addition, legislation was passed in 2006 to establish a National Economic and Social Development Office, which aims to coordinate the work of the three institutional structures more closely.
Although the innovations and apparent institutionalization of the social part- nership deserve credit for Ireland’s improvement in economic management since the late 1980s, social partnership is not an automatic process. Despite fostering a culture of consensus building, the agreements since 2000 have emerged from long and complex negotiations with speculation that the process was floundering because of dissatisfaction among some of the represented interests. For example, grievances with public sector pay at the height of the Celtic Tiger threatened to destabilize Partnership 2000 when teachers and nurses sought pay increases beyond the terms of the agreement. In recent negotiations employment rights proved the most difficult strand of negotiation following a bitter industrial relations dispute at the Irish Ferries company in 2005.x
It is also evident that social partnership has not lived up to its image of social inclusiveness, thus prompting comments from sociologist Kieran Allen that it is a myth that has resulted in “flexploitation” whereby the incorporation of union lead- ers into partnership structures has given the ruling elite a free hand to continually push for more flexibility while social services and quality of life have deteriorated.31
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.