Public administration reform in Europe : conclusions, lessons learned and recommendations for future EU policy.
Date: 2019-08-21
Institutions: Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion
Subjects: EU Member State, EU policy, administrative reform, policymaking, public administration, public sector, regulatory policy

Public Administration Reform in 
Europe:  
Conclusions, lessons learned and 
recommendations for future EU policy 

Alexander Heichlinger, Nick Thijs  

Gerhard Hammerschmid and Karin Attström 

July - 2018 

Social 
Europe 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion 

Directorate F — Investment 

Unit F1 — ESF and FEAD: policy and legislation 

Contact: EMPL-F1-UNIT@ec.europa.eu 

European Commission 
B-1049 Brussels 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Public Administration Reform in 
Europe:  
Conclusions, lessons learned and 
recommendations for future EU policy 

 Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion 

“Support for developing better country knowledge on public administration and institutional capacity 
building” (VC/2016/0492) 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers  
to your questions about the European Union. 

Freephone number (*): 

00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 

(*) 

The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone 

boxes or hotels may charge you). 

LEGAL NOTICE 

This document has been prepared for the European Commission however it reflects the views only of the 
authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information 
contained therein. 

More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://www.europa.eu). 

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2018 

ISBN: 978-92-79-93599-2 

doi 10.2767/19089 

© European Union, 2018  

Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.  

For any use of materials which are not under the European Union copyright, permission must be sought directly 
from the copyright holder(s) indicated.   

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Public Administration Reform in Europe:  

Conclusions, lessons learned and recommendations for future EU policy   

Contents 

SETTING-THE-SCENE: THE IMPORTANCE TO INVEST IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION ........ 6 

CHALLENGES  AND  KEY  LEARNINGS  FROM  PUBLIC  ADMINISTRATION  REFORM 
PROCESSES IN THE 28 EU MEMBER STATES ........................................................... 10 

THE ROLE OF THE EU IN SUPPORTING PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REFORM ................. 25 

4.  KEY  REFLECTIONS  AND  RECOMMENDATIONS  FOR  FUTURE  EU  SUPPORT  TO  PUBLIC 

ADMINISTRATION REFORM AND CAPACITY BUILDING IN THE EU MEMBER STATES ..... 32 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Public Administration Reform in Europe:  

Conclusions, lessons learned and recommendations for future EU policy   

  SETTING-THE-SCENE: THE IMPORTANCE TO INVEST IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 

Europe’s administrations currently face the triple challenge of: (1) delivering better with 
less  i.e.  meeting  societal  &  business  needs  in  times  of  tighter  budgets;  (2)  adapting 
public  service  provision  to  demographic,  technological  and  societal  changes;  and  (3) 
improving  the  business  climate  through  fewer  and  smarter  regulations,  reducing 
administrative  burden  and  provision  of  better  services  in  support  of  growth  and 
competitiveness. 

Good governance and quality of public administrations are recognizably in the interests of 
the  citizens  and  Europe’s  Member  States,  to  achieve  best  value  from  finite  public  funds 
and create a regulatory environment that promotes employment and growth. Worldwide, 
the  evidence  is  irrefutable:  high  productivity,  high  income  per  head  economies  but  also 
countries  with  highest  quality  of  life  and  citizen  satisfaction  are  having  highly  effective 
and efficient government institutions.  

With around 75 million employees, the public sector is Europe’s biggest single ‘industry’, 
employing around 25% of the workforce (around 16% in central government alone)1 and 
responsible for almost  50% of  GDP2.  Given its scale and scope, public administration  – 
the  organisation  and  management  of  publicly  funded  resources  –  has  enormous 
importance  for  the  daily  lives  of  citizens,  but  also  the  performance  and  prospects  of 
businesses.  

Research  in  recent  years  provided  conclusive  evidence  that  government  quality  matters 
for  economic  performance  and  that  poor  government  in  lagging  areas  of  Europe 
represents a significant barrier to development. It has been pointed out that government 
quality  not  only  affects  economic  growth,  but  also  the  returns  of  European  cohesion 
policies  (Rodríguez-Pose  and  Garcilazo,  2015),  that  it  shapes  regional  competitiveness 
(Annoni, 2013), and that corrupt or inefficient governments undermine regional potential 
for innovation (Rodríguez-Pose and Di Cataldo, 2015) and entrepreneurship (Nistotskaya 
et  al.,  2015).  Moreover,  low  levels  of  quality  of  government  affect  the  attractiveness  of 
regions  to  migrants  (Ketterer  and  Rodríguez-Pose,  2015),  regional  environmental 
performance  (Halkos  et  al.,  2015),  decisions  on  the  type  of  public  good  investment 
(Crescenzi  et  al.,  2016),  as  well  as  threaten  inclusiveness  and  participation  in  political 
processes (Sundström and Wängnerud, 2014). 

High  quality  institutions  are  characterised  by  “the  absence  of  corruption,  a  workable 
approach to competition and procurement policy, an effective legal environment, and an 
independent  and  efficient  judicial  system.  [...]  strong  institutional  and  administrative 
capacity,  reducing  the  administrative  burden  and  improving  the  quality  of  legislation” 
(European  Commission,  2014,  p.  161).  Such  a  broad  definition  is  also  underpinned  by 
influential  academic  work  understanding  good  governance  as  the  impartial  exercise  of 
public power, that is focusing on policy implementation rather than the content of policies 
or  the  democratic  processes  through  which  they  were  decided  (Rothstein  &  Teorell, 
2008). 

There is a growing consensus that in order to enhance prosperity, human well-being and 
the  territorial  cohesion  of  the  EU,  quality  of  governance  or  quality  of  institutions  is  a 
fundamental precondition. The quality of a country’s institutions, both governmental and 

1  See  Nick  Thijs,  Gerhard  Hammerschmid  and  Enora  Palaric  (2017):  A  comparative  overview  of 
public  administration  characteristics  and  performance  in  the  EU28.  EUPACK  synthesis  report 
published by the European Commission, DGEMPL, Brussels November 2017.  

2 http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/national-accounts/data/database    

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Public Administration Reform in Europe:  

Conclusions, lessons learned and recommendations for future EU policy   

judicial, is a key determining factor for the well-being of its constituents. Administrative 
capacity  is  recognised  increasingly  as  a  pre-requisite  for  delivering  the  EU’s  treaty 
obligations and objectives, such as creating sustainable growth and jobs, and maximising 
the  benefits  from  EU  membership.  By  raising  productivity  prospects  and  expected  rates 
of return and by lowering uncertainty, good governance -and especially an effective and 
efficient government- encourage investments and have a positive effect on development 
(Kaufman  et  al.  (1999);  Walsh  and  Yu  (2010)).  The  graph  below  confirms  a  strong 
relation between government effectiveness (as measured by the World Bank Government 
Effectiveness Indicator) on the one hand and economic competitiveness (World Economic 
Forum indicator) on the other hand.  

s
s
e
n
e
v
i
t
i
t
e
p
m
o
C

Government effectiveness 

Figure 1: Economic impact of government effectiveness 
Data  source:  World  Bank  Government  Effectiveness  2015;  World  Economic  Forum.  The 
Global Competitiveness 2016-2017 

Social scientists also stress the importance of effective government rules and regulations 
for  the  wellbeing  of  societies  (North,  1990;  Ostrom,  1990;  Rothstein,  2011;  Holmberg 
and  Rothstein  2012)  and  there  is  broad  consensus  that  good  governance  is  a  pre-
requisite  for  long  term  and  sustainable  increase  in  living  standards  (Dellepiane-
Avellaneda, 2010). Good governance does not only promote economic prosperity but also 
has  strong  direct  implications  for  population  health,  people’s  access  to  services,  social 
trust,  political  legitimacy  and  people’s  subjective  wellbeing  (Halleröd  et  al.,  2013; 
Holmberg and Rothstein, 2012; Rothstein, 2011; Uslaner, 2008; Tavits, 2008; Svallfors, 
2013).  It  offers  an  explanation  to  why  living  conditions  vary  between  countries  and 
regions  with  approximately  the  same  GDP  per  capital.  There  is  evidence  for  a  strong 
correlation  of  government  effectiveness  not  only  with  competitiveness  but  also  with  life 
satisfaction of citizens as measured by the Eurobarometer (Standard Eurobarometer 83, 
Spring 2015) which confirms the high relevance quality of government plays in shaping 
peoples´ lives.  

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Public Administration Reform in Europe:  

Conclusions, lessons learned and recommendations for future EU policy   

n
o
i
t
c
a
f
s
i
t
a
S

e
f
i

L

n
e
z
t
i
t
i
C

Government Effectiveness  

Figure 2: Life satisfaction and government effectiveness 
Data Source:  World Bank Government  Effectiveness 2015; Standard  Eurobarometer 83, 
Spring 2015 

These days, government’s public authorities must be able to adjust to the dynamic and 
often disruptive changes in the economy and society. In an increasingly ‘connected’ and 
digitalized  but  uncertain  world,  policies  and  structures  that  have  been  successful  in  the 
past  might  not  be  sufficient  or  appropriate  to  serve  citizens  and  business  in  the  future. 
The ability to reflect today's needs and to anticipate tomorrow's, becoming agile enough 
to adapt to new challenges, must become permanent features of the public sector. Most 
of all, administrations must build on a solid foundation of being ethical, efficient, effective 
and accountable. 

Experience  in  Europe  in  the  past  two  decades  shows  different  administrative  reform 
paths  and  results3 
mainly  due  to  different  degrees  of  reform  capacity,  sustainability  of 
reform approach, coverage and a ‘fitting context’. The incentives that triggered the "New 
Public  management"  wave  of  reforms  in  older  Member  States  addressed  domestically 
recognised  needs  to  reduce  the  size  of  government  and  make  administration  more 
efficient.  Change  has  been  rationalised  through  accumulated  management  experience 
and exchange with peers. In new Member States, the "first wave" of reforms began with 
the  EU-accession  requirements4 
for  establishing  professional  and  de-politicised  civil 
service systems. The limited internal capacity was compensated with externally managed 

3 Christopher Pollitt and Sorin Dan. 2011. COCOPS Policy Brief 1: The Impact of New Public 
Management (NPM) Reforms in Europe. see http://www.cocops.eu/wp-
content/uploads/2013/07/COCOPS_PolicyBrief_1_newlayout.pdf   

4 http://www.sigmaweb.org  

8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
 
 
 
 
Public Administration Reform in Europe:  

Conclusions, lessons learned and recommendations for future EU policy   

support.  Limited  strategic  orientation  and  ownership  of  reforms5 
results6. 

however  led  to  mixed 

Assessments7  also  show  that  substantial  differences  in  quality  and  capacity  of  public 
administration  remain,  with  many  Southern  and  Eastern  European  countries  still 
demonstrating  capacity  and  performance  deficits  with  regard  to  key  areas  of  good 
governance. There is also the danger that these differences tend to increase due to slow 
adaptation  to  technological  change,  low  civic  engagement  and  more  limited  use  of 
evidence-based policy-making practices. 

In  the  end  everything  turns  around  on  the  question  of  how  government  systems  and 
public  administration  reform  (PAR)  is  (successfully!)  organized.  How  is  it  (successfully!) 
implemented and what factors (successfully!) support such system change? Finally, what 
influence  and  role  had  the  EU  so  far  in  supporting  reform,  both  quantitative  and 
qualitative? 

With the intention to enhance its knowledge and understanding of the status and reform 
dynamics  of  public  administration  in  EU  Member  States,  the  European  Commission 
carried  out  the  project  “Support  for  developing  better  country  knowledge  on  public 
administration  and  institutional  capacity  building”  (hereafter  EUPACK  –  EUropean  Public 
Administration  Country  Knowledge).  It  was  implemented  by  a  consortium  of  the 
European Institute of Public Administration, the Hertie School of Governance and Ramboll 
Management  Consulting,  with  the  support  of  a  wide  network  of  country  and  thematic 
experts,  between  October  2016  and  July  2018.  The  project  looked  also  into  the  effects 
and effectiveness of EU and other external support for improving its quality, with a view 
to better targeting EU support in this area in the future. 

This  report  summarises  the  key  conclusions  from  the  project8.  In  the  chapters  2  and  3 
the authors attempt to provide a synthesis reflection of the key trends and some answers 
to the questions outlined above, based on the results of the EUPACK research. Chapter 4 
derives to some key recommendations. 

5 For more information see thematic evaluations of the PHARE programme. 
6  Meyer-Sahling, J. (2009), “Sustainability  of  Civil Service  Reforms in Central and Eastern Europe 
Five  Years  After  EU  Accession”,  SIGMA  Papers,  No.  44,  OECD  Publishing;  Randma-Liiv,  T.  and 
Drechsler,  W.  (2017):  Three  decades,  four  phases:  Public  administration  development  in  Central 
and Eastern Europe, 1989-2017, International Journal of Public Sector Management, 30(6-7), 555-
565; Also WB, Administrative capacity in the new EU Member States : the limits of innovation? See 
http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2007/06/8187914/administrative-capacity-new-eu-
member-states-limits-innovation  
7 See for example Sustainable Governance Indicators http://www.sgi-network.org/2016/ or Public 
sector achievement in 36 countries 
https://www.scp.nl/Publicaties/Alle_publicaties/Publicaties_2015/Public_sector_achievement_in_36
_countries  

8  For  other  EUPACK  results  see:  A  Comparative  Overview  of  Public  Administration  Characteristics 
and 
at 
http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=738&langId=en&pubId=8072,  as  well  as  Public 
administration 
at 
and 
http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=738&langId=en&pubId=8123&furtherPubs=yes.  

characteristics 

performance 

Performance 

EU28 

EU28 

in 

in 

9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Public Administration Reform in Europe:  

Conclusions, lessons learned and recommendations for future EU policy   

  CHALLENGES  AND  KEY  LEARNINGS  FROM  PUBLIC  ADMINISTRATION  REFORM  PROCESSES 

IN THE 28 EU MEMBER STATES 

The overall state system, history and current politics and other cultural aspects of each EU 
member  countries  remain  decisive  factors  in  shaping  commitment  to  reforms  and  to 
particular  types  of  administrative  modernization.  This  is  also  reflected  in  two  of  our  key 
findings  or  challenges.First,  there  is  a  continuous  high  heterogeneity  among  the  EU 
Member States which has substantial implications on the outcomes of public administration 
reform.  Second,  in  many  areas  we  still  lack  valid  comparative  data  for  a  systematic 
assessment  of  public  administration  and  the  outcomes  of  public  administration  reforms. 
Most  country  findings  emphasise  the  lack  of  systematic  evidence  and  evaluations  with 
regard  to  the  success  of  administrative  reforms.  Most  countries  also  lack  a  central 
mechanism for monitoring and reporting on the progress of reforms. 

However,  despite  different  starting  points  our  analysis  of  the  28  EU  Member  States  also 
shows  interesting  commonalities.  The  most  striking  one  is  the  continuous  high  relevance 
and dynamic of public administration reform in the EU  Member States,  even in  countries, 
which  are  performing  relatively  well.  The  trend  of  a  rather  high  intensity  of  public 
administration reform, which has been observed for the years since the 1980s (Pollitt and 
Bouckaert  2017),  also  continued  in  the  last  decade  and  can  be  confirmed  for  all  EU 
Member States. 

With  regard  to  the  content  of  reform,  despite  all  country  differences,  we  see  substantial 
commonalities  in  the  topics  of  public  administration  reform.  These    are  also  increasingly 
influenced  by  agenda  setting  and  support  mechanisms  of  the  European  Commission  (e.g. 
with  regard  to  one  stop  shops,  regulatory  impact  assessment,  administrative  burden, 
digitalisation  and  open  government)  especially  in  the  Southern  and  Eastern  European 
Member States. The following most common reform trends observed in the 28 EU MS seem 
to be the key components of a “European” approach to public administration reform: 

  open  government  initiatives  and  reforms  to  strengthen  external  transparency  such 
as  freedom  of  information  legislation,  open  data,  procurement  reforms  and  the 
establishment of anticorruption authorities; 

 

civil  service  reform  with  a  focus  on  cutback  measures  to  reduce  size  and  costs  of 
government  employees,  a  strengthening  of  meritocracy,  improving  performance 
appraisals and introducing codes of conduct; 

  e-government  measures  such  as  the  establishment  of  portals  and  electronic 
signature solutions, the implementation of online services and development of one-
stop-shops in order to improve service delivery; 

 

reforms to strengthen  Centre of Government coordination capacity and the merger 
of agencies/independent bodies (mostly established in the NPM reform period); 

  performance  management  and  reforms  to  improve  productivity  and  strengthen 

result orientation; 

10 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Public Administration Reform in Europe:  

Conclusions, lessons learned and recommendations for future EU policy   

 

strengthening  of  evidence-based  policy-making  and  better  regulation  through 
different  tools  such  as  regulatory  impact  assessment,  ex-post  evaluation  or 
stakeholder consultation;  

 

the reduction of administrative burden on firms and citizens. 

Reforms  in  most  countries  were  driven  by  a  combination  of  government  changes  (14 
countries)  and  European  integration  pressures  (18  countries).  In  a  large  number  of 
countries  (15)  budget  pressure  and  the  financial  crisis  also  served  as  a  major  driver  of 
reform (see more below). The most important chance event mentioned in the reports was 
the independence of several countries whereas all other drivers such as citizen, business or 
trade union pressure do only play a very minor role in most EU Member States. 

Drivers 

Countries 

European integration/EU 

AT,  BE,  BG,  CY,  CZ,  DE,  EE,  EL,  ES,  HR,  HU,  IT,  LT,  LV,  MT, 
PL, RO, SI, SK 

Government change 

AT, BE, BG, DK, EE, EL, FR, HR, HU, IT, LU, MT, SE, UK 

Budgetary pressure/crisis 

CY, BG, DE (only local government level), DK, EL, ES, HU, IE, 
IT, FI, LT, NL, PL, SI, UK 

International 
Organizations/Creditors 

Chance events 

BE, BG, EL, IE, LT, LV, PT, RO, SK 

,CZ,  EE,  HR,  LT  and  LV 

CY 
IT (Tangendopoli corruption scandal)  

(all 

independence) 

Citizen pressure 

DK, ES, PL, RO, SI  

Demographic change 

ES, IT, FI 

Business pressure 

Lower government levels 

Trade Union pressure 

CY, HR 

ES, IT 

CY, LU 

Table 1: Key drivers of public administration reform  

(Source: EUPACK ) 

It  is  difficult  to  identify  common  patterns.  We  can  however  notice  that  the  reforms  in  a 
clear majority of 2/3 of the  EU countries are of a  rather  incremental nature, instead  of 
being  the  big-bang  reforms.  And  with  the  exception  of  Anglo-Saxon  and  Scandinavian 
countries there is a clear law based reform approach in all other EU countries.  

The  most  obvious  observation  on  the  nature  of  the  reforms  is  clearly  the  top-down 
approach.  Most  of  the  changes  have  been  predominantly  ‘top-down’,  in  the  sense  of 

11 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Public Administration Reform in Europe:  

Conclusions, lessons learned and recommendations for future EU policy   

having  been  conceived  and  executed  by  executive  politicians  and/or  senior  civil  servants. 
Public  administration 
the  hands  of 
political/administrative elites. 

thus  mostly 

in  Europe 

reform 

in 

is 

Responsibility  for  public  administration  reform  in  the  majority  of  EU  Member  States  is 
shared  between  different  Ministries  or  organisations  and  we  can  find  various  approaches 
for  the  coordination  of  administrative  reform.  In  many  countries,  we  observe  rather 
frequent structural changes in bodies responsible for PAR indicating the difficult role 
of such coordinating bodies. 

Our  country  analyses  and  synthesis  provides  strong  evidence  that  in  overall  public 
administration reform in the 28 EU Member States over the last decade hast been a rather 
mixed  bag  with  both  positive  and  negative  evidence  with  regard  to  the  overall 
success of reform agendas but also specific reform initiatives presented in the case 
studies.  As  already  noted  by  academic  scholars  (e.g.  Pollitt  and  Bouckaert  2017)  the 
country  analysis  also  shows  that  the  results  of  public  administration  reforms  are 
remarkably  difficult  to  pin  down  and  the  different  country  reports  consistently  emphasise 
the  lack  of  systematic  evidence  and  evaluations  with  regard  to  the  success  of 
administrative  reforms.  Most  countries  also  lack  a  central  mechanism  for  monitoring  and 
reporting on the progress of reforms. 

Based  on  our  systematic  country-comparative  analysis  of  public  administration  reform 
dynamics  along  key  dimensions  of  public  administration  reform  (1.  Transparency  and 
accountability,  2.  Civil  service  system  and  HRM,  3.  Service  delivery  and  digitalization,  4. 
Organization  and  management  of  government,  5.  Policy-making,  coordination  and 
regulation)  and  a  framework  to  assess  country  public  administration  capacity  and 
performance  developed  as  part  of  EUPAK,  some  more  encouraging  learnings  could  be 
drawn, summarized and illustrated from the study.    

Organization and Management of Government 

In  the  area  of  organisation  and  management  of  government,  the  last  decade  has  been 
characterised  both  by  the  continuation  of  decentralisation  and  devolvement  as  well  as  a 
reduction of the number of local governments. At central government level, many MS have 
also  tried  to  improve  horizontal  coordination  and  strengthen  centres  of  government 
capacity,  to  reduce  the  number  of  agencies  but  also  to  strengthen  performance 
management and target orientation. Lastly, many EU countries have reformed their budget 
procedures in order to better link it with strategic planning and government performance. 

A key trend in the reform of the organisation of the central government in the EU MS has 
been  the  reduction  of  the  number  of  agencies  especially  through  mergers.  Although  we 
observe an important variety in terms of number of agencies across EU Member States, in 
many EU countries the wave of agencification in the 1990s and beginning of the 2000s has 
been followed by an opposite wave of de-agencification. This has been especially the case 

12 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Public Administration Reform in Europe:  

Conclusions, lessons learned and recommendations for future EU policy   

in  Northern  European  countries  such  as  Finland  and  Sweden9  where  agencies  have 
traditionally been an important feature of central government even before the 1990s, and 
in  Central  and  Eastern  European  countries  where  the  number  of  agencies  had  grown 
significantly prior to the EU accession. 

Parallel to the reduction of the number agencies, many EU MS have sought to improve the 
central steering  and coordination capacity, using approaches such as strengthening Centre 
of  Government  organisations,  strategic  frameworks,  performance  measurement  and 
management by objectives. 

Within  the  dimension  “Organization  and  management  of  government”,  the  aspect 
“strategic  planning  capacity”  indicates  well  to  what  extent  country’s  governments  are 
better prepared than others, since holistic and integrated PAR approaches can only be put 
into practice if clear visions, well-defined objectives and political commitment exist. 

Based  on  this  indicator,  three  Scandinavian  countries  (Denmark,  Finland,  Sweden)  in 
addition to the UK and the Baltic countries Latvia and Lithuania seem to have the highest 
strategic planning capacity of government among all EU Member States. Southern Eastern 
countries  such  as  Slovenia,  Romania,  Greece  and  Cyprus,  but  also  Hungary,  surprisingly 
Germany and Luxembourg score rather low on this indicator.  

Strategic  planning  capacity  needs  to  be  complemented  by  an  “implementation  capacity” 
allowing  governments 
into  practice.  The  Bertelsmann  SGI 
“Implementation  capacity 
indicator”  combines  both  qualitative  and  quantitative 
assessments based on 7 dimensions (1) government efficiency, (2) ministerial compliance, 
(3) monitoring ministries, (4) monitoring agencies and bureaucracies, (5) task funding, (6) 
constitutional discretion and (7) national standards to assess implementation capacity. 

their  plans 

to  put 

While a rather strong correspondence  exists with this indicator in relation to the strategic 
planning capacity, some interesting country differences  occur. The  EUPACK project shows 
that  Sweden,  Luxembourg,  Poland,  and  also  France  and  Germany,  are  ranked  clearly 
higher  with  regard  to  “implementation  capacity”.  Contrary,  Croatia  seems  to  be  much 
stronger in strategic planning than in implementation. 

9 In Sweden the movement of agency mergers started early compared to most EU countries. In the 
last  20  years  280  agencies  were  turned  into  12,  and  in  2015  21  regional  police  agencies  and  the 
central  government  police  agency  were    merged  into  one  central  police  agency  (Government  Bill 
2013/14:110). 

13 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Public Administration Reform in Europe:  

Conclusions, lessons learned and recommendations for future EU policy   

Figure 3: Strategic planning capacity (from 1 lowest to 10 highest) 

Source: Bertelsmann Stiftung; Sustainable Governance Indicators 

As  a  learning  point,  having  strong  overarching  strategies  guiding  the  government  and  its 
administration  towards  a  more  sustainable  and  holistic  reform  (beyond  a  political 
legislation)  is  key  for  its  success.  These  countries  also  illustrate  a  very  active  attitude 
towards  their  respective  futures.  The  strong  need  for  strategic  space  in  order  to  create 
their futures instead  of  simply  drifting into the  future can boldly be highlighted in several 
country cases mentioned.  

Surprisingly or not, an important element under the same dimension is that many reforms 
are  or  were  driven  by  budgetary  (constraints)  reasons  and  the  need  to  modernize  the 
administration’s accounting system and related spending reviews have increased following 
the  economic  crisis.  The  EUPACK  analysis  showed  that  many  reforms  were  or  are  in  the 
hands  of  the  Ministry  of  Finance  or  ministerial  departments  (incl.  the  prime  minister’s 
office) with responsibility of/for budgetary issues. 

We  find  evidence  for  a  high  intensity  of  such  reforms  in  12  countries  and  a  moderate 
intensity  in  further  11  countries.  Only  three  countries  (CZ,  EL,  PT)  show  a  rather  low 
number of reforms in this area. Reforming organisation and management of government is 
driven  both  by  the  aim  of  service/policy  improvement  (16  countries)  and  cost-saving  (10 
countries). With regard to the progress of these reforms according to our country experts 
progress  seems  to  be  high  in  AT,  CY,  DK,  EE,  ES,  FI,  FR,  IE,  MT,  NL  and  UK.  A  similar 
number  of  countries  is  characterised  by  a  rather  moderate/mixed  reform  progress  but 
there  are  also  some  countries  such  as  BG,  CZ,  EL,  IT,  LV  and  PL  with  only  low  reform 

14 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Public Administration Reform in Europe:  

Conclusions, lessons learned and recommendations for future EU policy   

progress. In a surprisingly large number of countries (DK, EE, ES, FI, FR, IE, MT, NL, UK) 
high reform activity responds with high reform progress. Only in LT and SE did high reform 
activity result only in moderate or mixed reform success. 

Many  of  these  reforms  aim  to  improve  strategic  and  implementation  capacity  of 
government.  A  look  at  the  government  indicators,  provided  by  the  Bertelsmann  Stiftung 
SGI system, indicates, however, a rather high stability of these two outcome areas despite 
the  large  number  of  reforms  (see  figure  18  and  19).  With  regard  to  strategic  planning 
capacity,  the  SGI  shows  improvements  for  the  period  2014-2016  for  only  six  countries 
(CZ, CZ, HR, IE, MT and UK). In contrast, strategic planning capacity did deteriorate (EL, 
LV) in two countries only. With regard to implementation capacity a rather similar number 
of countries did improve (CY, DE, ES, IE, IT, MT) and deteriorate (EL, FR, LV, NL, PT, SE, 
SK) between 2014 and 2016. 

Civil service system and HRM 

In this context, an important (other) factor to the above for the implementation of PARs or 
in  other  words  wider  “change  processes”  and  its  level  of  success  is  related  to  another 
dimension, the type of  “Civil Service System and HRM” in place, including the senior  civil 
service  (SCS)  or  top  public  management  systems  (TPM).  Here  elements  of  knowledge  in 
the  SCS  and  the  relational  resources  determine  the  leaders’  mobilization  capacity  of  the 
persons in the system, i.e. the capacity to act collectively.  

HRM measures can be separated in seven types: 

salary system, 
training system, 
cost-saving measures, 

-  public employment (e.g downsizing), 
- 
- 
- 
-  working hours and working time, 
- 
- 

job security, 
 employment status.  

The EUPACK country analysis confirm that as many HRM reforms in the EU Member States 
have been aimed towards saving costs and increasing flexibility and have especially been 
prevalent  in  countries  stronger  hit  by  the  financial  crisis.  A  quite  different  direction  and 
objective  of  reforms  in  HRM  has  been  to  increase  professionalism,  meritocracy  and 
reducing politicisation, for example by introducing rules promoting meritocratic recruitment 
or by measuring staff performance. 

Indicators  such  as  impartiality,  professionalism  and  closeness  from  the  Quality  of 
Government  Institute  expert  survey  serve  well  to  assess  this  dimension.  The 
Professionalism index  –for instance- measures  to what  extent the public administration is 
professional  rather  than  politicized.  Higher  values  indicate  a  more  professional  public 

15 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Public Administration Reform in Europe:  

Conclusions, lessons learned and recommendations for future EU policy   

sector. In overall this index shows in our case a rather high consistency to the impartiality 
indicator  –“The  more  professional,  more  impartial  or  vice-versa  the  CSC  is!”-  with  some 
interesting  differences:  Ireland  in  addition  to  the  known  Scandinavian  countries  ranks 
much  better  with  regard  to  professionalism  whereas  Belgium  and  Malta  are  ranked 
significantly  lower.  Quite  different  developments  for  the  period  2012  till  2015  show  clear 
improvements  for  Germany,  Greece,  Latvia,  Poland,  Romania  and  Slovenia  whereas  the 
surveyed experts saw a decrease of professionalism in Bulgaria, Hungary and Slovakia. 

A key challenge to address with regard to element is the effect of an ageing population on 
the staffing of public services. Since 2010 many European Member States are experiencing 
an increasing wave of retirement that will leave some public agencies with only a very thin 
layer  of  experience  at  the  top.  According  to  the  OECD  (2009,  72)  “maintaining  the 
government´s capacity to deliver the same level and quality of services remains a complex 
issue. Significant staff  departures create an  opportunity to bring staff with new skills into 
government, downsize the workforce where needed, decrease staff costs… and re-allocate 
human resources across sectors.” However, this can lead to loss of capacity and raises the 
question of how the public sector can position itself as attractive employer for young talent 
in an increasingly competitive job market. 

As part of the EUPACK project, data was collected to provide additional insights on the EU 
Member States` civil service / HR capacity. The share of employees older than 50 years as 
key  indicator  for  the  increasing  demographic  pressure  is  worrying  in  many  countries. 
Member  States  such  as  Spain,  Italy  and 
Belgium  will  see  between  47  and  64%  of 
their  public  administration  retire  over  the 
next  15  years.  At  the  same  time  we  find 
several  countries  (France,  Malta,  Hungary 
and  Sweden)  with  a  comparatively  higher 
share  of  ‘younger’  employees.  Italy  is  the 
country  strongest  affected  by  an  aging 
workforce, with a high share of ‘older’ staff 
(55%)  and  a  rather  small  share  of  a 
‘younger’ generation (6.8%).  

Figure 4: Share of governments employees aged 50 or older 

Source: Thijs, Hammerschmid and Palaric (2017; EUPACK) 

In  a  nutshell,  PARs  always  are  located  in  contexts  where  structural  shifts  can  create 
opportunities  for  change.  Public  leaders  have  to  be  able  to  identify  the  arenas  where  key 

16 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Public Administration Reform in Europe:  

Conclusions, lessons learned and recommendations for future EU policy   

resources  and  regulatory  powers  lie,  where  real  change  can  be  made,  as  well  as 
embodying the capacity for sustained targeting of these fields in the rest of the system. As 
stressed  before,  solid  strategic  architectures  (for  reform)  and  their  subsequent 
achievements  are  quantifiable  evidence  of  their  leaders’  and  managers’  capacities  to 
choose the right arenas for change and to target it sustainably. The most important factor 
for  mobilising  administrations  towards  desired  reforms  is  having  access  to  (e.g.  new, 
young) skilled/professional/impartial ‘change agents’ or leading actors to operate at critical 
‘nodal  points’  in  the  civil  service  systems  on  the  ways  to  ‘power’.  These  are  often 
individuals (can be seniors or “young talents”!) who can inspire and drive the organisation 
with their own values to reform.  

With  regard  to  the  progress  of  civil  service  and  HRM  reforms  according  to  our  country 
experts progress seems to be high in BG, CY, EE, ES, HU, IE, NL, PT and UK. A majority of 
countries  is  characterised  by  a  rather  moderate/mixed  reform  progress  and  the  only 
countries with low reform progress are CZ, LU and SE where these reforms have not been 
prioritized.  In  countries  such  as  BG,  CY,  ES,  IE  or  PT  high  reform  activity  responds  with 
high reform progress. For other countries such as BE, FR, IT, LT or RO high reform activity 
led  to  only  moderate  or  mixed  reform  success  whereas  countries  such  as  EE,  HU  or  UK 
were more successful in achieving rather high progress of reforms. 

Policy Making and Coordination 

In  the  area  of  “Policy  making  and  coordination”  a  great  part  of  reform  in  the  EU  MSs  is 
influenced by the so called “better regulation agenda”. Many EU countries have introduced 
a compulsory assessment of the impact of primary and/or secondary legislation as part of 
the  policy-making  process,  and  France  was  the  first  country  to  make  this  exercise  a 
constitutional requirement in 2008. 

While the Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) tool has spread widely across the EU in the 
last twenty years, more recently a number of EU countries have adopted other innovative 
instruments  for  evidence-based  policy-making.  The  UK  for  instance  has  made  efforts  to 
strengthen  experimentation,  launching  the  What  Works  Centres  in  2013  and  creating  the 
Cross-Government  Trial  Advice  Panel  in  2015  in  order  to  bring  together  experts  from 
across  the  civil  service  and  academia  to  collaborate  on  capacity  building  for  policy 
experimentation.  

Besides  efforts  to  improve  the  quality  of  legislation,  virtually  all  EU  countries  have 
conducted initiatives to simplify legislation and reduce the administrative burden. Although 
the  strategies  adopted  by  each  country  in  order  to  limit  the  regulatory  burden  on 
businesses and  citizens vary,  one very  successful instrument has been the  'standard cost 
model' introduced first in the Netherlands. 

The  indicator  “regulatory  quality  and  capacity”  of  a  country’s  government  in  this  context 
remains  a  key  influencer  of  the  success  of  today’s  PARs,  again  seen  by  top  performers 

17 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Public Administration Reform in Europe:  

Conclusions, lessons learned and recommendations for future EU policy   

such  as  the  Scandinavian  countries,  the  Netherlands  (as  indicated  above)  and  the  UK 
followed by the group of continental European and Baltic countries.  

With  regard  to  regulation,  the  regulatory  quality  indicator  collected  by  the  World  Bank 
captures  perceptions  of  the  ability  of  government  to  formulate  and  implement  sound 
policies  and  regulations  that  permit  and  promote  private  sector  development.  This 
measure is constructed by using over 50 representative and non-representative items from 
15  different  sources.  As  the  graph  shows  regulatory  quality  based  on  this  indicators  is 
highest in both the Anglo-Saxon countries (UK and Ireland) and the Scandinavian countries 
(Finland,  Sweden,  Denmark)  but  the  also  the  Netherlands,  Germany,  Luxembourg  and 
Estonia  score  rather  high.  Most  of  these  countries  also  seem  to  have  improved  their 
regulatory  quality  over  the  period  2010-2015.  In  contrast,  we  can  observe  an  even 
decreasing regulatory quality for the countries which already were characterized by a lower 
regulatory quality in 2010.  

Graph: Regulatory Quality from approximately -2.5 (weak) to 2.5 (strong) 

Source: World Bank Governance Indicators 

The  coherence  of policy-making coordination is strongly affected by key characteristics of 
the state system. Based on the analyses from the EUPACK project coordination quality and 
fragmentation are an important challenge to be addressed in most EU countries. Although 
coordination is facilitated in a less fragmented administrative and political system, the two 
dimensions  are  not  synonymous.  This  is  also  how  the  position  of  Lithuania  needs  to  be 
explained. There is high coordination at the higher levels of hierarchy, lower at lower levels 

18 

00,511,522,5UKFIIESENLDKDELUEEATBELTMTFRLVCZCYPLPTSKESHUITSIROBGELHR20102015 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Public Administration Reform in Europe:  

Conclusions, lessons learned and recommendations for future EU policy   

of the ministerial hierarchy. On the other hand the overall system is highly fragmented in 
terms  of  divergence  in  the  number  of  subordinate  institutions  accountable  to  the 
government and municipalities. 

Transparency and Accountability 

In  terms  of  the  dimension  “Transparency  and  Accountability”,  governments  increasingly 
acknowledge  the  role  of  open  government  reforms  as  catalysts  for  public  governance, 
democracy  and  inclusive  growth  (OECD  2016).  Due  to  shifting  expectations  and  new 
technologies  the  opening  up  of  government  processes,  proceedings,  documents  and  data 
for  public  scrutiny  and  involvement  is  now  considered  a  fundamental  element  of  a 
democratic society.  

A lot of reforms have been launched and implemented in the 28 EU Member States making 
it one of the key areas of administrative reform especially in CEE and Southern European 
countries. In particular we can distinguish three main types of reform:  

  measures  to  counter  corruption  and  promote  ethics  among  policy-makers  and 

officials;  

  measures to strengthen access to government information; and  

  measures to increase government accountability. 

However,  the  question  is  how  far  these  measures  had  a  positive  impact  on  the 
administrative  capacity  to  ensure  transparency,  participation,  accountability  and  the 
prevention of corruption and how the public administration is performing in this area.  

For  instance,  addressing  corruption  and  the  misuse  of  public  sources  continues  to  be  an 
issue  in  several  EU  Member  States.  A  commonly  accepted  indicator  is  the  “Transparency 
International  Corruption  Perception  Index”  (CPI)  based  on  9  data  sources.  A  look  at  this 
indicator shows substantial differences between the  EU  Member States with Scandinavian 
and  Western  European  countries  scoring  the  highest.  It  is  also  a  positive  sign  that 
especially the countries already scoring lower in 2010 saw a substantial improvement over 
the  last  5  years.  This  is  especially  the  case  in  Latvia,  Greece,  Slovakia,  Croatia  and 
Lithuania.  In  overall  however  11  countries  have  a  score  lower  than  60,  indicating  a  clear 
need for further policies and measures to tackle corruption.  

19 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Public Administration Reform in Europe:  

Conclusions, lessons learned and recommendations for future EU policy   

Figure 5: Perception of corruption 

Source: Transparency International Corruption Perception Index 

An  indicator-based  assessment  of  all  28  EU  Member  States  conducted  as  part  of  the 
transparency  and 
EUPACK  project  shows  substantial  variations  with  regard 
accountability  and  that  this  area  is  posing  a  specific  challenge  in  Southern  and  Eastern 
Europe whereas Denmark, Finland and Sweden are scoring especially high (see Thijs et al. 
2017). 

to 

As  a  learning  point  in  this  context,  higher  transparency  and  accountability  both  improve 
better  policies  and  promote  public  sector  integrity,  which  is  essential  to  regaining  and 
maintaining citizens' trust in government. 

With regard to the progress of accountability and transparency reforms progress seems to 
be highest in CY, ES, FR, HU, IE, LT, NL, PL and SE. For several countries such as BG, CZ, 
HR and IT high reform activity led to only moderate or mixed reform success. In contrast 
countries  such  as  CY,  FR,  IE,  LT  or  PL  were  more  successful  in  achieving  rather  high 
progress of reforms. 

Service Delivery and Digitalisation 

With  regard  to  the  last  dimension  “Service  delivery  and  digitalization”  we  can  observe  a 
high  level  of  initiatives  and  one  of  the  main  reform  trends  in  the  last  ten  years.  These 
initiatives range from overall programs to raise the efficiency and quality of public services 
(via  frameworks,  standards  such  as  CAF),  increase  access  to  services  and  customer 
orientation  (e.g.  citizen/service,  charters,  customer  surveys,  feedback,  complaints, 
mystery  shopping,  design  principles,  evaluation/co-production,  ombuds-services)  and 
initiatives  to  enhance  the  businesses  environment  (e.g.  starting  a  business,  running  a 
business,  trading  across  borders,  insolvency),  eGovernment  and  ICT  enabled  innovation 

20 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Public Administration Reform in Europe:  

Conclusions, lessons learned and recommendations for future EU policy   

(digitalization  of  internal  processes,  digital  services,  interoperability/once  only,  facilitating 
contact  with  citizens  and  businesses,  digital  by  default,  risks  of  a  digital  gap,  etc.)  and 
public sector innovation (e.g. establishing innovation labs) in a broader sense. 

A  recent  citizen  survey  conducted  by  Eurostat  indicates  that  a  majority  of  European 
citizens are positive about the provision of public services in their country: 52% say that it 
is “good” which is an improvement compared with the survey conducted in spring 2016. In 
18 Member States more respondents have positive than negative opinions and satisfaction 
is  especially  high  in  Luxembourg,  the  Netherlands,  Finland  and  Germany.  However  there 
are  still  44%  of  all  EU  citizens  not  satisfied  with  public  services  and  a  clear  majority  of 
negative assessments in 10 Member States.  

Figure 6: Citizen Satisfaction with the provision of public services (in %) 

Source: Eurobarometer 87.3 May 2017 (QA1a.6)  

E-Government  and  electronic  services  and  the  creation  of  related  one-stop-shops 
aiming  at  providing  a  single  point  of  contact  with  the  administration  significantly  have 
increased and improved in all EU MSs. Clear progress can also be observed with regard to 
digitalisation which has developed towards the most relevant reform agenda over the last 
decade.  Data  provided  by  the  EC  in  the  Digital  Economy  and  Society  Index  (DESI)  show 
that  both  the  share  of  e-government  users  as  well  as  the  online  service  completion  has 
substantially  improved  in  most  EU  Member  States  between  2013  and  2015  (see  figure  7 
and  8).  Only  in  the  Netherlands,  Sweden,  Slovenia  and  Slovakia  the  share  of  e-
government  users  has  declined,  whereas  online  completion  improved  in  all  EU  Member 

21 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Public Administration Reform in Europe:  

Conclusions, lessons learned and recommendations for future EU policy   

States. Estonia is the country with the highest progress in these two indicators, followed by 
Latvia, Finland and France. 

Figure 7: E-government users in % of individuals aged 16-74 (source EC DESI)  

Figure 8: Online Service Completion (source EC DESI)  

The latest “eGovernment Benchmark 2017” report10 also shows significant improvement on 
cross-border  availability  of  digital  public  services  and  accessibility  of  public  websites  from 
mobile  devices  in  EU  Member  States.  The  top  5  overall  performers  are  Malta,  Denmark, 
Sweden  and  Estonia  which  are  seen  as  countries  that  “lead  the  way  forward  to  fulfil 
Europe’s ambition of creating a Digital Single Market.” The study also indicates a need for 

10 https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/new-study-egovernment-services-
europe-improving-cross-border-availability-services  

22 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Public Administration Reform in Europe:  

Conclusions, lessons learned and recommendations for future EU policy   

improvement in transparency of public services delivery and use of supporting technology 
like  eIDs  or  eDocuments.  The  report  also  confirms  that  user  centricity  is  the  most 
advanced  dimension  of  online  public  services  in  Europe,  emphasising  the  focus  of 
governments to bring more public information and services online. Europe records a 12% 
increase in online availability of services and the gap between worst  and best performing 
countries is also closing. 

The spectacular progress Estonia made over the past years in this area is well known. This 
is  confirmed  in  the  EUPACK  e-Government  indicators  used,  too.  With  this  evolution  it 
positions  itself  at  the  top  of  the  Scandinavian  digital  frontrunners  followed  by  the 
Netherlands  and  Ireland.  In  addition  to  the  countries  mentioned  Malta,  Austria  and 
Portugal are also the best ranked Member States in this area. 

Another area with substantial improvements over the last decade is administrative burden. 
The commonly used World Bank Indicator “Ease of Doing Business” shows a rather positive 
picture of an overall improvement in nearly all EU Member States (especially strong in PL, 
CZ, RO, Sl, ES, HR and EL) and a clear pattern of convergence over the period 2011 and 
2016 (see figure 9).  

Figure  9:  World  Bank  Ease  of  Doing  Business  Indicator  (Source:  World  Bank;  see 
EUPACK  report  “A  Comparative  overview  of  public  administration  characteristics  and 
performance in EU28”11) 

Summarizing,  it  is  important  to  stress  that  the  interconnectivity  of  ICT-enabled  solutions 
must  be  across  all  administrative  entities  (both  horizontal  and  vertical)  and  linked  to  the 
reengineering of the back office of the administration - this being realised on a large scale. 
A  stakeholder-centered  governance  and  the  ‘needs  of  citizens  first’  approach  combined 

11 http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=738&langId=en&pubId=8072 

23 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Public Administration Reform in Europe:  

Conclusions, lessons learned and recommendations for future EU policy   

with  all  facets  regarding  full  transparency  measures  of  the  administrative  operations  as 
well  as  decisive  political  leadership  are  needed  in  order  to  enhance  efficiency  and  overall 
performance and success of digitalization in the public administration and its society.  

Overall, we can find evidence for improvements in most EU Member States with regard to 
transparency  but  also  service  delivery  and  digitalisation.  Progress  seems  to  be 
substantially  lower  in  the  areas  of  civil  service  and  HRM  reform  and  policymaking  and 
coordination.  The  area  most  difficult  to  assess  is  organisation  and  management  of 
governments where no clear pattern is discernible.  

We  also  find  clear  variations  in  the  reform  activity  and  reform  progress  but  also  with 
regard  to  prioritization  of  reforms.  A  rather  high  overall  reform  activities  over  the  last 
decade (assessed based on the number and relevance of  reform initiatives) can be  found 
for  IE,  LT,  LT,  FR,  HR,  IT  and  MT  whereas  the  reports  indicate  EL,  LU  and  SK  as  rather 
hesitant reformers. Looking at single reforms, we find a rather high overall progress in CY, 
EE, FR, IE, NL, FI and ES and the lowest progress in IT, LV, RO and Sl. For HR, IT and MT 
we  find  a  combination  of  high  reform  activity  and  low  progress,  indicating  substantial 
implementation challenges. In contrast, countries such as EE, ES, FI, FR, IE and NL seem 
to be rather effective in the implementation of their reforms. 

24 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Public Administration Reform in Europe:  

Conclusions, lessons learned and recommendations for future EU policy   

  THE ROLE OF THE EU IN SUPPORTING PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REFORM 

Without doubts, the EU over the last years has an increasing influence in various topics of 
public  administration  and  its  reform,  especially  in  Eastern  Europe  since  accession  started 
back in 2004. As stated earlier, EU integration was (and is) a major driver of change and 
reforms in countries that aim to join the European Union. The financial support provided by 
the EU has been rather of instrumental nature and a driver for change in many countries, 
however often with a stronger focus on “absorption” than on real improvement. This per se 
is not negative, but logical due to the (lack of) maturity of some the respective benefiting 
public administrations, where such administrative reform largely depends on external (EU) 
funding.  However,  more  difficult  reforms  were  not  always  carried  out  or  more  rarely 
funded, i.e. the most important issues often remain under-resourced.  

In  the  public  administration  projects  mapped  and  categorised  in  the  EUPACK,  the  largest 
shares of ESF support for reforms went towards service delivery and digitalization – which 
is  also  the  area  with  evidence  for  substantial improvements  –,  while  other  core  functions 
such  as  organisation  and  management  of  government,  civil  service  systems  and  HRM 
received less support.  

The largest share of funding went towards training12. A similar pattern was seen in projects 
under  the  current  programming  period  (projects  decided/planned  until  end  March  2017) 
with the main change being an increased focus on digitalisation (39% of planned amounts 
at  end  March  2017).  See  the  figure  below  for  the  EU  support  to  public  administration  in 
2007-2013 funding period. 

12  Training is  not a dimension, but since many  projects funded target specifically training as a core 

activity it was added in the categorisation. 

25 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Public Administration Reform in Europe:  

Conclusions, lessons learned and recommendations for future EU policy   

Figure 10 EU support per dimension, 2007 to 2013  
(based on sample of mapped projects) 

The  main  target  of  EU  support,  and  consequently  key  beneficiary,  has  been  the  central 
government while service delivery happens mostly at lower levels, regarding less the type 
of  government  structure  in  place,  e.g.  unitary,  decentralized  or  regionalized.  In  the  ESF 
2007-2013 projects mapped as a part of the EUPACK project, 90 % of the funding went to 
national  level  beneficiaries  (ministries,  central  agencies  etc.)  and  the  current  period  the 
share was even higher after two years of implementation. Local and municipal beneficiaries 
were  however  the  most  frequent,  with  only  5%  of  the  funding  3,395  projects  were 
implemented  at  the  local  and  municipal  levels,  hence  a  considerable  number  of  small 
projects. The picture in the current programming period is so far similar.  

issues  challenges 

The  picture  emerging  from  the  mapping  underscore  the  instrumental  nature  of  the  EU 
support,  and  the  difficulty  in  moving  the  support  provided  to  a  more  strategic  level  to 
address  key 
in  public  administration,  such  as  accountability, 
transparency and policy making. Even though the EC have sought to mitigate this through 
different means (stronger links to the CSRs and Ex ante conditionality requiring a National 
Strategic  Framework  for  reforms),  the  fact  still  remain  that  several  Member  States  have 
weak strategic planning capacities as discussed earlier in the report. Although the different 
criteria are met “on paper”, the impact or actual changes in how reforms are delivered, is 
difficult to identify. That said, the mapping of projects in the current programming period 
(2014-2020),  does  indicate  a  change  towards  fewer  dimensions  per  country  (e.g.  higher 
concentration)  and  less  dispersed  support  in  terms  of  policy  areas  targeted.  While  the 

26 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Public Administration Reform in Europe:  

Conclusions, lessons learned and recommendations for future EU policy   

mapping  took  place  in  an  early  stage  of  the  period,  this  may  be  connected  to  stronger 
requirements on strategic orientation. 

In  terms  of  results  (as  in  actual  improvements/changes)  of  the  EU  support,  the  research 
conducted  does  not  allow  for  clear-cut  conclusions.  A  key  message  for  all  Member  States 
that  received  support  to  public  administration reform  is  that  the  funding  was  essential  to 
the  implementation  of  the  activities  funded.  While  some  substitution/replacement  effects 
can be seen, it does not appear to be the norm or general practice. Funding was seen as 
key  both  to  “kick-start”  and  trigger  reform  initiatives  and  also  for  more  long-term 
implementation  and  sustaining  of  reform  work,  with  no  specific  patter  in  terms  of 
dimensions,  levels  or  type  of  support  provided.  In  particular,  more  expensive  reforms 
related  to  digitalisation  and  eGovernment  were  to  a  large  extent  dependent  on  the  ESF 
support.  As  illustrated  by  the  reform  examples  below  (non-exhaustive)  the  results 
achieved are highly dependent on contextual factors, political drive and not least strategic 
planning and long-term vision.  

Monitoring and Evaluation 

The country assessment revealed that little concerted effort has taken place at the Member 
State  level  to  monitor  reform  initiatives.  This  is  valid  both  for  national  reforms 
implemented  with  own  sources  and  reforms  implemented  with  the  support  of  EU  funds. 
While  certain  reform  initiatives/projects  may  be  monitored  on  a  regular  basis  (mainly 
implementation  monitoring),  coherent  monitoring  across  different  sectors  or  policy 
initiatives appears not to take place.  

The  monitoring  of  EU  support  is  mandatory  for  common  indicators  stipulated  in  the  legal 
framework for the funds. This is largely complied with, but the indicators are not adapted 
to  PAR  support,  and  say  little  about  progress  or  changes  achieved.  The  Ex  Ante 
conditionality  required  a  monitoring  framework  to  be  in  place  for  the  national  strategic 
framework  for  PAR,  but  in  most  countries  this  seem  to  exist  only  on  paper  and  not  in 
reality (e.g. no system in place to collect information on indicators, reporting on indicators, 
no organisation clearly mandate to perform monitoring). 

In  no  country  was  it  possible  to  find  a  link  between  the  different  levels  of  monitoring 
(national, EU support and PAR framework). 

There  is  also  little  evidence  of  systematic  long-term  evaluations  of  reforms  taking  place, 
which  attempt  to  assess  the  impact  and  effects  of  reforms,  intended  and  unintended,  to 
draw  lessons  learned.  It  appears  that  successive  knowledge  generation  is  not  prioritised, 
and when evaluations take place it is more driven by accountability demands. 

EUPACK  presented  clear  evidence  for  this  importance  and  positive  effect  of  EU 
interventions on the reform dynamics. The external influence of the EU, EU funding, and 
the  wider  EU-context  in  terms  of  strategic  direction  and  best  practices  in  several  EU 

27 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Public Administration Reform in Europe:  

Conclusions, lessons learned and recommendations for future EU policy   

countries have both provided the blue print for reform and secured political consensus for 
reforms. Here, too, this seems to be more relevant for eGovernment reforms than for civil 
service reform (as a whole), with the latter being more complex and stronger affected by 
the legacy of existing arrangements. 

Public management reforms in the new EU Member States were heavily influenced by the 
prospect  of  EU  membership,  it  is  no  longer  true  in  the  post-accession  period.  Following 
their  accession  to  the  EU  the  ex-ante  control  of  the  EC  was  replaced  with  much  weaker 
instruments  of  the  ex-post  control  in  the  case  of  non-implementation  or  delayed 
implementation. 

In  Bulgaria,  for  example,  the  EU´s  external  influence  and  funding  support  was  the  key 
driver  for  the  steady  and  continuous  progress  of  reducing  administrative  burden.  And 
similar, civil service reform did not reach the agenda before it was pushed by the EU. The 
commitment of all recent government to civil service reform can be seen as a result of EU 
financial  support  through  the  operational  programs  tied  to  results  and  the  pre-accession 
and  post-accession  conditionality.  As  one  interviewed  expert  has  argued,  without  EU 
funding,  incentives  for  administrative  reform  would  not  exist.  Yet,  EU’s  ability  to  exercise 
external pressure has been much greater in the pre-accession period, as evidenced by the 
fact that most reform effort were concentrated between 1999-2007, while reform efforts in 
the last decade have subsided both in terms of commitment and results. 

Similar  dynamics  can  be  observed  in  Croatia  where  EU  accession  has  significantly 
influenced  the  content  and  development  of  transparency  and  openness  policy.  Long 
accession  period,  firm  monitoring  and  support  from  the  EU  side  provided  time  for  its 
continuous  development  and  gave  it  a  status  of  an  inevitable  component  of  the  Croatian 
public  administration  along  with  European  values,  principles,  standards  and  policies 
(Koprić, 2017).  

In  Lithuania,  ESF  assistance  allowed  authorities  to  focus  on  improving  quality  and 
accessability  of  public  services  despite  an  overall  strong  cutback  agenda  (Rauleckas, 
Nakrošis, Šnapštienė and Šarkutė, 2016).  

Also  in  Romania,  affected  by  frequent  change  of  governments,  EU  involvement  had  an 
important  effect  on  ensuring  sustainability  of  transparency  reform  across  different 
governments. 

We  however  also  found  some  more  critical  assessments  of  EU  involvement  and 
funding  support.  It  is  argued  that  the  efficiency  of  EU  funding  does  not  depend  on  the 
form or type of funding, but mostly on the  willingness  of the beneficiary  country´s policy 
makers  to  enact  the  reforms.  External  funding  can  help  jump-start  reforms  but  also  can 
lead  to  abuse  (e.g.  as  seen  in  the  case  of  trainings)  if  domestic  actors  have  their  own 
objectives  and  can  skilfully  use  external  support  to  further  their  own  agenda.  As  long  as 
their goals are not aligned with that of the funder, the outcomes of the funded projects can 
turn  out  very  different  from  what  was  originally  intended.  As  the  push  for  reform  in 

28 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Public Administration Reform in Europe:  

Conclusions, lessons learned and recommendations for future EU policy   

Bulgaria had been primarily external “this puts into question the sustainability of reform 
efforts”.  

A  key  learning  from  the  cases  in  Greece  is  that  all  reform  initiatives  require  domestic 
“ownership”  and  strategic  vision,  the  lack  of  such  ownership  and  vision  led  to  limited 
impact  of  EU  supported  civil  service  reforms.  If  reform  takes  place  under  conditions  of 
economic  pressure  and  pressure  from  external  actors  (the  “Troika”  overseeing  the 
implementation  of  Greece’s  rescue  package),  the  reform  efforts  may  be  stalled  or 
backtracked,  due  to  external  pressures  to  restructure  and  down  size  public  expenditure. 
While  crisis  can  be  a  strong  driver  for  reforms,  a  certain  degree  of  stability  and  sense  of 
security is necessary for successful reforms to take hold. 

A recent government discussion paper, which is as part  of  the Cyprus NRP also sees the 
problem  of  rather  limited  transfer  success  of  institutional  capacity  building  efforts.  It  also 
observes that “If public management  reforms in the new EU Member  States were heavily 
influenced  by  the  prospect  of  EU  membership,  it  is  no  longer  true  in  the  post-accession 
period. Following their accession to the EU the ex-ante control of the EC was replaced with 
much  weaker  instruments  of  the  ex-post  control  in  the  case  of  non-implementation  or 
delayed implementation.” 

The  Croatian  analysis  concludes  that  the  EU  and  other  donors  had  invested  a  huge 
amount  of  money  and  effort  in  the  civil  service  reform  in  Croatia,  but  such  a  large 
investment  did  not  necessarily  produce  the  wanted  results.  In  other  words,  money  and 
advice  are  necessary,  but  they  may  not  overpower  domestic  political  and  bureaucratic 
reluctance.   

Some  specific  recommendations  with  regard  to  EU  support  also  emerge  from  the 
country analysis.  For Estonia, where civil service coordination is very much dependent on 
the EU structural funds, it is recommended that the government should prepare a plan for 
the exit from such a financing scheme so that essential functions of the civil service system 
could be retained. It is also argued (in case of Greece) that  external support needs to be 
accompanied  by  a  specific  conditionality  in  a  step-by-step  mode,  where  tranches  of 
financial aid are disbursed to domestic reformers depending on the progress they make in 
actually  implementing  relevant  policies.  It  however  raises  the  question  if  external  actors, 
imposing  such  meticulous  conditionality,  will  sustain  their  interest  in  domestic  reform  for 
prolonged  periods  of  time,  when  domestic  actors  themselves  refrain  from  showing 
anything  but  superficial  interest  in  the  same  endeavour.  In  Lithuania,  we  find  the 
recommendation to  establish a stronger link between the  European  Semester  documents, 
the reform agenda of the government and ESF support for administrative capacity building 
to  ensure  a  stronger  contribution  of  EU  policy  and  financial  assistance  to  the 
implementation of administrative reforms in the country. 

29 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Public Administration Reform in Europe:  

Conclusions, lessons learned and recommendations for future EU policy   

Overall assessment of the role of EU support  

In terms of results (as in actual improvements/changes) generated by the EU support, the 
research  conducted  does  not  allow  for  clear-cut  conclusions  at  the  EU  level  (this  was  not 
the  objective  of  this  study).  Funding  was  seen  as  key  both  to  “kick-start”  and  “trigger” 
reform initiatives and also for more long-term implementation and sustaining reform work, 
with  no  specific  pattern  in  terms  of  dimensions,  levels  or  type  of  support  provided.  In 
particular,  expensive  reforms  related  to  digitalisation  and  e-government  were  to  a  large 
extent  dependent  on  the  ESF  support.  While  there  are  some  examples  of  less  successful 
digitalisation  projects  (for  example  e-procurement  appears  to  have  been  difficult  to 
implement),  many  are  deemed  a  necessary  development  and  have  been  integrated  into 
the service delivery.  

Reforms  related  to  accountability,  transparency  and  policy  making  appear  more  sensitive 
and  less  EU  support  has  been  directed  towards  these  areas.  While  there  are  some 
examples  of  successful  reforms  within  these  themes,  many  have  also  stalled  or  are 
assessed as moderately successful. 

The  EU  funds  have  been  also  used  for  training  of  civil  servants.  While  the  outputs  are 
sometimes  impressive,  in  terms  of  the  number  of  participants,  it  is  uncertain  to  what 
extent  the  trainings  have  translated  into  a  stronger  and  effective  public  administration. 
Very  few  studies  have  managed  to  consider  effects  of  the  training,  for  example,  in 
Lithuania,  only  57%  of  civil  servants  who  were  trained  with  EU  support,  said  they  could 
use their newly acquired competencies at work.  

A  key  lesson  is  that  the  results  achieved  are  highly  dependent  on  contextual  factors, 
political  drive  and  not  least  strategic  planning and  long-term  vision in  the  Member  State. 
Where these crucial enabling factors are lacking, reforms tend to stall or shift in priorities, 
thereby  never  fully  capitalising  on  the  investments  made  with  the  EU  funds.  While  these 
enabling  factors  are  endogenous,  the  support  provided  to  reforms  could  possibly  benefit 
from a stronger steering and pew-selection or assessment to avoid money being misspent. 

Another  strong  finding  is  that  support  to  public  administrations  in  Member  States  has 
predominately been absorbed at national levels, with only a small share going to regional 
and local levels. While the mandate for reforms and many core functions is located at the 
national level, the service delivery is often decentralised both to regional and local levels. 
It  can  thus  be  discussed  whether  the  current  balance  of  funding  towards  different  levels 
are  a  fair  reflection  of  where  actual  performance  of  services  to  citizens  and  businesses 
takes place. 

In the same vein, the share of support provided to civil society organisations is also quite 
small. Even though civil society is not seen as major reform driver, it still has a role to play 
in  terms  of  accountability,  transparency  and  participation.  Financially,  civil  society 

30 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Public Administration Reform in Europe:  

Conclusions, lessons learned and recommendations for future EU policy   

organisations  are  generally  rather  vulnerable  and  in  sensitive  areas  they  may  not  attract 
support from national administrations.  

31 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Public Administration Reform in Europe: Conclusions, lessons learned 

and recommendations for future EU policy 

4.  KEY  REFLECTIONS  AND  RECOMMENDATIONS  FOR  FUTURE  EU  SUPPORT  TO  PUBLIC 
ADMINISTRATION REFORM AND CAPACITY BUILDING IN THE EU MEMBER STATES 

The facts and methodology  

The  EU  has  no  (treaty  based)  specific  competences  in  the  administrative  sphere  and 
reform  initiatives  undertaken  in  the  MSs,  but  still  has  a  strong  interest  and  indirect 
impact  on  the  administrative  practice  and  change  efforts  in  the  countries  through  the 
administrative standards set in the acquis, the transfer of best practices with EU financial 
instruments, the promotion of management practices of its own institutions, etc.  

The  incentives  that  triggered  the  "New  Public  Management"  wave  of  reforms  in  older 
Member  States,  addressed  domestically  recognised  needs  to  reduce  the  size  of 
government  and  make  administration  more  efficient.  In  the  new  Member  States,  the 
"first  wave"  of  reforms  began  with  the  EU-accession  requirements13  for  establishing 
professional  and  depoliticised  civil  service  systems.  The  limited  internal  capacity  was 
compensated with externally managed support. In the 2007-2013 programming period14, 
institutional capacity building became a key policy priority for the European Social Fund. 
The  support  was  intended  to  go  beyond  the  technical  assistance  for  the  better 
management  of  EU  funds  and  to  assist  the  ongoing  administrative  reforms.  In  addition, 
the 2014-2020 European Structural and Investment (ESI) Funds15 should be the catalyst 
for  achieving  the  objectives  of  the  Union  Strategy  for  smart,  sustainable  and  inclusive 
growth.  Through  the  European  Semester,16  the  European  Commission  undertakes  every 
year  a  detailed  analysis  of  EU  Member  States'  programmes  of  economic  and  structural 
reforms and provides them with proposals for Council recommendations (Country Specific 
Recommendations, CSRs)17 for the next 12-18 months. The ESI Funds aimed to serve as 
an effective means to support the implementation of the CSRs. 

Coming  closer  to  the  end  of  the  current  financial  period  and  without  anticipating  the 
current  discussions  on  the  next  MFF  (2021+),  the  EUPACK  and  its  manifold  public 
administration  issues’  analysis  invites  to  take  stock  of  the  current  situation,  e.g.  what’s 
the  meaning  of  making  public  administration  reform  and  does  the  existing  environment 
(political, legal or economic) allow to combine ambition with the ability to deliver, as well 
as to make a thorough reflection on the possible future role and way the EC may lead in 
making public reform in the MSs (happen!). 

The  consortium  of  partners  of  the  EUPACK  project  tries  to  source  this  reflection  and  a 
number of tentative recommendations based on the analysis of rich information and data 
collected, the reports produced earlier, conclusions of  the final conference 18organized by 
the EC in Brussels on 22-23 March 2018 as well as from a selection of interviews with a 
number of country experts from the projects. 

13 http://www.sigmaweb.org  
14  Community  strategic  guidelines  on  cohesion  (2006/702/EC)  For  more  information,  see: 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32006D0702&from=EN  
15 From the European Social Fund (ESF) and the European Fund for Regional Development (ERDF)  
16 For more information, see: http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/making-it-happen/index_en.htm 
17  CSRs  adopted  for  the  coordination  of  the  economic  policies  (Article  121(2)  of  the  Treaty)  and 
CSRs adopted for the coordination of the employment policies of the Member States (Article 148(4) 
of the Treaty. For more information see http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/index_en.htm 

18 See http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=88&eventsId=1308&langId=en 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Public Administration Reform in Europe:  

Conclusions, lessons learned and recommendations for future EU policy   

Ideas, practices and recommendations 

“Public  reform  is  already  a  commodity  after  being  repeated  again  and  again  during  the 
last  decades.  What  is  needed  is  real  change  that  fosters  a  new  paradigm  where  politics 
and  public  management  commit  themselves  to  common  goals  to  face  the  challenges  of 
the  XXI  Century”  were  the  skill-  and  meaningful  words  of  a  former  CEO  of  the  City 
Council  of  Barcelona  and  now  Corporate  Director  at  FC  Barcelona.  These  two  sentences 
never  better  reflect  the  situation  and  outcome  of  the  EUPACK  study  which  was  always 
driven and inspired by one main question as indicated earlier, i.e.  “What makes reforms 
happen  and  successful”.  Despite  of  some  known  limitations  and  also  a  continuous 
heterogeneity  regarding  the  level  of  implementation  of  reform  processes  in  the  EU 
countries as well as related obstacles such as low(er) ownership by some actors, political 
reversal  of  PARs  and  change  of  direction  with  a  new  government,  sometimes  little 
compliance  with  reform  legal  frameworks  or  even  fatigue  of  such  initiatives  in  some 
public  sector  systems,  a  common  set  of  “ingredients”  and  reform  (power)  actions  could 
be  identified  throughout  our  work.  These  “pearls  of  wisdom”  are  now  summarized  and 
listed below in no specific chronological but rather accumulative order and nature, i.e. if 
these  “To  dos”  are  done  our  European  public  administrations  will  maintain  and/or  to 
convert itself into a world-class performing and excellent organisations.   

“Pearls of wisdoms” for successful PARs: 

1. Search for political support, credible leadership throughout all phases of the 
reform,  a  long-term  and strategic  roadmap/plan of change and keep the scope 
of reforms well-focused; 

2.  build  both  strong  external  stakeholder  support  and  internal  ownership  and 
achieve this by combining top-down and bottom-up: top-led and bottom-fed; 

3.  establish  adequate  resources  and  (Civil  Service)  systems  throughout  the 
process; 

4. assure arrangements to monitor/measure reform progress/results. 

above 

And 
publicize/communicate “good results” (quick wins!)! 

“windows 

use 

all, 

of 

opportunities” 

and 

show, 

In the subsequent text sections, we will try to put these groups of findings of EUPACK in 
the light of what the EC may focus on, which initiatives or challenges remain and where 
they may lead in the future and as a consequence try to define its role in support to the 
MSs. 

33 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Public Administration Reform in Europe:  

Conclusions, lessons learned and recommendations for future EU policy   

1. Political support and continuity: 

The  continuity  of  governments  and  related  political  commitment  at  the  top 
level  have  been  assessed  by  many  experts  as  a  key  factor  for  successful  PARs  in 
country’s  administrations,  especially  for  countries  that  did  not  have  or  built  a 
modernised  structure  years  ago.  Reform  areas  are  often  very  complicated  and  set 
down in several plans. Political interest, support and continuity would definitely favour 
and can ensure a large-scale reform (of three or more years at least). For instance, a 
majority  in  the  parliament  can  be  crucial,  because  the  rivalry  between  ministries 
(political  power  play)  often  hampers  or  changes  reform  effort.  This  also  includes  the 
wish for perseverance and commitment of external factors, meaning a combination of 
incentives  and  sanctions  of  specific  reform  programmes.  The  EU  mechanism  (i.e.  EU 
Semester) –in this context- apparently helps to ensure continuity to some extent and 
to keep focus the MSs modernisation work. 

In the same context, the reform´s success depends on how far politicians want to go 
and  to  what  extent  they  are  not  afraid  of  difficult  reforms.  However,  as  a  note  of 
limitation, if new parties that have never governed  come to power, they  first have  to 
learn their job and are not ready to undertake large reforms. 

In general, there are many reforms based on a concept, strategies, white papers etc. 
(“soft  documents”).  However,  implementation  and  making  reforms  happen  is  what 
matters  at  the  end.  As  governments  often  do  not  have  enough  capacity  to  handle 
large-scale reforms, focused reforms are more successful (e.g. Estonia´s experience). 
Experience shows that small-scale and gradual reforms work better. 

There  is  a  clear  need  for  a  more  strategic  approach  to  the  future  of  government  and 
some EU Member States already conduct futures research that is wide-ranging and far-
reaching  in  scope,  such  as  Finland’s  Government  Reports  on  the  Future,  which  have 
been an integral element of the Parliamentary cycle for over 20 years. 

Finally,  the  trust  towards  reformers  is  very  important.  There  is  an  observed  lack  of 
trust  in  various  South-Eastern  European  countries  towards  the  reformers  as  the 
reforms  become  tools  for  political  power  plays  between  the  different  parties.  Reform 
mechanisms have to be depoliticised and autonomy of reformers is needed.  

Effective  communication  (many  times  reforms  failed  because  of  a  lack  of  this 
competence)  and  leadership  as  well  as  engaging  opponents  (it  is  better  to  integrate 
the  opposition)  and  a  de-politicisation  of  civil  servants  are  a  must  in  any  of  these 
endeavours. 

34 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
Public Administration Reform in Europe:  

Conclusions, lessons learned and recommendations for future EU policy   

2. Build both strong  stakeholder support and internal ownership and achieve 
this by combining top-down stewardship and bottom-up involvement: top-led 
and bottom-fed 

Within  public  sector  organisations,  the  OECD  -like  we  do  based  on  the  EUPACK-  
recommends  to  increase  strategic  agility  based  on  processes  that  are  more  open, 
evidence-based  and  iterative.  Based  on  the  work  of  the  OECD  Observatory  for  Public 
Sector  Innovation  in  cooperation  with  the  EC  a  new  framework  for  system 
transformation  in  the  public  sector  has  been  developed  outlining  a  number  of 
interconnected elements to be taken into account by public administrations. 

Some of them are: 

Dwelling,  Connecting  and  Framing:  Allowing  time  and  resources  for  better 
• 
understanding  and  exploring  the  policy  problem  from  different  angles  allows  for  a 
better  definition  of  the  purpose  and  objectives  of  an  envisaged  change.  Connecting 
with  a  diverse  set  of  internal  and  external  stakeholders  is  also  essential  for  gaining 
valuable insights. It also creates legitimacy for the change process and stronger buy-
in from stakeholders by letting them reflect upon the problem without presenting pre-
conceived solutions. 

• 
Designing and Prototyping:  While the concrete method needs to be chosen 
according  to  a  specific  context,  the  design  process  should  specify  the  principal 
elements of a proposed solution as well actions that need to be taken to produce the 
desired outcome. The design should also be tested to gain additional evidence on the 
problem  to  be  solved  and  the  solution´s  effects  to  ultimately  improve  the  suggested 
solution. 

• 
Stewarding: Stewardship refers to a form of agile leadership or transformative 
leadership  that  steers  and  monitors  the  implementation  of  the  proposed  design  and 
adapt  sand  calibrates  the  solution  in  light  of  unexpected  developments  and  new 
information during the implementation phase. This requires resources to be distributed 
more equally between the design and the implementation phase. 

The  EC  COOP  project  adds  to  this  that  pragmatic  approach  shall  be  envisaged,  i.e. 
simple systems or reform which are relevant for both management and staff not only 
one  in  order  to  gain  the  necessary  co-ownership.  In  addition,  there  must  be 
awareness  that  there  are  no  quick  fixes  and  that  patience  and  perseverance  both  at 
the top and at the bottom of public organisation is key to successful reforms. 

35 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Public Administration Reform in Europe:  

Conclusions, lessons learned and recommendations for future EU policy   

3. Civil service management system design:  

How  relevant  are  formal  examination  systems  for  civil  service  entry?  Should  we 
centralise civil service recruitment or should we delegate it to individual administrative 
organisations? Shall we reward public officials on the basis of their performance or shall 
salaries mainly be determined by years of experience or other mechanisms? How does 
an effective performance evaluation in the civil service look like?  

Taking  insights  from  our  EUPACK  thematic  paper,  three  arguments  appear  to  be 
emerging. 

1.  There  is  a  broad  consensus  that  merit  recruitment  has  positive  consequences  for 
the performance, motivation and integrity of civil servants, while the politicisation of the 
civil service is widely associated with negative consequences.  

2.  Civil  service  reformers  and  academic  researchers  do  however  lack  adequate 
evidence on how to design effective merit recruitment systems and how to overcome 
problems of civil service politicisation in the first place.  

3.  There  exists  limited  knowledge  on  what  works  in  other  areas  as  of  civil  service 
management  such  as  salary  management,  performance  management  and  career 
management  and  how  to  best  design  civil  service  management  structures  for  a  given 
context.  

The evidence for the effectiveness of many civil service management functions is often 
not available or it is not robust. Moreover, the evidence that is available suggests that 
some  practices  may  be  generally  beneficial  for  the  quality  of  the  civil  service  but  in 
many  cases  the  choice  of  civil  service  designs  may  be  context  dependent.  One  of  the 
most  effective  tools  to  enhance  the  evidence  for  managers  and  reformers  is  the 
implementation  of  civil  service  surveys  as  they  are  regularly  conducted  in  several 
OECD countries. They provide detailed information about the attitudes and behaviour of 
public employees, including their satisfaction, motivation and performance on the job as 
well as their experience with personnel management and indeed other aspects of public 
administration. They are monitoring and evaluation tools that help to identify strengths, 
weaknesses  and  hence  areas  of  civil  service  management  that  are  in  need  of 
improvement.  They  can  further  provide  an  effective  management  tool  to  engage  the 
people in public administration, solicit feedback and respond to concerns.  

Strengthening the capacities of civil servants and senior civil service (SCS) as well as to 
act  on  evidence  will  be  the  backbone  to  develop  adequate  policy  responses  in  the 
future.  The  OECD  (2017)  has  been  working  on  identifying  some  of  the  key 
characteristics of such a professional, strategic and innovative civil service.  

36 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Public Administration Reform in Europe:  

Conclusions, lessons learned and recommendations for future EU policy   

Graph: Towards a professional, strategic and innovative civil service 

Source: OECD (2017): Government at a Glance 2017, OECD Publications, Paris. 

For the European Commission, the lack of robust evidence – as well as the lack of treaty-
based  competencies  in  PAR  –  would  make  it  extremely  challenging  to  develop  a  PAR 
policy that prescribes MS what to do. Instead, the  EC might rather play a role as an 
‘enabler’  that  supports  the  generation  of  evidence  for  the  identification  of  the  types  of 
designs and practices that work across and within member states. For the EC, such civil 
service  surveys  would  allow  for  the  identification  of  shared  standards  and  the 
engagement  in  learning  across  EU  member  states.  Moreover,  MSs  would  benefit 
greatly  from  their  support  as  regular  civil  service  surveys  would  provide  much-sought-
after  evidence  and  establish  an  infrastructure  to  conduct  them  in  the  first  place.  To  be 
sure, civil service surveys are but one instrument in the public administration toolbox of 
the European Commission. Yet they would strengthen the enabling role of the EC in the 
field of PAR in Europe. 

37 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Public Administration Reform in Europe:  

Conclusions, lessons learned and recommendations for future EU policy   

4. Evaluation and performance measurement in the PS:  

In the last decades, measuring the performance of public administration has been an 
incessant  ambition  of 
international,  European  as  well  as  (some)  national 
governments. The desire to develop comparative indicators has become stronger in 
recognition  of  the  foundational  role  of  public  administration  and  governance  in 
building  prosperous  societies.  Successful  measurement  projects  in  other  policy  fields 
fuelled  the  drive  towards  measurement  in  public  administration.  Health  indicators, 
environmental indicators and the PISA project for educational performance are some 
prominent  examples  of  international  comparative  indicator  sets  that  have  been  used 
in  many  policy  documents  and  discussions.  Public  administration  -  the  machinery  of 
government-  has  however  long  been  a  statistical  wasteland,  with  the  exception  of 
budget  data  and  the  national  accounts.  The  evidence  base  for  public 
administration – the machinery of government -remains thin and much needs to be 
done.  

As stated by the OECD, evaluating transformation efforts may prove to be difficult, as 
processes  may  be  long  and  incremental.  As  in  the  early  phases  a  change  project, 
varied sources of evidence should be taken into consideration. Evaluation is useful to 
gauge whether the project has the desired effect, but  is also an essential part of the 
change  process  itself,  as  results  guide  the  everyday  activities  of  implementation 
towards the systems change to be achieved. 

For  this,  comparative  public  administration  needs  better  data  to  credibly  underpin 
the conceptual models of PA performance. 

 Several strategies and action roles are suggested:  

1.  Focus  on  sub-themes  rather  than  on  comprehensive  and  often  too  general 
measurements  is  suggested.  Well-chosen  sectorial  themes,  such  as  the  performance 
of  tax  administration,  provide  actionable  insights  that  also  give  an  indication  for  the 
system  as  a  whole.  The  EC  may  select  the  sub-themes  in  line  with  the  European 
semester or EU strategy (e.g. EU 2020, Digital Agenda) and call for related actions.   

2.  Measurements  that  can  be  used  for  learning  purposes  less  than  for  judging 
(or  purely  accountability  purposes)  are  requested  (i.e.  the  link  with  policy  /  bench-
learning / dialogue). This seems to be a big missing thing. It turns out that systems 
(and  people)  are  looking  for  technical  valid  and  robust  measurements  that  “tell  the 
reality”  and  are  easy  to  demonstrate  cause-effect.  The  more  difficult  and  also  less 
directly  clear ones to interpret are often left aside. Here however a mind-shift needs 
to take place searching for measurements that can indicate something in the area of 
outcome/impact. Things that can trigger a policy debate. 

 3.  Use  employee  surveys  to  collect  comparative  data  on  public  administration. 
While  perceptions  of  citizens,  businesses  and  experts  are  frequently  used  in  current 
indicator  schemes,  employees  are  left  out  of  the  equation.  The  EC  (e.g.  SRSS 
services)  may  lead  these  European  wide  regular  surveys  via  developing,  supporting 
and advising on this, with the support of academia, civil service unions etc. 

38 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Public Administration Reform in Europe:  

Conclusions, lessons learned and recommendations for future EU policy   

4.  Open  data  strategies  enable  analysts  in  the  academic  and  non-academic  research 
community to study issues of PA performance. 

 5. Apart from government finance statistics, public administration data are not included 
in  the  Eurostat  system.  Eurostat  does  have  a  programme  for  experimental  statistics 
where they develop new data sources. Several subthemes (as proposed under point 1.) 
of PA may be eligible for experimental development into an established data stream. The 
EC Eurostat services could collect, analyse and exploit such (sub-theme) data from 
the MS. 

In a nutshell, implementation should be always based on continuous reviews/evaluations 
of what works and what does not work! The EU can or shall play a crucial role in this. 

39 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Public Administration Reform in Europe:  

Conclusions, lessons learned and recommendations for future EU policy   

HOW TO OBTAIN EU PUBLICATIONS 

Free publications: 

•  one copy: 

via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu); 

•  more than one copy or posters/maps: 

from the European Union’s representations (http://ec.europa.eu/represent_en.htm);  
from the delegations in non-EU countries 
(http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/index_en.htm);  
by contacting the Europe Direct service (http://europa.eu/europedirect/index_en.htm) 
or calling 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (freephone number from anywhere in the EU) (*). 

(*)  The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may 
charge you). 

Priced publications: 

•  via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu). 

Priced subscriptions: 

•  via one of the sales agents of the Publications Office of the European Union 

(http://publications.europa.eu/others/agents/index_en.htm). 

40 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
K
E
-
0
3
-
1
8
-
2
9
4
-
E
N
-
N

 doi: 10.2767/19089