Civil Services in the EU of 27Reform Outcomes and the Future

of the Civil Service

EIPA, MaastrichtEuropean Commission, 10 February 2012

Prof Dr Christoph Demmke, EIPA

Why this presentation?

• Comparative Study National Administrations• How relevant is the reform process in the

Member States for EU officials?• Will the EU Institutions follow the reform

trend in the Member states?• If yes, in which areas? To what extend? • How much will your work/job/status be

concerned ?

COMPARISON: HOW CIVIL SERVICE IS DEFINED IN THE EU MEMBER STATES

Similarities among Member StatesDifferences among Member States

Similarities• all Member States have a specific public law status for civil servants (also

in Sweden, UK a specific case, CZ republic in reform vacuum), no abolishment of public law status despite all reforms

• all EU Member States employ civil servants and other categories of staff, no privatisation of Government (specific ethical obligations remain)

• In all Member States civil servants have specific working conditions (e.g., specific ethical requirements, enhanced job security, specific recruitment systems and selection requirements)

• Civil servants in most Member states still work in a specific hierarchical and organisational structure – Bureaucracy (slowly disappearing)

• In all Member States no trend towards a uniform public employment status but pluralisation of different statuses

• In most Member States alignment between public employees and private sector employees working conditions (best case is job security)

Differences among Member States • Different definitions of the term civil service (narrow vs. broad)

– Ireland vs. France• Proportion of civil servants in public employment varies

significantly, between 0,5% - 100%– in some countries all public tasks may be carried out by civil servants

(no restrictions, case NL) – some countries reserve specific functions only to civil servants (case D,

in theory)– in some countries, constitutions and civil service laws require that certain

tasks should “as a principle!” be carried by civil servants– trend towards more flexibility (“loi de mobilité”, France) • Working conditions vary significantly, reflecting common

private-sector practices or specific public-sector traditions• Most Member States employ civil servants and public

employees (and fixed-term employees)• Employment of civil servants in administrative sectors differs

considerably, trend towards a core civil service level

Do these administrative sectors belong to central civil service or do they have their own civil service systems?

Percentage of civil servants and other employees by Member State

Member state

Percentage of civil servants and other employees

Czech Republic

0% civil servants, 62% public employees, 38% officials in territorial self-governmental units

Sweden

1% statutory civil servants, 99% contractual employees

Latvia 6% civil servants, 94% public employeesPoland 6% civil servants, 94% civil service employees Romania

6% civil servants, 1% specific civil servants, 93% public employees

United Kingdom 10% civil service, 90% wider public sectorIreland 13% civil servants, 87% public servants (*)Italy 15% civil servants (under public law), 85% civil

servants (under labour law)Portugal 15% appointed civil servants (public law status),

85% civil servants (labour law status) **Hungary 25% civil servants, 75% public employeesCyprus

28% civil service, 17% education, 15% security, 14% crafts men and labourers, 20% semi-government organisations, 6% local authorities

Slovenia 34 % civil servants, 66% public employeesDenmark 36% civil servants, 66% public employeesGermany

37% civil servants, 59% employees 59%, 4% soldiers

Bulgaria 48% civil servants, 52% contractual staff

Member state

Percentage of civil servants and other employees

Spain (**) 59% civil servants, 27% contracted personnel 14% other types of staff (regional and local level excluded)

Lithuania 67% civil servants, 28% employees under labour contract, 5% other

Malta 67% civil servants, 33% public sector employeesFrance 73% civil servants, 15% contract agents, 12%

other specific staff Greece 74% civil servants, 26% contractual personnelBelgium (**) 75% civil servants, 25% contractual employeesLuxembourg 77% civil servants , 23% public employeesFinland 83% civil servants, 17% public employees

(regional and local level excluded)Slovakia 85% civil servants, 10% public employees, 5%

contractual employeesEstonia 90% public servants, 7% support staff, 3% non-

staff public servantsNetherlands 100% civil servants

(*) In Ireland only those who work for the ministries are called civil servants, others are public servants.

(**) These figures concern only the federal level administration (in Spain the regional level) and the central Government in Portugal.

IDENTIFYING MAJOR REFORM TRENDS

Organisational ReformsHR Reforms

Change of public employment and substance of public employment.

• Reduction of public employment• Reduction of percentage of civil servants in total

public employment (exceptions: Lux, Germany, Bulgaria)

• Blurring of boundaries: More public employees working in civil service functions

• Increase of flexible contracts or precarious employment (see also ECJ: 586/10) (a third class emerging?)

• alignment of civil servants‘ working conditions with other public employees and private sector

Main differences between civil servants and other public employees by issue and Member State (1 = different, 2 = similar)

Legal status Recruitment Job security Careers Salary Discipline Dialogue Strike Pension %Germany 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 100Lithuania 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 100Estonia 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 89Hungary 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 89Ireland 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 89Romania 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 89Cyprus 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 89Slovakia 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 78Belgium 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 78France 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 78Greece 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 78Luxembourg 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 78Spain 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 78Italy 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 67Poland 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 67Austria 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 67Malta 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 67Portugal 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 56Latvia 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 44Netherlands 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 1 44Slovenia 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 44Bulgaria 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 44Denmark 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 44Sweden 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 33Finland 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 22Czech Republic 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0United Kingdom 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0

% 89 74 74 70 63 56 52 48 44

COMMON REFORM TRENDS IN ALL EU MEMBER STATES

Grand Reform Trends

• a broader process of debureaucratisation and organisational reform• This entails

• decentralisation of HR competences• responsibilisation (increased discretion for line

managers)• reform of org. structures (careers) and flexibilisation

(cases: recruitment procedures, career development, job security, pay)

Decentralisation of powers, competences and responsibilities

• From central level to decentralised authorities (state level)

• From central responsibilities (at ministerial level) to decentralised responsibilities in ministries and agencies

• From Top-level to middle management („let managers manage“)– Brings more participative approaches

A B C D E F G H Mean Cyprus 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.00 Greece 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.00 Ireland 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.00 Luxembourg 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.00 Malta 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.00 Portugal 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.00 Romania 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.00 Hungary 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1.13 Lithuania 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1.14 Poland 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1.14 France 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1.25 Slovakia 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1.25 Spain 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1.25 Estonia 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1.29 Bulgaria 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 1.38 Italy 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 1.38 Latvia 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 1.38 Slovenia 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 1.38 Denmark 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 1.63 Finland 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 1.63 Sweden 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 1.63 Netherlands 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 1.71 Germany 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1.75 United Kingdom 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 1.75 Austria 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1.86 Czech Republic 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1.88 Belgium 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2.00 Mean 1.08 1.19 1.21 1.38 1.44 1.44 1.50 1.70

A = Equality and diversity policyB = Legal statusC = Pension systemD = Basic salaryE = Recruitment procedureF = Performance appraisalsG = Career structureH = Career development policy

Level of central regulation by policy and by EU Member State (1=Centrally regulated, 2=Not centrally regulated)

NL

LV

SK EL

SE

UK

DE FR

SI

AT CY

BE

ES LU

MT EE

FI

HU DK

IE

LT

EC

PT

RO

IT CZ

BG PL

0,0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

-1,0 -0,8 -0,6 -0,4 -0,2 0,0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1,0

low multi-actor involvement

high multi-actor involvement

highly central highly decentral

Vertical decentralisation and multi-actor involvement in EU public administrations

Source: Demmke, Hammerschmid and Meyer, Decentralisation and Accountability as Focus of Public Modernisation Reforms, Office of Official Publications of the EU, Luxemburg, 2006, p. 51

A = Career development, B = Training, C = Relocating, D = Recruitment, E = Performance pay, F = Promotions, G = Working time, H = Diversity policy, I = Performance plans, J = Poor performance, K = Code of conduct, L = Dismissal, M = Discipline, N = Mean

Developments in top managers’ and middle managers’ responsibilities in recent years by HRM policy (1=lot more, 2=some more, 3=same, 4=some less, 5=lot less)

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Bulgaria 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 1.23 Ireland 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1.23 Czech Republic 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 1.38 Portugal 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1.38 Belgium 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1.46 Latvia 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 1.46 Denmark 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 1.46 Greece 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1.54 Slovenia 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 1.54 France 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 1.54 Finland 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 1.54 Sweden 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 1.54 Italy 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1.62 Malta 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1.62 Spain 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 1.62 Luxembourg 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 1.71 Estonia 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1.77 Austria 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1.77 Netherlands 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 2 1 2 3 2 3 1.77 Slovakia 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1.85 Romania 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1.85 Hungary 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1.92 Poland 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1.92 Germany 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2.00 United Kingdom 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2.00 Lithuania 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2.00 Cyprus 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2.00 Mean 1.38 1.48 1.54 1.56 1.62 1.63 1.63 1.65 1.69 1.73 1.85 1.85 1.89

Consequence: Leadership more important and more problematic

• Expectations as to good leadership are rising– Employees are more critical and demanding but image (and dream?)

of „charismatic“ leadership remains • Financial crisis „Bringing the bad news“ and decline in trust in Leadership• Workload increasing

– In appraising peole, need for more discussion, feedback, communication, networking, allocation of HR tasks

– Leadership is not about strategies and „thinking“ , it is tough, ad-hoc and fragmented daily life decision-making (Mintzberg)

• Often, higher expectations are not matching skill developments. Overestimation authorities but classical image of sovereign and charismatic leader prevailing

• Conclusion: Leadership more important but more problematic than ever

17

Attitude towards Leaders and Leadership

50

42

36

19

3545

47

56

9 59

17

6 8 9 9

0 %

10 %

20 %

30 %

40 %

50 %

60 %

70 %

80 %

90 %

100 %

More communication More critical More participative More respect

Cannot say

No

Same

Yes

From traditional, hierarchical and closed organisations to open

and flexible org. structures

• no exclusive ladder-based recruitment system, abolishment of seniority

• possibility of mid-career and top-level hiring• recognition of private-sector experience in career

development, pay and pension calculation

Relaxation of job security

• enhanced job security for civil servants still persists

• lifetime tenure gradually disappearing• more grounds for job termination• Recruitment of more fixed-term employees

Few grounds (1-2)

Some grounds(3-5)

Many grounds(6-7)

Total

Type of civil-service system

Career structure 50 (9) 28 (5) 22 (4) 100 (18)

Non-career structure 0 (0) 44 (4) 56 (5) 100 (9)

Total 33 (9) 33 (9) 33 (9) 100 (27)

Termination of civil-servant employment by type of civil-service structure(Frequencies in parenthesis)

Termination of civil-servant employment by EU Member State (1=Yes, 2=No)

A B C D E F G H Germany 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Greece 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Luxembourg 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Belgium 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 Cyprus 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 Ireland 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 Italy 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 Portugal 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 Spain 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 Austria 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 3 Malta 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 3 Sweden 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 3 Czech Republic 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 4 Estonia 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 5 France 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 5 Hungary 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 5 Lithuania 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 5 United Kingdom 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 5 Bulgaria 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 6 Denmark 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 6 Finland 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 6 Latvia 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 6 Netherlands 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 6 Poland 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 6 Slovakia 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 6 Slovenia 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 6 Romania 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 Mean 1.00 0.71 0.61 0.61 0.54 0.29 0.18 3.93

A = Disciplinary reasonsB = Poor performanceC = Restructuring D = Downsizing E = Re-organisation F = Economic difficulties G = Other

H = Sum

Increased mobility• organisational mobility: reduction and abolishment

of rigid and hierarchical careers > mobility enhanced• individual mobility: enhanced voluntary and

obligatory job mobility (as basis for promotions) • public-private mobility: enhanced mobility between

public and private sectors (mostly in theory, in practice little mobility from private to public)

• International mobility still very low (check: case law on Art. 45.4 TFEU)

ANALYSING REFORM OUTCOMES

Successes and challenges

The context

• Reformresistent Public Services – a Myth ! • Reformboom in most Member States.

– Reform of Public Employment– Reform of Status– Reform of Working Conditions and Pay systems– Organisational reforms (reform of recruitment systems)– Pension Reforms etc.

• However, Public Services first and „easy“ target for austerity policies, many reforms (mostly cut-back policies) respond to public pressure and clichés (case: public sectors too big, too costly, too many privileges!)

• And the European Commission?

New reforms. The Financial Crisis

• A widening gap (Germany vs. Portugal)• Generally trend towards the freezing or

reduction of salaries, less opportunities for promotion because of cuts in employment, longer working week, cut of allowances, longer working life

• = Impact on attractiveness of public employment? (in some countries more, in others less)

Impact of austerity measures on workplace level (N=25)

Effect of financial crisis on public trust (N=25)

General government deficit/surplus 2010 (% of GDP) Mean Low-level deficit (< -4,2) 3,00 Middle-level deficit (-7.0 to -4,2) 3,75 High deficit (> -7.0) 4,38

(1=increased trust, 5=decreased trust)

Reform outcomes in HR policies – Empirical findings

• Ambivalent outcomes, z.B. PRP, accountability, ethics and fight against corruption (more rules and standards but better effects?, politicisation, decentralisation and cohesion, impact of less job security, performance measurement, increase of performance management bureaucracy, new unfairness perceptions etc.

• Progress: Citizen orientation, Transparency, Anti-Discrimination, Working Time Flexibilisation, Combination Job-Family, Equality, Mobility, partly reduction of adm. burdens

• Overall: less progress in central europe (but what is the reference value? 1990?)

Vulnerability of HR-reform trends to integrity violations (N=24)

The case of Pay reforms: Unfairness in the Seniority System

• Unequal pay for equal work• Discrimination of young

employees• Free-riders

• Undifferential compensation– Above average performance– poor performance

• Limited career options• Little alignment with private

sector payment

Individual Organizational

30

…to unfairness in the PRP System

Unprofessional AssessmentMeasured variableFavouritismTransformation into benefits

Quota Discrimination Goal-setting

Financial insufficienciesInsecurity Intensification of workUnsteadiness of goalsIntransparencyPay differentiation within

and across agencies Rewards at the cost of other

employeesSocial immobility

Individual Organizational

31

32

How would you judge the development of the working conditions in your organisation?

Findings and preliminary results: micro-level development

FROM TRADITIONAL BUREAUCRACY TO POST-BUREAUCRACY

Overall Reform Outcomes

How to measure? Measuring traditional bureacuracy indicators (Weber, in: Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft)

Main components Component items (item’s relative weighting within component)

1) Legal status

2) Career structure

3) Recruitment

4) Salary system

5) Tenure system

public law status (100%)

existence of career structure (50%)career development centrally regulated (20%)entrance from the bottom (15%)promotions to other positions at mid-career or top-level not possible (15%)

special recruitment requirements (50%)recruitment centrally regulated (30%)private sector experience not relevant (20%)

basic salary regulated by law (50%)wage system based on seniority (25%)wage system not based on performance (25%)

lifetime tenure (high job security) (40%)termination rather difficult (40%)job security differs from private sector (20%)

Moving away from traditional bureaucratic features

• But: no uniform trend towards a single new European administrative model, however (is “NPM” dead?)

• But: Member States showing different reform paths and reform priorities

• But: new reforms are not necessarily producing better outcomes

Traditional bureaucracy – post-bureaucracy continuum score by EU Member State0% = traditional bureaucracy, 100% = post-bureaucracy

Development of Administrative Models

0% = traditional bureaucracy, 100% = post-bureaucracy

la bureaucratie est morte - vive la bureaucratie Future of civil service

• many anti-bureaucratic changes – but no new universally accepted reform model

• less civil servants• less specific working conditions• Member States move away from hierarchical, rule-

bound systems towards more open and more flexible systems

• No evidence showing that classical civil services have lower corruption levels and less politicisation

• DO WE STILL NEED CIVIL SERVANTS?

Correlation Bureaucratic structures and Corruption

39

Final remarks• No evidence showing new solutions and new systems

are better: reforms produce both positive and negative outcomes

• New Public Management did not produce the desired reform outcomes: some features of the traditional bureaucratic model still persist

FUTURE CHALLENGESFuture of civil service

Managing efficiency – doing more with less?

• Public tasks may change, but do not disappear• New challenges (risks, threats…)• Need for new jobs in certain sectors (health

sector, social sector, IT – increasing shortages)• Introduction of more austerity measures and

ongoing budgetary constraints

The proportion of elderly population (aged 65 and over) in five case countries, 2010-

2050 (% of the total population)

Age Management: Designing new work structures, work mentalities, flighting discrimination – a new challenge

(Source: Illmarinen)

A new understanding of Fairness. Better or simply different?

• The era in which “treating everybody the same meant treating everybody fairly” is not anymore the paradigm of our times. – The age of standardization were well suited for the belief in and

practice that equal treatment for all is fair treatment.

• Postmodern challenge experts opinion on how to treat people unequally and yet to be fair

• A new discourse on distributional justice, procedural justice and interactional justice needed?

The merit principle is dead. Long live the merit principle !!!

• Today, the Member States of the European Union have become more meritocratic and, at the same time, more polarized.

• Today, rising levels of inequality and problems with social mobility can lead to a loss of social capital, frustration, discontentment and aliena

• The paradox with the principle of meritocracy lies with the problem that our systems which reward “talented people” leave no hiding place for those who do not succeed in the competitive struggle.

CONCLUSIONS: HOW TO BETTER UNDERSTAND ALL OF THIS? UNINTENTIONAL REFORM EFFECTS/ DILEMMAS AND PARADOXES.

Future of civil service

48

Reform outcomes• Public Services are subject of many images and

perceptions. Often not based on facts.• Often, reforms are implemented because of reform

fashions, perceptions and images but not because of knowledge of facts and rational analysis.– For example. Bureaucracy is bad vs New Public Management is

good, centralisation is bad vs decentralisation is good, rigidity is bad vs flexibility is good, rules are bad vs. deregulation is good, public services are efficient vs. private sector services are more efficient

• What do we actually know?

Analysing Reform outcomes

• Most Reform outcomes have paradoxical or unintentional effects

• Reform language is manipulative• Focus is on „trendy reforms“• Many expectations to reforms are

contradictory• Reforms and institutional design must be seen

together

Need for better analysing unintentional effects

Paradoxes:Pollitt and Bouckaert• Give priority to making savings/improving the performance of the public

sector.• Motivate staff and promote cultural change/weaken tenure and downsize.• Reduce burden of internal scrutiny and associated paperwork/sharpen

managerial accountability.• Allocate new responsibilities to government/reduce the range of tasks that

government is involved with.• Create more single-purpose agencies/improve horizontal coordination

(‘joined-up government’; ‘horizontality’).• Decentralise management authority/improve programme coordination.• Improve quality/cut costs.

[1] Bouckaert, Geert & Pollitt, Christopher (2011). Public Management Reform. A Comparative Analysis. Second edition. Oxford, p.164.

Towards a better understanding of adminis-trative cultures and traditions

• tradition and administrative culture are still important • how to explain convergence and Europeanisation trend

and differentiation trend at the same time?• significant differences between and within country groups

– Eastern European countries a heterogeneous group– Mediterranean states a homogeneous group– Scandinavian states quite post-bureaucratic, despite some

variations among them– Anglo-Saxon group of countries a quite heterogeneous

group– Continental countries a rather homogeneous group with the

exception of Netherlands• classification of civil service-service systems into career vs.

position system countries not fruitful anymore