Document Library

Key Text Innovations in Government: International Perspectives on Civil Service Reform

Author: G Lodge and S Kalitowski
Date: 2007
Size: 34 pages (230 KB)

Access full text: available online

Summary

What are the challenges confronting civil services around the world? This paper from the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) surveys several case studies from developed countries to identify a variety of international approaches to civil service reform. Some common challenges include: enhancing accountability; improving policymaking; developing institutional memory; building staff expertise; and promoting joined-up government. Meeting these challenges requires clarifying the roles of ministers and officials, opening up policymaking, capturing innovation and narrowing the gap between the centre and frontline delivery services.

Over the last twenty years, civil service reform has been underpinned by the new public management (NPM) model. This has focussed on applying private sector techniques such as contracting-out, devolution and performance management to make the public sector more flexible, decentralised and responsive to users’ needs. Yet, the NPM model has, at times, led to organisational fragmentation, accountability and control gaps, poor institutional memory and inadequate democratic engagement among users. It has impeded joined-up government at a time when policy challenges like globalisation, international migration and greater public expectations of government require cohesive solutions.

International civil service regimes need to address a number of common weaknesses:

Improved accountability, as a tool to enhance service delivery, has been targeted through ‘results-based government’ methods, including performance budgeting and management. However, few governments use performance results to determine resource allocation and the provision of performance information has had mixed results on improving accountability.
Policymaking is still too closed and insular. There is a gulf between those designing policy and those delivering it. The policy insights of frontline staff are often neglected. Policy evaluation is often ad hoc and focusses too much on service delivery monitoring, rather than the assessment of policy itself.
Institutional memory is often weakened by the level of turnover in posts and the fragmentation of administrative infrastructure. Best practice innovation is rarely captured by civil services. The PS21 programme in Singapore, for example, represents an exceptional instance of ‘talent spotting’ among front-line staff.
A deficit of skills and cultural insularity remain common in civil services worldwide. These could be overcome through broader recruitment policies, increased links between the administration and the wider public service, and dedicated schools of government. Preliminary examples of such reforms exist in Canada, Great Britain and New Zealand.
Responding to the challenges of joined-up government requires co-ordination and cohesion across several departments and agencies. However, fragmentation remains in the predominantly vertical models of budgeting and accountability and in prevailing insular cultural attitudes.

Governments should focus on moving beyond the NPM paradigm and adapting civil services in accordance with their broader governance setting:

Accountability can be improved by clarifying the roles of ministers and officials.
Policymaking should be opened up to front-line administrators and the public, and policy evaluation should occur during implementation.
Knowledge management should become a goal of future civil service reform.
Effective mechanisms should be introduced to capture staff-members’ ideas and innovations.
The civil service should develop a less hierarchical, more reciprocal relationship with the public service.
Where possible, cross-cutting administrative structures should be introduced to promote joined-up government.

Access full text: available online

Source: Lodge, G. and Kalitowski, S., 2007, 'Innovations in Government: International Perspectives on Civil Service Reform', Institute for Public Policy Research, London
Author: Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR), http://www.ippr.org.uk