Recap from the e-learning
Vladimír Kváča, Benedict Wauters
Remember this?
Which one
performed better in
the delivery of
services to the
citizens?
How do these
organizations differ?
2
April, 2009: Independent report “An Agenda for a Reformed Cohesion
Policy” delivered at the request of Commissioner for Regional Policy, Ms
Hübner
• “The most evident weaknesses which
indicate the need for reform of cohesion
policy are:
A remarkable lack of political and policy
debate on results in terms of the well-being
of people, at both local and EU level, most of
the attention being focused on financial
absorption and irregularities.”
• European Commission’s DG REGIO:
…an assessment
of needs is
required to
identify the
results!
“The intended result is the
specific dimension of wellbeing and progress for
people that motivates
policy action…”.
the decision on which unmet
needs should be tackled is the
result of a deliberative social
process (a "political decision")!
4
NEEDS?
Includes:
• key subjective needs
of autonomy, mastery,
S
relatedness, meaning
(contribution to a
O
larger purpose)
C
I • objective conditions
like satisfaction with
A
food, housing,
L
income, health, work,
physical safety,
friends and family,
education,
B
neighborhood, ability
A
to help others and
S
spiritual, religious
I
and/or philosophical
C
beliefs
NOTE: Maslow is useful as a categorisation system, less as a strict hierarchy as various needs can
co-exist or higher level needs can take precedence over lower level ones
7
From needs to results-1
• Applying this to some DG REGIO guidance examples:
 reduced traffic fatalities = safety need!
 reduced travel time =
• means for parents to fulfill social need e.g. spending more time with the kids?
• a way to work more to earn more money?
• if we do not know the need we are addressing, we cannot know about wellbeing! Exchanging travel time for work time does not increase well-being for
those who wanted to spend time with the kids!
 CO2 reduction=
• safety need (e.g. global warming leads to life-threatening floods)?
• economic security need (e.g. business continuity versus floods)?
• both...?
RESULTS IMPLY A SHIFT OF OWNERSHIP!
Shift of ownership from supplier to receiver: supplier cannot ascertain change without asking the demand side!
NEEDS are linked to this SHIFT OF OWNERSHIP
Physiological need
If no need is addressed, then an objective
cannot truly be a result.
Economic
security, etc.
Belonging need
An irrelevant result,
cannot be a result!
Conclusion 1: Results in ESIF
• What matters is the end-to-end process:
 From Euro invested to positive change in the wellbeing of the citizens.
• You can spend billions of € in programmes that
were well written respecting the partnership
principle, have close-to-zero error rate, disburse
payments within 15 days and reach all the target
values of your indicators and still make no
change in the well-being.
 You can be effectively and efficiently irrelevant.
13
The two big questions….
14
Accountability
• Do you remember the three dimensions of
accountability discussed in e-learning?
Different concepts of accountability
• “honest and fair”:
 traditional view dating back to Weberian bureaucracy
 focus is on preventing distortion, bias, abuse of office
and inequity
 proper discharge of duties in terms of procedures
AND substance is of prime importance:
• “how the job gets done” rather than just “getting the job
done with the least possible input”
 emanations:
• process controls (rather than output)
• words like transparency, prevention and detection of fraud,
compliance with rules, etc. fit here
16
Different concepts of accountability
• “lean and purposeful”:
 This view rises with New Public Management
 match narrowly defined tasks and circumstances with resources
(time and money) as tightly as possible, cutting any slack
 it is very important to have “checkable” objectives that are not
overlapping
 hence the focus on outputs, ideally to be provided by
independent departments
 emanations:
• words like effectiveness, efficiency, impact, value for money,
achieving targets
• approaches like payment by results, just in time delivery and
zero based budgeting
18
Different concepts of accountability
• “robust, resilient, adaptive”:
 „post – NPM“ redirection of attention to complex
nature of society
 focus is on being able to withstand shocks, to keep
operating even under the most dire circumstances
and to adapt rapidly in a crisis
 emanations:
• back-up systems, maintaining adequate diversity to avoid
widespread common failure (including in the social sense
e.g. avoiding groupthink) and building in safety margins (e.g.
in planning work or using materials)
• words like diversity, empowerment, sustainability etc.
20
Conclusion 2: Accountability in ESIF
• Any (public) organization involved in the
transformation of money into well-being (or
inputs into results ) has to balance all
dimensions of accountability.
• Without this balance, there is a high risk that the
end-to-end proces will break down, unable to
sustain well-being for people.
• Balance is the key.
23
What happens if we do not find a balance?
Private sector examples of
overemphasising lean and
purposeful (facilitated by public
policy) with wider repercussions
24
Accountability - balancing
Extra
• Balancing these three dimensions of accountability is key but a
major challenge.
• Different dimensions have their own „accounters“ who tend to focus
narrowly only on one aspect while disregarding the others.
• Competing demands of different accounters may lead to effects of
“accountability overload” and professional disorientation of the
„accountees“.
• Managing balanced relations with all accounters is a delicate task
for all public organizations.
• Having a holistic view of accountability and being able to explain it to
all accounters with a partial focus can be a good approach.
• Attempting to balance all accountability aspects is incorporated in
the “New Synthesis for Public Administration” approach in which we
situate our RBM+ system
Accountability in Central and Eastern Europe: concept and reality
Arnost Veselý
International Review of Administrative Sciences 2013 79: 310
25
Group task:
Extra
Think about your organization
Who are your „accounters“? Who is holding you
accountable for which dimension of accountability?
• Lean and purposeful
• Honest and fair
• Robust and resilient
Please, quickly discuss and be ready to tell others
in 5 minutes.
Adapted from Hood (1991)
New Synthesis approach
• Public management
is a balancing act:
Lean and
purposeful
Further
reading
 in terms of
performance:
• “traditional” results
(outputs, outcomes)
• civic results
 in terms of the use of
power:
• government
• collective
• …underpinned by
the three notions of
accountability
Honest and fair
J. Bourgon, A new synthesis for public administration
Robust,
resilient,..
Performance and
accountability are two
faces of the same coin!