Agencification and de-agencification
trends in the countries of Central and
Eastern Europe
Dr. Vitalis Nakrošis, Institute of International Relations and
Political Science, Vilnius University
Tarptautinė konferencija
Viešasis valdymas Lietuvoje. Europos patirtis – ateities iššūkiams
2011 m. gegužės 12-13 d. Vilnius
Table of contents
• What is an agency, (de-)agencification and
agency change?
• How one can explain agency change?
Framework for analysis and hypothesys;
• Agencification trends in CEE countries;
• Agency models and agency change in
Lithuania;
• Conclusions, future trends and alternatives for
agency reform.
What is an agency?
• Agency features:
– public law bodies;
– some (policy or managerial) capacity for autonomous decisionmaking;
– structurally disaggregated from the government and its
ministries;
– formally under at least some control of cabinet members;
– some own resources (financial and personnel).
• Agencies in Lithuania: Government agencies, agencies under
the ministries, other agencies (e.g. four legal statuses of the EU
support agencies);
• Other public sector organisations: state institutions provided in
the Constitution (e.g. State Security Department) or
accountable to President and Parliament (e.g. Special
Investigation Service), other organisations.
Nr.
Foreign examples
Lietuva
0
Ministry, department, ministerial
directorate/
directorate general, state
institution
1
Semi-autonomous organizarions:
Government agencies, agencies under
Next Steps agencies (UK), government the ministries, agencies under the
organizations and state agencies (EE) President
2
Independent (statutory)
Public non-profit institutions, whose
organisations: non-departamental
stakeholders are state institutions
public bodies (UK), public institutions
(EE)
3
Government foundations: e.g. private Foundations
law-based not-for-profit organisations
in Estonia
State-owned companies, whose owners
Commercial companies
are state institutions (143)
4
The President‘s Office, the Prime
Minister‘s Office, ministries, other state
institutions (e.g. the State Security
Department)
Agency changes
• Agencification and de-agencification: increasing number
of autonomous organisations (at arms‘ lenght of the core
government) versus decreasing number of such
organisations;
• Types of agency change events:
– Birth, secession, split: events leading to the expansion in the
number of agencies;
– Absorption, merger, death: events leading to the contraction in
the number of agencies;
– Replacement, transfer of functions, change of name and
subordination: change events not affecting the number of
agencies.
International
level
National
level
EU and NATO accession, other
international pressures
Polity: the role of the state,
constitutional provisions,
government stability and
partisan consensus
Policy: sectoral policies,
public management policy
(NPM or post-NPM reform)
Dependent
variables
Environmental
pressures: economic
crises, public trust in
administration
Actor constellations: relative
power of actors and their
core beliefs
Birth, maintenance and death
of organizations
Autonomy
and control of
organizations
Management
of
organizations
Hypotheses of agency change in
Lithuania
• Agency change in Western democracies: NPM, Government
priorities/aims, management reform (often amid financial
crisis);
• Agency change during state-building: separation of politics
and administration, transparency and decentralisation;
• Agency change in post-communist countries: frequent change
of governments, party-based logic of change, institutional
instability;
• Nature of change process? Strategic decision-making
according to „grand design“ versus ongoing „muddling
through“ in relation to each organisation.
Ideal NPM-agency model
Managerial
autonomy
Structural
disaggregation
from the
government
Result-based
control
NPMagency
model
Experience of foreign countries
• The United Kingdom: “Next Steps” reform and
executive agencies (also non-departmental public
bodies);
• The Netherlands: executive agencies, ZBOs, RWTs;
• Belgium (Flanders): departamental agencies, internally
devolved agencies, externally devolved agencies with
the status of public or private legal body;
• Estonia: governmental organisations, state agencies,
public institutions, private law-based not-for-profit
organisations.
Agencification in CEE states (CR, HU, EE,
LT, RO, SK): similarities
• Expansion and restructuring of governmental
functions during the transition period and EU
accession as a main driver;
• Ad hoc, sectoral agencification, no
comprehensive approach, no clear agency
model, as well as the legaltistic approach;
• De-agencification started in the previous
decade.
Agencification in CEE states:
differences
• New and old states of the region: the larger
scope of change in new states (including LT);
• Different timing of agencification and country
status (e.g. CR);
• Politicisation and its variation (more
important in the Visegrad countries);
• Comprehensive agency reforms in LT and RO
since 2009.
Change of agency models in
Lithuania
• Soviet model: ministries, state committees, offices, executive
committees, enterprises and other organisations;
• Model in the 1994 Government Law: Government agencies deal
with cross-sectoral issues, and agencies under the ministries are
responsible for sectoral issues;
• 1994 model of territorial administration not implemented: no
transfer of implementation functions to the county
administrations;
• Model of a strong regulatory agency during the EU accession
(1997-2004) in specific legislation;
• Current model of executive/agencies (2009-2010): agencies within
the ministerial competence, separation of policy-making and
implementation.
1994 agency model
Government
Government
Office
Government
agencies
Ministry A
Agencies under
the ministries
Ministry B
Agencies under
the ministries
Ministry C
2009 agency model
Government
(Prime Minister)
Prime Minister’s
Office
Ministry A
(minister)
Government
agencies in the
ministerial
competence
Agencies under
the ministries
Ministry B
(minister)
Ministry C
(minister)
Is there a clear agency model in
Lithuania?
• in August 1993, the VI Lithuanian Government
revoked the previous decision to reorganise the State
Price and Competition Service into a service under
the Ministry of Economy (made in January 1993);
• In 2009-2010, the Public Procurement Service under
the Government was reorganised into an agency
under the Ministry of National Economy, but already
in 2011 an amendment to the law was drafted in
order to make it accountable to the Lithuanian
Parliament.
Results? An astronomical approach
• „Currently, the set-up of executive power
reminds astronomical maps with planets, their
satellites and clusters of asteroids” (Veidas)
Mapping of the Lithuanian agencies
under six selected ministries
Events of organizational change
1990-1996
1997-2004
2005-2010
Expansion in the number of
agencies (birth, secession, split)
21
22
5
Contraction in the number of
agencies (absorption, merger,
dealth)
5
8
10
Neutral changes (replacement,
transfer of functions, change of
name and subordination)
13
35
13
39 (5,6)
65 (8,1)
28 (4,7)
Total number of changes (changes
per year)
Primary and secondary factors of
(de)agencification in Lithuania
Period
Primary factors
Secondary factors
1990-1996
Transition to democracy and
market economy (dynamics
of sectoral policies)
Change of the Lithuanian
governments
1997-2004
Accession to the EU
(dynamics of sectoral
policies)
Change of the Lithuanian
governments
2005-2010
Political priorities of the
Government, public
management reform
Economic crisis
Influence of political factors on
agency changes in Lithuania
• Changes of the agencies under the 5 ministries over
the period of 12 months following the government
change:
– a) 30 changes (5 changes a year) under a large change in the
parliamentary majority (Governments No. 1, 5, 6, 8, 11, 12,
15);
– b) 14 changes (2 changes a year) under a small change in
the parliamentary majority (Governments No. 2, 3, 4, 7, 9,
10, 13, 14).
Agency changes in Estonia and
Lithuania (1)
• Similarities: institutional heritage from the Soviet
period, EU influence, as well as pressure during
transition;
• Differences between EE and LT: smaller institutional
fragmentation (the number of agencies is smaller in
EE), more stable legal framework and institutional setup (boards and inspectorates in EE), earlier
modernisation of ministries (1993-1995 in EE, and
1998-2000 in LT), earlier start of de-agencification
(2004 in EE, and 2008 in LT).
Agency changes in Estonia and
Lithuania (2)
• How one can explain it?
– Polity-level factors: e.g. cross-party consensus in EE
versus adversarial party politics in LT;
– Approach to agencification in the Government and
civil service: more managerial approach, higher trust
between politicians and civil servants in EE versus the
legislatic approach, lower trust in LT.
Conclusions
• Lithuania as a leader of agencification (driven by
transition and accession) in two previous decades;
• Political, ad hoc changes in the absence of a stable
institutional basis (agency model);
• Agency expansion at the central level without
decentralisation and deconcentration of power;
• “Normalisation” of agency change in 2009-2010, a
wide scope of institutional reforms with slow
implementation.
Agencification trends in the future
• “Normalisation” of agency changes will stay, i.e.
agency changes will be affected by Government
priorities/aims, public management reforms, as well
as economic situation (rather than the changing role
of the state);
• However, the post-communist nature will remain
important: agency changes will be influenced by the
party logic, and the intensity of changes will be
determined by a change in the parliamentary
majority.
Alternative No. 1 : new „grand
design“
• Improve the model of institutional set-up:
establish groups of organisations according
to their functions (implementation
agencies, regulatory agencies, service
delivery bodies, etc.) with corresponding
regimes of autonomy and control (leading
to more transparency and better
performance);
• Institutionalising changes: seeking a crossparty consensus, if possible, and changing
the appropriate legislation (Laws on
Government, Public Administration, Budget
Institutions) and its implementation.
2 alternative: further „muddling
through“
• Reducing the number of agencies
through deaths, mergers,
absorptions, taking into account
reorganisation costs;
• Ongoing reorganisation of
regulatory agencies, but the
structure and performance of
policy implementation agencies
and service delivery bodies should
be changed as well.
Sources about agencification in
Lithuania
• T. Randma-Liiv, V. Nakrošis, G. Hajnal. "Central and Eastern Europe: from
agencification to de-agencification". A global compendium of
agrencification. Palgrave Macmillan, forthcoming.
• V. Nakrošis, Ž. Martinaitis. "Lithuania". A Global Compendium of
Agencification, Palgrave Macmillan, forthcoming.
• V. Nakrošis. "Viešojo valdymo reforma Lietuvoje: kodėl ir kuo reikia
pakeisti Naująją viešąją vadybą?“, Politologija, 2011, Nr. 1.
• V. Nakrošis, Ž. Martinaitis. "The Lithuanian Public Sector Organisations: the
EU-driven expansion within the domestic arrangements of autonomy and
control". Viešoji politika ir administravimas. 2009 m., Nr. 29.
• Ž. Martinaitis, V. Nakrošis. “Explaining Innovations in the Lithuanian Public
Sector: New Public Management, Administrative Culture and Structural
Capacities.” The Lithuanian Political Science Yearbook 2008. Institute of
International Relations and Political Science, 2009.