Civil Services in the EU of 27
Reform Outcomes and the Future
of the Civil Service
EIPA, Maastricht
European 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 States
Differences 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?
Central government
Government agencies
Central
civil
service
Diplomatic service
Judiciary
Specific
civil
service
Police
Military
Not
part of
civil
service
Education
University
Hospitals
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Percentage of civil servants and other employees by
Member State
Member
state
Czech
Republic
Sweden
Latvia
Poland
Romania
United
Kingdom
Ireland
Italy
Portugal
Hungary
Cyprus
Slovenia
Denmark
Germany
Bulgaria
Percentage of civil servants and other
employees
0% civil servants, 62% public employees, 38%
officials in territorial self-governmental units
1% statutory civil servants, 99% contractual
employees
6% civil servants, 94% public employees
6% civil servants, 94% civil service employees
6% civil servants, 1% specific civil servants,
93% public employees
10% civil service, 90% wider public sector
13% civil servants, 87% public servants (*)
15% civil servants (under public law), 85% civil
servants (under labour law)
15% appointed civil servants (public law status),
85% civil servants (labour law status) **
25% civil servants, 75% public employees
28% civil service, 17% education, 15% security,
14% craftsmen and labourers, 20% semigovernment organisations, 6% local authorities
34 % civil servants, 66% public employees
36% civil servants, 66% public employees
37% civil servants, 59% employees 59%, 4%
soldiers
48% civil servants, 52% contractual staff
Member
state
Spain (**)
Percentage of civil servants and other
employees
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 employees
France
73% civil servants, 15% contract agents, 12%
other specific staff
Greece
74% civil servants, 26% contractual personnel
Belgium (**) 75% civil servants, 25% contractual employees
Luxembourg 77% civil servants , 23% public employees
Finland
83% civil servants, 17% public employees
(regional and local level excluded)
Slovakia
85% civil servants, 10% public employees, 5%
contractual employees
Estonia
90% public servants, 7% support staff, 3% nonstaff public servants
Netherlands 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 Reforms
HR 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)
Germany
Lithuania
Estonia
Hungary
Ireland
Romania
Cyprus
Slovakia
Belgium
France
Greece
Luxembourg
Spain
Italy
Poland
Austria
Malta
Portugal
Latvia
Netherlands
Slovenia
Bulgaria
Denmark
Sweden
Finland
Czech Republic
United Kingdom
%
Legal status
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
2
89
Recruitment Job security Careers
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
2
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
74
74
70
Salary
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
63
Discipline Dialogue Strike
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
2
2
1
2
2
2
1
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
56
52
48
Pension
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
2
2
2
1
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
44
%
100
100
89
89
89
89
89
78
78
78
78
78
78
67
67
67
67
56
44
44
44
44
44
33
22
0
0
Grand Reform Trends
COMMON REFORM TRENDS IN ALL
EU MEMBER STATES
• 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
Level of central regulation by policy and by EU Member
State (1=Centrally regulated, 2=Not centrally regulated)
Cyprus
Greece
Ireland
Luxembourg
Malta
Portugal
Romania
Hungary
Lithuania
Poland
France
Slovakia
Spain
Estonia
Bulgaria
Italy
Latvia
Slovenia
Denmark
Finland
Sweden
Netherlands
Germany
United Kingdom
Austria
Czech Republic
Belgium
Mean
A
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1.08
B
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
1.19
C
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
2
2
1.21
D
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
1.38
E
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1.44
F
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
1.44
G
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1.50
H
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1.70
Mean
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.13
1.14
1.14
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.29
1.38
1.38
1.38
1.38
1.63
1.63
1.63
1.71
1.75
1.75
1.86
1.88
2.00
A = Equality and diversity policy
B = Legal status
C = Pension system
D = Basic salary
E = Recruitment procedure
F = Performance appraisals
G = Career structure
H = Career development policy
Vertical decentralisation and multi-actor involvement in EU
public administrations
high multi-actor involvement
0,6
FR
DE
SI FI
0,5
MT
IE EE
HU
BE
EC
DK 0,4 NL
AT
CY
LT
IT CZ PT
RO
ES
PL
BG
UK
SE
0,3
LV
LU
0,2
SK
EL
0,1
0,0
-1,0
-0,8
highly central
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0,0
0,2
low multi-actor involvement
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
highly decentral
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
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)
Bulgaria
Ireland
Czech Republic
Portugal
Belgium
Latvia
Denmark
Greece
Slovenia
France
Finland
Sweden
Italy
Malta
Spain
Luxembourg
Estonia
Austria
Netherlands
Slovakia
Romania
Hungary
Poland
Germany
United Kingdom
Lithuania
Cyprus
Mean
A
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
1.38
B
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
1.48
C
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
2
1
2
2
2
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
1.54
D
1
1
1
2
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
2
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
1.56
E
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1.62
F
1
1
1
2
2
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1.63
G
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
2
1
2
3
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1.63
H
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
J
1
1
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1.65
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1.69
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1.73
K
2
2
1
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1.85
L
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1.85
M
2
1
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1.89
N
1.23
1.23
1.38
1.38
1.46
1.46
1.46
1.54
1.54
1.54
1.54
1.54
1.62
1.62
1.62
1.71
1.77
1.77
1.77
1.85
1.85
1.92
1.92
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
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
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
Attitude towards Leaders and
Leadership
100 %
90 %
6
8
9
5
9
9
9
17
80 %
70 %
35
45
60 %
47
Cannot say
No
50 %
56
Same
Yes
40 %
30 %
50
42
20 %
36
10 %
19
0%
More communication
More critical
More participative
More respect
17
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
Termination of civil-servant employment by type of civil-service
structure
(Frequencies in parenthesis)
Type of
civilservice
system
Few
grounds
(1-2)
Some
grounds
(3-5)
Many
grounds
(6-7)
Total
50 (9)
28 (5)
22 (4)
100 (18)
Non-career 0 (0)
structure
44 (4)
56 (5)
100 (9)
Total
33 (9)
33 (9)
100 (27)
Career
structure
33 (9)
Termination of civil-servant employment by
EU Member State
(1=Yes, 2=No)
Germany
Greece
Luxembourg
Belgium
Cyprus
Ireland
Italy
Portugal
Spain
Austria
Malta
Sweden
Czech Republic
Estonia
France
Hungary
Lithuania
United Kingdom
Bulgaria
Denmark
Finland
Latvia
Netherlands
Poland
Slovakia
Slovenia
Romania
Mean
A
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1.00
B
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.71
C
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.61
D
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.61
E
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.54
F
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
0.29
G
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0.18
H
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
7
3.93
A = Disciplinary reasons
B = Poor performance
C = 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)
lowering of job satisfaction
decrease of trust in leadership
decrease in workplace commitment
increase in anger
decrease of trust in the organisation
Effect
perceived unfairness (colleagues)
No effect
decrease in loyalty
Hard to say
Missing
perceived unfairness (private sector)
decline of ethical values
greater tendency towards corruption
higher stress levels and job intensity
inappropriate use of resources
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
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, AntiDiscrimination, 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)
recruitment policies
promotion policies
pay reforms
enhancing public/private mobility
implementation of austerity measures
change of organisational culture
decentralisation of HR responsibilities
Vulnerable
Not vulnerable
other organisational reforms
Cannot say
reform of job security
reforms of social security systems
competency management
openness
citizen-orientation
introduction of new ICT
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
The case of Pay reforms:
Unfairness in the Seniority System
Individual
Organizational
• Unequal pay for equal work • Undifferential
compensation
• Discrimination of young
– Above average performance
employees
– poor performance
• Free-riders
• Limited career options
• Little alignment with private
sector payment
30
…to unfairness in the PRP System
Individual
 Unprofessional Assessment
 Measured variable
 Favouritism
 Transformation into benefits
 Quota
 Discrimination
 Goal-setting
Organizational
Financial insufficiencies
Insecurity
Intensification of work
Unsteadiness of goals
Intransparency
Pay differentiation within
and across agencies
Rewards at the cost of other
employees
Social immobility
31
Findings and preliminary results: micro-level development
How would you judge the development
of the working conditions in your organisation?
32
Overall Reform Outcomes
FROM TRADITIONAL BUREAUCRACY
TO POST-BUREAUCRACY
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
public law status (100%)
2) Career structure
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%)
3) Recruitment
special recruitment requirements (50%)
recruitment centrally regulated (30%)
private sector experience not relevant (20%)
4) Salary system
basic salary regulated by law (50%)
wage system based on seniority (25%)
wage system not based on performance (25%)
5) Tenure system
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 State
0% = traditional bureaucracy, 100% = post-bureaucracy
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
EL
LU
CY
IE
FR
PT
DE
BE
ES
RO
IT
HU
AT
LT
PL
BG
MT
SI
Mean
EE
LV
NL
SK
FI
UK
DK
CZ
SE
0
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, rulebound 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 of civil service
FUTURE CHALLENGES
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, 20102050 (% 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.
Future of civil service
CONCLUSIONS: HOW TO BETTER
UNDERSTAND ALL OF THIS?
UNINTENTIONAL REFORM EFFECTS/
DILEMMAS AND PARADOXES.
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?
48
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 administrative 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