Capacity for Policy Implementation in Central Government
of Bulgaria1
Abstract
This paper analyses the capacity for policy implementation in central government
of Bulgaria. The paper is focused on the government composition and the changes in the
political leadership after the parliamentary election in 2005. It examines the role and
functions of the government as a strategic center for policy coordination and
implementation, and the organization and efficiency of administrative structures at
central level. The arrangement of administrative structures at central level is presented
and the main structural changes are outlined. The mechanisms and methods of
interministrial coordination and harmonization are discussed. The tendency to set up
councils for coordinating and implementing interdepartmental policies at the central
government is revealed.
Introduction
The increased complexity of policy issues on one hand, and the burdens placed by
the processes of globalization and European integration on the other hand, is some of the
main challenges that government has been faced in the last decade. The experience of
Bulgaria and other CEE countries shows that in the period of transition the capacity for
policy formulation and implementation has turned out to be a crucial factor for the
transformation of the country. To facilitate this process it is strongly required both
adequate capacity for political leadership and solid institutional arrangements.
Traditionally, the responsibility of the political leadership is related to policy-making,
while the translation of policy decisions and their implementation is the key function of
administration.
In Bulgaria the reforms for establishing a democratic society and market
economy started in the early 1990s and it was expected that the new democratic
1
Polya Katsamunska, PhD, University of National and World Economy, Sofia, Department of Public
Administration and Regional Development
1
institutions could develop necessary capacity to carry out reforms and implement their
policies, but the significant instability was the main barrier for carrying out profound
economic and social reforms. Since 1989 when the changes started Bulgaria has had
eleven governments, but only two of them managed to fulfill their due term of office (the
Kostov government 1997-2001 and the government of Simeon Sax-Cobourg-Gotha
2001-2005)2. Most often the failures of government had usually been blamed either on
weak political leadership or inadequate administrative performance.
1. Government composition and changes in political leadership
The general structure of powers was set with the adoption of the Constitution in
1991. The constitution stipulates that the Council of Ministers is the central executive
authority, collectively responsible for managing and implementing domestic and foreign
policy, while the role of the prime minister is to direct, coordinated, and bear
responsibility for the overall policy of the cabinet. The specific structure of government
of proposed by each candidate prime minister. The government is appointed en block and
is accountable to the Parliament.
After the parliamentary election in June 2005, the Bulgarian parliament is
composed of seven parties and such a situation has not been happened before in the new
Bulgarian history. No one party won the majority to rule alone and due to the
complicated political situation the new government was composed after a period of
almost two months of difficult political consultations. The leader of the Bulgarian
Socialist Party was nominated for the post of prime-minister, but Stanishev’ first attempt
to head the government in coalition only with the Movement for Rights and Freedoms
was blocked by the parliament. After an agreement reached among the three largest
parties in the parliament (the Bulgarian Socialist Party (BSP), the National Movement
Simeon || (NMSS) and the Movement for rights and Freedoms (MRF), the Stanishev
government was appointed in August 2005 with the mandate of the Movement for rights
and Freedoms and is due to end in August 2009. The format of the cabinet, which is
based on the formula 8 + 5 +3, is a result of the coalition agreement and this distribution
2
State gazette 1990-2005
2
of posts within the government coalition is an expression of the size of the three
parliamentary groups supporting the government. As a result of that the current
government is initially composed by 8 members of BSP, 5 members of NMSS and 3
members of MRF and there are three deputy prime ministers.
In contrast to the previous government, when all of the three deputy prime
ministers were members of NMSS, each of the three deputy prime ministers in the
current cabinet is appointed by the respective party from the coalition and has ministerial
post in a key area (foreign affairs, education and science, and natural disasters and
accidents). Along with the responsibility they bear in the respective area as ministers, for
the purpose of establishing balance and improving the coordination among the key actors
in the government, they also have a scope of responsibility in different sectors. The
position of prime minister presumes dominance and responsibility for overall government
policy, but key issues in the areas of interior affairs, defense and finance are under the
scope of his direct supervision and control. In regard to policy implementation the issues
in the fields of agriculture and forestry, economics and energy, and European issues are
within the area of competence of the deputy prime minister of BSP, while the deputy
prime minister of NMSS is empowered with competences in definite areas of culture,
state administration and law are specific areas of responsibility for. Finally, the specific
areas of competence empowered to the deputy prime minister of MRF include labor and
social affairs, regional development and public work, and health.
In contrast to the expert profile of the previous cabinet in general, the current one
has a predominantly political profile as all ministers are members of the three political
parties in the coalition. The only exception is key figure of the minister of finance, being
an expert. When the government of Simeon Sax-Cobourg-Gotha came into office in
2001, it declared its intent to keep on working on the main priorities set by the Kostov
government. Generally, the cabinet had an expert profile especially regarding the
economic, financial and industrial sectors. Initially, the cabinet was composed of 16
ministers, who were not political figures. This profile changed especially when the head
of the parliamentary group of NMSS became deputy prime minister on the issues of
European integration and administrative modernization. Right at the beginning there were
made some structural changes and a good example for that is the establishment of new
3
structures with the promotion of two executive agencies into ministries. During its term
of office there were also several replacements of ministers. Towards the end of the
mandate, in order to ensure parliamentary support and keep the stability of the cabinet, a
new parliamentary group joined the coalition and one of its political figures became a
minister.
A specific characteristic of the current government is the establishment of the
Council of coalition and its key actors are the three leaders of the political parties that
compose the cabinet. The council of coalition was created aiming to discuss and reach
agreements on key issues regarding the overall government policy and thus to stabilize
the functioning of the coalition. Another major difference between the two governments
refers to the number of deputy ministers. Initially both cabinets have the same number of
ministers (17), but as for the number of deputy ministers the situation is rather different.
If under the government of Simeon Sax-Cobourg-Gotha there were 55 deputy ministers,
their number considerably increased and reached 71 under the Stanishev cabinet. Some
of the main similarities and differences in the composition of the two cabinets are
depicted on Tabl.1
Table 1. Comparison in initial composition of the two cabinets
Initial number of Initial number Initial number of Initial number of
the Council of of
Government
Ministers
deputy main
prime ministers
deputy ministers
structural
changes
Simeon
Sax-
Cobourg-Gotha
17
3
2
55
17
3
5
71
(2001- 2005)
Sergei Stanishev
(2005 - due to 2009)
As Table 1 shows there is no change in the size of the cabinets and the number of
deputy prime ministers, but there is significant difference in the number of deputy
ministers. This is an indication that the role of this position is not clear enough and the
4
conclusion is supported by the fact that they do not have specific function in the policy
process. The Law on Administration provides that the deputy prime ministers support the
work of the prime minister and they are empowered with competences in definite areas
by the prime minister. In regard to the position of deputy minister, the same act provides
that they support the minister in implementation of the government program, developing
legal drafts and performing his/her duties in the areas of the defined competence. Each
minister delegates functions to be performed by the deputy ministers in the areas of
competences they have been empowered.
It should be highlighted the important role of political cabinets to the bodies of the
executive power. The political cabinets to the prime minister, the deputy prime ministers
and the ministers are units with analytical and advisory functions. Their task is to support
policy development and ensure the necessary information and coordination for decisionmaking. The experts in the political cabinets have a clear political affiliation and
therefore, they are not granted the status of civil servants.
The brief comparison in regard to the composition of the two cabinets show the
different approaches used in setting their profiles. Mainly experts with strong managerial
or sector experience were preferred in the composition of the previous government, while
the current cabinet is strongly dominated by party figures. Generally, this preference
depends on the parliamentary support for each government. Therefore, we can conclude
that when there is a need to secure or increase this support, the prime minister is inclined
to involve more party functionaries in the government composition.
2. Arrangement of administrative structures at central level and
mechanisms for coordination
The reinforced role of the Council of Ministers as a strategic centre for policy
formulation and coordination is a result from the development of the concept of the
Council of Ministers from management and carrying out domestic and foreign policy to
formulation, development and implementation of domestic and foreign policy, to
coordination of the work of the executive bodies for accomplishing a coherent state
5
policy. Regarding the ministries, they are specialized units for development of sector
policies. Alongside with the administration of the Council of Ministers and the
administration of the ministries, at central level there are also a number of administrative
structures established by a law or a decree of the Council of Ministers to manage issues
of specific areas.
At central level there are three different types of administrative structures with
specific functions regulated by the Law on Administration. These units operate under the
Council of Ministers or are subordinated to Ministers and their functions are related with
the implementation of the executive power. The executive agencies are established as
units providing administrative services and implementing specific tasks, assigned by the
respective ministry. The state commissions are units subordinated either to the Council of
Ministers or to a minister to implement specific functions of controlling, registration or
licensing in regard to enforcing a law or government decree. The state agencies are units
directly subordinate to the Council of Ministers for implementation of activities that are
not performed by other ministry.
Analysis of the data published in the register of administrative structures shows
that in the end of 2003 there were 121 structures within the central administration, of
which 24 operated under the Council of Ministers and 80 structures subordinated to
Ministers. In 2004 their number increased and reached 1933. This tendency was kept in
2005. Comparison between administrative structures for 2003 and 2004 and the
illustration of the tendency is presented on Table 2.
3
2004 Annual Report for the Public Administration, issued by the Minister of State Administration in Mayl
2005
6
Table 2. Comparison between administrative structures at central level for
2003 and 2004
2003
2004
Total number
Subordinated to the
Subordinated to
of structures
Council of Ministers
Ministers
121 - this includes:
8 state agencies
22 executive agencies
16 ministries
5 state commissions
2 commissions
24 structures to CoM
11 administrative
46 administrative
80 structures to Ministers
structures
structures
193 - this includes:
7 state agencies
36 executive agencies
16 ministries
3 state commissions
2 commissions
19 structures to CoM
9 administrative
114 administrative
152 structures to
structures
structures
Ministers
5 state institutions
Source: Annual Report for the Public Administration in 2003 and 2004
Organizational relations among politicians and civil servants in Bulgaria were
arranged with the adoption of the Law on Administration and State Servants’ Act. These
laws clearly distinguish between a political post (minister) and a professional career post
(general-secretary, director of directorate, head of section). The administrative head of a
ministry is the general secretary, which is a professional post, while the executive team of
the ministry consists of the minister, deputy-ministers and the staff of the political
cabinet, which is limited to 5% of the total number of the administrative staff. Table 3
illustrates the scope of the state administration and the changes that occurred in it in the
period 2001-2004
7
Table 3. Scope of the State Administration for the period 2001 – 2004
Total number of
Number of employees in the
administrative
administration
employees
at central level
% increase
in total
2001
18 311
14 850
41.8%
2002.
72 530
20 154
28.6%
2003
81 062
22 711
10.3%
2004
85 340
31 854
5.3%
Source: Annual Reports on State Administration for 2001-2004
The previous government made only few structural changes initially and they
referred to the promotion of two executive agencies into ministries. The current
government also started its functioning with structural changes. A good example of that is
the establishment of huge Ministry of Economics and Energy, which was a result of
joining two separate ministries (Ministry of economics and Ministry of energy and
energy resources). Another important change in the structure was the transformation of
the Ministry of Youth and Sports into agency. The changes were not confined only to
transformations of some the existing structures, because there were established new
ministries also (Ministry of State administration and Administrative Reform and Ministry
of Natural Disasters and Accidents).
The priorities of the Ministry of State administration and Administrative Reform
are focused on modernization and organizational development of state administration,
training and managing of human resources, developing of e-government, improving and
simplifying administrative regulations and services, and increasing the transparency of
state administration. Since the ministry was established, all its activities have been
directed towards the implementation of its functions. The first results of its work relate to
8
the amendments of the current legislation proposed by the ministry regarding the Law on
Administration and the Law of Civil Servant, which were adopted by the Council of
Ministers in the end of 2005. It was also developed by the Ministry a legal draft for etrade regulating the main responsibilities of information services suppliers to provide
information. Changes were also made in the filed of secondary legislation and they are
related with the composition of the Council for modernization of state administration, as
well as the introduction of flexible rules making the work of the Council more effective.
In cooperation with the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry worked out behavioral rules for
ministries and politically appointed officials in the executive power. These ethical norms
collected in Code of ethics for these officials were accepted with a decision of the
Council of Ministers.
The consultation process is an integral part of the general political and
administrative cycle for formulation of decisions, their realization and the assessment of
the results achieved. The Law on Administration regulates the mechanisms for
performing the consulting process in the central administration. The Law (Art.21)
provides that the Council of Ministers could establish councils, as well as working group
of experts, in connection with the implementation of policy or specific task performance,
coming out of a law or parliamentary decision. In 2003 there were functioning 27
councils to the Council of ministers for coordination and implementation of
interdepartmental policies. Some of them have been restructured because of expanding
and binding their functions with the interdepartmental policies. The interministrial
council for coordinating the activities in relation to improving the administrative services
and developing e-government could be given as a good example. It was transformed into
a working group to the Council for modernization of state administration. Other similar
examples represent the Council for structural policy, transformed into a Council for
economic policy and the National council for insurance, changed into a commission for
financial audit.
Ministers could also establish councils as advisory units for solving specific
problem and the work of these councils is supported by the administrative units in the
ministry (Law on Administration, Art. 45). Advisory councils are bodies for current
coordination between the state administration and social partners. The aim is that the
9
social partners’ proposals and opinions be considered when decisions on specific issues
are to be made or drafting of acts is under preparation. The advisory councils are also
used as forums for solving current problems and offering specific measures that commit
their representatives.
The prevailing methods of interministrial coordination and harmonization with
other interested parties are bilateral cooperation agreements, consultative and
coordinating
councils,
interministrial
working
groups
and
commissions
for
interdepartmental coordination. Table 4 illustrates the methods of coordination used by
some administrative structures at central level in Bulgaria.
Table 4. Methods of coordination used by administrative structures at
central level
Method
Bilateral cooperation agreements
Central Administrative Structures
The Agency for Refugees
The Agency for Post-Privatization Control
The Agency for Nuclear regulations
Consultative and coordinating
Ministry of Labor and Social Policy
councils
Agency for small and Medium-sized Enterprises
Central Administration of Archives
Interministrial working groups
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry
State Agency for Metrology and Technical
Supervision
Commissions for
Communications regulatory Commission
interdepartmental coordination
According to a sociological research of the National center for studying the public
opinion, 26.2 % of the administrative staff considers that the main disadvantage in the
organization of the work in the administration is the lack of coordination among the
administrative units and the interaction with other administrations. As for the internal
coordination, 8.7% of them think that the barrier for performing their duties is the lack of
coordination among the departments within the administration itself. Based on this
10
analysis it is obvious that there is a need to have in place reliable mechanisms of
interministrial coordination and harmonization with the actors involved in order to
improve the existing coordination on matters of interministrial and national interest and
to strengthen interdepartmental coordination.
Conclusion:
The review of the Bulgarian development after more than 15 years of reforms in
various sectors (economic, military, social, administrative, etc.) shows that the expertise
and managerial experience gathered at the political level do not always lead to better
performance. The regular reports of the European commission on administrative capacity
and the evaluations of other outside observers and donors state that the Bulgarian
government has not yet acquired the necessary capacity for good policy implementation
after years of purposeful reforms.
The analysis reveals that at the political level it has been accumulated managerial
and expertise experience. The Council of Ministers and its administration have been
established as the strategic centre for policy formulation and coordination, the ministries
has started to function as specialized units for development of sector policies, while the
functions of other administrative structures operating under the Council of Minister or
respective ministers relate to the implementation of executive power. The organization of
the
administration
and
the
established
mechanisms
for
coordinating
policy
implementation has led to positive results. Setting up councils for coordinating and
implementing interdepartmental policies at the central government has become is a
prevailing tendency in the recent years. However, it is evident that there is more to be
done in order to improve the existing coordination on matters of interministrial and
national interest and to strengthen interdepartmental coordination for effective policy
implementation.
11
References:
1. Pavlov, P., Mihaleva, Sv., Bases of Public Administration, Varna Free University,
2004
2. Annual Reports on the State of Public Administration for 2003 and 2004
3.Strategy for Modernization of the Public Administration - from Accession to
Integration /2003-2006/, CoM Decision N 671 of September 24, 2003
4. Survey of the National Center for Public Opinion Studies, 2005
5. Government program of European integration, economic growth and social responsibility,
Co M, 2005
6. Data from the Register of the administrative structures for 2004
7. 2005 Overall Monitoring Report of Bulgaria, European Commission, Brussels, 2005
8. Institutional Requirements and Problem Solving in the Public Administrations of the
Enlarged European Union and its Neighbours, eds.: Jenei, G., Barabashev, A., van den
Berg, F., NISPAcee, 2005
9. Managing Succession and Developing Leadership: Growing the Next Generation of
Public Service Leadrs, U.S. Academy of Public Administration, 1997,
10. SIGMA, Bulgaria, Public Service and the Administrative Framework, Assessment
2003
.
12