Civil Services in the EU of 27 Reform Outcomes and the Future of the Civil Service

1. Civil Services in the EU of 27Reform Outcomes and the Future of the Civil Service EIPA, Maastricht European Commission, 10 February 2012 Prof Dr Christoph Demmke, EIPA

2. Whythispresentation? • 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 ?

3. Similarities among Member States Differences among Member States Comparison: Howcivilserviceisdefined in theeumemberstates

4. 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)

5. 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

6. Do these administrative sectors belong to central civil service or do they have their own civil service systems?

7. Percentage of civil servants and other employees by Member State (*) 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.

8. Organisational Reforms HR Reforms Identifying Major reform Trends

9. Change ofpublicemploymentandsubstanceofpublicemployment. • 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

10. Main differences between civil servants and other public employees by issue and Member State (1 = different, 2 = similar)

11. 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) Grand Reform Trends Common Reform Trends in All EU Member States

12. Decentralisationofpowers, competencesandresponsibilities • 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

13. Level of central regulation by policy and by EU Member State(1=Centrally regulated, 2=Not centrally regulated) 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

14. Vertical decentralisation and multi-actor involvement in EU public administrations 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

15. 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) 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

16. Consequence: Leadershipmoreimportantandmoreproblematic • 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

17. Attitude towards Leaders and Leadership

18. 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

19. 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

20. Termination of civil-servant employment by type of civil-service structure (Frequencies in parenthesis)

21. Termination of civil-servant employment by EU Member State (1=Yes, 2=No) A = Disciplinary reasons B = Poor performance C = Restructuring D = Downsizing E = Re-organisation F = Economic difficulties G = Other H = Sum

22. 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)

23. Successes and challenges Analysing Reform Outcomes

24. 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?

25. 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)

26. Impact of austerity measures on workplace level (N=25)

27. 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)

28. 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, Anti-Discrimination, 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?)

29. Vulnerability of HR-reform trends to integrity violations (N=24)

30. The case of Pay reforms: Unfairness in the Seniority System Unequal pay for equal work Discrimination of young employees Free-riders Undifferential compensation Above average performance poor performance Limited career options Little alignment with private sector payment Individual Organizational

31. …to unfairness in the PRP System Unprofessional Assessment Measured variable Favouritism Transformation into benefits Quota Discrimination Goal-setting 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 Individual Organizational

32. Findings and preliminary results: micro-level development How would you judge the development of the working conditions in your organisation? 32

33. FROM TRADITIONAL BUREAUCRACY TO POST-BUREAUCRACY Overall Reform Outcomes

34. How to measure? Measuring traditional bureacuracy indicators (Weber, in: Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft)

35. 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

36. Traditional bureaucracy – post-bureaucracy continuum score by EU Member State 0% = traditional bureaucracy, 100% = post-bureaucracy

37. Development of Administrative Models 0% = traditional bureaucracy, 100% = post-bureaucracy

38. 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, rule-bound 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?

39. Correlation Bureaucratic structures and Corruption 39

40. 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

41. FUTURE CHALLENGES Future of civil service

42. 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

43. The proportion of elderly population (aged 65 and over) in five case countries, 2010-2050 (% of the total population)

44. Age Management: Designing new work structures, work mentalities, flighting discrimination – a new challenge (Source: Illmarinen)

45. 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?

46. 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.

47. CONCLUSIONS: HOW TO BETTER UNDERSTAND ALL OF THIS? UNINTENTIONAL REFORM EFFECTS/ DILEMMAS AND PARADOXES. Future of civil service

48. 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

49. 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

50. Need for better analysing unintentional effects