Open Management Innovations and Administrative Capacity

1772 days ago, 784 views
PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Connection. New Member States move to a next stage in their enrollment with the 2007-2013 financing frameworkThree further CEECs in a propelled phase of arrangement for membershipAdministrative limit is a key issue in deciding the nature of monetary administration, aggressiveness and capacity to utilize the advantages of EU membershipKey question: how to enhance authoritative quality past center EI funct

Presentation Transcript

Slide 1

´╗┐Open Management Innovations and Administrative Capacity Tony Verheijen Senior Public Sector Management Specialist The World Bank

Slide 2

Context New Member States move to a next stage in their participation with the 2007-2013 financing system Three further CEECs in a propelled phase of readiness for enrollment Administrative limit is a key issue in deciding the nature of monetary administration, aggressiveness and capacity to utilize the advantages of EU enrollment Key question: how to enhance authoritative quality past center EI capacities (transposition and so on)?

Slide 3

Context ctd. Two years after promotion a few questions stay on regulatory quality in CEECs: Low store ingestion limit does not look good for the 2007-2013 period Fiscal administration issues stay in a few states Also: Competitiveness issues (and their linkage with managerial quality) will pick up significance as financial improvement parameters keep on converging

Slide 4

The Bank Study Follow-up to the 1999 'Prepared for Europe' Study Focus on advancements and best practice join with survey of essential parameters of authoritative limit Using a benchmarking approach in light of acknowledged markers of authoritative limit Combining inside and out reviews with work area audit

Slide 5

Main Findings Some fascinating and propelled developments, specifically on execution administration and e-administration Reversals of prior advance in a few states on fundamental parts of common administration advancement Concerns on arrangement coordination limit

Slide 6

Benchmarks Strategic arranging and execution: OECD and CAF best practice pointers evaluated by the CAF scale Policy coordination: Metcalfe Scale Civil Service: SIGMA baselines E-Governance: progression as far as period of improvement

Slide 7

Benchmarking: execution administration and key arranging Systems in Latvia and Lithuania are progressed, and would rate above EU normal, however singular examination is a frail connection Other states (particularly SK) demonstrate some office based developments, yet no systemic approach Introducing a general vital arranging and execution motivation is critical for fruitful basic reserve usage

Slide 8

Benchmarking on key arranging

Slide 9

Performance Management

Slide 10

Policy Coordination Most states would meet "solid" least levels on particular EI coordination (levels 4-5 on the Metcalfe scale) Most states would rate with the weakest among the "old" part states on general coordination

Slide 11

Overall Coordination

Slide 12

EI coordination

Slide 13

Civil Service Focus on four perspectives: Legislation Horizontal Management Politicization Incentives

Slide 14

A Case of General Backsliding? A SIGMA appraisal now would indicate inversions on key issues: Legislation much of the time renounced or 'dressed down' Horizontal administration stays feeble, and as a rule is being killed Politicization keeps on being an issue Limited advance in change of motivation frameworks The scope for the foundation an "established" common administration model is faulty for various states

Slide 15

Key Issues How to make an excellent organization if political will to make a "traditional" common administration is low? Motivating force frameworks: how to go past rank and hazy and impromptu extra frameworks? Could politicization be overseen?? Are even administration structures at all practical? If not, what is the option?

Slide 16

Service conveyance E-Governance developments in Estonia keep on being a best practice However, for financial and different reasons replicability would be troublesome Less thorough and incremental methodologies require greater support

Slide 17

Can best practices give motivation to change? Audit of replicability: systemic and organization particular developments: Performance administration and vital arranging frameworks are for the most part home-developed and can be adjusted Linkage to individual execution and rewards should be built up Investment in such frameworks will pay off as far as enhanced monetary administration, enhanced auxiliary reserve assimilation and a more alluring speculation atmosphere

Slide 18

Service conveyance Estonia as a special case or a model? More scattered advancements in different states demonstrate the capability of e-administrations Investment and framework contemplations may make full replication extremely troublesome

Slide 19

Agency particular changes Problem of take off, seen in both Latvia (late 1990s) and Slovakia (late years) Could give musings on the most proficient method to move from institutional execution to individual level

Slide 20

Lessons and Agenda Interesting prescribed procedures have 'grown up', and ought to motivate different states Foundation issues remain and will influence state execution on urgent parts of open administration if not tended to Classical ways to deal with common administration improvement may not "stick" and options may should be found to address dependability and impetus issues