Reforming the Public Sector: Can it be Done?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Charles Warria on October 13, 2011 at 12:46am

Dear Hannah,

Greetings! On July 8, 2011, the Kenya Government launched the Open Data Initiative, a move that is aimed at creating direct access to government information cutting across all Ministries and Sectors, by the Kenyan public. The web portal, was developed to enhance greater levels of transparency and accountability by the Kenya Government, to the Kenyan people through an open government approach. The portal ensures that Government information is available to the public in a digital electronic format ranging from government expenditure, to health, education, demographics, ICT and others. The open data portal will enable Kenyans to keep track of service delivery and to hold the Kenya Government accountable in using public funds. Every Kenyan will have a quick access to information, in line with the new constitutional requirement under article 35, that provides for the right to information, for all citizens. This portal can be accessed publicly at www.opendata.go.ke

 

Many thanks,

Charles Warria

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Devendra Parsad Ruhee on October 17, 2011 at 2:23pm

Dear Hannah,

Greetings from Mauritius.

We had embarked on administrative reforms in the context of the modernization of the Public Sector in 2001. I was the Secretary for Public Service Affairs in charge of the Ministry of Civil Service & Administrative Reforms at the time. We engaged in wide and broad consultations with all stakeholders ( private sector, Heads of Ministries/Departments, civil service and other workers' unions) before we produced a Strategic Plan for 2001-2003.

As a result, there was a general review of the vision, mission and goals and objectives of the government departments and parastatal institutions. Rules and regulations, procedures and processes were re-visited.

We produced revised Manuals for personnel and financial management. These were followed by the introduction of a new Performance management system, and Program-based Budgeting in 2006.We invested in capacity building and worked in close collaboration with public sector organizations at the regional level. Of course, there were teething problems at the beginning, but there has been marked improvement in results management since.Colleagues who are interested may visit the Government Portal of Mauritius for more information.Our challenge for MfDR remains in the field of M&E. We are now focussing on greater  involvement of citizens and civil society in the national drive for women empowerment and the fight against poverty.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Hannah J Cooper on October 20, 2011 at 11:48am

Dear Charles and Dev,

 

Thank you so much for your comments to date. Charles - I was thinking about Kenya's Open Data Initiative. Is there evidence on how access to this type of information is changing how the government works?

 

Dev - your description of reforms in Mauritius provide a perfect transition to our first set of questions!

 

I would like to ask members to help us establish a baseline - i.e. present information that highlights the current state of public sector reform in Africa:

• Does the Public Sector Reform fits into your country’s Poverty Reduction Strategy (PRSP)?

 

• What organizations are involved in public sector reform (Prime Minister’s Office, Ministry of State for reform, etc)? Are any departments involved in piloting or steering the reforms? And if so, which ones?

• How would you rate the performance (results) of the public administration in your country? (Low, medium, high)? Why? Can you elaborate?

• What are some examples of transformation of a service, a ministry or a state enterprise which initiated its own reform and were successful? What do you think are the factors that contributed to this success?

• Has your government implemented a participatory approach in planning and reform implementation? Have they consulted with employees, unions, civil society groups, citizens, etc? Did the government have the support and guidance of donors?

• Do you feel that since the implementation of public sector reform in your country, that the government is better meeting the needs of its citizens and marginalized groups?

 

Colleagues - I am really looking forward to your thoughts on this and to learning more about what is happening in your countries. Remember - if you prefer to post anonymously - you can do so by clicking here: http://www.cop-mfdr-africa.org/page/post-anonymously

 

Many thanks!

 

Hannah

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Sylvia Siango Apreku on October 21, 2011 at 7:26pm

This e-discussion on the topic 'Reforming the Public Sector-Can it be done?' is very pertinent to the African continent. And my conviction is....  Yes it can be Done and it is successfully being done as we can see from the experiences so far shared from Kenya, Mauritius etc. Please refer to some more thoughts, best practices and challenges on public sector reforms in Sub-Sahara Africa shared at http://www.cop-mfdr-africa.org/profiles/blogs/part-4-public-sector-...

Central to reforming the public sector and getting it done in Africa, is addressing the issue of the 'human resource in the public/civil service'. This is the bedrock for the much required strong government institutions to sustain the reforms.

Some good reading on public sector reforms "Virtuous Cycles-The Singapore Public Service and National Development" by Saxena N.C. 2011 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Hannah J Cooper on October 24, 2011 at 1:18pm

Dear Sylvia,

 

Thanks so much for your comment!

I strongly encourage members to check out Sylvia's blog post - which can be found on our homepage!

 

Many thanks and kind regards,

 

Hannah

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Hannah J Cooper on November 7, 2011 at 3:03pm

Dear Colleagues,

 

Unfortunately, I haven't heard back from you yet on what is happening in your own countries in terms of public sector reform. We really need to establish a baseline, so that we can continue.

 

While I am waiting for your feedback, I thought that I would share what my country, Canada, has done in terms of public sector reforms. I've taken the following from the website of the Clerk of the Privy Council. I thought it was interesting, so I'm sharing it with you below:

"The story of public sector reform in Canada deserves to be told. It is a story about democracy and the role of government in a modern society. It is a story of partnership between elected officials and public servants. It is a story about the importance of the public sector in a well-performing global society.

The reform efforts of many countries are well known. People interested in public administration and public sector reform have studied or heard about the "U.K. model," the "New Zealand model" or the "Australian model." We know of the efforts of some countries to separate policy and service delivery, to establish "next-step agencies," to borrow best practices from the private sector, tofocus on clients and client needs. Every developed country is facing similar circumstances. Each is responding in its own way, and all are learning from one another.

The "Canadian model" is less well known. While none of its elements are uniquely Canadian, taken together they amount to an approach that is sufficiently different from all the others to warrant attention.

The Canadian model is based on the belief that government and government  institutions are essential to a well-performing society. While it rejects the philosophy that less government is synonymous with better government, the Canadian model recognizes the importance of affordable government. It endorses the idea that democracy working side by side with a market economy is the key to national prosperity and the well-being of citizens.

The Canadian model asserts that public sector reform must start by examining the role
that government is expected to play in the future. It recognizes that public sector reform must be anchored in a reasonable understanding of the strategic contribution that government is expected to make to the prosperity of Canada and to the well-being of its citizens. It recognizes that government cannot act alone. It acknowledges that the role of government can vary depending on the circumstances: it must be able to lead, to play the role of catalyst, to build partnerships, to create strategic alliances, and to rely on the commitment of all those who are willing and able to contribute to the collective good.

The Canadian model affirms that a  well-performing public sector requires both a strong policy capacity and a modern service delivery function. Over the past few years, the public service has sought to strengthen its capacity for policy research, analysis and development and, at the same time, to modernize its approach to service delivery. Along the way it discovered that both functions were facing very similar challenges.

In service delivery, it means integrating services among departments and among governments, building partnerships and strategic alliances and exploiting the potential of information technology to better meet the needs of citizens. In policy, it means taking a broader, more comprehensive approach to the public interest, ahead of the departmental interest; working co-operatively to develop more integrated policy responses; and cultivating more open, participatory and transparent policy development processes.

The Canadian model rejects the notion that "one size fits all." It encourages experimentation and the emergence of a diversity of institutional models to put before decision makers. Portfolio management is a recent Canadian innovation. It recognizes that a minister is responsible to Parliament for a family of organizations, and it encourages greater flexibility within each organization and greater cohesion among the organizations reporting to a single minister.

The Canadian model does not accept that the policy and service delivery functions should be separated as a universal principle. Instead, it follows a more pragmatic route in which separating the policy and service delivery functions is contemplated whenever it can be demonstrated that it will bring about substantive gains in the quality of service to citizens.

The Canadian model recognizes the  importance of a well-performing, professional,  non-partisan public service. It recognizes that public servants have a key role to play in shaping policies and delivering services. The Canadian model recognizes that to build a modern and vibrant professional, non-partisan public service, it is necessary to commit as much time and energy to human resources management as to policy development or service delivery. It recognizes that to retain, motivate and attract a corps of talented and dedicated public servants requires profound change. The public service must be able to provide its people with the breadth of knowledge and experience necessary to advise and serve in a modern and global environment.

The Canadian model requires leadership from both elected and appointed officials. Political leadership has been essential to realign the role of government, to ensure balance and fairness and to stay the course over a number of years. Public service leadership has been relied upon to put bold and creative ideas before ministers, to marshal support for change and to ensure smooth implementation. Each group has played its role well and all have reason to be proud of the results they have accomplished together.

An important chapter was written in Canada over the last few years, but this is no reason for complacency. The results to date are no guarantee of progress in the future. They were accomplished in a unique period when there was a broad consensus on the need to realign the role of government and reduce expenditures to live within society’s collective means. Can the conditions that made it possible to achieve so much progress so quickly be sustained over a longer period? Only time will tell.

Ministers and their officials have laid the basis on which they can now envisage an even more ambitious agenda. Ministers and their officials have laid the basis on which they can now envisage an even more ambitious agenda. As we enter the new millennium, Canada is now well positioned to develop new relationships between government and citizens and to explore new ways to strengthen parliamentary democracy and its supporting public sector institutions.

During the last decade, a lot was said about the impact of globalization in a market economy. Over the next decade, we can expect to hear a lot more about the importance of democratic and public sector institutions in a well-performing global society."

 

To read more you can go to www.clerk.gc.ca. You can also find out about the Canadian Public Service 2010-2011 Renewal Plan here: http://www.clerk.gc.ca/eng/feature.asp?pageId=165

 

Please let me know if you have any questions! I look forward to hearing about what is happening in your countries.

 

Many thanks,

 

Hannah

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Hannah J Cooper on November 29, 2011 at 10:24am

Dear Colleagues,

 

Apologies for being so quiet. Things have busy with preparations for the Busan High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness. (To find out more about the Forum, click here)

 

In the interim, I am pleased to see that there have been a lot of sub-discussions and blog posts started by AfCoP members all related to the topic of Public Sector Reform. I’ve decided to share some excerpts from the posts and I look forward to getting your feedback on them!

 

Saqid Kazungu from Kenya asks:

“Meritocracy and good governance in Africa – A pipe dream?

Good governance is, without doubt, a prerequisite to sustainable development that Africans dearly dream of. Unfortunately, societal malpractices such as corruption, tribalism and favoritism have continually characterized our public institutions management. This has greatly inhibited growth and development. So, how can we stop these malpractices?”

 

Dr. Sylvia Siango Apreku posts the following in her blog post on Lessons Learned in Public sector Reform – which may help to answer Saqid’s question:

“Saxena (2011) argues that: “A key factor in Singapore’s successful approach towards tackling its development has been the competence and pragmatic mindset of its public service and political leadership. This led to the fledgling government to adopt bold national policies which often went against the conventional wisdom of the day, but which have proven their value over time. Provided there is political will, many of Singapore’s reform experiences can be replicated in other developing countries, even though their political and social context may be different.”

 

Dr. Siango Apreku goes on to say that:

 

Robust prioritization and sequencing of reform activities is key and more effective. Within the context of Africa’s institutional and human capacity, there is an urgent need to prudently prioritize and sequence Public Sector Reform activities in any country. The priorities and the sequence will vary considerably from country to country…

 

Issues of pay reform, low and inequitable compensation levels. Implementation of pay reform policies and strategies is very daunting but nevertheless needs to be given early and due attention within the macro-economic context of the respective countries. …

 

….The lack of sufficient discipline is a problem of leadership. And good leadership was (is) the secret of Botswana’s success – Botswana is almost the only country in Sub-Saharan Africa with an impressive record of paying competitive wages to public/civil servants.

 

A public sector with an organizational culture that is results-oriented and vision-mission driven performs better. It should be emphasized that the public sectors in Sub-Saharan Africa should do ‘business unusual’, emulate the private sector by responding to customer needs and demands on a timely basis. In other words, the public sector needs to nurture an organizational culture that is results-oriented, that focuses on internal and public accountability in a cost-effective manner. 

 

 In Botswana, for example, to ensure that ministerial functions and structures support the delivery of the national vision, each ministry has to define its vision as a subset of the national vision and mission. Each ministry then develops a strategic plan based on the policy priorities, which are derived from the national vision and articulated in the national development plan. I contend that this is one of the key determinants of Botswana’s outstanding level of socio-economic governance and development; because Botswana’s planning process was home-grown and not merely a public relations exercise to attract donor funds but rather an institutionalized central planning process of the government.

 

Dependence on donor funds alone with little or no government funding can hurt sustainable and timely implementation of Public Sector Reforms. A basic indicator of national ownership and commitment to the reforms is the level of its financial contribution towards the reform programme; accompanied with adequate financial management practices to avoid wastage of scarce resources and corruption. Atsu et al (2008) note that in spite of Botswana’s problems, the country owns her development and socio-economic agenda. They further argue that Botswana is not seen or treated as a sick patient who needs to be dictated to by foreigners or outsiders, precisely because she has managed her affairs very well, giving her dignity, resources and independence to determine her own future and chart her own course of development. This is very important because it is high time Africa owned its PSR agenda providing the required leadership to determine its content, pace, direction and financing.

 

 

In addition, Dr. Bala Ibrahim Sambo asks: “There is an issue in the civil/public service that is very interesting and very important but we seem to forget it or we choose not to give it due attention.

The issue is, MOTIVATION!!! We seem to have been carried away by issues surrounding reforms.  But no matter the literature we generate on reforms, if the actors in the arena of reforms are not motivated, do you think the reforms can succeed? I would not want to say much.  My simple concern is, "Taking into consideration peculiarities in Africa and indeed your country, how do you think we can motivate civil/public servants?"

 

 

Colleagues,

 

Given all of these suggestions and thoughts – what do you think of Dr. Sambo, Dr. Apreku, and Mr. Kazungu’s comments and questions?

 

I look forward to hearing from you!

 

Hannah

Permalink Reply by Sylvestor Obong’o on November 9, 2011 at 12:31am

Dear Hannah,

 

Thank you for ressurecting this critical subject wherein I believe lies the secrets for faster growth. Reforms in many African countries have undergone through different phases, whereas progress is in most cases very difficult to measure, the fact that most countries are still implementing reforms is in itself progress. It means they are either implementing reforms to get out of the mess they found themselves by implementing reforms in an uncoordinated manner or implemplementing reforms to build on previous gains, little or much. Most of what became centralised coordinanted administrative reforms in most African countries were initiated after the first Economic Structural Adjustment Program (SAP) phase. This does not mean that the Structural Adjustment related programs ceased after that. It is therefore not surprising that the policy backbone for Civil Service Reforms in Kenya was the Sessional Paper No. 1 of 1986- Budget Rationalization for Renewed Economic Growth. Having said that, I will briefly outline, the public sector reform initiatives that have been undertaken in Kenya so far. I will call upon my Kenyan colleagues to fill me in. This is just but an outline:

 

The Civil Service Reform Program was launched in 1993. The program had 5 components namely: (i) Staffing; (ii) Civil Service Organization; (iii) Pay and Benefits; (iv) Personnel Management and Training; (v) Financial and performance Management. These components were to be implemented in 3 phases over a seven year period. The first phase was to focus on cost-containment, through introduction and enforcement of staff right sizing measure commonly known as retrenchment, the second phase would focus on performance improvement and the third phase on consolidation and sustanance of reform gains.

 

Somehow, the reforms which looked so good in paper were not implemented exactly as envisaged. This can be attributed to several developments both in and out of the country. Some of these which have been widely cited include changes in the leardership of reform management and even in government.  By the beginning of 2001, it was becoming evident that initial strategy was not achieving much, and there were indications of the need to 'deepen reforms' and have a more coordinated approach by adapting sector wide approaches. However, the coming of the new government in 2002 ledto a new dawn on public sector reforms. There was an urgency for results and reforms took a more visible profile. The government introduced Results Based Management and sought to re-orient the public sector more towards citizen focus.

 

This was done through the "Strategy for Performance Improvement in the Public Sector" launched in 2003 and the subsequent issuance of Cabinet Memo on Institutionalization of Results Based Management in the Public Sector" which gave a nine-point step by step impelementation guide! Within this period also, a number sector specific reforms became prominent, these include- Justice and Governance Sector Reform, Health Sector, Roads Sector, Energy Sector and Communication Sector Reforms. As mentioned earlier service delivery took center stage from 2003, leading to the introduction of Performance Contracts across the entire public service by 2009 and the adaption of Rapid Results Approach as a tool for results based management.

 

The reforms in Kenyan is focusing on transforming the public sector and its services to be able to deliver the "Kenya Vision 2030". Which aims at making Kenya a newly industraliased and middle income country by the year 2030. Whether the country has made progress on reforms since they were first launched in 1993 is subject to debate. What is clear that there are a number of possitives and also negatives.  There are valuable lessons learned, that need to be taken on board and mistakes that need not to be repeated, but could only be learned by going through them.

 

Are reforms about to end in Kenya, no! Changing circumstances have put the country in a state of constant flux and the public sector must keep on adjusting and readjustment with time. The new constitution that was promulgamated in August 2010, has further altered several public sector structures and systems, abolishing some long standing institutions and creating several others. In a nutshell when it was being expected  that the country could be settling down into some 'predictable' reform rhythm, the new constitution has injected an 'unprecedented pace, and initiated changes which could not be planned or imagined under the 'formats of the public sector reforms' .

 

 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Hannah J Cooper on November 14, 2011 at 9:34am

Dear Colleagues,

 

Dr. Sambo posted his response to this question here: http://www.cop-mfdr-africa.org/profiles/blogs/reforming-the-public-...

 

You can read it and post your comments to it as well!

 

Will write back to Wail and Sylvester shortly.

 

Many thanks!

 

Hannah

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tamiru Terefe Cherinet on November 29, 2011 at 10:52am

Dear all, this article could be the first for me to reply. Fortunately, I work on the public sector reform and capacity building section of the national development plan. Because the Ethiopia's national development integrates the civil service reform programs. The reform program sub divided into tax reform, urban development capacity building, ICT reform, civil service reform and justice system reform. There are much progress to date and the only thing in Ethiopia remains are to strengthen and deepen the already started programs. I will come up with much inputs next time.

Tamiru Terefe
Ministry of Finance and Economic Development

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Hannah J Cooper on December 1, 2011 at 2:29pm

Dear Mr. Terefe,

 

Thank you so much for taking the time to write back to our discussion. We are looking forward to hearing more from you!

 

Kind regards,

 

Hannah

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Xolisa Jakuja on December 2, 2011 at 11:43am

Dear Hannah and all,

 

There is an aspect that I have an interest in throwing into this forum especially when the issue of public sector reform in relation to efficiency and effectiveness. The Public Sector (now referring to it as a group of institutions) exists within society and members of the Public Sector are first members of this society within which it exists therefore as an integral part of that society it then mirrors the internal contradictions and dynamics of the same society it belongs to. I think reform in the Public Sector cannot happen outside a particular change in the society itself. Of course the problem still remains that this very Public Sector is charged with the very same task of defining and leading this very change and development path for this society instead of vice versa thus leading to vicious cycle. Again the things that a given society values determine that society's ability to lead a certain development path with authenticity - if in a given society value is placed in fame and popularity based on money and material possessions, then until everybody is there (which will never occur) nobody will rest as a result of which corruption and related evils will be the order of the day. The South African Government in the current term's medium term strategic framework included a priority relating to building caring societies and sustainable livelihoods through which matters of societal values are expected to be managed. This is a good move, but once more the question is can the Public Sector by itself lead such a reform?

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page