COCOPS on results of reform
Articles:
Hammerschmid et al 2018: impact of NPM-style reforms in European
countries?
Chapter 23 COCOPS book
Public administration reforms and outcomes (COCOPS
chapter 23)
1. Administrative traditions and reforms
Administrative traditions: observation that in Europe, we have a lot of countries,
that ideal typically belong to a cluster of administrative traditions
Napoleonic (IT, FR)
Continental-federated (GER)
Anglo-Saxon
Scandinavian
Basic assumption was that it matters what kind of tradition you are in as a
country because this may impact the kind of reform (potential for divergence:
kind and extent they are implemented).
Exam: know in what kind of countries a public sector reform would be
much more likely
In traditional centralized Napoleonic countries, a reform will be less
straight forward compared to Anglo-Saxon or Scandinavian countries.
In more continental federated countries NPG, based on cooperation
between societal actors, will be much more likely to be observed compared
to others.
May also be linked to performance and ‘reform fit’: the assumption that a reform
that is not fit with their structure can lead to worse performance
2. Results
Interpretation of numbers:
1: not important
7: very important
Bold: significantly higher
score than average
Underlined: significantly
below the mean
Mean scores per country
on a number of reform
initiatives (f.ex increasing
focus on transparency,
collaboration etc.)
Conclusions:
, There are some countries that rate or score higher in terms of public sector
reform (UK, Netherlands): scores on the mean or above
Countries like France: scores under the mean
-> differences between countries
Southern countries tend to score lower, whereas Norden or Anglo-Saxon
countries consistently score higher
In Europe has been a big focus on transparency, results as aim of reform
Other reforms (agentification, privatization) have been less important according
to the civil servants
Overall, countries with a more Napoleonic administrative traditions seem to be a
little more resistant to reform in comparison with countries like the UK or
Netherlands
Question: Would you say that the
public sector reform has improved in
terms of public sector performance?
The Scandinavian countries and the
Netherlands are counties in which
civil servants say that the situation
has improved
In southern countries like France,
Spain, Portugal + UK scores are
lower
Countries which are not really into
public sector reforms, civil servants
seem to indicate that the situation
has not been improved in terms of public sector performance
In a country where a lot of public sector reform has been, we see the same
picture
Countries which were more or much on average, seem to indicate a lot of
improvement -> weird because there weren’t much reforms
Napoleonic: poor performance, poor improvements
NPM Reforms and their effects (Hammerschmid et al
2018)
1. Introduction
Many types of ‘government/public sector performance’, not always easy to
measure, even more difficult to attribute ‘performance’ to governmental policy
Question: is there a link between ‘public sector reform’ and ‘performance’?
Little systematic comparative evidence
Articles:
Hammerschmid et al 2018: impact of NPM-style reforms in European
countries?
Chapter 23 COCOPS book
Public administration reforms and outcomes (COCOPS
chapter 23)
1. Administrative traditions and reforms
Administrative traditions: observation that in Europe, we have a lot of countries,
that ideal typically belong to a cluster of administrative traditions
Napoleonic (IT, FR)
Continental-federated (GER)
Anglo-Saxon
Scandinavian
Basic assumption was that it matters what kind of tradition you are in as a
country because this may impact the kind of reform (potential for divergence:
kind and extent they are implemented).
Exam: know in what kind of countries a public sector reform would be
much more likely
In traditional centralized Napoleonic countries, a reform will be less
straight forward compared to Anglo-Saxon or Scandinavian countries.
In more continental federated countries NPG, based on cooperation
between societal actors, will be much more likely to be observed compared
to others.
May also be linked to performance and ‘reform fit’: the assumption that a reform
that is not fit with their structure can lead to worse performance
2. Results
Interpretation of numbers:
1: not important
7: very important
Bold: significantly higher
score than average
Underlined: significantly
below the mean
Mean scores per country
on a number of reform
initiatives (f.ex increasing
focus on transparency,
collaboration etc.)
Conclusions:
, There are some countries that rate or score higher in terms of public sector
reform (UK, Netherlands): scores on the mean or above
Countries like France: scores under the mean
-> differences between countries
Southern countries tend to score lower, whereas Norden or Anglo-Saxon
countries consistently score higher
In Europe has been a big focus on transparency, results as aim of reform
Other reforms (agentification, privatization) have been less important according
to the civil servants
Overall, countries with a more Napoleonic administrative traditions seem to be a
little more resistant to reform in comparison with countries like the UK or
Netherlands
Question: Would you say that the
public sector reform has improved in
terms of public sector performance?
The Scandinavian countries and the
Netherlands are counties in which
civil servants say that the situation
has improved
In southern countries like France,
Spain, Portugal + UK scores are
lower
Countries which are not really into
public sector reforms, civil servants
seem to indicate that the situation
has not been improved in terms of public sector performance
In a country where a lot of public sector reform has been, we see the same
picture
Countries which were more or much on average, seem to indicate a lot of
improvement -> weird because there weren’t much reforms
Napoleonic: poor performance, poor improvements
NPM Reforms and their effects (Hammerschmid et al
2018)
1. Introduction
Many types of ‘government/public sector performance’, not always easy to
measure, even more difficult to attribute ‘performance’ to governmental policy
Question: is there a link between ‘public sector reform’ and ‘performance’?
Little systematic comparative evidence
