Citizen engagement( CE) to enhance accountability and prevent corruption in the provision of public services - July 2011 Vienna

Transcription

1 Citizen engagement( CE) to enhance accountability and prevent corruption in the provision of public services - July 2011 Vienna Situations and trends observable in OECD countries Preliminary findings work in progress - Beatriz Sanz Corella

2 A. Preface: the case for CE to enhance accountability and combat corruption in OECD countries 2

3 A. Preface (i) : the fight against corruption 3 Corruption in the public sector increases the cost of public transactions which, in turn, is shouldered by taxpayers. This is especially critical in the situation of scarce resources that require a higher optimisation of public spending. Corruption cases generate a decline in confidence in public institutions which are fuelled by well-publicised scandals. Furthermore, corruption affects other sectors, and in the long run undermines trust in government. Therefore, efficient and effective public services with an inherent culture of integrity are the key pillars of sustained social and economic development. Fighting corruption is essential to ensure the good functioning of public services and to provide best value for money.

4 A. Preface (ii): intrinsic and instrumental values of CE 4 In a democracy, public participation has intrinsic value by increasing accountability, broadening the sphere in which citizens can make or influence decisions and building civic capacity (Odugbemi S. and T. Jacobson, 2008). It offers instrumental value by strengthening the evidence base for policy making, reducing implementation costs and tapping greater reservoirs of experience and creativity for innovation in the design and delivery of public policy and services (Bourgon, 2007; Bourgon, Part III, this volume). Without a wider commitment to the intrinsic value of public engagement, it is hard for governments to reap the instrumental benefits they seek. OECD Studies on Public Engagement. Focus on Citizens. Publci engagement for btter policy and services. 2009

5 A. Preface (iii): definitions (i) 5 The OECD, the UN and the World Bank take distinct but complementary approaches to Citizen engagement in service delivery to enhance accountability and prevent corruption: The World Bank defines Social Accountability (SA) as an approach towards building accountability that relies on civic engagement, i.e., in which it is ordinary citizens and/or civil society organisations who participate directly or indirectly in exacting accountability. WB approach focuses on the tools used to ensure SA (e.g. Independent budgetary analysis, participatory expenditure tracking, etc) The OECD prefers the term open government and focuses on the functional interaction between the government and citizens (information, consultation, etc.) throughout the policy-making cycle. The UN (DPADM/DESA) focuses on citizen engagement in Development Management and Public Governance for the Achievement of the Millennium Development Goals. In this particular workshop it focuses on citizen engagement from the particular angle of how it impacts on accountability of the public administration to people, specifically in the provision of public services

6 A. Preface (iii): definitions (ii) 6 Beyond Public Scrutiny: Stocktaking of Social Accountability in OECD Countries Joanne Caddy, Tiago Peixoto and Mary McNeil. World Bank Institute and OECD.2007.

7 B. State of play in OECD countries 7

8 B. State of play: motivations and goals 8 Notwithstanding differences in context, motivations and assumptions, the challenge of strengthening openness and ensuring inclusion in both the decision making on public policy and the delivery of public services is one shared by all OECD countries. Over the past two decades, OECD countries have gained extensive experience with open and inclusive policy making & service delivery OCED governments pursue a range of different goals when they invest in open and inclusive policy making & service delivery. Not only are the goals diverse, they are subject to change. Around 70% of the respondents to the OCED survey conducted in the framework of the Open and Policy making project, indicate they have made changes or additions to their goals in the past 5 years.

9 9 OECD Studies on Public Engagement. Focus on Citizens. Publci engagement for btter policy and services. 2009

10 B. State of play: motivations and goals 10 For a number of countries, open policy making & service delivery has become second nature (e.g. Finland, Denmark, Canada, the Netherlands, Australia), the ultimate goal being to improve service delivery through a more user-friendly government, and/or increase government interaction and partnership with external stakeholders (e.g. CSOs) to foster better quality, and more inclusive policy making. Some OECD countries, whose transition to democracy and the market economy is more recent, have been and continue to be open to innovation and experimentation, and have tested more open and inclusive approaches to policy making and service delivery in their efforts to improve economic and social outcomes for their citizens (e.g. Czech Republic, Korea). Other OECD countries, (e.g. Mexico, ) have focussed on making government more open to public scrutiny in the interest of fighting corruption and improving accountability.

11 B. State of play: major achievements Information for citizens is an objective shared by all OECD countries. The scope, quantity and quality of government information provided to the public has increased greatly over the past decade. All 30 OECD countries have now legislation to ensure rights of access to information. Consultation and opportunities for citizens to provide feedback on policy proposals is also on the rise, but at a slower rate. Large differences remain between OECD countries. Active participation and efforts to engage citizens in policymaking on a partnership basis are rare, undertaken on a pilot basis only and confined to a very few OECD countries. 11 OECD Studies on Public Engagement. Focus on Citizens. Publci engagement for btter policy and services. 2009

12 B. State of play: progress as regards information (scrutiny) 12 Access to information is a precondition for public scrutiny, a basic building block for open government and is enshrined in the constitutions of some OECD countries such as Austria, Hungary, or Poland. The scope, quantity and quality of government information provided to the public has increased significantly in the past 20 years and the provision of information is now a goal shared by all OECD member countries. In 1980, only 20% of OECD countries had legislation on access to information (also known as freedom of information, or FOI, laws). In 1990, this figure had risen to just over 40%, and by the end of 2000, it had reached 80%. In several OECD countries, access is the rule and secrecy is the exception. All provide access to documents held by public authorities and appeal mechanisms in cases of refusal.

13 13

14 B. State of play: progress as regards consultation (proximity) 14 Public consultation for law and rule-making was once rare. Today, it is increasingly accepted as a valuable means of improving the quality of public policy while strengthening its legitimacy OECD Governments are more accessible and user-friendly today than they have been at any point in history. Measures to reduce physical, organisational and linguistic barriers and expand online service delivery have all helped. The extent to which laws and regulations on public consultation exist varies considerably among OECD member countries. Several countries have legal requirements to consult with specific interest groups, such as trade unions, professional associations or indigenous peoples, when drafting policy or regulations or when providing services directly affecting such interests/targeting them. Other OECD member countries rely on long-standing informal practice. Many have established permanent or ad hoc advisory bodies, commissions and councils to provide input to government in different areas of public policy (OECD: Open government. Fostering dialogue with civil society)

15 B. State of play: progress as regards participation (engagement) 15 Active participation recognises the capacity of citizens to discuss and generate policy options independently. It requires governments to share their agenda setting and their commitment that policy proposals generated jointly will be duly taken into account. It also requires citizens to accept the higher degree of responsibility for their role in policy making. Only a few OECD member countries have begun to explore such approaches, and experience to date is limited. Citizens in some OECD countries have the right to propose new legislation (e.g. under laws on popular legislative initiative or on citizen-initiated referenda). These usually require the prior collection of signatures from a proportion of eligible voters within a specific timeframe. A few OECD countries have policies to support new and more flexible approaches to ensuring a greater degree of active participation by citizens in policy-making (e.g. policy statements).

16 B. State of play: Official institutions for public oversight 16 Old institutions have evolved and new institutions have appeared. Supreme Audit Institutions play a cornerstone role in exercising oversight of the executive branch and ensuring accountability for the use of public funds. All OECD countries have an SAI. Some of them date back to the 19 th century although their functions, tools and scope of action have evolved considerably. Ombudsman offices are of far more recent introduction in most OECD countries. In 1960, only Sweden, Finland and Denmark had such institutions; today, 90% of them do. Ombudsman offices are generally appointed by legislatures and offer an important point of contact for citizens complaints, appeals, and claims for redress in their dealings with the public administration. Besides, new and highly articulated watchdogs in the form of CSOs have emerged and constitute an important resource for monitoring open government. Together with traditional sources of independent monitoring of government performance (e.g. media, international organisations, rating agencies), they constitute a fourth estate that exercises powerful pressures, and advances vocal demands, for openness.

17 B. State of play: conclusions 17 Whatever their starting point and underlying motivations, it seems that governments in all OECD countries are at a crossroads and that the implementation of an open government remains a major challenge: An open government is not something that can simply be grafed on to existing systems; to be effective it requires a fundamental change within the government system. OECD Policy Brief : Public Sector Modernisation: Open Government To successfully meet the challenges they face, OECD countries require a significant shift from a government-asusual to a governance perspective.

18 From engagement 1.0 to engagement OECD Studies on Public Engagement. Focus on Citizens. Publci engagement for btter policy and services. 2009

19 C. Some examples of CE to enhance accountability and fight against corruption that shall be further assessed 19

20 Initiatives aimed at enhancing scrutiny

21 Consultation initiatives aimed at enhancing proximity 21

22 Development of instruments like the Common assessment framework, the Community Balanced Scorecard, etc aimed at improving proximity 22

23 Initiatives aimed at enhancing engagement (participatory budgeting, etc) 23

24 D. What are the most outstanding challenges OECD countries? What lessons have been learnt? What remains to be done? 24

25 Self-perceptions by OECD countries 25 In 2007, the OECD asked governments which of the OECD guiding principles (published back in 201) they had found most challenging. A total of 23 OECD member countries, plus the European Commission, Chile and Slovenia, responded. Almost half the OECD respondents (45%) pointed to a lack of resources while over a third (36%) saw time factors as the most challenging. Almost a third (32%) felt that evaluation was the hardest. Overall, governments appear to be saying: we have established rights, we have active citizens and a commitment to engage them in policy making but we face challenges of resources, time and a lack of evaluation.

26 1. Openness is not sufficient to ensure inclusive policy making Inclusion is important for reasons of efficacy and equity. Efficacy: the true value of opening up policy making lies in obtaining a wider range of views (going beyond the usual suspects ) as input for evidence-based decision-making. Equity: defining the public interest in a democracy requires governments to make extra efforts to reach out to those who are least equipped for public participation (e.g. new citizens, youth). 26 Special attention needs to be paid to two broad sectors in society Citizens who are willing but unable to participate for a variety of reasons such as cultural or language barriers, geographical distance, disability or socio-economic status (i.e. immigrants, indigenous communities; marginalised groups, elders ; etc); Citizens who are able but unwilling to participate because they are not very interested in politics, do not have the time, or do not trust government to make good use of their input (e.g. youth).

27 2. The need to reconcile the right to know with individual privacy rights 27 All OECD countries must reconcile the citizen s right to know with the individual s right to privacy and the need to preserve confidentiality where disclosure of information would be against the public interest. Any legislation promoting freedom of information requires equally strong provisions setting out limits to access in the interests of individual privacy and data protection. Over 90% of OECD countries have passed legislation in this field. Today, the public-private interface is a grey zone where the boundaries between the two sectors are not always clear and the rules to be applied can easily be confused. Balancing rights of access, protection of privacy and limits to official secrecy is a significant challenge especially given the rapid evolution of information and communication technologies (ICTs).

28 3. Unlocking the potential of ICTs 28 OECD countries consider ICT to be a powerful tool and are making significant efforts to bring their administrations and their citizens 'on-line. OECD governments provide an increasing amount of information on-line (e.g. via government Web sites and portals), although the quantity, quality and range varies greatly. However, the use of ICTs for feedback and consultation is still in its infancy in all OECD countries (e.g. addresses on government Web sites, lists, on-line chat events). Only a very few OECD countries have begun to experiment with online tools to actively engage citizens in policy-making (e.g. on-line discussion groups, interactive games). Most OECD governments are working to bridge the digital divide', and recognise the need to ensure that all citizens, whether on-line or not, continue to enjoy equal rights of participation in the public sphere.

29 4. Evaluation is lacking 29 OECD countries recognise the need to develop tools and to improve their capacity for evaluation. However, a striking imbalance prevails between the resources (human, material, time) that OECD countries invest in strengthening governmentcitizen relations and the amount of attention they pay to evaluating their effectiveness and impact on policy-making. OECD countries don t conduct systematic evaluations of their government performance in providing information, conducting consultation and engaging citizens in policy-making. Much remains to be done in terms of developing technical tools and specific methodologies for the evaluation of public participation; but above all, an even greater challenge lies in fostering a culture of evaluation among policy makers and senior officials responsible for public information, consultation and public participation in policy making.

30 5. Standards vs. innovation 30 Several OECD countries have established legal and policy instruments setting out what citizens can expect from government in terms of openness and inclusion (e.g. access to information laws, principles and guidelines for consultation). In addition, international standards for public participation and access to information, in general (e.g OECD principles) or in specific policy areas (e.g Aarhus Convention in environment) These are positive developments Nonetheless, standards and institutionalisation should not stifle innovation. Rather, they should be framed in terms of principles or outcomes which can guide practice and clarify expectations of government performance. A pending question: how to take on board spontaneous citizen movements (e.g. 15 M in Spain)?

31 6. Better risk assessment is required 31 Poor performance engenders its own risks. While many CE initiatives have been successful, it must be recognised that some consultation and participation exercises have been expensive failures. Policy makers need better support when deciding whether public engagement is useful and if so, when and how and with what resources it will be conducted. In many contexts, inequalities and power asymmetries are embedded into strong local patriarchies and a serious risk of elite capture arises. This problem is particularly serious when officials and institutions rush and jump over the empowerment phase when embracing participatory approaches. This risk can only be countered by including a wider ranges of people and organisations in policy making.

32 Thank you beatriz sanz corella 32