Capacity for Policy Implementation in Central Government of Bulgaria 1

Transcription

1 Capacity for Policy Implementation in Central Government of Bulgaria 1 Abstract This paper analyses the capacity for policy implementation in central government of Bulgaria. The paper is focused on the government composition and the changes in the political leadership after the parliamentary election in It examines the role and functions of the government as a strategic center for policy coordination and implementation, and the organization and efficiency of administrative structures at central level. The arrangement of administrative structures at central level is presented and the main structural changes are outlined. The mechanisms and methods of interministrial coordination and harmonization are discussed. The tendency to set up councils for coordinating and implementing interdepartmental policies at the central government is revealed. Introduction The increased complexity of policy issues on one hand, and the burdens placed by the processes of globalization and European integration on the other hand, is some of the main challenges that government has been faced in the last decade. The experience of Bulgaria and other CEE countries shows that in the period of transition the capacity for policy formulation and implementation has turned out to be a crucial factor for the transformation of the country. To facilitate this process it is strongly required both adequate capacity for political leadership and solid institutional arrangements. Traditionally, the responsibility of the political leadership is related to policy-making, while the translation of policy decisions and their implementation is the key function of administration. In Bulgaria the reforms for establishing a democratic society and market economy started in the early 1990s and it was expected that the new democratic 1 Polya Katsamunska, PhD, University of National and World Economy, Sofia, Department of Public Administration and Regional Development 1

2 institutions could develop necessary capacity to carry out reforms and implement their policies, but the significant instability was the main barrier for carrying out profound economic and social reforms. Since 1989 when the changes started Bulgaria has had eleven governments, but only two of them managed to fulfill their due term of office (the Kostov government and the government of Simeon Sax-Cobourg-Gotha ) 2. Most often the failures of government had usually been blamed either on weak political leadership or inadequate administrative performance. 1. Government composition and changes in political leadership The general structure of powers was set with the adoption of the Constitution in The constitution stipulates that the Council of Ministers is the central executive authority, collectively responsible for managing and implementing domestic and foreign policy, while the role of the prime minister is to direct, coordinated, and bear responsibility for the overall policy of the cabinet. The specific structure of government of proposed by each candidate prime minister. The government is appointed en block and is accountable to the Parliament. After the parliamentary election in June 2005, the Bulgarian parliament is composed of seven parties and such a situation has not been happened before in the new Bulgarian history. No one party won the majority to rule alone and due to the complicated political situation the new government was composed after a period of almost two months of difficult political consultations. The leader of the Bulgarian Socialist Party was nominated for the post of prime-minister, but Stanishev first attempt to head the government in coalition only with the Movement for Rights and Freedoms was blocked by the parliament. After an agreement reached among the three largest parties in the parliament (the Bulgarian Socialist Party (BSP), the National Movement Simeon (NMSS) and the Movement for rights and Freedoms (MRF), the Stanishev government was appointed in August 2005 with the mandate of the Movement for rights and Freedoms and is due to end in August The format of the cabinet, which is based on the formula , is a result of the coalition agreement and this distribution 2 State gazette

3 of posts within the government coalition is an expression of the size of the three parliamentary groups supporting the government. As a result of that the current government is initially composed by 8 members of BSP, 5 members of NMSS and 3 members of MRF and there are three deputy prime ministers. In contrast to the previous government, when all of the three deputy prime ministers were members of NMSS, each of the three deputy prime ministers in the current cabinet is appointed by the respective party from the coalition and has ministerial post in a key area (foreign affairs, education and science, and natural disasters and accidents). Along with the responsibility they bear in the respective area as ministers, for the purpose of establishing balance and improving the coordination among the key actors in the government, they also have a scope of responsibility in different sectors. The position of prime minister presumes dominance and responsibility for overall government policy, but key issues in the areas of interior affairs, defense and finance are under the scope of his direct supervision and control. In regard to policy implementation the issues in the fields of agriculture and forestry, economics and energy, and European issues are within the area of competence of the deputy prime minister of BSP, while the deputy prime minister of NMSS is empowered with competences in definite areas of culture, state administration and law are specific areas of responsibility for. Finally, the specific areas of competence empowered to the deputy prime minister of MRF include labor and social affairs, regional development and public work, and health. In contrast to the expert profile of the previous cabinet in general, the current one has a predominantly political profile as all ministers are members of the three political parties in the coalition. The only exception is key figure of the minister of finance, being an expert. When the government of Simeon Sax-Cobourg-Gotha came into office in 2001, it declared its intent to keep on working on the main priorities set by the Kostov government. Generally, the cabinet had an expert profile especially regarding the economic, financial and industrial sectors. Initially, the cabinet was composed of 16 ministers, who were not political figures. This profile changed especially when the head of the parliamentary group of NMSS became deputy prime minister on the issues of European integration and administrative modernization. Right at the beginning there were made some structural changes and a good example for that is the establishment of new 3

4 structures with the promotion of two executive agencies into ministries. During its term of office there were also several replacements of ministers. Towards the end of the mandate, in order to ensure parliamentary support and keep the stability of the cabinet, a new parliamentary group joined the coalition and one of its political figures became a minister. A specific characteristic of the current government is the establishment of the Council of coalition and its key actors are the three leaders of the political parties that compose the cabinet. The council of coalition was created aiming to discuss and reach agreements on key issues regarding the overall government policy and thus to stabilize the functioning of the coalition. Another major difference between the two governments refers to the number of deputy ministers. Initially both cabinets have the same number of ministers (17), but as for the number of deputy ministers the situation is rather different. If under the government of Simeon Sax-Cobourg-Gotha there were 55 deputy ministers, their number considerably increased and reached 71 under the Stanishev cabinet. Some of the main similarities and differences in the composition of the two cabinets are depicted on Tabl.1 Table 1. Comparison in initial composition of the two cabinets Initial number of Initial number Initial number of Initial number of the Council of of deputy main deputy ministers Government Ministers prime ministers structural changes Simeon Sax- Cobourg-Gotha ( ) Sergei Stanishev ( due to 2009) As Table 1 shows there is no change in the size of the cabinets and the number of deputy prime ministers, but there is significant difference in the number of deputy ministers. This is an indication that the role of this position is not clear enough and the 4

5 conclusion is supported by the fact that they do not have specific function in the policy process. The Law on Administration provides that the deputy prime ministers support the work of the prime minister and they are empowered with competences in definite areas by the prime minister. In regard to the position of deputy minister, the same act provides that they support the minister in implementation of the government program, developing legal drafts and performing his/her duties in the areas of the defined competence. Each minister delegates functions to be performed by the deputy ministers in the areas of competences they have been empowered. It should be highlighted the important role of political cabinets to the bodies of the executive power. The political cabinets to the prime minister, the deputy prime ministers and the ministers are units with analytical and advisory functions. Their task is to support policy development and ensure the necessary information and coordination for decisionmaking. The experts in the political cabinets have a clear political affiliation and therefore, they are not granted the status of civil servants. The brief comparison in regard to the composition of the two cabinets show the different approaches used in setting their profiles. Mainly experts with strong managerial or sector experience were preferred in the composition of the previous government, while the current cabinet is strongly dominated by party figures. Generally, this preference depends on the parliamentary support for each government. Therefore, we can conclude that when there is a need to secure or increase this support, the prime minister is inclined to involve more party functionaries in the government composition. 2. Arrangement of administrative structures at central level and mechanisms for coordination The reinforced role of the Council of Ministers as a strategic centre for policy formulation and coordination is a result from the development of the concept of the Council of Ministers from management and carrying out domestic and foreign policy to formulation, development and implementation of domestic and foreign policy, to coordination of the work of the executive bodies for accomplishing a coherent state 5

6 policy. Regarding the ministries, they are specialized units for development of sector policies. Alongside with the administration of the Council of Ministers and the administration of the ministries, at central level there are also a number of administrative structures established by a law or a decree of the Council of Ministers to manage issues of specific areas. At central level there are three different types of administrative structures with specific functions regulated by the Law on Administration. These units operate under the Council of Ministers or are subordinated to Ministers and their functions are related with the implementation of the executive power. The executive agencies are established as units providing administrative services and implementing specific tasks, assigned by the respective ministry. The state commissions are units subordinated either to the Council of Ministers or to a minister to implement specific functions of controlling, registration or licensing in regard to enforcing a law or government decree. The state agencies are units directly subordinate to the Council of Ministers for implementation of activities that are not performed by other ministry. Analysis of the data published in the register of administrative structures shows that in the end of 2003 there were 121 structures within the central administration, of which 24 operated under the Council of Ministers and 80 structures subordinated to Ministers. In 2004 their number increased and reached This tendency was kept in Comparison between administrative structures for 2003 and 2004 and the illustration of the tendency is presented on Table Annual Report for the Public Administration, issued by the Minister of State Administration in Mayl

7 Table 2. Comparison between administrative structures at central level for 2003 and 2004 Total number of structures Subordinated to the Council of Ministers Subordinated to Ministers this includes: 8 state agencies 22 executive agencies 16 ministries 5 state commissions 2 commissions 24 structures to CoM 11 administrative 46 administrative 80 structures to Ministers structures structures this includes: 7 state agencies 36 executive agencies 16 ministries 3 state commissions 2 commissions 19 structures to CoM 9 administrative 114 administrative 152 structures to structures structures Ministers 5 state institutions Source: Annual Report for the Public Administration in 2003 and 2004 Organizational relations among politicians and civil servants in Bulgaria were arranged with the adoption of the Law on Administration and State Servants Act. These laws clearly distinguish between a political post (minister) and a professional career post (general-secretary, director of directorate, head of section). The administrative head of a ministry is the general secretary, which is a professional post, while the executive team of the ministry consists of the minister, deputy-ministers and the staff of the political cabinet, which is limited to 5% of the total number of the administrative staff. Table 3 illustrates the scope of the state administration and the changes that occurred in it in the period

8 Table 3. Scope of the State Administration for the period Total number of administrative employees Number of employees in the administration at central level % increase in total % % % % Source: Annual Reports on State Administration for The previous government made only few structural changes initially and they referred to the promotion of two executive agencies into ministries. The current government also started its functioning with structural changes. A good example of that is the establishment of huge Ministry of Economics and Energy, which was a result of joining two separate ministries (Ministry of economics and Ministry of energy and energy resources). Another important change in the structure was the transformation of the Ministry of Youth and Sports into agency. The changes were not confined only to transformations of some the existing structures, because there were established new ministries also (Ministry of State administration and Administrative Reform and Ministry of Natural Disasters and Accidents). The priorities of the Ministry of State administration and Administrative Reform are focused on modernization and organizational development of state administration, training and managing of human resources, developing of e-government, improving and simplifying administrative regulations and services, and increasing the transparency of state administration. Since the ministry was established, all its activities have been directed towards the implementation of its functions. The first results of its work relate to 8

9 the amendments of the current legislation proposed by the ministry regarding the Law on Administration and the Law of Civil Servant, which were adopted by the Council of Ministers in the end of It was also developed by the Ministry a legal draft for e- trade regulating the main responsibilities of information services suppliers to provide information. Changes were also made in the filed of secondary legislation and they are related with the composition of the Council for modernization of state administration, as well as the introduction of flexible rules making the work of the Council more effective. In cooperation with the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry worked out behavioral rules for ministries and politically appointed officials in the executive power. These ethical norms collected in Code of ethics for these officials were accepted with a decision of the Council of Ministers. The consultation process is an integral part of the general political and administrative cycle for formulation of decisions, their realization and the assessment of the results achieved. The Law on Administration regulates the mechanisms for performing the consulting process in the central administration. The Law (Art.21) provides that the Council of Ministers could establish councils, as well as working group of experts, in connection with the implementation of policy or specific task performance, coming out of a law or parliamentary decision. In 2003 there were functioning 27 councils to the Council of ministers for coordination and implementation of interdepartmental policies. Some of them have been restructured because of expanding and binding their functions with the interdepartmental policies. The interministrial council for coordinating the activities in relation to improving the administrative services and developing e-government could be given as a good example. It was transformed into a working group to the Council for modernization of state administration. Other similar examples represent the Council for structural policy, transformed into a Council for economic policy and the National council for insurance, changed into a commission for financial audit. Ministers could also establish councils as advisory units for solving specific problem and the work of these councils is supported by the administrative units in the ministry (Law on Administration, Art. 45). Advisory councils are bodies for current coordination between the state administration and social partners. The aim is that the 9

10 social partners proposals and opinions be considered when decisions on specific issues are to be made or drafting of acts is under preparation. The advisory councils are also used as forums for solving current problems and offering specific measures that commit their representatives. The prevailing methods of interministrial coordination and harmonization with other interested parties are bilateral cooperation agreements, consultative and coordinating councils, interministrial working groups and commissions for interdepartmental coordination. Table 4 illustrates the methods of coordination used by some administrative structures at central level in Bulgaria. Table 4. Methods of coordination used by administrative structures at central level Method Central Administrative Structures Bilateral cooperation agreements The Agency for Refugees The Agency for Post-Privatization Control The Agency for Nuclear regulations Consultative and coordinating Ministry of Labor and Social Policy councils Agency for small and Medium-sized Enterprises Central Administration of Archives Interministrial working groups Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry State Agency for Metrology and Technical Supervision Commissions for Communications regulatory Commission interdepartmental coordination According to a sociological research of the National center for studying the public opinion, 26.2 % of the administrative staff considers that the main disadvantage in the organization of the work in the administration is the lack of coordination among the administrative units and the interaction with other administrations. As for the internal coordination, 8.7% of them think that the barrier for performing their duties is the lack of coordination among the departments within the administration itself. Based on this 10

11 analysis it is obvious that there is a need to have in place reliable mechanisms of interministrial coordination and harmonization with the actors involved in order to improve the existing coordination on matters of interministrial and national interest and to strengthen interdepartmental coordination. Conclusion: The review of the Bulgarian development after more than 15 years of reforms in various sectors (economic, military, social, administrative, etc.) shows that the expertise and managerial experience gathered at the political level do not always lead to better performance. The regular reports of the European commission on administrative capacity and the evaluations of other outside observers and donors state that the Bulgarian government has not yet acquired the necessary capacity for good policy implementation after years of purposeful reforms. The analysis reveals that at the political level it has been accumulated managerial and expertise experience. The Council of Ministers and its administration have been established as the strategic centre for policy formulation and coordination, the ministries has started to function as specialized units for development of sector policies, while the functions of other administrative structures operating under the Council of Minister or respective ministers relate to the implementation of executive power. The organization of the administration and the established mechanisms for coordinating policy implementation has led to positive results. Setting up councils for coordinating and implementing interdepartmental policies at the central government has become is a prevailing tendency in the recent years. However, it is evident that there is more to be done in order to improve the existing coordination on matters of interministrial and national interest and to strengthen interdepartmental coordination for effective policy implementation. 11

12 References: 1. Pavlov, P., Mihaleva, Sv., Bases of Public Administration, Varna Free University, Annual Reports on the State of Public Administration for 2003 and Strategy for Modernization of the Public Administration - from Accession to Integration / /, CoM Decision N 671 of September 24, Survey of the National Center for Public Opinion Studies, Government program of European integration, economic growth and social responsibility, Co M, Data from the Register of the administrative structures for Overall Monitoring Report of Bulgaria, European Commission, Brussels, Institutional Requirements and Problem Solving in the Public Administrations of the Enlarged European Union and its Neighbours, eds.: Jenei, G., Barabashev, A., van den Berg, F., NISPAcee, Managing Succession and Developing Leadership: Growing the Next Generation of Public Service Leadrs, U.S. Academy of Public Administration, 1997, 10. SIGMA, Bulgaria, Public Service and the Administrative Framework, Assessment