4. Toward sound policy implementation
Even the best-designed policy will fail if the government machinery does not enable the translation of policy decisions into action. Practices presented in this chapter indicate that governments can develop and deploy tools and practices in a strategic and integrated way to enhance the quality and impact of policies and services. The first section of this chapter underscores the role and importance of developing civil service leadership and skills; digital tools; public procurement; public-private partnerships and public-civil partnerships; agile and innovative approaches. It also highlights, as a case study, the importance of having a strategic approach to the implementation of the SDGs. The chapter then underscores monitoring as a means that helps policymakers track progress and make adjustments when necessary during the implementation phase.
If sound public governance is about doing the right thing through sound decision-making, it is also about doing things right to ensure that policies and services continue to meet people’s needs successfully in an increasingly complex and, constantly changing environment that is often fraught with uncertainty. In this regard, people largely evaluate governments by their success or failure to deal with urgencies and problems and their effectiveness in carrying out their policy initiatives.
Successful policy implementation is largely dependent on the government having the right tools at hand to identify the nature and dimensions of those challenges and to formulate and design adequate policy responses to address them. As underscored in Chapter 2 on the Enablers of Sound Public Governance, OECD evidence suggest that such enablers as sustained political commitment, leadership, effective co-ordination and innovation are essential to drive and sustain the implementation process.
However, even the best-designed policy will fail if government machinery does not enable the translation of policy decisions into action. All governance elements explained in the previous chapters, such as the reform enablers, regulation, and effective budgeting, are key for policy implementation. Moreover, OECD evidence also highlights the importance of paying attention to the human and financial resources required to create an agile administration, and to the mechanisms and instruments for monitoring policy development and performance, including the possibility to make corrections to courses of action if they are achieving results sub-optimally. Governments that develop and deploy these tools and practices in a strategic and integrated way, and consider the different complementarities across these tools of sound public governance when doing so, can enhance the quality and impact of policies and services.
Successful policy implementation is also predicated on an acknowledgement that this process involves technical as well as political implications. The public sector generally, and national governments in particular, no longer detain a monopoly on policy implementation. Different agencies and levels of government can be involved in the implementation of policies and initiatives, representing diverse and often conflicting interests. Indeed in many cases, policies are not implemented by those who design it, and sometimes they are pursued by actors or stakeholders from outside the public administration.
The first section of this chapter explores the role and importance of 1) civil service leadership and skills, 2) digital tools, 3) public procurement, 4) Public-Private partnerships and public-civil partnerships, 5) Agile and innovative approaches to policy and service delivery, and 6) A strategic approach to policy and service delivery. The chapter then highlights the need to engage in 7) monitoring as a key component of sound policy implementation.
Public service leadership and skills for implementation
Whatever the public policy may be, whether in health, education, finance, or science, civil servants lie at the core of its implementation. However, public services face new challenges to which they must respond effectively while at the same time deliver stable trustworthy and reliable services in a fair and timely manner (OECD, 2019[9]) . The OECD experience in public employment and management underscores the importance of developing adequate frameworks to strengthen the capacities and skills of the public sector in order to create a values-driven, trusted and capable, responsive and adaptive public service. Governments should build a proactive and innovative public service that integrates a long-term perspective in policy design and services. Possible measures include ensuring a balance of employment continuity and mobility to support policy implementation beyond a policy cycle, and investing in foresight and innovation.
The values that a system adopts depend on each country. As discussed in Chapter 1, public-governance values can include integrity openness, inclusiveness and accountability; as well as other such as agility, responsiveness and effectiveness. Adherence and compliance with these values is, for instance, fundamental to prevent corruption and misuse of public resources during the implementation process. The promotion of values across the public sector and at all levels of government can be supported by (i) proactive clarification and communication, (ii) leadership commitment, (iii) regular opportunities for all public servants to discuss and evaluate the value performance, (OECD, 2019[9]) and (iv) engagement of all – public servants and employees of partner organisations, specially through non-monetary incentives.
The quality of public policy implementation invariably depends on the capacities and motivation of the senior civil service to translate the policy decisions taken by the political leadership into manageable, actionable initiatives and to harness the necessary human and financial resources to implement them by ensuring that these initiatives are pursued successfully. To this end, the OECD recommends that senior-level public servants be appointed as a result of a competitive, merit-based process with the expectation that they will be able to provide impartial, evidence-informed advice. Employee training and development is at the core of any skills strategy, and is particularly important in civil services due to lower overall turnover (OECD, 2017[49]). Following the 2008 financial crisis however, training budgets were one of the first things to be cut, risking stifling civil service’s ability to refresh the skills needed to implement new services. Resource scarcity is therefore one of the greatest obstacles for states seeking to improve policy implementation. Embedding leaning in the organisational culture and reinvesting in training programmes is thus crucial.
OECD evidence also suggests a set of civil servants’ skills for effective policy implementation, which complement those required to pursue effective problem identification and policy design (OECD, 2017[49]):
Skills to work in collaborative partnerships and networks to create better service delivery;
Skills to commission and contract services, as in most cases, policies are not implemented by those who design it and often they are carried out by organisations outside the public administration.
Skills to identify and address policy complementarities or contradictions in order to identify potential policy trade-off, resource-allocation and sequencing issues to ensure effective planning and implementation skills to make use of and maximize potential of the digital transformation.
This last point is particularly important as it is linked to the opportunities and challenges posed by digitalisation, and therefore with the need for governments to develop broader digital government strategies.
Better service design and delivery through digital government
As described in chapter 3, the development of digital government strategies can be pivotal for the improvement of policy-making in all its stages, as it can be used strategically to shape public-governance outcomes beyond using them simply to improve government processes.
The diffusion and adoption of new digital technologies has altered citizens’ expectations regarding the governments’ ability to deliver public services, which respond to their needs. These new expectations present a challenge to governments, as it requires the digital transformation of the government itself. Failure adapt risks undermining the relationship between citizens and the government at the core of the social contract. In other words, the new dynamics generated by the digital age require a strategic approach to the design and delivery of public services that includes, among other things, digital government. Indeed, digital government can reduce administrative burden by decreasing the cost of compliance with government regulations and procedures. Business processes re-design is another means for governments to adapt to the rapidly evolving dynamics and relations between stakeholders in the new digital environment. To better shape public-governance outcomes and public service delivery, the OECD recommendation on Digital Government Strategies (2014[31]) recommends conducting early sharing, testing and evaluation of prototypes with the involvement of expected end-users, as well as ensuring the availability of a comprehensive picture of on-going digital initiatives to avoid duplication of systems and datasets. This requires a commitment to the practices emphasised in section 2.4 as part of the enabler “Change management and innovation”. The OECD Recommendation on Digital Government Strategies (2014[31]) [OECD/LEGAL/0406] codifies best practice on the adoption of “more effective co-ordination mechanisms, stronger capacities and framework conditions to improve digital technologies’ effectiveness for delivering public value and strengthening citizen trust” and on the strategic use of data across the public sector. The Recommendation on Digital Government Strategies advises governments to:
Enhance the value of data in improving the quality of public services and citizen well-being (Principle 3)
Ensure coherent use of digital technologies across policy areas and levels of government (Principle 6)
Develop clear business cases to sustain the funding and focused implementation of digital technologies project (Principle 9)
Reinforce institutional capacities to manage and monitor projects’ implementation (Principle 10)
Procure digital technologies based on assessment of existing assets (Principle 11).
While digital government is not a separate target of the 2030 Agenda, digital technologies can be both a lever and accelerator in achieving the SDGs (OECD, 2019[47]). In particular, digital technologies can be strategically used to develop collaborative approaches to implement the SDGs.
ChileAtiende seeks to bring the State closer to its citizen, by providing a multichannel and multiservice network for the delivery of public services (one-stop shop). The network includes the following channels:
Offices geographically distributed across the country to cover most of the population;
Digital Channel: a website that provides information on more than 2,500 benefits and services in simple citizen language;
Call Center: provides information and orientation on public services and benefits and
ChileAtiende Vehicles: vans that reach remote and rural areas to provide public services.
The project was launched in January 2012. It was inspired by the compared experiences of Canada, Singapore and Australia, and designed by seizing an opportunity to reuse previously installed capacities
Source: (OECD[58]) Digital Government Toolkit (http://www.oecd.org/governance/digital-government/toolkit/home/ ). This toolkit is designed to help governments in the implementation of the OECD Recommendation on Digital Government Strategies. By comparing good practices across OECD Member countries, this site can guide decision-makers in using digital technologies to encourage innovation, transparency, and efficiency in the public sector.
Public Procurement as a strategic lever to pursue policy objectives
Policymakers can use public procurement as a strategic lever to pursue policy objectives: “well-designed public procurement systems contribute to achieving pressing policy goals such as environmental protection, innovation, job creation and the development of small and medium enterprises” (OECD, 2015[59]). In Australia for instance, the Indigenous Procurement Policy has become an incredibly effective lever to drive Indigenous economic development (see Box 4.2).
The Indigenous Procurement Policy (IPP) is a mandated procurement-connected policy of the Australian Government’s Commonwealth Procurement Rules. It allows Australian Government buyers to purchase directly from indigenous small and medium enterprises (SMEs) through a simplified, yet efficient, quote process. The IPP aims to increase the rate of purchasing thereby helping to drive indigenous economic development and entrepreneurship.
To achieve these objectives, the IPP has three main components:
Annual targets for the number of contract awarded to indigenous businesses;
A Mandatory Set-Aside (MSA) for remote contracts and those valued between AUD 80 000 and AUD 200 000;
Minimum indigenous participation requirements in contracts valued at or above AUD 7.5 Million in selected industries, known as the Mandatory Minimum Requirements (MMR).
In 2013, a reported AUD 6 Million in Commonwealth contracts were awarded to fewer than 30 indigenous businesses. Since the IPP’s introduction in 2015, over 1 550 indigenous businesses have won 13 700 contracts valued at AUD 2.2 Billion.
Source: Example of country practice provided by the Government of Australia as part of the Policy Framework's consultation process
In particular, governments are increasingly using public procurement as a policy lever to support broader outcomes consistent with SDGs. To this end, the OECD Recommendation on Public Procurement (2015[59]) [OECD/LEGAL/0411] recommends that governments:
Evaluate the use of public procurement as one method of pursuing secondary policy objectives in accordance with clear national priorities;
Develop an appropriate strategy for the integration of secondary policy objectives in public procurement systems;
Employ an appropriate impact assessment methodology to measure the effectiveness of procurement in achieving secondary policy objectives.
Public-Private partnerships (PPPs) and public-civil partnerships
Contracts are governance instruments commonly used to improve policy implementation (OECD, 2007[81]). They allow for the sharing of policy implementation functions with other levels of governments and with actors such as the private sector. One key contractual arrangement are Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs). PPPs are “long term agreements between the government and a private partner whereby the private partner delivers and funds public services using a capital asset, sharing the associated risks. PPPs may deliver public services both with regard to infrastructure assets (such as bridges, roads) and social assets (such as hospitals, utilities, prisons).” In this regard, the OECD Recommendation on Principles for Public Governance of Public-Private Partnerships (2012[82]) [OECD/LEGAL/0392] provides guidance on such partnerships’ three main objectives:
Establish a clear, predictable and legitimate institutional framework supported by competent and well-resourced authorities.
Ground the selection of Public-Private Partnerships in value for money.
Use the budgetary process transparently to minimise fiscal risks and ensure the integrity of the procurement process.
Contracts for sharing policy implementation functions can also be established with non-private actors such as associations, civil society organisations or local communities. Such public-civil partnerships can enable direct stakeholder participation in service design, delivery and management of resources and commons.
Agile and innovative approaches to policy and service delivery
As mentioned throughout this Framework, innovation is critical to find new solutions and approaches to deal with complexity. Given the dynamic policy environment that countries are facing, governments are approaching policy implementation and service delivery from an innovative and agile approach, for instance through the incorporation of early feedback loops during the implementation process (OECD, 2019[72]).
Agile project management methodologies focus on principles such as simplicity, quick iteration, and close customer collaboration. Agile approaches based on collaboration, for instance between civil servants responsible for planning the delivery of a policy or service and potential users, allow for regular interactions to discuss progress and feedback.
Moreover, processes for agile policy implementation and service delivery can include practices such as early prototyping and user testing (OECD, 2017[73]), with the goal to create a regular feedback loop that enables continuous improvements during the implementation process. According to the OECD Observatory of Public Sector Innovation (2019), some examples of agile and/or innovative approaches for implementation and delivery are:
Toolkits and implementation guidance documents, including easily updatable implementation guidelines and online discussion forums;
Project management tools, such as a results frameworks, critical path analysis, Gantt charts and Kanban board;
Crowdsourcing; as a tool to capitalise though online communities large audience, process data and information quickly, with quality control, and accomplish tasks that might have traditionally given to small groups.
Digital networks and communities of practice, across the civil service, particular important to scaling up projects from piloting to broader implementation.
Co-creation, co-production and co-delivery, to engage many users in creating innovative solutions as a way to build ownership and secure greater tolerance for eventual setbacks.
Innovation Labs and units, which can facilitate a project-based approach for innovation and implementation, “providing rooms to develop new ways of doing things”.
Behavioural insight methods as an “inductive approach to the design and delivery of policies, that is driven by experimentation and piloting, seeking to understand the actual behaviour of the beneficiaries of policies and testing possible solutions before implementation” (OECD, 2019[74])
User-centric design methods, which are increasingly being applied to public service delivery, can help government officials to understand how people interact with systems and processes, and to view citizens holistically, and recognise that each individual has specific wants and needs(OECD, 2017[75]) .
Blameless retrospectives, as a method to discuss among the implementation team, in an open and honest way, about how the policy/project has worked.
A strategic approach to the implementation of the SDGs
The implementation of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) represents a significant challenge for all countries irrespective of income levels. To deliver on the 2030 Agenda, governments need to find new ways to co-ordinate, consult and work across institutions and policy areas (OECD, 2019[47]). To overcome the governance challenges the implementation of the SDGs poses, governments need to make strategic use of policy instruments such as the budget, procurement and regulatory policy. This also implies the design and implementation of innovative, forward-looking policies and programmes (OECD, 2019[47]).
Since 2015, many countries have started to incorporate and reflect the SDGs in their policy documents. However, even if we see countries including the SDGs in strategic documents, governments will need to build additional capacities to integrate the SDGs into their day-to-day management systems to fully mainstream the SDGs across the public administration and successfully implement them. While some countries are making significant progress in this regard, this is not yet happening everywhere. The Secretariat has found that in OECD countries, the SDGs are often integrated into a national performance framework (71%) but less so within national budget systems (45%). Integration therefore is more alignment than actual integration. SDGs become one framework among others rather than a coherent strategy that can change mind-sets and working methods (2018[53]). The national budget-setting and implementation process can be used to improve the pursuit of the SDGs:
If budget documents adequately reflect which policy objectives are prioritised and how the effective allocation of resources can support their pursuit, measuring the performance of implementing the SDGs can eventually be improved.
Through multi-year budget frameworks, governments can also effectively promote policy integration. Policymakers can ensure that policy objectives are not only pursued over the short- and medium-term but over the longer term beyond electoral cycle using multi-year budget forecasting and planning frameworks.
Recently, countries across the OECD and beyond have also started to use public procurement strategies to ensure that purchases of goods, services and works by governments and state-owned enterprises align with the pursuit of the SDGs.
Through whole-of-government coordination and a focus on policy coherence, governments can further guarantee an integrated approach to SDG implementation:
Due to the integrated character of the 2030 Agenda, governments need to overcome policy silos and create long-term objectives that connect different policy sectors and areas. A whole-of-government approach is particularly important for implementation.
Given the broad scope of the SDGs and the incentive for some stakeholders to cherry-pick the easiest and less costly areas to implement, solid policy co-ordination, especially from the Centre-of-Government is crucial to guarantee policy coherence and to overcome the complex policy challenges the SDGs represent (OECD, 2019[47]) .
According to UNDESA and UN CEPA, coordination by the CoG is one of the most important strategies to ensure an integrated approach to SDG implementation (United Nations, 2018[6]).
In order to examine how policies and allocated resources for the implementation of the SDGs achieve their purpose, monitoring and evaluation (M&E) represent important tools at the disposal of policymakers (evaluation is discussed in greater detail in Chapter 5). They take on particular importance due to the SDGs’ complex and inter-connected character. Robust M&E is an important tool to:
Strengthen the links between short-term programmes and policies and strategic outcomes; and
Communicate to the general public and civil society if (and how) the government is progressing toward the achievement of the different SDG targets.
Nevertheless, several challenges remain, for instance regarding the government’s capacity to gather solid data in a resource-effective way and to guarantee that information collected is managed effectively. Moreover, governments need to find new ways to publish relevant information and engage with key stakeholders outside of government (e.g. citizens, NGOs, Parliament etc.) on performance with regard to the SDGs (OECD, 2019[47]).
Does the government proactively promote and support values of sound civil service management – such as codes of conduct- to specifically address corruption and misuse of public resources during the implementation process?
Does your government has a strategy to use digital technologies – back-office and front-office - in a coherent and integrated way to shape public policy implementation in all policy domains and across all levels of government?
Do your government procurement systems establish mechanisms to enhance transparency? Does your government envisage e-procurement modalities?
Has your government actively – and explicitly – encouraged the adoption of innovative and agile approaches to policy implementation and service delivery?
Has your government mandated a core institution to lead the process of integrating the SDGs into national strategic policy-setting, implementation, evaluation and reporting on progress? Does the institution ensure that the national strategy to pursuing the SDGs reflects specific regional circumstances across the country?
Does your government have in place robust mechanisms to coordinate across policy areas and administrative units and does it generate incentives to promote co-ordination across ministries and agencies for pursuing the SDGs, such as financial, or individual or collective performance targets?
Are there regular assessments to identify and assess potential positive and negative impacts of policy proposals and regulations on sustainable development?
Performance monitoring is “the continuous function that uses systematic collection of data on specified indicators to provide management and the main stakeholders of an ongoing policy or reform initiative with indications of the extent of progress and achievement of objectives and progress in the use of allocated funds" (OECD, 2016[23]). It is a critical tool to inform governments on how they are progressing along the path to achieving their stated policy goals.
Monitoring policy and governance performance is essential to ensure the proper implementation of a public policy. Unlike policy evaluation, which seeks to analyse the implementation of an intervention for its impact on results and outcomes (see chapter 5), monitoring is mainly a descriptive tool that helps policymakers track progress and make adjustments when necessary during the implementation phase to make sure it is on track to achieve the objectives for which it was adopted. Linkages between the government’s strategic objectives, public spending and clear performance goals carry added importance as governments pursue the translation of Agenda 2030 in their national contexts (OECD, 2019[47]). This can potentially help governments assess how their decisions are promoting the SDGs in a way that is coherent with national priorities. Policy monitoring information can feed planning, decision-making and improve performance, for example by “the analysis of data on the policy context, problems or needs in the preparation of a policy intervention, decisions on the allocation of resources and/or the choice between different options” (OECD, 2017[59]). It can moreover serve as a follow-up tool, improving the implementation processes and the functioning of organisations; with a view to further enhance efficiency or the use of organisational capacity, among others. Eventually, it provides accountability to stakeholders, on issues such as the use of resources, internal processes, and the outputs and outcomes of a policy (OECD, 2017[59]).
Over the long term, data and information accumulated during implementation through monitoring can supplement evaluation insights and, together with evaluation (discussed in the next chapter), can inform formulation and decision-making of other policy interventions, for instance as part of performance-informed budgeting. Policy monitoring can be used to identify areas for further investigation and evaluation, as a basis for data-driven reviews in which qualitative discussions help to provide context for progress on indicators, which in turn allows organisations to adjust existing Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) or to set new ones.
Regardless of the policy or governance area, policymakers have to decide what elements should be monitored and how these can be tracked. In this regard, the OECD and the European Union, through the joint SIGMA initiative that provides advice based on the experience of EU and OECD member states, have defined Public Administration Principles that include advice for purposeful monitoring (SIGMA, 2017[5]). Governments could therefore:
Define a set of performance indicators (aligned with objectives) that monitor progress on the implementation of reforms in planning documents.
Ensure that performance indicators are measurable and relevant to the objectives and support accountability arrangements between institutions and responsible managers.
Establish a data-collection system for all identified indicators that provides ministers and officials with timely and accurate data.
Conduct progress reports at least every two years and ensure that they are publicly available and form a basis for discussion of implementation at political and top administrative levels.
Put in place functioning central steering and strategy review processes. Involve civil society and the business community in the monitoring and review process by ensuring transparency and access to information, and enable them to provide input on implementation performance and challenges.
Social participation oversight and oversight mechanisms by civil society can play an important role in monitoring. The OECD Recommendation of the Council on Public Integrity (2017[11]) [OECD/LEGAL/0435] highlights the role of “watchdog” organisations, citizens groups, labour unions and independent media in ensuring accountability.
A good monitoring system relies on comprehensive, quality data. As such, a high quality national statistics system is an integral part of any monitoring strategy, as well as up-to-date databases and registers that mutually communicate and disaggregate data at the desired level. In recent years, a number of more forward looking monitoring practices that use data-driven public sector approaches have emerged. Data-driven public sector (DDPS) is one of the six dimensions of the OECD Recommendation on Digital Government Strategies (2014[31]) [OECD/LEGAL/0406], which highlights the importance of data as a foundational enabler in the public sector working together to forecast needs, shape delivery and understand and respond to change. According to the OECD Report The Path to Becoming a Data-Driven Public Sector (OECD, 2019[60]), in the context of monitoring, DDPS generates an environment in which data about policy interventions is available in real time. Decision makers can thus avoid waiting for monthly or quarterly updates across a wide range of policy areas because the data they need is more frequently available and accessible. As a result, governments can gain better insights into the policy process and make quick policy adjustments in the short-term, with benefits in the mid-and long-term.
Monitoring government-wide policy priorities
Monitoring government-wide policy priorities has become one of the Centre-of-Government’s (CoG) major responsibilities to ensure that operational and strategic objectives are reached and policies are implemented in an effective and co-ordinated manner (OECD, 2018[32]).
In this regard, as highlighted in Chapter 2, the CoG in OECD Member countries is increasingly focusing on monitoring the alignment of policies as well as their impact, in order to improve co-ordination across multidimensional policies and highlight progress and achievements vis-à-vis stakeholders.
The 2017 OECD Survey on the Organisation and Functions of the CoG showed that the above mentioned monitoring tasks are increasingly fulfilled by special monitoring units, namely results and delivery units, government project units, or government co-ordination units with different capacities (OECD, 2018[32]). Delivery Units (DUs), for instance, aim help line ministries with collecting data for different policy priorities, identifying all components of the implementation process, and offer support with the definition of Key Performance Indicators and policy targets that link performance information across related single- and multi-sector strategies. Nevertheless, DU and the deliverology approach have their limits. Indeed, without the appropriate political backing, a clearly defined mission and an effective mechanism for adjusting expectations, DUs can produce mixed results (Gold, 2017[61]).
While DUs can be a useful strategic tool, they must adopt a whole-of-government approach to monitoring and evaluating policy performance. In order to link policies with the delivery of desired outcomes, Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) are composite by definition, and need to cover a mix of input, intermediate (process, output) and outcome indicators. DUs and KPIs need to be carefully adapted to the institutional framework within a country in order to optimise their utility over time
Monitoring financial performance and budget execution
OECD Member countries have developed different monitoring capacities to ensure efficient policy-making. The monitoring of the administration’s financial performance and budget execution can help governments to assess the effectiveness of public spending against their strategic objectives and adjust the allocation of financial resources in case of unforeseen implementation challenges or misspending. To this effect, clear performance goals as well as sufficient control mechanisms should be established, to allow senior civil servants to track the performance. Linkages between the government’s strategic objectives (as identified for example in its multi-year development planning) and its spending results areas in the national budget need to be clearly identified.
These links take on added importance as governments pursue the translation of the UN SDGs into their national contexts through a triangulation exercise that aligns the SDGs with national strategic planning objectives and spending result areas in the national budget (OECD, 2019[47]). Governments can then align their national strategic objectives (now reflecting the SDGs) with the spending result areas in the national budget. This has the potential of enabling governments to assess how their financial allocations and spending decisions are advancing the country down the path of achieving the SDGs in a way that reflects national development priorities and objectives.
The OECD Recommendation on Budgetary Governance (2015[48]) [OECD/LEGAL/0410] advises governments on to “actively plan, manage and monitor the execution of the budget” and to ensure that performance is integral to the budget process. To that end, the Recommendation on Budgetary Governance recommends that Adherents use “performance information that is:
limited to a small number of relevant indicators for each policy programme or area;
functional for tracking of results against targets and for comparison with international and other benchmarks.”
Additionally, the OECD Recommendation on Budgetary Governance (OECD, 2015[48]) [OECD/LEGAL/0410] recommends that governments “provides for an inclusive, participative and realistic debate on budgetary choices, by facilitating the engagement of parliaments, citizens and civil society organisations”. Citizens can also play a role in monitoring budget execution. To this end, the OECD Budget Transparency Toolkit suggests 1) Making the budget information accessible to the public, 2) Using open data to support budget transparency, 3) Making the budget more inclusive and participative (OECD, 2017[62]).
Moreover, countries could improve their monitoring efforts through, inter alia, developing oversight capacities in the Central Budget Authority and line ministries as appropriate and organise the national budget around composite, multidimensional result areas. Supreme Audit Institutions can also play an important role by conducting performance audits to inform decision-makers. This enables governments to measure the impact of spending decisions against the strategic outcomes identified in the national strategy (and in the SDGs).
Measuring regulatory performance and ensuring implementation
In many OECD Member countries, measuring regulatory performance is a tool to improve policy-making and service delivery, as it can help governments to identify specific barriers and improve regulations in general, and also in specific sectors, for instance, to reduce compliance costs, to maximize net benefits and to ensure that regulations are transparent and accessible for citizens (see chapter 3). Moreover, intermediate successes can be measured and directly communicated as part of the implementation process. The OECD Recommendation on Regulatory Policy and Governance (2012[27]) [OECD/LEGAL/0390] recommends that Adherents “establish mechanisms and institutions to actively provide oversight of regulatory policy procedures and goals, support and implement regulatory policy, and thereby foster regulatory quality”.
Improving the implementation and the enforcement of regulations is a shared challenge across OECD Member countries (OECD, 2018[63]). Historically, this has been an underdeveloped area of research, despite the key role proper enforcement of regulations plays in people’s lives.
One of the most important ways to enforce regulations and to ensure regulatory compliance is through inspections. The way these are planned, targeted, and communicated, and the ethical standards and independence that govern how inspectors carry out their mandate are key factors that governments could consider to ensure that regulations are implemented effectively. In this connection, the Secretariat has developed eleven principles “on which effective and efficient regulatory enforcement and inspections should be based in pursuit of the best compliance outcomes and highest regulatory quality” (OECD, 2014[64]):
Evidence-based enforcement. Deciding what to inspect and how should be grounded on data and evidence, and results should be evaluated regularly.
Selectivity. Promoting compliance and enforcing rules should be left to market forces, private sector and civil society actions wherever possible
Risk focus and proportionality. Enforcement needs to be risk-based and proportionate.
Responsive regulation. Inspection enforcement actions should be modulated depending on the profile and behaviour of specific businesses.
Long-term vision. Governments should adopt policies and institutional mechanisms on regulatory enforcement and inspections with clear objectives and a long-term road-map.
Co-ordination and consolidation. Less duplication and overlaps will ensure better use of public resources, minimise burden on regulated subjects, and maximise effectiveness.
Transparent governance. Governance structures and human resources policies for regulatory enforcement should support transparency, professionalism, and results oriented management.
Information integration. Information and communication technologies should be used to maximise risk-focus, co-ordination and information-sharing – as well as optimal use of resources.
Clear and fair process. Coherent legislation to organise inspections and enforcement needs to be adopted and published, and clearly articulate rights and obligations of officials and of businesses.
Compliance promotion. Transparency and compliance should be promoted through the use of appropriate instruments such as guidance, toolkits and checklists.
Professionalism. Inspectors should be trained and managed to ensure professionalism, integrity, consistency and transparency.
Building robust governance indicators
As mentioned above, performance indicators are central for governments to measure progress in achieving national strategic sustainable development goals. Some of these indicators can measure the impact of governance reforms on improving the government’s capacity to pursue its development goals for the country. In particular, translating the SDGs into national goals with robust governance indicators can allow the government to reflect the SDGs in their strategic plans (OECD, 2019[47]). Policymakers have continuously to decide what elements of a policy should be monitored and how these can be tracked through various different indicators. Many OECD Member countries use indicators that comply with the SMART criteria - criteria that are sufficiently specific, measurable, attainable, relevant, and time bound. A typology of governance indicators can distinguish between:
Input indicators: measure the quantity and type of resources, such as staff, money, time, equipment, etc. the Government invests to attain a specific public policy.
Process indicators: refer to actual processes employed, often with assessment of the effectiveness from individuals involved in the policy.
Output indicators: refer to the quantity, type and quality of goods or services produced by the Government’s policy. They can include operational goals such as the number of meetings held.
Outcome/Impact indicators: measure the strategic effect and change produced by the policy implemented. Outcome indicators commonly refer to short-term or immediate effect, while impact indicators refer to long-term effect.
Based on the worked carried out by the OECD in governance indicators, Lafortune et al (2017) have proposed criteria to evaluate the relevance and robustness of public governance indicators.
Relevance corresponds to the degree to which indicators serve a clear purpose and provide useful information that can guide public sector reforms. The target audience of these indicators are mainly decision makers. To be useful and relevant is fundamental that the indicators sets provided are:
Action worthy; an indicators should measure something that is important and which is meaningful for policymakers and the society.
Actionability; governments should know what actions they need to take in order to improve their performance. Indicators should provide useful and informative insights into the type of reform countries should engage.
Behavioural; while measuring the existence of directives, laws and other institutional documents, provided some information on the legal framework in place, what really matters is that they are actually implemented (output) and what their outcome/impact is. Therefore, in order to effectively inform public sector reforms, indicators should generally measure actual and observable facts, practices, and implementation (de facto).
Robustness corresponds to the statistical soundness of indicators. In this regard, the authors outline two main characteristics:
Validity: A valid indicator measures precisely the concept it is intended to measure.
Reliability. The measure should produce consistent results when repeated across populations and settings and event when assessed by different peoples and different times. In this regard, does the indicator provide stable results across various population and circumstances?
Source: Lafortune, G., Gonzalez, S., and Lonti, Z. (2018[65]), Government at a Glance: A Dashboard Approach to Indicators. The Palgrave Handbook of Indicators of Global Governance, Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.
The German Sustainable Development Strategy (GSDS) emerged in 2016 and allows the German government to track its progress towards implementing the UN 2030 Agenda. The strategy is composed of a set of 66 national targets and indicators which cover all 17 SDGs and fulfil the Public Administration Principles defined by the SIGMA initiative.
The Federal Statistical Office conducts a biennial Indicator Report that analyses the status of the targets and illustrates the result with a weather symbol. The reports are publicly available and generate substantial awareness and discussion among the broader public.
Source: Example of country practice provided by the Government of Germany as part of the Policy Framework's consultation process
How governments make strategic use of policy evaluation to assess the relevance and fulfilment of objectives, efficiency, effectiveness, impact and sustainability of policies to foster a range of governance objectives will be discussed in Chapter 5.
Has your government developed specific initiatives to ensure that performance information and data feed a strategic monitoring mechanism?
Is your government focusing on translating the UN SDGs into national planning? Is the government aligning its national strategic planning goals as they reflect the SDGs with spending result areas in the national budget in a way that will enable it to measure the impact of spending on the pursuit of its planning objectives in the context of its efforts to implement the SDGs?
How are monitoring results used to improve decision-making, including allowing senior civil servants to track financial performance and budget execution and link this performance to the pursuit of the strategies the budget is funding?
Are the necessary mechanisms in place to ensure regulatory compliance and monitor regulatory enforcement against outcomes?
Does transparency and access to public information mechanisms play a role in monitoring performance?
Is the monitoring aspect of a policy or regulation systematically considered at the time of policy formulation?
OECD Recommendation of the Council on Public Procurement (2015) [OECD/LEGAL/0411]
OECD Recommendation of the Council on Digital Government Strategies (2014) [OECD/LEGAL/0406]
OECD Recommendation of the Council on Public Service Leadership and Capability (2019) [OECD/LEGAL/0445]
OECD Recommendation on Principles for Public Governance of Public-Private Partnerships [OECD/LEGAL/0392]
OECD Recommendation on Budgetary Governance (2015) [OECD/LEGAL/0410]
OECD Recommendation on Regulatory Policy and Governance (2012) [OECD/LEGAL/0390]
OECD Toolkit Navigator (web resource)
OECD Delivering Better Policies Through Behavioural Insights: New Approaches, (2019)
OECD Embracing Innovation in Government: Global Trends (2018)
OECD Comparative Study: Digital Government Strategies for Transforming Public Services in the Welfare Areas (2016)
OECD Centre Stage, Driving Better Policies from the Centre of Government (2014)OECD Regulatory Enforcement and Inspections Toolkit (2018)
OECD Regulatory Enforcement and Inspections, OECD Best Practice Principles for Regulatory Policy (2014)
References
[61] Gold, J. (2017), Tracking delivery Global trends and warning signs in delivery units, Institute for Government, London.
[65] Lafortune, G., S. Gonzalez and Z. Lonti (2018), “Government at a Glance: A Dashboard Approach to Indicators”, in The Palgrave Handbook of Indicators in Global Governance, Springer International Publishing, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62707-6_9.
[58] OECD Digital Government Toolkit - Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, https://www.oecd.org/governance/digital-government/toolkit/ (accessed on 7 October 2019).
[60] OECD (2019), The Path to Becoming a Data-Driven Public Sector, OECD Digital Government Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/059814a7-en.
[47] OECD (2019), Governance as an SDG Accelerator : Country Experiences and Tools, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/0666b085-en.
[72] OECD (2019), How do we Make it Happen?: Implementing Public Sector Innovation, Observatory of Public Sector Innovation, OECD Publishing, Paris
[74] OECD (2019), Delivering Better Policies Through Behavioural Insights: New Approaches, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/6c9291e2-en.
[9] OECD (2019), Recommendation of the Council on Public Service Leadership and Capability.
[32] OECD (2018), Centre Stage 2, OECD Centres of Government.
[63] OECD (2018), OECD Regulatory Enforcement and Inspections Toolkit, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264303959-en.
[62] OECD (2017), Budget Transparency Toolkit, http://www.oecd.org/gov/budgeting/Budgeting-Transparency-Toolkit.pdf (accessed on 7 October 2019).
[59] OECD (2017), Towards Open Government Indicators: Framework for the Govenrance of Open Government (GOOG) index and the checklist for open government impact indictors, concept note, non-published.
[75] OECD (2017), Embracing Innovation in Government Global Trends. OECD Publishing, Paris.
[73] OECD (2017), Fostering Innovation in the Public Sector, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264270879-en.
[49] OECD (2017), Skills for a High Performing Civil Service, OECD Publishing, Paris.
[23] OECD (2016), Open Government:The global context and the way forward.
[48] OECD (2015), Recommendation of the Council on Budgetary Governance.
[59] OECD (2015), Recommendation of the Council on Public Procurement.
[31] OECD (2014), Recommendation of the Council on Digital Government Strategies.
[64] OECD (2014), Regulatory Enforcement and Inspections, OECD Best Practice Principles for Regulatory Policy, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264208117-en.
[27] OECD (2012), Recommendation of the Council on Regulatory Policy and Governance, http://www.oecd.org/regreform (accessed on 4 October 2019).
[82] OECD (2012), Recommendation of the Council on Principles for Public Governance of Public-Private Partnerships.
[5] SIGMA (2017), The Principles of Public Administration 2017 edition, http://www.oecd.org/termsandconditions. (accessed on 4 October 2019).
[6] United Nations (2018), Principles of effective governance for sustainable development, Economic and Social Council, Official Recors 2018, Supplement No. 24, E/2018/44-E/C.16/2018/8, para. 3.