Public Sector Performance

1
Public Sector Performance

• Joint venture of
• Social and Cultural Planning Office
• Dutch Ministry of the Interior

2
Lisbon Agenda

• Goal
• European Union most competitive area of the
  World
• Crucial factor
• Performance of public sector

3
Central questions

• Differences in public sector performance
  productivity, quality and effectiveness
• Explanation of differences (institutions,
  resources)
• Can countries improve their public sector by
  adopting best practices found in other nations?

4
Scope

• Fields
• economic performance,
• education,
• health care,
• law and order,
• public administration
• Countries
• EU-15
• New member states (10)
• Non-European (4) US,Canada, Australia, New
  Zealand

5
Definition of Public Sector

• legal status
• financial
• functional
• quaternary sector or public service sector

6
(Corrected) public expenditure
7
Employment public service sector
8
Labour participation versus income inequality
9
Lisbon agenda labour participation

• 70 overall
• 60 women
• 50 elderly
• Netherlands first two criteria met,
  participation elderly 35
• but
• participation in persons (social importance)
• versus
• participation in hours (economic importance)

10
Economic performance efficiency versus equity
11
System types education

• Criterion differentiation
• (professional and special education)
• Group 1 highly differentiated
• AT, BE, DE, LU, NL, CZ, HU, SK
• Group 2 moderately differentiated
• ES, FR, GR, UK, IE, IT, CY, LV, MA, AU
• Group 3 uniform primary and lower secondary
  education
• DK, FI, PT, SW, EE, LT, PL, SI
• Group 4 uniform lower and higher secondary
  education
• CA, NZ, US

12
Effectiveness education achievement and
attainment
13
Cost effectiveness education
14
Conclusions education

• General
• Undifferentiated systems perform better
• Netherlands
• exception that proves the rule
• high score achievement, moderate score attainment
• Lisbon goal (80 upper secondary) not feasible by
  doing more of the same

15
Systems health care

• Bismarck (corporate)
• Eastern European (low out-of-pocket payments)
• Western European (moderate out-of-pocket
  payments)
• Netherlands separate (low out-of-pocket payments)
• Beveridge (tax based)
• Anglo-Saxon (high out-of-pocket payments)
• Scandinavian (variable out-of-pocket payments)
• Sweden separate (GP no gatekeeper)
• Miscellaneous countries (e.g. US private
  finance)
• Additional criteria degree of public funding,
  legal status of hospitals, freedom of choice

16
Effectiveness health care
17
Cost effectiveness health care
18
Additional ranking criteria

• Apart from health status
• quality (trust, waiting lists)
• equal access (out-of-pocket payments)
• Higher ranking of France, Germany and Luxembourg
• Lower ranking of Australia, New Zealand, Italy,
  Greece, Spain and Finland

19
Conclusions health care

• High level of expenditure no guarantee for
  effectiveness
• Differences at system level do not correspond
  with obvious differences in outcome.
• Importance of salary level (not only in health
  care)

20
Criminal justice systems

• Anglo-Saxon common law, adversarial, plea
  bargaining
• US repressive
• Scandinavian civil law of Scandinavian type,
  adversarial
• Western-European civil law, mainly inquisitorial
  
• NLLU no lay judge/jury,
• DE Germanic, no discretionary power, no jury
• Southern European civil law, inquisitorial,
  repressive
• Central European transitional, inquisitorial,
  repressive

21
Repressiveness 1 personnel police/courts/prisons
per 100,000
22
Repressiveness 2 prison days per recorded crime
23
Convicts versus personnel (labour productivity)
24
Schematic results criminal justice chain

• North- and West-Europe, Australia, New Zealand
• high crime rate, low repression, low conviction
  rate, high productivity, high trust
• South- and Central-Europe
• low crime rate, high repression, high conviction
  rate, low productivity, low trust
• except Finland and UK
• except Portugal and Spain

25
Personnel public administration per 1000
inhabitants
26
Quality public administration
27
Improvement transparency score
28
Cost effectiveness public administration
29
Overall performance public service sector
30
Overall performance and trust
31
Cost effectiveness public service sector
32
Final remarks

• High expenditure no guarantee for effectiveness
• Recurrent country groupings
• Western Europe, Southern Europe, Central Europe,
• Scandinavia, Anglo-Saxon countries
• common historical and geographical factors