Management mechanisms and local authorities commitment in the implementation of the Lisbon strategy

1
Management mechanisms and local
authorities commitment in the implementation of
the Lisbon strategy- experiences from
FinlandLauri LamminmäkiThe Association of
Finnish Local and Regional Authorities(AFLRA)
2
The Lisbon Strategy and the Open Method of
Coordination

• Steering mechanisms and instruments
• Community Lisbon Programme
• common guidelines (macro-, micro-, empl.)
• country-specific recommendations
• evaluation reports and benchmarking
• structural funds
• funding in TEN, RD, Energy, Inf. society
• other community policies
• _____
• National Reform Programs (NRPs)
• National structural fund programs
• national partnership structures and traditions
• government management structures and methods
• national funding on Lisbon priority areas
• ______
• Local and Regional partnerships and
  administrative structures
• Local and Regional Development Programs and
  Action Plans (LAPs/RAPs)

Lisbon targets
Community level
National level
Regional and local level
3
The evolution of the local dimension in the
Lisbon framework

• Local levels role first recognized within the
  European Employment Strategy (EES)
• EES has always relied on EU- and national level
  efforts
• However, problems are complex and all
  stakeholders are aware that results cant be
  achieved without greater participation of local
  and regional levels
• The local dimension of EES strengthened over
  time until 2003
• The local guideline provided local level with a
  strong political support, clear methodological
  framework and necessary funding
• Direct links between EU- and local levels
  developed
• However, many member countries criticized EUs
  involvement in the national level implementation
  structures - local and regional participation
  should take place according to national
  traditions and practices
• In 2003, when EES was streamlined for the last
  time, the local guideline was dropped out and
  replaced by the indefinite concept of
  strengthening governance
• In 2005, the new Lisbon strategy was focused on
  growth and jobs and the responsibilities were
  shifted more to national governments
• Financial Framework 2007-2013 less funding, no
  direct funding from EU to local level

4
The different levels of administration in Finland
NATIONAL LEVEL
S T A T E
Provincial State Offices
Regional Environment Centres
Road Districts
Trade Employ- ment Centres
Regional Councils
Åland
REGIONAL LEVEL
STATE GRANTS
19
5
13
9
15
PARLAMENTARY ELECTION
CHARGES, TAXES
Police and justice, taxation, local employment
offices
20
Municipalities and joint municipal authorities
80
LOCAL LEVEL
MUNICIPAL ELECTION
Citizens, enterprises, local communities
LL/AA/valtio
5
Finnish municipalities perspective to the
implementation of the Lisbon agenda

• they are important employers (17 of working
  population in Finland)
• their competences are wide (social integration,
  healthcare, education and training, technical
  infrastructure, local economy, enterprise
  promotion, innovation,.)
• they are relatively free to decide, how to
  allocate their resources
• they are financially quite independent due to
  local income (local income tax, real estate tax,
  share of the corporate tax and the charges amount
  to 80 of total municipal income in Finland)
• in order to get the above mentioned income the
  municipalities are directly dependent on high
  level of employment, the quality of jobs,
  entrepreneurship and well-being of enterprises,
  availability of skilled labor, the quality of
  services and the environment, innovation,
• For this reason the Lisbon objectives have
  existed at micro level in every municipality
  already long before the Lisbon summit in 2000

6
The added value of local participation

• Decentralization also in financial respect - is
  one of the reasons behind the success of Nordic
  countries
• In the decentralized administration the citizens
  have better possibilities to control how the tax
  money is spent
• The local and regional levels are better aware of
  the needs
• They are able to combine the resources and tailor
  the services
• The proximity and transparency bring
  effectiveness
• The ownership (urged by EU) is based on
  citizens and other stakeholders genuine
  participation and influence on the process
• Lisbon process needs local and regional actors,
  but what is the added value of the Lisbon process
  to municipalities?

7
The Finnish NRP examples of policy measures
whose funding and implementation is directly
linked to municipalities (1)

• Broad Economic Policy Guidelines
• Reform of central government transfers to local
  government
• Pension reforms
• Reforms in education system
• Productivity programmes in public administration
• Municipal and service structure reform
• Governments cross-sector policy programmes

8
The Finnish NRP examples of policy measures
whose funding and implementation is directly
linked to municipalities (2)

• Micro-economic Policy Guidelines
• Structural reform of the public research system
• Science and technology clusters and centres of
  excellence
• Regional centres -development programme and
  centres of expertise -programme
• Innovation strategies for major cities
• National broadband and information society
  strategies
• Programme for education and research
• development of IT, eGovernment, eHealth,
• Climate and energy strategies
• Development of the public services in the
  internal market
• Entrepreneurship policy programme, education and
  training in entrepreneurship, business advice
  services
• Venture capital funding

9
The Finnish NRP examples of policy measures
whose funding and implementation is directly
linked to municipalities (3)

• Employment Guidelines
• Cross-sector employment policy programme
• Educational and social guarantees for young
  people
• Workshop activities
• Pension reforms
• Working life programmes and reforms
• Reform of the public employment services
• Development of vocational training
• Local service centres for the long-term
  unemployed
• Immigration policy programme
• Development of taxation and tax deduction system

10
Finnish local administrations experiences in
preparing the NRPs

• AFLRA has been consulted formal requirements
  have been fulfilled
• Cities and regions not directly involved!
• National ministries and social partners play a
  key role
• Partnership-based approach or the traditional
  top-down process?
• Too short time for preparing the NRP
• no room for genuine consultation
• pure formality which combines already existing
  projects?
• Implementation often tied to management by
  results mechanism
• NRP mostly regionalized within national sector
  administration
• pipeline administration vs. integrated approach
• difficulties in matching the objectives
  horizontally and in combining the resources of
  different ministries and stakeholders
• the role of partnerships still unclear
• The functioning of the tri-partite model at local
  and regional level?
• Lack of mutual learning, mainstreaming deficit
• Field-level expertise not seriously taken into
  account

11
National Reform Programs in 2005- the
contribution of Regions and Cities (based on
CoRs survey conducted in autumn 2005)

• 80 of cities and regions were aware of the NRPs
  process
• around 40 were involved in the actual
  preparation of NRPs
• awareness and involvement is higher among regions
  than cities
• only 20 were satisfied with the form and scope
  of their involvement in the preparation process
• 35 saw that the process facilitates the setting
  of priorities
• only 10 of the respondents saw that the NRPs
  had political added value in planning the
  implementation of reforms in the area of local
  and regional development
• 17 saw that NRPs offer no added value for
  regional and local development
• formal governance process only in one country -
  Estonia

12
Local administrations own challenges in
implementing the Lisbon objectives

• What are the arguments for more active
  participation?
• Are the resources - both human and financial - in
  line with duties and aspirations?
• How to cross the internal border lines between
  policy sectors?
• Partnership-based approach instead of traditional
  administrative
• How to pool public, private and civil society
  resources more effectively?
• How to improve administrative capacity,
  accountability, transparency?
• Closer to citizens, closer to local needs and
  resources
• Common language and understanding between
  stakeholders
• New working methods, experimentalism and even
  risk-taking
• More external expertise, better local analysis
• Strong local leadership and personal level
  commitment