Report on research on the Italian public sector concerning the key

Report on research on the Italian public sector concerning the key
dimensions of the COST action IS0601
Note prepared by Dario Barbieri, Paolo Fedele, Davide Galli, Riccardo Mussari, Edoardo Ongaro,
Ileana Steccolini
Introduction
This note is aimed at reporting the “state of the art” in the development of the COST project
research themes as regards Italy. In particular, the present document will describe the
following aspects:
−
research on agencies and non departmental public bodies
−
research on coordination in the machinery of government
−
research on performance, considering especially audit and performance measurement
Research on agencies and non departmental public bodies in Italy
In the last decades, partly under the influence of New Public Management ideas (Hood, 1991),
there has been a remarkable global trend toward specialisation and autonomisation in the
public sector (Pollitt and Bouckaert, 2004). Consequently, many research projects, both
qualitative and quantitative, have been recently carried out in different countries on the
governance and ‘steering and control’ problems of agencies (McGauran et al, 2005; Pollitt,
2005; Pollitt and Talbot, 2004; Pollitt et al, 2004).
Italy is not an exception. Core bureaucracies, at the different tiers of government, are
surrounded by several “satellites” which operate quite independently and which are often only
loosely coupled with their parent and core governments. Scholars have often analysed the
problems associated to this centrifugal tendency: accountability of agencies to legitimized
political bodies, divergent goals, strong information asymmetries, lacking incentives, etc.
Public management scholars, more specifically, have mainly focused on the intermediate
(regional) and local level of government. As regards the local level, many research projects
have analysed the governance issues of public utilities (more recently, Cristofoli and Valotti,
2007, Elefanti, 2003, Grossi, 2006), focusing on the steering and control mechanisms used by
municipalities to supervise these organisations. The governance of local public utilities is, in
fact, a complex issue; they deliver public services and are generally owned by municipalities,
but operate in a market setting and are listed in stock exchange.
Regions (i.e. the intermediate level of government in Italian context) are an interesting site
for research on agencies and autonomisation, too. They are traditionally concerned with policy
formulation tasks and often operate through a dense network of specialised agencies. Regional
1
agencies have recently been analysed in a national wide research project, carried out by a
network of some Italian university. Furthermore, it has to be noted that Italian research on
agencies has focused not only institutional and organisational issues: relevant research effort
have analysed the role of budgeting and accounting as a steering mechanisms of the network
of agencies (inter alia, see Marcuccio and Steccolini, 2005).
As regards the central administration, there is a lack of organisational/public management
research on agencies and related governance issues; the major role has in fact been played by
law scholars. At the central level, in fact, it may be assumed that the institutionalisation of the
hegemonic administrative law paradigm (Capano, 2003) is stronger than in other tiers of
government, more concerned with direct provision of services. This gap has been partly fulfilled
by two empirically-based research projects carried out over the last two years. First of all, in
2005, a multiple case study on agencification at the central level of government has been
carried out (Fedele, Galli, Ongaro, forthcoming; Ongaro, 2006). The main findings of this mainly
inductive research are consistent with the international literature: Italian agencies are varied
and not standardized solutions and very far from any apparent convergence of some kind
toward any model or ideal-type. It has emerged, inter alia, that contractualism is relatively
often absent in executive agencies, and that especially performance contracting is rare; the
relative paucity of performance measures in Italian agencies seems to be, at least partly, in
countertendency to some trends common in (European) Nordic and Anglo-Saxon countries
(Pollitt, 2005). generally speaking, the persistence of a dominant paradigm based on
administrative law (Capano, 2003) seems to be a factor that strongly influences agencies’ shape
and features in the Italian context.
The second main piece of research has been developed through the survey-based
methodology used in the newly established international research network “COBRA”
(Comparative Public Organization Data Base for Research and Analysis). The analysis has
focused on Non-Departmental Public Bodies (NDPBs) at the central (national) level of
government. The unit of analysis has been only those NDPBs having the feature of being single
organisations in the landscape of the Italian public sector. In other words, only those 57 NDPBs
that present the characteristic of being the only one to exercise a given range of public
functions have been considered (for further methodological details see Barbieri et al.,2007). At
this stage, the research efforts have focused on the issue of autonomy of agencies (a popular
but complex concept, see Verhoest et al.,2004), trying to understand what factors explain
agencies’ autonomy. Potentially influencing factors stem from some theoretical mainstream in
public
administration
and
public
management:
structure,
cultural
features,
credible
commitment, features of the primary task.
Generally speaking, there seems not to be a general set of factors capable of explaining the
variation of all the identified dimensions of autonomy. There are, however, a number of
2
“partial” explanatory factors, meaning that at least part of the variation of specific dimensions
of autonomy seems to be due to certain identified factors. There is evidence, first of all, of
agencies established under public law as perceiving themselves as less autonomous than those
created under private law, with regard to personnel management autonomy. Secondly, it has
emerged that the more the contacts between the agency and its parent ministry, the less policy
autonomy agencies perceive to have. A counterintuitive finding, finally, tells that agencies
performing regulatory tasks perceive to have less autonomy than other agencies, at least as
regards financial autonomy.
Research on coordination in the machinery of government
Specialisation and coordination are perennial issues in research on public administration
(Peters,1998; 6,2004). Italy is not an exception: many academic contributions have focused, at
least indirectly, on the trajectories of specialisation and related problems (see for example,
Melis,1999; Gualmini, 2003; Sepe et al.,2003; Clarich,2005; Capano e Gualmini, 2006)
However, the problem of coordination is again at the top of international research agendas:
a recently established research program is trying to longitudinally analysing the trajectories of
specialisation and the evolution of coordination strategies and instruments (Bouckaert et
al.,2007). This research effort has been based on a qualitative model ad hoc developed, which
classifies a wide range of coordination instruments, each of them relying on a different basic
mechanism: hierarchy, market or network (Thompson et al, 1991).
This ad hoc methodology has been recently applied to analyse the Italian context (Ongaro,
Fedele, Galli, Pezzani and Valotti - SDA Bocconi School of Management report for the Public
Function Department, 2007). Through an inductive research project based on interviews and
the analysis of official documents, the trajectories of specialisation and the evolution of the
coordination instruments in different phases have been described (1980; 1980-1990; 19911995, 1996-2000; 2001-2005). Subsequently, the overall trajectory of the Italian context has
been compared to France (a country in the ‘Rechtsstaat administrative culture’, which has been
core in shaping the Napoleonic administrative tradition – Ongaro, 2007) and the United
Kingdom (a public interest country, adopting the Westminster model) in order to better explain
the Italian trajectories through a comparison based on both the most similar and the most
different system.
3
References (first and second section)
6, P. (2004) “Joined-up government in the western world in comparative perspective: a
preliminary literature review and exploration”, Journal of Public Administration Research and
Theory, 14, 1, pp.103-138
Barbieri, D., Fedele, P., Galli, D. e Ongaro, E. (2007) Determinants of autonomy of public
agencies: structural, functional or cultural-institutional factors? (working paper)
Bouckaert, G., Peters, B.G., Verhoest, K. (2007) Machinery of government and policy
capacity: the effects of specialisation and coordination (titolo provvisorio, in corso di
pubblicazione per Edward Elgar, Londra).
Capano, G. (2003), Administrative traditions and policy change: when policy paradigms
matter. The case of Italian administrative reform during the 1990s. Public Administration, 81, 4,
pp.781-801.
Capano, G., Gualmini, E. (a cura di) (2006), La Pubblica Amministrazione in Italia, Bologna:
Il Mulino.
Clarich, M. (2005) Autorità Indipendenti. Bilancio e prospettive di un modello, Bologna: Il
Mulino.
Cristofoli, D. and Valotti, G. (2007) ‘Proprietà e corporate governance delle public utilities’,
in Economia & Management, n.4, pp. 75-92
Elefanti, M. (2003) La liberalizzazione dei servizi pubblici. Milan: EGEA.
Fedele, P., Galli, D. e Ongaro, E. (Forthcoming) ‘Disaggregation, autonomy and reregulation, contractualism:public agencies in Italy(1992-2005), Public Management Review
Grossi, G. (2006) ‘La corporate governance delle aziende di servizio pubblico quotate in
Borsa’, Rivista Italiana di Ragioneria e di Economia Aziendale, n. 7-8.
Gualmini, E. (2003) L’amministrazione nelle democrazie contemporanee, Edizioni Laterza,
Bari.
Hood, C. (1991). A Public Management for all Seasons?. Public Administration, vol. 69, n.1,
pp. 3-19.
McGauran, A.M., Humphreys, P.C. and Verhoest, K.( 2005) The corporate governance of
agencies in Ireland, Dublin:Institute of Public Administration.
Marcuccio M., Steccolini, I. (2005) "Social and Environmental Reporting in Local
Governments: a new Italian Fashion?", Public Management Review, n. 2, pp. 155-176.
Melis G.(1999) Storia dell’amministrazione italiana, 1861-1993, Bologna, Il Mulino.
Ongaro, E. (2006) (a cura di) Le agenzie pubbliche. Modelli istituzionali ed organizzativi,
Rubbettino, Roma.
Ongaro, E. (2007) ‘The Napoleonic administrative tradition: evolving features and influence
on public management reform in France, Greece, Italy, Portugal, Spain’, paper presented at the
4
Workshop Administrative Traditions: Inheritances and Transplants in Comparative Perspective,
City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, 23-25 June 2007
Ongaro, E., Fedele, P., Galli, D., Pezzani, F., and Valotti, G. “Assetti organizzativi e forme di
specializzazione e coordinamento nelle Amministrazioni Pubbliche Centrali”, SDA Bocconi
School of Management report for the Public Function Department, 2007
Peters, B. G. (1998) Managing horizontal government: The politics of coordination. Public
Administration 76 (2): 295–311.
Pollitt, C., Talbot, C. Caulfield, J. and Smullen, A. (2004) Agencies: how governments do
things through semi-autonomous organizations, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Pollitt, C. and Bouckaert, G. (2004), Public management reform: a comparative analysis
(Oxford University Press Oxford).
Pollitt, C. e Talbot, C. (eds ) (2004) Unbundled government: a critical analysis of the global
trend to agencies, quangos and contractualisation, Londra e New York, Routledge
Pollitt, C. (2005), “Performance management in practice: a comparative study of executive
agencies”, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, vol.16, pp.25-44
Sepe, S., Mazzone, L., Portelli, I., Vetritto, G. (2003), Lineamenti di storia
dell’amministrazione italiana (Carocci, Roma
Thompson, G., Frances, J., Levacic, R., and Mithcell, J. (a cura di) (1991) Markets,
Hierarchies and Networks: the Co-ordination of Social Life. Londra, Sage.
Verhoest, K., Peters, B.G., Bouckaert, G., Verschuere, B. (2004a) The study of
organisational autonomy: a conceptual review. Public Administration and Developmentt,24: 2,
pp. 101-118
Research on audit and performance management
Over the years, public administrations at different levels of government have developed
systems of performance measurement mainly focused on the use of resources and the
quantitative dimension of activities. This process has been led by legislatives reforms as well as
pressures to keep under control the evolution of public expenditure - but also in order to
introduce a new attention to the quality of public policies and services. Notwithstanding an
increasing focus on results and responsibility of public managers starting from the early ’90
(with important reforms as the Law No. 29 of 1993 on the civil service), and despite some
systemic interventions about the control on public organizations’ activities (in 1999 the decree
law No. 286 on control and evaluation instruments disciplined of a set of four control systems:
the strategic control, the management control, the public managers evaluation and the
administrative control, in 2000 a decree on Local Authorities) most of the rules have not been
applied and the financial budget continues to be the main governing instrument.
5
As key issues in the Italian debate on performance management it is possible to outline the
following three questions:
1. What is “performance” in public sector? What are the specific features of performance in the
public sector?
Several authors have investigated this field in order to better understand the mechanisms of
accountability inside public administration and to correctly apply to the public sector the general
theories of Management and Economics. It is important to outline the contribution that
Economia Aziendale has in Italy in the study of this field: the Italian research
tradition/programme of the economia aziendale, the Italian ‘variant’ of the management
discipline, assumes as the object of the analysis the principles and the criteria that determine
the functioning of the ‘units’ in which the economic activity takes place (be it a business, a
public entity, or a not-for-profit organisation). Specifically we will outline the contribution of the
economia delle aziende pubbliche (the Italian public management discipline), which investigates
the economic dimension of the individual institutions of the public sector and their economic
relations (Borgonovi, 1973 and 1984, pp. 21-22 in particular, drawing also on Masini, 1979, pp.
10-13 and 18 in particular). This approach, applied to the public sector (Borgonovi, 1973,
Borgonovi E., 1996) is based upon general contributions by Zappa and Marcantonio (1954),
Giannessi (1961), Masini (1979).
2. Why is important to develop instruments that allow a process of performance measurement
and management and support the establishment of a performance culture?
Until the end of ’80 the Italian administrative system has been strongly influenced by the
juridical/legal culture, so that in many respects performance has been interpreted as
compliance to the rules. The financial budget, with its authorising function, has been the main
instrument of control and performance analysis. The economic constraints of the ’90 have
probably induced a more efficiency-oriented approach in the definition of performance, in
particular referring to input measurement, while the financial dimension has been progressively
integrated with an analysis of the quality and pertinence of public services and activities.
Despite
some
international
trends
towards
of
approaches
under
the
label
of
“management/creation of public value”, and notwithstanding the growth of scientific
contributions and practices in this direction, the diffusion of performance measurement and
management is far from being significantly developed in Italy. The absence of reform processes
that embrace this approach and the fragmentation of experiences determine the actual status
of performance management with some important contributions produced by the academic
6
world but usually not corresponding to widespread implementation of frameworks and
instruments.
Even if the evolution of performance management instruments has not been systematic and
complete, several studies and contributions have investigated this field. Starting from the end of
’80 management accounting and control has been increasingly studied. Accounting has been
the most investigated field, particularly as regards to the evolution of accounting systems in the
local authorities (Anessi Pessina, 2000, Mussari and Caperchione, 2000, Caperchione, 2000,
Farneti, 1995 and 2004, Guarini and Guarini, 1984). At the same time, management control,
budgeting and reporting instruments and responsibility accounting have been implemented,
though in a patchy way, and investigated (Garlatti and Pezzani, 2000, Mussari, 2001). More
recent investigation focuses especially on two instruments. First, the multi-dimensional
approach to performance measurement, with the analysis of the application in Italian public
sector organisations of instrument such as the Balanced Scorecard and the Common
Assessment Framework (Formez 2002, Pozzoli, 2002, Baraldi, 2005, Caccia, 2005). Secondly the
use of performance and accounting information for internal and societal accountability, and the
development of social reports and instruments for the communication of results attained by the
public administrations (Guarini, 2000, Hinna, 2004, Pezzani, 2003 and 2005, Steccolini, 2004,
Marcuccio and Steccolini, 2005). Local level, public utilities and executive agencies sectors have
demonstrated to be a more dynamic field for change and testing while the central
administration presents a more fragmented picture.
3. What are the conditions that allow a better performance?
Strategic, operational and organizational perspectives can be used as dimensions of analysis for
the understanding of the deepest impacts of performance measurement systems (Del Vecchio,
2001). Another aspect is the evaluation of the impact that performance measures have on the
management processes. Evaluation is in this perspective strictly connected with the articulation
of the control system, the information availability and the common culture (Dente, Azzone and
Vecchi, 1999). Performance measurement represents only a pre-condition for performance
management – on this aspect, there are some interesting contributions, especially regarding
local authorities (Mazzara, 2003, Mussari, Grossi and Monfardini, 2005) (more broadly Mussari,
1999 and 2002, Rebora, 1999)
References (third section)
Anessi Pessina, E. (2000), La contabilità delle aziende pubbliche, EGEA, Milano.
7
Dente B., Azzone G., Vecchi B. (2000) Valutare per governare. Il nuovo sistema dei controlli
nelle Pubbliche Amministrazioni, ETAS, Milano.
Baraldi, S. (2005) Il Balanced Scorecard nelle aziende sanitarie, McGraw-Hill, Milano.
Borgonovi, E. (1973), L’economia aziendale negli istituti pubblici territoriali, Giuffrè, Milano.
Borgonovi, E. (1984) (ed) Introduzione all’economia delle amministrazioni pubbliche, Milan:
Giuffrè.
Borgonovi, E. (1996), Principi e sistemi aziendali per le amministrazioni pubbliche, EGEA,
Milano.
Caccia, L. (2005), L’orientamento strategico dei sistemi di controllo nelle aziende pubbliche,
Azienda Pubblica, No. 1.
Caperchione, E. (2000), Sistemi informativo-contabili nella pubblica amministrazione : profili
comparati, evoluzione e criteri per la progettazione, EGEA, Milano.
Del Vecchio, M. (2001), Dirigere e governare le amministrazioni publiche: economictà,
controllo e valutazione dei risultati, EGEA, Milano.
Farneti, G. (1995), Introduzione all’economia dell’azienda pubblica, Giappichelli, Torino.
Farneti, G. (2004), Ragioneria pubblica. Il “nuovo” sistema informativo delle aziende
pubbliche, Franco Angeli.
Formez, (2002), Common assessment framework : uno strumento di autovalutazione per le
pubbliche amministrazioni.
- Roma, Formez, stampa 2002
Garlatti, A. and Pezzani, F. (2000), I sistemi di programmazione e controllo negli enti locali,
ETAS, Milano.
Riannessi, E. (1961), Interpretazione del concetto di azienda pubblica, Colombo Cursi, Pisa.
Guarini, A and Guarini, M. (1984), Il bilancio degli Enti Pubblici, Franco Angeli, Milano.
Guarini, E. (2000), Ruolo dell’ente locale e accountability: l’impatto sui sistemi di
programmazione e controllo, Azienda Pubblica, No. 6.
Hinna, L. (2004) Il bilancio sociale nelle amministrazioni pubbliche : processi, strumenti,
strutture e valenze, Franco Angeli, Milano.
Marcuccio, M. and Steccolini, I. (2005) Social and environmental reporting in local
authorities: a new italian fashon?, Public Management Review, vol. 7, No. 2.
Masini, C. (1979), Lavoro e risparmio, UTET, Torino.
Mazzara, L. (2003), Processi e strumenti di misurazione dei risultati negli enti locali,
Giappichelli, Torino.
Mussari, R. (1999), Le valutazioni dei programmi nelle amministrazioni pubbliche,
Giappichelli, Torino.
Mussari, R., Caperchione, E. (eds) (2000), Comparative issues in local government
accounting, Norwell, Kluwer.
8
Mussari, R. (eds) (2001), Manuale operative per il controllo di gestione, Rubettino, Roma.
Mussari, R. (ed.) L’Amministrazione Finanziaria dello Stato, Rom2, Rubbettino Editore,
2002.
Mussari, R., Grossi G., Monfardini P. (2005), La performance dell’azienda pubblica locale,
CEDAM, 2005.
Pezzani, F. (eds) (2003) L'accountability delle amministrazioni pubbliche, EGEA, Milano.
Pozzoli, S. (2002), Il controllo direzionale negli enti locali: dall'analisi dei costi alla balanced
scorecard, Franco Angeli, Milano.
Rebora, G. (1999), La valutazione dei risultati nelle amministrazioni pubbliche, Guerini e
associati, Milano.
Steccolini, I. (2004) Accountability e sistemi informativi negli enti locali : dal rendiconto al
bilancio sociale, Giappichelli, Torino.
Zappa G., Marcantonio A. (1954), Ragioneria applicata alle aziende pubbliche: primi principi,
Giuffrè, Milano.
9