PUBLIC SECTOR TRENDS 2017 - IPA - Institute of Public ... · PUBLIC SECTOR TRENDS 2017 STATE OF THE PUBLIC ... international comparison of public sector efficiency1, a study by the

AN FORAS RIARACHÁININSTITUTE OF PUBLIC A D M I N I S T R AT I O N

RICHARD BOYLENOVEMBER 2017

PUBLIC SECTOR TRENDS2017

STATE OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE SERIES

21


RICHARD BOYLENOVEMBER 2017

STATE OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE SERIES21

PUBLIC SECTOR TRENDS2017

22

PUBLIC SECTOR TRENDS

3

Dr. Richard Boyle is Head of Research, Publishing and Corporate Relations with the Institute of Public Administration. He has written extensively

on public service reform and on the evaluation of public services.

Foreword 5

Selected findings 6

1. Introduction 9

2. The size, cost and inputs of the public sector 10

3. The quality and efficiency of public administration and public services 33

4. Sectoral performance 65

5. Trust and confidence in public administration 77

Appendix 1 94

Indicators used to make up the IPA Public Administration Quality indicator

3

CO

NT

EN

TS

4


5

FOREWORD

This report examines trends in public sector development and is the eighth in our annual series. The intention is to help inform the debate on Ireland’s public sector and public administration, and its role in Irish society.

Here we try to bring some evidence to bear on the important debate on the future shape, size and direction of the public sector. Using data gathered from a number of sources, information on the size and cost of the public sector, the quality of public administration, efficiency and performance, and levels of trust and confidence is presented in a simple but rigorous manner.

In the State of the Public Service research series, we seek to provide evidence-informed research and commentary on key aspects of contemporary Irish public administration. The authors of these reports bring their considerable expertise and practical knowledge to the topics selected so as to provide evidence, insights and recommendations to support future development. Our aim is that these reports will not only inform, but also challenge current thinking about how the Irish public service performs. It is intended that these short research reports will be of relevance and use not only to public servants, but also to policy makers and the wider public.

Dr Marian O’SullivanDirector GeneralInstitute of Public Administration

SELECTED FINDINGS

6

The size, cost and inputs of the public sector• Average government spending per person was €15,780

in 2016.

• Government spending in Ireland is the most centralised in Europe, with just over 90 per spent by central government and under 10 per cent by local government.

• In 2016 the numbers employed in the public service rose to over 311,000, the highest since 2008.

• 14 per cent the workforce work in the public service. This is lower than in most European countries.

• Spending on public service pay and pensions continues to grow after several years of falling. Spending was at €18.5bn in 2016, close to 2008 levels.

• Ireland has a lower share of young people employed in central government than many other European countries.

• The proportion of top level civil service jobs filled by private sector applicants was 3 per cent in 2015, down from 20 per cent in 2012.

• The proportion of women in senior management positions is low in comparison to other European countries.

• Irish public administration is seen as the most professional and least politicised in Europe.

The quality and efficiency of public administration• The quality of Ireland’s public administration is seen by

business executives as above the European average. Ireland came 6th of the EU28 on this indicator in 2017.

• On public service values such as independence from political interference, reliability and fairness, Ireland scores well above the European average.

• Just under half of people surveyed say the provision of public services is good.

• Ireland scores well with regard to the impartiality with which people are dealt with by public servants.

• Irish public services are seen as amongst the least bureaucratic (2nd best) and least corrupt (3rd best) in Europe.

• 60 per cent of the public, and just under half of business users, see the civil service as efficient.

• Open data initiatives in Ireland are mid-ranking in European terms. Ireland scores well with regard to data maturity (3rd best).

• Ireland’s public administration is seen as one of the best in Europe (3rd best) in encouraging competition and providing a supportive regulatory environment.

• Ex post evaluation of regulation is seen as poor (2nd worst in Europe), as is stakeholder engagement in developing regulations (worst).


7

Sectoral performanceEducation• The 2015 OECD PISA survey shows that Ireland has a

higher ranking than the European average in maths, sciences and reading.

• Ireland delivers a reasonable level of educational efficiency when comparing reading and maths performance to spending per student across Europe.

• The opinion of executives that Ireland’s education system meets the needs of a competitive economy remains above the European average.

Health• Ireland performs well compared to most European

countries with regard to life expectancy at birth (81 years) and healthy life expectancy at birth (71.5 years).

• Against a ‘basket’ of outcomes assessed by the Euro Health Consumer Index, Ireland performs slightly above the EU28 average.

• Ireland’s hospitals display comparatively high levels of efficiency compared to other European countries with regard to length of stay in hospital. But the rate of potentially avoidable hospital admissions is high.

Trust and confidence in public administration• Levels of trust in government and in parliament have

improved from a very low base in recent years and are now just above the European average.

• Trust in regional and local authorities is at the European average.

• Just over half the population tend to trust the public administration in Ireland.

• Satisfaction with the civil service is quite high. Satisfaction with the education system is amongst the highest in Europe. Satisfaction with the quality of health care is below the European average.

• The number of complaints received in Ombudsman offices dropped in 2016, with some variations between offices.

• The number of freedom of information requests is increasing (over 30,000 in 2016).

8


1 Afonso et al (2003)2 Social Cultural and Planning Office (2004) 3 See http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/index.aspx#home 4 See http://www.oecd.org/governance/govataglance.htm 5 Boyle (2007)

1. INTRODUCTION

9

There are no clear or agreed definitions for comparative ranking of public administrations. But most people would agree that a number of elements need to be included in any assessment:• The size, cost and inputs of the public sector. While

size, cost and inputs alone are not the sole or even main determinants of good public administration, nevertheless in terms of value for money in the delivery of public services, keeping check on the size, cost and other inputs of the public sector and public service is an important consideration.

• The quality and efficiency of public administration. Public administration includes policy making, policy legislation and management of the public sector. Such dimensions of public administration can often only be measured by subjective indicators of quality which give a sense of how good the public administration is. There is also an onus on public administration to show that services are being provided efficiently.

• Sectoral performance. The delivery of social and economic outcomes in an efficient manner is central to an effective public administration.

• Trust and confidence in public administration. The general public ultimately must have trust and confidence in the public administration of a country if it is to be effective.

In this study we examine indicators for each of these four elements of public administration. Where possible and appropriate, data is included for other European countries, in order to enable comparisons to be made. Also, where data are available, we have provided trend data going back over the last decade. The intention is to provide a snapshot of trends in public administration performance in Ireland, to highlight where we are doing well, what challenges are presented and where improvements need to be made.

In a number of charts, as well as showing Ireland’s rating relative to the European Union (EU) averages, the top ranked and bottom ranked country as at the time of the most recent data gathering are included for comparative purposes.

In its style and content, the report draws on a number of efforts to benchmark and compare public sector efficiency and performance. These include a European Central Bank

(ECB) international comparison of public sector efficiency1, a study by the Netherlands Social and Cultural Planning Office (SCP) of comparative public sector performance2, the World Bank governance indicators project3, the OECD Government at a Glance project4, and an IPA study comparing public administrations5.

A word of caution about data limitationsThe data presented here needs to be interpreted with great care. First, there is the issue of whether the indicators used to represent public administration provision and quality really captures what public service is about. Indicators, by their nature, only give a partial picture. Second, much of the international comparative data in this report is qualitative data derived from opinion surveys. Some of this survey data comprises small-scale samples of opinion from academics, managers and experts in the business community. The survey data is thus limited both in terms of its overall reliability and the fact that some surveys represent the views of limited sections of the community. Third, the point scores arrived at on some indicators (on a scale from 1–10 for the IMD and WEF data and between –2.5 and +2.5 for the World Bank governance indicators) should not be interpreted too strictly, as there are margins of error associated with these estimates. Fourth, changes over short periods of time should be viewed cautiously. Many of the indicators assessed represent ‘snapshots’ at one particular point in time. Small shifts in annual ranking are not particularly meaningful.

In all, when interpreting the findings set out in this paper, these limitations should be borne in mind. In particular, small variations in scores should be interpreted cautiously. These may be no more than random variations to be expected given the data being used. What is of interest is to identify broad patterns and trends emerging from the data.

6 In this study, the public service is defined as the public sector minus the commercial state-sponsored bodies.

10

2. THE SIZE, COST AND INPUTS OF THE PUBLIC SECTOR

Here we present a range of indicators that show the size, cost and other inputs of the public sector and public service6


11

• A commonly used indicator of public spending in the economy is expenditure as a percentage of GDP (gross domestic product). From 2008 to 2010, as GDP shrank as a result of the recession, Ireland’s government expenditure as a percentage of GDP increased rapidly. The particularly large increase in 2010 is mostly explained by the impact on government expenditure of specific government support to banks during the financial crisis, in the form of capital injections.

• Since 2011, as spending reductions introduced by the government came into effect, expenditure as a percentage of GDP had fallen considerably.

• In recent years, the reliability of GDP data for Ireland for comparative purposes has been brought into question, due to the effects of the large scale of multinational company activity in Ireland7. In 2017, the Central Statistics Office developed a new indicator, GNI*, or modified GNI (gross national income). Using this indicator, general government expenditure as a share of the economy is still below the European average in 2016, at 40 per cent.

Government expenditure as a share of the economy in Ireland is below the EU28 average

FIGURE 1 GENERAL GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE AS SHARE OF GDPSource: Eurostat

7 John Fitzgerald (2016), Problems with the Irish National Accounts and Possible Solutions, Dublin: Central Statistics Office.

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Ireland Ireland GNI*France

Per

cent

age

EU28

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

8 Luxembourg has by far the highest level of general government expenditure per head of population, at €38,702 in 2016, but is atypical. Denmark is more representative of countries that have a high level of government spending per head of population.

12

• Expenditure per head of population grew faster in Ireland than the EU average up to 2010. The effect of government support for the banks is clearly visible on the impact on the figures for 2010. From 2010, general government expenditure per head fell significantly.

• From 2013 to 2015 government expenditure per head rose gradually, and was at €16,328 per person in 2015. This is back at the level it was in 2007. Expenditure per head dropped slightly in 2016 to €15,780

• Government expenditure per person in Ireland in 2016 was the tenth highest in Europe. Denmark, shown on the chart, is one of the highest spenders on this indicator, while Bulgaria has the lowest level of government expenditure per head of population in the EU .

30000

25000

20000

15000

10000

5000

0

Ireland

Euro

EU28 DenmarkBulgaria

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Government expenditure per head of population remains relatively steady, dropping slightly in 2016

FIGURE 2 GENERAL GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE PER HEAD OF POPULATIONSource: Eurostat


13

• The tasks of government are shared between different levels of government. The nature of this share-out varies markedly between countries.

• Ireland has the highest share of general government expenditure allocated at national level in the OECD in 2016, with just over 90 per cent of expenditure undertaken by central government.

• Centralisation has increased in recent years: central government’s share of expenditure was around 82 per cent in 1987.

• At the other extreme, in Denmark only a third of general government expenditure is the responsibility of central government, with local government being responsible for just over 60 per cent.

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Per

cent

age

Central government State government Local government Social security

Irelan

d

Grear

Brit

ain

Estonia

Czech

Republic

Portugal

Greece

Hungary

Slovakia

Slovenia

Latvia

Luxem

bourg

Austria

Sweden

Poland

France

Denmar

k Ita

ly

Netherla

nds

Finland

Spain

Belgium

German

y

Irish government expenditure is the most centralised in Europe

FIGURE 3 DISTRIBUTION OF GENERAL GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE ACROSS LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT 2016Source: OECD Government at a Glance 2015

14

• The public service pay and pension bill reached a peak of €18.7bn in 2008.

• From 2008 to 2014, as the cutbacks in numbers and pay introduced by the Government have taken effect, expenditure on public service pay and pensions decreased from its high of €18.7bn to €16.2bn in 2014.

• Spending on public service pay and pensions increased in 2015 to €17bn, the first rise since 2008. It further increased to €17.7 billion in 2016, and to €18.5 billion in 2017.

• Pensions account for approximately €2.6bn (14 per cent) of the total pay and pension bill in 2017.

FIGURE 4 PUBLIC SERVICE PAY AND PENSIONSSource: Department of Public Expenditure and Reform Databank. Separate data on pensions only available from 2011.

Expenditure on public service pay and pensions continues to grow after several years of falling.

20,000,000

18,000,000

16,000,000

14,000,000

12,000,000

10,000,000

8,000,000

6,000,000

4,000,000

2,000,000

0

Euro

(000

)

PensionPay

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017


15

Average weekly earnings in the public sector remain relatively steady

• These are gross earnings figures before deductions for PRSI, tax and other levies. The CSO note that this is particularly relevant to the public sector since March 2009 when the pension levy was introduced.

• Overall, average weekly earnings have remained relatively stable between 2015 and 2017.

FIGURE 5 PUBLIC SECTOR AVERAGE WEEKLY EARNINGSSource: CSO. Figures are for Q1 each year. 2017 figures are a preliminary estimate.

Q1 2015 Q1 2016 Q1 2017

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

Civil service Defence Garda Siochana Education Regional bodies Health

Euro

16

9 Figures are for end of year, apart from 2017 which is for Q2. Figures are for full-time equivalents rather than actual numbers of people.

Numbers employed in the public service are continuing to slowly rise after a period of steady decline

• From its peak in 2008, the total number of people employed in the public service dropped from 320,000 in 2000 to 288,000 in 2013, a drop of 10 per cent.

• The number of people employed in the public service has risen since 2013, but is still below the level of employment in 2008.

• In 2017 the numbers employed rose to over 311,000, the highest since 2008.

FIGURE 6 NUMBERS EMPLOYED IN THE PUBLIC SERVICESource: Department of Public Expenditure and Reform Databank9

330000

320000

310000

300000

290000

280000

270000

260000

2500002008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Num

ber

empl

oyed

Public service


17

Public employment is very centralised in Ireland

• The centralised nature of Irish public administration is illustrated by this chart, which shows that 90 per cent of general government employment is at central government level. This is the highest central government share in Europe.

• Federal states such as Germany and Belgium tend to have a higher share of sub-central government employment. Though sub-central levels of employment are also high in the Nordic countries, where local authorities have responsibility for a wide range of functions.

FIGURE 7 DISTRIBUTION OF GENERAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYMENT ACROSS LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT 2014Source: OECD Government at a Glance 2017

Central Sub-central Social security

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Germany

Belgium

Sweden

Spain

Finland

Denmark

Latvia

Lithuania

Czech Republic

Slovakia

Estonia

Italy

Slovenia

Hungary

Portugal

Greece

Ireland

18

10 Figures are for end of year, apart from 2017 which is for Q2

The health and education sectors account for the vast majority of public service jobs

• Two out of every three people employed in the public service work in either health or education. In 2017, there were approximately 109,000 people employed in the health sector and 100,000 people employed in the education sector.

• Employment is still lower in all sectors than in 2008 apart from education.

FIGURE 8 PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYMENT BY SECTORSource: Department of Public Expenditure and Reform Databank10

120000

100000

80000

60000

40000

20000

0

Num

bers

em

ploy

ed

Health sector

Local Authorities

Defence sector

Education sector

Justice sector

Civil Service

Non-commercial State agencies

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

11 Figures are for end of year, apart from 2017 which is for Q212 Much of the public service data provided refers to full-time equivalents rather than actual numbers of people. So public service employment as a

percentage of total employment is in reality larger than that reported. The size of the difference is unknown, though Foley (2009, p.86) estimated it at around 1 per cent in 2007.


19

While numbers employed in the public service have varied over the last decade, as a proportion of the total workforce they have stayed relatively constant

• While public service employment grew slightly as a proportion of the labour force in 2009 and 2010, since 2010 its share of the labour force has dropped back again12.

• Over the past decade public service employment has generally remained around 15 to 16 per cent of total employment. But in 2016 it is at 14.1 per cent of the labour force, the lowest it has been in the last decade.

• Just under 5 per cent of all those in employment in the economy (public and private) are employed in the health sector, and just under 5 per cent in education. 1.7 per cent of those in employment are civil servants, and 1.3 per cent are in local authorities.

FIGURE 9 PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYMENT AS PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL EMPLOYMENTSource: Department of Public Expenditure and Reform Databank11, CSO

20

15

10

5

0

Per

cent

age

Public service employment as percentage of total employment

Health employment as percentage of total employment

Education employment as percentage of total employment

Civil service employment as percentage of total employment

Local authority employment as percentage of total employment

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

20

Employment in government as a percentage of the labour force remains at the lower end of European practice

• The size of government employment varies significantly amongst European countries, from 29 per cent of the labour force in Denmark to 11 per cent in Germany in 2015.

• In Ireland in 2015 employment in general government services accounted for 15 per cent of the labour force, towards the lower end of countries surveyed.

FIGURE 10 EMPLOYMENT IN GENERAL GOVERNMENT AS A PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL EMPLOYMENT 2015Source: OECD Government at a Glance 2017

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Per

cent

age

Denmark

Sweden

Finland

Estonia

Lithuania

Hungary

France

Latvia

Slovakia

Belgium

Greece

Slovenia

Great B

ritain

Czech

Republic

Austria

Spain

Portugal

Ireland

Italy

Netherla

nds

Luxem

bourg

Germany


21

13 Figures are for end of year, apart from 2017 which is for Q2

After a number of years of decline public service employment relative to the total population has slightly increased in the last two years

• While public service employment levels have been changing, the population has continued to increase.

• Public service employment relative to the population was relatively stable at between 70 and 73 public sector employees per 000 population up to 2008, but dropped rapidly from 2008 until 2013 when it was at 62.8 public service employees per 000 population.

• The number of public service employees per 000 population rose slightly to 64.9 in 2017.

FIGURE 11 PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYMENT PER 000 POPULATIONSource: Department of Public Expenditure and Reform Databank13, CSO

75

70

65

60

55

502008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Per

000

pop

ulat

ion

2014 2015 2016 2017

Public service employment

22

Ireland has a lower share of young people employed in central government than many other European countries

• The effects of restrictions on recruitment during and after the financial crisis are illustrated by the age profile of people employed in central government. Ireland has one of the lowest shares of people aged 18-34 in Europe, at 13 per cent in 2015.

• Just over a quarter of those employed in central government in 2015 in Ireland were aged 55 or older.

FIGURE 12 SHARE OF PEOPLE EMPLOYED IN CENTRAL GOVERNMENT BY AGE GROUPSource: OECD Government at a Glance 2017

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Per

cent

age

Hung

ary

Latv

iaGe

rman

y

Esto

nia

Lith

uani

a

Swed

enSl

ovak

ia

Fran

ceGr

eat B

ritai

nDe

nmar

kBe

lgiu

m

Finl

and

Aust

riaN

ethe

rlan

ds

Irela

ndPo

rtug

alSl

oven

ia

Pola

nd

Spai

n

Gree

ce

Italy

18-34 years old 35-54 years old 55 years or older


23

Delegation of human management resource practices has increased, but is still lower than in many other countries

FIGURE 13 EXTENT OF DELEGATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PRACTICES IN LINE MINISTRIES IN CENTRAL GOVERNMENT 2016 AND 2010Source: OECD Government at a Glance 2017

2016 2010

Slov

akia

Swed

enGe

rman

yPo

rtug

al

Italy

Esto

nia

Finl

and

Slov

enia

Denm

ark

Grea

t Brit

ain

Fran

ce

Pola

ndBe

lgiu

m

Aust

riaIre

land

Latv

iaHu

ngar

yN

ethe

rlan

dsCz

ech

Repu

blic

Spai

n

Gree

ceLu

xem

bour

gLi

thua

nia

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

Scor

e

• Ireland is in the lower half of countries who have delegated human resource management (HRM) practices to line departments.

• However, the degree of delegation has risen significantly since 2010, when Ireland had one of the lowest levels of delegation in Europe.

14 Top level appointments covers the most senior positions in the civil service – at assistant secretary general level and upwards.

24

The proportion of top level civil service posts filled by private sector applicants has been falling in recent years

• Roughly 80 per cent of top level appointments are filled from within the civil service .

• The proportion of top level posts filled by private sector applicants reached a high of 21 per cent in 2012, but has dropped each year since then, and was at 3 per cent in 2015.

• The proportion of top level posts filled from the wider public service rose from 5 per cent in 2012 to 17 per cent in 2015.

FIGURE 14 PERCENTAGE OF SUCCESSFUL TOP LEVEL APPOINTMENTS COMMITTEE (TLAC) CANDIDATES RECOMMENDED TO MINISTER/GOVERNMENT BY SECTORSource: Top Level Appointments Committee (TLAC) Fourth Report to the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, 2015 Developments & Trends

Civil Service Public Service Private Sector

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Per

cent

age

2012 2013 2014 2015


25

Around a third of top level posts are filled by women

• The proportion of top-level posts filled by women has varied between roughly a quarter and a third of all posts.

• The proportion of posts filled by women has increased in each of 2014 and 2015, when it was at 33 per cent, but is still below the level reached in 2012, of 37 per cent.

FIGURE 15 TOP LEVEL APPOINTMENTS COMMITTEE (TLAC) SUCCESSFUL CANDIDATES BY GENDERSource: Top Level Appointments Committee (TLAC) Fourth Report to the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, 2015 Developments & Trends

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Per

cent

age

Female Male

2012 2013 2014 2015

26

Ireland has one of the lowest shares of women in senior management posts in Europe

• Ireland has one of the lowest shares of women in senior management posts in Europe in 2015, at 29 per cent.

• Ireland’s share of women in middle management posts (49 per cent) is around the average for Europe.

• The share of women in professional posts (senior economists/policy analysts) in Ireland, at 68 per cent, is towards the higher end for Europe.

FIGURE 16 SHARE OF WOMEN IN SELECTED CENTRAL GOVERNMENT POSITIONS 2015Source: OECD Government at a Glance 2017

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Per

cent

age

Senior Management Middle Management Professionals

Latv

ia

Gree

ce

Pola

nd

Slov

enia

Swed

en

Nor

way

Lith

uani

aGr

eat B

ritai

n

Slov

akia

Finl

and

Port

ugal

Italy

Fran

ce

Spai

n

Irela

ndN

ethe

rlan

ds

Denm

ark

Belg

ium


27

Female share of professional judges is low in European terms

• Ireland had the lowest share of women judges in courts of first instance and appeal courts in Europe in 2014.

• The share of female judges in the supreme court in 2014 was around the European average.

FIGURE 17 FEMALE SHARE OF PROFESSIONAL JUDGES BY LEVEL OF COURT 2014Source: OECD Government at a Glance 2017

Courts of first instance Appeal courts Supreme courts

Slov

enia

Latv

ia

Gree

ceLu

xem

bour

gHun

gary

Esto

nia

Port

ugal

Czec

h Rep

ublic

Fran

ceSl

ovak

ia

Pola

ndNet

herla

nds

Spai

nDen

mar

k

Italy

Aust

riaFi

nlan

d

Belgi

um

Swed

en

Irela

nd

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Per

cent

age

28

Sick leave levels vary across the public service

• Sick leave levels in the public service as a whole have tended to fluctuate around 9 days per full time equivalent (FTE) between 2013 and 2016.

• The highest levels of sick leave in the public service are in the civil service, health and local government. The lowest levels of sick leave are in education (primary and post primary teachers).

FIGURE 18 PUBLIC SERVICE SICK LEAVESource:Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, 2016 Public Service Sick Leave Statistics and Trends 2013-2016

Civil Service Defence Forces Health Local Government

Education Primary Teachers Gardaí Public ServiceEducation Post Primary Teachers

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

Ave

rage

day

s lo

st p

er F

TE

2013 2014 2015 2016


29

Ireland’s executive capacity is assessed at around the European average

• This executive capacity index assesses the steering capacity of government. It covers strategic capacity, inter-ministerial coordination, evidence based instruments, societal consultation, policy communication, implementation, and adaptability.

• Ireland falls into the upper-middle ranks with regard to executive capacity. Its score on this measure improved over its 2014 score.

• Finland, Denmark and Sweden are the highest scorers.

FIGURE 19 EXECUTIVE CAPACITYSource: Bertelsmann Stiftung Sustainable Governance Indicators

2016 2014

Scor

e

Finland

Denmar

k

Sweden

United K

ingdomLat

via

Poland

Lithuan

ia

Luxem

bourg

German

y

Irelan

dSpain Ita

ly

Estonia

Austria

France

Netherla

nds

Portugal

BelgiumMalt

a

Slovakia

Czech

Republic

Hungary

Bulgaria

Slovenia

Croat

ia

Roman

ia

Greece

Cypru

s0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

30

Executive accountability in Ireland is rated at around the European average

• The executive accountability index examines non-governmental actors’ involvement in policy making. It assesses citizen’s participatory competence, legislative actors’ resources, the role of the media, and the role of parties and interest associations.

• Ireland falls into the upper-middle ranks in terms of executive accountability. Its score has remained relatively steady since 2014.

• As with executive capacity, Finland, Sweden and Denmark receive the highest scores.

FIGURE 20 EXECUTIVE ACCOUNTABILITYSource: Bertelsmann Stiftung Sustainable Governance Indicators

2016 2014

Scor

e

Finland

Sweden

Denmar

k

Luxem

bourg

German

y

Austria

Belgium

Czech

Republic

United K

ingdom

Irelan

d

Netherla

nds

Estonia

Spain

Poland

Malta

Slovenia

Italy

Lithuan

ia

France

Greece

Bulgaria

Slovakia

Portugal

Latvia

Croat

ia

Roman

ia

Cypru

s

Hungary

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9


31

Ireland’s public administration recruitment and employment conditions are seen as slightly more towards the closed than open end of the spectrum

• The Quality of Government Expert Survey, run by the University of Gothenburg, provides a qualitative assessment of the organisational design of public bureaucracies and bureaucratic behaviour across countries. It is based on the subjective assessments of carefully selected country experts. The survey was carried out in 2014.

• The closedness index measures the extent to which the public sector labour market is a special case of the country’s general labour market conditions, i.e. the recruitment and employment conditions are more restrictive than those typically seen in the private sector. Higher values represent a more ‘closed’ public administration.

• Ireland is assessed as towards the more ‘closed’ end of the spectrum of the EU countries surveyed.

FIGURE 21 CLOSEDNESS INDEX 2014Source: Dahlström, Carl, Jan Teorell, Stefan Dahlberg, Felix Hartmann, Annika Lindberg, and Marina Nistotskaya. 2015. The QoG Expert Survey Dataset II. University of Gothenburg: The Quality of Government Institute

Rat

ing

Scal

e

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

France

Belgium

Ita

ly

Croat

ia

Austria

Germ

any

Spain

Greec

e

Irelan

d

Roman

ia

Lithuan

ia

Portu

gal

Sloven

ia

Malta

Poland

Bulgaria

Hungary

Nether

lands

Slovak

ia

Estonia

United K

ingdom

Denm

ark

Finland

Latvia

Sweden

Czech

Rep

ublic

32

Irish public administration is seen as the most professional and least politicised in Europe


• The professionalism index assesses the extent to which the public administration is professional rather than politicised. Higher values indicate a more professionalised public administration.

• Ireland is ranked as the most professional and least politicised public administration of the countries examined.

FIGURE 22 PROFESSIONALISM INDEX 2014Source; Dahlström, Carl, Jan Teorell, Stefan Dahlberg, Felix Hartmann, Annika Lindberg, and Marina Nistotskaya. 2015. The QoG Expert Survey Dataset II. University of Gothenburg: The Quality of Government Institute

Rat

ing

Scal

e

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Irelan

d

Denm

ark

Sweden

France

Nether

lands

Germ

any

United K

ingdom

Finland

Poland

Latvia

Estonia

Lithuan

ia

Spain

Belgium

Austria

Sloven

ia

Greec

e

Roman

ia Ita

ly

Cypru

s

Czech

Rep

ublic

Portu

gal

Malta

Croat

ia

Hungary

Bulgaria

Slovak

ia


33

3. THE QUALITY AND EFFICIENCY OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION AND PUBLIC SERVICES

An indicator of the quality of public administration, based on work undertaken by the Social and Cultural Planning Office (2004) in the Netherlands and taken further by Boyle (2007) is used to assess the quality of public administration. Sixteen indicators derived from both the International Institute for Management Development (IMD) and World Economic Forum (WEF) executive opinion surveys are combined to make up an aggregate public administration quality indicator (see Appendix 1 for details). It is complemented by two subsets of this indicator, one of which shows trends in perception about the application of traditional public service values in public administration, the other showing perceptions of the type of competitive and regulatory regime fostered by public administration.

These quality indicators are supplemented by a range of other indicators of aspects of quality and efficiency.

34

The overall quality of Irish public administration is seen as notably above the European average by executives

• This quality indicator measures executives’ opinions of the quality of public administration as assessed by a range of indicators covering issues such as effective implementation of government decisions and transparency of decision making (see Appendix 1 for full list).

• Ireland’s score on the quality of public administration index has held relatively steady for the last four years, after increasing for a number of years. Ireland came 6th of the EU28 on this indicator in 2017, behind the Netherlands, Finland, Denmark, Luxembourg, and Sweden.

FIGURE 23 QUALITY OF PUBLIC ADMINSTRATION SCORESource: IPA analysis based on IMD and WEF data

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

Scor

e ou

t of 1

0

Ireland EU28 Netherlands Slovak Republic

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017


35

The public view the quality of public services in Ireland quite highly in comparison with other European countries

• Public perception of the overall quality of public services in education, health care and law enforcement in Ireland in 2013 was quite high in European terms.

• There was particularly satisfaction with the quality of education services.

FIGURE 24 PUBLIC PERCEPTION OF QUALITY OF SELECTED PUBLIC SERVICES 2013 Source: Controlling Corruption in Europe: The Anticorruption Report Volume 1

Education Health Care Law Enforcement

Finl

and

Belg

ium

Net

herla

nds

Denm

ark

Unite

d Ki

ngdo

m

Irela

nd

Aust

riaRo

man

ia

Italy

Spai

n

Fran

ceGe

rman

ySw

eden

Czec

h Re

publ

icHun

gary

Port

ugal

Croa

tia

Pola

ndSl

ovak

ia

Gree

ce

Bulg

aria

0

5

10

15

20

25

Scor

e

36

• Data is scaled out of a possible 10 in each category, and 70 for the combination of all 7 services examined. Figures are for 2012.

• Looking at the overall data, we see Ireland ranking 16th of the EU 27 in perceived quality of public services, just below the EU27 average.

• Education is Ireland’s best scoring public service, at 6.8 out of 10 points, ranking 10th best of the EU27 countries examined

• Ireland is also above the EU average for the perceived quality of social municipal housing and the state pension system.

• Health is Ireland’s worst scoring and ranking public service, at 4.9 out of 10 points, coming 22nd of the 27 EU countries examined.

• Ireland is also below the EU average for the perceived quality of public transport, childcare services, and long-term care services.

• Austria, Luxembourg and Finland hold the top three positions, ranking comparatively highly in all 6 categories.

0

10

20

30

40

50

Austri

a Lu

xem

bour

g Fi

nlan

d Den

mar

k Bel

gium

M

alta

Net

herla

nds

Sweden

Ger

man

y Spa

in

UK Fr

ance

Cyp

rus

Slove

nia

EU27

Czech

Rep

ublic

Ire

land

Est

onia

Lith

uani

a Por

tuga

l Ita

ly La

tvia

Slova

kia

Hunga

ry

Polan

d Rom

ania

Greec

e Bul

garia

Health services Education system Public transport Childcare services

Long-term care services Social municipal housing State pension system

Ran

king

in P

oint

s

At sectoral level, the perceived quality of selected public services is just below the European average. Education is perceived as the best public service, and health the worst

FIGURE 25 ACCUMULATED AVERAGE PERCEIVED QUALITY OF SELECTED PUBLIC SERVICES, BY COUNTRY (RANKING IN POINTS) 2013Source: Eurofound 2013 - 3rd European Quality of Life Survey


37

• Ireland sits in the middle of the pack at 13th for ‘most difficulty in access to local neighbourhood public services’, covering the postal service, recreational/green areas and public transport, ranking slightly above the EU 27 levels.

• With regard to difficulty accessing postal services, Ireland ranks very well, coming in as second least difficult after Lithuania.

• Regarding difficulty accessing recreational or green areas Ireland ranks ninth of the twenty-seven EU countries surveyed, with just under 9 per cent of those surveyed saying they have difficulty accessing these facilities.

• Looking at public transport however, Ireland is among the worst of all the EU 27 in terms of the percentage who say it is difficult to access. This reflects the dispersed nature of settlement and rural nature of the country outside of the main metropolitan areas.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Cypru

s Lu

xem

bour

g Swed

en

Lith

uani

a La

tvia

Great

Brit

ain

Roman

ia Den

mar

k Fi

nlan

d Hun

gary

Bul

garia

Spa

in

Eston

ia Slo

vakia

Ire

land

Pol

and

Austri

a EU27

Net

herla

nds

Germ

any

Fran

ce

Belgi

um

Slove

nia

Czech

Rep

ublic

Ita

ly Por

tuga

l Gre

ece

Mal

ta

Postal Service Recreational or Green area Public Transport Facilities

Per

cent

age

The ability to access neighbourhood public services varies according to the service

FIGURE 26 PERCEIVED DIFFICULTIES IN ACCESS TO LOCAL NEIGHBOURHOOD SERVICES, BY COUNTRY 2013Source: Eurofound 2013 - 3rd European Quality of Life Survey

38

• In spring 2017, just under half of all people surveyed said that the provision of public services was good. This was in the lower half of European responses, though slightly above the rating achieved in spring 2016.

• The Netherlands, Luxembourg and Finland receive the highest rating, with 90 per cent in the Netherlands rating public service provision as good.

Spring 2017 Spring 2016

Netherla

nds

Luxem

bourg

Finland

German

yMalt

a

Austria

Sweden

Estonia

Belgium

Denmar

k

Czech

Republic

Lithuan

ia

United K

ingdom

France

Latvia

Hungary

Slovenia

Irelan

d

Poland

Cypru

s

Portugal

Slovakia

Roman

iaSpain

Croat

ia

Bulgaria

Italy

Greece

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Tota

l 'G

ood'

per

cent

age

In terms of people’s view of the provision of public services Ireland ranks below the European average

FIGURE 27 THE PROVISION OF PUBLIC SERVICESSource: Eurobarometer


39

• A sub-set of the quality of public administration indicators can be used to assess what might be termed the ‘traditional’ public service values such as independence from political interference, freedom from bribery and corruption, transparency, reliability and administrative fairness and equity.

• Ireland’s ranking on this traditional public service values indicator has generally been well above the EU28 average. Ireland ranked 7th of the EU28 on this indicator in 2017.

• Finland, the Netherlands and Denmark score highest on this indicator.

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

Scor

e ou

t of 1

0

Ireland Finland BulgariaEU28

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Ireland EU28 Finland Bulgaria

Irish maintenance of traditional public service values is seen as significantly better than the European average

FIGURE 28 QUALITY OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION SCOREIPA analysis based on IMD World Competitiveness Yearbook and WEF Global Competitiveness Report

40


• The impartiality index assesses the extent that when implementing policies, public sector employees do take anything about the citizen/case into consideration that is not stipulated in the policy. Higher values represent a more impartial public administration.

• Ireland ranks as more towards showing a reasonably strong tendency towards impartiality on the part of public officials when dealing with citizens.

Rat

ing

Scal

e

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Sweden

Denm

ark

France

Finland

Malta

Belgium

Germ

any

Nether

lands

Irelan

d

Austria

Poland

United K

ingdom

Lithuan

ia

Estonia

Latvia

Sloven

ia

Spain

Portu

gal

Croat

ia

Czech

Rep

ublic

Roman

ia Ita

ly

Greec

e

Hungary

Bulgaria

Slovak

ia

Cypru

s

Irish public officials are seen as relatively impartial in their dealings with citizens

FIGURE 29 IMPARTIALITY INDEX 2014Source: Dahlström, Carl, Jan Teorell, Stefan Dahlberg, Felix Hartmann, Annika Lindberg, and Marina Nistotskaya. 2015. The QoG Expert Survey Dataset II. University of Gothenburg: The Quality of Government Institute


41

• Public perceptions of impartiality from a 2013 survey rank Ireland quite highly with regard to impartiality – 4th of the 21 EU28 countries surveyed.

• This high ranking with regard to impartiality applies equally to education, health care and law enforcement services.


Sweden

Finland

Netherla

nds

Irelan

d

German

y

Denmar

k

Austria

Italy

United K

ingdom

Hungary

Roman

ia

Poland

Spain

Bulgaria

Czech

Republic

Greece

France

Portugal

Belgium

Slovakia

Croat

ia0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Scor

e

The public view Irish public services as relatively impartial in how they deal with people

FIGURE 30 IMPARTIALITY OF PUBLIC SERVICES 2013Source: Controlling Corruption in Europe: The Anticorruption Report Volume 1

42

• Ireland ranked 3rd best with regard to equal treatment of people by public services in 2013.

• Education, health care and law enforcement services all do well on this criterion.


Netherla

nds

Finland

Irelan

d

Denmar

k

United K

ingdom

Sweden

Hungary

Austria

Italy

Belgium

Czech

Republic

Spain

German

y

Roman

ia

Poland

Portugal

Croat

ia

France

Greece

Bulgaria

Slovakia

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Scor

e

Irish public services score highly with regard to equal treatment of people

FIGURE 31 EQUAL TREATMENT IN PUBLIC SERVICES 2013Source: Controlling Corruption in Europe: The Anticorruption Report Volume 1


43


Denmar

k

Finland

Irelan

d

Netherla

nds

Sweden

United K

ingdom

German

y

Austria

Poland

France

Hungary

BelgiumIta

ly

Czech

Republic

Spain

Portugal

Bulgaria

Croat

ia

Slovakia

Roman

ia

Greece

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Scor

e

• Ireland ranked 3rd best with regard to perceived levels of corruption of public services in 2013, behind Denmark and Finland.

• Education, health care and law enforcement services are all seen as having relatively low levels of corruption.

Irish public services are seen as amongst the least corrupt in Europe

FIGURE 32 PERCEIVED CORRUPTION OF PUBLIC SERVICES 2013Source: Controlling Corruption in Europe: The Anticorruption Report Volume 1

44

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

Ireland

Scor

e ou

t of 1

0

EU28 Denmark Greece

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

• Respondents to the executive opinion survey carried out by IMD for their World Competitiveness Yearbook indicate that compared to most European countries in the EU, bureaucracy in Ireland is seen as less of a hindrance to business activity. Only Denmark scored better in 2017.

• The Irish score has increased notably since 2010, though it has levelled off since 2014.

Irish public services are seen as one of the least bureaucratic in Europe by business executives

FIGURE 33 BUREAUCRACY HINDERS BUSINESS ACTIVITYSource: IMD World Competitiveness Yearbook


45

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

02008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Ireland

Scor

e ou

t of 1

0

EU28 Luxemborg Greece

2016 2017

• Responses to the executive opinion survey carried out by IMD for their World Competitiveness Yearbook indicate that the perception that government decisions are effectively implemented in Ireland has improved considerably since 2010, after getting worse for a number of years before that.

• In the mid-2000s, Ireland’s ranking on this indicator was well above the European average. In 2010 and 2011 the ranking fell below the EU28 average. It is now well above the EU28 average again, with Ireland ranking 5th on this indicator in 2017. Luxembourg scores best on this indicator, followed by Denmark and Germany.

• Ireland’s score has been falling somewhat since 2014, as has the European average.

Perceptions about the effective implementation of government decisions rose considerably from 2010 to 2014 but have dropped since then

FIGURE 34 GOVERNMENT DECSISIONS ARE EFFECTIVELY IMPLEMENTEDSource: IMD World Competitiveness Yearbook

46

In World Bank assessments, Ireland’s government effectiveness score remains above the European average and is relatively stable

• Since 1996 the World Bank has been using a set of governance indicators as part of its work on promoting good governance. The indicators are drawn from 35 separate data sources constructed by 32 different organisations.

• The Government Effectiveness indicator aims to measure the quality of public services, the capacity of the civil service and its independence from political pressures, and the quality of policy formulation. On this indicator, Ireland ranked well above the EU28 average up to 2007.

• Ireland’s score fell from 2005 to 2009, and Ireland’s government effectiveness indicator dropped to just above the EU28 average in 2009. It stabilised in 2010, and has been generally improving since then, stabilising in recent years. Denmark is the top European scorer on this indicator and Romania the lowest ranked of the EU28.

FIGURE 35 WORLD BANK GOVERNMENT EFFECTIVENESS INDICATORSource: World Bank Worldwide Governance Indicators

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0

-0.5

Ireland

Scor

e ou

t of r

ange

-2.

5 to

2.5

EU28 Denmark Romania

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015


47

Public impressions of civil service efficiency are generally favourable and improving

• Most members of the public feel that the civil service is efficient. In 2017, 59 per cent viewed the civil service as either very or fairly efficient. The impression of efficiency has remained relatively constant over the survey periods from 2005.

• 15 per cent of people surveyed in 2017 feels that the civil service is either very or fairly inefficient.

• Recent users of the civil service are much more likely to view the civil service as efficient (71 per cent) than non-users (53 per cent).

FIGURE 36 IMPRESSION OF CIVIL SERVICE EFFICIENCYSource: Ipsos MRBI/Ipsos MORI Veracity Index as published in Irish Civil Service Customer Satisfaction Survey 2017

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

2015

2017

2009

2005

Very efficient Fairly efficient No opinion either way Fairly inefficient Very inefficient Don't know

48

Just over half of business users view the civil service as efficient

• 57 per cent of business users in 2016 rated the civil service as efficient. 16 per cent rated the civil service as inefficient.

• The perceived level of efficiency was above that achieved in 2009, but below that of 2006.

FIGURE 37 BUSINESS PERCEPTION OF CIVIL SERVICE EFFICIENCYSource: Civil Service Business Customer Survey 2016

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Efficient Inefficient No opinion/don't know

2016

2009

2006


49

Ireland’s public administration continues to provide a relatively efficient level of service to business

• A ‘bottom-up’ approach to assessing efficiency of public administration is taken by the World Bank in some of their Doing Business indicator set, with performance assessed from a service user perspective.

• The number of days estimated that it takes an entrepreneur to start a business in Ireland remained at 5 days in 2017. This is down from 10 days in 2013 and 13 days for the previous five years. The EU28 average is 10 days, down from 12 days in 2014. In Denmark it takes 3.5 days, and 37 days in Poland.

• The number of days to complete all procedures required for a business in the construction industry to build a standardised warehouse was estimated at 149.5 days in 2017. This remains lower than the EU28 average of 170 days. The best performers are Denmark (64 days) and Finland (65 days).

• The number of hours it takes a medium-sized company to pay tax in a given year is estimated as significantly lower in Ireland, at 82 hours, than it is for the EU28 (171 hours) average. Ireland ranks third in the EU behind Estonia (55 hours) and Luxembourg (55 hours).

FIGURE 38 Source: World Bank Doing Business indicators

EU28 Ireland

Num

ber

of d

ays

(hou

rs in

cas

e of

pay

ing

taxe

s)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Starting a business Licensing a warehouse Paying taxes

50

Egovernment in Ireland has a number of strengths and weaknesses

• Ireland ranks above the EU28 average with regard to user centricity (to what extent information about a service is provided online), citizen mobility and business mobility (mobility indicates to what extent European users can use online services in another country)

• Ireland ranks below the EU28 average with regard to transparent government (indicates to what extent governments are transparent as regards: (a) their own responsibilities and performance, (b) the process of service delivery and (c) personal data involved), and, in particular, key enablers (indicates the extent to which five technical pre-conditions for eGovernment are used).

FIGURE 39 EGOVERNMENT BENCHMARKS 2014-15Source: EU eGovernment Benchmark 2016

EU28 Ireland

User Centricity Transparent Government Citizen Mobility Business Mobility Key Enablers0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Scor

e


51

Individual use of the internet to obtain information on government services in Ireland is lower than in much of Europe

• With regard to using the internet to obtain information on public authorities, Ireland remained at around half those surveyed making use of the internet in 2015 and 2016.

• Of the 22 EU countries examined, this places Ireland in the lower half, ranking 13th.

• The Nordic countries score particularly highly on this indicator.

FIGURE 40 INDIVIDUALS USING THE INTERNET TO OBTAIN INFORMATION ABOUT PUBLIC AUTHORITIESSource: Eurostat

Per

cent

age

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2016 2015

Denm

ark

Finl

and

Sweden

Eston

iaNet

herla

nds

Luxe

mbo

urg

Latvi

aFr

ance

Austri

aGer

man

yBel

gium

Unite

d Kin

gdom

Irela

nd

Spain

Greec

eSlo

vakia

Hunga

rySlo

veni

aPor

tuga

lCze

ch R

epub

licPol

and

Italy

52

Individual use of the internet to send filled forms to public bodies in Ireland is higher than in much of Europe

• With regard to using the internet for submitting completed forms, Ireland remained at just under 50 per cent using the internet between 2014 and 2016.

• Ireland remains one of the more active in this area, ranking 6th out of the 22 countries examined.

FIGURE 41 INDIVIDUALS USE OF THE INTERNET TO SEND FILLED FORMS TO PUBLIC BODIES IN IRELAND IS HIGHER THAN IN MUCH OF EUROPE Source: Government at a Glance 2017

2016 2014

Denm

ark

Eston

ia

Finl

and

Nethe

rland

sFr

ance

Irela

ndSwed

enLu

xem

bour

gBel

gium

Great

Brit

ainAus

tria

Spain

Latvi

aPor

tuga

lGre

ece

Hunga

ryPol

and

Slove

nia

Germ

any

Slova

kia Italy

Czech

Rep

ublic

Per

cent

age

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80


53

FIGURE 41 INDIVIDUALS USE OF THE INTERNET TO SEND FILLED FORMS TO PUBLIC BODIES IN IRELAND IS HIGHER THAN IN MUCH OF EUROPE Source: Government at a Glance 2017

Ireland spends less on public procurement than most other European countries

• Public procurement refers to the purchase by governments and state-owned enterprises of goods, services and works and represents a significant amount of government expenditure.

• Ireland spends less on public procurement as a share of total government expenditure than most European countries (25 per cent in 2015).

FIGURE 42 GENERAL GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT AS SHARE OF TOTAL GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE 2015Source: OECD Government at a Glance 2015

Netherla

nds

Slovakia

Estonia

Czech

Republic

German

y

Latvia

Great

Brit

ain

Hungary

Sweden

Finland

Poland

Luxem

bourg

Slovenia

Belgium

Austria

Austria

Denmar

k

France

Irelan

dSpain Ita

ly

Greece

Portugal

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

45.0

50.0

Per

cent

age

54

15 As noted in relation to Figure 1, the use of GDP as a reliable comparative indicator for Ireland is problematic.

As a share of GDP Ireland spends less on outsourcing than other European countries

• Governments use a mix of their own employees, capital and outside contractors to produce goods and services. Outsourcing can take place in two ways. Governments can either purchase goods and services to be used as inputs, or they can pay a non-profit or private entity to provide the goods and services directly to the end user.

• In 2016 Ireland outsourcing represented just under 6 per cent of GDP15.

• Ireland dedicated the largest share of their expenditure on outsourcing to purchasing goods and services (3.6 per cent), and a smaller share (2 per cent) to outsourcing goods and services through direct third party provision.

FIGURE 43 EXPENDITURE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT OUTSOURCING AS A PERCENTAGE OF GDP 2016Source: OECD Government at a Glance 2017

Goods and services financed by government Goods and services used by government

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

Per

cent

age

Nethe

rland

sFi

nlan

dGer

man

yBel

gium

Swed

enFr

ance

Slov

akia

Great

Brit

ain

Aust

riaDen

mar

kCze

ch R

epub

licHun

gary

Esto

nia

Slov

enia

Italy

Luxe

mbo

urg

Polan

d

Spai

nPor

tuga

lGre

ece

Latv

iaIre

land


55

Data availability Data accessibility Government support to the re-use

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

Scor

e

Fran

ceGre

at B

ritai

n

Spai

n

Aust

ria

Finl

and

Nethe

rland

s

Greec

e

Irela

nd Italy

Slov

enia

Polan

dBel

gium

Esto

nia

Czech

Rep

ublic

Germ

any

Slov

akia

Portu

gal

Swed

en

Latv

ia

• By making the data collected and produced available, easily accessible and re-usable by citizens and businesses, governments can improve accountability and transparency, create new business opportunities and better inform both citizen engagement and their own decision-making.

• The OECD has created a pilot index on open government data to assess governments’ efforts to implement open data in three dimensions: (1) data availability on the national portal; (2) data accessibility on the national portal; and (3) governments’ support to innovative re-use and stakeholder engagement.

• On this OECD composite index, government open data efforts were mid-ranking in European terms, some way behind leading countries such as France and Great Britain.

• Ireland has improved its ranking on this index since 2015, when it was ranked at the lower end of European countries.

Open data initiatives in Ireland are mid-ranking in European terms

FIGURE 44 OPEN, USEFUL, REUSABLE GOVERNMENT DATA INDEX 2017Source: OECD Government at a Glance 2017

56

Ireland ranks reasonably well with regard to readiness for and implementation of open data but poorly with regard to impact

• Information for the rankings is based on surveys and data collected in 2016. Readiness refers to readiness to secure benefits from open data, including the legal, political, economic, social, organisational, and technical foundations that can support the supply and use of open data. Implementation is measured through the availability of data published by government across 15 categories, and the adoption for those datasets of the common practices set out in the Open Definition and the Open Government Data Principles. Impact is measured through media and academic mentions of cases of open data use and impact.

• Ireland ranked 11th overall, up from 15th in 2014.

• Ireland scores well in the readiness category, ranking as 6th overall and well above the average. Ireland is middle ranked with regard to implementation. The lowest ranking is with regard to impact, where Ireland receives one of the lower ratings of the countries examined.

FIGURE 45 2016 OPEN DATA BAROMETER RANKING ON READINESS, IMPLEMENTATION AND IMPACTSource: World Wide Web Open Data Barometer Global Report, 2016

Scor

e

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Readiness Implementation Impact

UKFr

ance

Nethe

rland

s

Spain

Denm

ark

Sweden

Germ

any

Austri

aFi

nlan

d

Italy

Irela

ndBel

gium

Slova

kiaCze

ch R

epub

licPor

tuga

lGre

ece

Bulga

riaEst

onia

Polan

dLa

tvia

Croat

iaHun

gary


57

Ireland scores well with regard to open data maturity

• Open date maturity is described by a series of indicators selected to cover the level of development of national policies promoting open data, an assessment of the features made available on national data portals, as well as the expected impact of open data.

• Ireland ranked 3rd with regard to open data maturity in 2016, up significantly from 2015, when ranked 18th.

FIGURE 46 OPEN DATA MATURITY SCORE Source: European Data Portal

2016 2015

Spain

France

Irelan

d

Netherla

nds

Austria

United K

ingdom

Bulgaria

Finland

Slovakia

Greece

Roman

ia

Slovenia

Croat

ia

Cypru

s

Luxem

bourg

Poland

Czech

Republic

Estonia

Italy

German

y

Belgium

Sweden

Hungary

Denmar

k

Portugal

Lithuan

iaMalt

aLat

via0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

Scor

e

58

Ireland’s public administration is seen as one of the best in Europe in encouraging competition and providing a supportive regulatory environment

• A sub-set of the quality of public administration indicators can be used to assess issues of competitiveness and regulation. There is an expectation that as part of a quality service, public servants will help ensure a legal and regulatory framework that encourages competition. And that they will scrutinise regulation intensity to ensure it does not become too great a burden on enterprises.

• Ireland’s ranking on this competitiveness and regulation indicator is above the European average. In 2017, Ireland ranked third behind the Netherlands and Denmark.

• Developing a public administration that encourages competition and where regulation is not too great a burden on enterprises is an important goal. But events in the banking sphere at the time of the financial crisis indicate the need for strong regulation. It must be remembered that this ranking is based on executive opinion surveys, where there would generally be an interest in less regulation.

FIGURE 47 COMPETITIVENESS AND REGULATION INDICATOR (CRI)Source: IPA analysis based on IMD World Competitiveness Yearbook and WEF Global Competitiveness Report

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

Scor

e ou

t of 1

0

Ireland Netherlands GreeceEU28

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017


59

In World Bank assessments, Ireland’s regulatory quality ranks as one of the highest in Europe

• The Regulatory Quality indicator aims to measure the ability of the government to provide sound policies and regulations that enable and promote private sector development. On this indicator Ireland ranks as well above the European average score.

• The impact of the regulatory problems identified in the financial sector in 2009 clearly has had an impact on the indicator, and Ireland dropped from 1st to 7th ranked European country on this indicator by 2013.

• Ireland’s ranking improved in 2015, and on these latest figures is now joint 2nd ranked of the EU28, with the UK ranking highest.

FIGURE 48 WORLD BANK REGULATORY QUALITY INDICATORSource: World Bank Worldwide Governance Indicators

Ireland

Scor

e ou

t of r

ange

-2.

5 to

2.5

E28 United Kingdom Croatia

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

60

Ireland’s use of regulatory impact analysis (RIA) for developing regulations is around the European average

• This composite indicator is composed of four equally weighted categories: methodology gathers information on different assessments; oversight and quality control records mechanisms to monitor and ensure the quality of RIA; systematic adoption records formal requirements and how often RIA is conducted in practice; and transparency records how open RIA processes are.

• Ireland ranks in the middle of the countries examined. Ireland scores relatively well with regard to methodology and systematic adoption, and less well with regard to oversight and transparency.

FIGURE 49 REGULATORY IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPING REGULATIONS 2014Source: OECD Government at a Glance 2017

Methodology score: primary laws Oversight score: primary laws Systematic adoption score: primary laws

Transparency score: primary laws Total score: subordinate regulations

Portugal

Netherla

nds

Greece

Luxem

bourgIta

ly

Finland

Denmar

k

Poland

Spain

Sweden

France

Irelan

d

Slovenia

Hungary

Slovakia

Belgium

Austria

Czech

Republic

German

y

Estonia

Great

Brit

ain0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

Scor

e


61

FIGURE 50 EX POST EVALUATION OF REGULATIONS 2014Source: OECD Government at a Glance 2017

Ireland scores poorly with regard to ex post evaluation of regulations



Greece

Irelan

d

Slovakia

Finland

Czech

Republic

Spain

France

Portugal

Slovenia

Hungary

Italy

Netherla

nds

Luxem

bourg

Denmar

k

Poland

Austria

Estonia

Sweden

Belgium

German

y

Great

Brit

ain0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

Scor

e

• In general, ex post evaluation has a lower priority in many countries than ex ante regulatory governance tools.

• Ireland scores second worst, above Greece, with regard to ex post evaluation of regulations. Great Britain and Germany achieve the highest scores.

62

The independence of regulators is ranked a little below that of many other European countries

• This indicator captures the formal structures that insulate the regulator from undue influence, including whether a regulator can receive instructions from the executive, whether its independence is stated in law, which bodies can overturn its decisions, and how staff are recruited and dismissed.

• The six network sectors are electricity, gas, telecom, railroad transport infrastructure, airports and ports.

• While there is little variation in score between countries, Ireland scores a little below average for the European countries examined against this indicator.

FIGURE 51 INDEPENDENCE OF REGULATORS IN SIX NETWORK SECTORS 2013Source: OECD Government at a Glance 2017

German

yIta

ly

Greece

Hungary

Slovakia

Irelan

dSpain

Czech

Republic

France

Denmar

k

Poland

Estonia

Portugal

Luxem

bourg

Slovenia

Austria

Netherla

nds

Finland

Belgium

Sweden

Great

Brit

ain0

1

2

3

4

5

6

0 =

mos

t ind

epen

dent

, 6 =

leas

t ind

epen

dent


63

Stakeholder engagement in developing regulations ranks particularly poorly

• Stakeholder engagement is a crucial element of regulatory policy, helping ensure regulations are in the public interest by involving those affected by regulations, including citizens, businesses and civil society.

• Ireland records the lowest ranking of countries examined against this indicator.

FIGURE 52 STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT IN DEVELOPING REGULATIONS 2014Source: OECD Government at a Glance 2017



Irelan

d

Portugal

Hungary

Austria

Netherla

ndsIta

ly

Luxem

bourgSpain

France

Sweden

German

y

Belgium

Greece

Denmar

k

Finland

Latvia

Czech

Republic

Poland

Slovenia

Estonia

Great

Brit

ain

Slovakia

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

Scor

e

64

Ireland displays average use of performance budgeting practices

• This index shows the degree to which performance budgeting practices exist and are used at central government level.

• Ireland is mid-ranked in relation to this index, and remained relatively stable on the indicator between 2011 and 2016. Great Britain and Austria received the best scores.

FIGURE 53 USE OF PERFORMANCE BUDGETING PRACTICES AT THE CENTRAL LEVEL OF GOVERNMENTSource: OECD Government at a Glance 2017

Great

Brit

ain

Austria

Sweden

Finland

Netherla

nds

Estonia

France

Denmar

k

Slovenia

Irelan

d

Belgium

Czech

Republic

Greece

Poland

German

y

Latvia Ita

ly

Luxem

bourg

Portugal

Hungary

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Scor

e

2016 2011


65

4. SECTORAL PERFORMANCE

Ultimately, the provision of public administration is intended to achieve social outcomes in sectors such as health, education, law and order and transport. As such it is important that any review of public administration looks at sectoral outcomes. In this report, some high-level education and health indicators are included, given that these areas are the largest areas of public expenditure.

In the education system, high-level outcome indicators that assess performance in reading, maths and science give an overview of performance. Evidence is taken from the OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) survey. PISA is an internationally standardised assessment administered to 15-year olds in schools. Tests are typically administered to between 4,500 and 10,000 students in each country.

In the health sector, high-level outcome indicators in areas such as life expectancy and healthy life expectancy, and other indicators such as length of stay in hospitals, give a sense of performance at the macro level. These are commonly used indicators in international rankings of health and education systems.

66

Ireland’s educational attainment scores compare well to the European average

• The OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) survey is an internationally standardised assessment administered to 15-year olds in schools. Tests are typically administered to between 4,500 and 10,000 students in each country.

• The 2015 PISA survey shows that Ireland has a higher ranking than the European average in maths, sciences and reading. Estonia ranks highest in maths, and Finland is the highest ranked European country in sciences and reading.

FIGURE 54 PISA EDUCATIONAL ASSESSMENT SCORES 2015Source: OECD PISA 2015 survey

PIS

A s

core

Maths Sciences Reading

EU28 Ireland

460

470

480

490

500

510

520

530


67

Ireland delivers an above average level of educational efficiency when comparing reading performance to spending per student across Europe

• The OECD (2017) note that educational attainments of individuals, as measured by the PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) score can be seen as an indicator of output of human capital production. When compared to the national cumulative expenditure per student (the educational input), the results can offer an insight into which systems are able to deliver more efficient services.

• Finland achieves a high performance score for reading but only spends around the European average. Ireland is close to Finland with spending close to the European average but with a high performance score, showing a good level of efficiency.

FIGURE 55 PISA READING SCORE AND SPENDING PER STUDENTSource: OECD Government at a Glance 2017

2013 cumulative expenditure per student (USD PPP)

2015

PIS

A r

eadi

ng s

core

440

450

460

470

480

490

500

510

520

530

540

0 50 000 100 000 150 000 200 000


2015

PIS

A r

eadi

ng s

core

440

450

460

470

480

490

500

510

520

530

540

0 50 000 100 000 150 000 200 000

Austria

Belgium

Czech Republic

Denmark

Estonia

Finland

France

Germany

Hungary

Ireland

ItalyLatviaLuxembourg

NetherlandsPoland

Portugal

Slovakia

Slovenia

SpainSweden

UK

68

Ireland delivers an average level of efficiency when comparing maths performance to spending per student across Europe

• Finland and Estonia have particularly good maths scores compared to spending, suggesting the delivery of efficient services.

• Ireland spends around the European average and get results that are similarly around the average, that is, performance is in line with what might be expected given the resources put in, showing an average level of efficiency.

FIGURE 56 PISA MATHS SCORE AND SPENDING PER STUDENTSource: OECD Government at a Glance 2017

0 50 000 100 000 150 000 200 000

2015

PIS

A m

athe

mat

ics

scor

e


450

460

470

480

490

500

510

520

530

540

Estonia

Austria

Belgium

Czech Republic

Denmark

EstoniaFinland

France

Germany

Ireland

Italy

Latvia

Luxembourg

Netherlands

PolandPortugal

Slovakia

Slovenia

Spain UK

UK

Hungary


69

Ireland’s competitive advantage in the perception of its education system by executives remains above the European average

• Executive opinion about the role of the educational system in meeting the needs of a competitive economy is one (though only one) qualitative indicator of how well the education system is functioning.

• From 2005 to 2010 the Irish education system was seen by those executives completing the survey as better than the European average in meeting the needs of a competitive economy. However, the gap was closing.

• From 2010, the opinion of executives that Ireland’s education system meets the needs of a competitive economy has improved overall. Ireland ranked third European country on this indicator in 2017.

FIGURE 57 THE EDUCATION SYSTEM MEETS THE NEEDS OF A COMPETITIVE ECONOMYSource: IMD World Competitiveness Yearbook

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0 2015 2016 20172008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Ireland

Scor

e ou

t of 1

0

EU28 Bulgaria Finland

70

• Life expectancy at birth in Ireland in 2015 was 81 years. The range in EU countries is from 83 years in Spain, down to 74 years in Lithuania.

• Ireland ranked 9th of the EU 28 in 2015.

Life expectancy at birth is towards the higher end in European terms

FIGURE 58 LIFE EXPECTANCY AT BIRTH 2015Source: WHO

84

82

80

78

76

74

72

70

Age

Spain Italy

France

Sweden

Luxem

bourg

Nether

lands

Malta

Austria

Irelan

d

United K

ingdom

Finland

Portu

gal

Belgium

Germ

any

Greec

e

Sloven

ia

Denm

ark

Cypru

s

Czech

Rep

ublic

Croat

ia

Estonia

Poland

Slovak

Rep

ublic

Hungary

Roman

ia

Latvia

Bulgaria

Lithuan

ia

71

• Healthy life expectancy represents the average number of years that a person can expect to live in ‘full health’ by taking into account years lived in less than full health due to disease and/or injury.

• Ireland scores 10th best in Europe in 2015 in terms of healthy life expectancy at birth, at 71.5 years.

In terms of healthy life expectancy at birth Ireland ranks reasonably well in Europe

FIGURE 59 HEALTHY LIFE EXPECTANCY AT BIRTH 2015Source: WHO


74

72

70

68

66

64

62

60

Age

Italy

France

Spain

Netherla

nds

Sweden

Austria

Greece

Luxem

bourgMalt

a

Irelan

d

United K

ingdom

Portugal

Cypru

s

German

y

Denmar

k

Belgium

Slovenia

Finland

Czech

Republic

Croat

ia

Estonia

Poland

Slovak R

epublic

Hungary

Latvia

Roman

ia

Bulgaria

Lithuan

ia

72

• In order to assess the cost-effectiveness of health services, OECD data allows comparison of improvements in life expectancy to total health expenditure per capita in countries. They note, however, that conclusions should be drawn with care, as many other factors beyond total health spending have a major impact on life expectancy and total health expenditure comprises both public and private expenditures.

• Overall, there is a positive relationship between total health expenditure per capita and life expectancy. Italy and Spain stand out as having relatively high life expectancy relative to their expenditure.

• Ireland has a level of life expectancy just a little below what might be expected given the level of expenditure, suggesting cost-effectiveness is neither particularly good nor particularly bad.

Cost-effectiveness of heath expenditure is at a reasonable level but could be improved

FIGURE 60 LIFE EXPECTANCY AT BIRTH (2015) AND TOTAL EXPENDITURE ON HEALTH CARE PER CAPITA (2016) OR NEAREST YEARSource: OECD Health Statistics 2017

Total current expenditure on health per capita (USD PPP)

Life

exp

enct

ancy

at b

irth

(in

year

s)

Austria

Belgium

Czech Republic

Denmark

Estonia

Finland

France

Germany Greece

Hungary

Ireland

Italy

Netherlands

Poland

Portugal

Slovak Republic

Slovenia

Spain

Sweden

UK

84

83

82

81

80

79

78

77

76

75

Luxembourg

1 000 2 000 3 000 4 000 5 000 6 000 7 000 8 000

16 The outcomes measured in 2016 are: decrease of cvd deaths; decrease of stroke deaths; infant deaths; cancer survival; potential years of life lost; MRSA infections; abortion rates; depression; and COPD mortality.

73

• The Euro Health Consumer Index 2016 (Health Consumer Powerhouse, 2017) includes a composite ‘basket’ measure of a sub-set of indicators focused on health outcomes16. The higher the score on this index, the better the outcomes.

• Ireland ranks just above the EU28 average on this health outcomes index. The Netherlands, Germany, and Finland achieve the top three rankings.

Ireland ranks slightly above the EU28 average in achieving consumer health outcomes

FIGURE 61 EUROPEAN HEALTH CONSUMER OUTCOMES INDEX 2016 Source: Euro Health Consumer Index 2016


Netherla

nds

German

y

Finland

Sweden

Denmar

k

Luxem

bourg

France

Slovenia

Irelan

d

Belgium

Portugal

United K

ingdomSpain

Austria

Estonia

Czech

Republic Ita

ly

Cypru

s

Greece

Croat

iaLat

via

Poland

Malta

Slovakia

Lithuan

ia

Hungary

Bulgaria

Roman

ia0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Scor

e

74

• Average length of stay in hospitals is a commonly used indicator of efficiency in the health system. All other things being equal, a shorter stay is associated with reduced costs. However, shorter stays do tend to be more service intensive and more costly per day. And too short a length of stay may cause adverse health effects.

• On a comparative basis, Ireland shows a low level of length of stay in hospitals (5.6 days in 2014), suggesting a relatively high level of efficiency.

• In most countries, including Ireland, length of stay has reduced from 2004.

Ireland’s hospitals display comparatively high levels of efficiency with regard to length of stay

FIGURE 62 AVERAGE LENGTH OF STAY IN HOSPITALS FOR ALL CONDITIONSSource: OECD Government at a Glance 2017

2014 2004

Finland

Hungary

Czech

Republic

German

y

Luxem

bourg

Austria

Latvia Ita

ly

Portugal

Estonia

Slovakia

Greece

Poland

Slovenia

Great

Brit

ain

BelgiumSpain

Sweden

France

Irelan

d

Denmar

k

Netherla

nds0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Day

s

75

• Case-fatality rates for people admitted to hospital following an acute myocardial infarction (heart attack) have significantly decreased between 2006 and 2013.

• Case-fatality rates in Ireland fell by almost 30 per cent between 2006 and 2013. Ireland is close to but slightly better than the European average.

Mortality rates for heart attack victims after admission to hospital at the lower end for Europe

FIGURE 63 THIRTY DAY MORTALITY AFTER ADMISSION TO HOSPITAL FOR HEART ATTACK 2013 (OR NEAREST YEAR)Source: OECD Government at a Glance 2017


Sweden

Poland

Slovenia

Italy

Denmar

k

Irelan

d

Finland

Czech

Republic

Luxem

bourg

France

Slovakia

Belgium

Netherla

nds

Great

Brit

ainSpain

German

y

Portugal

Austria

Estonia

Latvia

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Age

-sex

sta

ndar

dise

d ra

te p

er 1

00 a

dmis

sion

s of

adu

lts

aged

45

year

s an

d ov

er

76

• A number of chronic health problems such as asthma, diabetes and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) can be treated in the primary care system to avoid unnecessary and costly hospital care.

• The rate of potentially avoidable hospital admissions was high in Ireland in 2013, with only Austria getting a higher score.

The rate of potentially avoidable hospital admissions in Ireland is high

FIGURE 64 ASTHMA, DIABETES AND COPD HOSPITAL ADMISSION IN ADULTS 2013 (OR NEAREST YEAR) Source: OECD Government at a Glance 2017

COPD Diabetes Asthma

Austria

Irelan

d

Hungary

Slovakia

Poland

German

y

Denmar

k

BelgiumLat

via

Luxem

bourg

Estonia

Great

Brit

ain

France

Sweden

Finland

Spain

Slovenia

Netherla

nds

Portugal

Italy

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Age

sex

sta

ndar

dize

d ra

te p

er 1

00 0

00 p

opul

atio

n

77


5. TRUST AND CONFIDENCE IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

Twice a year Eurobarometer measures the level of public confidence in the national government and the national parliament. National government is not defined, and the extent to which it covers both political and administrative elements of government is unclear. But it is likely to primarily reflect levels of trust in the political parties in power at the time of the survey. Periodic surveys of trust in regional and local authorities and in different sectoral workforces by Eurobarometer are also examined, as are levels of satisfaction and confidence with police, education, health care and the justice system. Complaints to Ombudsman’s offices are tracked as an indicator of confidence in public services.

78

• The level of public trust in government in Ireland tended to be around the EU average from 2001 to 2008.

• However, there was a dramatic fall in the level of trust in government in Ireland from 2008 to 2010. Trust in government in the rest of Europe also fell, but only slightly. In autumn 2010, Ireland expressed the lowest level of trust in government of any of the EU27 (10 per cent).

• In spring 2011, the level of public trust increased significantly to 42 per cent expressing trust in the Irish government, reflecting the election of a new government. This fell back to 22 per cent by autumn 2011.

• Trust in government has increased since 2013, and 40 per cent of those surveyed in spring 2017 said they tended to trust the government. This figure is now back slightly above the European average of 37 per cent.

Trust in government continues to grow and is now slightly above the European average

FIGURE 65 LEVEL OF TRUST IN GOVERNMENTSource: Eurobarometer

Per

cent

age

who

tend

to tr

ust t

he g

over

nmen

t

Ireland Luxembourg GreeceEU28

Spring 20

08

Autum

n 2008

Spring 20

09

Autum

n 2009

Spring 20

10

Autum

n 2010

Spring 20

11

Autum

n 2011

Spring 20

12

Autum

n 2012

Spring 20

13

Autum

n 2013

Spring 20

14

Autum

n 2014

Spring 20

15

Autum

n 2016

Spring 20

17

Autum

n 2015

Spring 20

16

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

79

• Irish trust in parliament was around the EU average until 2008. From 2008 to 2010, as with trust in government, trust in parliament dropped rapidly both in absolute terms and compared to the European average.

• In spring 2011, the positive perception brought about by the election of a new government led to the proportion of respondents who expressed trust in the Irish parliament being back above the EU average, at 39 per cent. The level of trust subsequently fell again.

• Trust in parliament in Ireland has gradually increased since 2012 and following an increase in autumn 2016 stood at 41 per cent in spring 2017. This is just above the European average of 36 per cent.

Trust in parliament continues to improve and is now slightly above the European average

FIGURE 66 LEVEL OF TRUST IN NATIONAL PARLIAMENTSource: Eurobarometer


80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Ireland Sweden Greece

Per

cent

age

who

tend

to tr

ust t

he n

atio

nal p

arlia

men

t

EU28

Spring 20

08

Autum

n 2008

Spring 20

09

Autum

n 2009

Spring 20

10

Autum

n 2010

Spring 20

11

Autum

n 2011

Spring 20

12

Autum

n 2012

Spring 20

13

Autum

n 2013

Spring 20

14

Autum

n 2014

Spring 20

15

Autum

n 2015

Spring 20

16

Autum

n 2016

Spring 20

17

80

• The level of trust in regional and local authorities in Ireland was at 26 per cent in 2011, down from 40 per cent in 2008. It has increase since then, and stood at 52 per cent tending to trust regional and local authorities in spring 2017.

• After exhibiting one of the lower levels of trust in the EU in 2011, the level of trust expressed is now back close to the EU28 average.

Trust in regional and local authorities is at the European average after several years of being below the average

FIGURE 67 LEVEL OF TRUST IN REGIONAL OR LOCAL PUBLIC AUTHORITIESSource: Eurobarometer

Ireland Italy Luxembourg EU28

Spring 20

10

Autum

n 2011

Spring 20

12

Autum

n 2012

Spring 20

13

Autum

n 2013

Spring 20

14

Autum

n 2014

Spring 20

15

Spring 20

16

Spring 20

17

Autum

n 2015

Autum

n 2016

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Per

cent

age

who

tend

to tr

ust r

egio

nal o

r lo

cal p

ublic

aut

hori

ties

81

• With regard to trust in public administration, Ireland sits 8 points above the EU28 average at 58 per cent. Trust has increased by 7 points since spring 2016.

• Luxembourg ranks the highest in this category, with a score of 82 per cent. Greece is the lowest ranking country with a score of 21 per cent.

Trust in the public administration in Ireland is around the European average

FIGURE 68 TEND TO TRUST - PUBLIC ADMINISTRATIONSource: Eurobarometer


90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Per

cent

age

Luxe

mbo

urg

Austri

aFi

nlan

dDen

mar

kNet

herla

nds

Germ

any

Sweden

Mal

taFr

ance

Eston

iaBel

gium

Irela

ndHun

gary

Unite

d Kin

gdom

Czech

Rep

ublic

Lith

uani

aPor

tuga

lRom

ania

Slova

kiaPol

and

Spain

Slove

nia

Croat

iaBul

garia

Cypru

sLa

tvia

Italy

Greec

eSpring 2017 Spring 2016

82

• Ireland, with trust in the justice/legal system at 60 per cent, ranks 5 points above the EU28 average of 55 per cent in this category.

• Denmark and Finland display the highest levels of trust with the justice/legal system.

Ireland ranks slightly above the European average with regard to trust in the justice/legal system

FIGURE 69 TEND TO TRUST - JUSTICE/LEGAL SYSTEMSource: Eurobarometer

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Per

cent

age


Denm

ark

Finl

and

Sweden

Nethe

rland

sAus

tria

Unite

d Kin

gdom

Luxe

mbo

urg

Eston

iaGer

man

yIre

land

Fran

ceBel

gium

Greec

eHun

gary

Czech

Rep

ublic

Portu

gal

Latvi

aM

alta

Polan

dSpa

inLi

thua

nia

Cypru

s

Italy

Roman

iaSlo

vakia

Croat

iaBul

garia

Slove

nia

83

• With regard to the level of trust in the police, Ireland is at 78 per cent, just 3 points above the EU 28 average of 75 per cent.

• Finland maintains the top spot, with a very high score of 95 per cent.

Trust in the police is just above the European average

FIGURE 70 TEND TO TRUST - THE POLICESource: Eurobarometer


100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Per

cent

age


Finl

and

Denm

ark

Sweden

Fran

ceLu

xem

bour

gAus

tria

Eston

iaGer

man

yNet

herla

nds

Unite

d Kin

gdom

Belgi

umIre

land

Lith

uani

aSpa

inPor

tuga

lIta

lyGre

ece

Czech

Rep

ublic

Slove

nia

Latvi

aM

alta

Hunga

ryCyp

rus

Polan

dRom

ania

Croat

iaSlo

vakia

Bulga

ria

84

• Ireland is the fourth highest country in Europe with regard to level of trust in the army, with a score of 85 per cent, 15 points ahead of the EU28 average.

• This category had the highest average trust score of all the public services surveyed, at 75 per cent.

There is a high level of trust in the army in Ireland

FIGURE 71 TEND TO TRUST - THE ARMYSource: Eurobarometer

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Per

cent

age

Spring 2017 Spring 2016Bul

garia

Finl

and

Unite

d Kin

gdom

Fran

ceIre

land

Belgi

umDen

mar

kEst

onia

Greec

eM

alta

Austri

a

Czech

Rep

ublic

Roman

iaLi

thua

nia

Nethe

rland

sGer

man

ySpa

inPol

and

Portu

gal

Slove

nia

Italy

Croat

iaLa

tvia

Slova

kiaLu

xem

bour

gSwed

enCyp

rus

Hunga

ry


85

• In general, the level of trust in public servants is much higher than the level of trust in the government or parliament.

• There is almost 90 per cent trust in teachers to tell the truth. This drops to 81 per cent for the police and 63 per cent for civil servants.

• Levels of trust in Ireland are higher than in the UK.

Trust in public servants to tell the truth is reasonably high

FIGURE 72 LEVEL OF TRUST TO TELL THE TRUTHSource: Ipsos MRBI/Ipsos MORI Veracity Index as published in Irish Civil Service Customer Satisfaction Survey 2017


100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Per

cent

age

UK results Q4 2016 Ireland results Q1 2017

Docto

rs

Politi

cians

gen

eral

ly

Gover

nmen

t min

ister

s

Busin

ess l

eade

rs

Trad

e uni

on of

ficial

s

Jour

nalis

ts

Polls

ters

Civil s

erva

nts

Man

/wom

an in

the s

treet

TV n

ews r

eade

rs

Police

Scient

ists

Teac

hers

86

• Most members of the public are satisfied with the service received from the civil service. 83 per cent of those surveyed were either very or fairly satisfied in 2017. The level of satisfaction is higher than in the three previous surveys (2005, 2009 and 2015).

• 12 per cent of the general public were either very or fairly dissatisfied with the level of service provided to them by the civil service in 2017. This level of dissatisfaction is lower than in previous surveys.

• The main reasons given for dissatisfaction were that the process was too slow and waiting time on the phone/holding time/automated service.

Public satisfaction with the service received from the civil service is increasing

FIGURE 73 LEVEL OF SATISFACTION WITH SERVICE RECEIVED FROM THE CIVIL SERVICESource: Ipsos MRBI/Ipsos MORI Veracity Index as published in Irish Civil Service Customer Satisfaction Survey 2017

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Very satisfied Fairly satisfied Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied Fairly dissatisfied Very dissatisfied Don't know/no answer

2015

2017

2009

2005

87

• Business satisfaction with the service received from the civil service stood at 82 per cent satisfied in 2016. This was higher than in previous surveys in 2006 and 2009.

• The percentage of businesses saying they were dissatisfied stood at 10 per cent in 2016, lower than in previous surveys.

Businesses display a reasonably high level of satisfaction with the service received from the civil service

FIGURE 74 LEVEL OF BUSINESS SATISFACTION WITH SERVICE RECEIVED ON LAST INTERACTION WITH CIVIL SERVICESource: Civil Service Business Customer Survey 2016


0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Satisfied Dissatisfied No opinion/don't know

2016

2009

2006

88

• Data for satisfaction with the education system and schools refers to the percentage of ‘satisfied’ answers to the question: In the city or area where you live, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the educational system or the schools?

• The level of satisfaction in Ireland, at 83 per cent in 2016, is the highest of all the European countries surveyed. However, satisfaction levels have dropped from 2007, when they were at 89 per cent.

Irish residents are the most satisfied in Europe with the educational system

FIGURE 75 CITIZEN SATISFACTION WITH THE EDUCATION SYSTEM Source: OECD Government at a Glance 2017, based on Gallup World Poll data

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Per

cent

age

2016 2007

Irelan

d

Belgium

Finland

Slovenia

Denmar

k

Netherla

nds

Luxem

bourg

Czech

Republic

Austria

France

Portugal

Great

Brit

ain

German

y

Sweden

Poland

Estonia

Slovakia

Latvia

Spain Italy

Hungary

Greece

89

• Data for satisfaction with the availability of quality health care refers to the percentage of ‘satisfied’ answers to the question: In the city or area where you live, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the availability of quality health care?

• Satisfaction with health care in Ireland is slightly below the European average, at 60 per cent in 2016. The level of satisfaction has dropped from 68 per cent in 2007.

There is a relatively low level of satisfaction with health care compared to many European countries

FIGURE 76 CITIZEN SATISFACTION WITH THE HEALTHCARE SYSTEM Source: OECD Government at a Glance 2017, based on Gallup World Poll data


100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Per

cent

age

2016 2007

Belgium

Austria

German

y

Luxem

bourg

Netherla

nds

Denmar

k

Slovenia

France

Sweden

Finland

Great

Brit

ain

Czech

Republic

Spain

Portugal

Irelan

d

Slovakia

Hungary

Italy

Latvia

Poland

Estonia

Greece

90

• Data for confidence in the judicial system refers to the percentage of ‘yes’ answers to the question: In this country do you have confidence in each of the following, or not? How about the judicial system and courts?

• Confidence levels in the judicial system and the courts in Ireland are quite high in European terms, at 70 per cent.

FIGURE 77 CITIZEN SATISFACTION WITH THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM Source: OECD Government at a Glance 2017, based on Gallup World Poll data

Confidence in the judicial system and courts service is quite high compared to other countries

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Per

cent

age

2014 2007

Denm

ark

Finl

and

Luxe

mbo

urg

Germ

any

Irela

ndSwed

enAus

tria

Nethe

rland

sGre

at B

ritain

Eston

iaBel

gium

Fran

ceCze

ch R

epub

licPol

and

Hunga

ryGre

ece

Spain

Latvi

aPor

tuga

lSlo

vakia

Slove

nia

Italy

91

• The total number of complaints received by ombudsman offices dropped in 2016. From a high of just over 8,000 complaints in 2014 to 7,275 in 2016.

• The cause for the drop was a fall in the number of complaints to the Office of the Ombudsman and the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission.

• There was a small increase in the number of complaints to the Ombudsman for Children’s Office and to An Coimisinéir Teanga.

Complaints to Ombudsman offices dropped in 2016

FIGURE 78 COMPLAINTS TO OMBUDSMAN OFFICESSource: various Ombudsman Office annual reports.


Num

ber

of c

ompl

aint

s

Office of the Ombudsman Garda Siochana Ombudsman Ombudsman for Children An Coimisinéir Teanga Total

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

9000

8000

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2015 20162014

92

• The number of freedom of information (FOI) requests stood at just over 30,000 in 2016.

• There has been a continuous upward trend in FOI requests, from just over 10,000 in 2007, with a large increase since 2014, when the Freedom of Information Act 2014 removed restrictions and extended the range of bodies covered.

The number of freedom of information requests is increasing over time

FIGURE 79 NUMBER OF FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUESTS RECEIVED

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 20160

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

Req

uest

s re

ceiv

ed

93

REFERENCES

Afonso, A., L. Schuknecht and V. Tanzi (2003), Public Sector Efficiency: An International Comparison, Working Paper No. 242, Frankfurt: European Central Bank

Boyle, R. (2007), Comparing Public Administrations, Committee for Public Management Research Report No. 7, Dublin: Institute of Public Administration

Foley, A. (2009), ‘The size, cost and efficiency of the public service’, Administration, Vol. 57, No. 1, pp69-101

Health Consumer Powerhouse (2017), Euro Health Consumer Index 2016 Health Consumer Powerhouse

OECD (2017), Government at a Glance 2017, Paris: OECD

Social and Cultural Planning Office (2004), Public Sector Performance: An International Comparison of Education, Health Care, Law and Order and Public Administration, The Hague: Social and Cultural Planning Office


94

APPENDIX 1 INDICATORS USED TO MAKE UP THE IPA PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION QUALITY INDICATOR1

Traditional Public Service Values Indicator(TPSVI)

Competitiveness and Regulation Indicator (CRI)

Data Source and Indicator Description

Legal and Regulatory Framework (IMD) The legal and regulatory framework encourages the competitiveness of enterprises

Public Sector Contracts (IMD) Public sector contracts are sufficiently open to foreign bidders

Ease of Doing Business (IMD) The ease of doing business is supported by regulations

Intellectual Property Rights (IMD) Intellectual property rights are adequately enforced

Public and Private Sector Ventures (IMD) Public and private sector ventures are supporting technological developments

Bureaucracy (IMD) Bureaucracy hinders business activities

Burden of Government Regulation (WEF) Complying with administrative requirements (permits, regulations, reporting) issued by government is burdensome

Data Source and Indicator Description

Government Decisions (IMD) Government decisions are effectively implemented

Justice Processes (IMD) Justice is fairly administered

Judicial Independence (WEF) The judiciary is independent from political influences of members of government, citizens or firms

Diversion of Public Funds (WEF) Diversion of public funds to companies, individuals or groups due to corruption

Bribery and Corruption (IMD) Existence of bribery and corruption

Favouritism in Decisions of Government Officials (WEF)

When deciding upon policies and contracts, government officials are neutral

Transparency (IMD) Government policy is transparent

Wastefulness of Government Spending (WEF) The composition of public spending is wasteful

Reliability of Police Services (WEF) Police services can be relied upon to enforce law and order

1 IMD refers to indicator from the IMD World Competitiveness Yearbook. WEF refers to indicator from the WEF Global Competitiveness Report


RICH

ARD

BOYLE

PU

BL

IC S

EC

TO

R T

RE

ND

S 2017 21

PUBLIC SECTOR TRENDS 2017 - IPA - Institute of Public ... · PUBLIC SECTOR TRENDS 2017 STATE OF THE PUBLIC ... international comparison of public sector efficiency1, a study by the

Documents