Abstract
|
In 2010 and 2011 the author had an opportunity to assess the progress of PAR in Serbia, as a part of an evaluation effort ordered by two major bilateral donors: the Norwegian and Swedish Ministries of Foreign Affairs, respectively. The aim of this particular study was to use the evaluation results as input for looking at various aspects and levels of PAR from three different stakeholder perspectives. Particularly, it was an attempt to assess how these perspectives comply with or differ from each other but, more importantly, to understand to what extent the viewpoints and approaches of the Serbian public sector, present donors and selected civil society organizations (CSO) are complementary with each other and whether (and how much) they are supportive of a joint course of action.
A total of 33 public sector, 7 donor and 12 local CSO representatives were interviewed for their opinion of the progress of PAR related to the following aspects: 1) development of an institutional framework; 2) legislative framework; 3) coordination of policies and strategies; 4) HR capacity to implement the reform and acquire a new role; 5) mainstreaming of diversity management across PA; 6) the level of stakeholder participation in PAR; and 7) ability of public administration to act as a service provider. The results not only indicate that the public sector, donors and CSOs have different and, often diametrically opposing views and perceptions on most of these issues, but that the attitudes significantly differ within each of the surveyed groups themselves. Thus, reporting on PAR progress and status, gets dramatically different, depending on whose shoes the reporter is in. The paper is an attempt to illustrate the differences in more detail, in search of objectivity and a more integrated approach.
The “Rashomonic effect” is somewhat diminished by the fact that the three groups do agree on most of the obstacles to the process. One point of agreement is related to politics as a key obstacle to reform implementation, including typical coalition government traps, such as a lack of coordination and communication among ministries held by different coalition parties; poor flow of information between the ministries and the Centre of Government; inability to reach consensus; a lack of institutional memory, etc. Professionalization and depolitization are among the five key objectives of PAR – however, it seems that the latter has not happened at all. The participants also share a view on corruption as a highly threatening factor.
To date, Serbia has not had any solid institutional framework to rely on in the course of PAR implementation, primarily due to frequent abolishing or merging of ministries and public agencies and a lack of systematic approach. For years, the Ministry Public Administration and Local Self-Government, with its feeble institutional and HR capacities, has been the central partner to donors in implementing PAR projects. Given the quality of coordination among national level institutions, it is very unlikely that it has the necessary strength (and means) to expand and implement the results of these projects, either horizontally or vertically. At the same time, a central player, the Ministry of Finance has remained closed and reserved to reforms and participates in only few initiatives.
Following the key findings, the paper will also present a set of proposed measures and recommendations for merging the three different perspectives into a more viable, integrated approach to PAR.
|
