All relevant documents pertaining to the reform of public administration in Serbia are calling for the introduction of evidence-based policy making (EBPM) that is supposed to make policies more strategic, outcome focused, joined-up and inclusive. Yet, the concept of the EBPM is not straightforward and it has been contested for decades.

The EBPM indicates a decisive role of evidence in the process of policy making and is based on several assumptions about the nature of policy making and evidence. Firstly, it assumes organised and cyclist process of policy making (rational model) where different stages orderly come one after another. Secondly, the evidence is seen as incontestable and its role is to decide policy outcome. And thirdly, the EBPM supposes the neutral relationship between evidence and policy making, that is, free from ideology and values. In other words, the EBPM assumes orderly policy making process where a small number of policy makers decide on the preferred policy options using the evidence that relatively simply provides an answer to what policy outcome is the best solution. However, the concept of the EBPM and described assumptions have been a subject of numerous critiques.

First, the rational model of policy making envisages policy making consisting of six stages (agenda setting, policy formulation or problem recognition, options considered, decision made, policy implemented, policy evaluated), often described as a cycle, so after the final stage ends (evaluation of the policy) the agenda is again defined and the steps are repeated. However, this model has been long condemned as naïve and termed as a policy myth that continues to be presented for public and media consumption. Namely, it has been suggested that the rational model is an inadequate explanation of the policy making that is in fact “far messier and unpredictable” and separation of stages is difficult to maintain.

Next, stating that evidence should be a basis for policy making sounds like a reasonable and self-evident claim. However, the evidence itself is proved to be a rather vague term and a subject of a debate. Particularly the well-known notion of the “hierarchy of evidence” has been the most contested issue related to the EBPM. Namely, the hierarchy of evidence refers to the different research designs often placed in a hierarchy to determine the standard of evidence in support of a particular practice or programme, with the randomised controlled trials being at the top (‘gold standard’), and case study reports at the bottom of the hierarchy. The hierarchy of evidence in reality means the primacy of quantitative and experimental research methods and marginalisation of qualitative research. Nevertheless, this hierarchy is based on a narrow concept of study design that neglects the issue of “methodological aptness”, that is, different research questions require different types of studies, and for some areas qualitative research is more appropriate.

In addition, the EBPM also assumes a neutral relationship between research and policy, where evidence is supposed to “provide the answer to most if not all policy questions” leaving all ethical and moral questions out of the process. Yet, this relationship has also been under question as in a democracy, decisions can never solely be made on evidence—they will be informed by ideology and values. More specifically, the relationship between evidence and policy making is not unbiased and technical, but rather influenced by politics and government’s agenda. Decisions about the selection of evidence are shaped by ideological preferences that can leave many relevant facts and information out of the picture, because it does not fit with a preferred set of values. For some it leads to the inversion of the EBPM term to a “policy-based evidence making”, thus recognising the EBPM’s failure to include relevant knowledge for the political purposes.

Having in mind all the shortcomings of the EBPM and said critiques of its assumptions, perhaps the use of evidence-informed rather than evidence-based policy making would be more realistic. The EBPM has been more aspirational than a descriptive term, hence the more accurate approach would be to abandon it and accept the limitations of the use of evidence in policy making. The evidence-informed policy making would entail more modest approach that recognises the importance of evidence for policy decisions, but at the same time takes into consideration other factors that (may) shape final outcomes.

[i] The name of the article published in 2001 by the professor Nick Black as a reaction to the introduction of the EBPM following the election of the Labour government in 1997.

[ii] The blog post is a summary of a longer academic essay written at the University of Bristol as part of the assignment within the MSc in Policy Research.

Image source: https://fcw.com/articles/2018/10/18/evidence-based-omb-gunter.aspx 

Članak Evidence-based policy making: Proceed with care se pojavljuje prvo na European Policy Centre.

In a broader sense, the #metoo movement can also be seen as an integral part of an already present public discourse that attempts to popularise feminism and promote the fight for gender equality. From Harry Potter star Emma Watson who launched the HeForShe campaign in 2014 to Beyonce and her famous “FEMINIST” slogan at the concert in 2016, feminism has become a part of popular culture.

In parallel to changes in public discourse, many policy initiatives have been introduced in order to acknowledge and address persistent gender inequality, whose root cause is the uneven distribution of power between women and men. In the EU for example, issues such as the gender pay gap or the insufficient representation of women in politics and decision-making have been a subject of numerous EU and/or national regulations. Moreover, new areas, such as the position of women in research and academia, have been put in focus and there is more and more data that reveal the disadvantaged position of women in our societies.

However, even though we should celebrate and encourage every initiative that empowers women[1] and every policy proposal aiming to rectify our unequal position in any given field, at the same time we must not neglect or downplay the importance of many backward tendencies we are witnessing.

Notably, the rise of populism has brought new challenges even in countries that are pioneers in gender equality. Sweden, for instance, is experiencing the rise of Sweden Democrats which were voted into the Swedish parliament with a programme based on conservative family policies. Next, despite the fact that every third woman experiences physical and/or sexual violence in the EU, attempts to sign and ratify the Istanbul convention in countries like Bulgaria or Slovakia have been labelled as a promotion of “gender ideology”. The ageing population along with low birth rates and massive out-migration in many countries – like the Balkan countries – are causing a decrease in population. It puts women’s reproductive rights in danger due to the rhetoric that singles out abortion as the most decisive factor for low fertility rates.

Furthermore, women are still discriminated against at the labour market, they are less active, less paid and still face a career ladder. While there is a tendency in many European countries for women to be more educated than men, we still have gender bias in education with girls being underrepresented in STEM education, due to the “boys are better at math” stereotype. Ensuing, globally influential media like Forbes are still comfortable with publishing articles such as “The World’s 20 Most Powerful Moms” ?! It is 2018 and the main news a few months ago was that the Prime Minister of New Zealand is the first ever female prime minister to go on maternity leave. Designed to be positive news, it is impossible not to provoke anger. This year there are no women on the Forbes’ list of the world’s 100 highest-paid athletes – Serena Williams, the only woman who was on the list last year gave birth in the meantime. These are just a few examples of consistent and pervasive discrimination of women in many fields.

In addition, more often than not, initiatives like #metoo tackle the position of white, heterosexual, well-educated women with urban lives.[2] As the examples of the widely acclaimed book Lean in, or equally popular Feminist Fight Club show contemporary feminism or “fav wave feminism” is designed to simplify the complexity of the disadvantaged position of women reducing it to the need of overcoming our internal barriers instead of talking about structural obstacles.

Thus, even though we should celebrate our small victories, we should not fall into the trap of comforting ourselves that gender equality is within our hands’ reach.  First, as much as there is a pro-feminist change in public discourse, we are simultaneously facing the rise of conservative forces that are gaining prominence on the basis of advocating more traditional roles for women. Second, gender stereotypes are so dominant and factors affecting women so intertwined that in many areas changes have been very slow, despite the introduction of progressive policies.  And finally, as someone put it, the question is can we lean in or the table must be broken. In other words, can the current wrecked system be repaired to benefit both men and women, black and white, rich and poor, or do we need a new vision of a better world?

It is 2018, but feminism, as a notion that women and men are equal, is still a revolutionary idea.

[1] Although some may disagree: https://themuse.jezebel.com/a-frank-talk-with-jessa-crispin-about-why-modern-day-fe-1792367458

[2] p.s. If you are reading this, most probably you are privileged too.

Image source: https://www.canadianwomen.org 

Članak How revolutionary is your feminism? se pojavljuje prvo na European Policy Centre.

Public administration reform constitutes not only one of the key pillars of the European integration process, but also a comprehensive process, which is supposed to improve the overall system of public administration in Serbia and the quality of services delivered to citizens by public administration. Citizens are the main users and main funders of public services, but at the same time quite often dissatisfied. In order to explore the citizens’ views and causes of their (dis)satisfaction with public services, the first part of the survey was focused on three large groups of public services: issuing personal documents (identity card, passport and driving licence), services provided by primary health care centres, as well as those at children’s enrolment in pre-school institutions and primary schools. These groups of services were selected as most frequently used public services that almost all citizens get in touch with at some point of their lives. The research results served as guidance for specific recommendations, aiming at contribution to resolving most frequent problems that citizens are faced with, as well as at improving the overall system of public service delivery.

Članak Grey Book of Public Services se pojavljuje prvo na European Policy Centre.

This Study was created within the project “Partnership for Public Administration Reform and Public Services in Serbia – PARtnerships”. The project has focused on the services most frequently used by citizens within three different areas: the issuance of personal documents by the police administrative service, services provided by the primary health care units (community health centres), and the services of enrolling children in pre-school institutions and primary schools within the education area.

Management of the public policy system is one of the key reform areas within the Public Administration Reform (PAR)1 framework in Serbia, along with the public service delivery system. On the other hand, the participatory and evidence-based process of public policy making not only increases transparency and accountability, but also positively influences the public policy outcomes, that is, improves the quality of public services.

By exploring the process of public policy-making in three selected ministries (Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development, Ministry of Interior and Ministry of Health), this Study offers an overview of the quality assessment of this process from the perspective of the most important good governance requirements, and in accordance with the Principles of Public Administration (SIGMA/OECD). The process of public policy-making is being reviewed from the aspects of its analyticity, transparency and public participation, and it provides an overview of methodologically-based evidence on the quality of creating public policies that regulate the service delivery in three selected areas. The research results set the basis for further examination of the relation between the public policy-making process and citizen satisfaction with services provided, the issue generally under-researched in Serbia.

Finally, the Study gives concrete short and medium-term recommendations for improving the public policy-making process in given ministries, formulated on the basis of the research results and findings.

Članak Openness and inclusiveness of public policy-making in Serbia se pojavljuje prvo na European Policy Centre.

This Study was created within the project “Partnership for Public Administration Reform and Public Services in Serbia – PARtnerships”. The project has focused on the services most frequently used by citizens within three different areas: the issuance of personal documents by the police administrative service, services provided by the primary health care units (community health centres), and the services of enrolling children in pre-school institutions and primary schools within the education area.

Management of the public policy system is one of the key reform areas within the Public Administration Reform (PAR)1 framework in Serbia, along with the public service delivery system. On the other hand, the participatory and evidence-based process of public policy making not only increases transparency and accountability, but also positively influences the public policy outcomes, that is, improves the quality of public services.

By exploring the process of public policy-making in three selected ministries (Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development, Ministry of Interior and Ministry of Health), this Study offers an overview of the quality assessment of this process from the perspective of the most important good governance requirements, and in accordance with the Principles of Public Administration (SIGMA/OECD). The process of public policy-making is being reviewed from the aspects of its analyticity, transparency and public participation, and it provides an overview of methodologically-based evidence on the quality of creating public policies that regulate the service delivery in three selected areas.

The research results set the basis for further examination of the relation between the public policy-making process and citizen satisfaction with services provided, the issue generally under-researched in Serbia. Finally, the Study gives concrete short and medium-term recommendations for improving the public policy-making process in given ministries, formulated on the basis of the research results and findings.

Članak Openness and inclusiveness of public policy-making in Serbia se pojavljuje prvo na European Policy Centre.

Public administration reform in Serbia, having entered a new stage with the endorsement of the Public Administration Reform Strategy and its Action Plan for implementation, aims, inter alia, at establishing a harmonised and merit-based civil service system and at improving human resource management.

With endorsement of the PAR Strategy, Serbia defined its strategic framework and direction of a broader public administration reform, which encompasses all levels of governance. The Strategy defines the principles of the reform process emphasising decentralisation, depoliticisation, professionalisation, rationalisation and modernisation of public administration.

This is third Policy Brief that has been made within Partnership for Public Administration Reform and Public Services in Serbia – PARtnerships, two-year project implemented by two main partners – European Policy Centre (CEP) and European Movement in Serbia (EMinS). 

Članak Human resources at the local level se pojavljuje prvo na European Policy Centre.

Public administration in Serbia faces numerous challenges and difficulties, some of which are reflected in the lack of capacity, but some also in the reluctance of the Government and the administration to adapt to new demands.

The current process of public administration reform in Serbia is conditioned by the process of European integration, and thus the reform process represents the harmonization of legislative framework and public administration functioning in Serbia with European principles and good practice. Accordingly, the emphasis is on developing citizen-oriented public administration, which has become a strategic direction of the Serbian Government. However, even though the latest report of the European Commission gives Serbia a predominantly positive assessment in the area of public administration reform (PAR), it also reveals its concrete deficiencies. In other words, public administration in Serbia faces numerous challenges and difficulties, some of which are reflected in the lack of capacity, but some also in the reluctance of the Government and the administration to adapt to new demands.

This Policy Brief deals with the results of research in the field of primary health care regarding the perception of citizen satisfaction with health services. In order to respect the needs of citizens, and to avoid the potential resistance of employees within the system, it is important that CSOs are involved in the overall reform process, as well as the inclusive approach of the Ministry of Health. Therefore, specific suggestions on how this should be achieved in practice, for both CSOs and the Ministry of Health are presented in the recommendations in this Policy Brief.

Članak Citizen-oriented Public Administration in Serbia se pojavljuje prvo na European Policy Centre.