Building a values-based culture of sound public governance is a continuous and challenging process of shaping organisational and individual practices and behaviour. While governance values are always context-dependent, this chapter highlights key values that aim to generate a new culture of governance, which can positively influence the manner in which governments select and prioritise policy problems, contribute to prevent corruption and policy capture, and orient public decision-making towards the common interest. The values discussed in this chapter are integrity; openness and transparency; inclusiveness, participation, gender equality and diversity; and finally accountability and respect for the rule of law. This chapter argues that while there is no perfect reform recipe, concrete steps can be taken to move the public sector, both culturally and institutionally, toward more values-based performance.
Policy Framework on Sound Public Governance
1. The Values of Sound Public Governance
Abstract
Governments around the world are increasingly coming under scrutiny and pressure. In a context in which the effects of the 2007-2008 financial crisis on such vital policy challenges as inequality, poverty, and corruption have yet to recede, the public sector as a whole in both Member and Partner countries is being challenged to deliver more with less and demonstrate to citizens that their lives are improving thanks to how the government is spending public resources.
Citizens are more and more concerned about corruption as one of the most corrosive issues of our time. It wastes public resources, widens economic and social inequalities, breeds discontent and political polarisation and reduces trust in institutions1. In recognising the benefits of the digital transformation, citizens are calling for governments that are more transparent and responsive, and that adopt more and new forms of stakeholder participation in the policy-making and resource-allocation process.
Sound Public Governance constitutes a sine qua non condition for countries to meet these new challenges and to give effect to the increasing demands from citizens. A set of key public governance values, along with effective democratic institutions, lie at the core of sound public governance: they constitute indispensable means to engage in open, equitable and inclusive decision-making in the public interest and in partnership with citizens to enhance wellbeing and prosperity for all. Sound public governance is therefore not an end in itself but a process to improve individual and societal outcomes.
Box 1.1. Definition of Sound Public Governance
Sound public governance consists of the formal and informal rules, procedures, practices and interactions within the State, and between the State, non-state institutions and citizens, that frame the exercise of public authority and decision-making in the public interest.
Sound public governance constitutes a sine qua non condition for pluralist democracies to give effect to the respect for the rule of law and human rights, with efficient democratic institutions lying at the core of sound public governance.
Sound public governance is therefore the combination of three interconnected elements:
Values: context-dependent principles of behaviour that guide public governance across all of its dimensions in a way that advances and sustain the public interest.
Enablers: an integrated nexus of practices that supports the effective design and implementation of reforms.
Instruments and tools: a set of policies and management practices for efficient governance and policy and service design, implementation and evaluation.
The shared goal of sustainable development, expressed in the UN Agenda 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), defines a clear set of commitments within goal 16 to achieve peace, justice and strong institutions. SDG 16 includes the creation of peaceful and inclusive societies that guarantee access to justice for all along with effective, accountable and transparent public institutions at all levels of government. These commitments include such targets as the reduction of corruption and bribery in all their forms; guaranteeing rights of minorities; ensuring responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels; guaranteeing freedom of the press and public access to information; and protecting fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual in accordance with national legislation and international agreements.
A proactive stance to these basic commitments is more important now than ever. Countries around the world are increasingly facing challenges to traditional democratic pluralism on both the right and the left of the political spectrum; only an OECD average of 43% of people still trust their governments (OECD, 2017[7]). This is partly the outcome of a deepening disconnect between people and their political systems, while the role of traditional representative democratic channels, such as trade unions or political parties, is being questioned inter alia through lower participation rates in the democratic process. The impact on restoring trust in public institutions and on delivering better outcomes of other more direct channels of participation, such as the effect of public consultations using social media on the quality of democracy, is for its part not yet clear.
While the causal links between different factors and trust are not always as clear as often presented, the OECD Trustlab’s research finds that high level government integrity is the governmental characteristic most strongly associated with trust in government (Murtin et al., 2018[8]). Moreover, evidence suggests that an administration’s efficiency and effectiveness (addressed in greater detail in Part II) in delivering policies and services that actually meet the needs of citizens are governmental characteristics that are strongly associated with trust in government. However, confidence in public institutions is also determined by other factors.
Trust is also about citizens being able to rely with confidence on a “social bargain” that assumes that political and policy decisions are being made in the public interest and that problems requiring government intervention are being addressed in the public interest. Accordingly, the OECD Trustlab’s research (Murtin et al., 2018[8]) finds that important determinants of trust in government include satisfaction with government services and with the responsiveness and reliability of government. A lack of trust erodes democracy and compromises the willingness of citizens and businesses to commit to public policies. Lack of trust therefore represents a barrier to inclusive social and economic development to secure prosperity and well-being for all (OECD, 2017[7]).
Government efforts to strengthen – and sometimes rebuild – essential democratic bonds require harnessing a governance culture based on public values that reflect a society’s goals and aspirations. Those values are context-dependent and are rooted in historical and cultural traditions that represent the broadest of societal consensus; this consensus can take decades, sometimes centuries, to crystallise. In their pursuit of sound public governance over the past decades, OECD countries have identified and committed themselves to set of governance values. These values are of course interconnected through their common focus on promoting and defending the public interest in pursuit of inclusive growth and development outcomes.
While boundaries between them are difficult to draw, some of the public values being promoted by countries can be clustered around the four axes of integrity; openness; inclusiveness and accountability. The values mirror, inter alia, the open government principles, defined in the OECD Recommendation on Open Government (2017) [OECD/LEGAL/0438] as transparency (including openness), integrity, accountability and stakeholder participation (including inclusiveness). These interconnected and mutually reinforcing values, along with the goal of effectiveness, are cornerstones that serve to structure and orient the public sector toward serving citizens’ needs in a manner that is free of corruption. These values align with the principles of effective governance for sustainable development adopted by the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) in July 2018 (United Nations, 2018[6]). Moreover, key values such as flexibility, agility and responsiveness can also underpin a public governance system, and many of the practices presented in this framework – for instance in the areas of open government, innovation, and digital government – can contribute to upholding these values.
Building a values-based culture of sound public governance is a continuous and challenging process of shaping organisational and individual practice and behaviour through the identification, design, implementation and evaluation of systemic multifaceted public-governance reforms. Even though there is no perfect (or single) reform recipe, concrete steps can be taken to move the public sector, both culturally and institutionally, toward more democratic, values-based behaviour as a means to serve citizens better, generate inclusive growth and rebuild trust. To guide governments in their endeavour of creating a values-driven public sector, where values guide a results-oriented and citizens-centred culture, leadership and policy and service design, the first pillar of the OECD Recommendation on Public Service Leadership and Capability (2019[9]) [OECD/LEGAL/0445] offers concrete guidance. For example, by including a statement of values in the public sector code, Canada aims to ensure that certain values act as a compass to guide the professional behaviour of officials (Box 1.2).
Box 1.2. Values-based culture of sound public governance
Canada uses the following statement of values within its public sector code: "These values are a compass to guide public servants in everything they do. They cannot be considered in isolation from each other as they will often overlap. This Code and respective organizational codes of conduct are important sources of guidance for public servants. Organizations are expected to take steps to integrate these values into their decisions, actions, policies, processes and systems. Similarly, public servants can expect to be treated in accordance with these values by their organisation."
Source: Example of country practice provided by the Government of Canada as part of the Policy Framework's consultation process
Evidence also suggests that reforms that aim to create or strengthen a values-based culture of sound public governance cannot be implemented through siloed or sector-based approaches. Crosscutting, multidimensional reform strategies forged through robust co-ordination across government silos to incorporate all relevant strands seem to work best.
Most of the practices that the evidence suggests work have been embodied in OECD legal instruments on public governance: the Recommendation on Improving the Quality of Government Regulation (1995) [OECD/LEGAL/0278], the Recommendation on Guidelines for Managing Conflict of Interest in the Public Service (2003) [OECD/LEGAL/0316], the Recommendation on Regulatory Policy and Governance (2012) [OECD/LEGAL/0390], the Recommendation on Budgetary Governance (2015) [OECD/LEGAL/0410], the Recommendation on Gender Equality in the Public Life (2015) [OECD/LEGAL/0418], the Recommendation on Public Integrity (2017) [OECD/LEGAL/0435], and the Recommendation on Open Government (2017) [OECD/LEGAL/0438].
Integrity
Integrity is the cornerstone of any system of sound public governance. It is vital for governing in the public interest for the prosperity and well-being of society as a whole. It reinforces such fundamental values as the commitment to a pluralistic democracy based on the rule of law and respect for human rights.
That said, no country is immune to violations of integrity, and corruption remains one of the most challenging issues facing governments today. Integrity risks exist in the various interactions between the public sector, civil society and individuals at all stages of the political and policy process. More than the act of bribery, violations of integrity standards are becoming increasingly complex and include a wide range of practices such as conflict of interests, trading in influence, and embezzlement of public property, often associated with more subtle practices such as undue influence on decision-making processes resulting in policy capture. It includes a wide range of practices such as bribery, state capture and embezzlement, often associated with other illegal practices such as money laundering or bid-rigging. Corruption erodes public governance and democracy, and citizens’ confidence in them, because it wastes public resources, widens economic and social inequalities, and breeds discontent and political polarisation (OECD, 2017[11]).
Building an integrity system in the public sector is a critical component not only in preventing corruption but also in safeguarding democratic institutions and the rule of law. A strategic and sustainable response to corruption therefore places public integrity at its core (Box 1.3).
Box 1.3. Definition of Public Integrity
“Public Integrity refers to the consistent alignment of, and adherence to, shared ethical values, principles and norms for upholding and prioritising the public interest over private interests in public-sector behaviour and decision-making."
Source: OECD (2017[11]), OECD Recommendation of the Council on Public Integrity [OECD/LEGAL/0435], http://www.oecd.org/gov/ethics/OECD-Recommendation-Public-Integrity.pdf.
Over the years, OECD Member countries have adopted legal and institutional frameworks to strengthen integrity in the public sector. For instance in 2009, parties to the Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions [OECD/LEGAL/0293] agreed to put in place new measures to bolster their efforts to prevent, detect and investigate foreign bribery through the adoption of the OECD Recommendation for Further Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International business Transactions (2009[12]) [OECD/LEGAL/0378]. Yet, many countries rely heavily (or solely) on compliance and enforcement mechanisms. Such approaches usually stress the importance of both increasing the costs and lowering the benefits of undesired behaviour through controls and sanctions. The aim is to reduce the discretion of decision makers in order to diminish their scope for misbehaviour. However, evidence suggests that the effects of overly-rigid compliance regimes tend to be limited and fail to act as a deterrent on a person’s behaviour (Box 1.4).
Box 1.4. The hidden costs of control
A series of behavioural experiments, looking at the effects of compliance programmes on a person’s intrinsic motivation for integrity, found that some of the more traditional methods of control were, in fact, promoting corruption rather than preventing it.
For example, the “four-eye principle” requires approval by at least two equally responsible individuals and is based on the argument that it is harder to successfully corrupt two people than it is to corrupt one. However, experimental evidence has found that involving additional actors to a decision-making process without giving them a unique responsibility might not necessarily be an effective approach to promoting integrity.
Indeed, the principle is motivated by distrust and can have adverse impact on employees’ intrinsic motivations. Moreover, it enables the diffusion of responsibility between individuals, taking away moral responsibility from the individual decision. The principle also encourages people to develop solidarity with one another and can entrap them in a corrupt network.
Source: Schikora, J (2011[13]), “Bringing the four-eyes-principle to the lab.”, Münchener Wirtschaftswissenschaftliche Beiträge: VWL: discussion papers, http://www.econbiz.de/Record/bringing-the-four-eyes-principle-to-the-lab-schikora-jantheodor/
The OECD Recommendation on Public Integrity (2017[11]) [OECD/LEGAL/0435] incorporates much of the existing knowledge on integrity practices in the public sector, but shifts the focus from ad hoc integrity policies to a context-dependent, evidence and risk-based approach with emphasis on promoting a cultural change and examining integrity policy-making through a behavioural lens. The Recommendation on Public Integrity includes a number of new crosscutting considerations and promotes coherence with other key elements of public governance. For example, it highlights the need for effective coordination across institutions and levels of government to harness each relevant area of responsibility in the design and delivery of a coherent, integrated public-sector integrity framework. Moreover, as risks to integrity can be caused by interactions between the public sector, the private sector and civil society, the Recommendation on Public Integrity incorporates a whole-of-society approach tailored to the specific integrity risks of sectors, organisations and officials.
In particular, the Recommendation on Public Integrity (2017[11]) [OECD/LEGAL/0435] provides guidance to policymakers for developing a public integrity strategy that is built on three pillars: (i) building a coherent and comprehensive integrity system, (ii) cultivating a culture of public integrity, and (iii) enabling accountability and transparency (Figure 1.1). This public integrity strategy goes beyond mitigating corruption risks towards a vision for public integrity that strives to develop solutions adapted to the causes of integrity problems.
Figure 1.1. The three pillars of the OECD Recommendation on Public Integrity: System, culture, accountability
Source: OECD (2017[11]), OECD Recommendation on Public Integrity [OECD/LEGAL/0435], http://www.oecd.org/gov/ethics/OECD-Recommendation-Public-Integrity.pdf.
A coherent and comprehensive public integrity system aims to ensure that policymakers develop a set of interconnected policies and tools that are coordinated and avoid overlaps and gaps:
The growing empirical evidence gathered by behavioural scientists shows that emphasising commitments at the highest political and management levels sets the tone for how integrity is perceived across the public sector and society (OECD, 2018[14]).
Similarly, ensuring that institutional responsibilities across the public sector are clearly identified not only increases the effectiveness of the overall integrity system but also strengthens the integrity of individual decision-makers. Integrity is not only the responsibility of ethics officers, but also of those working across a broad range of government functions, including public procurement, human resource management, public financial management, taxation, and education. The actors responsible span both central and subnational levels of government, as well as function within each public sector organisation. Figure 1.2. shows some of the mechanisms that government uses to mainstream integrity policies across line ministries.
In OECD Member countries, the Centre of Government often leads inter-institutional coordination among public officials, across administrative silos and between levels of government in designing, implementing and evaluating the performance of integrity frameworks.
Figure 1.2. Mechanisms to mainstream integrity policies across line ministries
Source: OECD (2016), Survey on Public Sector Integrity, OECD, Paris.
A growing number of OECD Member countries have recognised the importance of developing a strategic, risk-based approach and setting high standards of conduct to promote values-based decisions in the public sector and society. For example, codes of conduct (Box 1.5) define behaviour expectations and prioritise adherence to public-service values to reflect integrity in the overarching strategy, as well as in management goals and performance appraisals. Additionally, clear and proportionate procedures to help prevent violations of public integrity standards and manage potential conflicts of interest may be put in place.
Box 1.5. Codes of conduct for civil servants in Denmark
In 2007, the Danish government issued the Code of Conduct in the Public Sector to clarify the basic duties and responsibilities of public sector employees. In 2015, the Danish ministry of Finance launched Code VII-Seven Key Duties targeted more specifically at employees and managers in central government to supplement the Code of Conduct. Code VII describes seven key duties of civil servants in central government as follows:
Legality
Truthfulness
Professionalism
Development and cooperation
Responsibility and management
Openness about errors
Party-political neutrality
A revised edition of the Code of conduct in the Public Sector was published in 2017. It reflects Code VII guidelines, as well as the Local Government Denmark’s Code of Quality and Ethics in the Public Administration which contains recommendations for the relationship between local politicians and the public administration. Additionally, reference is made to the Ministry of justice’s guide How to Avoid Corruption.
Source: Agency for modernization, Local Government Denmark and Danish Regions (2017[15]) Code of Conduct in the Public Sector https://modst.dk/media/18742/code-of-conduct-in-the-public-sectorforside.pdf ; Denmark Ministry of Finance, (2015[16]) seven key duties for civil servants in central government, www.modst.dk/kodexvii
Cultivating a culture of integrity, aims to appeal to the intrinsic motivation of individuals to behave ethically – in the public sector, the private sector, and in society as a whole:
Where appropriate, awareness campaigns and educational programmes for children and youth (OECD, 2018[17])can enable a whole-of-society culture of integrity that engages the private sector, civil-society organisations and citizens to exercise more readily their roles and responsibilities in preventing and fighting corrupt practices. More targeted approaches engaging the private sector and civil society on the benefits that arise from upholding integrity, e.g. through regulations on conflict of interest and job transitions in business and non-profit activities can also be very fruitful.
Leadership behaviours and good stewardship are crucial to promote a culture of integrity. Therefore, governments and public entities in OECD Member countries also increasingly invest in the integrity leadership of public managers, reinforce the merit-based public service, for example by integrating integrity into job-selection processes, and provide guidance and training programmes for public officials.
The pillar also includes supporting an open organisational culture where ethical dilemmas, public integrity concerns and errors are discussed freely and resolved in a timely manner. Awareness-raising activities on reporting violations of integrity are therefore crucial to change the culture around whistleblowing and break down negative connotations associated with it.
Enabling effective accountability builds on risk-based controls and real responsibility for integrity violations:
It involves applying an effective internal control and risk-management framework to reduce the vulnerability of public organisations to fraud and corruption, whilst contributing to a culture of integrity. In addition, developing effective enforcement responses to all suspected integrity violations ensures the coherence and legitimacy of an integrity system and is the principal means by which societies can ensure compliance and deter misconduct. It demonstrates the government’s commitment to uphold integrity values and helps to instil these values in individuals, organisations and society as cultural norms.
External oversight and control mechanisms foster the public integrity system’s effectiveness, notably through adequate responses of public officials to oversight bodies’ recommendations, effective complains and allegation handling procedures, and impartial enforcement of laws and regulations throughout the public sector.. For example, Supreme Audit Institutions (SAIs) are important actors of a country’s accountability chain. They can promote effective accountability through a wide range of tools, including audits and recommendations. Traditionally known for their oversight of public expenditure, their roles are evolving to inform governments on what works and what does not in public governance (OECD, 2016[18]). Moreover, SAIs can develop work specifically designed to promote public integrity, such as incorporating ethics issues checks when conducting audits.
Internal Audit institutions increase citizen’s ability to hold public sector entities accountable through objective assessments of public resource management.
Transparency and participation in the public integrity system are important drivers of accountability. An accountability ecosystem approach recognises the role played by different state and non-state actors – and the complementarities that exist among them – in fostering public scrutiny. Ensuring inclusive and fair participation of different interests in decision-making processes is a key tool to avoid policy capture of public policies by narrow interest groups. To that end, Governments can develop conflict-of-interest management frameworks as well as guarantee effective regulations and practices for integrity and transparency in lobbying activities and in the financing of political parties and elections campaigns. The Recommendation on Principles for Transparency and Integrity in Lobbying (OECD, 2010[19]) [OECD/LEGAL/0379] and the Recommendation on OECD Guidelines for Managing Conflict of Interest in the Public Service (OECD, 2003[20]) [OECD/LEGAL/0316] provide clear roadmaps to address these issues.
Box 1.6. United Kingdom Register of People with Significant Control
On 6 April 2016, the United Kingdom became the first G20 country to require private companies to create a People with Significant Control (PSC) register and make that information publicly available. People with significant control, or beneficial owners, are the person or persons who ultimately own or control the company and benefit from it. The information is available in open-data format on the Companies House website. Registers of beneficial ownership aim to tackle crimes such as tax evasion, corruption and money laundering by preventing people from hiding assets and income.
Source: Mor, F. (2019[21]), “Registers of beneficial ownership”, House of Commons Library Briefing Paper No. 8259, London: House of Commons library. https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-8259/CBP-8259.pdf.
Core questions for consideration
System: Does the legislative and institutional framework enable public sector organisations, public officials and leaders to take responsibilities for integrity? Do leaders and managers at the highest levels demonstrate commitment to integrity and a high standard of propriety in carrying out their official duties? Is coordination between different actors across the integrity system at the central and subnational levels ensured? Is there a clear, memorable and actionable statement of public sector values that is communicated internally and externally?
Culture: Are there measures to promote a culture of integrity in government (e.g. merit-based recruitment, training opportunities on integrity issues, awareness raising, reporting channels)? Does the public integrity system recognise the role of companies and civil society organisations in upholding and promoting a culture of integrity? Are there measures to promote a culture of integrity in society (e.g. awareness raising and education programmes, codes of conduct/responsible business conduct practices, etc.)?
Accountability: Is there a strategic approach to risk management and assessing integrity risks? Are policies and practices for identifying, assessing and mitigating integrity risks supported by tools and methodologies and aligned with control activities? How is the coherence, objectivity and timeliness of enforcement mechanisms ensured? Are there regulations or measures in place to manage effectively conflicts of interests? Are there measures to ensure transparency and integrity and lobbying activities, and to instil transparency in the financing of political parties and electoral campaigns?
Openness and transparency
Openness and transparency policies include the accessibility of information as well as other public resources and the proactive disclosure of information and data. They are key ingredients to build accountability and trust and crucial for the proper functioning of democracies and market economies. Given the importance of openness and transparency in governance and policy-making, open government strategies and initiatives have become a key pillar of public-governance reforms. The OECD defines open government (OG) as a culture of public governance that promotes the principles of transparency, integrity, accountability and stakeholder participation in support of democracy and inclusive growth (OECD, 2017[22]). These reforms can range from initiatives to ensure access to public information, to more complex practices to increase accountability and stakeholder participation in decision-making.
Open government is not an end in itself; it is a tool to achieve policy objectives. Open government principles and practices can be applied to policy-making and service-delivery, regardless of the theme or sector, and across all Branches of Power (when open government frameworks and principles are adopted by a country’s Legislative and Judicial Branches or by independent public institutions in addition to the Executive, the OECD refers to the concept of an open state). When policies are decided, designed and implemented in a transparent and inclusive way, they contribute to building citizens’ trust and to achieving policy outcomes more effectively, because openness allows governments to broaden the range of input for decision-making. In this regard, the proactive disclosure of clear, complete, timely, reliable and relevant public sector data and information that is free of cost, available in an open and non-proprietary machine-readable format, easy to find, understand, use and reuse, and disseminated through a multi-channel approach is paramount. In this context, also guaranteeing a citizen’s right to request government information becomes vital.
Open government can contribute to political equality and inclusiveness too, because it requires governments to reach out to those populations and sectors that are less prone to public participation. For this reason, OECD Recommendations in different areas of public governance, from regulatory policy to public integrity and digital government, advocate for the adoption of open government principles and practices.
By highlighting evidence on those practices that work best in this area across OECD Member countries, the OECD Recommendation on Open Government (2017[22]) [OECD/LEGAL/0438] advises that governments develop, adopt and implement open government strategies and initiatives that promote the principles of transparency, integrity, accountability and stakeholder participation in designing and delivering public policies and services. In this regard, policy makers could:
Ensure the existence of an enabling environment, such as the design and implementation of a robust open government legal and regulatory framework, ensuring human, financial, and technical resources and promoting open government literacy;
The success of open government strategies depends largely on the existence of a policy and legal framework that sets the rules for both government and stakeholders, such as the existence of access-to-information frameworks and the protection of civic space. Successful implementation of open government strategies are often coupled with the strategic use of digital government and public sector innovation tools.
Develop an implementation framework, through co-ordination mechanisms across government; monitoring, evaluation and learning mechanisms for open government strategies and initiatives; as well as stakeholder participation processes. In addition, effective communication can support the OG implementation framework as communication serves not just as a means of informing the public, but as a strategic tool to support policy-making and service delivery by enhancing transparency and participation.
Since an open government strategy cuts across different policy sectors and public governance areas, the active role of the Centre of Government can be instrumental in providing leadership and effective policy co-ordination. According to the 2016 OECD Survey on Open Government and Citizen Participation, 85% of the surveyed countries have a dedicated office responsible for horizontal co-ordination of open government initiatives (OECD, 2016[23]). Moreover, a sound monitoring and evaluation system for open government initiatives can be pivotal to ensure that policies are achieving their intended outcomes, make corrections if needed and therefore enable open-government initiatives to generate greater impact. However, this is a challenging task: while 91% of countries say they monitor open government initiatives, only half evaluate them (OECD, 2016[23]).
Plan a way forward by exploring the potential of moving from the concept of open government toward that of open state. While adopting a ‘whole of state’ approach is ideal, it is dependent on the respective political system.
An increasing number of countries are moving from the concept of open government toward that of an open state, as mentioned above. An open state tends to be pursued on a collaborative basis, with the Executive, Legislature, Judiciary, independent public institutions, and all levels of government collaborating to exploit synergies and share good practices and lessons learned among themselves and with other stakeholders to promote open government principles.
Subnational levels of government have a fundamental role to play in enhancing the policies, values and culture of open government and can make an important contribution to a country’s move towards an open state. Historically, they have been at the forefront of open government and innovation practices. Planning the way ahead, further efforts are needed to integrate them in the design and implementation of national strategies and policies.
Supporting media ecosystems that are diverse and transparent ultimately promote the open government principles of transparency and accountability. Governments should therefore pursue policies that foster media literacy; independent, local, regional and community-owned media providers; public service media; etc. Such activities are also important in helping governments respond to the changing nature of how the public receives and shares information, as well as resilience to the threats posed by disinformation.
Box 1.7. The importance of pursuing transparency
Transparency is critical to include citizens in policy-making and to build trust in public institutions. The opening-up of government processes, proceedings, documents and data for public scrutiny and involvement is a prerequisite to achieve better stakeholder engagement, inclusiveness, integrity and accountability in public governance. In this regard, the OECD, through its Recommendation on Open Government (2017), suggests that governments should make available clear, complete, timely, reliable and relevant public sector data and information that is free of cost, available in an open and non-proprietary machine-readable format. The OECD also recommends governments to adopt transparent practices in other public governance areas such as public integrity, budgeting, public procurement and regulatory policy.
Source: OECD Recommendation of the Council on Open Government (2017[22]) [OECD/LEGAL/0438].
Core questions for consideration
To optimise the benefits that an open government culture can generate, is the appropriate enabling environment in place, including institutional, legal and regulatory frameworks, human, financial and technical resources, and oversight mechanisms to ensure their implementation?
Are policies planned and implemented in collaboration with citizens and all relevant stakeholders and are they associated with monitoring, evaluation and learning mechanisms to ensure impact? Are these frameworks being applied to regional and local governments? To the other Branches of the State?
To what extent does the government proactively make available clear, complete, timely, reliable and relevant public sector data and information that is free of cost, available in an open and non-proprietary machine-readable format, easy to find, understand, use and reuse?
Does the government fully capture the value of digital technologies for more open and innovative government?
When developing inclusive stakeholder participation initiatives, is timely, accessible communication considered as integral to this process, and are innovative approaches used to ensure inclusiveness and representativeness?
Inclusiveness, Participation, Gender Equality and Diversity
In keeping with the core theme of Agenda 2030 “Leaving no one behind”, governments can take active measures to design, apply, and monitor equality in governance and decision-making, with a special focus on empowering and integrating marginalised, disadvantaged and/or vulnerable groups as well as promoting gender equality into public life. To guarantee human rights and fundamental freedoms for the whole of society, a non-discriminatory approach to policy-making and service provision based on the needs of all societal groups is vital. Applying a gender equality and inclusiveness lens in decision-making process, in combination with openness and transparency, can help governments better understand the needs of people of all genders across the broadest of cross-sections of society, and how to respond to them more effectively. Such a lens also helps decision-makers assess the differentiated impacts of their decisions - across policy themes or sectors - on people of all genders from different backgrounds, to evaluate whether any given policy mitigates or reinforces existing inequalities. Governments pursue inclusiveness by leveraging the information, ideas and resources held by all stakeholders, including citizens, civil society organisations and the private sector, and by better engaging with them in tailoring policies and services to societal needs.
Vulnerable societal groups of different kinds (e.g. based on religion, ethnicity, language, sexual orientation, age, physical abilities etc.) have traditionally been underrepresented in policy-making processes. In order to guarantee inclusiveness, gender equality and diversity policymakers should ensure that engagement with the whole of society is mainstreamed across the government and that specific measures are implemented to ensure the targeted participation of all societal groups. Youth is an additional key actor for improving diversity in policy-making. While all age groups’ needs and interests should be equally considered in policy-making for the sake of intergenerational equity, it is often the young generation that is the least politically organised and represented. With young men and women politically empowered and more actively engaged in policy-making, societies can be more cohesive and resilient, and democracies more vibrant. However, according to the OECD Youth Stocktaking Report (2018[24]), in 17 out of 30 OECD Member countries for which data exists, youth express less trust in government than their parents (aged 50+) and their participation in formal processes appears to be on the decline.
Three main enablers to increase inclusiveness, gender equality and diversity in governance are listed here: the first one has to do with strong institutional mechanisms, tools and accountability structures; the second one with effective stakeholder participation and the third one ensure gender equality, diversity and inclusiveness in decision-making positions.
Regarding strong institutional mechanisms, tools and accountability structures. In this regard, the OECD Recommendation on Gender Equality in Public Life (2015[25]) [OECD/LEGAL/0418] provides important guidance in this regard which can be applied to all inclusiveness approaches:
Adopting a “whole-of-state” governance approach to gender and broader equality mainstreaming: the Recommendation on Gender Equality in Public Life proposes a system-wide approach which recognises that all public institutions and branches of the state have a strong role to play in promoting gender equality and inclusiveness. The Centre of Government (CoG) can play a critical role as the "power house" influencing change across the system.
Leveraging all core government decision-making tools to promote inclusiveness and gender equality: All ministries and government agencies can integrate evidence-based assessments of impact on politically underrepresented and/or marginalised groups and considerations into various dimensions of public governance and in the early stages of all phases of the policy cycle. Decision-makers can also consider integration of the inclusiveness, equity, gender, etc. perspective in all phases of the budget cycle so that transparency regarding gender-relevant resource allocation decisions is maximised.
For instance, several countries has launched national youth policies/strategies to unite ministries, different levels of government and non-governmental stakeholders around a joint vision that delivers youth-related policies and services in a coherent manner with the active participation of young people. Moreover, countries can implement youth checks, which assess the expected impact of new regulations on young men and women and hence broaden the default “adult” perspective in regulatory policy-making.
Strengthening accountability and oversight mechanisms for gender equality and inclusiveness mainstreaming initiatives across and within government bodies (Box 1.8).
Box 1.8. Sweden’s Programme for Gender Mainstreaming in Government Agencies (GMGA)
To achieve gender equality policy objectives, the Swedish government launched a Nationwide Government Programme for Gender Mainstreaming in Government Agencies (GMGA) 2012-2019. The programme encompasses sixty agencies in the cultural, judiciary, labour and health care sectors. These agencies must integrate a gender equality perspective in their core activities, following a tailor-made action plan.
Reports from the Swedish Gender Equality Agency and the mid-term evaluation from the Swedish Agency for Public management indicate that agencies have identified critical challenges as well positive results linked to their contribution to gender equality. In light of these results, the Government recently expanded the programme to over 30 higher education institutions and implemented similar programmes to promote LGBT Rights and the Rights of the Child.
Source: Example of country practice provided by the Government of Sweden as part of the Policy Framework's consultation process
A second key enabler of inclusive governance is effective stakeholder participation. Actively engaging stakeholders contributes to the well-targeted use of limited state resources and better public service design and delivery, for example through consulting citizens for the identification of their needs. Active participation goes beyond votes and elections and recognises the capacity of citizens to co-generate policy options (OECD, 2016[23]). Stakeholder participation – one of the open government principles - increases government inclusiveness and accountability, broadens citizen empowerment and influence on decisions and builds civic capacity. Stakeholder participation “improves the evidence base for policy-making, reduces implementation costs and taps wider network for innovation in policy-making and service delivery” (OECD, 2009[26]).
The OECD Recommendation on Open Government (2017[22]) [OECD/LEGAL/0438] advises governments “to grant all stakeholders equal and fair opportunities to be informed and consulted and actively engage them in all phases of the policy-cycle and service design and delivery”. Governments should, moreover, “promote innovative ways to effectively engage with stakeholders to source ideas and co-create solutions and seize the opportunities provided by digital government tools, including through the use of open government data”. The Recommendation also includes an inclusive definition of stakeholders as “any interested and/or affected party, including: individuals, regardless of their age, gender, sexual orientation, religious and political affiliations; and institutions and organisations, whether governmental or non-governmental, from civil society, academia, the media or the private sector”.
In that regard, the OECD Recommendation on Digital Government Strategies (OECD, 2014[31]) [OECD/LEGAL/0406] recommends governments to develop and implement digital government strategies that encourage engagement and participation of public, private and civil society stakeholders in policy-making and public service design and delivery. OECD Member countries have developed different initiatives; inter alia, improved arrangements for civic and citizenship education, online consultations, the strategic use of social media and more traditional initiatives such as the establishment of interest groups/institutions.
Moreover, as it will be observed in chapters 3 and 4, stakeholder engagement is a key component of a sound regulatory policy. The OECD Recommendation on Regulatory Policy and Governance (2012[27]) [OECD/LEGAL/0390] suggest that governments “establish a clear policy identifying how open and balanced public consultation on the development of rules will take place” (OECD, 2012[27]). In this regard, and as is the case for integrity and openness frameworks, best practice identified by the OECD on stakeholder engagement in regulatory policy includes:
A clear, crosscutting, government-wide guiding policy should exist on how to engage with stakeholders, setting clear objectives.
Leadership and strong commitment to stakeholder engagement in regulation-making are needed at all levels, from politicians, senior managers and public officials.
Capacities in public administration to conduct effective and efficient stakeholder engagement should receive adequate attention.
Mechanisms to ensure that civil servants adhere to the principles of open government and stakeholder engagement in regulatory policy.
While many countries are making important progress in the design and implementation of participatory initiatives, data shows that their full potential is not yet being achieved, especially during the final phases of the policy cycle. As for open government strategies, the development of specific policy and legislative frameworks for greater inclusiveness should favour the use of participatory practices at all points in the policy-making cycle by defining which mechanisms to use and how stakeholder participation should be encouraged at each stage. Making the business case for effective engagement - measuring the cost associated with such exercises and their final impact - will also be essential for improving the strategic use of citizen-participation practices.
A third important element to build inclusiveness is to ensure gender equality, diversity and inclusiveness in decision-making positions. The OECD recognises that “fostering gender diversity and inclusion, including gender diversity in public decision-making is critical for achieving inclusive growth at all levels of government, as well as anticipating current and future steps needed to increase citizen trust and well-being” (OECD, 2015[25]). Yet women still make up for only one third of leadership positions across all three branches of power. Moving forward, the OECD Recommendation on Gender Equality in Public Life (2015[25]) [OECD/LEGAL/0418] provides guidance to countries on how to achieve gender balanced representation in decision-making positions in public life, and improve the gender equality in public employment, including at the top. Moreover, there is increasing recognition that all societal groups should be represented adequately in elected bodies, the government cabinet and the public administration to embrace their innovative potential and deliver on the needs of all.
Core questions for consideration
Have you identified government-wide objectives to mainstream inclusiveness across the public sector? Are these objectives supported by governance and performance strategies? Are they integrated into government-wide policy objectives and priorities?
Is there a whole-of-government institutional framework in place, with clear roles and responsibilities assigned for the centre of government, institutions responsible for gender equality, all line ministries and agencies and oversight institutions (e.g. the Ombudsperson) – accompanied by sufficient resources, adequate capacities and coordination structures – to systematically embed and oversee the implementation of gender equality and an inclusiveness lens in decision-making?
Is gender-disaggregated data and information – including information on intersectionality factors available and used to inform decision-making?
Is disaggregated data and information available for vulnerable societal groups and are these resources used to inform decision-making?
Are policies, mechanisms and tools in place to promote gender-balanced and inclusive participation in decision-making and leadership in the public sector?2
Accountability, and the respect for the Rule of Law
Public accountability constitutes a key element for governments and public institutions to ensure the efficiency and effectiveness of the machinery of government and, more generally, to strengthen citizens’ trust in the institutions of government. Nowadays, the whole public sector is facing increased pressure to deliver more with less and to show to citizens how their money is being spent. In many countries, public accountability is not the sole responsibility of one organ or public entity but of many institutions. Public officials must ensure that government activities and decisions respond to citizens’ needs and demands. Horizontal accountability ensures that the different branches of the state, namely the executive, the legislative, the judiciary, as well as independent institutions (ombudsman, supreme audit institutions, and special commissions) hold each other accountable on behalf of the people. While public accountability is certainly pivotal at the national level, it is also of particular importance at subnational levels where citizens and policies meet: local governments are responsible for the most tangible and basic public services.
The proximity between elected officials and citizens at the local level creates informal mechanisms favouring vertical accountability, which refers to the direct relationship between on the one hand, citizens, media, and civil society organizations and, on the other hand, their elected and non-elected public officials. The widespread use of digital technologies, coupled with improved internet penetration worldwide, the increasing presence of politicians and public institutions on social media, the open government movement and the diffusion of the principles and practices of transparency and stakeholders’ participation – these are all reshaping the legal, institutional, governance and policy frameworks as we have known them to date.
Accountability lines, which in their most simplistic form can be defined as “who does what and reports to whom”, become blurry and dynamic, as they change from country to country as well as across political cycles. Once clearly identifiable and legally enforced, nowadays the responsibilities of politicians, public officials and citizens are undergoing a profound transformation which requires a rethinking of the ways in which formal traditional accountability (State, administrative and financial) should be integrated with more citizen’s-centred accountability and interactive bottom-up practices (i.e. citizen journalism or open data initiatives).
Box 1.9. Types of accountability
State accountability: Frameworks that ensure that public institutions hold each other to account on behalf of the people and that check and balances are respected in the country including mechanisms in the Executive, the Legislative (i.e. its oversight role through commissions, investigative powers, question time, etc.) and the Judicial branches, as well as the role of independent institutions such as the Ombudsman, ad hoc commissions, Supreme Audit Institutions or supranational entities, among others.
Administrative accountability: A robust system of internal control ensures that institutions and public servants are carrying out tasks according to agreed performance criteria, using mechanisms that reduce abuse, improve adherence to standards and foster learning for improved performance including country’s internal control system in order to be strategic, preventive and to advance risk management to ensure administrative accountability and detect inefficiencies that can affect the efficiency and effectiveness of public institutions.
Financial accountability: Budgetary governance is the process of formulating the annual budget, overseeing its implementation and ensuring its alignment with public goals. Ensuring accountability throughout the budget cycle can potentially contribute to more efficient and effective service delivery.
Social accountability: Ensuring that the voices of people are being heard and acknowledging that the role of citizens in policymaking has transformed the relationship governments-citizenry is key for governments to restore citizens’ trust including the possibility to hold free, fair and transparent elections and the country’s party system, the existence of citizen engagement practices, the social capital, the role of CSOs and the level of transparency and access to public information as well as the role of media and journalism to hold government accountable, to act as watchdogs and as a means to provide information.
Policy outcome accountability: Policymakers account for their performance by monitoring and evaluating policy outcomes and making available relevant performance information in a timely manner. As policymakers are held accountable, there is an opportunity to learn from the past while fostering greater reliance on evidence-informed policy-making.
The rule of law represents a core element for accountability and one of the foundational values defining the like-mindedness of OECD Member countries. It is intertwined with the other governance dimensions of accountability, transparency, openness and integrity, and defines these dimensions’ interdependence. Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 16.3 calls on countries to “promote the rule of law at the national and international levels, and ensure equal access to justice for all”.
Effective and efficient justice systems are crucial to sustaining the rule of law and sound public governance - notably of policy and regulatory performance. For instance, effective anti-corruption efforts depend on sound and accessible justice institutions at all levels of government within a framework that guarantees that every last individual in society is equal under the law and that no individual or group obtains special treatment under the law by virtue of origin or background, socio-economic circumstances or links to society’s power structures.
Constitutional justice performs important functions in the consolidation and maintenance of democratic governments by guaranteeing the protection of individual rights and liberties, establishing the separation of powers between government branches and bodies, and enabling capacity for dialogue between the people and their government.
Administrative justice is one of the main interfaces between public administration and people. For example, the Recommendation on Regulatory Policy and Governance (OECD, 2012[27]) [OECD/LEGAL/0390] highlights that judicial review constitutes a litmus test of good regulatory practice by:
ensuring that regulators exercise authority within the scope of their legal powers
providing an incentive for regulators to adhere to good governance and best practice principles
protecting regulators from undue influences from government
enhancing trust and legitimacy of regulatory activity as part of economic policy agenda
Access to - and satisfaction with - justice services are important contributors to, and drivers of, trust in government. Access to justice and legal empowerment are important tools to advance the open government and open state agenda as they are drivers of social accountability, public-sector integrity and inclusive growth. Legal empowerment advances more meaningful civic engagement by ensuring that people understand how the law allows them not only to confront injustice in their lives but to participate in law-making and the implementation of legislation for society’s benefit.
A sound and functioning legal and justice system contributes to a thriving business environment and longer-term investment decisions. It supports contract enforcement, reduces transaction costs and levels the playing field for market stakeholders by instilling confidence in “the rules of the game,” ensuring fair competition and protecting property rights. The OECD Policy Framework for Investment (PFI) highlights that when key elements of effective access to justice are missing or inefficient (e.g. complex, costly, and lengthy procedures), companies including SMEs tend to limit their activities in that jurisdiction/country (OECD, 2015[28]).
Access to justice lies at the centre of inclusive growth strategies aimed at improving policy outcomes. Lack of legal empowerment and unequal access to justice through e.g. high procedural costs and significant waiting times, generate significant socio-economic costs for individuals and societies. Access to justice engenders equality of access to opportunities and public services. According to the OECD Framework for Policy Action on Inclusive Growth (2018[29]), it is a key building block for enabling stakeholders to “invest in people and places that have been left behind”.
People’s unmet legal and justice needs (e.g. family, racial, employment, housing, violence against women, consumer-related) can have adverse effects on other areas of everyday life, e.g. health, social welfare and economic well-being. Conversely, direct and indirect benefits are attributable to meeting particular legal needs and providing legal assistance and access-to-justice programmes, notably in such areas as better housing, supporting inclusion, enhancing consumer and financial protection reducing domestic or family violence and facilitating access to healthcare (Box 1.10).
Box 1.10. Legal Needs Survey in Colombia
Colombia has made important advances in its efforts to measure and map the legal needs of its population through the use of a comprehensive legal needs survey. This component was introduced in the Quality of Life Survey conducted by the National Department of Statistics and the National Planning Department of Colombia in 2016. It builds on methodologies and experiences of the civil society organisation Dejusticia, which had previously conducted an urban legal needs survey in Colombia.
Based on the survey results, Colombia developed the Effective Access to Justice Index to inform their long-term justice plan. It helps to measure and compare the capacity of Colombia’s regions and departments to provide effective access to justice. It explores six dimensions of access to justice:
favourable environment (which is concerned with structural and institutional barriers to justice that lie outside of the justice system);
legal capability;
legal assistance;
fair procedure;
compliance with judicial decisions; and
access to institutions.
Colombia is currently preparing the next legal needs survey to be carried out in 2020 as a module of the Citizenship Security Survey. It will aim to collect data at the national and regional level (both urban and rural areas), including several main cities.
Source: OECD (2019[76]), Equal Access to Justice for Inclusive Growth: Putting People at the Centre, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/597f5b7f-en; OECD/Open Society Foundations (2019[77]), Legal Needs Surveys and Access to Justice, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/g2g9a36c-en ; Information provided by the National Planning Department of Colombia.
One of the most important trends in OECD Member countries is the shift towards people-centred justice as a guiding principle, which implies adopting clear and easy understandable language so that citizens can understand laws and legal documents as well as providing access to legal and justice services from the individual’s perspective and experience. It acknowledges that specific groups, notably the disadvantaged, may have additional legal needs and face extra barriers in accessing justice services.
Effective access to legal and justice services presupposes an enabling framework for an effective and efficient justice system. Such frameworks encompass a growing spectrum (or “continuum”) of services, processes and procedures, and tend to include a legal architecture, institutional arrangements and alternative dispute-resolution mechanisms (specialised mediation services; problem-solving courts; justice-access centres; etc.), strategic planning and performance management, data system exchanges, monitoring and evaluation systems, sound HR provisions related to the professional career (judicial and non-judicial), among other things. Indeed acknowledging the relationship between effective access to justice and broader socio-economic outcomes has prompted countries to co-ordinate justice and social services under an outcome-based approach, i.e. addressing both people’s justice needs and their accompanying social or health issues (e.g., domestic violence, drug and alcohol abuse, mental illness, juvenile delinquency).
Evidence of good practice of OECD Members and Partners shows that designing and delivering people-focused legal and justice services require a coherent approach shaped by effective coordination across strategic priority areas optimising the use of available resources in a way that best reflects the specific political, socioeconomic and service environment of the country. This approach calls for:
the systematic identification, measurement and mapping of legal needs, to help determine who experiences legal needs where (at the national, sub-national and local levels), along with the nature and scope of these needs. A number of OECD Member countries are using legal needs survey methodologies – in combination with different types of administrative data – to allow policymakers to understand the actual scope of legal needs and people’s pathways to resolving them.
designing and delivering people-centred legal and justice services, to effectively respond in a targeted and fair manner to identified legal needs. Practice in OECD Member countries suggests that legal and justice services are people-centric and effective when they are provided in an inclusive manner and available both to the general population and specific vulnerable groups, are effectively responsive; help build empowerment; prioritise proactivity, prevention and timeliness; and focus on substantive outcomes.
adopting a data-driven approach to identify measures of demand, supply and outcomes. This helps deliver justice services in a manner that can optimise the relative costs of different strategies, identify alternative financing possibilities to achieving a desired outcome for specific groups of the population and ensure that justice services generate value for money. Several evaluation methods (such as cost-effectiveness, cost-benefit analysis, economic impact analysis) can be used for this purpose.
Figure 1.3. Planning for Effective Access to Justice: What works practices in designing and delivering
Source: OECD (2019), Equal Access to Justice for Inclusive Growth: Putting People at the Centre, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/597f5b7f-en.
Core questions for consideration
What mechanisms are in place to ensure that public institutions hold each other to account on behalf of the people and that check and balances are respected in the country?
What mechanisms are in place promote and protect the existence of stakeholders engagement practices, including those for citizens, CSOs and media to hold government accountable?
Is there a systematic process for mapping legal needs and experience to understand if and how appropriate types of services are being matched to the needs of different groups of population across all regions in the country?
Are there effective coordination and communication channels vertically (across levels of government) and horizontally (between various legal and justice services including courts) to support governance and alignment in justice services?
Is there a data management or exchange system covering formal and non-formal legal and justice services and based on common data protocols and standards? Is this information readily available to the public?
Additional resources
OECD legal instruments:
OECD Recommendation of the Council on Public Integrity (2017) [OECD/LEGAL/0435]
OECD Recommendation of the Council on Guidelines for Managing Conflict of Interest in the Public Service (2003) [OECD/LEGAL/0316]
OECD Recommendation of the Council on Principles for Transparency and Integrity in Lobbying (2010) [OECD/LEGAL/0379]
OECD Recommendation of the Council for Further Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials (2009) [OECD/LEGAL/0378]
OECD Recommendation of the Council on Open Government (2017) [OECD/LEGAL/0438]
OECD Recommendation of the Council on Gender Equality in Public Life (2015) [OECD/LEGAL/0418]
OECD Recommendation of the Council on Open Government (2017) [OECD/LEGAL/0438]
OECD Recommendation of the Council on Digital Government Strategies (2014) [OECD/LEGAL/0406]
OECD Recommendation of the Council on Regulatory policy and Governance (2012) [OECD/LEGAL/0390]
Other relevant OECD tools:
G20/OECD Compendium of good practices on the use of open data for Anti-corruption (2017)
Behavioural Insights for Public Integrity - Harnessing the Human Factor to Counter Corruption (2018)
Education for Integrity - Teaching on Anti-Corruption, Values and the Rule of Law (2018)
Supreme Audit Institutions and Good Governance: Oversight, Insight and Foresight (2016)
Managing Conflict of Interest in the Public Sector - A Toolkit (2005)
OECD Open Government: The Global Context and the Way Forward (2016)
OECD Toolkit for Implementing and Mainstreaming Gender Equality (2018)
OECD Best Practice Principles on Stakeholder Engagement in Regulatory Policy (forthcoming)
OECD Youth Stocktaking Report (2018) OECD Youth Stocktaking Report (2018)
OECD White Paper: Building a Business Case for Access to Justice (2019)
References
[15] Agency for Modernisation, Local Government Denmark and Danish Regions (2017), Code of conduct in the Public Sector.
[16] Denmark Ministry of Finance (2015), Seven key duties for civil servants in central government- http://www.modst.dk/kodexvii (accessed on 4 October 2019).
[21] Mor, F. (2019), “Registers of beneficial ownership", House of Commons Library Briefing Paper No 8259, London: House of commons library, https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-8259/CBP-8259.pdf
[8] Murtin, F. et al. (2018), “Trust and its determinants: Evidence from the Trustlab experiment”, OECD Statistics Working Papers, No. 2018/2, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/869ef2ec-en.
[9] OECD (2019), Recommendation of the Council on Public Service Leadership and Capability.
[76] OECD (2019), Equal Access to Justice for Inclusive Growth: Putting People at the Centre, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/597f5b7f-en.
[29] OECD (2018), Opportunities for All: A Framework for Policy Action on Inclusive Growth, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264301665-en.
[14] OECD (2018), Behavioural Insights for Public Integrity: Harnessing the Human Factor to Counter Corruption, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264297067-en.
[17] OECD (2018), Education for Integrity Teaching on Anti-Corruption, Values and the Rule of Law, OECD Publishing, Paris.
[24] OECD (2018), Youth Stocktaking Report, OECD Publishing, Paris.
[22] OECD (2017), Recommendation of the Council on Open Government, [OECD/LEGAL/0438].
[11] OECD (2017), Recommendation of the Council on Public Integrity.
[7] OECD (2017), Trust and Public Policy: How Better Governance Can Help Rebuild Public Trust, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264268920-en.
[18] OECD (2016), Supreme Audit Institutions and Good Governance: Oversight, Insight and Foresight, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264263871-en.
[23] OECD (2016), Open Government:The global context and the way forward, OECD Publishing, Paris.
[28] OECD (2015), Policy Framework for Investment, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264208667-en.
[25] OECD (2015), Recommendation of the Council on Gender Equality in Public Life, [OECD/LEGAL/0418].
[31] OECD (2014), Recommendation of the Council on Digital Government Strategies, [OECD/LEGAL/0406].
[27] OECD (2012), Recommendation of the Council on Regulatory Policy and Governance
[19] OECD (2010), Recommendation of the Council on Transparency and Integrity in Lobbying.
[12] OECD (2009), Recommendation of the Council for Further Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions.
[26] OECD (2009), Focus on Citizens: Public Engagement for Better Policy and Services, OECD Studies on Public Engagement, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264048874-en.
[20] OECD (2003), Managing Conflict of Interest in the Public Service: OECD Guidelines and Country Experiences, OECD Publishing, Paris.
[77] OECD/Open Society Foundations (2019), Legal Needs Surveys and Access to Justice, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/g2g9a36c-en.
[13] Schickora, J., V. Fakultät and J. Schikora (2011), Bringing the Four-Eyes-Principle to the Lab, Discussion Papers in Economics 2011:3.