Based on the analysis provided by the overview chapter, this chapter identifies opportunities for reform in key areas of public governance in Sweden. It focuses on performance management tools to support increased effectiveness of the public sector, discusses how to enhance the impact of public participation mechanisms and explores ways to improve the governance of crosscutting issues, including climate change and the digital transformation of the government. It also aims to support Sweden's efforts to take a more holistic approach to public sector integrity. These potential priorities are also illustrated by experiences from OECD member countries that could inform future reform initiatives in Sweden.
Public Governance Monitor of Sweden
Report
OECD Public Governance Reviews
Table of contents
Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
2. Illustrative Priorities for Reform for Sweden’s Public Administration
Abstract
Introduction
Whilst the Sweden Public Governance Monitor does not go in depth into its Public Governance Systems, the following section showcases a number of potential priorities for reform that were identified based on the research and analysis undertaken.
Potential areas of opportunity for Sweden identified include: to further increase the use of performance management tools to monitor and raise the effectiveness of its public sector; strengthen citizen’s engagement in public life; enhance public sector integrity; and improve its capacity to address long-term horizontal challenges, including digitalisation and climate change, using the experience of peers and international comparisons. This section provides a brief illustrative overview of suggested priority areas for the government along the dimensions of the PGM.
Public sector effectiveness
Priority area 1: enhancing the use of performance management tools to increase transparency, better steer and deliver public administration objectives and reforms
Sweden has set a goal for the public administration to be “an innovative and collaborative government administration that is legally secure and efficient, has well-developed quality, service and accessibility, and thereby contributes to Sweden's development and effective EU work”, but has been lacking a performance framework to ensure that this goal is properly measured, monitored and achieved by the whole-of-public administration (The Swedish Agency for Public Management, 2020[1]).
The government has tasked the Swedish Agency for Public Management through an assignment to develop key performance indicators (KPIs) to monitor the progress towards this goal. The topic is also central to the work of the Department for Public Administration (Ministry of Finance) that should help gather and monitor information for the whole-of-administration and fulfil the future KPIs and achieve the goal. Given the Swedish model, the task of aggregating the data could also be delegated to an agency, that should report to the Department of Public Administration.
The wide-ranging nature of the goal that encompasses several dimensions of public governance related to innovation, effectiveness, coordination, service delivery and EU commitments calls for selecting a limited set of key performances indicators in each of this area. They also require the definition of clearer, measurable objectives and actions attached to each dimension that can be measured over time. This first step will allow for the identification of Key Performance Indicators to be monitored. For instance, the UK has prepared a Declaration on Government Reform that identifies key priorities for reforming and modernising the public administration and improving its effectiveness. The document was signed by all ministers and outlines a number of key actions to be implemented, assigning Senior Responsible Owners (SROs) that are in charge of implementing the different actions (United Kingdom, 2021[2]).
Performance management tools based on key performance indicators can help identify, monitor and address key priorities and targets. Their use can provide policymakers with information on progress and achievements on specific goals, support the identification of priorities for reform and help engage in further dialogue and work with the public entities involved. They can also promote transparency within the administration and with citizens and support the relations between citizens and the administration. A number of OECD member countries have established dashboards with key performance indicators to measure progress, communicate and support improvements on targets and measures set in public policy initiatives and reform plans (see Box 2.1).
Box 2.1. Country dashboards and performance framework from OECD member countries
Austria has over recent years reformed and streamlined its budgetary framework so that each ministry presents its estimate on a programme basis, with a small number (no more than 3-5) of performance objectives specified for each programme. At least one of these programmes must relate to gender equality. Both the resources allocated to each programme, and the performance relative to the objectives, are subject to audit by the supreme audit institution. Some examples of indicators include: Number of men and women who attend preventive health examination; percentage of women between 45 and 75 years who participate in breast cancer screening.
Likewise, New Zealand has a well-developed results approach, whereby agencies are organised around the outcomes that matter to citizens, and in this context each agency must specify the “vital few” indicators that will tell whether these goals are being achieved. The Percentage of children sitting and achieving School Certificate in five subjects is an example of indicator used.
The United States has also placed a high priority on articulating clear performance objectives for each agency, including a small number of “agency priority goals”; these objectives have become an organising principle for public accountability and also for internal management and staff engagement.
Scotland’s National Performance Framework involves a co-ordination mechanism to ensure alignment of strategies and programmes across sectors, in support of broader national outcomes. The country uses a detailed, open dashboard analysing trends and indicators on key national priorities. Examples of indicators include: Proportion of driver journeys delayed due to traffic congestion; Total additions to the supply of housing, including public and private new house building; conversions of existing buildings to housing use; and refurbishment of dwellings.
Source: (OECD, 2016[3]); (OECD, 2018[4])
Key performance indicators must possess some fundamental qualities to fully benefit countries. They should be relevant (linked to key objectives of the organisation rather than on process), clear (simple to ensure common understanding), measurable and objective (expressed on pre-determined measures and formulas and based on simple data that can be gathered objectively in a cost-effective manner), achievable (realistic) and timed (include specific timeframes for completion) (OECD, 2016[3]).
For example, a number of international indicators were used in this report to evaluate the effectiveness of the public sector and can be selected depending on the objectives and priorities of the Department. They include but are not limited to the following dimensions:
Productive (efficient): size and scope of government (general government expenditures as a % of GDP); production costs (central government expenditure by sector or production costs by function as part of GDP); public employment (general government employment as a % of total employment); regulatory effectiveness (use of Regulatory Impact Analysis RIA or iREG);
Agile (innovative and collaborative government): leadership (composite indices of public service leadership and capability); resource flexibility (share of workforce of central / federal administration who works remotely or the use of proactive recruitment practices); innovation and transformation (innovative capacity indicators);
Responsive (satisfaction with services, access and quality of services, digitalisation): citizen's satisfaction with public services (e.g. OECD Trust Survey or local surveys); access, quality and territorial coverage of public services (national data on service delivery); engagement (adoption of people-driven approaches to design and deliver services); digitalisation (e.g. OECD Digital Government Index, the EU Digital Economy and Society Index DESI);
Inclusive (inclusive public administration and inclusive society): inclusive administration (development of a diverse central government workforce, gender equality in senior management positions in central governments, gender equality in public sector employment and in total employment, gender pay gap in the public sector); inclusive society (income inequality before taxes and post taxes and transfers, wellbeing, share of total net wealth by household).
Performance indicators can also rely on user-surveys on the quality and satisfaction with public services. Many OECD countries have implemented these surveys to improve the quality of public services and the performance of the public administration. For example, among these countries, France has developed a barometer of the public administrative complexity ("Baromètre de la complexité”) that looks at the perceived complexity of “life events” experienced by citizens and firms. It evaluates the level of complexity experienced by users, understands how citizens interact with the public administration through these life events and measures pain points for users. It is a standardised questionnaire administered over the phone to a quota sample of 7700 individuals aged 15 or older. The Barometer is carried out every two years and helps to identify key reform priority areas that very often involve different public administrations. The Barometer also measures the overall trust of citizens in public services and how much they feel public services are efficient, equal and take into account their specific needs (France, 2020[5]) (OECD, 2022[6]).
Public participation
Priority area 2: Sweden could increase the impact of its participatory mechanisms
Sweden could increase the impact of participatory practices by reinforcing the enabling environment with an overarching policy framework, and by implementing more innovative and engaging participatory and deliberative processes at all stage of the policy cycle. Sweden could continue to mainstream existing mechanisms, particularly the use of Councils with citizens and users, as well as local practices such as participatory budgeting and referenda. Among peer countries, Sweden could take inspiration from Finland and implement innovative instruments like representative deliberative processes to further strengthen citizen participation in the policymaking process. For example, Finland has organised Citizen Juries to involve citizens in climate or transport policies, meaning conveying randomly selected citizens to weigh evidence, deliberate to find common ground, and develop detailed recommendations on policy issues for public authorities (OECD, 2021[7]). Representative deliberative processes focus on the depth of deliberation and all parts of society being represented within a smaller group of participants, whereas the majority of other methods of citizen participation place the focus on the breadth of participation – aiming to ideally directly involve everyone affected by a specific issue (OECD, 2020[8]).
Enhancing government’s capabilities to address climate change and global challenges
Priority area 3: Reinforcing the coordination and steering of horizontal priorities could increase the government’s capacity to respond to current multi-faceted challenges such as digital and green transitions
Further enhancing the governance of crosscutting topics in Sweden can help equip the Government Offices and agencies with the appropriate public governance settings and mechanisms to deliver on the country’s commitments, embrace the green and digital transitions and respond to contemporary multidimensional governance challenges. On a horizontal topic like climate change, the Climate Policy Council has shown that more can be done to achieve the climate change objectives and that strengthening governance arrangements can support in this regard (Swedish Climate Policy Council, 2021[9]).
A common issue shared by Sweden and the majority of OECD member countries remains the identification and arbitration among priorities, particularly crosscutting ones. The CoG usually plays a crucial role in signalling priorities in OECD member countries (OECD, 2017[10]). Strategies and legal framework prepared by the Government Offices can help play this role of signalling priorities for the whole-of-administration. This role could be complemented by discussions during the annual dialogue between the line ministry and agencies to further identify priorities for action. Linking strategies prepared by the different Ministries with key measures identified in the government programme is also a common venue to identify priorities and provide guidance to the whole-of-government.
Sweden has developed a number of coordination mechanisms and practices that can be mainstreamed to help improve the coordination of horizontal priorities. The establishment of a strong policy framework and of a strategy helps signal that the horizontal topic is an important priority for the government. For instance, the Climate Policy Act helped creating a share sense of priority on climate change with clear indicators and instruments for the public administration. Clear priority setting and the development of strategies from the Government Offices are key to providing directions to agencies. A strategy needs to point out a clear direction and also clarify which effects in society the government wants to achieve within the cross-sectoral issue. Strategies should also point out which actors need to contribute in order for the effects to be achieved. Based on the strategy, an action plan or other steering document should be produced with clear goals and efforts, as well as a timetable for when the efforts are to be implemented and roles and responsibilities on the matter. The use of joint assignments can be further expanded in setting tasks and activities for multiple agencies on horizontal priorities to establish common priorities for action, ensure coordination and remove obstacles including on resources. As part of the joint assignment preparations, resources could be discussed early and more thoroughly to alleviate capacity constraints faced by agencies, particularly the smaller ones, when collaboration is needed on horizontal topics.
Sweden has often used inter-ministerial Councils and Working Groups to support policymaking and coordination on horizontal priorities, such as the Ministerial Working Group on Climate Policy or the National Digitalisation Council. The effectiveness of these Councils has been variable according to the stakeholders met by the OECD and local sources, partly due to a very large scope of activities and insufficient capabilities (Swedish Climate Policy Council, 2021[9]; Swedish Agency for Public Management, 2022[11]). Successful practices in OECD member countries have underlined the importance of setting a clear mandate and objectives, for instance linked with the development and monitoring of a specific strategy, and further integrating these bodies into decision-making processes by ensuring that their recommendations and work are taken into account and submitted to the highest-level decision-making platforms, including Cabinet meetings. A number of OECD member countries have established such interministerial councils, for instance on climate (Box 2.2).
Box 2.2. Examples of interministerial bodies on climate change in OECD member countries
Interministerial bodies can be deployed at the ministerial or technical level to effectively coordinate on climate change policies. Canada has two cabinet committees on the Economy, Inclusion and Climate (covering different dimensions of the topic), as well as topic-specific interdepartmental committees at senior management level to coordinate environmental matters, and finally a Deputy Minister Committee on Climate Plan implementation (Prime Minister of Canada, 2022[12]). In particular the Cabinet committees support the preparations and review of key items that will be submitted to the Cabinet meeting and help with high-level interministerial coordination and decision-making.
France has created an Ecological Defence Council in 2019 that is designed as a small Cabinet meeting chaired by the PM with only selected ministers involved, including selected experts, that aims to support policy coordination and make decisions on climate change and to ensure that national objectives are met (Présidence de la France, 2020[13]). Mexico has established an Inter-ministerial Commission on Climate change established by the General Climate Change Law in 2012 that contributes directly to setting overall national objectives (Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, 2018[14]).
Source: (OECD, Forthcoming[15])
The role of the CoG in Sweden remains limited in steering and coordination horizontal priorities compared to most OECD member countries where CoGs are increasingly tasked with steering crosscutting initiatives. An estimated 81% of CoGs in surveyed EU member countries (21) play a leadership role on crosscutting issues. Nearly half of EU member countries surveyed cited digital transformation as one of the top three priorities managed from the centre (OECD, Unpublished[16]; OECD, 2017[10]). Several of them have established dedicated bodies at their centres of governments tasked with leading on the climate portfolio overall, for instance in France, with the newly created General Secretariat of Ecological Planning, reporting directly to the Prime Minister (French Government, 2022[17]).
Digital government
Priority area 4: Improving the horizontal steering of the digital government policy
A number of opportunities for reform could be explored by Sweden to support a more coherent effective digital government transformation:
Promote greater political leadership for public sector digitalisation, including by considering establishing a strategy that outlines Sweden’s vision for public services in the digital age to guide the work on digital government;
Consider reinstating/kick-starting the Digitalisation Council within the Government Offices while learning from good examples such as the independent Climate Advisory Council;
Consider improving the steering of digital investments through the existing budget framework, in particular for common digital infrastructure;
Consider prioritising resources and support to national government agencies and local governments who are falling behind in digitalisation.
Integrity
Priority area 5: Taking a more holistic approach for public sector integrity to future-proof the Swedish democracy and address continued weaknesses in accountability of public policymaking
To ensure a holistic consideration of all aspects of a functioning integrity system across the various levels of government in Sweden, Sweden could consider developing a second anti-corruption plan and broadening the scope to expressly focus on integrity, as defined in the OECD Recommendation on Public Integrity. Sweden is well-positioned to do this by building on the risk analysis undertaken by the Swedish Agency for Public Management. In addition, it could consider emerging integrity risks and prioritise measures to mitigate those risks based on international best-practice, involve a broad range of stakeholders including local and regional governments and civil society in the development of the plan and design clear responsibilities and mechanisms to monitor progress across Sweden.
Sweden could also consider launching new Commissions of Inquiry on the topics of political finance and lobbying and undue influence to address Sweden’s resilience against emerging political and other integrity risks in modern democracies.
Mechanisms to enhance inter-agency cooperation and to take a whole-of-government and whole-of-society approach to integrity could be applied, drawing examples from cooperation mechanisms used in other policy areas in Sweden such as health and gender equality.
References
[5] France (2020), Le Baromètre de la complexité administrative (in French), https://www.modernisation.gouv.fr/publications/barometre-2020-de-la-complexite-administrative.
[17] French Government (2022), Décret n° 2022-990 du 7 juillet 2022 relatif au secrétariat général à la planification écologique - Légifrance, https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/jorf/id/JORFTEXT000046026058 (accessed on 27 July 2022).
[14] Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment (2018), Summary Policy brief Mexico’s General Law on Climate Change: Successes and challenges Headline issues.
[6] OECD (2022), Serving Citizens: Measuring the Performance of Services for a Better User Experience, OECD Working Papers on Public Governance, No. 52, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/65223af7-en.
[7] OECD (2021), Government at a Glance 2021, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/1c258f55-en.
[8] OECD (2020), Innovative Citizen Participation and New Democratic Institutions: Catching the Deliberative Wave, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/339306da-en.
[4] OECD (2018), OECD Public Governance Reviews: Paraguay: Pursuing National Development through Integrated Public Governance, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264301856-en.
[10] OECD (2017), Centre stage 2: The organisation and functions of the centre of government in OECD countries, OECD, https://www.oecd.org/gov/report-centre-stage-2.pdf.
[3] OECD (2016), Northern Ireland (United Kingdom): Implementing Joined-up Governance for a Common Purpose, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264260016-en.
[15] OECD (Forthcoming), Strengthening decision-making processes for climate resilient development: review of current government practices, OECD Policy Paper.
[16] OECD (Unpublished), Survey to Centre of Governments: Building resilience to the Covid-19 pandemic: the role of centres of government, 2021.
[13] Présidence de la France (2020), Conseil de défense écologique | Élysée, https://www.elysee.fr/emmanuel-macron/conseil-de-defense-ecologique.
[12] Prime Minister of Canada (2022), Cabinet Committee Mandate and Membership, https://pm.gc.ca/en/cabinet-committee-mandate-and-membership.
[11] Swedish Agency for Public Management (2022), The Government’s governance of cross-sectoral issues – a study of experience and development opportunities.
[9] Swedish Climate Policy Council (2021), Report of the Swedish Climate Policy Council, https://www.klimatpolitiskaradet.se/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/report2021swedishclimatepolicycouncil.pdf.
[1] The Swedish Agency for Public Management (2020), “An innovative and collaborative management. 10 years with the administrative policy goal, in Swedish”, https://www.statskontoret.se/siteassets/rapporter-pdf/2020/oos39.pdf.
[2] United Kingdom (2021), Declaration on Government reform, Policy paper, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/declaration-on-government-reform.