Main findings

• All the countries visited had three main tiers of government: a National government, "regional" government and Local Government. In addition many countries had a further very local tier of Community or Parish Councils. Within this general framework there were many variations and area-specific arrangements.
• There is no consistency on the relative authority of these tiers. In some countries such as the UK and Ireland, the National government had the authority, both in law and politically, to exercise considerable legislative and policy control over the lower tiers. In federal systems like Germany, the USA and Australia, the regional or "State" governments have, within the scope of their responsibilities, much greater autonomy from their National governments.
• Some countries, such as the Netherlands and Spain have retained their historical provincial tier of government but, in practice, this has now a very limited range of functions mostly related to spatial planning or co-ordination of services on behalf of the local tier. In New Zealand Regional authorities have been established in recent years to fulfil similar functions.
• There is also a variation in the extent to which one tier of government was able to direct or interfere in the detail of the affairs of the lower tiers.
• The degree to which the position, autonomy and functions of the various tiers is protected in a written constitution also varied from country to country.
• All European countries visited are signatories to the European Charter of Local Self Government. The United Kingdom government has to date adopted the Charter only in respect of England, Scotland and Wales.

• There is no accepted view on the optimum size of Regional or Local authorities. What is clear, however, is that in most countries, civic life is embodied in a single strong, multi purpose and usually directly elected organisation with which the citizen has contact for most of the services he/she receives and which also articulates the aspirations and vision of the community.
• In all countries it is recognised that, in determining the size of a local authority, population, geography and history can all be equally relevant. In many countries the trend over time has been to increase the size of and reduce the number of local authorities.
• The size of an authority impacts on the balance between efficiency and accountability and responsiveness. Different countries have different perspectives on this, and some support an infrastructure of very small local authorities which, while having disadvantages in terms of economy of scale in the delivery of services, is seen as providing essential democratic accountability at local level.
• This has also led to differing solutions in relation to arrangements for delivery of services and the scope of the public sector. Many jurisdictions are not constrained to have public services delivered only by employees of the public service and, hence, they can overcome diseconomies of scale by contracting out service provision. Where direct public sector provision is preferred authorities sometimes pool resources to provide specific services, for example in England, Spain and New Zealand.

• Some countries believe strongly that clarity on the roles of the respective tiers of government, not only in service delivery but also on issues like tax raising powers, is essential to the delivery of good public services.
• The separation of strategy and policy development from service delivery was seen as important in some jurisdictions as a mechanism to allow the development of locally sensitive delivery systems within a context of national/regional standards. It was also believed that different skills were needed (and could be developed) for policy development and for managing service delivery. However, it was noted that in jurisdictions that have been operating this approach for some time there is now a view that some reintegration may be desirable.
• Clarity of the roles of individuals is also seen as important with some countries such as Australia and New Zealand attaching particular importance to personal performance contracts for Chief Executives of Departments and Agencies.

• A variety of governance arrangements were observed and, while there was an increasing tendency to give local government authorities some freedom to establish their own style of governance, it was notable that there was a preference to use a cabinet style of government. Other forms of government were more traditional parliamentary types and a variety of mayoral arrangements.
• There was increasing use of executive and scrutiny type arrangements, wherein some politicians take on more detailed strategic management roles in the delivery of services while others engaged in scrutiny or audit type functions. It was suggested that this enables governments to separate decisions on service standards and acquisition from judgments about the quality of public services delivered.
• The extent to which local authorities utilise area-based committees and/or Community Councils to seek and take account of the views of separate communities varies greatly.
• The role and method of election of mayors varies widely. In some cases the mayor has significant powers, in others he is merely the chair and public face of the authority. Some mayors are appointed from within Councils by the Councillors others, e.g. New Zealand and Toronto, are elected by the public.

• The financial arrangements are considered very important in all countries. The independence of local government to raise their own taxes is constitutionally protected in many jurisdictions although higher authorities may sometimes intervene for macroeconomic policy reasons as has happened in Sweden, Finland and Germany.
• Associated with this is the principle that local government should have maximum discretion over budgetary decisions and is accountable to its electorate for these. However, there is a growing trend for the higher tier responsible for budget allocations to be more directive as to how money can be spent. This can be done either by the use of ring-fenced money or the establishment of clear and explicit standards either of inputs or outputs. In general, lower tiers of government dislike such directions.
• In some jurisdictions there is a concern among local authorities that national government is imposing duties on them without providing adequate funding.
• The involvement of the electorate in setting rates of local taxation varied e.g. in Michigan local authorities can hold referenda to raise taxes locally for specific purposes.
• The reporting back to the electorate on the use of tax and other revenues is also seen to be important in nearly all the jurisdictions visited, although the amount of information provided varies from a general percentage breakdown of an overall budget to a detailed breakdown of all individual taxes across all services (e.g. in Toronto).
• The establishment of alternative funding arrangements (e.g. borrowing) and access by local government to other forms of money apart from direct grants (e.g. fees and charges) are seen as important.
• Higher authority governments in most jurisdictions use the financial allocation process as an equalisation tool to effect transfers from wealthy areas to those with a relatively smaller tax base. An exception is New Zealand where there are no such transfers between either Regional or Local Authorities.

• In most jurisdictions local authorities have joined together in voluntary and statutory, collegiate type associations to consider matters of common concern, to represent the sector and to act as a channel of communication with the higher tier(s) of government. Some such associations have developed wider roles in leadership and skills development for members and /or officers.
• The ability of these associations to influence central policy has met with mixed success.
• In many jurisdictions, e.g. Australia, New Zealand and Ireland, Public Service Institutes or Commissions have been created which can take on a multiplicity of roles including
• The protection of the political impartiality of the "civil service"
• Research on Public Service
• Managerial support to constituent elements of the system
• Acting as a shared service to the system.
• Benchmarking service
• Training
• Think tanks

• Where jurisdictions have successfully reformed their system there have been two common elements to the reform.
• A clearly identified need for change, usually a change in governmental arrangements, fiscal imperatives or loss of public confidence in public services
• Strong and committed leadership at political level and from senior public servants.

• Accountable political leadership committed to and focused on the delivery of public services appears to be a prerequisite for successful public administration.
• This was equally true at the organisational level and a number of the authorities visited were recognised as having a clear public service culture wherein the public is at the centre of the organisational arrangements e.g. Ontario. This is evident in how services are organised for the convenience of the citizen rather than the bureaucracy.
• A key element of successful public sector reform is to change the culture of the organisation to ensure all public servants recognised users as central to their raison d’etre and understand their role as the face of government for the citizen.

• In order to improve accountability many jurisdictions had legislative requirements in relation to the transparency of governments to its citizens. This was seen as including transparency in the financial arrangements.
• In some countries, such as Australia and New Zealand, there is significant emphasis on spelling out in a clear understandable way what outcomes and outputs government plans to achieve and on accounting against this in terms of what actually is achieved.
• Public access to the decision making process was seen as important. A variety of experiments in ensuring community engagement in development of service delivery strategies and the decision-making processes of public services are underway, for example in Spain and Germany.
• In some jurisdictions, particularly Catalonia, this has led to the production of good quality comparative information on service delivery and performance.

• Many jurisdictions are moving away from the traditional model where public services are delivered exclusively by the public sector. Public authorities now often see themselves as facilitators either using public money to procure services on behalf of citizens or arranging service provision, which is paid for directly by citizens.
• There were a variety of organisational formats used ranging from traditional forms of public bodies and state owned enterprises, to a range of alternative service delivery organisations – private enterprises, joint ventures and voluntary and community organisations.
• Some of these were driven by the need to break out of the rigidity of practices in regard to human resource deployment referred to in paragraph 12.b but also to maximise the greater freedoms available to the private sector in regard to financial management and acquisition particularly of capital development monies.
• In some authorities joint ventures between the private sector and a public authority has been particularly successful in taking forward ICT development – e.g. in Liverpool, Bremen and Ontario.
• There was evidence of jurisdictions making conscious efforts to ensure horizontal integration of services not only in planning and strategic management tiers but also in delivery processes – i.e. to achieve "joined-up" government.

• All countries visited had E-Government programmes but the progress made to date varies greatly from country to country. Examples of good practice were seen, for example, in Bremen, Ontario and Liverpool. It was not clear exactly what factors had contributed to rapid progress in some countries but strong political commitment was usually present.
• In the countries where E-Government is most successful it is not only used to provide information but also to facilitate on-line transactions. In general, however, the greatest use of on-line transaction processing has been by intermediaries or agents, acting on behalf of citizens, and business rather than the general public.
• Access to the technology to make E-Government work for citizens is an issue in most jurisdictions with different countries taking different approaches to the "digital divide". Some have provided central access points while others have provided subsidies to enable citizens to get on-line. All jurisdictions have recognised that e-government requires a variety of access channels – PCs in the home, digital television, the telephone, public access kiosks, etc. There is no consensus on which channel or mix of channels is best, with, in particular, contrasting views on the success of kiosks.

• There are variations in the protection and legal position of public servants in regard to change management arrangements. Some found the level of rigidity in the system prevents rapid changes in the delivery arrangements.
• As noted in to paragraph 10.c there is a general recognition that public servants need to be deployed in a manner, which meets the requirement of the service to the public rather than the needs of staff.
• Some jurisdictions felt it necessary to implement legislation to reduce the protection afforded to and the rigidity of workforce practices to enable the change to be successful.
• Most jurisdictions maintain a distinction between "civil servants" (who work for Ministers) and public servants.