It was noted at this national roundtable discussion that, according to the two most well-known systems for measuring the level of economic freedom existing in a country, the extent to which public authorities function well is a fundamental indicator of the same. Similarly, it is widely acknowledged that in countries where the functioning of the public administration meets the expectations of citizens, people can even be amenable to a high level of taxation.
Regrettably, the overall performance of Italian public authorities appears, however, to fall far short of the expectations of the general public and businesses. On the one hand, the incomplete implementation of reforms introduced by legislation passed in the 1990s, and, on the other, the profound contradictions that characterize the model of federalism outlined in the changes to Title V of the Italian Constitution (sanctioned by parliament more than ten years ago), would seem to be at the heart of the unquestionably worrying shape in which the Italian state apparatus finds itself today, both at national and local levels.
Indeed, the confusion and vagueness of the legal underpinnings of the federal state have led to a crippling series of jurisdictional disputes between the various levels of government. The inadequate and incomplete implementation of the public-sector reforms of the late twentieth century, which were aimed at creating a formal separation between party political influences and the workings of the public administration, has instead led to a disconnect between political leaders tasked with policy-making and senior administrators responsible for putting policies into effect.
The participants emphasized that the consequences of all this are serious and primarily reflected in the pace and quality of decision-making, in which far more attention is paid to formal considerations than to identifying the most effective solutions. This latter point was seen as attesting to the failure to introduce mechanisms for measuring, evaluating and monitoring administrative action and its impact.
It was suggested that the list of problems to be addressed remains extensive, with organizational models frequently obsolete, many working processes essentially pre-Taylorist in mold, procedures for staff recruitment outdated, and those for appointment to various posts often arbitrary. More generally, the human resource management tools utilized appear to be entirely inadequate. In this regard, the participants felt it would be worthwhile considering the establishment of a single recruitment system for public employees, who should be deployed appropriately according to need, capabilities and experience.
Also noted was the fact that the average age of public-sector staff has risen considerably in recent years due to repeated hiring freezes aimed at containing costs. The lower degree of familiarity with IT tools of older employees significantly limits the spread of their use, even though in many cases (as in e-mail, certified e-mail, digital signatures, and so on) such use is now prescribed by law. This was pointed to as going some way towards explaining the inadequate impact achieved by the roll-out of e-government services.
Under these circumstances, it would seem difficult to expect the public administration to serve as a modernizing factor for the country, and be capable of increasing the competitiveness of the national production system, as is the case, for instance, in Germany. The consensus view was that, realistically, it would be more appropriate to say that the vast majority of Italian public authorities are currently able to carry out only basic functions. It was conceded, however, that there are isolated cases that are notable for their efficiency and quality of output, but these were felt to be far and few between.
It is likewise logical that external factors have also shaped the performance of the public administration, the most powerful of which being an array of encircling vested interests. Added to this is the disinterest shown by political leaders in the fitness for purpose of administrative tools – despite their being essential for government action at all levels – and, to complete matters, in the poor standard of legislation, which all too often is obscure, intrudes on the rights of citizens, and is a source of complications and disputes. In this regard, it was seen as crucial and imperative that there be a decided increase in legislative impact assessments, which are currently altogether lacking.
The participants were at pains to stress that the failed implementation of reforms does not seem to be due to any dearth in available information on public authorities, at least not as regards “macro-data“. Rather, a shortage exists in the kind of “micro-data“ required to carry out an in-depth analysis of authorities, their workloads and their output. Such information would make it possible to identify those institutions that could serve as examples of best practice, thus enabling resulting reform implementation efforts to be much more finely honed. The absence of such data was ascribed in large part to the previously-cited lack of tools for measuring and evaluating performance.
In order to try and overcome this alarming state of affairs, the participants highlighted the need in particular for a marked change in approach. Emphasis was placed on the impossibility of resolving the complex situations typical of the present day if not through decision-making that fully takes into account this complexity. Calls were accordingly made for the introduction of a new set of rules based on an assessment of comparative advantages, to be accompanied by a coherent reform of the public oversight system.