The participants at this National Roundtable viewed as telling that in the nigh-on seventy-year history of the Italian Republic, there have been several instances of eminent figures such as Guido Carli expressing grave concerns regarding the state of the country’s public administration. Today, after a protracted period characterized by a lack of continuity in the political and governmental helmsmanship of the state apparatus, the prevailing sense is that of an institutional and procedural milieu bereft of political leadership. The net result is that easy decisions are taken, while others, for the most part, are put on the back burner.
This situation was seen as giving rise to a need for a comprehensive and far-reaching process of reform, but one that does not end up yet again manifesting as a succession of so-called leggi-provvedimento (laws adopted by Parliament in the form of a statute but with the effect of administrative measures aimed at only specifically-identified groups or parties rather than the population at large). In particular, it was noted that the scope of the application of such measures is quickly exhausted, all-too-soon necessitating further parliamentary intervention, and thereby culminating in a sort of endless and ineffective legislative “tailspin”. The participants thus called for legislative efforts to be guided by a depth of vision that seeks first and foremost to address the functional roots of the issues at hand, in accordance with a predetermined timetable, and which above all accompanies reforms with ongoing monitoring and evaluation of the effects produced by the measures taken, so as to be able to make any necessary corrections. Those in attendance stressed that it is an illusion to think of reforms as capable of being carried out in one fell swoop; the requisite timeframes are necessarily long, and, at least as regards certain matters, will exceed the life of any single parliament.
In this regard, it was felt that the government has pursued an appropriate strategy, first declaring its objectives, then consulting widely to solicit ideas and points of view, and subsequently launching a legislative package in two stages: (i) a decreto-legge (an emergency decree issued by the government without the approval of parliament) now converted into law and already in force, and (ii) a draft enabling act, currently being considered by parliament. The latter bill is – as is warranted by the situation – very comprehensive, though its ultimate benefits are unlikely to come to full fruition in the short term. For this reason, many participants speculated that some of the more urgent provisions it contains (such as those which limit administrative powers of self-review) could be hived off into another emergency legislative measure, thereby ensuring their more rapid entry into force.
It was noted that of the measures that have already come into effect, several are steps in the right direction, including those aimed at rejuvenating and facilitating the mobility of the public-sector workforce, concentrating anti-corruption powers, and eliminating pockets of privilege, as well as those abolishing a particular regulatory authority. However, as was largely to be expected given that they emanate from an emergency decree, these measures comprise a motley assortment, intended primarily as a cost-cutting exercise. The participants therefore stressed the need to redouble efforts to bring the draft enabling act into operation so as to address the remaining issues, bearing in mind the constraints imposed by the European Union and the economic crisis, as well as the signals emerging from an intense national debate, and, last but not least, the urgency of getting the entire reform package up and running.
Viewed as most imperative was the forging of a new partnership between the political and administrative spheres. An examination of European institutions readily reveals the strength and expertise of their senior managers, which Italy must position itself to match in terms of accomplishment, specialization and authoritativeness. For this reason, it was deemed crucial to invest heavily in training and to reflect on the single career-track of public-sector managers, which, at least in principle, does not seem to allow the necessary scope for the specialization of managers based on individual strengths and talent.
Turning to consider the various matters to be addressed in the examination of the draft enabling act and the drawing up of the requisite legislative decrees, the discussions immediately focused on issues such as the so-called conferenze dei servizi (special planning hearings involving representatives from the various relevant permit-granting authorities), transparency, publicly-held companies, and the roll-out of e-government services, the latter acknowledged as an area in which Italy has fallen some fifteen years behind. Indeed, in the 1990s, Italy was at the forefront in Europe, now it is struggling. It was suggested that digitalization is essential in order for procedures to be streamlined, for the production, reading and processing of data, and for the use of such data to ensure transparency by permitting citizens to secure direct access to information and knowledge on the actual performance of the “enterprise of state” in which they are stakeholders. Even so, it was felt that digitalization for its own sake does not suffice, and that it should be deployed in the service of transforming the country’s public administration.
Lastly, strong emphasis was placed on the necessity of e-monitoring and evaluation systems to be put in place, thereby enabling the elimination of pockets of inefficiency, and, at the same time, laying the foundations for a non-piecemeal spending review, which, thanks in part to the process mapping thus undertaken, will allow the identification of redundant or unnecessary strands of activity, ensuring that resources are used efficaciously and genuinely channeled towards the fulfillment of those purposes for which they were originally allocated in the budget. To this end too, it was considered vital, on the one hand, for objectives assigned to individual public-sector managers to directly and precisely reflect those envisaged by expenditure laws, and on the other, for performance-linked salary reviews – currently only applicable to managers – to be extended to all public service employees.