public sector trends 2016 - Institute of Public Administration

PUBLIC SECTOR TRENDS 2016

STATE OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE SERIES

DECEMBER 2016

RICHARD BOYLE

RESEARCH PAPER NO 19

AN FORAS RIARACHÁIN

INSTITUTE OF PUBLIC A D M I N I S T R AT I O N

PUBLIC SECTOR TRENDS 2016

STATE OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE SERIES

DECEMBER 2016

RICHARD BOYLE RESEARCH PAPER NO 19



PUBLIC SECTOR TRENDS

TABLE OF CONTENTS Foreword

5

Selected findings

6

1 Introduction 2 The size, cost and inputs of the public sector 3 The quality and efficiency of public adminstration 4 Sectoral performance 5 Trust and confidence in public administration

9 10 23 46 57

Appendix 1 Indicators used to make up the IPA Public Administration Quality indicator

Dr. Richard Boyle is Head of Research, Publishing and Corporate Relations with the Institute of Public Administration. He has written extensively on public service reform and on the evaluation of public services.

Daniel Doyle and Facundo Daniel Mendez provided assistance in researching data sources for some of the charts used in the report. 3

4


FOREWORD This report examines trends in public sector development and is the seventh in our annual series. The intention is to help inform the debate on Ireland’s public sector and public administration, and its role in Irish society. Here we try to bring some evidence to bear on the important debate on the future shape, size and direction of the public sector. Using data gathered from a number of sources, information on the size and cost of the public sector, the quality of public administration, efficiency and performance, and levels of trust and confidence is presented in a simple but rigorous manner. In the State of the Public Service research series, we seek to provide evidence-informed research and commentary on key aspects of contemporary Irish public administration. The authors of these reports bring their considerable expertise and practical knowledge to the topics selected so as to provide evidence, insights and recommendations to support future development. Our aim is that these reports will not only inform, but also challenge current thinking about how the Irish public service performs. It is intended that these short research reports will be of relevance and use not only to public servants, but also to policy makers and the wider public.

Dr Marian O’Sullivan Director General Institute of Public Administration

5

SELECTED FINDINGS The size and cost of the public sector

The quality and efficiency of public administration

• In 2015, at 35 per cent of GDP, Ireland’s public spending as a percentage of GDP is joint lowest of the EU28 along with Lithuania.

• Surveys of business executives show that the quality of Ireland’s public administration is seen as above the European average. Ireland came 5th of the EU28 on this indicator in 2016.

• Average government spending per person was €16,295 in 2015. For the last couple of years’ government expenditure per head has been gradually rising. • Government spending in Ireland is the most centralised in Europe, with just over 90 per spent by central government and under 10 per cent by local government.

• Ireland’s score on an indicator ranking the upholding of traditional public service values such as independence from political interference, reliability and administrative fairness shows Ireland well above the European average.

• In 2016 the numbers employed in the public service rose to over 300,000, the first time it has been over that level since 2010.

• The World Bank produces an annual composite indicator of government effectiveness. In 2014 Ireland ranked 11th of the EU28 against this indicator.

• Just under 1 in 7 people in the workforce work in the public service. This is towards the lower end for European countries.

• A European-wide survey shows the perceived quality of public services is just below the European average. Education is seen as the best public service, and health the worst.

• Spending on public service pay and pensions has grown over the last two years after several years of falling. Spending was at €17.7bn in 2016. • Average weekly earnings in the public sector have remained relatively steady over the last couple of years, with some variations. • 6 ministers retained the same portfolio over the period of the lifetime of the 31st Dáil. Only 3 secretaries general (administrative heads of government departments) were in charge of their department for the whole of this period. • 3 departments had 3 different secretaries general during the 31st Dáil. All other departments had 2 holders of the post of secretary general. • This situation suggests the picture of senior civil servants providing a ‘permanent government’ in contrast to constant political change is something of an over-simplification.

• The ability to access neighbourhood public services is seen to vary according to the service. Postal services come out well, and public transport relatively poorly. • A quality of government survey run by the University of Gothenburg ranked Irish public administration as the most professional and least politicised in Europe. • The same quality of government survey found Irish government officials were relatively impartial in their dealings with the public, but operated in a relatively closed labour market. • Individual use of the internet to obtain information on government services in Ireland is lower than in much of Europe. But individual use of the internet to send filled forms to public bodies in Ireland is higher than in much of Europe. • Business uptake of e-government services is amongst the highest in Europe. • Ireland ranks well with regard to readiness for open data but poorly with regard to impact.

6


Sectoral performance

Trust and confidence in public administration

Education • The 2012 OECD PISA survey shows that Ireland has a higher ranking than the European average in maths, sciences and reading.

• Levels of trust in government and in parliament remain relatively low. But both have improved in recent years and are now at the European average.

• Ireland delivers a reasonable level of educational efficiency when comparing reading and maths performance to spending per student across Europe.

• Trust in regional and local authorities is at the European average and continues to improve overall. • Around half the population tend to trust the public administration in Ireland.

• The opinion of executives that Ireland’s education system meets the needs of a competitive economy remains above the European average.

• While there are positive feelings towards the public service in Ireland, it ranks below the European average on this indicator.

Health • Ireland performs well compared to most European countries with regard to life expectancy at birth and healthy life expectancy at birth.

• Satisfaction with public services varies. Satisfaction with the civil service is quite high. Satisfaction with the education system is amongst the highest in Europe. Satisfaction with the quality of health care is below the European average.

• Ireland has a level of life expectancy roughly as might be expected given the level of expenditure, suggesting reasonable cost-effectiveness.

• The number of complaints received in Ombudsman offices levelled off overall in 2015, with some variations between offices.

• Against a ‘basket’ of outcomes assessed by the Euro Health Consumer Index, Ireland performs slightly above the EU28 average. • Ireland’s hospitals display comparatively high levels of efficiency compared to other European countries with regard to length of stay in hospital.

7

8


1.

INTRODUCTION

There are no clear or agreed definitions for comparative ranking of public administrations. But most people would agree that a number of elements need to be included in any assessment: • The size and cost of the public sector. While size, cost and inputs alone are not the sole or even main determinants of good public administration, nevertheless in terms of value for money in the delivery of public services, keeping check on the size, cost and other inputs of the public sector and public service is an important consideration. • The quality and efficiency of public administration. Public administration includes policy making, policy legislation and management of the public sector. Such dimensions of public administration can often only be measured by subjective indicators of quality which give a sense of how good the public administration is. There is also an onus on public administration to show that services are being provided efficiently. • Sectoral performance. The delivery of social and economic outcomes in an efficient manner is central to an effective public administration. • Trust and confidence in public administration. The general public ultimately must have trust and confidence in the public administration of a country if it is to be effective. In this study we examine indicators for each of these four elements of public administration. Where possible and appropriate, data is included for other European countries, in order to enable comparisons to be made. Also, where data are available, we have provided trend data going back over the last decade. The intention is to provide a snapshot of trends in public administration performance in Ireland, to highlight where we are doing well, what challenges are presented and where improvements need to be made.

(ECB) international comparison of public sector efficiency1, a study by the Netherlands Social and Cultural Planning Office (SCP) of comparative public sector performance2, the World Bank governance indicators project3, the OECD Government at a Glance project5, and an IPA study comparing public administrations5.

A word of caution about data limitations The data presented here needs to be interpreted with great care. First, there is the issue of whether the indicators used to represent public administration provision and quality really captures what public service is about. Indicators, by their nature, only give a partial picture. Second, much of the international comparative data in this report is qualitative data derived from opinion surveys. Some of this survey data comprises small-scale samples of opinion from academics, managers and experts in the business community. The survey data is thus limited both in terms of its overall reliability and the fact that it represents the views of limited sections of the community. Third, the point scores arrived at on some indicators (on a scale from 1–10 for the IMD and WEF data and between –2.5 and +2.5 for the World Bank governance indicators) should not be interpreted too strictly, as there are margins of error associated with these estimates. Fourth, changes over short periods of time should be viewed cautiously. Many of the indicators assessed represent ‘snapshots’ at one particular point in time. Small shifts in annual ranking are not particularly meaningful. In all, when interpreting the findings set out in this paper, these limitations should be borne in mind. In particular, small variations in scores should be interpreted cautiously. These may be no more than random variations to be expected given the data being used. What is of interest is to identify broad patterns and trends emerging from the data.

In a number of charts, as well as showing Ireland’s rating relative to the European Union (EU) averages, the top ranked and bottom ranked country as at the time of the most recent data gathering are included for comparative purposes. In its style and content, the report draws on a number of efforts to benchmark and compare public sector efficiency and performance. These include a European Central Bank Afonso et al (2003) Social Cultural and Planning Office (2004) 3 See http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/index.aspx#home 4 See http://www.oecd.org/governance/govataglance.htm 5 Boyle (2007) 1 2

9

2.

THE SIZE, COST AND INPUTS OF THE PUBLIC SECTOR

Here we present a range of indicators that show the size, cost and other inputs of the public sector and public service.6

6

10

In this study, the public service is defined as the public sector minus the commercial state-sponsored bodies.


Government expenditure as a share of the economy in Ireland is below the EU28 average

FIGURE 1 GENERAL GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE AS SHARE OF GDP Source: Eurostat

80.0

Percentage

70.0

60.0

50.0

40.0

30.0 2007

2008

2009

2010 Ireland

2011 EU28

2012 Finland

2013

2014

2015

Lithuania

• A commonly used indicator of public spending in the economy is expenditure as a percentage of GDP (gross domestic product). In the early to mid-2000s, using this indicator, Ireland had a very small share of public spending compared to most EU countries. • However, from 2008 to 2010, as GDP shrank as a result of the recession, Ireland’s government expenditure as a percentage of GDP increased rapidly. The particularly large increase in 2010 is mostly explained by the impact on government expenditure of specific government support to banks during the financial crisis, in the form of capital injections. • Since 2011, as spending reductions introduced by the government came into effect, expenditure as a percentage of GDP had fallen considerably. In 2015, at 35 per cent of GDP, Ireland’s public spending is joint lowest of the EU28 along with Lithuania.

11

Government expenditure per head of population is gradually rising

FIGURE 2 GENERAL GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE PER HEAD OF POPULATION Source: Eurostat 30000

25000

Euro

20000

15000

10000

5000

0 2007

2008

2009

2010 Ireland

2011 EU28

2012 Bulgaria

2013

2014

2015

Denmark

• Expenditure per head of population grew faster in Ireland than the EU average up to 2010. The effect of government support for the banks is clearly visible on the impact on the figures for 2010. From 2010, general government expenditure per head fell significantly. • For the last couple of years government expenditure per head has been gradually rising, and was at €16,295 per person in 2015. This is back at the level it was in 2007. • Government expenditure per person in Ireland in 2015 was the tenth highest in Europe. Denmark, shown on the chart, is one of the highest spenders on this indicator, while Bulgaria has the lowest level of government expenditure per head of population in the EU7.

Luxembourg has by far the highest level of general government expenditure per head of population, at €38,453 in 2015, but is atypical. Denmark is more representative of countries that have a high level of government spending per head of population.

7

12


Irish government expenditure is very centralised

FIGURE 3 DISTRIBUTION OF GENERAL GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE ACROSS LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT 2014 Source: OECD Government at a Glance 2015 100% 90% 80%

60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10%

an

y

m iu

rm Ge

lg

ai

n Be

d an

Sp

nd

Fi

la

nl

s

ly er Ne

th

k ar

Ita

ce

nd

an

nm De

Fr

en

la Po

g bo m

Sw

ur

ak Lu

xe

ed

ia

ia

ov Sl

ia

tv La

en

ce

y ar

ee

ov Sl

Gr

ng Hu

ic

ug

bl

rt

pu

Cz

ec

h

Po

Re

al

a ni to

rit

Gr

ea

tB

Es

la

ai

nd

n

0%

Ire

Percentage

70%

Central government

State government

Local government

Social security

• The tasks of government are shared between different levels of government. The nature of this share-out varies markedly between countries. • Ireland has the highest share of general government expenditure allocated at national level in the OECD in 2014, with just over 90 per cent of expenditure undertaken by central government. • Centralisation has increased in recent years: central government’s share of expenditure was around 82 per cent in 1987. • At the other extreme, in Denmark only a third of general government expenditure is the responsibility of central government, with local government being responsible for just over 60 per cent.

13

Numbers employed in the public service are continuing to slowly rise after a period of steady decline

FIGURE 4 NUMBERS EMPLOYED IN THE PUBLIC SERVICE Source: Department of Public Expenditure and Reform Databank8 330000

320000

Number employed

310000

300000

290000

280000

270000

260000

250000 2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Public service

•

From its peak in 2008, the total number of people employed in the public service dropped from 320,000 in 2000 to 288,000 in 2013, a drop of 10 per cent.

• The number of people employed in the public service has risen since 2013, but is still well below the level of employment in 2008. • In 2016 the numbers employed rose to over 300,000 (302,000), the first time it has been over that level since 2010.

Figures are for end of year, apart from 2016 which is for Q2. Figures are for full-time equivalents rather than actual numbers of people.

8

14

2016


The health and education sectors account for the vast majority of public service jobs. Local authorities have been hardest hit by cutbacks in numbers

FIGURE 5 PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYMENT BY SECTOR Source: Department of Public Expenditure and Reform Databank9 120000

Numbers employed

100000

80000

60000

40000

20000

0 2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

Health sector

Education sector

Civil Service

Local Authorities

Justice sector

Non-commercial State agencies

2015

2016

Defence sector

• Two out of every three people employed in the public service work in either health or education. In 2016, there were approximately 106,000 people employed in the health sector and 97,000 people employed in the education sector. • Since 2008, numbers employed in the health sector had been falling constantly until 2014, while numbers employed in the education sector have remained relatively stable. • Compared to 2008, employment levels in all sectors bar education has fallen. The biggest drop proportionally has been in local authorities (22 per cent).

9

Figures are for end of year, apart from 2016 which is for Q2

15

While numbers employed in the public service have varied over the last decade, as a proportion of the total workforce they have stayed relatively constant

FIGURE 6 PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYMENT AS PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL EMPLOYMENT Source: Department of Public Expenditure and Reform Databank10, CSO 20

Percentage

15

10

5

0 2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

Public service employment as percentage of total employment

Civil service employment as percentage of total employment

Health employment as percentage of total employment

Local authority employment as percentage of total employment

Education employment as percentage of total employment

• While public service employment grew slightly as a proportion of the labour force in 2009 and 2010, since 2010 its share of the labour force has dropped back again, and has been at approximately 15 per cent in the last four years11. • Over the past decade public service employment has generally remained around 15 to 16 per cent of total employment, and in 2016 is at 15 per cent of the labour force. • Just over 5 per cent of all those in employment in the economy (public and private) are employed in the health sector, and just under 5 per cent in education. Two per cent of those in employment are civil servants, and 1.4 per cent are in local authorities.

Figures are for end of year, apart from 2016 which is for Q2 Much of the public service data provided refers to full-time equivalents rather than actual numbers of people. So public service employment as a percentage of total employment is in reality larger than that reported. The size of the difference is unknown, though Foley (2009, p.86) estimated it at around 1 per cent in 2007.

10 11

16


Employment in government as a percentage of the labour force is towards the lower end of European practice

FIGURE 7 PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYMENT AS A PERCENTAGE OF THE LABOUR FORCE 2013 Source: OECD Government at a Glance 2015 35

30

Percentage

25

20

15

10

5

n ai Sp

rt

ug

al

ly Po

Ita

nd la Ire

ce ee Gr

ce an Fr

lg

iu

m

ia Be

n

en ov

ai rit tB ea

Sl

nd la Gr

Po

ov

ak

ia

a Sl

to

ni

y Es

ar ng

bo m xe Lu

Hu

ur

g

en ed

ia tv La

Sw

De

nm

ar

k

0

• The size of government employment varies significantly amongst European countries, from 32 per cent of the labour force in Denmark to 13 per cent in Spain in 2013. • In Ireland in 2013 employment in general government services accounted for 17.4 per cent of the labour force, towards the lower end of countries surveyed.

17

After a number of years of decline public service employment relative to the total population has slightly increased in the last two years

FIGURE 8 PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYMENT PER 000 POPULATION Source: Department of Public Expenditure and Reform Databank12, CSO. 75

Per 000 population

70

65

60

55

50 2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

Public service employment

• While public service employment levels have been changing, the population has continued to increase. • Public service employment relative to the population was relatively stable at between 70 and 73 public sector employees per 000 population up to 2008, but dropped rapidly from 2008 until 2013 when it was at 62.8 public service employees per 000 population. • The number of public service employees per 000 population rose slightly to 64.7 in 2016.

12 Figures are for end of year, apart from 2016 which is for Q2

18

2013

2014

2015

2016


Expenditure on public service pay and pensions continues to grow after several years of falling

FIGURE 9 PUBLIC SERVICE PAY AND PENSIONS

Source: Department of Public Expenditure and Reform Databank. Separate data on pensions only available from 2011. 20,000,000 18,000,000 16,000,000 14,000,000

Euro (000)

12,000,000 10,000,000 8,000,000 6,000,000 4,000,000 2,000,000 0 2007

2008

2009

2010

2011 Pay

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

Pension

• The public service pay and pension bill reached a peak of €18.7bn in 2008. • From 2008 to 2014, as the cutbacks in numbers and pay introduced by the Government have taken effect, expenditure on public service pay and pensions decreased from its high of €18.7bn to €16.2bn in 2014. • Spending on public service pay and pensions increased in 2015 to €17bn, the first rise since 2008. It further increased to €17.7 billion in 2016. • Pensions account for approximately €2.5bn (14 per cent) of the total pay and pension bill in 2016.

19

Average weekly earnings in the public sector have remained relatively steady since 2014 with some variations

FIGURE 10 PUBLIC SECTOR AVERAGE WEEKLY EARNINGS

Source: CSO. Figures are for Q1 each year. 2016 figures are a preliminary estimate. 1,400.00

1,200.00

1,000.00

Euro

800.00

600.00

400.00

200.00

0.00

Civil service

Defence

Garda Siochana Q1 2014

• These are gross earnings figures before deductions for PRSI, tax and other levies. The CSO note that this is particularly relevant to the public sector since March 2009 when the pension levy was introduced. • Overall, average weekly earnings have remained relatively stable between 2014 and 2016.

20

Q1 2015

Education Q1 2016

Regional bodies

Health


Little change in ministerial positions during the last Dáil term

FIGURE 11 MINISTERS THROUGHOUT THE 31st DÁIL Source: IPA own analysis

Agriculture, Food and the Marine

Coveney

Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht

Humphreys

Deenihan

Children and Youth Affairs

Fitzgerald

Communications, Energy and Natural Resources

Rabbitte

Flanagan

Reilly White

Kenny

Coveney

Shatter

Education and Skills

Quinn

O'Sullivan

Environment, Community and Local Government

Hogan

Kelly

Department

Defence

Finance

Noonan

Foreign Affairs and Trade

Flanagan

Gilmore

Health

Varadkar

Reilly

Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation

Bruton

Justice and Equality

Fitzgerald

Shatter

Public Expenditure and Reform

Howlin

Social Protection

Burton

Taoiseach

Kenny

Transport, Tourism and Sport March 2011

Donohoe

Varadkar March 2012

March 2013

March 2014

March 2015

March 2016

• There was limited change in the composition of the Dáil (Irish parliament) during the term of the government from March 2011 to March 2016. • 6 ministers retained the same portfolio over the period of the lifetime of the government. • 2 departments, Children and Youth Affairs and Defence, has 3 people holding the ministerial position. But in each case the second post holder was only for a short period of time before a further cabinet reshuffle in July 2014.

21

There was a higher turnover amongst secretaries general than ministers in the last Dáil

FIGURE 12 SECRETARIES GENERAL THROUGHOUT THE 31ST DÁIL Source: IPA own analysis

Moran

Agriculture, Food and the Marine

O'Driscoll Hamill

Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht Breslin

Children and Youth Affairs Dunning

Communications, Energy and Natural Resources

Ó Foghlú Tallon

Cardiff

Finance

Department

Quinn

McManus

Environment, Community and Local Government

McCarthy J. Moran

Scanlan

Health

Burgess McLoughlin Murphy

Aylward

Purcell

Waters Watt

Feehily

Office of the Revenue Commissioners

Cody O'Donoghue

Social Protection McCarthy

Fraser

March 2011

Doyle

O'Mahony

Transport, Tourism and Sport March 2012

March 2013

• Only 3 secretaries general (administrative heads of government departments) were in charge of their department for the whole of the term of office of the last government. • 3 departments had 3 different secretaries general during the 31st Dáil. All other departments had 2 holders of the post of secretary general. • This situation suggests the picture of top civil servants providing a ‘permanent government’ in contrast to constant political change is something of an oversimplification.

22

Breslin

Gorman

Public Expenditure and Reform

Taoiseach

D. Moran

Cooney

Foreign Affairs and Trade

Justice and Equality

Griffin

Howard

Defence Education and Skills

Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation

Lynch

March 2014

March 2015

March 2016


3.

THE QUALITY AND EFFICIENCY OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

An indicator of the quality of public administration, based on work undertaken by the Social and Cultural Planning Office (2004) in the Netherlands and taken further by Boyle (2007) is used to assess the quality of public administration. Sixteen indicators derived from both the International Institute for Management Development (IMD) and World Economic Forum (WEF) executive opinion surveys are combined to make up an aggregate public administration quality indicator (see Appendix 1 for details). It is complemented by two subsets of this indicator, one of which shows trends in perception about the application of traditional public service values in public administration, the other showing perceptions of the type of competitive and regulatory regime fostered by public administration. These quality indicators are supplemented by a range of other indicators of aspects of quality and efficiency.

23

The quality of Irish public administration is seen as notably above the European average

FIGURE 13 QUALITY OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION SCORE Source: IPA analysis based on IMD and WEF data

9

8

7

Score out of 10

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

2007

2008

2009

2010 Ireland

2011 EU28

• This quality indicator measures executives’ opinions of the quality of public administration as assessed by a range of indicators covering issues such as effective implementation of government decisions and transparency of decision making (see Appendix 1 for full list). • Ireland’s score on the quality of public administration index has held relatively steady for the last three years, after increasing for a number of years. Ireland came 5th of the EU28 on this indicator in 2016, behind Denmark, Finland, Sweden and the Netherlands.

24

2012 Denmark

2013

2014 Greece

2015

2016


Irish maintenance of traditional public service values is seen as significantly better than the European average

FIGURE 14 TRADITIONAL PUBLIC SERVICE VALUES INDICATOR

Source: IPA analysis based on IMD World Competitiveness Yearbook and WEF Global Competitiveness Report

9

8

7

Score out of 10

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

2007

2008

2009

2010 Ireland

2011 EU28

2012 Finland

2013

2014

2015

2016

Bulgaria

• A sub-set of the quality of public administration indicators can be used to assess what might be termed the ‘traditional’ public service values such as independence from political interference, freedom from bribery and corruption, transparency, reliability and administrative fairness and equity. • Ireland’s ranking on this traditional public service values indicator has generally been well above the EU28 average. Ireland ranked 6th of the EU28 on this indicator in 2016, as it had in 2015. • The Nordic countries of Finland and Denmark score highest on this indicator.

25

Ireland’s public administration is seen as one of the best in Europe in encouraging competition and providing a supportive regulatory environment

FIGURE 15 COMPETITIVENESS AND REGULATION INDICATOR (CRI)

Source: IPA analysis based on IMD World Competitiveness Yearbook and WEF Global Competitiveness Report

8

7

Score out of 10

6

5

4

3

2

1

0 2007

2008

2009 Ireland

2010

2011

EU28

• A sub-set of the quality of public administration indicators can be used to assess issues of competitiveness and regulation. There is an expectation that as part of a quality service, public servants will help ensure a legal and regulatory framework that encourages competition. And that they will scrutinise regulation intensity to ensure it does not become too great a burden on enterprises. • Ireland’s ranking on this competitiveness and regulation indicator is above the European average. In 2016, Ireland ranked second behind Denmark. • Developing a public administration that encourages competition and where regulation is not too great a burden on enterprises is an important goal. But events in the banking sphere at the time of the financial crisis indicate the need for strong regulation. It must be remembered that this ranking is based on executive opinion surveys, where there would generally be an interest in less regulation.

26

2012 Denmark

2013 Italy

2014

2015

2016


In World Bank assessments, Ireland’s government effectiveness score is above the European average

FIGURE 16 WORLD BANK GOVERNMENT EFFECTIVENESS INDICATOR Source: World Bank Worldwide Governance Indicators 2.5

Score out of range -2.5 to 2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0

-0.5 2005

2006

2007

2008 Ireland

2009 EU28

2010 Finland

2011

2012

2013

2014

Romania

• Since 1996 the World Bank has been using a set of governance indicators as part of its work on promoting good governance. The indicators are drawn from 35 separate data sources constructed by 32 different organisations. • The Government Effectiveness indicator aims to measure the quality of public services, the capacity of the civil service and its independence from political pressures, and the quality of policy formulation. On this indicator, Ireland ranked well above the EU28 average up to 2007. • Ireland’s score fell from 2005 to 2009, and Ireland’s government effectiveness indicator dropped to just above the EU28 average in 2009. It stabilised in 2010, and has been generally improving since then, up to the most recent figures in 2014. Finland is the top European scorer on this indicator and Romania the lowest ranked of the EU28.

27

In World Bank assessments, Ireland’s regulatory quality indicator remains well above the European average

FIGURE 17 WORLD BANK REGULATORY QUALITY INDICATOR Source: World Bank Worldwide Governance Indicators 2.0 1.8

Score out of range -2.5 to 2.5

1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0

2005

2006

2007

2008 Ireland

2009 E28

• The Regulatory Quality indicator aims to measure the ability of the government to provide sound policies and regulations that enable and promote private sector development. On this indicator Ireland ranks as well above the European average score. • The impact of the regulatory problems identified in the financial sector in 2009 clearly has had an impact on the indicator, and Ireland dropped from 1st to 7th ranked European country on this indicator by 2013. • Ireland’s ranking improved in 2014, and on these latest figures is now 4th ranked of the EU28, with Finland ranking highest.

28

2010 Finland

2011 Greece

2012

2013

2014


Irish public services are seen as one of the least bureaucratic in Europe by business executives

FIGURE 18 BUREAUCRACY HINDERS BUSINESS ACTIVITY Source: IMD World Competitiveness Yearbook 8

7

Score out of 10

6

5

4

3

2

1

0 2007

2008

2009

2010 Ireland

2011 EU28

2012 Denmark

2013

2014

2015

2016

Greece

• Respondents to the executive opinion survey carried out by IMD for their World Competitiveness Yearbook indicate that compared to most European countries in the EU, bureaucracy in Ireland is seen as less of a hindrance to business activity. Only Denmark and Sweden scored better in 2016. • The Irish score has increased notably since 2010, though has shown a slight drop in the last two years.

29

Perceptions about the effective implementation of government decisions have risen considerably since 2010 but have levelled off in the last two years

FIGURE 19 GOVERNMENT DECISIONS ARE EFFECTIVELY IMPLEMENTED Source: IMD World Competitiveness Yearbook 8

7

Score out of 10

6

5

4

3

2

1

0 2007

2008

2009

2010 Ireland

2011 EU28

• Responses to the executive opinion survey carried out by IMD for their World Competitiveness Yearbook indicate that the perception that government decisions are effectively implemented in Ireland has improved considerably since 2010, after getting worse for a number of years before that. • In the mid-2000s, Ireland’s ranking on this indicator was well above the European average. In 2010 and 2011 the ranking fell below the EU28 average. It is now well above the EU28 average again, with Ireland ranking 4th on this indicator in 2016. Luxembourg scores best on this indicator, followed by Denmark and Germany.

30

2012 Luxemborg

2013

2014 Greece

2015

2016


The perceived quality of public services is just below the European average. Education is perceived as the best public service, and health the worst

FIGURE 20 ACCUMULATED AVERAGE PERCEIVED QUALITY OF SELECTED PUBLIC SERVICES, BY COUNTRY (RANKING IN POINTS) Source: Eurofound 2013 - 3rd European Quality of Life Survey

50

40

30

20

10

Health services

Education system

Long-term care services

UK an ce Cy pr us Sl ov en ia Cz EU ec h Re 27 pu bl ic Ire la nd Es to ni a Li th ua ni a Po rtu ga l Ita ly La tv ia Sl ov ak Hu ia ng ar Po y la nd Ro m an i Gr a ee ce Bu lg ar ia Fr

k

iu m M al Ne ta th er la nd Sw s ed en Ge rm an y Sp ai n

ar

lg

nm

De

Be

g

d

ur

an nl

Fi

bo

m

Lu

xe

Au

st

ria

0

Public transport

Social municipal housing

Childcare services State pension system

• Data is scaled out of a possible 10 in each category, and 70 for the combination of all 7 services examined. Figures are for 2012.

• Ireland is also below the EU average for the perceived quality of public transport, childcare services, and longterm care services.

• Looking at the overall data, we see Ireland ranking 16th of the EU 27 in perceived quality of public services, just below the EU27 average.

• Austria, Luxembourg and Finland hold the top three positions, ranking comparatively highly in all 6 categories.

• Education is Ireland’s best scoring public service, at 6.8 out of 10 points, ranking 10th best of the EU27 countries examined • Ireland is also above the EU average for the perceived quality of social municipal housing and the state pension system. • Health is Ireland’s worst scoring and ranking public service, at 4.9 out of 10 points, coming 22nd of the 27 EU countries examined.

31

The ability to access neighbourhood public services varies according to the service

FIGURE 21 PERCEIVED DIFFICULTIES IN ACCESS TO LOCAL NEIGHBOUTHOOD SERVICES, BY COUNTRY (%) Source: Eurofound 2013 - 3rd European Quality of Life Survey 90 80 70

Percentage

60 50 40 30 20

Recreational or Green area

• Ireland sits in the middle of the pack at 13th for ‘most difficulty in access to local neighbourhood public services’, covering the postal service, recreational/ green areas and public transport, ranking slightly above the EU 27 levels. • With regard to difficulty accessing postal services, Ireland ranks very well, coming in as second least difficult after Lithuania. • Regarding difficulty accessing recreational or green areas Ireland ranks ninth of the twenty-seven EU countries surveyed, with just under 9 per cent of those surveyed saying they have difficulty accessing these facilities. • Looking at public transport however, Ireland is among the worst of all the EU 27 in terms of the percentage who say it is difficult to access. This reflects the dispersed nature of settlement and rural nature of the country outside of the main metropolitan areas.

Public Transport Facilities

ta al

M

l

ce

ga

ee

rtu

Gr

Po

ic

ly Ita

bl

pu

ia ec

h

Re

m iu

en

ov

lg

Cz

Be

Sl

y

ce

an

Fr

s

an

Ge

rm

27

nd

la er

th

ria

EU

nd

st

la

Po

Au

ia

nd

Ire

Ne

Postal Service

32

la

a

ak

ov Sl

n

ni to

Es

ia

Sp

ai

y ar

ar lg

ng

Hu

Bu

k

d an

Fi

nl

ar

ia De

nm

n ai

an

rit

m

Ro

ea

tB

a

ia tv

ni

La

Gr

th

ua

g

en Li

ur

ed

Sw

bo m

Lu

xe

Cy

pr

0

us

10


Ireland’s public administration recruitment and employment conditions are seen as slightly more towards the closed than open end of the spectrum

FIGURE 22 CLOSEDNESS INDEX

Source; Dahlström, Carl, Jan Teorell, Stefan Dahlberg, Felix Hartmann, Annika Lindberg and Marina Nistotskaya. 2015. The QoG Expert Survey Dataset II. University of Gothenburg: The Quality of Government Institute. 7

6

4

3

2

ic

Re

pu

bl

ia

en ed

Sw

h ec Cz

La

tv

d

k

an

Fi

nl

ar

m

nm

De

ng

do

a ite

d

Ki

ia

ni to

ak

ov

Un

Sl

Es

y

ds an

ar N

et

he

rl

ia

ng

Hu

nd

ar

lg

Bu

ta

Po

la

ia

al

en

M

Sl

ov

a

al

ni

ug

Po

rt

ia

ua

th Li

nd

an

Ro

m

ce

la Ire

ai

ee

Gr

y an

Sp

ria

rm

st

Au

Ge

ly

tia

oa

Cr

m

Ita

iu

an

Be

lg

ce

0

n

1

Fr

Rating Scale

5

• The Quality of Government Expert Survey, run by the University of Gothenburg, provides a qualitative assessment of the organisational design of public bureaucracies and bureaucratic behaviour across countries. It is based on the subjective assessments of carefully selected country experts. The survey was carried out in 2014. • The closedness index measures the extent to which the public sector labour market is a special case of the country’s general labour market conditions, i.e. the recruitment and employment conditions are more restrictive than those typically seen in the private sector. Higher values represent a more ‘closed’ public administration. • Ireland is assessed as towards the more ‘closed’ end of the spectrum of the EU countries surveyed.

33

Irish public officials are seen as relatively impartial in their dealings with citizens

FIGURE 23 IMPARTIALITY INDEX


6

5

Rating Scale

4

3

2

• The impartiality index assesses the extent that when implementing policies, public sector employees do take anything about the citizen/case into consideration that is not stipulated in the policy. Higher values represent a more impartial public administration. • Ireland ranks as more towards showing a reasonably strong tendency towards impartiality on the part of public officials when dealing with citizens.

ia

us pr

Cy

ia

Sl

ov

ak

y

ar

Bu

lg

ce

ar

ng

Hu

ia

ly

ee Gr

Ita

ic

an

bl

m

pu

Re

Ro

al

Cz

ec

h

Cr

oa

tia

n Po

rt

ug

ia

ai

en

ov Sl

Sp

ia

a

• The Quality of Government Expert Survey, run by the University of Gothenburg, provides a qualitative assessment of the organisational design of public bureaucracies and bureaucratic behaviour across countries. It is based on the subjective assessments of carefully selected country experts. The survey was carried out in 2014.

34

tv

La

ni

Es

to

ni

a

m

ua

do

th

ng

Ki

Li

ria

nd la

Po

d Un

ite

nd

st

la

Au

Ire

he

rl

an

ds

y

m

an

rm

d

N

et

Ge

iu

Be

lg

al

an

M

nl

Fi

k

ce

ar

an

Fr

ed

De

Sw

nm

en

0

ta

1


Irish public administration is seen as the most professional and least politicised in Europe

FIGURE 24 PROFESSIONALISM INDEX


6

Rating Scale

5

4

3

2

ia

Sl

ov

ak

y

ia

ar

ar lg

ng

Hu

Bu

ta

tia

Cr

oa

al

al M

ic

ug

rt Po

us

bl

pu

ia

ly

Cz

ec

h

Re

pr

Cy

Ita

ia

ce

an

m

Ro

ee

Gr

ria

en

st

ov

Au

Sl

n

m iu

lg

Be

a

ai Sp

a

ni

Li

th

ua

ni

Es

to

nd

tv

La

d an

la Po

Fi

nl

y

m do

d

Ki

ng

s

an

nd

rm

Ge Un

ite

ce

rla

he

en

an N

et

Fr

k

ed

Sw

ar

nm

De

Ire

la

nd

0

ia

1

• The Quality of Government Expert Survey, run by the University of Gothenburg, provides a qualitative assessment of the organisational design of public bureaucracies and bureaucratic behaviour across countries. It is based on the subjective assessments of carefully selected country experts. The survey was carried out in 2014. • The professionalism index assesses the extent to which the public administration is professional rather than politicised. Higher values indicate a more professionalised public administration. • Ireland is ranked as the most professional and least politicised public administration of the countries examined.

35

Public impressions of civil service efficiency are generally favourable

FIGURE 25 IMPRESSION OF CIVIL SERVICE EFFICIENCY

Source: Ipsos MRBI/Ipsos MORI Veracity Index as published in Irish Civil Service Customer Satisfaction Survey 2015

2005

2009

2015

0%

10%

20%

Very efficient

30% Fairly efficient

40%

• Most members of the public feel that the civil service is efficient. In 2015, 57 per cent viewed the civil service as either very or fairly efficient. The impression of efficiency has remained relatively constant over the survey periods (2005, 2009 and 2015). • Almost 1 in 5 in 2015 feels that the civil service is either very or fairly inefficient. • Recent users of the civil service are much more likely to view the civil service as efficient (66 per cent) than nonusers (49 per cent).

36

50%

No opinion either way

60% Fairly inefficient

70%

80%

Very inefficient

90% Don't know

100%


Ireland’s public administration continues to provide a relatively efficient level of service to business

FIGURE 26 WORLD BANK DOING BUSINESS INDICATORS 2016 Source: World Bank Doing Business indicators 200

Number of days (hours in case of paying taxes)

180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Starting a business

Licensing a warehouse Ireland

• A ‘bottom-up’ approach to assessing efficiency of public administration is taken by the World Bank in some of their Doing Business indicator set, with performance assessed from a service user perspective. • The number of days estimated that it takes an entrepreneur to start a business in Ireland reduced to 5 days in 2016, down from 6 days in 2015, 10 days in 2013 and 13 days for the previous five years. The EU28 average is 10 days, down from 12 days in 2014. In Denmark it takes 3 days, and 37 days in Poland.

Paying taxes

EU28

• The number of hours it takes a medium-sized company to pay tax in a given year is estimated as significantly lower in Ireland, at 82 hours, than it is for the EU28 (176 hours) average. Ireland ranks second in the EU behind Luxembourg (55 hours).

• The number of days to complete all procedures required for a business in the construction industry to build a standardised warehouse was estimated at 149.5 days in 2016. This remains lower than the EU28 average of 169 days. The best performers are Denmark (64 days) and Finland (65 days).

37

Individual use of the internet to obtain information on government services in Ireland is lower than in much of Europe

FIGURE 27 INDIVIDUALS USING THE INTERNET TO OBTAIN INFORMATION ABOUT PUBLIC AUTHORITIES Source: Eurostat 100 90 80 70

Percentage

60 50 40 30 20

• With regard to using the internet to obtain information on public authorities, Ireland fell from 44 per cent in 2014 to 41 per cent in 2015. • Of the 23 EU countries examined, this places Ireland towards the bottom, ranking 16th respectively. • Estonia shows the largest improvement over 2014 numbers, jumping to 71 per cent in 2015 from 48 per cent in 2014. This large rise may be partly explained by Estonia passing a Bill in October 2014 establishing ‘e-residency’. E-residency’ in Estonia gives any person (including non-residents) digital identity to use governmental services online using a digital signature.

38

ly

ic

nd la Po

Ita

n

bl pu

Re h

ec Cz

Gr

ea

tB

rit

ai

y

l

ar

ga

ng Hu

ia en

rtu Po

ce

m

nd la

ov Sl

Ire

ee

iu lg Be

2014

Gr

ia ak

ov

ce

2015

Sl

g

n

an

ai

Fr

Sp

ur

ria

bo

ia tv

y an

st

m

Lu

xe

Au

La

s

en

rm Ge

ed

Sw

nd

a ni Ne

th

er

la

to

ay

Es

d

rw No

ar

an nl

nm De

Fi

0

k

10


Individual use of the internet to send filled forms to public bodies in Ireland is higher than in much of Europe

FIGURE 28 INDIVIDUALS USING THE INTERNET TO SEND FILLED FORMS TO PUBLIC AUTHORITIES Source: Eurostat 80

70

60

40

30

20

ic bl

ly

pu Re

ia

Ita

ak ov

Cz

Gr

ec

h

Sl

y

nd

an

la Po

ia

Ge

rm

y

en

ar ng

ov Sl

Hu

l

ce

ga

ee

Gr

ia

rtu

tv

n

Po

La

ai

Sp

st

Au

ai

n

ria

m ea

tB

rit

iu

bo

Be

lg

ur

g

ce m xe Lu

en

an

ed

Fr

nd

Sw

la

la er th

Ne

Ire

nd

s

ay rw

No

k ar

nl Fi

nm

to

ni De

an

a

0

d

10

Es

Percentage

50

2015

2014

• In regards to using the internet for submitting completed forms, Ireland did not change from 46 per cent between 2014 and 2015. • Ireland remains one of the more active in this area, ranking 6th out of the 23 countries examined. • Estonia shows the largest increase, from 32 per cent in 2014 to 71 per cent in 2015. This large rise may be partly explained by Estonia passing a Bill in October 2014 establishing ‘e-residency’. E-residency’ in Estonia gives any person (including non-residents) digital identity to use governmental services online using a digital signature.

39

Business uptake of e-government services is higher than in most of Europe

FIGURE 29 BUSINESSES USING THE INTERNET TO INTERACT WITH PUBLIC AUTHORITIES 2013 Source: OECD Government at a Glance 2015 100 90 80 70

Percentage

60 50 40 30 20 10

• Government portals that provide a wide range of information and services like the opportunity to fill out and submit administrative forms electronically have changed the way businesses interact with government. • In Ireland in 2014 88 per cent of businesses used the internet to obtain information/forms from public bodies and 95 per cent of businesses have returned a filled form online. This latter figure of 95 per cent is the highest level of all European countries surveyed.

40

y an

ce

ain

rm Ge

Sp

m iu

ee Gr

ly

lg Be

nd

Sending filled forms

Ita

l ga

la Po

Po

rtu

ni

a

s

to Es

y

nd

ar

la er

Ne

th

ria

ng

g

Obtaining information/forms

Hu

st

ur bo

m Lu

xe

Au

ain

a

rit

tB

Gr

ea

ia

tvi

ak

La

ia

ov Sl

nd

en ov

Sl

k ar

la Ire

ce

nm De

ic bl

an Fr

en Cz

ec

h

Re

pu

ed Sw

Fi

nl

an

d

0


Ireland has the highest business take-up of electronic procurement in Europe

FIGURE 30 BUSINESSES USING ELECTRONIC PROCUREMENT SYSTEMS 2013 Source: OECD Government at a Glance 2015 45

40

35

25

20

15

10

5

ly Ita

y

ain Sp

y

ar

m

an

ng

Hu

rm

lg

iu

Ge

Be

s

ce

nd

Gr

la er

Ne

th

ee

ain

g ea

tB

rit

ic

ur Gr

bl

m

xe

Lu

h ec Cz

Access tender documents and specifications

bo

ia

Re

pu

ak

ria

ov Sl

a ni

st

Au

k ar

Es

to

l ga

nm De

nd

rtu Po

en

la Po

ay

ed Sw

d an

rw No

nl Fi

ia

ce

en

an Fr

tvi

a

ov Sl

la

La

nd

0 Ire

Percentage

30

E-tendering (in own country)

• A growing number of businesses use e-procurement systems. E-procurement facilitates access to public tenders and increases competition. It can also reduce costs to government by reducing administrative burdens, shortening procurement contract cycles and raising compliance levels. • Amongst countries surveyed, the use of e-tendering systems was highest in Ireland. • In Ireland, 41 per cent of businesses use e-procurement systems to access tender documents and specifications. 30 per cent of businesses use e-tendering systems.

41

Ireland spends less on public procurement than other European countries

FIGURE 31 GENERAL GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT AS SHARE OF TOTAL GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE 2013 Source: OECD Government at a Glance 2015 25.0

Percentage

20.0

15.0

10.0

5.0

• Ireland has the lowest level of spend on public procurement as a percentage of GDP of the countries surveyed (9 per cent of GDP in 2013). Ireland also spends less on public procurement as a share of total government expenditure than most European countries (22 per cent in 2013).

42

Lu

nd la

ug

al

Ire

rt

n

ce

ai

ee

Gr

ly Ita

Sp

ia

nd

tv La

la Po

Po

xe

m

bo

ur

g

ria

ia en

st Au

ak

ia

ov Sl

ov

ria

• Public procurement refers to the purchase by governments and state-owned enterprises of goods, services and works and represents a significant amount of government expenditure.

Sl

a ni

st

Au

y ar

to Es

m iu

ng Hu

n ai

lg Be

ic bl

rit

tB

ea

Gr

ec

h

De

Re

pu

nm

ar

an

k

y

ce an

rm

Ge

Fr

en

d

ed Sw

an nl Fi

Cz

N

et

he

rla

nd

s

0.0


Ireland spends less on outsourcing as a share of GDP than most European countries

FIGURE 32 EXPENDITURE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT OUTSOURCING AS A PERCENTAGE OF GDP 2014 Source: OECD Government at a Glance 2015 18.0 16.0 14.0

Percentage

12.0 10.0 8.0 6.0 4.0 2.0

Goods and services financed by government

ia

ce ee

nd

tv

Gr

La

la

ga

d

l

Ire

tu

n

an

Po r

Po l

ly

ai Sp

Ita

d

rm

nl

an

Ge

Fi

an y Sw ed en Be lg iu Gr m ea tB rit ai n Fr an ce De nm Cz ar ec k h Re pu bl ic Au st ria Sl ov ak ia Hu ng ar y Sl ov en Lu ia xe m bo ur g Es to ni a

N

et

he

rl

an

ds

0.0

Goods and services used by government

• Governments use a mix of their own employees, capital and outside contractors to produce goods and services. Outsourcing can take place in two ways. Governments can either purchase goods and services to be used as inputs, or they can pay a non-profit or private entity to provide the goods and services directly to the end user. • In 2014 in Ireland outsourcing represented just over 7 per cent of GDP. This is towards the lower end of European practice. In the Netherlands, the equivalent figure is 17 per cent of GDP. • Ireland dedicated the largest share of their expenditure on outsourcing to purchasing goods and services (4.7 per cent), and a smaller share (2.7 per cent) to outsourcing goods and services through direct third party provision.

43

Open data initiatives in Ireland score less well than many other European countries

FIGURE 33 OPEN,USEFUL, REUSABLE GOVERNMENT DATA INDEX 2014 Source: OECD Government at a Glance 2015 1.00 0.90 0.80

Index score

0.70 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10

• By making the data collected and produced available, easily accessible and re-usable by citizens and businesses, governments can improve accountability and transparency, create new business opportunities and better inform both citizen engagement and their own decision-making. • The OECD has created a pilot index on open government data to assess governments’ efforts to implement open data in three dimensions: (1) data availability on the national portal; (2) data accessibility on the national portal; and (3) governments’ support to innovative reuse and stakeholder engagement. • On this OECD composite index, government open data efforts were less extensive than many other European countries.

44

nd la Po

en ed

ia ak ov

la

Sw

s Sl

nd

a ni

er

Es

to

th Ne

ly Ita

ia

nd la Ire

ov

en

k Sl

ar nm De

lg

iu

m

y Be

an rm

st

ce

ria

Ge

Au

ee Gr

an

d

l

nl Fi

n

ga rtu Po

ai Sp

rit tB Gr

ea

Fr

an

ai

n

ce

0.00


Ireland ranks well with regard to readiness for open data but poorly with regard to impact

FIGURE 34 2015 OPEN DATA BAROMETER RANKING ON READINESS, IMPLEMENTATION AND IMPACT Source: World Wide Web Open Data Barometer Global Report, 2015 100 90 80

OBD Scaled

70 60 50 40 30 20 10

Implementation

y ar

ic

ng

bl pu

Hu

ce ak

Re

nd la

l ga

ee Gr

Po

rtu

nd Ire

la

bl pu Re

h

ov

ec

Sl

Cz

Readiness

Po

ic

a ni to

m iu lg

Es

ly Be

Ita

ay

ria

rw No

y

n ai

st Au

Sp

an

d

en

an

rm Ge

nl Fi

s nd

ed Sw

k

la er

Ne

th

nm

ar

ce De

an Fr

UK

0

Impact

• Information for the rankings is based on surveys and data collected in 2014. Readiness refers to readiness to secure benefits from open data, including the legal, political, economic, social, organisational, and technical foundations that can support the supply and use of open data. Implementation is measured through the availability of data published by government across 15 categories, and the adoption for those datasets of the common practices set out in the Open Definition and the Open Government Data Principles. Impact is measured through media and academic mentions of cases of open data use and impact. • Ireland ranked 15th overall, in the bottom half of the countries examined. • Ireland scores well in the readiness category, ranking as 6th overall and well above the average. Ireland is middle ranked with regard to implementation. The lowest ranking is with regard to impact, where Ireland receives the lowest ranking of the countries examined.

45

4.

SECTORAL PERFORMANCE

Ultimately, the provision of public administration is intended to achieve social outcomes in sectors such as health, education, law and order and transport. As such it is important that any review of public administration looks at sectoral outcomes. In this report, some high-level education and health indicators are included, given that these areas are the largest areas of public expenditure. In the education system, high-level outcome indicators that assess performance in reading, maths and science give an overview of performance. Evidence is taken from the OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) survey. PISA is an internationally standardised assessment administered to 15-year olds in schools. Tests are typically administered to between 4,500 and 10,000 students in each country. In the health sector, high-level outcome indicators in areas such as life expectancy and healthy life expectancy, and other indicators such as length of stay in hospitals, give a sense of performance at the macro level. These are commonly used indicators in international rankings of health and education systems.

46


Ireland’s educational attainment scores compare well to the European average13

FIGURE 35 PISA EDUCATIONAL ASSESSMENT SCORES 2012 Source: OECD PISA survey 530

520

PISA score

510

500

490

480

470

Maths

Sciences Ireland

Reading EU28

• The OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) survey is an internationally standardised assessment administered to 15-year olds in schools. Tests are typically administered to between 4,500 and 10,000 students in each country. • The 2012 PISA survey shows that Ireland has a higher ranking than the European average in maths, sciences and reading. The Netherlands ranks highest in maths, and Finland is the highest ranked European country in sciences and reading. • From 2009, when the previous PISA survey was conducted, Ireland’s score and ranking has improved. The most notable improvement was in maths: Ireland was ranked 8th of the EU28 in maths in 2009, compared with 16th in 2006.

13

This is based on the OECD PISA 2012 results. The results of the 2015 survey become available in December 2016, too late for this report’s publication date.

47

Ireland delivers an above average level of educational efficiency when comparing reading performance to spending per student across Europe

FIGURE 36 PISA READING SCORE AND SPENDING PER STUDENT Source: OECD Education Statistics 540 530

Finland Ireland

Poland

520

Estonia Germany France

2012 PISA reading score

510

Netherlands Belgium

500

UK

490 Hungary

Czech Republic Italy Spain Portugal Slovenia

480

Denmark

Austria Luxembourg

Sweden

470 Slovak Republic

460 450 440

0

50 000

100 000 2013 cumulative expenditure per student (USD PPP)

• The OECD (2013) note that educational attainments of individuals, as measured by the PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) score can be seen as an indicator of output of human capital production. When compared to the national cumulative expenditure per student (the educational input), the results can offer an insight into which systems are able to deliver more efficient services. • Finland achieves a high performance score for reading but only spends around the European average. Ireland is close to Finland with spending close to the European average but with a high performance score, showing a good level of efficiency.

48

150 000

200 000


Ireland delivers an average level of efficiency when comparing maths performance to spending per student across Europe

FIGURE 37 PISA MATHS SCORE AND SPENDING PER STUDENT Source: OECD Education Statistics 530.00

Netherlands

Estonia Poland

520.00

Finland Belgium Germany

2012 PISA mathematics score

510.00

Austria Slovenia

Ireland

500.00

Denmark France Czech Republic

490.00

Portugal Slovak Republic

480.00

Spain

UK Luxembourg

Italy Sweden

Hungary 470.00

460.00

0

50 000

100 000 2013 cumulative expenditure per student (USD PPP)

150 000

200 000

• Finland, the Netherlands, Estonia and Poland have particularly good maths scores compared to spending, suggesting the delivery of efficient services. • Ireland spends around the European average and get results that are similarly around the average, that is, performance is in line with what might be expected given the resources put in, showing an average level of efficiency.

49

Ireland’s competitive advantage in the perception of its education system by executives remains above the European average

FIGURE 38 THE EDUCATION SYSTEM MEETS THE NEEDS OF A COMPETITIVE ECONOMY Source: IMD World Competitiveness Yearbook 10 9 8

Score out of 10

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 2007

2008

2009

2010 Ireland

2011 EU28

• Executive opinion about the role of the educational system in meeting the needs of a competitive economy is one (though only one) qualitative indicator of how well the education system is functioning. • From 2005 to 2010 the Irish education system was seen by those executives completing the survey as better than the European average in meeting the needs of a competitive economy. However, the gap was closing. • From 2010, the opinion of executives that Ireland’s education system meets the needs of a competitive economy has improved overall. Ireland ranked fifth European country on this indicator in 2016.

50

2012 Finland

2013 Bulgaria

2014

2015

2016


Life expectancy at birth is towards the higher end in European terms

FIGURE 39 LIFE EXPECTANCY AT BIRTH 2015 Source: WHO 84

82

80

76

74

72

a

ia Li

th

ua

ni

ia tv

ar lg

La

Bu

y

ia an

Ro

m

ic

ar

Hu

ng

nd

bl

Re

pu

a

la

Po

ak ov Sl

tia

ni

to

Es

ic bl

oa

pu

Re

Cr

k

us pr

Cy

h ec Cz

ia

ar

en

nm

ov

Sl

De

y

ce ee

Gr

m

an

iu

lg

rm

Ge

d

al ug

rt

Po

Be

m

an nl

Fi

nd

do

la

ng

Ire

Ki

d Un

ite

ta

ria

al

st

M

Au

g

ds an

ur

rl

bo

he

m

et N

ce

en

ed Lu

xe

an

Fr

Sw

ai n Ita ly

70

Sp

Age

78

• Life expectancy at birth in Ireland in 2015 was 81 years. The range in EU countries is from 83 years in Spain, down to 74 years in Lithuania. • Ireland ranked 9th of the EU 28 in 2015.

51

In terms of healthy life expectancy at birth Ireland ranks reasonably well in Europe

FIGURE 40 HEALTHY LIFE EXPECTANCY AT BIRTH Source: WHO 74

72

70

Age

68

66

64

62

an y nm ar k Be lg iu Sl m ov en ia Cz F ec inl an h Re d pu bl ic Cr oa ti Es a to ni a Sl ov Po ak la n Re d pu b Hu lic ng ar y La tv Ro ia m an Bu ia lg a Li ria th ua ni a

rm

Ge

De

al

us

pr

Cy

m

ug

do

rt

ng

Po

ta

nd la

Ire Un

ite

d

Ki

g

al M

ur

ce

Lu

xe

m

bo

ria

ee

Gr

st Au

Sw

ed

en

ds an

n N

et

he

rl

ce

ai

Sp

an Fr

Ita

ly

60

• Healthy life expectancy represents the average number of years that a person can expect to live in ‘full health’ by taking into account years lived in less than full health due to disease and/or injury. • Ireland scores 10th best in Europe in 2013 in terms of healthy life expectancy at birth, at 71.5 years.

52


Cost-effectiveness of heath expenditure is at a reasonable level

FIGURE 41 LIFE EXPECTANCY AT BIRTH AND TOTAL EXPENDITURE ON HEALTH CARE PER CAPITA (2015 OR NEAREST YEAR) Source: OECD Health Statistics 2016 84 Spain Italy

Life expenctancy at birth (in years)

83

France Luxembourg

82

Austria Portugal Slovenia

Greece

81

UK Finland

Sweden Netherlands Ireland

Belgium

Germany Denmark

80 79

Czech Republic

78 Estonia Poland

77

Slovak Republic

76 75 1 000

Hungary

1 500

2 000

2 500

3 000 3 500 4 000 4 500 Total current expenditure on health per capita (USD PPP)

5 000

5 500

6 000

• In order to assess the cost-effectiveness of health services, OECD data allows comparison of improvements in life expectancy to total health expenditure per capita in countries. They note, however, that conclusions should be drawn with care, as many other factors beyond total health spending have a major impact on life expectancy and total health expenditure comprises both public and private expenditures. • Overall, there is a positive relationship between total health expenditure per capita and life expectancy. Italy and Spain stand out as having relatively high life expectancy relative to their expenditure. • Ireland has a level of life expectancy just a little below what might be expected given the level of expenditure, suggesting cost-effectiveness is neither particularly good nor particularly bad.

53

Ireland ranks slightly above the EU28 average in achieving consumer health outcomes

FIGURE 42 EUROPEAN HEALTH CONSUMER OUTCOMES INDEX Source: Euro Health Consumer Index 2015, 2014 250

200

Score

150

100

50

La tv i Po a la Sl nd ov a Li kia th ua ni a M al t Bu a lg a H ria un ga Ro ry m an ia

ce

tia

Cr

oa

ic

ee

Gr

us

bl

h

Re

pu

ly

Cy

Ki

ec

d

2015

pr

m

Ita

a

do

ng

ria

ni

st

to

Cz

Un

Au

Es

ite

n

al ug

rt

Po

m

ai Sp

iu

Be

lg

d

ia en

ov

Sl

k

ce

an

el

Ir

an

Fr

g

ar

ur

nm

bo

De

m

Lu

xe

Sw

ed

en

d

y

an

Fi

nl

an

rm

rl he et N

Ge

an

ds

0

2014

• The Euro Health Consumer Index 2015 (Health Consumer Powerhouse, 2016) includes a composite ‘basket’ measure of a sub-set of indicators focused on health outcomes14. The higher the score on this index, the better the outcomes. • Ireland ranks just above the EU28 average on this health outcomes index. The Netherlands, Germany, Finland and Sweden achieve the top three rankings. Most countries slightly improved their scores on the index between 2014 and 2015.

14

54

The outcomes measured in 2015 are: decrease of cvd deaths; decrease of stroke deaths; infant deaths; cancer survival; preventable years of life lost; MRSA infections; abortion rates; and depression.


Ireland’s hospitals display comparatively high levels of efficiency with regard to length of stay

FIGURE 43 AVERAGE LENGTH OF STAY IN HOSPITAL FOR ALL CONDITIONS Source: OECD Government at a Glance 2015 14

12

10

Days

8

6

4

2

k ar

s nd la

nm

De

ce

nd la

er

Ne

th

Ire

en

Fr an

m

ain

Sw ed

Sp

iu lg

ain

Be

ce

rit

Gr

ea

tB

d an

Gr ee

Po l

ly

ak ia Sl ov en ia

ov

Ita

2012

Sl

a

ia Es to n

st ri

ur g bo

xe m

2002

Lu

Au

l ga

y an

tu Po r

y

rm

ar

Ge

Re h ec

Cz

ng

bl pu

nl Fi

Hu

an

ic

d

0

• Average length of stay in hospitals is a commonly used indicator of efficiency in the health system. All other things being equal, a shorter stay is associated with reduced costs. However, shorter stays do tend to be more service intensive and more costly per day. And too short a length of stay may cause adverse health effects. • On a comparative basis, Ireland shows a low level of length of stay in hospitals (5.6 days in 2012), suggesting a relatively high level of efficiency. • In most countries, including Ireland, length of stay has reduced from 2002.

55

Case fatality rates for heart attack victims decreased by almost a third between 2006 and 2011

FIGURE 44 HOSPITAL ADMISSION BASED CASE-FATALITY RATES IN ADULTS OVER 45 ADMITTED WITH A HEART ATTACK Source: OECD Government at a Glance 2015

Age-sex standardised rates per 100 admissions

20

15

10

5

• Case-fatality rates in Ireland fell by almost 30 per cent between 2006 and 2011. Ireland is close to the European average.

y

y

ar ng Hu

g

an rm Ge

ur bo m

xe Lu

l

ain Sp

ga rtu

m do ng Ki

d

Po

ria st ite Un

ic Re

ak ov Sl

• Case-fatality rates for people admitted to hospital following an acute myocardial infarction (heart attack) have significantly decreased between 2006 and 2011.

2011

Au

lg

pu

iu

bl

m

d

2006

56

Be

nl

an

s Fi

nd la er

ic

nd la

th Ne

Ire

bl pu

Cz

ec

h

Re

ly

ce an Fr

Ita

nd la Po

en ed Sw

De

nm

ar

k

0


5.

TRUST AND CONFIDENCE IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

Twice a year Eurobarometer measures the level of public confidence in the national government and the national parliament. National government is not defined, and the extent to which it covers both political and administrative elements of government is unclear. But it is likely to primarily reflect levels of trust in the political parties in power at the time of the survey. Periodic surveys of trust in regional and local authorities and in different sectoral workforces by Eurobarometer are also examined, as are levels of satisfaction and confidence with police, education, health care and the justice system. Complaints to Ombudsman’s offices are tracked as an indicator of confidence in public services.

57

Trust in government remains low but continues to grow slightly and is now at the European average

FIGURE 45 LEVEL OF TRUST IN GOVERNMENT Source: Eurobarometer 80%

Percentage who tend to trust the government

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

• The level of public trust in government in Ireland tended to be around the EU average from 2001 to 2008. • However, there was a dramatic fall in the level of trust in government in Ireland from 2008 to 2010. Trust in government in the rest of Europe also fell, but only slightly. In autumn 2010, Ireland expressed the lowest level of trust in government of any of the EU27 (10 per cent). • In spring 2011, the level of public trust increased significantly to 42 per cent expressing trust in the Irish government, reflecting the election of a new government. This fell back to 22 per cent by autumn 2011.

58

16

rin

n

g

20 Sp

m

20

15

15 20 tu Au

rin

g

20 Sp

m

n

g

tu Au

Sp

14

14 20

13

rin

n m tu Au

Sp

rin

g

20

20

20

Malta

13

12

12 n m tu Au

Sp

rin

g

20

EU28

20

11

11 Au

tu

m

n

g

20 n

rin Sp

m tu Au

Ireland

20

10

10 g

20

rin Sp

n

20

09

09 m tu Au

rin

n

g

20 Sp

m tu Au

20

08

08 20 g

rin Sp

n m tu Au

Sp

rin

g

20

20

07

07

0%

Greece

• Trust in government has slowly increased since 2013, and 28 per cent of those surveyed in spring 2016 said they tended to trust the government. While quite low, this figure is just above the European average of 27 per cent. • Finland dropped greatly from 60 to 41 per cent in the single year period from spring 2015 to 2016.


Trust in parliament remains relatively low but continues to improve and is at the European average

FIGURE 46 LEVEL OF TRUST IN NATIONAL PARLIAMENT Source: Eurobarometer

Percentage who tend to trust the national parliament

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

EU28

16 20

15

g rin

n

g

m tu Au

rin Sp

Sp

20

20

15

14 20

14

n

20 g

m tu

20

rin Sp

Au

13

13 n m tu Au

rin

g

20 Sp

n m

Sweden

20

12

12 20 tu Au

Sp

rin

g

n m tu Au

Sp

rin

g

20

20

11

11

10 20

10

n

20

m tu

g

Ireland

Au

20

rin Sp

m

n

g

tu Au

rin Sp

09

09 20

08 20

08

n m

g

20 tu Au

n

rin Sp

m tu Au

Sp

rin

g

20

20

07

07

0%

Greece

• Irish trust in parliament was around the EU average until 2008. From 2008 to 2010, as with trust in government, trust in parliament dropped rapidly both in absolute terms and compared to the European average. • In spring 2011, the positive perception brought about by the election of a new government led to the proportion of respondents who expressed trust in the Irish parliament being back above the EU average, at 39 per cent. The level of trust subsequently fell again. • Trust in parliament in Ireland has gradually increased since 2012 and stood at 29 per cent in spring 2016, just above the European average of 28 per cent. • The Nordic countries of Sweden, Denmark and Finland display the highest levels of trust in their national parliaments.

59

Trust in regional and local authorities is at the European average and continues to improve overall

FIGURE 47 LEVEL OF TRUST IN REGIONAL OR LOCAL PUBLIC AUTHORITIES Source: Eurobarometer

Percentage who tend to trust regional or local public authorities

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

• The level of trust in regional and local authorities in Ireland was at 26 per cent in 2011, down from 40 per cent in 2008. It has increase since then, and stood at 46 per cent tending to trust regional and local authorities in spring 2016. • After exhibiting one of the lower levels of trust in the EU in 2011, the level of trust expressed is now back close to the EU28 average, which is 47 per cent.

60

Luxembourg

Italy

16 rin Sp

n m tu Au

g

20

20

15

15 Sp

Au

tu

m

rin

n

g

20

20

14

14 20 rin Sp

n m tu Au

EU28

g

20

20 Sp

rin

g

n m tu Au

Ireland

13

13

12 20

12 20 g rin Sp

n m tu Au

Sp

rin

g

20

20

11

10

0


Around half the population tend to trust the public administration in Ireland

FIGURE 48 TEND TO TRUST – PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION – SPRING 2016 Source: Eurobarometer 90% 80% 70%

Percentage

60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10%

ly

ce ee

Ita

Gr

m xe Lu

De

bo ur g nm ar k Au st ria Fi nl an Sw d ed en Fr an Ge ce rm an y Un ite M al d t Ki ng a do m E Ne sto n th er ia la nd s Be lg iu m Cz I ec rela h n d Re pu bl i c Hu ng ar y Av er ag e Sl ov ak ia Li th ua ni a Po la nd Po rtu ga l Sp ai n Sl ov en ia Cy pr us Ro m an ia La tv i a Bu lg ar i Cr a oa tia

0%

• With regard to trust in public administration, Ireland sits 6 points above the EU28 average at 51 per cent. • Luxembourg ranks the highest in this category, with a score of 77 per cent. Greece is the lowest ranking country with a score of 20 per cent, 3 points behind the second lowest, Italy.

61

While there are positive feelings towards the public service in Ireland, it ranks below the European average

FIGURE 49 TOTAL POSITIVE FEELINGS TOWARDS – PUBLIC SERVICE Source: Eurobarometer 100% 90% 80%

Percentage

70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10%

• Finland overtake Luxembourg in the same period for the top spot. Greece drop to the bottom of the rankings after a 10-point loss from autumn 2015

ic

ce

Gr

ee

ly

bl

Ita

Re h ec

• This is following a 2 points drop from Autumn 2015, while the EU28 average has remained the same.

Autumn 2015

pu

us

ia

tia

oa

Cr

pr

an m

Cy

l

ia Ro

ga

ak

ov

rtu

Po

Sl

y

ia ar

lg

Bu

m

ar

iu

lg

ng

Hu

Be

ia

nd la

Ire

nd

en

la

ov

Po

Cz Spring 2016

• While 62 per cent say they have a positive feeling towards the public service, Ireland ranks in the lower half of these rankings, 3 points below the EU28 average, in spring 2016.

62

Sl

y ag e er

Av

ta

an

Ge

rm

ce

al

M

an

Fr

k

ria

ar

st

nm

Au

a

m De

ni

do

ua

ng

th

Ki

Li

d Un

ite

n

ia tv

La

s

Sp

ai

a

en

nd la

er th

Ne

g

ni

to

Es

ed

Sw

ur

an nl Fi

Lu

xe

m

bo

d

0%


Ireland ranks slightly above the European average with regard to trust in the justice/legal system

FIGURE 50 TEND TO TRUST – JUSTICE/LEGAL SYSTEM Source: Eurobarometer 100% 90% 80%

Percentage

70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10%

ia

ia

en

ov Sl

tia

ar

lg

oa

Bu

Cr

Sl

ov

ak

ia

ia

ly

an

Ita

m Ro

a

us

Cy

pr

n

ni

ai

ua

Sp

th

Li

ta

nd

al

la

M

Cz

ec

Po

l

ia

ga

tv

rtu

Po

La

y

ic

ar

bl

ng

pu

h

Re

Hu

e

ce ee

Gr

m

ag

er

Av

ce

iu

lg

an

Be

Fr

y

nd la

Ire

a

an

rm

Ge

g

ni to

Es

m

ur

do

bo

ng

m

xe

Lu

s

ria st

Au

Ki

d Un

ite

en

nd

la

ed

er

Sw

Ne

th

d an

nl Fi

De

nm

ar

k

0%

Spring 2016

Spring 2015

• Ireland, with trust in the justice/legal system at 56 per cent, ranks 7 points above the EU28 average of 49 per cent in this category, despite dropping 2 points over the year. • Denmark drops 3 points, while Finland rises 2 points, tying both countries for the number one spot at 84 per cent each. Slovenia drops 6 points down to 19 per cent.

63

Trust in the police is just above the European average

FIGURE 51 TEND TO TRUST – THE POLICE Source: Eurobarometer 100% 90% 80%

Percentage

70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10%

Fi

De

nl an d nm ar Sw k ed en Fr an Lu ce xe m bo ur Au g st ria Es to ni a Ge r Ne ma n th y Un e ite rlan d d s Ki ng do Be m lg iu m Ire la n Li th d ua ni a Sp ai n Av er ag e Po rtu ga l Ita ly Gr Cz ee ec ce h Re pu bl ic Sl ov en ia La tv ia M al t a Hu ng ar y Cy pr us Po la Ro nd m an ia Cr oa tia Sl ov ak Bu ia lg ar ia

0%

Spring 2016

• With regard to the level of trust in the police, Ireland rises 1 point to 71 per cent from Spring 2015 to 2016, just 3 points above the EU 28 average of 68 per cent. • Finland maintains the top spot, rising 3 points to a very high score of 94 per cent. Bulgaria also maintains the bottom spot, while increasing their score by a single point to 39 per cent.

64

Spring 2015


There is a high level of trust in the army in Ireland

FIGURE 52 TEND TO TRUST – THE ARMY Source: Eurobarometer 100% 90% 80%

60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10%

Fr an c Ire e la nd Be lg iu m De nm ar Es k to ni a Gr ee ce M al t Au a Cz st ec ria h Re pu b Ro lic m an ia Li th Ne uan ia th er la nd s Av er ag e Ge rm an y Sp ai n Po la nd Po rtu ga l Sl ov en ia Ita l Cr y oa tia La tv ia Sl o va Lu ki xe a m bo ur g Sw ed en Cy pr us Hu ng ar y Bu lg ar ia

m do

nl Fi

ite

d

Ki

ng

an

d

0%

Un

Percentage

70%

Spring 2016

Spring 2015

• Ireland is the fourth highest country in Europe with regard to level of trust in the army, with a score of 85 per cent, 15 points ahead of the EU28 average. • This category had the highest average trust score of all the public services surveyed, at 70 per cent.

65

Trust in public servants to tell the truth is reasonably high

FIGURE 53 LEVEL OF TRUST TO TELL THE TRUTH

Source: Ipsos MRBI/Ipsos MORI Veracity Index as published in Irish Civil Service Customer Satisfaction Survey 2015 100 90 80 70

Percentage

60 50 40 30 20 10

UK results Q4 2014

• In general, the level of trust in public servants is much higher than the level of trust in the government or parliament. • There is almost 90 per cent trust in teachers to tell the truth. This drops to 80 per cent for the police and 60 per cent for civil servants. • Levels of trust in Ireland are higher than in the UK.

66

ly er en

in ici lit Po

m rn ve Go

an

en

sg

tm

sl es sin Bu

al

er ist

de ea

fic of n io un e

ad Tr

Ireland results Q1 2015

s

rs

ls ia

ts lis na ur

lls

te Jo

vil

M

an

/w

om

Ci

Po

rv se

e th in an

rs

ts

re st

ad re ws ne

TV

an

et

s er

e lic Po

Sc

ie

nt

ist

s

rs he ac Te

Do

ct

or

s

0


The majority of the public are satisfied with the service received from the civil service

FIGURE 54 LEVEL OF SATISFACTION WITH SERVICE RECEIVED FROM THE CIVIL SERVICE

Source: Ipsos MRBI/Ipsos MORI Veracity Index as published in Irish Civil Service Customer Satisfaction Survey 2015

2005

2009

2015

0%

10% Very satisfied

20% Fairly satisfied

30%

40%

50%

Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied

60%

70%

Fairly dissatisfied

80% Very dissatisfied

90%

100% Don't know/no answer

• Most members of the public are satisfied with the service received from the civil service. Three-quarters of those surveyed were either very or fairly satisfied in 2015. The level of satisfaction has remained relatively constant over the three surveys (2005, 2009 and 2015). • 16 per cent of the general public were either very or fairly dissatisfied with the level of service provided to them by the civil service in 2015. Again this level of dissatisfaction has remained relatively steady over time. • The main reasons given for dissatisfaction were that the process was too slow and waiting time on the phone/ holding time/automated service.

67

Irish residents display a very high level of satisfaction with the educational system

FIGURE 55 CITIZEN SATISFACTION WITH THE EDUCATION SYSTEM Source: OECD Government at a Glance 2015, based on Gallup World Poll data 100% 90% 80%

Percentage

70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10%

• Data for satisfaction with the education system and schools refers to the percentage of ‘satisfied’ answers to the question: In the city or area where you live, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the educational system or the schools? • The level of satisfaction in Ireland, at 83 per cent in 2014, is the second highest of all the European countries surveyed. However, satisfaction levels have dropped from 2007, when they were at 89 per cent.

ec Cz

2007

ce

a ni

n

y

ly

ai

ee Gr

to Es

Sp

Ita

ar

ia ak

ng Hu

nd

ic

ia tv

la

ov Sl

Po

La

bl pu

ed h

Re

Sw

Gr

2014

68

en

n

l

ai

ga

rit

ea

tB

y an

rtu Po

g

ce

rm Ge

an Fr

k Lu

xe

m

bo

ur

ar

ria

nm De

st Au

en

ia

s

ov Sl

d

nd

an

la

nl

er

nd

Ne

th

Fi

la

iu lg Be

Ire

m

0%


There is a relatively low level of satisfaction with health care compared to many European countries

FIGURE 56 CITIZEN SATISFACTION WITH THE HEALTHCARE SYSTEM Source: OECD Government at a Glance 2015, based on Gallup World Poll data 100% 90% 80%

60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10%

ce

ly

nd

ee Gr

la Po

a

ia

Ita

tv La

ia

ni to Es

y

ak

ar

ov Sl

ga

l

ng Hu

n

rtu

nd

ai

Po

Sp

la Ire

Fi

pu

ec

h

Re

nl

bl

an

d

ic

n ai

en

rit tB

ea Gr

Cz

ia en

ed Sw

ce

ov Sl

y an

an Fr

k

rm Ge

De

nm

ar

s

Ne

th

er

la

ur

nd

g

m

bo

iu

m Lu

xe

st

Be

lg

ria

0% Au

Percentage

70%

2014

2007

• Data for satisfaction with the availability of quality health care refers to the percentage of ‘satisfied’ answers to the question: In the city or area where you live, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the availability of quality health care? • Satisfaction with health care in Ireland is slightly below the European average, at 67 per cent in 2014.

69

Confidence in the judicial system and courts service is quite high compared to other countries

FIGURE 57 CITIZEN CONFIDENCE WITH THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM

Source: OECD Government at a Glance 2015, based on Gallup World Poll data 100% 90% 80%

Percentage

70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10%

ly Ita

ia

ia ak

en ov Sl

tv

l

ia

ov Sl

La

n

ga

ai Sp

rtu Po

nd

ic

la

bl pu

Re ec

Po

y ar

ce ee

ng Hu

h

• Confidence levels in the judicial system and the courts in Ireland are quite high in European terms, at 67 per cent.

2007

Cz

2014

• Data for confidence in the judicial system refers to the percentage of ‘yes’ answers to the question: In this country do you have confidence in each of the following, or not? How about the judicial system and courts?

70

Gr

Fr

an

iu

ce

m

a

lg

ni

Be

Es

to

n

s

ai rit

Gr

ea

tB

la

nd

ria

er th

Ne

y

nd la

st Au

Ire

an

en

rm Ge

d

ed Sw

ur

an nl Fi

bo m xe

Lu

De

nm

ar

g

k

0%


Complaints to Ombudsman offices levelled off overall in 2015

FIGURE 58 COMPLAINTS TO OMBUDSMAN OFFICES Source: various Ombudsman Office annual reports. 9000

8000

Number of complaints

7000 6000 5000 4000

3000 2000

1000 0 2007

2008

Office of the Ombudsman

2009

2010

2011

Garda Siochana Ombudsman

2012 Ombudsman for Children

2013

2014 An Coimisinéir Teanga

2015 Total

• The total number of complaints received dropped very slightly in 2015 compared to 2014. Though this levelling off masks changes in individual Ombudsman offices. • 3,641 complaints within their remit were received by the Office of the Ombudsman, an increase of 3 per cent. There was also an 8 per cent increase in complaints to the Ombudsman for Children’s Office. • Complaints fell from 2014 levels in the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission and in An Coimisinéir Teanga.

71

REFERENCES Afonso, A., L. Schuknecht and V. Tanzi (2003), Public Sector Efficiency: An International Comparison, Working Paper No. 242, Frankfurt: European Central Bank Boyle, R. (2007), Comparing Public Administrations, Committee for Public Management Research Report No. 7, Dublin: Institute of Public Administration Foley, A. (2009), ‘The size, cost and efficiency of the public service’, Administration, Vol. 57, No. 1, pp69-101 Health Consumer Powerhouse (2015), Euro Health Consumer Index 2014, Health Consumer Powerhouse, http://www. healthpowerhouse.com/files/EHCI_2014/EHCI_2014_report.pdf (accessed September 18 2015) Institute of Public Administration (2014), Public Sector Reform in Ireland: Views and Experiences From Senior Executives, Dublin: Institute of Public Administration, http://www.ipa.ie/pdf/PublicSectorReform_View&Experience_2014.pdf (accessed September 18 2015) OECD (2013), Government at a Glance 2013, Paris: OECD, http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/governance/government-at-aglance-2013_gov_glance-2013-en (accessed November 20 2013) OECD (2015), Government at a Glance 2015, Paris: OECD, http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/governance/government-at-aglance-2015_gov_glance-2015-en (accessed September 18 2015) Social and Cultural Planning Office (2004), Public Sector Performance: An International Comparison of Education, Health Care, Law and Order and Public Administration, The Hague: Social and Cultural Planning Office

72


APPENDIX 1 INDICATORS USED TO MAKE UP THE IPA PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION QUALITY INDICATOR1

Traditional Public Service Values Indicator(TPSVI)

Competitiveness and Regulation Indicator (CRI)

1

Data Source and Indicator

Description

Government Decisions (IMD)

Government decisions are effectively implemented

Justice Processes (IMD)

Justice is fairly administered

Judicial Independence (WEF)

The judiciary is independent from political influences of members of government, citizens or firms

Diversion of Public Funds (WEF)

Diversion of public funds to companies, individuals or groups due to corruption

Bribery and Corruption (IMD)

Existence of bribery and corruption

Favouritism in Decisions of Government Officials (WEF)

When deciding upon policies and contracts, government officials are neutral

Transparency (IMD)

Government policy is transparent

Wastefulness of Government Spending (WEF)

The composition of public spending is wasteful

Reliability of Police Services (WEF)

Police services can be relied upon to enforce law and order

Data Source and Indicator

Description

Legal and Regulatory Framework (IMD)

The legal and regulatory framework encourages the competitiveness of enterprises

Public Sector Contracts (IMD)

Public sector contracts are sufficiently open to foreign bidders

Ease of Doing Business (IMD)

The ease of doing business is supported by regulations

Intellectual Property Rights (IMD)

Intellectual property rights are adequately enforced

Public and Private Sector Ventures (IMD)

Public and private sector ventures are supporting technological developments

Bureaucracy (IMD)

Bureaucracy hinders business activities

Burden of Government Regulation (WEF)

Complying with administrative requirements (permits, regulations, reporting) issued by government is burdensome

IMD refers to indicator from the IMD World Competitiveness Yearbook. WEF refers to indicator from the WEF Global Competitiveness Report

73

