“MINDSET REPROGRAMMING” IN THE PROCESS OF SERBIAN LOCAL GOVERNMENT REFORM: SYSTEMIC SOLUTIONS THAT BRING CHANGES

Mirjana Stanković[1], Bora Obradović[2], Robert Sundberg[3]

ABSTRACT

Local governments in Serbia are making efforts towards public administration reform. Public administration reform in post-socialist Serbia is not easy, requiring great structural, functional and procedural changes. But from this come the adoption of new perspectives and “mindset reprogramming” of both public administration officials and citizens.

Serbian local governments are becoming more aware of their role as primary service providers to citizens and businesses. The more progressive of them have already introduced new governance systems towards providing greater efficiency, efficacy, economy and transparency of local government actions. Serbian local governments have established citizen assistance centers, call centers and other, more sophisticated mechanisms. These innovations offer an improved participatory process, increased interaction between citizens and public institutions, closer monitoring of public sector performance and results; but more importantly, are altering the view that local government takes of its citizens and that of its citizens towards local government.

The new Call Center of the City of Belgrade and Indjija’s System 48 provide examples of advanced, IT-based methods of providing local services, replicable participatory tools and how such systems can contribute to “mindset reprogramming.” These integrated, one-stop service schemes allow citizens and the business sector to obtain general municipal/city administration services and a wide range of public utility services offered by the local government. If applied properly, such systems increase public workers’ performance and efficiency while positively changing the attitudes and expectations of citizens towards their local governments.

The Serbian examples are multi-channel access points, ensuring two-way communication between public service customers (citizens) and their service providers (the public administration). Citizens can make enquiries or get feedback in person, by phone calls, web-mail, e-mail, regular mail or via SMS. Citizens’ requests and complaints are registered through the system and then directed to appropriate local government institutions for response. Information generated by the inquiries and feedback is returned to the call center and ultimately to the customers. Response timeliness is stressed - the very name of System 48 implies and conveys local government’s commitment to provide feedback to citizens within two days.

The systems have the capacity to immediately process similar or repetitive requests with known answers, allowing for greater efficiency and more satisfied customers. A “CitiStat” component measures, compares, analyzes and evaluates the performance of all local government institutions in one focal point. It detects bottlenecks and issues that need to be addressed, and provides feedback to local government workers about the quality of their work. Government workers gain positive feedback, enhancing their self-esteem and interest in helping others, while citizens’ positive attitude towards their government increases.

  1. INTRODUCTION

Prior to 1989 the Republic of Yugoslavia had a strong tradition of local governance. This included a professional and motivated administration although operating with a culture of strong adherence to internal rules and procedures. In the period 1989 to 2000 the local administration suffered substantial change eroding the quality of public service and employee motivation.But, despitearguments that public administration reform is generally slow in Serbia, visible progress has been made, particularly reflectedat the local level. Local governments are putting significant efforts into public administration reform, guided by the international assistance, best practice examples and experiences from other countries.The international development programs started introducing the concept of good governance back in 2000, which coincided with the major political restructuring and the symbolic breakaway from socialism[4].

The decentralization status of a country, in Serbia still at its early stages[5],is also closely related to the capacity of local governments to promote and implement a public service reform. Such a reform in a post-socialist country is not easy,requiring significant structural, functional and procedural changes which, in turn, depend on the availability of financial support. Finally, if local administration is to assume an entirely new role and establish new systems in which citizens are perceived as customers and become the focus of attention[6], it also needs to adopt a new perspective and ‘reprogram’ the mindset of both the providers of public services (decision-makers and public officials) and its users (citizens). Similarly to other Central and East European countries, before the introduction of the democratic changes, Serbian local governments were dormant for decades, which has lowered their ‘absorption capacity’for changes and, consequently,their readiness to take up the new, demanding tasks and responsibilities. The task of transforming a self-centered local government insensitive of citizen needs into an increasingly customer-oriented, professional civil service is a long and painful process that has not yet been completed even in more developed EU-member countries.

The extent to which the good governance concepts were new to Serbia at the beginning of their introduction nine years ago, can be illustratedby the following table, which shows the typical perceptions and attitudes related to local government functioning beforeany public administration reformwas initiatedand today, after numerous interventions and implementation of various packages of technical assistance. Only several years ago citizens’ awareness of their rights and responsibilities was at a very low level.Before 2002-2003, citizens could hardlyrecognize the local public administration apparatus as accountable and responsible for providing a range of services to its citizens, which are successfully provided today. In return, local governments continued existing as irresponsive closed systems, undisturbed by any ‘external’ requests for control.

SERBIAN LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE CITIZEN –PERCEPTIONS AND ATTITUDES[7]
Old approach / New approach
Local governments respond to central government / Local governments respond to citizens
Self-centered local government / Increasingly customer-oriented local government
Minimum or no citizen participation (the ‘fake’ self-management concept) / Active citizen participation in all segments of local government functioning.
Local administration is a closed system, almost inaccessible to citizens / Citizens communicate with public officials in person, by telephone, by e-mail, through interactive webpages, etc.
Citizens dependant on the public official’s good will to assist them. / Citizens are the most important clients and the focus of public officials’ attention
Citizen is a ‘nuisance’ – it disturbs public officials in doing their work / Public officials understand that their work should create benefits for citizens
Citizen is just a number, statistical fact – a completely depersonalized approach / Citizen is an emotional human being, with needs and concerns
Citizen is confined to the role of voter and tax-payer / Citizen is local administration’s most important client and a regular customer
Little or no accountability for the use of public funds / Public administration thrives on tax-payers’/citizens’ money – the use of public funds must be transparent
No complaint mechanisms available for citizens / Active citizen participation and diverse complaint mechanisms (including the electronic ones)
No punishment for poor performance ofpublic officials; no incentives for good performers / Slow, but steady movements towards building a civil service, with better developed sanction and incentive packages – the citizens have the right to choose who they will be delivered the services by
No quality management or control / Steps towards introducing quality management systems
Citizens’ opinion taken into account on hardly any matters / Citizens’ opinion used as feedback to introduce improvements into the current systems
Citizen is only concerned with getting their job in the local administration done – no matter how / The emphasis is on ‘how’, as much as on ‘what’
Citizens with good connections get their job done more quickly and in a better way / No discrimination of citizens – the same efficiency and quality for all
Public officials lack motivation
“It cannot be done!” is a commonly heard answer / Public officials are committed to serving their customers well, always willing to put an extra effort into finding satisfactory solutions for the citizen. : “We will check and find a way to assist you in an appropriate manner” (with a smile)
No time spent on raising the awareness of the public about the citizen’s rights and responsibilities. / Open message to the public: “We want our clients to be satisfied with our services. We are there to teach them about their rights and help them get services more efficiently and effectively.”
Omnipotent public officials who believe they know everything. / Local government is a learning organization - public officials are aware of their limitations and knowledge gaps.

Serbian local governments are definitely becoming more aware of their role as primary service providers to citizens and businesses (as they are also assuming a more proactive role in local economic development activities).The paper will attempt at examining the general and specific factors that have led or are leading to the necessary ‘mindset reprogramming’, which contributes to more rapid changes and will provide two examples of progressive public administrations at the local level, which have already managed to introduce new, functional governance systems. Belgrade City Call Center (CCC) and Indjija’s System 48 (CitiStat) will be described as good governance tools and functional public administration reform instruments. Available quantitative data will be presented to demonstrate how these systems contribute to the efficiency, efficacy, economy and transparency of local government actions. Finally, qualitative comments will be provided to discuss how these innovations offer an improved participatory process, increased interaction between citizens and public institutions and closer monitoring of public sector performance and results. Most importantly, we will look at the impact of such reform processes from two perspectives: 1) to what extent the introduction of such systems alters the local government’s perception of citizens’ needs and rights and, consequently, improves performance and the level of professionalism of public officials; 2) how that changes the perceptions, attitudes and expectations of citizens towards their local governments?

  1. CREATING A BASIS FOR INTRODUCING CHANGES

2.1 Establishing a Sense of Urgency

Major changes do not happen easily - the change process goes through stages, each of which is important, and requires a significant amount of time. As Serbia was significantly lagging behind other countries in transition, it was clear that the change process had to be speeded up, with some stages overlapping with each other. However, skipping stages or making critical mistakes at any stage can cause the change process to fail. As a prerequisite, the October 2000 dramatic changes, undoubtedly, helped establish a sense of urgency that change was really needed - to make the citizens of Serbia aware of the necessity to break away from the old, outdated practices. Undoubtedly, the events that led to the fall of Milošević’s regime were an important “psychological” trigger for the long-awaited changes.Yet, expectant of immediate gratifications as they are, Serbian citizens soon started criticizing the ruling political coalition for “not being too different from their socialist predecessors” and for “being incapable of bringing any significant improvements”. At the same time, the criticizers failed to consider the main underlying cause of their inability to take appropriate actions – the fact that they were not ready for changes and that they had no basis created to build the new structures upon.

Comparative analyses of the situation in Serbian local governmentssince 2000[8] have shown a significant correlation between the pace of progress and the capacity of human resources to implement their tasks in a skillful and professional manner. Furthermore, the extent of development has been directly proportional to the ability of municipal leadership to adopt a new citizen-oriented approach, to become more entrepreneurial and more accountable to citizens for their actions. The local governments whichwere the first to understand the complexity of the challenges and, consequently, started the preparation process for upcoming decentralization early enough, have an advantage over those which adopted a passive role, waiting for the changes to happen on their own. Early on, the progressive mayors were clear that they could also have political gains if they ensured that local administration, citizens and business sector representatives made stronger ties in their strive for community’s progress. They were proactive and highly receptive of any opportunities for improvement of their skills and knowledge.

2.2. Building the Base

An equally important factor is the risk-taking capacity of mayors, as well as their ability to recognize skillful and knowledgeable individuals and delegate tasks and responsibilities to them.These mayors are also able to engage the local community in formulating anappealing vision and creating a good strategy, so thatthe changes are introduced more systematically, quickly and efficiently. Progressive leaders were able to ensure a high level of citizen participation at an early stage of development, by convincing the local community that the goals and tasks are attainable and highly beneficial for them.The level of municipal progress stands in direct proportion with these factors.

Another issue faced by local governments in Serbia is the lack of funds to introduce changes. While the majority of municipalities continued waiting for national level transfers, proactive mayors started seeking for additional sources of revenue but, also, saw a great value in the trainings and technical assistance offered to them by various government and non-government institutions. Mayors with the „new mindset“ embraced both the money and in-kind tehnical assistance offered by the donors as a blessing, trying to make the best use of it.

Indeed, it seems that international donor organizations have played a crucial role in „mindset reprogramming” in Serbia. It was their programs that started to systematically introduce new concepts and ideas into the local government setting. With varying levels of acceptance by municipal leaderships, good governance concepts have been introduced in the vast majority of Serbian municipalities since 2001. In 2005, despite the fact that the essential concepts were not fully ’digested’ and adopted yet, the focus of international assistance was shifted from the basic principles of good governance to local economic development, before some basic building blocks were solidly built. As much as this has ensured that Serbia keeps pace with current trends elsewhere in the world, this may have been a prematurely taken course, with local government institutions and human resources still not ready for this advanced leap.

AN OVERVIEW OF MAJOR INTERNATIONAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS IN SERBIA, 2001-2009
Focus on Good Governance and Community Development
The following programs focused on good governance issues - capacity building and institutional development in the areas of citizen participation, improved service delivery by local administration and communal enterprises, financial management, public procurement, policy making, strengthening of the association of local governments.
  • 2001-2005 - Serbia Local Government Reform Program(SLGRP)/United States Agency for International Development (USAID). Covered 87 municipalities in Serbia. Supported the establishment of more than 60 citizen assistance centers (CAC) across Serbia, System 48 in Inđija and the Call Center in Serbia
  • 2001 – 2005 – Community Revitalization through Democratic Action (CRDA)/USAID. Five implementing agencies covering different regions provided assistance to all Serbian local governments. This program had a crucial role awareness-raising of citizens’ need to participate in the decision-making processes at the local level and their right to receive good quality public services.
  • 2003 – 2005 - Municipal Support Programme (MSP) – Phase 1/European Agency for Reconstruction (EAR). Covered 25 municipalities in Eastern Serbia. The program is, essentially, a replica of SLGRP. Extensive focus on CAC institution building and improvement of service delivery.
  • 2003 – 2005 - Municipal Improvement and Revival Programme (MIR) - Phase I/United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). Improvement of municipal management and administration in 11 South Serbian municipalities. Improvement of service delivery by municipal administration.
  • 2003 – 2007 - Municipal Support Programme Kraljevo(MSP) – Phase 3/Swiss Development and Cooperation (SDC). Promoted good governance concepts in 8 Central and Western Serbian municipalities.
  • 2006 - ongoing - Local Government Strengthening – Council of Europe (CoE). Strengthening institutional and legislative framework for local government reform in line with EU standards; development of local government capacities, administration of public and utility services and enhancing community participation in local decision-making.

Focus on Local Economic Development (LED)
Programs focusing on the institutional development and capacity building of local governments to create new jobs, support small and medium-sized enterprises (SME), establish private-public partnerships and attract investments:
  • 2003 – 2006 - Regional Socio-Economic Development Programme (RSEDP) - Strengthening of the regional development process by integrated measures.
  • 2006 – 2008 Municipal Improvement and Revival Programme (MIR) - Phase 2/(UNDP). Focus on LED, regional cooperation and development and municipal development planning. Continued capacity building in improved service delivery in 11 South Serbian municipalities (same as in Phase 1)
  • 2006 – ongoing Municipal Economic Growth Activity (MEGA)– Assistance provided to 45 municipalities. LED capacity building, including institution building of LED offices, economic development strategic planning. Promotion of improved service delivery to citizens and private sector.
  • 2006 –ongoing - Municipal Support Programme (MSP) – Phase 2/European Commission (EC). Covers 30 North-East Serbian Munciipalities. Improvement of economic competitiveness of the region while enhancing socio-economic cohesion among local communities.
  • 2008 – ongoing – Municipal Support Programme Kraljevo (MSP) – Phase 3/Swiss Development and Cooperation (SDC) – continued municipal capacity building with increased focus on improved services to support local economic development.
  • 2008 – ongoing – Municipal Economic Development in the Danube Region/German Agency for Technical Cooperation (GTZ) – Economic development strategic planning, LED office establishment and improved services to support SME development and investment attraction.

It seems that the workshop-type trainings, on-site training and assistance and the dissemination of best practice examples offered by donors over a long time-span, provided a ‘full-plate’ of learning opportunities and creative ideas for Serbian local governments. SLGRP reports[9] show that proactive municipal administrations which were, early on, recognized as learning organizations (mainly thanks to their progressive municipal leadership) and as more open for cooperation were, indeed, able to implement quick impact projects and introducevisible changes more rapidly and readily than other SLGRP-participating local governments[10]. An analysis of the SLGRP workshop-evaluation results[11] indicates that the workshop participants were well-capable of recognizing the value of the training for their „mindset reprogramming” – they frequently made written qualitative comments that the trainings and best practice examples were helping them „adopt new perspectives, change attitudes and broaden their views”and, thus, „better recognize the value and benefits of the newly introduced systems”.