Towards Human Security and Good Governance

TOWARDS HUMAN SECURITY AND GOOD GOVERNANCE:

PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REFORM IN UKRAINE

Dr. Tetyana Malyarenko,

Associate professor and

Post-doctoral research

Fellow

DonetskState Management

University, Ukraine

Dr. Volodymyr Salamatov

Associate professor,

Department of Public Administration

Philosophy and Methodology,

NationalAcademy of Public Administration,

Office of the President of Ukraine, Ukraine

Abstract. The purpose of this paper is to identify and explain the key driving forces for the public administration reform in Ukraine and explore impact of the reform on effectiveness of the state institutions.

This paper focuses on introduction of good governance concept and human rights standards into practice of the policy-making. Research design of this paper includes four main research objectives, namely:

1)To examine concept of the reform and proper strategies, have been implemented by the governments of Ukraine since 1991;

2)To study interference between institutional matrix and the efficiency of the reform; to compare/explain the variations in institutional patterns, demonstrated by the different segments of the Ukraine’s public sector;

3)To assess key pressures and risk factors, associated with the state fragility and human insecurity in Ukraine and model the processes of their synergetic dynamic development;

4)To analyze the current strategy of the public administration reform in Ukraine, including adopted laws directed on the establishment of good governance and human rights, increased transparency, openness and accountability and adequate mechanisms of control for all elements of the public sector.

Effective public governance, which is based on transparent and competent public policy, should be the core of democratization in Ukraine. The transparent political processes, rule of law and public participation in policy-making are the preconditions for human security development.In order to overcome system, producing human insecurity, all economic and political processes have to be subordinated to a common judicial order that would transform the parameters of power and politics. As Habermas puts it: “Things look different when human rights not only come into play as a moral orientation for one’s own political activity, but as rights which have to be implemented in a legal sense”[1].

Introduction: What is Good Governance and Human Security, Definition and Analysis

The concept of human security and good governance, which emerged in the 1994 UNDP Development Report, is on its way to change the practice of public management and state institutions in Ukraine.

Thinking about security and public policy shifted from an exclusive concern with the security of the state to a concern with the security of peoples. Along with this shift, the focus of public policy changed to people’s collective interests and interests of humanity. Human security is a condition, in which individuals live in freedom, peace and rule of law and participate in public policy making.

As a political agenda, the concept of human security has been shaped and applied on national and local levels. The greatest strength of human security for public governance lies in implementation of “security, humanitarian, human rights and development strategies by focusing on the protection and empowerment of people”[2]

Under human security approach, good governance refers to the transparent and accountable management, creation of a political and institutional environment, respecting human rights, democratic principles and rule of law.

The United Nations Committee for Development Planning in its report issues in 1992 entitled “Poverty Alleviation and Sustainable Development: Goals in Conflict?” identified the following as being part of the attributes of good governance.

Good governance encompasses effective policies and administration, respect for the rule of law, protection of human rights and effective civil service, but also proper competition in business, sustainable development and environmental management (figure 1).

Why are human security and good governance of concern to Ukraine? In the new regional and global contexts, Ukraine’s public policy should be built on good governance and human security. Ukraine is a state which to date has signed seven important UN international conventions and treaties on human rights. Ukraine supported and obligated itself to implement Millenium Declaration and the Millenium Development Goals. A human security approach for Ukraine means that it should contribute to protection of every individual.

The public administration plays a major role in this process, since it is responsible for the distribution of government services and constitutes the connection between the government and society. There are two reasons why Ukraine has to adopt a human security concept.

The first reason is based on morality and human rights.The second reason is legal. If human security is considered as main idea of public policy, implemented as good governance and protection of human rights, the state has not only rights, but also legal obligations to promote universal respect for and observance of, human rights.

Chapter 1. Summary of Key Funding

The success of public administration reform in Ukraine depends on progress in the democratisation of decision making processes in public sector institutions and effectiveness of reforms in other related spheres, primarily, the economy, but also in relation to constitutional, political, juridical organs of state power.

At the centre of the reform model lies the process of elite decision making. While the elite may be influenced from elsewhere, reform is a top-down process.

Socio-economic factors are long-term and deep-rooted structural factors. Global economic forces and demographic changes tend to reshape social policy and the living standards for millions of people. In different political systems, it may be more or less easy to introduce reforms. New ideas stem from international organisations, consultants and researchers. Political culture is an invisible medium, which defines how reform proceeds.

Stages in the Process of Public Administration Reform in Ukraine

Since 1997 the attempts to conduct administrative reform have been taking place.

Initially, the goal of the administrative reform in its first edition was to make the basis to reform the system of state governance, to create a more effective apparatus of state governance and to lay down the fundamentals for reforming public service and the administrative-territorial system of Ukraine.

From the very beginning up to nowadays the concept of modernisation of a posttotalitarian society with domination of liberal-market ideology was the main reformation agenda.

It is possible to observe three discreet periods in the process of public administration reform in Ukraine: 1991-1997, 1997-2004 and since 2005.

The first period lasted from 1991 through 1997 and characterized with chaotic reforming of both socio-economic sphere and the state machinery. The subject core of reforms in this period was the aim to reduce apparatus of public service and public expenditures. But on contrary, as compared to 1991, the number of employees at the central executive bodies rose by 67,8 thousand persons, and in 1997, reached 160, 364 thousand.[3]

The second period started July 1997, when the President of Ukraine Leonid Kuchma announced the need for the administrative reform. Due to his Decree, the State Commission for Administrative Reform in Ukraine was established. The State Commission elaborated the Concept of Administrative Reform in order to create scientific and methodological base for reorganization of public sector in Ukraine. The creation of “modern effective system of public administration” was regarded in the Concept as “a remedy to overcome a societal crisis in Ukraine”. According to the Concept 1998 the administrative reform assumed three stages:

• During preparatory stage the Concept of Administrative Reform and the Program of Implementation were developed and officially approved. At this stage the issues connected to the current improvement of existing government system should have to be resolved.
• The second stage included the introduction of organisational and legal bases to reform the key elements of the government system, division (separation) of the political and administrative functions, and enhancement of civil servants’ personal responsibility.
• At the third stage there should have a deepening of transformation processes, formation of new institutes, organisational structures and tools of governance.

The implementation of the administrative reform assumed the development of the appropriate legislative base, the reforms of authority bodies structure, personnel support of administrative reform, development of communication system between the government and the public, increase of an overall performance of the executive bodies (improvement of decision making quality and efficiency of their implementation).

In general, although the political will to conduct reforms existed at the highest leadership level of the state, administrative reform was not completed. First, Verkhovna Rada was not able to create the legal basis for the functioning of the executive branch. And second, the presidential campaign 1999 changed priorities.

The third period began in December 1999, after presidential elections.

Leonid Kuchma won elections and the Administration of the President redoubled the efforts toward administrative reform. Firstly, three Decrees of the President were adopted.

They are as follow:

(1)Decree of the President of Ukraine No.1572 of December 15,1999 “On the System of the Bodies of the Executive Branch”,

(2)Decree of the President of Ukraine No. 1573 “On Changes in the Structure of the Central Bodies of the Executive Branch”,

(3)Decree of the President of Ukraine No. 1574 “On the Compositions of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine”.

In this period main direction of the reforming was the Cabinet of Ministers, the power of which was strengthened. The structure of government and functions were clearly defined. The Decrees presupposed establishment of the Governmental Committees as working groups within the Cabinet of Ministers in order to improve efficiency of the decision making and coordination between the different executive bodies.

The legal framework of the administrative reform includes the following legislative base: the Concept of Administrative Reform, the Project of Administrative Reform Strategy, Decrees and Regulations of the President and the Cabinet of Ministers about Administrative Reform Execution at the Secretariat of the Cabinet of Ministers, the Bill on the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine; the Rules of the Cabinet of Ukraine Operation, commissioned in 1999, the new draft of the bill about public service, the project of the Code of worthy behavior of the civil servants, the project of administrative-territorial reform of Ukraine, the Cabinet regulation on the Quality Management Systems in Public Service.

The Orange period (2005 – 2008)

Since February 2005, after the appointment of the Cabinet of Ministers of Yuliya Timoshenko and the program “Towards the People”, one may indicate a new period in the elaboration and implementation of administrative reform in Ukraine.

The program “Toward the People” includes the chapters, declaring importance of the administrative and administrative-territorial reforms in Ukraine.

The new posts, such as Deputy Prime Minister in Charge of Administrative-Territorial Reform and Deputy Prime Minister for European Integration, who are responsible for formation and realization of state policy concerning implementation of administrative and administrative-territorial reforms in Ukraine, were created. Several analytical departments, such as the Division of Administrative Reform within the Secretariat of the Cabinet of Ministers, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister were directed to render analytical and technical assistance.

Initially, the government planned to prepare a number of regulatory and legal acts in order to carry into effect “Ukraine – EU” Action Plan (2005). They are as follows: the laws “On Ministries and Other Central Executive Authorities”, “On the Civil Service” and “On the Administrative-Territorial System”.

Main obstacle for implementation of administrative reform was lack of the proficiency, methodological and practical skills of the reformers to define the perspectives, directions and measures of reforms. Administrative reform started without any strategy or implementation plan; the prepared documents were extremely complicated to use; according to official information, about 40 000 experienced public servants were dismissed at a managerial level in public administration. Finally, as it turned out, it was not possible to find qualified personnel to make up for the lack of dismissed specialists.

As a result of this, many potentially useful and progressive directions of administrative reform applied the brake. The result of the regular wave of administrative reform in Ukraine is typical. Non stop parliament elections of 2006 and 2007 changed priorities. A number of corruption scandals within government, crises in economy and series of mutual recriminations led to disintegration of coalitions and pushed the reforms into the background.

1.2. European Neighborhood Policy and Public Management Reform in Ukraine

The three-year EU-Ukraine Action Plan was adopted on 21 February 2005. Since then, its implementation has been guided and monitored on the basis of the annual programs, setting out the comprehensive measures of assessment and taking into account the political priorities agreed jointly by the EU and Ukraine. In accordance with conducted evaluations (ENP Action Plan Progress Report: Ukraine, 2005, 2006) although good progress has been demonstrated since 2005, implementation of the reform strategies has lagged behind since the beginning 2006, mostly due to long pre- and post-election periods and related political instability. Therefore, it is vital for Ukraine’s reform agenda to find long-term political stability.

While structural reform has been initiated over the last years by the Ukrainian authorities, the corresponding reform of the institutional systems, as well as adoption and implementation of new laws have been lagging behind. In 2006, the World Bank ranked Ukraine in 128th place in its Doing Business Database, covering 175 countries. With this result, Ukraine lags clearly behind all other European countries and even the majority of NIS countries. The main obstacles for business development in Ukraine remain insecurity of investors’ rights, red tape and heavy tax pressure.

The Ukrainian administrative system is still in transition towards a democratic and market-oriented model. Current government structures have been designed on previously existing structures and approaches, including cumbersome decision-making, excessive bureaucracy and in several cases a lack of clarity about the division of labour and responsibilities among government agencies.

However, these challenges have been largely recognised by the Ukrainian authorities and reforms have been initiated. For example, the fight against corruption and public administration reform were important priorities for the authorities in 2005, which started by tackling reform of the customs administration.

The constitutional changes, which became effective in January 2006, strengthened the Accounting Chamber’s authority regarding external audits, paving the way for modernising its audit practises in line with international standards. There is also growing interest to fiscal decentralisation and, in parallel with possible changes in the tax systems, more effective formula-based transfers to local governments will need to be developed.

If the reformation policies are upheld and reinforced under the new government, that will stimulate fast implementation of other reforms, make the public sector less prone to corruption and red-tape and improve the country’s image, thereby putting Ukraine on an accelerated course to attract investment and thus faster development and growth.

Future EU assistance to Ukraine is going to be focused on strengthening good governance and democratic development, regulatory reforms and infrastructure development. Several projects in the field are in progress on the central and regional levels.

1.3. Quality of Public Sector Management

Quality of public management can be examined with usage of the basic criteria of the European model of excellence and also in accordance with the following basic principles of theory and practice of quality management (Rao, Carr, Dambolena, Kopp, Martin, Rafii, Schlesinger, 1996): the necessity of clear formulated aims and goals, the analytical cycle of Deming, supposing the periodic assessment of results and process of management, importance of effective administrative practices and standards, key role of human resources, etc.

Understanding the idea and process of administrative reform after 10 years of its implementation, one can expect substantial changes in quality of the central and local power bodies’ activity. But our explorations testify the absence of the positive system changes in this area.

We conduct evaluation study of public administration effectiveness in Ukraine on the basis of integral indicators assessed by public servants as experts. One of these indicators is a level of realisation of the national interests in public administration. Results demonstrate that during 2005-2007 the realisation of national interests of Ukraine was assessed on the 7-point scale from “1-failure” to 7 “permanent improvement” usually as being between “3-change for the worse” and “4-without change”. It is the consequences of absence of the clear vision and values of the national public administration leading to the absence of synergy effect in the state machine functioning. Instead there is prevailing of corporate/private interests above national interests in activity of all actors (Salamatov, 2006).

The empirical study of managerial practices has demonstrated that the personal relations between top managers (but not results of their activity or professionalism) play the crucial role in management effectiveness of Ukrainian public sector and career development. The tradition of cheating and imitation prevails over the result oriented activity (Balobanov, Salamatov, 2003). The study of psychological resources of renewed public management in Ukraine demonstrated the absence of significant differences in administrative culture between very traditional ministry and innovative (newly established) ministry (Salamatov, 2001).

One of our expert study (unpublished) of the Deming cycle implementation in Ukrainian public administration reforms demonstrated the absent of a closed loop of change management in any social-economical area of state responsibility. The study is conducted in NAPA and public servants of the middle and top level participate in this study as experts.

The given results of evaluation studies demonstrate the actuality of introduction of quality management conception in practice of Ukraine public administration. During last two years considerable efforts in this direction are made by Chief Administration of Public Service of Ukraine; there are a few initiative projects at the municipal government level on installation of the quality management system in several cities; a quality management is included in the curriculum of professional training and retraining of civil servants. The basic transmitters of professional knowledge in this area are public non government agencies, such as the Ukrainian Association of Quality, Club of Quality Leaders, Association of Quality Management, Academy of Quality et al.