The need to transform the Public Administration is evident. How to do it, in which areas to start and under what criteria, however, is not. Based on the formulation of the essential missions and objectives of the national State, and the identification of the critical managerial functions for the adequate management of each of them, this research proposes a possible itinerary for the construction of a professional and hierarchical national public sector and a coordinated, cooperative and transparent State capable of contributing to the collective objective of integral human development.
Illustration: Micaela Nanni.
The bureaucratic jungle: a diagnosis of public administration
The complex configuration of public administration
The vocation of transforming the administrative profession and electing the Senior Public Administration (as a “bridge” area between the political leadership and the rest of the administrative apparatus) through competition could be considered an inter-party and inter-temporal consensus on paper.
Various reform policies have sought to provide the State with a professional and hierarchical management organization in the last forty years. Despite some success stories, these efforts have faded over the years, resulting in a State with a proliferation of entities of different legal natures, making it difficult to categorize public employment holistically.
Mechanisms of access to public administration
The National Public Administration is framed by 8 legal frameworks that constitute 184 different scales. This “normative jungle” implies that the personnel who worked in each area did so with different criteria for entry, permanence, evaluation and promotions.
This proliferation of legal natures has as a first consequence a high degree of arbitrariness in the entry to the administrative profession, particularly of Senior Public Management. By 2022, only 8.6% of management positions were filled through competitive examinations, while 87% were appointed in a transitory and politicized manner. The higher the level of hierarchy, the greater the discretion in their appointment.
Opacity in public administration accountability
The second consequence is the opacity in highly critical areas of the State. The most obvious example is the Trust Funds. Conceived in the 1990s, today there are 33 active funds, half of which (16) were created in the last 7 years. These funds concentrate an important part of the transfers and public finances, but they do not pass through budget items executed by the Central Administration, but through this administration with a much lower level of visibility, professionalism and audits.
A navigational chart for transforming public administration
The opacity, the lack of integration and the lack of coordination of the Argentine State are evident. So is the need to transform it. The answer to the question of how to do it, in what areas and under what criteria, however, is not evident. This research proposes to transform the Public Administration by defining clear objectives (embodied in missions, strategic nodes and operational dimensions) and identifying the critical functions capable of carrying them out. A State with inspiring missions and with a professional top management, elected by public competition, not only including the central administration but also many areas that are “off the radar” of accountability, but that manage strategic decisions that impact the life of the country.
Definition of management objectives: 7 missions, 35 strategic nodes, 100 operational dimensions
In the first place, based on the National Constitution and the International Treaties to which our country adheres, and continuing with the founding regulations in many essential areas of public policy, we identify the missions that inspire a path of state transformation. We propose 7 major missions, 35 strategic nodes and 100 operational dimensions that represent a common public agenda, based on the coincidences that make up the political-institutional context in which the Public Administration should develop.
Which areas of the state contribute most substantively to the fulfilment of each mission? 1200 critical functions
Second, and complementary to the identification of essential missions, a criticality matrix was developed to identify and prioritize the most strategic functions of the State. The aim is to recover an approach that considers not only the universe of the Central Administration -basically Ministries and Secretariats-, but also the importance of decentralized and decentralized agencies, which are often as or more important than a Ministry in terms of the budget they manage and the quality of the decisions they make.
The criticality matrix consists of eight variables that measure both the level of autonomy and decision-making responsibility, as well as the socioeconomic impact of the functions performed. It made it possible to classify the 2,829 units of Public Administration into four categories according to their levels of criticality. Thus, 300 units of very high criticality, 900 of high criticality, 700 of medium criticality and 929 of low criticality were identified.
We understand that a unit with very high or high criticality presents a high level of autonomy and whose existence is essential for the decision-making process of a policy, while in socioeconomic terms it formulates and implements policies, produces goods or offers services considered essential, targeting vulnerable populations, or that impacts relevant productive sectors. Those units that presented medium and low levels of criticality should not be interpreted as non-critical: their functions and hierarchy depend on the type of transformation to be carried out on the state structure.
A radar for public administration analysis
Key findings on the criticality of public administration
1
The scores and levels determined by the matrix represent more than a simple number. The criticality of the 1200 functions may be the demarcation criterion for the mandatory competition for entry, the introduction of a permanent evaluation of the tasks performed or the homogenization of transparency and accountability criteria.
2
Half of the 300 units with very high criticality belong to the Decentralized Administration and are “off the radar”. This current situation is far from being the desired one. As a starting point, it is proposed that all positions considered critical should belong to a homogeneous public employment regime. That is, there should be minimum conditions for entry through public competition, promotion, monitoring and accountability for a National Directorate, a Trust Fund, a Coordination and a Non-State Public Entity. This would establish a floor of “minimum standards” for the entire Senior Public Management, allowing for the comprehensive professionalization of the essential areas for the management of Argentina’s development.
3
Multiple examples show that the islands of decentralized agencies are more relevant than the mainland of the national cabinet. However, they are not subject to evaluation, control or accountability actions, in addition to being sheltered from public visibility.
4
Among the directorates and coordinations of the Central Administration there is a strong overlapping of tasks, partly induced and partly inherent, present in the organization of the Public Administration based on the logic of Ministries. The approach by State missions and objectives, which makes it possible to identify duplicated functions, may represent a useful tool to improve the social efficiency and coordination of the Public Administration.
Towards a new public administration structure inspired by strategic missions and nodes
The proliferation of areas and agencies that are incommunicated and uncoordinated among themselves has resulted in high levels of duplication of tasks and inefficiency in the delivery of public policies. In response to this problem, the relevance of a Government Dynamizing Center (CdG) to coordinate and direct the actions of the Executive Branch in two ways is proposed.
First, in thematic terms, the CoG should coordinate decision-making and public policy programs in terms of missions, strategic nodes and operational dimensions to avoid duplication.
Secondly, the CdG should coordinate, energize, professionalize, evaluate and modernize the Public Administration and decision-making through eight axes and governing bodies: Data and Public Policy Evaluation; Control and Audits; Procurement and Contracting; Communication; Information Technology; Budget and Finance; Legal and Public Employment, to promote coordination and transparency in the critical cross-cutting areas of the State.
The proposed transformation needs to be complemented by another set of rules to eliminate arbitrariness in state appointments and the proliferation of parallel structures, to dignify public employment and its valuable personnel, respecting the administrative career. Namely: professionalizing downstream other critical managerial areas of decentralized agencies and respecting the principle of entry by public competition to the rest of the administrative positions; as well as new laws on procurement, financial administration of the State, budget and financing of political activity.
