Arbeitsgemeinschaft für wirtschaftliche Verwaltung (AWV e. V.) (Association for Economic Management - AEM) Study group 1.3 Reducing the administrative burden in public administration Düsseldorfer Str. 40 65760 Eschborn Germany Committee of the Regions of the European Union Forward Studies Unit Office VMA 0635 1.1 Rue Belliard 101, 1040 Brussels BELGIUM governance@cor.europa.eu General consultation on implementing multilevel governance in Europe Opinion of the AWV Study Group 1.3 Reducing the administrative burden in public administration Contact person Professor Dr. Gunnar Schwarting Dr. Petra Pfisterer (AWV e.v.) Deutschhausplatz 1 Düsseldorfer Str. 40 55116 Mainz 65760 Eschborn Tel.: 0049-6131-286444-10 Tel.: 0049-6196-777-2636 schwarting@staedtetag-rlp.de pfisterer@awv-net.de EN
- 1 - I. Motivation of the AEM study group 1.3 "Reducing the administrative burden in public administration" 1 for contributing to the Committee of the Region's consultation The publication of the Committee of the Regions White Paper on multilevel governance (2009/C211/01) makes clear the Committee's interest in conducting an open discussion on issues relating to the implementation of multilevel governance and at the same time in serving as a platform where stakeholders can make their positions clear. The remarks which follow reflect in parts the discussions within the AEM study group 1.3 on the administrative burdens in public administration. By focusing on reducing the administrative burden in the context of the current consultative process we seek to address a subject that has been given considerable attention at national level as well, in the new government's programme. The study group also looks at the question of how to drive forward efforts to reduce administrative burdens in the public sphere itself. The main motivation for our work is the idea that "reducing the administrative burden in administration" can also have a beneficial impact on the long-term consolidation of public finances. In the pages which follow we will be looking at ways of reducing the administrative burden in the context of the discussion on multilevel governance. We see multilevel governance as being closely related to local and regional governance, and we would like to draw attention to the positive aspects of close cooperation across the different levels of administration, as well as of new approaches to management, regulation and the coordination of action. The discussion should focus not only the concept of multilevel governance, but also the preservation of the subsidiarity principle, the network for subsidiarity monitoring, territorial indicators and the implementation of multilevel governance. The analysis which follows supplements the AEM opinion produced by study group 1.6 "Reducing the administrative burden in the third and the voluntary sector", and adds to it the perspective of administrative players at various levels. We also highlight a number of unresolved questions which in our view the White Paper on Multilevel Governance throws up. 1 The AEM's study group 1.3 "Reducing the administrative burden in public administration" initiated its work in May 2008. Its participants are colleagues working in public administration at federal, state and municipal level, as well as representatives from the scientific field and the economy in general, who have got together to discuss the possibilities for reducing the administrative burden, specifically in public administration. The study group's goal is to work on issues such as how to manage administrative costs in a multilevel administrative context that involves municipalities, states, the federation and the European Union, administrative costs in political/administrative systems and internal administrative costs. By providing a forum for exchanges between experts, and examining new approaches, (business) processes and methods in public administration such as the standard cost model, the study group has been trying to establish, develop and disseminate useful management practices. The study group has been casting its view beyond the confines of each individual organisation towards underlying structural, procedural and legal questions. The head of the study group is Professor Dr. Gunnar Schwarting. The AEM expert in specialist committee 1 "Administrative management and modernisation" is Dr. Petra Pisterer.
- 2 - II. Key aspects of the White Paper on Multilevel Governance in the study group's view: 1. Definition of Multilevel Governance (p. 1) The Committee of the Regions considers multilevel governance to mean coordinated action by the European Union, the Member States and local and regional authorities, based on partnership and aimed at drawing up and implementing EU policies. It leads to responsibility being shared between the different tiers of government concerned and is underpinned by all sources of democratic legitimacy and the representative nature of the different players involved. The main point of reference here is vertical coordination between various governmental and administrative levels, as well as the territorial dimension of governance. At the same time, multilevel governance seeks to give regions and municipalities in Europe more scope to shape policy 2, which also brings territorial and functional issues into play. We consider the goal of "sharing responsibilities", in the above sense of the term, to be achieved when general welfare is pursued not by means of a hierarchy of rules mirroring the top-down cascade of authority from the European down to the local level, but instead through an integrative process which flows in the opposite direction and involves the various players who contribute to general welfare at different levels. This also opens up the possibility of a "bottom-up" approach to governance which takes its legitimacy from the public. This approach should be recognised as integral component of multilevel governance in a Europe for the public. It also gives further credence to the concept of "responsibility partnerships" 3 or "responsibility cooperation", as seen from both the horizontal and vertical angle. 2. On the preservation of the subsidiarity principle The implementation of multilevel governance depends on respect for the principle of subsidiarity, which prevents decisions from being restricted to a single tier of government and which guarantees that policies are conceived and applied at the most appropriate level. Respect for the principle of subsidiarity and multilevel governance are indissociable: one indicates the responsibilities of the different tiers of government, whilst the other emphasises their interaction. We are critical of the above definition of the subsidiarity principle but not of the subsidiarity principle itself, of course. We wish to underline the significance of the subsidiarity principle as a 2 3 View expressed by VOGEL, HANS-JOSEF: Hin zum Regieren in Netzwerken, in: Städte- und Gemeinderat, 1-2/2009, p. 9 and following pages. PITSCHAS, RAINER: New Publicness and Local Governance in the Era of Decentralisation The Example of Germany, in: PITSCHAS, RAINER (Hrsg.): Trusted Governance due to Public Value Management. Public Governance in Europe between Economization and Common Wealth: A Value-Based Concept of Public Administration, Frankfurt am Main, Berlin, Bern et al.: Peter Lang, 2006, p. 101 115, as well as PITSCHAS, Rainer: Staats- und Verwaltungsmodernisierung als Wertkonzept des europäischen Rechts- und Sozialstaats, in: Pitschas, Rainer / Koch, Christian (Hrsg.): Staatsmodernisierung und Verwaltungsrecht in den Grenzen der europäischen Integrationsverfassung, Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2002, p. 13 25.
- 3 - principle that governs the distribution and implementation of competences, and which, as a rule, gives precedence to the subordinate level 4. Therefore, in view of the above definition the following points need to be clarified: Why and how does the subsidiarity principle guarantee that decisions are taken at lore than one level of competence, and is this its purpose? How can one guarantee an effective attribution of competences and funds when implementing multilevel governance. How exactly and by what method - is the subsidiarity principle linked to multilevel governance? It could be worthwhile to make the link between what is a legal principle and a current concept in political science and see if interconnections can be established. On this basis, one could then look at the relationship between subsidiarity and governance (structural principle/principle of action versus mode of interaction). However, considering that the subsidiarity principle's function is to determine the implementation and distribution of competences, we would argue that the principle's primary role is that of a legal instrument, whereas multilevel governance merely serves to fill the gaps in its capacity as a mode of interaction. The term mode of interaction suggests that multilevel governance, in the context of Europe's multi-layered political and administrative systems, would act as a guarantor of certain specific rules such as the right to participation and consultation, the possibility of a veto etc. with regard to decisions on funding provided from public budgets. In view of the above content- and competence-related issues we also have serious reservations about the following statement (p. 22 in the White Paper): Furthermore, in the policy fields where the European Union does not have explicit responsibility but where Community policy does have an effect, such as housing policy and large segments of services of general interest, multilevel governance is a tool which makes it possible to transcend an overly rigid interpretation of the division of responsibilities in order to reach common objectives whilst maintaining due regard for the constitutional and administrative diversity of the respective Member States. Not only do we have reservations regarding the content of the statement but also the wording. The expression "overly rigid interpretation" is very vague. 4 See: DÖRING, THOMAS: Marktwirtschaftliche Ordnung und föderativer Staatsaufbau, in: Mückl, Wolfgang (Hrsg.): Subsidiarität: Gestaltungsprinzip für eine freiheitliche Ordnung in Staat, Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft, Paderborn, München, Wien: Schöningh, 1999, especially p. 65.
- 4-3. Participatory governance and territorial indicators (p. 26) To put multilevel governance into practice, the Committee of the Regions: Calls on the European Commission and the Member States to: reform the open method of coordination to make it more inclusive, by developing, in conjunction with regional and local authorities, more effective participatory governance indicators and territorial indicators. In footnote 30, the Committee of the Regions refers to the introduction of new tools, such as indicators geared to meeting the requirements of implementing territorial cohesion, not least by means of sub-regional analyses, and cites the Green Paper on territorial cohesion (CdR 274/2008 fin). Examples of instruments given are the access to various services and the creation of composite human development indices. Quite apart from the need to constitute individual indicators or indices, which is a matter for politicians and decision-makers to consider and decide on, we think it would be helpful for further discussion: to designate and bring on board at an early stage those who are required to provide information (local or regional administrations, business organisations, NGO organisations, citizens) 5 ; to establish a deliberate and clear preference in this connection for secondary evaluation and for the collection of primary data in order to avoid red-tape, given the fact that any gathering of information is time-consuming for those addressed (i.e., those required to submit information); to guarantee an appropriate level of transparency regarding the added value of data. All too often those asked to provide data do not know why they should collect and submit such data. The administrative effort should be weighed up against the benefits. The purpose and benefit should be stated clearly so that they are understood by everybody. 4. The Subsidiarity Monitoring Network of the Committee of the Regions as a tool for consolidating democratic accountability and participation in the EU's legislative process (see p. 30 VIII) The Subsidiarity Monitoring Network set up by the Committee of the Regions, which currently consists of 96 members (local and regional authorities, national and regional parliaments, associations of local and regional authorities), conducts online consultations via its Internet site. It has the following objectives (p. 30, fourth indent): 5 One should bear in mind here that statistics already place a substantial burden on public administrations. For information on the municipal level, see: Fachhochschule des Mittelstands Bielefeld (Hrsg.): Kommunen als Bürokratieopfer, Abschlussbericht zur erste Studie zur Übertragung des Standardkosten-Modells auf die Kommunen, Bielefeld, 2009. http://www.fhm-mittelstand.de/fileadmin/user_upload/pdf/fhm- Website/Forschung/Kompetenzfelder/Buerokratiekostenabbau/Bericht_Stand_090629_4 kg_endversion_webqualitaet_db.pdf - 16.11.2009.
- 5 - Involve members of the Subsidiarity Monitoring Network in future studies on the territorial impact of the Commission s proposals, at an early stage in the pre-legislative process. Taking the approach advocated by the Committee of the Regions of a focused and coordinated method for monitoring and checking the subsidiarity principles (p. 29) as our basis, we note that there is a strong interconnection between this approach and the issue of administrative costs in public administration. Firstly, we would like to raise the matter of how far the Committee of the Regions' is examining recent instruments for recording and measuring administrative costs which are proving viable at national level: The use of the standard cost model methodology for administrative costs as an instrument for identifying the effects of Commission proposals. For the local sphere, measurements for local authorities are available in the national context (ramifications in terms of national law). The first methodological results 6 are available, and further models, such as the measurement of costs associated with regulation, are being brought into the discussion 7. It would also be useful if the Members of the subsidiarity network could consider the possible organisation of enforcement structures, as part of a forward-looking discussion. This could lead to additional benefits since there is the potential for simplification and savings in projects taking place in the national framework 8. In addition, we would like to table the issue of how far the recording of specific alternatives (for action) could be taken into account, as well as the recording of consequences, in the goals of the Subsidiarity Monitoring Network (studies on the territorial impact of the Commission s proposals, at an early stage in the pre-legislative process). This would generally make it clear 6 See: Fachhochschule des Mittelstands Bielefeld (Hrsg.): Kommunen als Bürokratieopfer, Abschlussbericht zur erste Studie zur Übertragung des Standardkosten-Modells auf die Kommunen, Bielefeld, 2009. http://www.fhm-mittelstand.de/fileadmin/user_upload/pdf/fhm- Website/Forschung/Kompetenzfelder/Buerokratiekostenabbau/Bericht_Stand_090629_4 kg_endversion_webqualitaet_db.pdf - 16.11.2009. Measurements of the administrative burden on the public, see ZIPSE, CHRISTIAN: Messung der Bürokratiebelastung der Bürger, in: AWV-Informationen Special IV. 7 For the question of how the regulatory cost model can be used in public administration see RIEDEL, HENRIK: Zur Anwendbarkeit der Regulierungskostenmessung in der öffentlichen Verwaltung, in: AWV-Informationen, 04/2009, p. 10 and following pages. http://www.awv-net.de/cms/upload/awv-info/pdf/info-4-09-s-10-13-rkm.pdf - 23.11.2009. 8 The projects: Einfacher zum Elterngeld und Wohngeld des Nationalen Normenkontrollrats, der Geschäftsstelle Bürokratieabbau im Bundeskanzleramt, Fachressorts des Bundes, sowie Landesverwaltungen und Kommunen. See: Nationaler Normenkontrollrat: Zwischenbilanz. Gut gestartet Erwartungen erfüllen! 2009 annual report of the National Regulatory Control Council, July 2009, p. 35 and following pages. Current situation. NEHRING, THOMAS: Einfacher zum Elterngeld und Wohngeld: Neue Wege beim Bürokratieabbau durch Pilotprojekte von Bund, Ländern und Kommunen, in: AWV-Informationen 6/2009, p. 4 7.
- 6 - that the "local level" is more than just the local political and administrative system, with the civic component, NGOs and so on being expressly mentioned and given substantive recognition. 5. Implementation of multilevel governance (p. 31) To put multilevel governance into practice, the Committee of the Regions: Undertakes to (indent 4): contribute to the work of the High Level Group of Independent Stakeholders on Administrative Burdens, give an opinion on the suggestions that it makes and plan to set up a High Level Group of Local and Regional Authorities. We support the idea of setting up a High Level Group of Regional and Local Authorities which would look into administrative burdens. We believe it is essential to examine the following points here: Reducing the administrative burden in public administration itself In addition to the necessary reduction of administrative burdens in the private sector and for the benefit of the wider public, serious consideration needs to be given also to the burdens being faced in administration. Instruments and methods that could help administrators to pin-point administrative burdens and take preventive action, as well as review the substance of procedures, need to be discussed. In some cases, improvements will only be possible if legislative changes are made. This is especially true for cooperation between authorities. To what extent the obligation the Committee of the Regions has taken upon itself may prompt a parallel examination of the administrative burden on administrations or the public. This could complement or mirror the areas of law addressed by the High Level Group of Independent Stakeholders. The Committee of the Regions could conceivably look at the effect on administrations or NGOs of approaches taken by the High Level Group of Independent Stakeholders. To what extent cooperation with the network of independent national councils NKR, Actal and BRC would be possible at European level. Against this backdrop, the establishment of a High Level Group of Local and Regional Authorities, which would also monitor these matters as part of its remit, would be desirable and beneficial. (p. 33) [the Committee of the Regions] recommends (indent 4) that European and national statistics should reflect the diversity of the territorial situation in order to more accurately understand the impact of policies on the regions.
- 7 - Here we should like to return once more to our earlier argument bearing on the individual territorial indicators and add that, from our perspective, the introduction of statistical requirements should not be seen in isolation from a broader context. It is clear, for example, that collecting any information entails time and administrative burdens for those addressed. Alongside the positive goals in the White Paper's recommendation (precise identification of the impact of policies), there are also statements about the means (soft instruments, minimum possible cost, etc.) to be used. Clearly, the perspective of those to be addressed (and hence liable to incur administrative costs) is already being taken very seriously into account even at the preparatory stage and greater transparency achieved. (signed) Professor Dr. Gunnar Schwarting Head of the AEM working party 1.3 " Reducing the administrative burden in public administration" (signed) Dr. Petra Pfisterer Expert in the AEM working party 1.3 " Reducing the administrative burden in public administration"