Lo cognitivo

policy making activity of the line ministries.

The second half of the 1990s saw numerous reorganisations of the Executive branch at the federal level caused almost exclusively by political and severe budget deficit related factors. As a rule such operations were poorly organised and their implementation left much to be desired. Usually the planned downsizing of various ministries, departments and committees shortly resulted in the growth of the number of employed staff.

Typical of the overall system of governance in Russia has been focus on inputs rather than outputs, functional overlaps, disputed division of responsibilities and rivalry between ministries and agencies.

Decision-making at the level of central government has been flawed by poor demarcation of tasks and responsibilities between the President’s Administration and the Federal Government, between federal agencies, between central and regional governments and has been lacking capacity for sound policy analysis. Control over implementation of Government decisions is not effective, and accountability for poor performance is weak. The system of regular forecasting and surveys of public opinion on specific issues is undeveloped. Strategic plans for development of separate ministries and agencies have been the exception rather than the rule.

Each ministry elaborates on its own state policy in its tasked area and most importantly usually without prior or post consultations with parliament, political parties, professional organizations, or representatives of civil society.

The existing administrative culture gives preference to a system of decision-making that is far top-heavy. Many unimportant decisions are taken to the highest levels in the state apparatus resulting in slow, inefficient response and red tape. As a rule little or no explanation is given to the public why a particular decision was made and what benefit it would bring.

The administrative reform launched in 2003 was designed to deal with all these problem areas. The extent to which it succeeded or failed is analyzed in the following chapter dealing with the reform of the Russian civil service.

3.9

Civil Service: Status, Efficiency and Institutional Framework

After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the Russian Federation inherited an over-centralised, ideologically driven system of state administration and a corps of state administrators governed by a combination of modern and outdated rules, traditions and informal relationships, some of them dating back to the times of monarchy. As an institution the Russian civil service has been in the process of formation since the early 1990s. The impetus to its establishment was given by the President of the Russian Federation in his decrees of 3 June and 22 December 1993 announcing the creation of the Federal Civil Service and mapping out the principles of its organization. This process was further consolidated in 1995 when the Parliament adopted the Law ‘On the Basic Principles of Civil Service of the Russian Federation’.

In spite of some obvious deficiencies, for the first time in the modern history of Russia this legal document gave an official definition of the civil service.

influential Apparatus of the Government which has so far executed a sizable part of policy making activity of the line ministries.

The second half of the 1990s saw numerous reorganisations of the Executive branch at the federal level caused almost exclusively by political and severe budget deficit related factors. As a rule such operations were poorly organised and their implementation left much to be desired. Usually the planned downsizing of various ministries, departments and committees shortly resulted in the growth of the number of employed staff.

Typical of the overall system of governance in Russia has been focus on inputs rather than outputs, functional overlaps, disputed division of responsibilities and rivalry between ministries and agencies.

Decision-making at the level of central government has been flawed by poor demarcation of tasks and responsibilities between the President’s Administration and the Federal Government, between federal agencies, between central and regional governments and has been lacking capacity for sound policy analysis. Control over implementation of Government decisions is not effective, and accountability for poor performance is weak. The system of regular forecasting and surveys of public opinion on specific issues is undeveloped. Strategic plans for development of separate ministries and agencies have been the exception rather than the rule.

Each ministry elaborates on its own state policy in its tasked area and most importantly usually without prior or post consultations with parliament, political parties, professional organizations, or representatives of civil society.

The existing administrative culture gives preference to a system of decision-making that is far top-heavy. Many unimportant decisions are taken to the highest levels in the state apparatus resulting in slow, inefficient response and red tape. As a rule little or no explanation is given to the public why a particular decision was made and what benefit it would bring.

The administrative reform launched in 2003 was designed to deal with all these problem areas. The extent to which it succeeded or failed is analyzed in the following chapter dealing with the reform of the Russian civil service.

3.9

Civil Service: Status, Efficiency and Institutional Framework

After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the Russian Federation inherited an over-centralised, ideologically driven system of state administration and a corps of state administrators governed by a combination of modern and outdated rules, traditions and informal relationships, some of them dating back to the times of monarchy. As an institution the Russian civil service has been in the process of formation since the early 1990s. The impetus to its establishment was given by the President of the Russian Federation in his decrees of 3 June and 22 December 1993 announcing the creation of the Federal Civil Service and mapping out the principles of its organization. This process was further consolidated in 1995 when the Parliament adopted the Law ‘On the Basic Principles of Civil Service of the Russian Federation’.

In spite of some obvious deficiencies, for the first time in the modern history of Russia this legal document gave an official definition of the civil service.

The document laid down the legal basis for its organisation, outlined the procedures of service and introduced Job Classification System as well as distinction between political appointees and career civil servants.

Throughout the 1990s the formation of the civil service was taking place within the institutional framework which was heavily affected by the heritage of the Soviet times. In line with the principles of federalism and existing territorial structure the Russian civil service is divided into federal and regional services (Subjects of the Federation). Formally, local self-government and hence municipal service are not regarded as part of the system of state management although in practice they are largely financed from the budgets of the state and the Subjects of the Federation.

The Russian civil service at both the federal and regional levels is further divided into civil services of the legislative, executive and judicial branches of power. The new law “On the System of State Service in the Russian Federation” adopted in 2003 introduced additional differentiation of the entire state service into civil (public), military and law enforcement services.

At present the Russian civil service does not constitute a unified and homogenous system yet. In practice the civil services in the Subjects of the Federation (regional level) are governed by norms and rules that do not always comply with the Federal Law. A single management body or unit for the whole civil service, or at least for its federal level, is not yet established. The service lacks stability from both the institutional and human resources points of view. The legitimacy of the Russian civil service is undermined by lack of clear definition of its place in the context of institutional roles and division of powers existing since the 1990s.

The efficiency and effectiveness of the working of state administration is widely acknowledged to have dropped considerably compared even to the Soviet period. Partly this can be explained by overallweakness of the state and frequent inability of state institutions to perform many of their basic functions even up to the lowest standards. A further explanation is frequent underestimation of the crucial importance of a sound institutional and regulatory framework and efficient state administration for the country’s prospective development.

It is estimated that Russia loses up to 2 % of its annual GDP because of the poor system of public management. Over third of interviewed civil servants in 2000 consider that effectiveness (efficiency) of their work is low (RACS, 2002:11). The Chief Control Department of the Presidential Administration reported in 2002 that almost half of the Presidential orders and instructions given to the Government were not implemented on time (Nikolaev, ed. 2006:116).

The post communist period saw the appearance of further negative trends that affected the development of the civil service in Russia:

- civil servants’ pay declined sharply compared with salaries in the private sector and even in comparison with average incomes in the country; - although the communist party rule was abolished the civil service remained

highly politicized causing among other things a considerable degree of instability of the personnel;

- overall professional level of the civil service corps declined, in particular, due to exodus of most experienced and qualified staff to the private sector;

The document laid down the legal basis for its organisation, outlined the procedures of service and introduced Job Classification System as well as distinction between political appointees and career civil servants.

Throughout the 1990s the formation of the civil service was taking place within the institutional framework which was heavily affected by the heritage of the Soviet times. In line with the principles of federalism and existing territorial structure the Russian civil service is divided into federal and regional services (Subjects of the Federation). Formally, local self-government and hence municipal service are not regarded as part of the system of state management although in practice they are largely financed from the budgets of the state and the Subjects of the Federation.

The Russian civil service at both the federal and regional levels is further divided into civil services of the legislative, executive and judicial branches of power. The new law “On the System of State Service in the Russian Federation” adopted in 2003 introduced additional differentiation of the entire state service into civil (public), military and law enforcement services.

At present the Russian civil service does not constitute a unified and homogenous system yet. In practice the civil services in the Subjects of the Federation (regional level) are governed by norms and rules that do not always comply with the Federal Law. A single management body or unit for the whole civil service, or at least for its federal level, is not yet established. The service lacks stability from both the institutional and human resources points of view. The legitimacy of the Russian civil service is undermined by lack of clear definition of its place in the context of institutional roles and division of powers existing since the 1990s.

The efficiency and effectiveness of the working of state administration is widely acknowledged to have dropped considerably compared even to the Soviet period. Partly this can be explained by overallweakness of the state and frequent inability of state institutions to perform many of their basic functions even up to the lowest standards. A further explanation is frequent underestimation of the crucial importance of a sound institutional and regulatory framework and efficient state administration for the country’s prospective development.

It is estimated that Russia loses up to 2 % of its annual GDP because of the poor system of public management. Over third of interviewed civil servants in 2000 consider that effectiveness (efficiency) of their work is low (RACS, 2002:11). The Chief Control Department of the Presidential Administration reported in 2002 that almost half of the Presidential orders and instructions given to the Government were not implemented on time (Nikolaev, ed. 2006:116).

The post communist period saw the appearance of further negative trends that affected the development of the civil service in Russia:

- civil servants’ pay declined sharply compared with salaries in the private sector and even in comparison with average incomes in the country;

- although the communist party rule was abolished the civil service remained highly politicized causing among other things a considerable degree of instability of the personnel;

- overall professional level of the civil service corps declined, in particular, due to exodus of most experienced and qualified staff to the private sector;

- enforcement of civil service legislation and other normative acts remained weak.

The turbulent political environment, frequent reorganisation of ministries, high turnover of cadres, low (until recently) prestige of the service, insignificant remuneration, and overall atmosphere of uncertainty hampered the identification of values that could define and cement a common sense of mission held by most members of the civil service.

Besides, measures adopted to create foundations for the development of a modern, efficient, accountable and corruption immune civil service did not proceed from a single concept agreed among major stakeholders. By the mid 1990s a model of career based civil service gained a foothold in Russia with many elements borrowed from the French civil service system.