MOVIMIENTO DE TIERRAS • Descripción de los trabajos:

4.1 Case selection

The Netherlands, Germany and Slovakia were chosen for comparison because of several factors. First, despite the fact, that all three states are members of the European Union, some differences in civil service recruitment and selection amongst the three are expected. A reason for that could be found in the limited effect the EU has on the national public administrations and the general differences which stem from national administrational legacies. Even though it is suggested that general EU-wide norms have emerged as part of the process of

Europeanisation, common EU norms on structuring the administration could be particularly difficult to specify. Dimitrova (2002: pp. 171, 172) points out that whilst some common principles (such as democratic norms) can be explicitly prescribed in European legislation, others, such as transparency, are defined differently between EU-member states. Another problem that can arise after accession is that the states are free to (re) structure the

administration as they please; this can result in reforms being contested after accession, thus challenging their longevity. (Dimitrova, 2002Because of this ‘gap’ in EU-regulations, the EU cannot issue sanctions on a member state for not having an administration structured by EU- norms. This means that only when a state is still in the pre-accession the EU can influence a candidate state’ public administration. In order to comply with the laws and regulations of the acquis communautaire, candidate-states must restructure their Public Administration to ensure their effective functioning after accession. Dimitrova points out that the adopted laws, as stated above, are based on the Weberian model of Public Administration. According to her this is evident, in the sense that they are based on the classical model of the dichotomy, in which politics and administration are clearly separated. By aiming to secure the independence of civil servants from political dismissal and focusing on continuity of the Public

Administration, they try to counter the heavily politicised characteristics which were prominently featured during post-communist times (Dimitrova, 2002: 182). Therefore it is interesting to analyse whether EU-membership has led to convergence of the three states’ norms, ideas and laws concerning civil service recruitment and selection.

Second, the Netherlands and Germany share a common border, have excellent political relations, and have numerous close cultural ties7 Also both states have a longstanding administrational legacy and are continental western states, therefore some similarities are

7 _{Government of the Netherlands (2015), Relations between the Netherlands and Germany, Den Haag}

31

expected concerning civil service recruitment and selection.. Yet, some key differences are to be found in the state-structure. For instance, the Netherlands is a decentralised unitary state, while Germany is a Federation of several Länder. Due to the above-mentioned factors, a comparison between these states seems justified in an effort to establish whether the countries display similar norms, ideas, and laws, concerning civil service recruitment and selection.

Third, Slovakia’s dual status of a ‘new’ EU-member and a post-communist state makes it an interesting case for analysis. It is argued that the differences between Slovakia, Germany, and the Netherlands are not limited to the administrative traditions. It is also expected that major differences can be observed in the cross-temporal evolution of the administrative tradition; the internal consistency of ideas, structures and practices, and the independence of an administrative tradition from external, notably international, pressures (Meyer-Sahling and Yesilkagit, 2011).

This thesis also analyses the Ministries of Finance and the Ministries of Social Affairs of respectively the Netherlands and Germany. It is argued that they can be classified as respectively regulatory-type and spending-type ministries. This is in line with Lewis (2012) conceptualisation that the goal of a ministry could be a reason for politicisation. Hereby, the focus is on expenditure per ministry/sector, the number of employees and the means to achieve their respective policy goals.

Cross-sectoral, and especially cross-national, comparisons can be problematic, due to the different definitions for the relevant variables. A number of problems like these were encountered during this research. First, official German data gives the exact number of employees per Ministry, whereas in the Dutch case this is expressed in fte’s (full-time-

equivalents). Second, the Dutch Ministry of Finance does not separate between the employees in the Ministry itself and the employees of the Dutch Tax-Authority, counting all into its workforce. This Dutch Tax Authority has a work-force of 28.249 fte’s, but no exact number is given on the employees on the Ministry itself. Third, not all countries have the same (legal) definition for a civil servant and his/her status. Before comparing the appointment of senior civil servants’, one should properly establish what the notion of ‘civil servant’ means for each country.

Besides the national datasets information is also drawn from Eurostat’s dataset. This dataset concentrates on General Government Expenditure by Fucntion (COFOG) and supplies cross-national data which can be compared. The function ‘General Public Services’ is

32

financial and fiscal affairs, external affairs foreign economic aid, basic research, R&D related to general public services, public debt services, transfers of a general character between different levels of government.8 The function ‘Social Protection’ is most closely related to the Ministry of Social Affairs, as it incorporates Sickness and disability, old age, survivors, family and children, unemployment, housing, R&D, social exclusion.9

Table 6: General Government Expenditure by Function (COFOG) in Percentage of GDP 10

Country General Public

Services

Social Protection Executive and Legislative organs, fiscal and financial affairs, external affairs

Germany (2012) 6,1% 19,4% 1,7 %

Netherlands (2012) 5,4% 17,6% 2,2%

The German Ministry of Social Affairs has 2630 employees, and the Ministry of Finance 1850 employees, making the first about 42% larger (see figure 3) . In terms of spending the difference is even larger, the Ministry of Social Affairs takes up about 40% of the national expenditure. The Ministry of Finance’s expenditure is only 1,5% of the national budget. This difference in expenditure is also affirmed by the Eurostat COFOG data. Social protection is 19,4% of the German national GDP, and General Public Services 6,1%,. (see figure 2)

The Dutch Ministry of Social Affairs has 2254 FTE, and the Ministry of Finance 31.598 FTE. For the latter it has to be made clear that at least 28.249 FTE are tax-agency employees which formally fall under the Finance Ministry (see figure 4). In terms of expenditure the Ministry of Social Affairs takes up 14% of the national budget, the Ministry

8 _{Eurostat (2015) Glossary: Classification of the functions of government , http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-}

explained/index.php/Glossary:Classification_of_the_functions_of_government_(COFOG) (visited on 10 October 2015).

9 _{Eurostat (2015) Glossary: Classification of the functions of government , http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-}

explained/index.php/Glossary:Classification_of_the_functions_of_government_(COFOG) (visited on 10 October 2015).

10 _{Eurostat (2015b) Government expenditure by function, http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-}

explained/index.php/Government_expenditure_by_function_%E2%80%93_COFOG#EU-

28_general_government_expenditure_at_48.1_.25_of_EU_GDP_in_2014_and_at_48.3_.25_of_GDP_in_2013 (visited on 10 October 2015).

33

of Finance spends 5,7% of the national budget. The Eurostat data shows that Social Protection is 17,6% of the Dutch national GDP, General Public Services 5,4%. (see table 3)

In both Germany and the Netherlands the largest difference between the ministries is the expenditure. Both Ministries of Social Affairs spend significantly more than the Ministries of Finance. In Germany Social Affairs spends more than any other ministry, and in the

Netherlands Social Affairs is the second largest in terms of expenditure11. Therefore both Ministries of Social Affairs can be classified as spending ministries. At the same time both Ministries of Finance can be classified as regulatory ministries.

Table 7: Budget and Spending per Ministry

Country Ministry of Finance Ministry of Social

Affairs

Total National Budget

Germany (2012)12 4.605.224.000 126.130.940.000 311.600.000.000

Netherlands (2012)13 12.602.513.000 31.066.016.000 220.901.950.000

Table 8: Number of Civil Servants Per Ministry

Country Ministry of Finance Ministry of Social Affairs

Germany14 (2012) 1850 2 630

Netherlands15 (2014) 31.598 (FTE)16 2.254 (FTE)

11 _{Ministerie van Financiën (2015b) Rijksbegroting en Financieel Jaarverslag 2012}

http://rijksbegroting.minfin.nl/2012/verantwoording/financieel_jaarverslag,kst181515_24.html (visited on 10 October 2015)

12 _{Bundesministerium der Finanzen (2015) Bundeshaushalt 2012, http://www.bundeshaushalt-}

info.de/#/2012/soll/ausgaben/einzelplan.html (visited on 10 September 2015).

13

Ministerie van Financiën (2015b) Rijksbegroting en Financieel Jaarverslag 2012

http://rijksbegroting.minfin.nl/2012/verantwoording/financieel_jaarverslag,kst181515_24.html (visited on 10 October 2015)

14 _{Statistisches Bundesamt (2015), Finanzen und Steuern: Personal des öffentlichen Dienstes, Fachserie 14,}

Reihe 6, Statistisches Bundesamt, Wiesbaden

https://www.destatis.de/DE/Publikationen/Thematisch/FinanzenSteuern/OeffentlicherDienst/Personaloeffentlich erDienst2140600147004.pdf?__blob=publicationFile (visited on 10 October 2015)

15 _{Ministerie van Financiën (2015a) Antwoorden op vragen van de Tweede Kamer over het personeelsbestand}

van de Belastingdienst, Den Haag

https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten/kamerstukken/2015/03/24/antwoorden-op-vragen-van-de-tweede- kamer-over-het-personeelsbestand-van-de-belastingdienst (visited on 10 October 2015)

16 _{This includes the Dutch Tax Agency (Belastingdienst) which has 28.249 (FTE) in 2014. The actual size of the}

34 4.2 Research Method

This research draws information from previous literature on the subject of Politicisation and Administrative Traditions. Furthermore administrative laws, and other related official documents will be examined. Finally, much of the information will come from qualitative semi-structured interviews with top-civil servants from the three countries, also if possible that CVs of top-officials will be included in the research (see Annex A for respondents). The interviews’ purpose is twofold: First they should provide clear information on the dependent variables. Second, they should define whether the assumptions about the ministries, and the relation between the dependent and independent variables are true. It is structured as a semi- structured in-depth interview and can provide reliable, comparable qualitative data. The research as a whole is qualitative, but quantitative data derived from previous studies is used for support.

The thesis entails a comparative case study on two levels: national and policy. The national level will concentrate on Germany, Netherlands and Slovakia, with a focus on their respective administrative legacy. For the cases of the Netherlands and Germany a more in- depth perspective of the policy levels of the respective Ministries of Finance and Ministries of Social Affairs will be presented.

Table 9: Two levels of Comparison

Ministry of Finance Ministry of Social Affairs

Germany Cross-National/ Sectoral Cross-National/ Sectoral

Netherlands Cross-National/ Sectoral Cross-National/ Sectoral

Slovakia Cross-National Cross-National

Two Ministries from three EU Member States will be researched, respectively the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Social Affairs. The group of top-officials at these ministries are the unit of analysis. The countries are EU-member states: the Netherlands, Germany and Slovakia. The respondents for the interviews are top-officials from the respective ministries, these are also the units of observation.

A possible threat for the reliability of this research is that when the interviews are repeated, the answers might differ. However, by clearly structuring the interviews and the research in general, problems concerning reliability should be avoidable. Interviews can always produce

35

biased results, for example, towards the person being interviewed, therefore they should be treated with caution.

In order to keep the internal validity on an acceptable level, this thesis uses literature representing different points of view, so that most possible mechanisms are taken into account. Also the interviews should specify what the causal relationship is between the dependent and independent variables, and whether there are other possible causes. As this thesis presents a comparative case-study, the external validity is important. Especially since only a small amount of participants is expected, it is hard to generalize about the entire group of top civil-servants. Ideally, per ministry, at least two in-depth interviews are needed. The research method closely follows Haverland and Blatter’s (2012) causal-process tracings approach. This approach focuses on what factors lead to a concrete outcome or which preconditions are necessary and sufficient in order to make a specific kind of outcome possible (Haverland & Blatter, 2012: p. 14) The causal-process approach strives for

‘possibilistic generalization’, or ‘Drawing conclusions from the identified causal

configuration(s) and mechanisms for an outcome to the set of potential configurations and/or to the set of proven causal configurations and mechanisms’ (Haverland & Blatter, 2012: p. 14).

The sample size of this study (5 respondents) is considered to be small, which could be problematic for the external validity. Generalising from such a small sample is not always possible. However, it is argued, that the sample is representative for the group of top civil servants. Crouch and Mckenzie (2006) argue why a small sample could improve validity. First, in this kind of research the whole notion of ‘sample’ is inappropriate. Since ‘if anything is being ‘‘sampled’’, it is not so much individual persons ‘‘of a kind’’, but rather variants of a particular social setting (the real object of the research in question) and of the experiences arising in it. Rather than being systematically selected instances of specific categories of attitudes and responses, here respondents embody and represent meaningful experience– structure links.’ (Crouch, McKenzie, 2006: p. 493) Second, the approach is involves careful history-taking, cross-case comparisons, intuitive judgments and reference to extant theoretical knowledge. Which is practically not achievable in a large number of cases (Crouch,

McKenzie, 2006: p. 493). Third, the effort of analysing the relation between the interview material and the theoretical material is the core ‘qualitative’ feature of this research. It ‘simultaneously deepens understanding and builds breadth into the investigation through mindfulness of other work in the field.’ (Crouch & McKenzie, 2006: p. 493).

36