Ireland has shown resilience in the face of major economic events. The economy recovered more quickly than expected from the global financial crash and Brexit challenges were dealt with very effectively.
For more than a decade, the Republic has performed well on the IMD global competitiveness index, with the persistent exception of public infrastructure.
After years of neglect, the Government now seems intent on making a major course correction in how we deliver public infrastructure. Big reforms are already under way in regulation, administrative rules and legislation.
Risk aversion has been identified as a source of delays in decision making. Equally important, but not yet being addressed, is the need for the centre of Government to have individuals with the requisite up-to-date skill sets and institutional knowledge to inform decision making.
READ MORE
Our infrastructure problems relate directly to the severe cuts made to capital expenditure in the 2010s to reduce our fiscal deficit. They also have origins in the emphasis of the Troika – the European Commission, the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund – on improved control of public expenditure. The Department of Public Expenditure and Reform (DPER) was established 15 years ago with this purpose in mind.
Ironically, the complex set of policies and procedures DPER brought in, albeit with good intentions, lengthened decision and delivery process timelines across the whole public sector, thereby contributing to our massive public infrastructure deficits today.
The Infrastructure Taskforce, chaired by DPER minister Jack Chambers, set out the course-correction roadmap last December. It is good to see DPER engage positively with the taskforce’s recommendations and begin to lead on big system-wide reforms that lie within its departmental mandate.
[ Three departments face closer supervision after exceeding budgetsOpens in new window ]
While these reforms will speed up decision processes, the Minister and the taskforce have also suggested that public servants need to take on more risk in decision making. Risk appetite statements are being drafted but getting the right amount of risk, and the right approach, will require that individuals face the correct incentives and rewards systems, and that accountability mechanisms, such as the Public Accounts Committee, adjust in tandem.
But more is needed for today’s complex world. At the centre of decision making we must have civil servants who are equipped with the professional skills to provide advice and inform decisions that are often highly technical, involving multifaceted funding models, complex legal structures and innovative technologies.
Ireland’s Civil Service model remains close to the Westminster model, introduced to remove patronage from public appointments in the 18th century. At its heart were public competitions to recruit the brightest applicants, irrespective of skill sets. Appointees were given tenure to enable them speak truth to power, and received on-the-job training for the relatively straightforward tasks of those days.
In response to modern complexities and the more extensive role of the State, the UK has moved away from this model over the past 25 years. Now more than 50 per cent of UK civil servants are in specialist streams, with their own recruitment and career pathways, and continual professional development (CPD) programmes.
In contrast, the Republic’s Civil Service has retained the generalist model, seeking to manage today’s complexity by increased dependence on private-sector consultants and by expanding the numbers of State agencies under their remits that employ professional and technical experts.
While there are some technical grades in particular Government departments and some people have been hired for their specific professional skills (IT, HR, law, accountancy, etc) over the past decade, the Republic’s model has broadly remained a generalist one. This generalist focus is confirmed and reinforced by rapid rotations of staff across divisions and departments, challenging the development of high quality institutional and sectoral knowledge.
The unique exception to the generalist model in the State is the systemic recruitment of economists and analysts for the Irish Government Economic and Evaluation Service (IGEES). It was established by DPER in 2012 in response to criticisms (by the Troika and others) of the limited economic expertise in Irish Government departments.
A recent paper in Administration showed growth in IGEES numbers from 30 in 2012 to over 350 today, suggesting its perceived value by departments.
Despite this, IGEES lacks defined professional career pathways, a developed CPD programme, and credible opportunities for promotion outside the Department of Finance and DPER. IGEES economists seeking to further their careers, while wanting to retain and build their specialist skills, face strong early-career incentives to leave the Civil Service.
But why should systemic specialist recruitment streams be limited to economics? What is the argument against recruiting people to key specialist streams relevant to government, such as in law, psychology, planning, Stem, project management, logistics, and climatology?
And is it really a good idea to remain so dependent for basic expertise in key policy areas on private-sector consultancies?
It is something of a curiosity that the Republic has not evolved towards greater workforce specialisms, as happened in the UK. It looks as if the requirement for Civil Service leaders to have broad-based experience has translated into a decision to downplay the importance of specific and specialist skills at all levels throughout the whole service.
Young civil servants quickly learn that their specialist knowledge counts for little in the promotions system, which deliberately concentrates on generic management and leadership skills.
This generalist approach leaves the service highly challenged to build the specialist knowledge and institutional expertise required both to serve politicians making complex decisions and to deal effectively with external stakeholders in complicated settings. The service needs more people with both the deep expertise required and the transdisciplinary skills to work with other experts.
Perhaps Chambers will look next at Civil Service workforce reform, having seen the contributions of people (from inside and outside the public service) with the relevant expertise and experience on his taskforce. This would mean identifying the type and scale of skilled workforce necessary to equip the Irish Civil Service for an age of increasing complexity, and how such a workforce can be successfully recruited, sustained and developed.
Dr Frances Ruane is an economist and former chair of the National Competitiveness and Productivity Council
