Status developments in the national public services

European Institute of Public Administration - Institut européen d administration publique Status developments in the national public services Prof. Dr. Christoph Demmke & Researcher Timo Moilanen Presentation at the HRWG meeting in Copenhagen 3.5.2012 learning and development - consultancy - research EIPA 2011 Contents Objectives - Analyse employment status developments in the context of financial crisis and austerity measures Methodology - Survey questionnaire sent 23.1.2012, deadline 1.3.2012, response rate 93% (26/28, RO and UK missing) - Focus on central administration - different definitions Main findings - See next slides Topics for further discussion - Final slide

Different definitions of central public administration and civil service (narrow vs. broad) whereas some countries employ almost solely civil servants, others employ different categories of staff range of administrative sectors belonging to central public administration and the civil service differ considerably proportion of civil servants in central administration varies significantly (0,5% - 100%) legal foundations and legal provisions differ (CS mentioned in constitutions, laws, regulations and/or codes) employment and working conditions vary significantly, reflecting common private sector practices to public sector practices (e.g., job security) General form of employment relationship by Member State and Life-time tenure Hybrid Indefinitive duration

Different categories of staff by Member State and in central public administration (1/2) Member State Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Category 4 Austria Public law status, 61,2% Labour law status, 38,8% Belgium Public law status, 77% Labour law status, 22,7% Mandatory management staff, 1,6% Bulgaria Public law status, 63% Labour law status, 37% Cyprus Public law status, 72% Labour law status, 28% Czech Republic Public law status 0% Labour law status 100% Denmark Public law status, 26 % Labour law status, 73% Individual contracts or terms determined unilaterally by employer, approx 1 pct Estonia Public law status, 91% * Labour law status, 2% * Special Labour law (support staff), 7%* European Commission EU Officials 68% Other servants of the EU 28% Non-statutory staff 4% Finland Public law status 87% Labour law status 13% France "Titulaires" 68,9% "Non-titulaires" 15,1% Public law status, "Military" 14,2% Public law status, "State workers" ("non-titulaires" with a specific status working mostly in the Ministry of Defence) : no more recruitment under this status 1,8% Germany Public law status 28,3% Labour law status 31,1% Military 40,6% Different categories of staff by Member State and in central public administration (2/2) Member State Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Category 4 Greece Public law status, 81,68% Labour law status, 7,65% Hungary Public law status, 90% Labour law status, 10% Ireland Public law status, 100% Labour law status, 0% Italy Public law status, 16% Labour law status, 84% Latvia Public law status, 45% Labour law status, 55% Lithuania Public law status, 100% Luxembourg Public law status 66% Labour law status 34% Malta Public law status, 100% Netherlands Public law status 90% Labour law status 10% Poland Public law status, 5,6% Labour law status, 94,4% Portugal Public law status - civil servants (appointment), 14,1% Labour law status - individual employment contract, 8,6% Slovakia Public law status, 90,40% Labour law status, 9,60% Slovenia n.a n.a Fixed-term contracts under private law, 5,97% Public law status - employees (employment contract in public functions), 75,6% Contract workers, 0,60% Public law status - Limited Executive Tenure, 1,6% Spain Public law status, 77,07% Labour law status, 21% Other personnel 1,9% Sweden Public law status, <1% Labour law status, >99% Missing: Romania, United Kingdom

General public employment trend Trend is very clear: there is a strong decrease in employment in central administrations of the EU Member States (26 responses, overall score 4.24 1 ) Trend is very strong in those countries which are subject to austerity measures (11 countries, score 4.45) but almost equally strong among nonausterity countries (15 countries, score 4.07) 1 1=increase in employment, 5=decrease in employment General public employment trend on central level by Member State Status quo Decrease in public employment Strong decrease in public employment Estonia Belgium Austria Luxembourg Bulgaria Cyprus Poland Czech Republic Denmark Sweden Finland Greece France Ireland Germany Latvia Hungary Lithuania Italy Netherlands Malta Portugal Slovakia Spain Slovenia N.B.: No Member State reported to increase its public employment

Public employment trends and categories of employees Some countries cut employment as regards all different employment categories due to financial constraints (e.g. ES, IT, PT, BG, EL etc) - Overall, biggest reductions in civil service employment (exceptions in DE, IT, PL, BG) - Slight decrease in fixed-term employment but also increase in some cases (DE, NL, ) In some countries, fixed-term employees almost do not exist (MT, PL*) on central governmental level, in others more (Sweden 18%, Portugal 16%) Reasons for using fixed-term employment contracts in central administration by Member State Yes need to complete a specific and limited task temporary need for and specific substituting needs civil servants who are temporarily absent temporary increase in work volume performan ce of seasonal work need for more flexible employm ent in order to save resources consequenc e of budgetary constraints/ austerity measures 96 (23/24) 90 (19/21) 76 (19/25) 76 (19/25) 67 (12/18) 33 (7/21) 33 (7/21) BE,BG,CY, CZ,DE,DK,,EE,EL, ES,FI,FR, BG,CY,CZ, DE,,EE, EL,ES,FI,FR,HU,LV,MT, HU,IE,IT,LV, NL,PL,PT,S MT,NL,PL, E,SI,SK PT,SE,SI,SK BE,CZ,DE,DK, BE,BG,CZ,,EE,FI,FR, DE,,EE,EL HU,IE,IT,LU, MT,NL,PL,PT, SE,SI,SK No LU BE,LU BG,CY,EL,ES, LT,LV,ES,FI,FR,HU,LU,LV,MT,N L,PT,SE,SI,S K BE,CY,DK, EL,ES,FI, FR,HU,IE, IT,LV,SE BG,CY,EL,ES BG,EE,LU,,LT,LV PL,SI,SK,EE,ES, LV,NL,SE, SI BE,BG,CY, DE,DK,FI, FR,IE,IT, LU,MT,PL, PT,SK,EE,EL,LV,NL,SE,SI BE,BG,CY,E S,FI,FR,HU,I E,IT,LU,MT,P L,PT,SK

General public employment trend on central level by austerity and non-austerity countries in EU-27 (1=increase in employment, 5=decrease in employment) Public law employees Labour law employees Fixed-term employment (*) No austerity measures Austerity countries Total Mean 3,36 3,15 2,92 N 14 13 12 Std. Dev. 1,008,987 1,165 Mean 3,91 3,64 3,11 N 11 11 9 Std. Dev.,944 1,120,928 Mean 3,60 3,38 3,00 N 25 24 21 Std. Dev. 1,000 1,056 1,049 (*) flexible, limited and/or short-term contracts Alignment trends and working/employment conditions From a historical perspective, differences in working/employment conditions decreasing but remain different between central administration and public and private sector (e.g., as regards pay, recruitment, job security, career development) However, also pay, job security, recruitment policies etc. are being reformed and further flexibilised etc.

Differences between civil servant employment and contract employment by issues (average) (1=very much, 2=somewhat, 3=fairly little, 4=not at all) similar different Differences between civil servant employment and contract employment (10 issues, average) (1=very much, 2=somewhat, 3=fairly little, 4=not at all) different similar

Alignment trends amongst categories of employees - race to the top alignment trends between civil servants and public employees in some countries (LU, DE, IE) - e.g., in LU public employees can not be dismissed after ten years - e.g., in IE few differences between established and unestablished civil servants - alignment trends between fixed-term employees and employees with unlimited contracts (France) - alignment trends between civil servants and private sector employees (NL) The end of classical civil service towards a core civil service? Member States decrease civil service employment more than other employment forms - Decrease of number of civil servants with the exception of few countries (DE, IT, PL, BG) In the future, civil service employment only in core government functions?

Towards smaller government: Sectors belonging to the Civil Service (Demmke/Moilanen 2010) Towards the abolishment of the (public law) civil service status?...no trend towards dominance of one employment status (case Sweden, Malta, Ireland, Lithuania)? (NL)...no trend towards abolishment of civil service status -...however, efforts in some Member States (DK, SI)

Economic crisis as an extra impetus to abolishing employment as civil servants NL PL EE PT BE CY DE FI FR IT LU MT SE BG ES HU IE LT LV DK SI SK EL Missing: AT,CZ,RO,U K Need for specific employment features? Trend towards less specific features of civil service employment some differences remain Do we still need specific employment features? If yes, for who and in which sectors (military, police, diplomats, judges etc.)? - Are civil servants different than contract employees (loyalty, impartiality, politicisation etc.)?

Legitimacy of specific civil service In some countries, public employees carry out the same duties as civil servants no differences in workplace behavior? Why then civil servants? Reasons for using labour law employees as substitutes for civil servants by Member State Cost saving measures Shortages in civil service employment and recruitment Part-time employment replaced by temporary employment Yes Denmark Greece Belgium Denmark Estonia Ireland Luxembourg Greece Greece Luxembourg Netherlands Hungary Netherlands Malta Netherlands No Belgium Belgium Bulgaria Bulgaria Bulgaria Bulgaria Denmark Finland Finland Denmark Finland Germany Ireland Estonia Germany Luxembourg Luxembourg Finland Greece Malta Malta Hungary Hungary Portugal Portugal Ireland Slovenia Slovenia Malta Portugal Slovenia Labour law employees perform their tasks in the way as civil servants Note: Many countries did not respond to this question

No end of the standard employment model The standard employment model (full-time employment, contracts of indefinite duration etc.) is in decline in the private and the wider public sector However, this is not the case in central public administration where fixed-term employment continues to be an exception However, the finiancial crisis may force Member States to implement more flexible employment forms in the future Trend towards employment of fixed-term employees by Member State and Increase Status quo Decrease Netherlands Denmark Bulgaria Czech Republic Germany Cyprus Estonia Greece Ireland European Commission Hungary Malta Latvia Slovenia Portugal Slovakia Belgium Finland France Italy Luxembourg Spain Sweden Missing: Austria, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, United Kingdom

Need for flexible term employment in the future Annex Change of standard employment model Differences between civil service employment and public employment in detail

The state of the standard employment model No increase in labour law employees Germany Italy Latvia Hungary Slovenia Denmark European Commission Bulgaria Cyprus Portugal Standard employment model still strong Status quo Belgium Luxembourg France Malta Hungary Poland Slovenia Sweden Ireland Spain Estonia Finland Netherlands Greece Increase in labour law employees Standard employment model in decline Differences between civil service employment and public employment (1/2) Pension system Job security 17 (4) BE, ES, FR, PL Pay systems 20 (5) EE, FR, IT, LT, PT Holiday arrangements Working time CY Very much Somewhat Fairly little Not at all Cannot say 25 (6) 18 (5) 46 (11) BE, CY, DE, EL, FR, IT, NL, PT BG, FI, HU, IE, DK, EE, ES SE LY, LV, LU, MT, PL, SI, SK 50 (12) BG, DE, DK, EE, FI, HU, LV, MT, NL, PT, SE, SK 36 (9) AT, BE, DE, EL, ES, MT, PL, SE, SK 0 (0) 32 (8) BE, BG, EE, ES, IT, PT, SE, SI 20 (5) ES, HU, IT, PL, PT 17 (4) CY, EL, LT, SI 16 (4) CY, HU, IE, NL 24 (6) CY, DE, HU, IE, LT, PL 28 (7) BE, EE, FI, IE, MT, SE, SK 13 (3) IE, IT, LU 24 (6) BG, DK, FI, LU, LV, SI 40 (10) AT, DK, EL, FI, FR, LU, LV, MT, NL, SK 44 (11) AT, BG, DE, DK, EL, FR, LT, LU, LV, NL, SI

Differences between civil service employment and public employment (2/2) Career development Health insurance Very much Somewhat Fairly little Not at all Cannot say 32 (8) 12 (3) 36 (9) 16 (4) BE, CY, ES, FI, BG, LV, MT DE, EE, EL, HU, AT, DK, LU, PL FR, IT, LT, PT IE, NL, SE, SI, SK BG Right to strike 17 (4) BG, DE, DK, EE Recruitment procedure Ethical obligations 36 (9) BE, BG, CY, ES, FI, FR, LT, LU, LV, 12 (3) BG, EE, LT 20 (5) AT, BE, CY, DE, ES 29 (7) CY, ES, FI, HU, IT, NL, SI 32 (8) DE, EE, EL, MT, PT, SE, SI, SK 32 (8) DE, HU, IE, LV, NL, PL, SE, SK 16 (4) FR, MT, NL, SE 25 (6) IE, LU, MT, PT, SE, SK 20 (5) DK, HU, IE, NL, PL 12 (3) BE, IT, MT 48 (12) DK, EE, EL, FI, HU, LT, LU, LV, PL, PT, SI, SK 25 (6) BE, EL, FR, LT, LV, PL 8 (2) AT, IT 40 (10) AT, CY, DK, EL, ES, FI, FR, 12 (3), IE, IT LU, PT, SI Source: Christoph Demmke/Timo Moilanen, Status developments in the national public services, Survey for the Danish EU-Presidency and the EUPAN network, Copenhagen, 3 May 2012