International Civil Service Effectiveness (InCiSE) Index 2017

InCiSE logo

The International Civil Service Effectiveness (InCiSE) Index provides a set of comparative information to help countries determine what they do well, where they can improve and what they can learn from each other.

The first of its kind, the 2017 InCiSE Index covers 31 countries across Europe, North America, South America, Asia and Australasia. By assessing civil service effectiveness based on how the civil service delivers its functions, the Index reveals what countries do well and where they can improve.

The Index is a collaboration between the Blavatnik School of Government at the University of Oxford and the Institute for Government. The project has been supported by the UK Civil Service and is funded by the Open Society Foundations. The inaugural InCiSE Index is a pilot project and the founders have the long-term foal of broadening its scope by expanding country coverage and producing it regularly.

InCiSE is not claiming at this stage to be a comprehensive measure of civil service performance. Countries and data are missing which prevent the Index from being as robust and comparative as we would wish. We hope partners will help us strengthen and refine this inaugural Index over time. We also hope it will encourage further data collection in areas where it is lacking and will actively support these efforts.

InCiSE has already brought together a growing volume of data and insights. We hope the launch of this report will stimulate wide-ranging discussions globally about how civil services can improve their effectiveness, as well as the usefulness of the InCiSE data. Feedback is welcome at: incise@bsg.ox.ac.uk

Note: Internet Explorer users might not experience the full interactivity of the data visualisations - we suggest using an alternative browser if possible.

Paragraph title

Data visualisations

In interpreting the diagrams below, consideration should be given to data quality (please refer to Figure 7 of the Index Technical Report) and the degree to which country data has been estimated (see Table 18 of the Index Technical Report).

Overall

Definition: A composite measure of civil service effectiveness, which aggregates a countries' function and attribute scores.

Policy Making

Definition: The quality of the policy making process, including how policy is developed and coordinated across government and monitored during implementation.

Fiscal and Financial management

Definition: The quality of the budgeting process and the extent to which spending decisions are informed through economic appraisal and evaluation.

Regulation

Definition: The extent and quality of regulatory impact assessments and the degree of stakeholder engagement involved in them.

Crisis / Risk management

Definition: The effectiveness with which the government engages the whole of society to better assess, prevent, respond to and recover from the effects of extreme events.

Human Resource Management

Definition: The extent to which civil servants behave with integrity, make decisions impartially and fairly, and strive to serve both citizens and ministers.

Tax

Definition: The efficiency and effectiveness of tax collection (at the central/federal level).

Social Security Administration

Definition: The efficiency and effectiveness of social security administration (at the central/federal level).

NOTE: This section comprises a single subsection so a radar chart is not shown.

Digital Services

Definition: The user-centricity, transparency and cross-border mobility of digitally-provided public services and the availability of ‘key enablers’.

Integrity

Definition: The extent to which civil servants behave with integrity, make decisions impartially and fairly, and strive to serve both citizens and ministers.

Openness

Definition: The regular practise and degree of consultation with citizens to help guide the decisions we make and extent of transparency in our decision-making.

Capabilities

Definition: The extent to which the workforce has the right mix of skills.

Inclusiveness

Definition: The extent to which the civil service is representative of the citizens it serves.

Theme to be measured	Currently captured in indicator?	Weighting in indicator (%)	Metrics to capture theme and the weighting each receives within the metric (shown in brackets)
The quality of policy advice	~	25	Bertelsmann ‘Scholarly Advice’ sub-indicator is used as a proxy for evidence base to policy decisions by assessing the degree of civil servant to academic coordination: ‘How influential are non-governmental academic experts for government decision-making?’ (50%).
The quality of policy advice	~	25	Bertelsmann 'Government Office Expertise' sub-indicator assesses: 'Does the government office / prime minister's office (GO / PMO) have the expertise to evaluate ministerial draft bills substantively?' (50%).
Degree of strategic policy direction	✔	25	Bertelsmann ‘Strategic planning’ sub-indicator assesses: ‘How much influence do strategic planning units and bodies have on government decision-making?’ (100%).
Coordination of policy proposals	✔	25	Bertelsmann ‘Ministerial Bureaucracy’ sub-indicator assesses: ‘How effectively do ministry officials/civil servants coordinate policy proposals?’ (50%).
Coordination of policy proposals	✔	25	Bertelsmann ‘Line Ministries’ sub-indicator assesses ‘To what extent do line ministries involve the government office/prime minister’s office in the preparation of policy proposals?’ (50%).
Timeliness and accuracy of policy delivery	X	-	No data identified
Degree of policy monitoring	✔	25	Bertelsmann ‘Monitoring Ministries’ sub-indicator assesses: ‘How effectively does the GO /PMO monitor line ministry activities with regard to implementation?’ (33%).
			Bertelsmann sub-indicator 'Monitoring Agencies', assesses: 'How effectively do federal and subnational ministries monitor the activities of bureaucracies/executive agencies with regard to implementation?' (33%).
			Bertelsmann ‘National Standards’ sub-indicator assesses: ‘To what extent does central government ensure that subnational self-governments realise national standards of public services?’ (33%).

Economic appraisal (use, quality, guidance)	~	33	‘Public spending’: WEF GCI business executive opinion: ‘How would you rate the composition of public spending in your country?’ (1) extremely wasteful; (7) highly efficient in providing necessary goods and services (100%).
Economic evaluation (use, quality, guidance)	~	33
Medium-term budgeting	✔	33	OECD 'Medium-Term Budgeting' index (100%).<
Performance budgeting	✔	33	OECD 'Performance Budgeting' index (100%).

Ex ante appraisal: application, quality, sustainability, transparency, oversight.	✔	33	OECD i-reg indicators – Regulatory 'Impact Assessment – Primary Laws' (50%);
			OECD i-reg indicators – Regulatory Impact Assessment – Secondary Laws (50%).
			Stakeholder engagement and ex post evaluation assessments are made on four areas of performance: methodology, systematic adoption, transparency and oversight / quality control.
Stakeholder engagement: application, quality, transparency, oversight	✔	33	OECD i-reg indicators – 'Stakeholder Engagement – Primary Laws' (50%);
			OECD i-reg indicators – Ex-post 'Evaluation – Secondary Laws' (50%).
Ex post evaluation: application, quality, sustainability, transparency, oversight	✔	33	OECD i-reg indicators – Ex-post 'Evaluation – Primary Laws' (50%);
			OECD i-reg indicators – Ex-post Evaluation – Secondary Laws (50%).

Integrated risk planning	✔	22	‘Risk Planning Extent’: The extent to which disaster risk is integrated into national policy planning is measured by counting the types of policy planning into which risk is integrated (out of 7, e.g. national development plans) (50%).
		(2/9)	‘Disaster Spending Appraisal’: A score for economic appraisal looks at whether the costs and benefits of spending related to disaster spending are considered (50%).
Risk monitoring	✔	22	‘Risk assessment quality’: The quality of multi-hazard risk assessment is measured by assessing the processes behind risk assessments (out of 5, e.g. whether risk assessments have agreed national standards) (50%);
		(2/9)	The 'Degree of Risk Monitoring' is measured by assessing the extent and use of reports and databases of this type (50%).
Public information dissemination and public awareness strategies	✔	33	‘Early Warning Systems’: The quality of early warning systems is assessed by looking at the processes in place (out of 3, e.g. whether protocols are used and applied) (33%).
		(3/9)	'Public Information' dissemination is scored by looking at the types of communications in place (out of 4, e.g. is a national disaster information system publicly available?) (33%).
			'Public Awareness Strategy' looks at the relevant workstreams in place (out of 5, e.g. whether public education campaigns for risk awareness exist) (33%).
International cooperation and risk coordination	✔	11	'International Cooperation' is measured by assessing the number of processes/activities in place for international cooperation and international risk management (out of 6, e.g. whether transboundary protocols are in place) (100%).
		(1/9)
Preparedness for disaster response	X	-	No data identified
Post disaster assessment methodology	✔	11	‘Post Disaster Assessment’: A score is given for post disaster damage and loss assessment by considering, for example, whether a specified methodology for this exists (out of 3) (100%).
		(1/9)

Meritocracy of recruitment	✔	75	‘Applicant Skills’: QoG expert assessment of extent to which the skills and merits of the applicants decide who gets the job when recruiting public sector employees (25%);
			‘Connections bias in Recruitment - Political’: QoG expert assessment of extent to which political connections of the applicants decide who gets the job (25%);
			‘Connections bias in Recruitment - Personal’: QoG expert assessment of extent to which personal connections of the applicants decide who gets the job (25%);
			‘Recruitment via Formal Exam System’: QoG expert assessment of extent to which public sector employees are hired using a formal examination system (25%).
Attracting and retaining talent	✔	25	‘Comparable Salaries’: QoG expert assessment of extent to which senior officials have salaries that are comparable with the salaries of private sector managers with roughly similar training and responsibilities (100%).
Talent deployment (i.e. minimising skills gaps)	X	-	No data identified
Performance management	X	-	No data identified
Quality of learning and development	X	-	No data identified
Level of customer (i.e. civil servant) satisfaction	X	-	No data identified

Overall efficiency of collection	✔	33	‘Collection Cost’: Data from OECD Tax Administration on: cost of collection ratios (administrative costs / net revenue collected) (50%);
Overall efficiency of collection	✔	33	'Tax Debt' ratios (total year end tax debt (excl. disputed) / net revenue collected) (50%).
User centricity of services	✔	33	‘Time to pay taxes: Business’: Data from the World Bank’s ‘Doing Business’ Index on the time it takes businesses to pay taxes (100%).
Extent and quality of digital provision	✔	33	‘E-Filed tax returns: Personal’: Data from OECD Tax Administration on: the percentage of tax returns e-filed during the last fiscal year for personal taxes (33%);
			‘E-Filed tax returns: Corporate’: Data from OECD Tax Administration on: the percentage of tax returns e-filed during the last fiscal year for corporate taxes (33%);
			‘E-Filed tax returns: VAT’: Data from OECD Tax Administration on: the percentage of tax returns e-filed during the last fiscal year for VAT taxes (33%).
Prevention of tax evasion	X	-	No data identified
Level of tax gap measurement	X	-	No data identified

Overall efficiency of distribution	✔	100	Administration costs as a percentage of total expenditure on social security (100%).
User centricity of services	X	-	No data identified
Extent and quality of digital provision	X	-	No data identified
Prevention of fraud	X	-	No data identified

User centricity of services	✔	25	European Commission E-Government benchmark: ‘User Centricity’ (100%), indicates to what extent (information about) a service is provided online.
Transparency of service	✔	25	European Commission E-Government benchmark: ‘Transparency’ (100%), indicates to what extent governments are transparent as regards a) their own responsibilities and performance, b) the process of service delivery and c) personal data involved.
Cross-border mobility of services	✔	25	European Commission E-Government benchmark: ‘Cross Border Mobility’ (100%), indicates to what extent European users can use online services in another country;
The availability of ‘key enablers’	✔	25	European Commission E-Government benchmark: ‘Key Enablers’ (100%), indicates the extent to which five technical pre-conditions for eGovernment are used.

Levels/perceptions of corruption	✔	30	‘Corruption Perceptions’: Global Corruption Barometer - % of people viewing public officials/civil servants as corrupt (25%);
			‘Public Officials Stealing’: QoG – expert opinion of how often public sector officials steal or embezzle public funds (25%);
			‘Public Officials Favours for Bribes’: QoG – expert opinion of how often public sector officials grant favours for bribes (25%);
			‘Government Favouritism of Business’: WEF GCI – business executive opinion of extent government officials show favouritism to well-connected firms (25%).
Fairness and impartiality	✔	12.5	‘Fair Treatment by Public Officials ’: QoG expert assessment of extent to which public sector employees treat some groups in society unfairly (50%);
			‘Public Officials Act Impartially’: QoG expert assessment of extent to which public sector employees act impartially when deciding how to implement policy (50%).
Adherence to rules and procedures	✔	12.5	‘Public Officials Follow Rules’: QoG expert assessment of extent to which public sector employees strive to follow rules (100%).
Striving to serve citizens and ministers	✔	12.5	‘Public Officials Strive to Help Citizens’: QoG expert assessment of extent to which public sector employees strive to help citizens (33%);
			‘Public Officials Strive to Implement Policies’ QoG expert assessment of extent to which public sector employees strive to implement policies decided by political leaders (33%);
			‘Public Officials Strive to Fulfill Ideology’: QoG expert assessment of extent to which public sector employees strive to fulfil ideology of party in government (33%).
Work ethic	✔	12.5	‘Employee Absences’: QoG expert assessment of extent to which public sector employees are absent without permission (50%);
			‘Employee Efficiency’: QoG expert assessment of extent to which public sector employees strive to be efficient (50%).
Processes in place to preserve integrity and prevent conflicts of interest	✔	20	‘Post Employment Cooling Off’: OECD data on whether a post-employment cooling off period exists and whether it’s paid (25%);
			‘Lobbyist Protection’: OECD data on degree of protection against lobbyists and other private interests influencing advisory groups (25%);
			‘Whistleblower Protection: Coverage’: OECD data on number of groups who receive whistleblower protection (25%);
			‘Whistleblower Protection: Degree’: QoG expert assessment of degree of whistleblower protection (25%).

The degree and quality of societal consultation	✔	37.5	The ‘Civic Participation’ component of the Open Government Index (33%), which “measures the effectiveness of civic participation mechanisms, including the protection of the freedoms of opinion and expression, and assembly and association, and the right to petition the government. It also measures whether people can voice concerns to various government officers and members of the legislature, and whether government officials provide sufficient information and notice about decisions affecting the community, including opportunities for citizen feedback”;
			‘E-Government Engagement’: The UN’s E-Participation Index, which reviews the quality and usefulness of e-government programs for the purpose of engaging people in public policy-making and implementation (33%);
			‘Negotiating Public Support’ Bertelsmann sub-indicator (33%), which “assesses how successfully the government consults with societal actors such as trade unions, employers’ associations, leading business associations, religious communities, and social and environmental interest groups in preparing its policy.”
The existence and quality of complaint mechanisms	✔	12.5	The ‘Complaint Mechanisms’ component of the Open Government Index (100%), which “measures whether people are able to bring specific complaints to the government about the provision of public services or the performance of government officers in carrying out their legal duties in practice, and how government officials respond to such complaints. It also measures whether people can challenge government decisions before another government agency or a judge.”
Government data availability and accessibility	✔	30	‘Open Data Practice and Impact’: The Open Data Barometer (ODB) measures the implementation of open data practice and is the only index to also measure the impact of open data (e.g. how many use it) (33%).
Government data availability and accessibility	✔		‘Government Datasets Openness’: The Open Data Index (ODI) measures whether publicly held data across 13 areas is defined as open, with results crowdsourced from volunteers reviewing websites (33%).
Government data impact and support for re-use	✔		‘Data Availability and Government Support’: The OURdata index also aims to capture the availability and accessibility of data but uniquely it also attempts to measure the level of pro-active support governments provide to foster innovative re-use of the data (33%).
Right to information (e.g. FOIs)	✔	10	The ‘Rights to Information’ component of the Open Government Index (100%) which “measures whether requests for information held by a government agency are granted. It also measures whether these requests are granted within a reasonable time period, if the information provided is pertinent and complete, and if requests for information are granted at a reasonable cost and without having to pay a bribe. This dimension also measures whether people are aware of their right to information, and whether relevant records – such as budget figures of government officials, ombudsman reports, and information relative to community projects – are accessible to the public upon request.”
Publicised laws	✔	10	The ‘Publicised Laws’ component of the Open Government Index (100%), which “measures whether basic laws and information on legal rights are publicly available, presented in plain language, and are made accessible in all languages used by significant segments of the population. This dimension also measures the quality and accessibility of information published by the government in print or online (i.e. active transparency), and whether administrative regulations, drafts of legislation, administrative decisions, and high court decisions are made accessible to the public in a timely manner.”

Leadership capability	X	-	No data identified
Commercial capability	X	-	No data identified
Analytical capability	X	-	No data identified
Digital capability	X	-	No data identified
Core capability (e.g. problem-solving, numeracy, literacy skills)	✔	75	‘Literacy Skills’: Taken from the OECD’s PIAAC (Survey of Adult Skills) data (analysis of the microdata): the proportion of the public sector getting level 4 or 5 for literacy skills (33%);
			‘Numeracy Skills’: The proportion of the public sector getting level 4 or 5 for numeracy skills (33%);
			‘Problem Solving Skills’: The proportion of the public sector getting level 3 for problem skills (33%).
Educational attainment of the workforce	✔	25	‘Educational attainment’: The proportion of the public sector with tertiary education, taken from the OECD’s PIAAC (Survey of Adult Skills) data (analysis of the microdata) (100%).

Proportionate gender representation	✔	50	‘Gender: Central Government Share’: OECD data - the absolute difference between the share of total central government employment filled by women and the share of women in the labour force (25%);
			‘Gender: Public Sector Share’: QoG data – the absolute difference between proportion of women in public sector and in the labour force (25%);
			‘Gender: Management Share’: OECD data - the absolute difference between the share of employment in top management positions within central government filled by women and the share of women in the labour force (25%);
			‘Gender: Senior Management Share’: QoG data – the absolute difference between proportion of women in central government senior positions and in the labour force (25%).
Proportionate ethnic minority representation	✔	50	‘Ethnic and Religious Group Representation’: QoG data – expert opinion as to whether ‘Key ethnic and religious groups in society are proportionally represented among public sector employees (1=hardly ever, 7=almost always)’ (100%)
Proportionate disability representation	X	-	No data identified
Proportionate socio-economic representation	X	-	No data identified
Proportionate Lesbian Gay Bi-sexual Transgender Other sexuality representation	X	-	No data identified

Paragraph title Data visualisations

Paragraph title

Data visualisations