Docstoc

Le caratteristiche dei gruppi

Document Sample
Le caratteristiche dei gruppi Powered By Docstoc
					   UNIVERSITY OF ROME TOR VERGATA
   Faculty of Economics
   Department of Business Studies
   www.economia.uniroma2.it




Partial Privatization processes, public service providers and
                     accountability issues:
               evidences from Italy and Norway



                          Andrea Calabrò
            PhD in Public Management and Governance
                     E-mail: andrea.calabro@uniroma2.it
University of Rome Tor Vergata               Faculty of Economics – Department of Business Studies

Agenda

  1. The Debate on Privatization and Accountability
  2. The main theoretical points and some critical flaws
  3. Research Questions
  4. Methods
  5. Some evidence from Italy and Norway
  6. Discussion and Findings
  7. Conclusions and Future Research Directions




                                                                                                 Slide

CMU – Michigan 2010              Andrea Calabrò                              23-25 September         2
University of Rome Tor Vergata                 Faculty of Economics – Department of Business Studies

1. The Debate on Privatization and Accountability

• There are many different Privatization experiences worldwide.

• The privatization processes (PP) aim at improving economic efficiency by reducing
  the role of the State and increasing the degree of private sector competition
  thus expecting positive effects on the economy (Meggison and Netter, 2001).
  However, the measure of the success of PP is often narrow.

• Some    countries have stopped to privatize without realizing effective market
  competition and others have only recently begun. Therefore in many cases the PP
  ended up with public service and goods providers still controlled by the State 
  Partial Privatization (PP).

• This raises many accountability and ethical concerns. The lack of accountability
  and the ethical may be the reasons to the failure of privatizations.

• The paper emphasises       attributes, limits, open-debates related to PP through the
  lens of different theoretical perspectives (NPM, NPS, NPG).
                                                                                                   Slide

CMU – Michigan 2010                Andrea Calabrò                              23-25 September         3
University of Rome Tor Vergata                       Faculty of Economics – Department of Business Studies

2. The main theoretical points and some critical flaws

NPM  Privatization is often seen as a tool of the NPM but this is not appropriate
and correct. There are several distinctions between NPM and privatization. It is
perhaps accurate to say that privatization is a broad tool kit, whereas NPM is, as
advertised, an approach to management reform.


    Recently cracks have appeared and a new way of thinking on public management has begun to
    be addressed to the weaknesses of NPM. Many authors look at the negative effects of
    privatization processes often resulting in no improvement of public service values for citizens.



NPS  Other authors argued what has been labelled the New Public Service
(Denhardt and Denhardt, 2000) in which the role of the public official is to help
citizens, meeting their interests rather than attempt to control or steer society.

Contrasting the NPM, in the NPS the privatization process is seen as a market-based
mechanism and because of its failure in some contexts becomes inappropriate, also
for the ethical problems that arise from its application.
                                                                                                         Slide

CMU – Michigan 2010                     Andrea Calabrò                               23-25 September         4
University of Rome Tor Vergata               Faculty of Economics – Department of Business Studies

2. The main theoretical points and some critical flaws (I)

 NPG  A reasonable alternative (Pestoff, 1992; 2008) to the PP is given by this
 perspective (Osborne, 2006) including many modes of governance (joined-up
 governance, network, co-production and cooperation).

 These are looked as alternatives to the PP in public service provisions and they
 might be able to solve many critical issues (corruption, conflicts of interest, and
 unethical behaviour).

 These problems are partially solved through participatory citizenship in the
 government of complex issues like the public service delivery (Klijn, 2008).




                                                                                                 Slide

CMU – Michigan 2010              Andrea Calabrò                              23-25 September         5
University of Rome Tor Vergata                  Faculty of Economics – Department of Business Studies

3. Research Questions

The previous discussion has pointed out how the privatization process assumes
different meanings and aspects in relation to different perspectives (NPM, NPS,
NPG). Therefore this paper shows the impact of privatization on the accountability
system of public services providers.

The main research questions are:



            What are the main reasons and motivations for PP?


            How they can be related to different perspectives, like NPM, NPS and NPG in
            order to analyze the accountability systems of public service providers?


            Are there differences or common patterns when comparing the situation of
            different countries?


                                                                                                    Slide

CMU – Michigan 2010                 Andrea Calabrò                              23-25 September         6
 University of Rome Tor Vergata                     Faculty of Economics – Department of Business Studies

 4. Methods
• A cross-country case study is conducted on the Italian and the Norwegian PP. The
  analysis has been conducted following 3 main directions:
       1.   Identification of the main drivers and motivations of the PP;
       2.   Investigation of the current situation;
       3.   Analysis of the accountability and the ethical systems of public service providers.

• In the 1st and 2nd steps a historical background of the PP in Italy and Norway is
  presented, in order to understand the historical and cultural traditions of their
  political-administrative systems (Olsen, 1992; Christensen and Peters, 1999).

• Inthe 3rd step, service providers’ codes of ethics are collected (from the website)
  and their content analysis (Krippendorff, 1980; Ingram and Frazier, 1990; Holst,
  1981) is carried out.

• Two groups of public service providers were selected. 26 from Italy, and 22 from
  Norway. All are owned by a Ministry. The 26 Italian public service providers are
  owned (totally or partially) by the Italian Ministry of Economy and Finance (MEF).

                                                                                                        Slide

CMU – Michigan 2010                     Andrea Calabrò                              23-25 September         7
 University of Rome Tor Vergata                 Faculty of Economics – Department of Business Studies

 5. Some evidence from Italy and Norway
The Italian case


 • The PP was launched in the midst of a dramatic financial crisis.
 • In the 1990s Italy performed the third largest privatization in the world.
 • The State maintained more than 50.0% of the shares in significant businesses.
 • It was characterized by a stop and go dynamic (Marelli and Stroffolini, 1998).


 The current situation
 • The MEF is still an influential shareholder in several privatized companies.
 • Planning, control and governance functions are performed by the MEF.
 • There are no clearly actions in order to effectively improve market competition.
 • The effects of the PP are disputed and contested and ethical concerns emerge.
 • Accountability practices related to PP seems to be not well implemented.

                                                                                                    Slide

CMU – Michigan 2010                 Andrea Calabrò                              23-25 September         8
 University of Rome Tor Vergata                 Faculty of Economics – Department of Business Studies

 5. Some evidence from Italy and Norway (I)
The Norwegian case



•   Strong statist tradition (Olsen, 1992) based on equality and welfare State.
•   The absence of an economic crisis.
•   A reluctant and late NPM reformer (Olsen, 1992).
•   In the 1990s gradual reforms in the central government were introduced aiming to
    the maintenance and modernization rather than radical change in the State.
•   In 2005 a new government won the election and it run on an “anti-NPM ticket”
    aiming at stopping NPM reforms because of their negative consequences.
•   The Norwegian privatization process is now stopped and the current government
    is skeptical toward competitive tendering, outsourcing and privatization.




                                                                                                    Slide

CMU – Michigan 2010                 Andrea Calabrò                              23-25 September         9
 University of Rome Tor Vergata                  Faculty of Economics – Department of Business Studies

 5. Some evidence from Italy and Norway (II)
Accountability and Ethical issues in Italy and Norway


•   In both countries ethical and accountability concerns arise in relation to the PP.
•   Well-defined ethical structures may help to prevent those problems.
•   The adoption of a code of ethics is a step towards improving the ethical culture.
•   Mandatory codes of ethics have been introduced only recently in Italy for public
    service providers (Law 231/2001).
•   In Norway there is not a law that makes compulsory the adoption of codes of
    ethics. The Norwegian Code of Practice for Corporate Governance establishes that
    the board of directors in SOCs should adopt ethical guidelines for the company.




                                                                                                     Slide

CMU – Michigan 2010                  Andrea Calabrò                              23-25 September         10
 University of Rome Tor Vergata                        Faculty of Economics – Department of Business Studies

 6. Discussion and Findings

Analyzing the status quo of the privatization processes through a historical overview:

  • ITALY  The privatization process has been characterized by a stop and go dynamic.
  • NORWAY  The privatization took place later, showing a reluctance of the Norwegian
     Government to this reform until 1990s (Christensen, 2003).
  • ITALY AND NORWAY  Given the different motivations and contexts, the current situation
     in both countries results in a partial privatization process.



PRIVATIZATION DRIVERS  It emerges that different are the motivations and the
pressures toward the privatization in the two countries.

  • ITALY  The privatization process has been motivated by the need for efficiency to
     overcome the ineffectiveness of public ownership (Cafferata, 1995; Bognetti and Robotti,
     2007).
  • NORWAY  Given the strong financial position of the State, fiscal improvement
     considerations have not been seen as a main driver (Christensen and Lægreid, 2009).


                                                                                                           Slide

CMU – Michigan 2010                       Andrea Calabrò                               23-25 September         11
    University of Rome Tor Vergata                Faculty of Economics – Department of Business Studies

    6. Discussion and Findings (I)

•    ITALY and NORWAY  In Italy the MEF is the main owner. In Norway there are
     several Ministries involved in public service companies directions (as a result
     derived from the historical agencification of the Norwegian public sector).

•    LACK OF ACCOUNTABILITY  The privatization process of public services and
     goods has developed a clear lack of accountability, of implementation actions on
     the codes of ethics, and of transparency in both countries. Considerations on
     citizens’ public value and interest are due (Bozeman, 2009).

•    Actions in line with ethical and accountable procedures are sporadic, unstructured,
     and introduced recently in both countries. Relations and communications between
     the government and the citizens become fundamental. New modes of governance
     and citizens-oriented processes go in that direction (Klijn, 2008; Pestoff, 2008).




                                                                                                      Slide

CMU – Michigan 2010                   Andrea Calabrò                              23-25 September         12
University of Rome Tor Vergata                   Faculty of Economics – Department of Business Studies

6. Discussion and Findings (II)


•   From the study it emerged that the lack of accountability has been the bigger
    concern, particularly with regard to the privatization process (Braithwaite, 2006).

•   Mandatory codes of ethics are not enough, but a good starting point.

•   Public service providers have many stakeholders and they are particularly
    visible to citizens. Issues of legitimacy become important and the use of codes
    of ethics may legitimize public officials’ actions.

•   More citizens’ participation through a bottom-up process may fill the complex
    process of building codes with shared vision, values, and interests.




                                                                                                     Slide

CMU – Michigan 2010                  Andrea Calabrò                              23-25 September         13
University of Rome Tor Vergata                       Faculty of Economics – Department of Business Studies

7. Conclusions and Future Research Directions


•   The study contributes to the ongoing debate on PP and in particular on the
    ethical concerns related to partial privatization processes (Bozeman, 2007).

•   The PP in Italy and Norway is incomplete and it is ended up with public
    services providers still owned (totally or partially) by the State.

•   The implementation of an effective accountability structure is urgently needed
    in both countries.

•   There is an increasing concern about the impact of NPM reforms on public
    officials’ ethics particularly after the last financial crisis.

•   The NPG perspective includes many modes of governance that are seen as
    reasonable alternatives to the privatization of public services. It relies on
    active citizen participation in the governance process of public service provision.


                                                                                                         Slide

CMU – Michigan 2010                     Andrea Calabrò                               23-25 September         14
University of Rome Tor Vergata               Faculty of Economics – Department of Business Studies




                      Thank You !!!


                                                                                                 Slide

CMU – Michigan 2010              Andrea Calabrò                              23-25 September
  University of Rome Tor Vergata                                                 Faculty of Economics – Department of Business Studies

  5. Some evidence from Italy and Norway (III)
The Ethical Infrastructure
                                                     ITALY       NORWAY                                                              ITALY   NORWAY
    Code of ethics disclosure adoption               84.7%         50.0%           The content
 Title                                                                             Lack of statements of values and principles       45.4%    85.0%
     “Code of Conduct of X”                         38.46%         20.0%           Lack of detailed norms of conduct                 36.4%    100.0%
     ”Ethical Standards”                            15.38%            -            Presence of tools of promotion to the
                                                                                                                                     18.2%     0.0%
     ”Standards of Ethics and Conduct”              23.07%            -            importance of the public interest and value

     “Code of Ethics”                                  7.6%           -            Areas of interest and prevention

     “Ethical Guidelines for X”                         -          80.0%           Use of public resources for personal benefit      31.0%    65.0%

 Length                                                                            Identification of the target group to which the
                                                                                                                                     23.6%    10.0%
                                                                                   code is addressed to
         the length on average                          14            5
                                                                                   Duties to the public in comparison with private
 Date of implementation                                                                                                              22.8%     0.0%
                                                                                   interests
         Not indicated                                  -          75.0%
                                                                                   Definition of behaviour or conduct constituting
                                                                                                                                     13.6%     9.0%
         From 2001 to 2003                           36.6 %           -            violation of the code

         From 2004 to 2006                           45.5%         13.5%           Statement of preventing conflict of interests      9.0%    16.0%

         From 2007 to 2008                           17.9%         11.5%           Sanctions in case of violations                    0.0%     0.0%



                                               ITALY                                                NORWAY
 The content:            Two blocks. A first block, which states the values    The codes do not follow a clear structure but they
                         and basic principles encouraged by the company,       list several guidelines that give to the company,
 Structure               whereas the second block translates the principles    the employees and the partners, guidance and
                         into certain standards of conduct for the actors in   support in the daily duties and decision-making
                         their internal and external relationships.            process.

                                                                                                                                                       Slide

 CMU – Michigan 2010                                           Andrea Calabrò                                                    23-25 September        16

				
DOCUMENT INFO