public discussion in slovakia: measuring progress
DESCRIPTION
Public Discussion In Slovakia: Measuring Progress Using the Institute for Financial Policy´s methodology by Juraj Kolarovic The Supreme Audit Office of the Slovak Republic Najvyšší kontrolný úrad Slovenskej republiky. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Public Discussion In Slovakia: Measuring Progress
Using the Institute for Financial Policy´s methodology
by
Juraj Kolarovic
The Supreme Audit Office of the Slovak RepublicNajvyšší kontrolný úrad Slovenskej republiky
Juraj Kolarovic, INTOSAI Working Group on Key National Indicators, Kuta, February, 24-26, 2014Juraj Kolarovic, INTOSAI Working Group on Key National Indicators, Kuta, February, 24-26, 2014
III
II
I
I. Background
• Introduction
• International practices
II. Discussed Target Areas
• Define relevant tasks
• Methodology & Examples
III. Conclusion
Juraj Kolarovic, INTOSAI Working Group on Key National Indicators, Kuta, February, 24-26, 2014Juraj Kolarovic, INTOSAI Working Group on Key National Indicators, Kuta, February, 24-26, 2014
Public Discussion in Slovakia: Measuring Progress
III
II
II. BackgroundIntroduction 1/2
What is the purpose of public discussion?
Promote the pursuit of improving two major areas of interest :
Juraj Kolarovic, INTOSAI Working Group on Key National Indicators, Kuta, February, 24-26, 2014Juraj Kolarovic, INTOSAI Working Group on Key National Indicators, Kuta, February, 24-26, 2014
government transparency
information on thegovernment‘s activity
Press on experts to define meaningful tasks to measuregovernment‘s performance and accountability
III
II
II. BackgroundIntroduction 2/2
Juraj Kolarovic, INTOSAI Working Group on Key National Indicators, Kuta, February, 24-26, 2014Juraj Kolarovic, INTOSAI Working Group on Key National Indicators, Kuta, February, 24-26, 2014
Which are major objectives of the public discussion ?
Strengthen
Ministriesefficiency
Improve quality in
decision-making processes
using defined indicators formonitoring and evaluation
publishing relevant results
III
II
II. Background
International practices 1/3
Juraj Kolarovic, INTOSAI Working Group on Key National Indicators, Kuta, February, 24-26, 2014Juraj Kolarovic, INTOSAI Working Group on Key National Indicators, Kuta, February, 24-26, 2014
The United States of AmericaThe Government Performance and Results Act
Five-yearstrategic plans
• results-orientedgoals
Governmentagencies
Annual performance
plans• performance goals• description of how
goals are to be met and verified
Annual Program Performance Reports
to review Agency´s success or failure in meeting its goals
III
II
II. Background
International practices 2/3
Juraj Kolarovic, INTOSAI Working Group on Key National Indicators, Kuta, February, 24-26, 2014Juraj Kolarovic, INTOSAI Working Group on Key National Indicators, Kuta, February, 24-26, 2014
The Commonwealth of Australia
Government agencies
Portfolio Budget Statements
Each goal is including
Measurable goals for policies
• Measures• Programs comprising 1 - 3 Indicators• Budget
III
II
II. Background
International practices 3/3
Juraj Kolarovic, INTOSAI Working Group on Key National Indicators, Kuta, February, 24-26, 2014Juraj Kolarovic, INTOSAI Working Group on Key National Indicators, Kuta, February, 24-26, 2014
Other OECD countries
Ministries
Measure progress & determine goals
Statutory duty to monitor progress using the indicators
is not centrallydetermined
is not requiredfrom all ministries
III
II
I
I. Having efficiency results
is just one of the tools that
potentially improve public
administration and finances
II. Discussed Target Areas
• Define relevant tasks
• Methodology & Examples
III. Conclusion
Juraj Kolarovic, INTOSAI Working Group on Key National Indicators, Kuta, February, 24-26, 2014Juraj Kolarovic, INTOSAI Working Group on Key National Indicators, Kuta, February, 24-26, 2014
I. Background
II. Discussed Areas of InterestTask definition 1/4
Juraj Kolarovic, INTOSAI Working Group on Key National Indicators, Kuta, February, 24-26, 2014Juraj Kolarovic, INTOSAI Working Group on Key National Indicators, Kuta, February, 24-26, 2014
Scheme for measuring progress in Slovakia
I.
II.
III.
III
II
I
Levels
ministerial programs
ministries
quality of life
Sets of indicators for
II. Discussed Areas of InterestTask definition 2/4
Juraj Kolarovic, INTOSAI Working Group on Key National Indicators, Kuta, February, 24-26, 2014Juraj Kolarovic, INTOSAI Working Group on Key National Indicators, Kuta, February, 24-26, 2014
Where is the basic problem?
Major tasks of ministries
Needed are the most appropriate indicators that have
relevance for the activityof individual ministries
minimum interferencesamong individual ministries
The indicators must clearly measure defined activities of individual ministries
III
II
I
Juraj Kolarovic, INTOSAI Working Group on Key National Indicators, Kuta, February, 24-26, 2014Juraj Kolarovic, INTOSAI Working Group on Key National Indicators, Kuta, February, 24-26, 2014
Classification of indicators
Result indicators for
• quality of life• ministries
Input / output indicators for
• ministerial programs
Hard indicators
III
II
III. Discussed Area of Interest
Task definition 3/4
Alternative indicators
Soft indicators
Juraj Kolarovic, INTOSAI Working Group on Key National Indicators, Kuta, February, 24-26, 2014Juraj Kolarovic, INTOSAI Working Group on Key National Indicators, Kuta, February, 24-26, 2014
Characteristics of the main indicators
Indicators should be
simple
relevant
motivative
comparable
reliable
In reality, it is quite problematic to select indicatorsbased on all of the above characteristics
III
II
III. Discussed Areas of Interest
Task definition 4/4
II. Discussed Areas of InterestMethodology 1/7
Juraj Kolarovic, INTOSAI Working Group on Key National Indicators, Kuta, February, 24-26, 2014Juraj Kolarovic, INTOSAI Working Group on Key National Indicators, Kuta, February, 24-26, 2014
I. Level Indicators for the quality of life
III
II
I
Setting indicators for quality of life
Identifying priority areas
Comparing decomposition ofSlovak GDP with the EU-15 average
II. Discussed Areas of InterestMethodology 2/7
Juraj Kolarovic, INTOSAI Working Group on Key National Indicators, Kuta, February, 24-26, 2014Juraj Kolarovic, INTOSAI Working Group on Key National Indicators, Kuta, February, 24-26, 2014
I. Level – Example 1/3Comparing decomposition of GDP
III
II
I
GDP per
capita
• capital formation• total factor productivity• others
Labour productivity
• unemployment rate• employment of
• young people (15-24)• female & male (25-54)• older people (55-64)
• hours worked
Labour market
Demography
II. Discussed Areas of InterestMethodology 3/7
Juraj Kolarovic, INTOSAI Working Group on Key National Indicators, Kuta, February, 24-26, 2014Juraj Kolarovic, INTOSAI Working Group on Key National Indicators, Kuta, February, 24-26, 2014
I. Level – Example 2/3Identifying priority areas
III
II
I
Approach to increasing quality of life
Education, science, research, innovation
Employment, social inclusion
Business environment
Transport infrastructure,telecommunications
Modern public administration
Transparent conditions and law enforcement
Health
Fiscal, environmental and social sustainability
,
II. Discussed Areas of InterestMethodology 4/7
Juraj Kolarovic, INTOSAI Working Group on Key National Indicators, Kuta, February, 24-26, 2014Juraj Kolarovic, INTOSAI Working Group on Key National Indicators, Kuta, February, 24-26, 2014
I. Level – Example 3/3Setting quality of life indicators
III
II
I
• PISA• School drop-out rate• Tertiary education attainment• Citations per researcher• Gross domestic expenditure on research and development
• High-tech export
Education, science, research, innovation
Transparent conditions and law enforcement
• Corruption
1st priority area
7th priority area
II. Discussed Areas of InterestMethodology 5/7
Juraj Kolarovic, INTOSAI Working Group on Key National Indicators, Kuta, February, 24-26, 2014Juraj Kolarovic, INTOSAI Working Group on Key National Indicators, Kuta, February, 24-26, 2014
II. LevelIndicators for ministries
III
II
I
The results obtained for one ministry
cannot be influenced by the activity of another ministry
Indicators for
ministry or ministries
1st quality of life
indicator
Nth guality of life
indicator
Indicators for
ministry or ministries
II. Discussed Areas of InterestMethodology 6/7
Juraj Kolarovic, INTOSAI Working Group on Key National Indicators, Kuta, February, 24-26, 2014Juraj Kolarovic, INTOSAI Working Group on Key National Indicators, Kuta, February, 24-26, 2014
II. Level - ExampleIndicators for ministries
III
II
I
Proposed basic approach for the Ministry of health
Healthy life
years
Ministry ofhealth
Ministry ofenvironment
Ministry ofeducation, science,research and sport
• Euro health consumer index • Premature mortality rate ...
•
Environmentalperformance index
Citations per researcherindicator
II. Discussed Areas of InterestMethodology 7/7
Juraj Kolarovic, INTOSAI Working Group on Key National Indicators, Kuta, February, 24-26, 2014Juraj Kolarovic, INTOSAI Working Group on Key National Indicators, Kuta, February, 24-26, 2014
III. LevelIndicators for ministerial programs
III
II
I
Input and output indicators for program budgeting
Indicators for ministries
Quality of life indicators
Program budgeting uses input and output indicators as a tools
to make government more results-oriented
Juraj Kolarovic, INTOSAI Working Group on Key National Indicators, Kuta, February, 24-26, 2014Juraj Kolarovic, INTOSAI Working Group on Key National Indicators, Kuta, February, 24-26, 2014
II. Discussed Areas of Interest
III
II
I
I. Having efficiency results
is just one of the tools that
potentially improve public
administration and finances
ÍI. There is no empirical
evidence for significant
relationship of program
budgeting to fiscal policy
III. Conclusion
III. Conclusion
III
I
II
Public discussion in Slovakia: Measuring progress
There is an initial proposal to improve decision-making in public administration
Existing sets of indicators in the strategy documents and program budgeting
still need further development to measure real progressin improving the efficiency of public administration
Juraj Kolarovic, INTOSAI Working Group on Key National Indicators, Kuta, February, 24-26, 2014Juraj Kolarovic, INTOSAI Working Group on Key National Indicators, Kuta, February, 24-26, 2014
III. Conclusion
III
I
II
Спасибо за ваше внимание
Thank you for your attention
Juraj Kolarovic, INTOSAI Working Group on Key National Indicators, Kuta, February, 24-26, 2014Juraj Kolarovic, INTOSAI Working Group on Key National Indicators, Kuta, February, 24-26, 2014