Until today, central public administration (CPA) – just like the wording “status” - has no generally accepted definition because the scope of the term is so great, complex and so debatable that it is easier to explain than define. First, because of the difficulties involved in defining public administration. Second, because of the complexities in defining the term central and third, because of the unclear notion “public”.
The definition of Public Administration developed in the early 1900s (mostly by Lorenz von Stein and later on by Woodrow Wilson) and emphasizes the structure and operation of public bureaucracies and public organizations, including budgeting, personnel, and formal and informal internal controls. Originally (and mostly influenced by Prussian scholars) public administration was considered a form of administrative law.
In the United States of America, Woodrow Wilson wrote in “The study of Public Administration” (1887) that "it is the object of administrative study to discover, first, what government can properly and successfully do, and, secondly, how it can do these proper things with the utmost possible efficiency and at the least possible cost either of money or of energy." In modern terms, one could say that, for Wilson, public administration was a form of public management.
Since then, scholars have long been trying to offer a clear definition, but yet after more than 100 years, it still in vain.
One challenge is its multidiscipline characteristics in the different Member States that make it difficult to come to a common definition.
This difficulty to define (central) public administration even increases in times of blurring of boundaries between the public and private sector, the emergence of public-private partnerships, outsourcing policies, mixed private-public forms of service delivery and agencification. As regards the latter Verhoest et al. note that “systems of public administrations all over the world have been disaggregated into a multitude of different kinds of semi-autonomous organizations, denoted as agencies”146. It would require a huge academic endeavour alone to answer whether the multitude of existing agencies in one country (for example in Germany) belong to central public administration or not. In Sweden, things are different because of the independent character of many agencies but answers are also far from simple. Thus, defining central public administration is rather becoming more difficult than easier.
146 Koen Verhoest et al, Government Agencies, op cit, p. 3.
Moreover, central public administration is also a field of academic study and academic dispute (between those who prefer the term public administration and those who prefer public management) but also a state task and a professional occupation.
Finally, it is fair to say that central public administration is everywhere, as it overlaps with the implementation of policies; the production of public services in the whole country; the interactions of the different judicial and police branches. Today, globalisation requires certain centralisation effects and action on behalf of central administration by which the purposes and goals of government are realized. For example, in the field of risk and civil protection.
The relationship between state structure and definition of central public administration Our study deals with political and administrative systems that are either federal, decentralized unitarian or centralized systems. These differences determine the definition of CPA.
Differences can be illustrated by taking two different cases and compare the competence of the central government in the field of HR matters for public employees. For example, Luxembourg is a unitary state with two layers of government, (1) the most dominant central government and (2) the municipalities or communes. The state is characterized by a very centralized administrative structure in the sense that all legislative powers are concentrated at central level. The centralized administrative structure is also underlined by the fact that the management (recruitment, training, promotion, remuneration etc.) of all the Luxembourgish public employees (civil servants, state employees, state workers) is under the responsibility of the Ministry of Civil Service and of Administrative Reform. As State employer, this ministry negotiates for instance all questions related to remuneration for all the public employees in the whole public sector with the trade unions.
On the other hand, Germany is a federal state with three or even four layers of government:
The federal level, the Länder level, the Regierungsbezirke (county administrations) and the local municipalities. The state is characterized by a very decentralized administrative structure in the sense that legislative and administrative powers are concentrated at central level and regional level (and also important independent executive functions at local level) . The federal level has almost no direct implementation and enforcement powers at regional and local level The federal and decentralized administrative structure is also underlined by the fact that the management (recruitment, training, promotion, remuneration etc.) of all German public employees (civil servants and state employees is under the responsibility of different public authorities on the different governmental levels. Slightly more centralised is the Social Dialogue: As State employer, this minister of the interior negotiates the remuneration for all the public employees on the federal level (and local level) sector with the trade unions
Definition in the legal “status” employment context
Almost all EU countries still employ civil servants under a public law status. If a global comparison is to be made of the respective forms of public-status and private-contract posts, there is a clear overall tendency for private contracts to be given much greater scope at the
local authority level than at the central state level. In several countries, this special status covers a large proportion of central government employees.
However, whereas in the past, most of the central administration employees had a public law status of civil servants, today we can speak of a “hollowing out” of the public law status, both as regards numbers and as regards the status and the substance of employment (e.g.
differences between civil service and public employee employment are becoming less distinct). Today, because of the decreasing numbers of civil servants in compared to other public employees, it makes less sense to refer to the central public administration as an employer of civil servants. In fact, central public employment is becoming more complex and fluid and distinctions between private sector employment and central public administration employment are slowly disappearing.
These developments show that the legal or institutional status of public employment is not, in itself, the determining factor for an activity that belongs only to central public administration.
The linguistic problem: the term central public administration as synonym or not for civil service and state administration
The term ‘central public administration’ refers to what is defined as the civil service in Ireland and in the Netherlands but not in Finland, Germany and Luxembourg. Central administration can be used as a synonym for the civil service in Ireland and in the Netherlands but not in Germany, Luxembourg and Finland where also public employees not belonging to the civil service work for the central administration.
Case Finland and Germany. The Finnish public administration consists of (1) state administration and (2) municipal administration while the German public administration consists of (1) federal, (2) regional and (3) local administration. In Finland the State administration - ministries and agencies - operates on central, regional and local level.
Therefore, the Finnish focus in the study is on the state central administration = central public administration. In Germany the State administration – federal and Länder ministries, courts, public authorities – operate mostly either only on central, regional and local level (clear distinction). The German focus is only partly on the state administration = central and regional and local administration
Distinction between central public administration, public service and public sector Central public administration covers government departments (ministries) and agencies which operate at national, regional and local levels and which have implementation and enforcement functions either only on behalf of the central/federal level (DE) or also on the regional and local level.
The public service comprises the civil service (incl. civil servants and public employees), state agencies, the education and health sectors, local government, police service, the judicial
service and the defence forces. It seems that the term ‘public service’ is to be more broadly understood in the UK than in Germany. Whereas in the UK it also encompasses voluntary and honorary services for the public, this is not the case in Germany.
When referring to the public sector, in addition to all of the above, commercial state bodies (e.g. the forestry service, the electricity and gas companies and the national transport company) are included.
Existence of central administration on the regional and local level
Central administration exist on the regional and local level in many countries, but not in all countries (for example almost not in Germany except in few cases)
Different sectors belonging to central administration
Central public administration can also be defined in functional terms.
The Dutch case. Dutch public employment is divided according to different governmental sectors. The most relevant groups comprise public administration personnel (central, provincial and local governments, defence, judiciary, police, and waterboards), academic hospitals and education.
With the exception of law and order units (including the police that is now being centralized, the administrative units within the court system (with the exception of the Judiciary) and, prison services) Public works and internal revenue agency most implementation offices of central government have been decentralized to local governments. Some are transformed into independent agencies or to a much lesser degree privatized or reformed into private law foundations.
Ministries thus, with these exceptions mainly comprise policy making, inspection and management function support units. All these staff members currently work under the same public law statute with the exception of some of the zelfstandige bestuursorganen (zbo) or Independent Public Board and the military.
Other countries are not divided into sectors like in the Dutch case. Also the independent situation of the water boards is unique in Europe. In most of the countries, the judiciary and the police belong to central administration.
Central Public administration and NACE definition
According to NACE the term public administration includes activities of a governmental nature, normally carried out by the public administration. This includes the enactment and judicial interpretation of laws and their pursuant regulation, as well as the administration of programmes based on them, legislative activities, taxation, national defence, public order and
safety, immigration services, foreign affairs and the administration of government programmes.
The legal or institutional status is not, in itself, the determining factor for an activity to belong in this section, rather than the activity being of a nature.
This means that activities classified elsewhere in NACE do not fall under this section, even if carried out by public entities. For example, administration of the school system falls under this section, but teaching itself does not (section P), and a prison or military hospital is classified to health (section Q).
The definition of central public administration – where to go from here?
Our deliberations clearly indicate that central public administration mean different things in the Member States. Thus, there is a lack of a common meaning. Therefore, we can only offer a broad definition: central administration deals with government (and parts of the civil service) and dependent governmental agencies at central or deconcentrated governmental level. The term does not include non-government parties, independent agencies, sectors that do not belong directly to government administration (such as the police and the judiciary).
Central public administration includes parts of the civil service but not of the public sector (such as services of general economic interest).
In most of the countries, the central public administration is preoccupied with the design of governmental policies, decision-making, the adoption of governmental policies but only partly with the implementation of public policies, the management of public programs and the translation of politics into the reality that citizens see every day. Thus, it is part of the core of government.
Our deliberations have also shown that the definition of CPA is not only difficult but, as it seems, it becomes even more complex and difficult.
Despite all limitations and complexities involved in defining CPA, we therefore propose a rather simplistic and restrictive definition. Following this, CPA deals exclusively with the core governmental level and includes ministries and agencies on the central/federal and deconcentrated state level (the latter only as they are subordinated to governmental powers and the implementation of governmental policies). Public Administration includes activities of a governmental nature, normally carried out by the public administration.
We agree with the NACE definition that this includes the enactment and judicial interpretation of laws and their pursuant regulation, as well as the administration of programmes based on them, legislative activities, taxation, national defence, public order and safety, immigration services, foreign affairs and the administration of government programmes. However, in all of these cases (even in the case of foreign affairs in Germany) CPA shares some of these tasks with other bodies, institutions or governmental levels. In the
future, the definition of CPA should be based on functional terms rather than on legal definitions as the legal or institutional status is not, in itself anymore anymore the determining factor for an activity to belong to CPA.