Strategic Planning and Policy Development: An Unsolved Rubik's Cube
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Strategic Planning and
Policy Development:
An Unsolved Rubik’s Cube
This project is funded by the European UnionPublisher: Foundation Open Society - Macedonia For the publisher: Fani Karanfilova-Panovska; executive director Authors: Diana Zhupanoska Goran Lazarov Editors: Danche Danilovska Marija Mirchevska Sanja Bozhovikj Stojkovska Arta Jusufi Reviewer: Magdalena Shaldeva Cover design: Igor Delov Design and layout: Igor Delov and Dijana Nedeva Translation and proofreading: Abakus CIP - Каталогизација во публикација Национална и универзитетска библиотека "Св. Климент Охридски", Скопје 32:35 ЖУПАНОСКА, Диана Стратешко планирање и креирање на јавните политики : нерешена Рубикова коцка / [автори Диана Жупаноска, Горан Лазаров]. - Скопје : Евротинк- Центар за европски стратегии, 2019. - 81 стр. ; 24 см Фусноти кон текстот. - Содржи и: Анекс ISBN 978-608-66235-2-4 1. Лазаров, Горан [автор] а) Јавна политика - Администрација - Македонија COBISS.MK-ID 109992202 This report is developed as part of the project “Civil Alliance for Transparency – CSO Watchdog over Public Administration Reform” implemented by the Foundation Open Society - Macedonia and Eurothink - Center for European Strategies, with financial support from the European Union. The content of this publication is sole responsibility of the Foundation Open Society - Macedonia and Eurothink - Center for European Strategies, and does not reflect the views of the European Union.
Table of Contents
List of Abbreviations and Acronyms: 9
Foreword Review 10
1. Summary 14
2. Introduction 16
3. Structure and Methodology 18
4. Institutional and Legal Framework on Policy Development 23
4.1. What is strategic planning? 24
4.2. Situation observed at ministries 27
4.3. Organizational setup of strategic planning sectors/departments
at ministries 29
4.4. Competences of strategic planning units at ministries 30
4.5. Staff members in strategic planning sectors/departments at ministries 31
4.6. Internal acts on strategic planning 33
4.7. Information collection for the purpose of strategic planning 34
4.8. Relations between ministries and the Government’s General
Secretariat for strategic planning 35
4.9. Annual plans or annual operation programs of ministries and
the government 36
4.10. National Programme for Adoption of the EU Acquis (NPAA) and
policy development 38
4.11. Monitoring, assessment, evaluation and analysis 39
5. Regulatory Impact Assessment as Policy Implementation Instrument 40
5.1. What is regulatory impact assessment? 41
5.2. Capacity of ministries to implement regulatory impact assessment 445.3. Calculation of fiscal and economic implications as part of regulatory
impact assessment 47
5.4. Data collection from various sources (public, private and civil society)
for quality regulatory impact assessment 48
5.5. Stakeholder involvement and participation, i.e. “influence” exerted
by the public and stakeholders in proposing and development of
legislation, with special focus on ENER 50
6. Conclusions and Recommendations 56
6.1. General conclusions and recommendations 57
6.2. Conclusions and recommendations on regulatory impact assessment 59
7. Annexes 62
Annex 1: List of Organizational Units on Strategic Planning 63
Annex 2: FOI Requests Submitted to Institutions 77
Annex 3: Overview of Institutions Addressed with FOI Requests 80
Annex 4: List of Interviews 81List of Abbreviations
and Acronyms:
GoRM Government of the Republic of Macedonia
RM Republic of Macedonia
ENER Single National Electronic Register of
Regulations
RIA Regulatory Impact Assessment
NPAA National Programme for Adoption of the
EU Acquis
PEP Pre-Accession Economic Program
SAA Stabilisation and Association Agreement
GAWP Government’s Annual Work Programme
MLSP Ministry of Labour and Social Policy
MISA Ministry of Information Society and
Administration
GS General SecretariatStrategic Planning and Policy Development
Foreword Review
The fast-paced development of legislation, marked by insufficient time
dedicated to policy planning and analysis, could lead to unexpected and often
unwarranted negative effects on the economy, the society and even the state
budget. In addition to negative effects, poor quality of policies and laws also
threaten the fundamental principle on the rule of law, including the principle of
legal security and predictability. Very often, poor quality of legislation creates
unnecessary obligations for citizens and business entities, as well as complex
procedures and additional costs.
In the last several decades, under the process of legislation reforms known as
“Better Regulation”, the governments of EU and OECD member-states have
made efforts to improve quality of regulations by introducing regulatory impact
assessment (RIA) that allows:
• analysis of economic and social implications, and environmental impacts,
caused by policies and legislation;
• reduction of costs and administrative burdens for business entities and
citizens, caused by regulations;
• improved transparency and public participation in policy development.
Trends on promotion of planning and quality of legislation are integrated in
policies pursued by the Government of the Republic of Macedonia since 2008,
i.e. 2009, with the adoption of acts that govern these important processes.
With a view to accelerate economic growth and development of domestic
companies, the Government’s Work Programme 2017-2020 anticipates a series
of measures, including reform of regulatory impact assessment mechanism, in
particular ex-post evaluations with mandatory participation and involvement
of non-governmental organizations and the business community. In that,
measures anticipated therein include enhanced use of the Single National
Electronic Registry of Regulations (ENER).1
1 2017-2020 Work Programme of the Government of the Republic of Macedonia, Chapter: Business Climate and
Competitiveness, available at: www.vlada.mk/programa
10An Unsolved Rubik’s Cube
Priority areas defined under the 2018-2022 Strategy on Public Administration
Reform2, which was adopted by the government, include priority area 1: policy
development and coordination, whose overall goal is “effective, efficient and
inclusive policy development”. Attainment of this goal is pursued with several
objectives, including objective 1.2: improved quality of policies and ensuring
transparency and stakeholder participation, accompanied with measures
and activities aimed to improve quality of regulatory impact assessment and
introduce mechanisms for efficient implementation of ex-post analyses.
The analysis titled Strategic Planning and Policy Development: An Unsolved
Rubik’s Cube provides significant contribution to advancement of strategic
planning and policy development, in particular regulatory impact assessment.
The main research question raised here reads as follows: Do the government
and its ministries actually comply with formally established rules that
govern policy development, coordination and planning?
Hence, analysis of these processes is pursued through the prism of several
indicators, those being:
• institutional setup for implementation of strategic planning and regulatory
impact assessment;
• competences and capacity of organizational units at ministries responsible
for strategic planning;
• relations between the government and its ministries in policy development
and implementation;
• inclusiveness of the policy development process;
• modalities for collection of information necessary for development of
evidence-based policies, as well as experiences from monitoring and
evaluation of already adopted policies.
As regards the methodology applied, this research paper relies on the use
of combined instruments, including: analysis of the legal framework that
governs processes that are subject of this paper; FOI requests addressed
to all ministries under the instrument for free access to public information,
for the purpose of establishing factual situation at the ministries in terms of
compliance with stipulated procedures; and semi-structured interviews with
representatives from ministries and the Government’s General Secretariat, for
the purpose of detailed elaboration of analysis findings based on information
2 2018-2022 Strategy on Public Administration Reform, available at: http://www.mioa.gov.mk/files/pdf/dokumenti/
SRJA_2018-2022_20022018_mk.pdf
11Strategic Planning and Policy Development collected pursuant to the Law on Free Access to Public Information. This methodology approach allows comprehensive image about actual state- of-affairs and provides solid basis for comparison of formal requirements, as defined in regulations for this area, and actual implementation of procedures at the ministries. Having in mind that the research paper was initiated in 2017, the subject of analysis included laws adopted in 2016, which is considered a specific year due to legislative “norm-setting explosion”. Notably, a total of 914 laws were adopted in the analysed period3, of which 63% were adopted in fast-tracked procedure, 38% in regular procedure and 0.2% in urgent procedure. Moreover, the Government of the Republic of Macedonia appeared as authorized proposing entity for 93.6% of laws and only 6.7% were initiated by MPs. The analysis focuses on state-of-affairs at line ministries and the Government’s General Secretariat during the analysed period and covers all elements pertaining to advancement of strategic planning and regulatory impact assessment. They include the role played by and institutional setup of organizational units at ministries responsible for strategic planning, policy development, and monitoring and evaluation; number of staff members at these units and their capacity to handle assigned competences; planning and alignment of key strategic documents, like the Government’s Annual Work Programme and the National Programme for Adoption of the EU Acquis; implementation of RIA and quality of RIA analyses of fiscal and economic implications; as well as stakeholder participation and involvement in policy development. Conclusions and recommendations put forward in this paper are valid and provide solid basis for further advancement of policy development processes, including strategic planning and regulatory impact assessment, thereby allowing the Government of the Republic of Macedonia to develop and adopt quality policies and laws. The key message is that governing authorities should invest in development of human resource’s expertise, institutional capacity and internal procedures, as well as quality assurance in strategic planning and regulatory impact assessment, with a view to ensure adherent compliance with existing procedures and sustainable progress in further development of processes that would guarantee development and adoption of quality policies. This is of particular importance in the context of the Republic of Macedonia’s 3 According to the Operation Report of the Parliament of the Republic of Macedonia for the period 1.1.2015 -31.12.2015, pp. 30 - 31 and the Operation Report of the Parliament of the Republic of Macedonia for the period 1.1.2016 -17.10.2016, pp. 21 -22 12
An Unsolved Rubik’s Cube
strategic priority on the country’s accession in the European Union, knowing
that these processes provide a structured method on determining short-term
and long-term effects of EU legislation on the national legislation and, more
importantly, on adoption and transposition of obligations arising from the EU
acquis. In doing so, the state would be able to develop its national positions in
EU accession negotiations, as well as identify and mitigate potential negative
effects on the Republic of Macedonia.
131. Summary
An Unsolved Rubik’s Cube
The purpose of this paper is to provide overview of policy development pro-
cesses in the Republic of Macedonia, i.e. rules that govern policy development
and actual practices in place, as well as to identify discrepancies between rules
established and practical enforcement thereof. The underlying question which
this paper attempts to answer is: Do the government and its ministries ac-
tually comply with formally established rules that govern policy develop-
ment, coordination and planning?
In that, the focus is put on institutional setup and legal framework on policy
development, with special emphasis on performance demonstrated by depart-
ments/sectors on strategic planning, as well as compliance with stipulated pro-
cedures on regulatory impact assessment as instrument for policy analysis and
implementation.
Information used for development of this paper was obtained through several
instruments: FOI requests submitted under the instrument for free access to
public information; interviews conducted with staff members from all 15 minis-
tries and the Government’s General Secretariat, as well as desk research and
analysis of the legal framework.
Recommendations presented in this paper are conductive to development of
solutions aimed to address challenges identified, primarily challenges faced by
departments/sectors on strategic planning and those related to performance
of regulatory impact assessment.
152. Introduction
An Unsolved Rubik’s Cube
In any society, quality of public policies depends on the level of its develop-
ment, i.e. the democratic ambiance for operation of public institutions, truthful
commitment on part of these institutions and politicians’ dedication to devel-
opment of long-term and sustainable policies, as well as inclusiveness of the
policy development process. On the other hand, democratic progress in the
society depends on development of long-term and sustainable policies by sta-
ble institutions that are closely interconnected and mutually interdependent.
Enhancing partnerships between the institutions and the broad public is im-
portant for the overall process, while openness of the institutions is also defined
as political criterion for EU accession. Efficient and quality policy development
system is key precondition that must be delivered in order to ensure efficient
transposition and implementation of EU policies and other requirements which
EU membership imposes on the public administration.
In its most recent Country Report for the Republic of Macedonia, the European
Commission has noted that: there are no minimum requirements or guidance
for sector planning by the ministries; policy planning and central coordination
need to be improved; policy implementation suffers from lack of proper coor-
dination among institutions; and finally, overall sectoral planning is affected by
incomplete financial planning.4
In 2015 and 2016, Macedonia was faced with legislative “norm-setting explo-
sion” and therefore the special focus of this analysis includes laws and policy
processes pursued in 2016. In this period, a total of 914 laws were adopted5,
of which 577 laws or 63% were enacted in fast-tracked procedure, 335 laws
or 38% in regular procedure and 2 laws or 0.2% in urgent procedure. Among
them, a total of 856 laws were proposed by the Government of the Republic of
Macedonia, while only 58 laws or 6.7% were initiated by MPs. The impression
is gained that laws have been drafted, proposed and enacted under dynamics
that resembles “fast production line”, starting at line ministries (drafting pro-
posed legislation), continuing at GoRM (authorized proposing entity) and end-
ing at the Parliament of the Republic of Macedonia.
4 European Commission’s 2018 Country Report for the Republic of Macedonia, pg. 14, available at: https://www.
google.com/search?q=progress+report+macedonia+2018&rlz=1C1CHBF_enMK717MK717&oq=progres+report+&aqs=-
chrome.3.69i57j0l5.6070j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 [last accessed on 18.5.2018]
5 According to the Operation Report of the Parliament of the Republic of Macedonia in the period 1.1.2015 - 31.12.2015,
pp. 30 - 31, and the Operation Report of the Parliament of the Republic of Macedonia in the period 1.1.2016 - 17.10.2016,
pp. 21 - 22
173. Structure and
MethodologyAn Unsolved Rubik’s Cube
In broader terms, this research paper aims to analyse compliance with rules
that govern policy development in Macedonia.
For the purpose of this analysis, the authors understand the term “policy anal-
ysis and coordination” as synonym to the term “policy development”. More-
over, “policy development” is understood to include “strategic planning”, hav-
ing in mind that the policy development process involves a phase on strategic
planning, which implies planning of methods and tools for implementation of
policies developed and adopted. The link between “policy development” and
“strategic planning” is duly defined in the Methodology on Policy Analysis and
Coordination, as follows:
“Policies and acts of ministries and of other state administration bodies
should be aligned with the government’s strategic priorities. Strategic
planning mechanisms at ministries ensure attainment with the gov-
ernment’s strategic priorities, in particular by development and adop-
tion of ministries’ strategic plans and initiatives financed under the
Budget of the Republic of Macedonia”6.
This analysis reviews a number of instruments for policy development, coor-
dination and planning, i.e. assesses them through the prism of several indica-
tors, those being: institutional setup; competences and capacity of organiza-
tional units at ministries responsible for strategic planning; relations between
the government and its ministries in policy development and implementation;
inclusiveness of the policy development process; modalities for collection of
information necessary for development of evidence-based policies; as well as
experiences from monitoring and evaluation of already adopted policies.
In particular, this paper is based on assessment of compliance with the rules
on policy development that have been instrumentalized and systematized into
several tools, as follows: the Government’s Annual Work Programme; strate-
gic plans of individual ministries; annual operation plans of individual minis-
tries; laws and bylaws; the National Programme for Adoption of the EU Acquis
(NPAA); and acts adopted in relation to regulatory impact assessment, includ-
ing annual plans on performance of regulatory impact assessment. In that, spe-
cial focus is put on performance of regulatory impact assessment (hereinafter:
RIA), which is considered mandatory instrument for assessment of economic,
social or other effects created by newly proposed policies, i.e. laws.
6 Government of the Republic of Macedonia, Methodology on Policy Analysis and Coordination, pg. 2, item 3.1.1
19Strategic Planning and Policy Development
Entities that are subject of analysis under this document include line minis-
tries7, Government of the Republic of Macedonia and its secretariats, as active
factors in development of policies and laws. In the capacity of state administra-
tion bodies, ministries have clearly defined legislative mandate (competences)
and therefore they appear as holders of and active factors in analysis of poli-
cies and regulatory impact assessment, i.e. development and adoption of laws.
This analysis also targets the Government’s General Secretariat and Secretari-
at of Legislation, both deemed active factors in drafting legislation.
The main research question defined for this analysis is: Do the government
and its ministries actually comply with formally established rules that
govern policy development, coordination and planning?
Such broad definition of the research question integrates a number of
sub-questions, i.e. “puzzles” that emerged throughout the analysis, as
follows:
1. What is the relation between the government and its ministries in policy
development and implementation?
2. Is strategic planning at ministries pursued as policy planning instrument and
how this process interacts with other documents on policy coordination?
3. How is regulatory impact assessment pursued as instrument for policy
development and implementation?
4. What is the level of participation and involvement, i.e. “influence” exerted
by the public and stakeholders in development and proposal of laws, with
special focus on ENER?
As regards the structure of this paper, the analysis is organized into two parts.
The first part addresses “infrastructure” on policy development: institu-
tional setup; competences and capacity of organizational units at ministries
responsible for strategic planning; relations between the government and its
ministries in policy development, coordination, planning and implementation;
modalities for collection of information necessary for development of evi-
dence-based policies; as well as experiences from monitoring and evaluation
of already adopted policies. In this part, we analyse operation and performance
demonstrated by organizational units (departments or sectors) at ministries re-
7 Ministry of Defence; Ministry of Interior; Ministry of Justice; Ministry of Foreign Affairs; Ministry of Finance; Ministry
of Economy; Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Economy; Ministry of Health; Ministry of Education and Sci-
ence; Ministry of Labour and Social Policy; Ministry of Local Self-Government; Ministry of Culture; Ministry of Informa-
tion Society and Administration; Ministry of Transport and Communications; and Ministry of Environment and Spatial
Planning.
20An Unsolved Rubik’s Cube
sponsible for strategic planning, policy development and monitoring; human
resources at these organizational units; and the role of other organizational
units involved in policy analysis and regulatory impact assessment, i.e. in draft-
ing legislation.
The second part discusses the issue that is of particular importance for the
civil society, i.e. whether and to what extent is the policy development
process inclusive. Hence, the analysis seeks to establish state-of-affairs and
method for involvement and participation (consultations) of the public and
stakeholders in implementation of regulatory impact assessment and develop-
ment of legislative solutions at ministries. Also, this part addresses publication
of proposals for drafting laws, draft laws and proposed laws in the Single Na-
tional Electronic Register of Regulations (hereinafter: ENER)8.
The cross-cutting issue covered in both parts concerns the legal frame-
work that stipulates and governs relevant processes on drafting legislation at
ministries and the government, i.e. policy analysis and regulatory impact as-
sessment. In that, key regulations that are subject of analysis under this paper
include:
• Law on the Government of the Republic of Macedonia9;
• Law on Organization and Operation of State Administration Bodies10;
• Decree on the Principles of Internal Organization at State Administration
Bodies11;
• Rules of Procedure for the Government of the Republic of Macedonia12;
• Methodology on Policy Analysis and Coordination13;
• Methodology on Regulatory Impact Assessment14;
8 Single National Electronic Register of Regulations – ENER is the electronic platform which, in addition to appli-
cable regulations in the Republic of Macedonia, also hosts notifications on initiation of procedures for development
of proposed laws, proposed RIA reports, draft laws under development at ministries, clean copies of laws in effect,
ministries’ annual plans on implementation of RIA, relevant accompanying documents related to analyses conducted
by ministries, as well as comments, views and opinions posted by stakeholders about specific solutions from proposed
laws. ENER is primarily intended as electronic tool for information dissemination to citizens of the Republic of Mace-
donia and representatives of NGOs, chambers of commerce, legal entities, government representatives, and individual
ministries.
9 “Official Gazette of the Republic of Macedonia” no. 59/2000 from 22.7.2000
10 “Official Gazette of the Republic of Macedonia” no.58 from 21.7.2000
11 “Official Gazette of the Republic of Macedonia” no. 105 from 3.9.2007
12 Official Gazette of the Republic of Macedonia” no. 38/01, 98/02, 9/03, 47/03, 64/03, 67/03, 51/06, 5/07, 15/07, 26/07,
30/07, 58/07, 105/07, 116/07, 129/07, 157/07, 29/08, 51/08, 86/08, 114/08, 42/09, 62/09, 141/09, 162/09, 40/10, 83/10,
166/10, 172/10, 95/11, 151/11, 170/11, 67/13, 145/14, 62/15, 41/16 and 153/16
13 “Official Gazette of the Republic of Macedonia” no.52 from 20.4.2006
14 “Official Gazette of the Republic of Macedonia” no.107 from 30.7.2013
21Strategic Planning and Policy Development
• Methodology on Strategic Planning and Development of the Government’s
Annual Work Programme15;
• Guidelines for Performance of Regulatory Impact Assessment by
Ministries16;
• Decision on the Template and Contents of Regulatory Impact Assessment
Reports17.
The final part, titled “Conclusions and Recommendations”, identifies key
challenges and puts forward recommendations aimed to improve state-of-af-
fairs in relevant areas.
As regards research tools, this analysis relied on the Law on Free Access to
Public Information and semi-structured interviews.
In the period 5-10 August 2017, a total 1,770 FOI requests were submitted to
all 15 ministries (13 FOI requests per ministry), the General Secretariat (3 FOI
requests) and the Secretariat of Legislation (336 FOI requests inquiring about
336 laws), including 4 FOI requests for each of 336 laws enacted by the Par-
liament of the Republic of Macedonia in 20161819. Complete responses to FOI
requests were obtained for 297 laws that were subjected to further analysis.
In particular, subject of analysis under this paper are laws enacted in 2016, as
this research was initiated in 2017. Hence, research limitations include the fact
that the year analysed is 2016, which has been marked by legislative “norm-set-
ting explosion” (for comparison purposes, according to 2017 Operation Report
of the Parliament of the Republic of Macedonia, the legislative branch of gov-
ernment has reconsidered and discussed 96 proposed laws and adopted only
42 laws in 2017)20.
In the period 20 March - 9 May 2018, eight interviews were conducted with
staff members from departments/sectors on strategic planning, RIA coordina-
tors and staff members from the General Secretariat21, thereby allowing the au-
thors of this analysis to cross-check and verify findings based on information
obtained under the instrument for free access to public information.
15 “Official Gazette of the Republic of Macedonia” no.124 from 3.10.2008
16 “Official Gazette of the Republic of Macedonia” no.106 from.29.7.2013
17 Ibid
18 See Annex 2: FOI Requests Submitted to Institutions
19 See Annex 3: Overview of Institutions Addressed with FOI Requests
20 2017 Operation Report of the Parliament of the Republic of Macedonia, available at: https://www.sobranie.mk/con-
tent/izvestai/IZVESTAJ%20ZA%20RABOTATA%20NA%20SOBRANIETO%20NA%20RM%202017.pdf, pg. 29
21 See Annex 4: List of Interviews
224. Institutional and Legal
Framework on Policy
DevelopmentStrategic Planning and Policy Development 4.1. What is strategic planning? In conceptual terms, strategic planning could be defined as process that implies programming of ideas, goals or priorities at particular organizational unit, and translating them into specific measures, policies or programs, accompanied with proper financial planning. This planning process is applied everywhere in the society, including by businesses, civil society organizations and state bodies. According to Dooris, Kelley and Coach, strategic planning is still a relatively new concept in management. It has emerged in the period between 1950s and 1970s, and has seen significant boom in the last several decades.22 Bryson defines strategic planning as “disciplined effort to produce fundamental decisions and actions that shape and guide what an organization is, what it does, and why it does it”23. According to Mintzberg, the concept of formalization is a key to understand planning. Hence, he defines strategic planning as “formalized procedure to produce articulated result, in the form of an integrated system of decisions”.24 Wilkinson and Monkhouse define strategic planning as “method used to position an organization, through prioritizing its use of resources according to identified goals, in an effort to guide its direction and development over a period of time”.25 Strategic thinking and taking actions is of crucial importance for successful performance of competences and effectiveness by governments, state bodies and public institutions, while in the context of this paper, they serve as benchmarks to establish whether strategic planning is truly pursued as mainstream activity at individual ministries or state administration bodies. An ideal process of strategic planning is inclusive and involves all staff members at state administration bodies, i.e. from bottom to top levels in the institutional structure, and is complemented with interinstitutional consultations. Involvement of stakeholders from different levels boosts team work and develops sense of ownership over the process.26 22 Ismet Salkic, Impact of Strategic Planning on Management of Public Organizations in Bosnia and Herzegovina, pg. 6, available at: https://hrcak.srce.hr/file/170023 23 Ismet Salkic, Impact of Strategic Planning on Management of Public Organizations in Bosnia and Herzegovina, pg. 6, available at: https://hrcak.srce.hr/file/170023 24 Ismet Salkic, Impact of Strategic Planning on Management of Public Organizations in Bosnia and Herzegovina, pg. 12, available at: https://hrcak.srce.h r/file/170023 25 Ismet Salkic, Impact of Strategic Planning on Management of Public Organizations in Bosnia and Herzegovina, pg. 16, available at: https://hrcak.srce.hr/file/170023 26 Thomas P. DiNapoli, Local Government Management Guide: Strategic Planning, pg. 9, available at: https://www.osc. state.ny.us/localgov/pubs/lgmg/strategic_planning.pdf 24
An Unsolved Rubik’s Cube
In that, it is important for all staff members to understand the essence of
strategic planning and to express willingness for involvement in this process.
This precondition arises from the fact that these staff members are indirectly
involved in both development and implementation of policies, i.e. all staff
members should foster a sense of ownership over strategic planning.
Although inclusive, strategic planning should be centralized27, which means
that there should be core staff group managing this process, in particular staff
members knowledgeable of relevant procedures and disposing with all data
available at the ministry (analyses, strategies, official statistics, human resources,
financial resources, actual state-of-affairs in the area of ministry competences
and internal affairs at the ministry, as well as other information necessary for
quality strategic planning and useful for analysis of results achieved with policy
implementation).
Moreover, strategic planning should be well organized process. This means
existence of established rules that should be followed and pre-defined position
of individual organizational units, including their tasks and responsibilities in
this process.
Strategic planning should be transparent, i.e. the public should be informed
and familiarized with the process and the plan, and should be included
therein by means of consultations. According to Bryson, on the account of
their purpose as public value, “almost all key decision makers will be outsiders
to the institution and may involve many groups with diverging interests”.28
Involvement and participation of the public creates a much needed pressure to
monitor attainment of certain goals and priorities, as defined during strategic
planning, and to evaluate what has been achieved, thereby ensuring feedback
to improve future cycles of policy development and strategic planning.
Last, but not the least important, strategic planning should be coherent, i.e. it
should ensure horizontal alignment of ministries’ policies and the government’s
strategic priorities, thereby completing the “big picture”, and should ensure
alignment of policies pursued by one ministry with policies of other ministries
and state administration bodies.
27 Centralization could be defined as transfer of responsibility for planning, management and resources raising and
allocating from the central government and its agencies to the lower levels of government. Available at: https://www.
academia.edu/17215577/centralization_and_decentralization
28 Annie Giraudou and Carolan Mclarney, Benefits and Challenges to Strategic Planning in Public Institutions, pg. 5,
available at: http://www.informaticsjournals.com/index.php/sdmimd/article/download/2667/1753
25Strategic Planning and Policy Development
In the long run, strategic planning as an instrument aims to ensure quality
policies for citizens and serve the ministries as roadmap that guides their daily
operations.
According to the national legal framework, strategic planning is defined as:
“Process that determines strategic priorities and the most important
goals; defines programs, projects and activities for attainment of set
priorities, and identifies funds needed for attainment of set priorities
through the budgeting process”.29
Phases in the strategic planning process are defined under the Methodology
on Strategic Planning and Development of the Government’s Annual Work
Programme. In that, budget planning, strategic planning and development of
the Government’s Annual Work Programme are closely interrelated processes,
and they are also linked to development of annual operational plans at
ministries and NPAA.
According to the Methodology on Policy Analysis and Coordination, policy
analysis and coordination is also a process comprised of several phases, as
follows:
• drafting proposed policies and proposed policy instruments to be
implemented by ministries and other state administration bodies ;
• organizing consultations among ministries and other state administration
bodies prior to submission of relevant materials and acts to the General
Secretariat;
• reviewing materials and acts by the college of state secretaries;
• reviewing materials and acts by working bodies at the government;
• reviewing materials and acts at government college session;
• monitoring policy implementation.
According to the Methodology, policy instruments include:
• legislative instruments (laws and other regulations);
29 According to the glossary featured in the Methodology on Strategic Planning and Development of the Govern-
ment’s Annual Work Programme, “Official Gazette of the Republic of Macedonia” no. 124 from 3.10.2018
26An Unsolved Rubik’s Cube
• materials (analyses, reviews, reports and other information) that provide
overview of how the policy will be implemented through legislative
instruments;
• inancial instruments (taxes, subsidies, budget expenditure, contributions
and charges, etc.);
• information dissemination tools (propaganda material, leaflets);
• other types of materials;
• public information dissemination means.
The link between strategic planning and policy development is defined in the
Methodology on Policy Analysis and Coordination. In particular, the need for
“alignment of policies and acts with the government’s strategic priorities” is
established as underlying principle of policy development. According to this
principle, “policies and acts of line ministries and of other state administration
bodies shall be aligned with the government’s strategic priorities. Strategic
planning mechanisms at ministries, through strategic plans and initiatives fi-
nanced under the Budget of the Republic of Macedonia, ensure attainment of
the government’s strategic priorities”.30
4.2. Situation observed at ministries
However, the reality is far from what is stipulated in relevant regulations. On
the contrary, it seems that policy development is pursued separately from stra-
tegic planning. According to some interviewees, strategic planning is merely
“formality; procedure that must be complied with”31, although it is a matter of
procedure that is well regulated under a number of bylaws. If this perception is
shared by majority of public sector employees, then strategic planning would
continue to be treated as obligation, i.e. a form without contents.
30 “Official Gazette of the Republic of Macedonia” no. 52 from 2006
31 Interviewee’s statement was edited. Interview conducted on 9.5.2018.
27Strategic Planning and Policy Development
Policy development at ministries is reflected on development and implemen-
tation of strategic plans, annual operation plans, drafting of proposed laws, as
well as development and implementation of public policy strategies.32 This pro-
cess heavily depends on the organizational unit’s capacity to develop quality
policies and laws, as well as to involve all stakeholders in policy development.
Actual situation differs among individual ministries, 15 in total.
However, it is indisputable that strategic planning is important link in the policy
development process. When strategic planning breaks away from its formality
and gains essence and contents, i.e. when programming and planning of gov-
ernment and ministry policies is based on solid and in advance developed sit-
uational analysis in light of the government’s strategic priorities and ministries’
initiatives, meaningful strategic planning takes place and results in develop-
ment of long-term and sustainable policies.
The analysis below is focused on organizational units at ministries responsible
for strategic planning, as key element within the institutional structure that
hold the mandate to manage strategic planning, policy development and mon-
itoring processes. Hence, the analysis targets several aspects, those being:
• organizational setup of strategic planning sectors/departments at
ministries;
• competences entrusted to organizational units at ministries responsible
for strategic planning;
• staff members at strategic planning sectors/departments within ministries;
• internal acts that regulate strategic planning activities;
• data collection for the purpose of strategic planning;
• relations between ministries and the General Secretariat in strategic
planning;
32 Law on the Government of the Republic of Macedonia, “Official Gazette of the Republic of Macedonia” no. 59/2000
from 22.7.2000; Law on Organization and Operation of State Administration Bodies, “Official Gazette of the Republic
of Macedonia” no. 58 from 21.7.2001; Decree on the Principles of Internal Organization at State Administration Bodies,
“Official Gazette of the Republic of Macedonia” no. 105 from 3.9.2007; Rules of Procedure for the Government of the
Republic of Macedonia, “Official Gazette of the Republic of Macedonia” no. 38/01, 98/02, 9/03, 47/03, 64/03, 67/03,
51/06, 5/07, 15/07, 26/07, 30/07, 58/07, 105/07, 116/07, 129/07, 157/07, 29/08, 51/08, 86/08, 114/08, 42/09, 62/09, 141/09,
162/09, 40/10, 83/10, 166/10, 172/10, 95/11, 151/11, 170/11, 67/13, 145/14, 62/15, 41/16 and 153/16; Methodology on Policy
Analysis and Coordination, “Official Gazette of the Republic of Macedonia” no. 52 from 20.4.2006; Methodology on
Regulatory Impact Assessment, “Official Gazette of the Republic of Macedonia” no. 52 from 20.4.2006; Methodology
on Strategic Planning and Development of the Government’s Annual Work Programme, “Official Gazette of the Repub-
lic of Macedonia” no. 107 from 30.7.2013; Guidelines for Performance of Regulatory Impact Assessment at the Minis-
tries, “Official Gazette of the Republic of Macedonia” no. 124 from 3.10.2008; Decision on the Template and Contents
of Regulatory Impact Assessment Report, “Official Gazette of the Republic of Macedonia” no. 106 from 29.7.2013
28An Unsolved Rubik’s Cube
• annual plans or annual operation plans of ministries;
• National Programme for Adoption of the EU Acquis (NPAA) and policy
development;
• monitoring, assessment, evaluation and analytics.
4.3. Organizational setup of strategic planning sectors/
departments at ministries
Formation of strategic planning sectors/departments is anticipated under
the Decree on the Principles of Internal Organization at State Administration
Bodies.33 Among total of 15 ministries, 10 have established strategic planning
departments, whereas 5 ministries have formed these organizational units as
strategic planning sectors. Having in mind that, according to the abovenamed
decree, formation of organizational unit as sector within the ministry should
include at least two separate departments, existing strategic planning sectors
at ministries are usually comprised of two or three departments, combined to
perform group of competences pertaining to the ministry’s field of operation.
Hence, based on information received, we established the following situation:
• Example 1: Ministry of Information Society and Administration (MISA) has
sector on strategic planning, EU integration and international cooperation,
which is comprised of three separate departments: strategic planning, IPA
funds, and international cooperation.
• Example 2: Ministry of Labour and Social Policy’s sector on strategic
planning is comprised of several departments, as follows: policy planning
and development, policy analysis and evaluation, and monitoring
implementation of policies and programs.34
• Example 3: Ministry of Foreign Affairs also has sector on strategic planning
with following departments: strategies and strategic plans, and foreign aid
coordination.35
Information provided by ministries allows the conclusion that organizational
setup of strategic planning units varies from one to another ministry. Moreover,
they differ in terms of competences entrusted to them, number of staff mem-
bers, but most importantly, in terms of their organizational form, i.e. sector or
department.36
33 “Official Gazette of the Republic of Macedonia” no. 105 from 3.9.2007
34 See Annex 1
35 Ibid
36 Ibid
29Strategic Planning and Policy Development
4.4. Competences of strategic planning units at ministries
According to the Methodology on Strategic Planning and Development of the
Government’s Annual Work Programme, organizational units on strategic plan-
ning are tasked with development of following documents:
• strategic plans of the ministry;
• initiatives for the Government’s Annual Work Programme;
• quarterly reports on implementation of the ministry’s strategic plan;
• annual report on implementation of the ministry’s strategic plan;
• annual operation program.37
According to rulebooks on internal organization, in addition to tasks related to
strategic planning and monitoring implementation of strategic plans, develop-
ment of annual programs, etc., at several ministries these organizational units
are also entrusted with development of PEST and SWOT analyses, functional
analyses, and internal capacity analyses.38 Below we provide several examples
that illustrate the manner in which ministries defined the scope of work for their
strategic planning units:
• Example 4: Ministry of Culture’s department on strategic planning is
responsible to cooperate with other ministries, work on issues that are of
importance for enforcement of legal provisions, define theses for drafting
legal and other regulations and general acts, and perform information and
analytical tasks.39
• Example 5: Competences enlisted for the Ministry of Information Society
and Administration (MISA)’s sector on strategic planning include drafting
proposed opinions and policy analyses around principal issues falling with
the realm of the National Programme for Adoption of the EU Acquis and
attainment of goals defined under the European Partnership, in relation
to implementation of the ministry’s program. Nevertheless, further details
on delegation of competences within this sector, i.e. its departments, does
not include any reference to the National Programme for Adoption of the
EU Acquis.
37 All these documents are elaborated under the Methodology on Strategic Planning and Development of the Gov-
ernment’s Annual Work Programme, “Official Gazette of the Republic of Macedonia” no. 124 from 3.10.2008
38 Annex 1: List of Organizational Units on Strategic Planning; FOI responses obtained from the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs, Ministry of Health and Ministry of Finance.
39 Annex 1: List of Organizational Units on Strategic Planning; FOI responses obtained from the Ministry of Information
Society and Administration.
30An Unsolved Rubik’s Cube
• Example 6: Internal organization at the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry
and Water Economy includes department on strategic and budget
planning which, in addition to activities related to strategic planning
and budgeting, is also responsible for “coordination of activities with
other bodies in developing strategic documents and legislative projects,
developing legal analyses for legislative purposes, developing plans on
policy implementation, monitoring policy implementation, etc.”40
• Example 7: At the Ministry of Education and Science, department on
strategic planning and analysis also delivers training on strategic planning
for ministry staff members.41
Hence, it could be concluded that there are inconsistencies in competences
assigned to these organizational units at different ministries. Of course, individ-
ual ministries and state administration bodies are specific in their own right and
these specificities should be taken into account when designing and improving
their competences related to strategic planning and policy development.
4.5. Staff members in strategic planning sectors/
departments at ministries
According to acts on systematisation of jobs, the general conclusion inferred
implies that strategic planning units at all 15 ministries are understaffed.
• Example 8: A total of three strategic planning departments across ministries
do not have any staff members. They include relevant departments at
the Ministry of Culture, Ministry of Justice and Ministry of Environment
and Spatial Planning. Job positions defined for respective units at the
remaining 12 ministries are not fully recruited.42
Based on statements provided by interviewed staff from strategic planning
sectors/departments, one of the biggest problems for these organizational
units implies lack of personnel that would exclusively work on strategic plan-
ning. The gravity of this problem is underlined by the fact that staff members
at these organizational units are not perceived as holding serious job positions
by other personnel, especially in regard to complexity of the process they are
performing. Interviewees reported difficulties in relation to collection of data
necessary for development of strategic plans, as well as development of quar-
terly reports on their implementation.43 In the absence of procedures on in-
40 Rulebook on Internal Organization at the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Economy
41 Rulebook on Internal Organization at the Ministry of Education and Science
42 Ibid
43 Interviews conducted with staff members from strategic planning sectors/departments.
31Strategic Planning and Policy Development
ternal organization of strategic planning activities, staff members or heads of
strategic planning units are facing difficulties in performing their tasks and du-
ties, especially those related to collection of necessary information that would
ensure in-depth and thorough strategic planning.
Number of staff members at strategic planning units is very low,44 while matters
are further complicated with the fact that recruited staff members, in addition
to strategic planning, perform or are assigned other tasks and duties unrelated
to their primary job position, which in some cases completely distracts them
from work on strategic planning.
• Example 9: “According to job systematization at the Ministry of Transport
and Communications, the head of department on strategic planning, policy
development and monitoring should not perform other tasks and duties,
but on the grounds of delegated authorizations he is also responsible
to report irregularities and suspicions for fraud and corruption; acts as
authorized officer for free access to public information, authorized officer
for implementation of the government’s strategy on cooperation with the
civil society and authorized officer for responding to questions posted by
citizens on the national portal for e-services.
Moreover, according to job systematization at the Ministry of Transport and
Communications, the advisor employed at department on strategic planning,
policy development and monitoring does not perform other tasks and duties,
but on the grounds of delegated authorizations he is responsible to perform
tasks and duties related to the sector on misdemeanours at the Ministry of
Transport and Communications.” 45
Problems identified in this regard include staff fluctuation at organizational
units responsible for strategic planning, policy development and monitoring.
Although the sector on strategy planning and monitoring within the Govern-
ment’s General Secretariat delivers generic and specialized training intended
for persons tasked with development of strategic plans, staff members attend-
ing such training are often rotated, which gives rise to the need for these train-
ing courses to be organized anew for the core team tasked with development
of strategic plans. Moreover, the General Secretariat focuses on delivery of two
types of training courses: one intended for the core team tasked with annual
development of strategic plans and the second intended for all staff members
or heads of sectors/departments to be informed about essence of strategic
planning and to be actively involved in this process.
44 Ibid
45 FOI response from the Ministry of Transport and Communications archived under no. 02-7785 from 17.10.2017
32An Unsolved Rubik’s Cube
4.6. Internal acts on strategic planning
The importance of these organizational units in strategic planning could be
seen in the fact that they are defined under separate article of the Decree on
the Principles of Internal Organization at State Administration Bodies, which
creates an obligation for all ministries to establish such unit within their or-
ganizational scheme. Formation of strategic planning units is also regulated
under individual acts on internal organization adopted by ministries, while the
number, competences and responsibilities of staff members are further defined
under ministries’ individual acts on internal systematization of jobs. On the oth-
er hand, rules that govern strategic planning are stipulated in series of docu-
ments, such as:
• Law on the Government of the Republic of Macedonia;46
• Law on the Budgets;
• Rules of Procedure for the Government of the Republic of Macedonia;47
• Methodology on Strategic Planning and Development of the Government’s
Annual Work Programme;48
• Guidelines on the Template, Contents and Development of Strategic Plans
for Ministries and Other State Administration Bodies.49
As regards internal rules that govern organization of the strategic planning pro-
cess, ministries do not have separate rules or additional protocols that would
regulate their method of strategic planning, with the Ministry of Transport and
Communications, Ministry of Justice and Ministry of Defence providing excep-
tions therefrom. Hence:
• Example 10: Ministry of Labour and Social Policy has adopted certain ISO
standard, but the same has expired.50
• Example 11: Ministry of Interior has established work group tasked
to develop their internal rules on strategic planning and policy
development. 51
46 “Official Gazette of the Republic of Macedonia” no. 59/2000 from 22.7.2000
47 “Official Gazette of the Republic of Macedonia” no. 38/01, 98/02, 9/03, 47/03, 64/03, 67/03, 51/06, 5/07, 15/07,
26/07, 30/07, 58/07, 105/07, 116/07, 129/07, 157/07, 29/08, 51/08, 86/08, 114/08, 42/09, 62/09, 141/09, 162/09, 40/10,
83/10, 166/10, 172/10, 95/11, 151/11, 170/11, 67/13, 145/14, 62/15, 41/16 and 153/16
48 “Official Gazette of the Republic of Macedonia” no. 107 from 30.7.2013
49 “Official Gazette of the Republic of Macedonia” no. 124 from 3.10.2008
50 See Annex 1
51 Ibid
33Strategic Planning and Policy Development
In the absence of internal rules that would regulate in detail their process
of strategic planning, ministries refer to the Methodology on Strategic Plan-
ning and Development of the Government’s Annual Work Programme and the
Guidelines on the Template, Contents and Development of Strategic Plans by
Ministries and Other State Administration Bodies. These two acts adopted by
the government define minimum standards that are binding for all state admin-
istration bodies. Nevertheless, ministries are entitled to further regulate their
internal processes, having in mind their specificities, internal organizational
culture, needs, resources, etc. According to interviewees, in the absence of in-
ternal rules on strategic planning and policy development at respective minis-
tries, staff members are facing difficulties in terms of internal coordination and
rigid division of tasks and duties related to strategic planning which, in some
cases, further complicates this process.
4.7. Information collection for the purpose of strategic
planning
In order to develop, create, plan and implement quality policies, institutions
need to have access to information, statistics and relevant analyses. More
useful sets of information are those obtained as results from monitoring and
evaluation of previously developed and planned policies, which completes the
policy development cycle and allows lessons learned from past mistakes, thus
contributing to better policies in the future. Experiences related to data collec-
tion for the purpose of strategic planning and regulatory impact assessment
vary from one to another ministry and mainly depend on willingness and knowl-
edge of staff members tasked to perform these activities. Interviewees shared
different experiences, as follows:
• Example 12: “I have an excellent method of data collection. I keep USB
stick that stores information collected and know which staff member I
need to consult for individual program or policy. Hence, I sit down for a
cup of coffee with staff members that dispose with documents/information
relevant for the program or policy in question. I have been employed at this
ministry for 15 years now, so I am knowledgeable of who holds which set of
information.” 52
• Example 13: “For the first time, this year’s strategic planning process was
much easier because the relevant procedure was adopted last year and
was distributed to all staff members. On my initiative, all sectors appointed
52 Statement was proofread. Interview conducted on 18.4.2018
34An Unsolved Rubik’s Cube
one staff member different from the head of sector as contact person for
strategic planning. Most often, these are people I know from projects that
we have worked on together. They are so well informed; they could quote
figures and relevant information even when stopped at the street. They
are my direct collaborators. In the past, this cooperation was pursued
through the head of sector and information was then distributed to all
staff members. Such method of work had often left us with plethora of
information that is void of any form and methodical organization.”53
Although in their daily operation and based on their respective competences
the ministries create a plethora of information, they still fail to produce system-
atized analytical data and statistics. The second problem arises in situations
when data are produced, but presented in inadequate format, i.e. they are not
properly systematized, processed, stored or disseminated. Essential data that
could be easily processed for the purpose of policy development and strategic
planning, such as initial performance indicators, provide the baseline for anal-
ysis of current state-of-affairs or for monitoring and evaluation of policies, as
well as for designing activities to mitigate risks and development of progress
reports.
4.8. Relations between ministries and the Government’s
General Secretariat for strategic planning
Communication between ministries and the General Secretariat’s sector on
strategy, planning and monitoring in relation to development of strategic plans
is two-directional. On one hand, the sector on strategy, planning and monitor-
ing, as the coordinator of the overall strategic planning process, acts in support
to ministries, i.e. their respective strategic planning sectors/departments. On
the other hand, ministries present the General Secretariat with their proposed
priorities, which are then incorporated in the Government’s Annual Work Pro-
gramme (hereinafter: GAWP). In particular, the General Secretariat serves as
“guardian” of strategic planning, i.e. provides the bridge between priorities of
the government and those of the ministries.
In development of ministries’ strategic plans, the General Secretariat’s sector
on strategy, planning and monitoring assess the overall plan and whether it
complies with the logical structure laid down in the Guidelines on the Tem-
plate, Contents and Method for Development of Strategic Plans by Ministries
and Other State Administration Bodies.54 First and foremost, the General Secre-
53 Statement was proofread. Interview conducted on 25.4.2018
54 Interview conducted on 29.3.2018
35You can also read
