PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION IN ROMANIA

When considering the deep changes that Romanian society must walk through, one
cannot ignore the public administration system, the need for introducing a modern dimension
into the system and the absolute must of sharing the values of the common European
administrative space.
Only a coherent and sustained process of de-centralisation will lead to better quality and
efficiency of public services allowing local administrations be able to improve their response to
the requirements of citizens and encourage and support local development.
The most rapidly identifiable problems concerning both local and central public
administration in Romania are institutional weaknesses, lack of finanncial and qualified human
resources and structural problems of monitoring and evaluation processes.
We will briefly touch each of them, trying to pinpoint only the most important facts that
could make a difference to our society.
INSTITUTIONAL WEAKNESSES
Access to information on actions already taken and their results is difficult to obtain and,
when finally obtained, is very difficult to use. Lack of social conducts regarding public
consultation and communication generates a monopoly on information held in exclusivity and
informational asymmetry between institutions. The distorted information also can create a false
picture of reality in particular areas.
Monitoring and evaluation are not yet perceived as current and systematic activities in
public institutions. In many ministries and other government institutions, there are different
departments that undertake monitoring activities without being based on a uniform methodology
for monitoring.
Also, a distinction must be made and separate actions must be taken in order to tell
monitoring european programs from national public policies. Currently, mainly projects

implemented with European funds are monitored, while those funded from the state budget
remain sometimes not even audited.
There are no plans or common activities for inter-institutional monitoring and evaluation
of programs and public policies proposals. Communication between ministries is rather weak
and ineffective slowing down the process of collecting information for public policies involving
several institutional actors.
There is a continuous lack of political and administrative support for monitoring and
evaluation activities. Creating a performance-based monitoring and evaluation system, which
could bring more transparency, accountability and visibility for implemented public policies is
seen as a threat to the administrations status quo. Therefore, currently there is little or no support
at all for such activities from an administration proven very reluctant to change.
LACK OF RESOURCES
In most cases there are no financial and human resources allocated for monitoring,
evaluation and controling activities. Lack of financial resources also makes impossible
outsourcing them.
There are few opportunities in terms of technical assistance programs and training
activities for government agencies personnel, most of them being employed by reasons other
than experience and profesionalism.
STRUCTURAL PROBLEMS
Monitoring is regarded as a repetitive activity, or as periodic reporting (monthly,
quarterly, annually) and not as an ongoing process of gathering relevant information for the
implementation of public policies.
There is no public transparency of the control and monitoring reports. There is also a
poor administration of national and local databases at all central and local levels. The
information is either outdated or scattered throughout various departments of the public
institutions. Document management is poor in all public sector and there is a continuous lack of

an integrated flow of public policies both within same authorities and between different
institutions empowering governments strategies.
The traditional way of constructing the public budgets is focused more on cost control,
rather than evaluating the results derived from the implementation of public policies. The focus
is significant on the quantitative / numerical keys and less on the quality of the work / results.
Apart from the cost / benefits it should always be taken into account the perception of final
beneficiaries on the results.
The action plans for implementing public policies are insufficiently detailed.
Reports evaluating public policies do not influence the allocation of budgetary resources in the
following year.
As a short conclusion, the main priorities of the local administration for the next few
years would be: (i) improving the delivery of quality local services, (ii) increasing the local
revenues, (iii) supporting local potential and (iv) implementing measures for attracting strategic
investment in their community. 1
To this aim, local public administrations are considered primary units of local policy and
decision making. The major challenge for local authorities on the short and medium term is to
create the mechanisms for supporting Romanias accession to the European Union, in order to
deal with the cultural and economic changes, but also to be able to manage European structural
and cohesion funds and to implement public policies.
The development of administrative capacity requires increased professional skills and
readiness of civil servants from local public administration institutions. Therefore, civil service
reform has a crucial role. A politically neutral, professional and fair civil service can create the
prerequisites for a real transformation of public administration in Romania.

Profiroiu Marius,Andrei Tudorel,Radu Carp, Dinca Dragos, Public Administration Reform in the perspective of Romania`s
accession to the European Union, European Institute of Romania, Preaccession impact studies III, Study no. 3,p. 3