WPS7702 Policy Research Working Paper 7702 State Secretaries Reform in Ukraine Attempt to Delineate Responsibilities between Ministers and Senior Civil Servants Oleksii Balabushko Governance Global Practice Group June 2016 Policy Research Working Paper 7702 Abstract The relationship between politicians and senior officials political/administrative interface was correct, and why has been on the reform agenda in many countries, often the reform failed. The paper draws on a survey of govern- on the premise that balance between technical, nonpar- ment officials and experts as well as legal acts, available tisan appointments and ensuring the responsiveness of documents, articles, and personal interviews. The paper public servants to the policies of the current government concludes that politicized civil service was a problem could be improved (Matheson et al. 2007). This paper of form rather than function—the immediate problem examines an attempt to de-politicize senior civil service was the undefined political role of the executive. It led in Ukraine through the introduction of state secretaries, to compression of the roles of policy makers and senior to understand whether the diagnosis of imbalance in this civil servants, making the reform ultimately irrelevant. This paper is a product of the Governance Global Practice Group. It is part of a larger effort by the World Bank to provide open access to its research and make a contribution to development policy discussions around the world. Policy Research Working Papers are also posted on the Web at http://econ.worldbank.org. The author may be contacted at obalabushko@ worldbank.org. The Policy Research Working Paper Series disseminates the findings of work in progress to encourage the exchange of ideas about development issues. An objective of the series is to get the findings out quickly, even if the presentations are less than fully polished. The papers carry the names of the authors and should be cited accordingly. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this paper are entirely those of the authors. They do not necessarily represent the views of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/World Bank and its affiliated organizations, or those of the Executive Directors of the World Bank or the governments they represent. Produced by the Research Support Team State Secretaries Reform in Ukraine: Attempt to Delineate Responsibilities between Ministers and Senior Civil Servants Oleksii Balabushko Key words: public administration, civil service reform, political economy of reform, institutional refor I. Introduction The interaction between professional civil servants and politicians is at the heart of the challenge of balancing accountability to elected politicians with professional independence, competence and policy continuity within the public sector. Concerns that the delineation between political and administrative functions is suboptimal have been evident in countries at all income levels for several decades. Typically, the reform concern in lower income and former communist countries is that civil servants suffer from political interference and that patronage considerations prevent the development of a cadre of talented senior managers (World Bank, 2000). Conversely, in many high-income countries the late twentieth and early twenty-first century concerns are that political neutrality has been overstated and that senior officials are immune from the concerns of their political masters (Peters and Pierre, 2004). This paper draws on a small survey of expert respondents in offering a case study of the establishment of state secretary positions in Ukraine (Eisenhardt and Graebner, 2007; Dooley, 2002); a reform that was initiated in 2001 in an attempt to move from political senior appointments to technical non-politicized appointments. The objective of the article is to challenge the proposition, shared by international development actors at the time, that politicization of senior officials was the binding constraint on a more efficient public sector and which could be adjusted without larger changes. The survey of 15 civil servants, ministers, state secretaries and representatives of academia, as well as the review of legal documents and literature provides a basis for the analysis in the paper (see Appendixes 1 and 2). The next section provides a literature review of the relationship between politicians and senior officials. It is followed by a description of the state secretaries’ reform in Ukraine and findings of the case study. The paper concludes by generalizing lessons learned from the Ukrainian experience and posing questions for future research. 2    II. Literature Review A seminal conceptualization of the relationship between politicians and bureaucracy dates back to the work of Max Weber (1947) and describes an ideal type bureaucracy where politicians act as representatives of political interests and programs while bureaucrats act as implementers of the policy, whose major concern is efficiency. Senior officials staffing arrangements are at the core of this relationship as senior officials are the main interlocutors between politicians and civil service. The relationship between policy making and policy implementation closely mirrors the relationship between politicians and bureaucracy. Policy can be defined as: “the sets of laws, regulations or other government enforced rules, or funding arrangements, that:  require, restrain or pay for actions from individuals, enterprises and government officials;  together contribute to the achievement of specific government objectives; and  are recognized as interlinked. Government policy is distinguished from isolated government action, in that it refers to a set of laws, regulations or other rules or government actions that attempt to have some impact on economic and social actors. To count as 'policy', this collection of rules must be somehow interlinked and, whether effectively or otherwise, must in some way seek to achieve some objectives of government.” (Evans and Manning 2003, pp: ii-iii). The political policy-making function frames problems in a way that encourages debate and contestation, and which allows solutions to be seen in the context of their ideological implications; to initiate policies, and to be accountable for their results. Accompanying this idea of policy-making, there is also the function of “implementation”. It is important to note however, that implementation is far from a blind, mechanical process in which clear rules and policy frameworks are rolled out by the bureaucratic machine. Political policies inevitably leave sufficient room for interpretation and manipulation to allow implementation to take two stylized forms. Neutral/professional implementation is driven primarily by technical considerations and compliance with law and due process and seeks to achieve the technical objectives of the policy. Politicized implementation also uses the room for maneuver within policy frameworks but with less regard for technical objectives and driven primarily by the need to maintain the reputation or authority of their political principals through biasing results towards 3    favored groups or ensuring the distribution of public goods to important constituents (Peters and Pierre 2004). In caricature, technical implementation of policies seeks to achieve the stated objectives of those policies, while politicized implementation seeks to provide political advantage to the political policy-makers themselves. There is a spectrum of arrangements for appointing and managing senior officials in different countries in order to achieve implementation (of either type). Matheson, Manning et al. (2007) analyze different arrangements in a number of European and non-European countries. They conclude that while all the countries adhere to non-partisanship of the public service, senior appointments are still political to a varying degree. Three stylized sets of arrangements for appointing and managing senior officials can be found in European countries: (1) primarily non- partisan with senior officials appointed based on technical criteria (Westminster); (2) primarily political appointees; (3) hybrid models combining technical appointments and political acceptability. Generally, the direction of reform is to move away from (2) – although whether towards (1) or (3) is less evident. Most of the countries use a hybrid model combining technical appointments and political acceptability (including Italy, Germany, Belgium and France). In Italy (Carboni, 2010), the principle of separation between politicians and senior officials has been affirmed by law since 1993 with a certain degree of autonomy over expenditure and responsibility for policy implementation. In 1998, Italy adopted the “spoils” system for senior civil servants (vice ministers and undersecretaries) who have to be confirmed or removed from their positions within three months after a new legislature is elected. Some countries have formal restrictions, which spell out a division of responsibility between ministers and civil servants (e.g., U.S., United Kingdom, the Republic of Korea, New Zealand) and define certain functional areas that are outside of the ministerial oversight (e.g., New Zealand and UK for areas such as land registration or accounting officers role). Most of the Eastern European and former Soviet Union countries have a system that does not clearly separate roles of politicians and senior officials, and the level of politicization is increasing over time (Meyer-Sahling, 2004). In countries where senior officials are primarily political appointees, they tend to exercise politicized implementation, prioritizing the careers or survival of their political principals above the attainment of policy objectives. 4    Regardless of the type of the arrangements for senior officials, a functional government requires both political leadership and professional capacity for policy implementation. The recent research (Peters et al, 2004; Christensen and Laegreid, 2004) showed that interaction patterns between politicians and bureaucrats are complex and interlinked, but both political and administrative functions are critical in delivering public service to the citizens. Svara (2001) offers a framework for analysis of the politics-administration dichotomy. The framework sets two directions: political control (capacity of politicians to set directions and maintain oversight) and professional independence (capacity of civil service for policy formulation and implementation). Svara argues that a high level of political control and high level of professional independence result in an optimal situation of complementarity enabling efficient public service delivery. However, changing towards a less politicized appointment arrangement is strenuous. Jacobsen (2006) emphasizes that economic and political stability is a key precondition – turbulent times make politicians more prone to maintaining day-to-day control. Heredia and Schneider (1998) note that political powerholders are to relinquish discretionary control over bureaucratic implementation if they can see a political future for themselves in a more merit- based bureaucratic environment. Despite these complexities, a clear distinction between political policy-making and neutral professional implementation has become a standard cry of reformers, leading them towards de-politicization reforms based more around “isomorphic mimicry” than functional progress (Pritchett et al, 2010). This paper suggests that the State Secretary reform in Ukraine focused on the superficial organizational form of the senior administrative appointments, seeking to mimic the desired distinction between politics and neutral administration, ignoring the underdeveloped political policy-making function in the executive. III. State Secretaries Reform: Context and Implementation This section looks at the context, design and implementation of the State Secretary reform in Ukraine using a case study methodology (Gerring, 2004) drawing on a literature review, a study of legal texts and other documents. Public Administration in Ukraine before the State Secretaries Reform 5    Political policy-making was not a strong feature of the executive at the time of the reform initiation (Koliushko, 2002b). In the Soviet period ministers of the central Soviet cabinet of ministers and republican cabinets were civil servants (Order of State Committee of Labor of the Soviet Union #443 On Approval of the List of Civil Service Positions) who would implement policies that originated outside the executive in the Central Committee of the Communist party. Since the independence of Ukraine in 1991, the system changed somewhat chaotically but utilized the bureaucratic apparatus inherited from the Soviet Union. Over time, policy implementation became deeply politicized as senior officials (including ministers) and many lower levels of the administration held their positions on the basis that they could use policy as a “cover” for discretionary actions which supported the political standing of the president and powerful players within Parliament. Ministers had little political policy-making role – they were primarily politicized implementers and managers of their ministries (Ukraine SIGMA Assessment 2006). The Law on the Cabinet of Ministers dated back to 1978 and was completely silent on the policy making function as it pertained to the Soviet practice of ministers as administrators. The system that existed in Ukraine prior to the reform of 2001 relied heavily on the Presidential power with negligible role in policy making of the ministers and the Cabinet of Ministers. While formally Ukraine had a presidential-parliamentary system and the President was responsible for political policy making in regards to foreign policy, and the Cabinet of Ministers was the main body of the executive power according to the Constitution of Ukraine, the President de facto was responsible for policy making for both foreign and domestic policies. The President with the consent of the parliamentary majority appointed the Prime Minister. The President also appointed cabinet ministers based on the submission by the Prime Minister and, while they were notionally accountable to the Prime Minister, in fact they were dependent on the President for their continued employment. Ministers and their deputies were mainly involved into politicized implementation of the policies. 6    Table 1. Political/Civil Service Positions Functions: Pre State Secretaries Reform Pre 2001 De Jure De Facto President Political policy-making Political policy-making (foreign policies) Cabinet of Ministers Political policy-making Negligible role in policy- making Ministers Political policy-making Politicized implementation Deputy Ministers Politicized implementation Politicized implementation The 2001 State Secretaries Reform Supported (or perhaps pushed) by international partners, in 2001 Ukraine embarked on the state secretaries’ reform by introducing senior civil servant positions, i.e. state secretaries who would be in charge of professional implementation of the policies. The public administration reform concept was developed and approved by the Decree of the President of Ukraine #810 in 1998. The reform was developed by a group of government officials, politicians and academia with support of donors such as DFID, UNDP, World Bank and others. The Concept envisaged that political and administrative functions should be separated, shifting the system from political functionaries to Westminster style independent top civil servants. The role of the ministers was assumed to be that of ministers in other western democracies – policy making. The state secretaries’ role defined by the President’s decrees gave them considerable independence from the Cabinet of Ministers, in principle seeking to make them technical implementers. The reform had started with the introduction of state secretary positions by the Decree of the President #345 approved on May 29, 2001 and the Decree on Sample Terms of Reference of a State Secretary approved on July 14, 2001. The state secretaries’ responsibilities included preparation and submission for the minister’s approval of the ministry’s program and work plan, preparation of the budget, approval of the organizational structure of the ministry and staffing decisions for the ministry apparatus and regional units of the ministry as well as reporting on ministry’s performance. In reality, this role overlapped with the politicized implementation function of the ministers who, with little political autonomy and with their traditional responsibilities taken over by the state secretaries, resented the new positions that they thought undermined them. 7    Table 2. Political/Civil Service Positions Functions: State Secretaries Reform De Jure De Facto President Political policy-making Political policy-making (external policies) Cabinet of Ministers Political policy-making Negligible role in policy-making Ministers Political policy-making Politicized implementation Deputy Ministers - - State Secretaries Neutral/professional Politicized implementation implementation In fact, the functional overlap between the ministers and state secretaries was even more complete than the law suggested. The appointment procedure defined by the 2001 Decree envisaged that the President appointed and dismissed the state secretaries and their deputies. Prior to 2001 the deputy ministers were also appointed by the President but with the consent of the minister. The prime minister suggested state secretaries to be appointed by the President and the newly appointed state secretaries submitted candidates for deputy state secretaries directly to the President. De facto there was no competitive procedure for selection of the state secretaries and their deputies despite the non-political nature of these positions (Valevsky and Kononchuk 2003; Koliushko 2002a). The qualification requirements that had to be complied with were fairly general and the Decree of the President provided for a preference that could be granted to any civil servant based “on the initiative and past record he or she had” allowing considerable discretion. The responsibilities of the state secretaries had been changing during 2001-2003. The original Decree of the President issued in May 2001 was followed by the decrees of July 2001 and of January 2002. The Decree of July 2001 returned certain functions - some of the staffing and budget issues - to the ministers. At the same time, introducing a provision that the Cabinet of Ministers resignation did not lead to dismissal of the state secretaries however state secretaries were appointed for the term of the President and resigned once the new President was elected strengthened the pro-presidential nature of the state secretary positions. So the ministers and the state secretaries were each engaged in politicized implementation of policies emanating from the president. The pressure within the system was building and as suddenly as introduced, the state secretary positions were abolished. The degree of functional overlap between the ministers and state 8    secretaries was emphasized by the turnover of state secretaries - few survived even one Presidential term demonstrating that the claimed non-partisanship of the state secretary positions was largely mythical (Valevsky and Kononchuk, 2003). There were over 50 Presidential decrees that dismissed state secretaries and their deputies during the period of 2001-2003. For example, the Ministry of Finance had four state secretaries within the three-year period. Although state secretary positions were established as civil service posts, many of the appointed state secretaries were active in politics (Kovrygenko, 2001). The other complication was that the ministers did not have any political deputies and the state secretaries often performed this function as well (Averyanov, 2002). Finally, the Decree of the President of May 26, 2003 liquidated the state secretary positions and reinstated the positions of deputy ministers. The functions that used to be carried out by the state secretaries were returned to the ministers, including decisions on the administrative budget of a ministry, approval of the ministry structure, and personnel list with consent of the Ministry of Finance. Some analysts attributed the abolishment of the state secretary positions to the political situation and appointment of the coalition government headed by Mr. Yanukovych that changed the power balance between the President and the Cabinet (Valevsky and Kononchuk, 2003). IV. Findings An indicative survey of 15 expert respondents who occupied positions as civil servants, state secretaries, or ministers at the time of the reform or were involved in the reform as representatives of academia and international organizations supports the claim that Ukraine’s attempt to de-politicize appointments of senior officials missed the point that there was no established political policy-making function within the executive. Soviet heritage of a single party political structure with a limited political function of the executive contributed to ministers playing an administrative and managerial role – a space into which the new State Secretary positions were also squeezed. Most of the respondents supported the contention that the political policy-making function of the minister before the reform was very limited (10 respondents stated that the political function was not defined, four noted that it was defined to a limited extent, and only one claimed it was defined). Cascading replacements of key senior and mid-level officials in the ministries and government agencies when changes in the leadership occurred suggest that loyalty was regarded higher than professionalism. 9    The state secretaries’ reform was only focused on the form of an appointment process for the senior civil service. The solution to the public administration problems that Ukraine chose was establishing non-political appointments for senior officials – state secretaries. The attempt to delineate political and civil service positions in the government turned out to be a case of “isomorphic mimicry”, i.e. conducting reforms to look legitimate rather than make governance more efficient and effective (Andrews, 2009). In reality, the reforms were likely an attempt of the President to strengthen control over the executive by establishing state secretaries as an alternative and more manageable locus for politicized implementation than the ministers (Lytvyn, 2001). This hypothesis is supported by the fact that while the reform was discussed with the government and civil society, the draft Presidential decree that set the roles and responsibilities of state secretaries was not made public prior to approval. There was a de facto attribution of the state secretaries to the President through the appointment procedure and synchronization of tenure terms, discussed in the previous section. Seven of 15 respondents to the survey conducted for this study pointed out that strengthening of the Presidential power was one of the major reasons behind the reform initiation. The mandate of the state secretaries was geared towards controlling the budget and staffing. The role compression between the ministers and state secretaries occurred as a result of the reform, when both were de-facto in charge of politicized implementation (table 2), yet serving different political masters (table 3). There was only one of 15 respondents of the survey that stated that the responsibilities between the minister and the state secretary were clearly defined. The other 14 respondents replied that the division was unclear and led to tensions between the ministers and state secretaries. There were also 12 respondents pointing out that the state secretaries’ role was either not different from deputy ministers or that the only change was different reporting lines. 10    Table 3. Reporting Lines within the Government Pre 2001 2001 Reform Post 2003 Cabinet of Ministers Report to the Report to the Report to the Parliament and Parliament and the Parliament and the the President President President Ministers Report to the Report to the Report to the Parliament and Parliament and the Parliament and the the President President President Deputy Ministers Report to Report to ministers ministers State Secretaries Report to the Presidential office and ministers Directors of departments Report to deputy Report to state Report to deputy of ministries ministers, secretaries ministers, sometimes sometimes minister minister Two major changes resulting from the reform are worth noting – weaker reporting line from the state secretary to a minister compared to the deputy minister, and the direct linkage of state secretaries to the President. It led to considerable resistance to the new positions from the ministers. The state secretaries existed for less than three years and were abolished returning to the pre- reform system. There has been no progress in reforming public administration since 2003. The recent Law on Civil Service approved on November 17, 2011 separated political positions of ministers and deputy ministers from the civil service positions – directors of department and below. However, most of the administrative functions related to managing a ministry’s apparatus are assigned to the ministers, creating opportunities for deep political control over civil service positions (Koliushko, 2012). The costs of failure were long term, going beyond the period of the reform implementation. The reform that was used as a tool in the political struggle and created the rivalry within the 11    ministries caused a waste of effort and instability. The fact that public administration reforms were not seriously attempted until now indicates another cost associated with the failure: diminished trust in the reform process. The majority of survey respondents (10 of 15) viewed the reform as a valuable experience and lesson for future reforms. V. Conclusions Theory tells us that there is a spectrum of arrangements concerning senior appointments, and that a functional government requires both political leadership and professional capacity for policy implementation. Many countries have attempted civil service reforms with varying degrees of success – and indeed with varying degrees of clarity concerning how success might be defined (Politt and Bouckaert, 2011). Europe and Central Asian countries in particular have struggled with finding the right model when undergoing transition from a single party centralized planning system. The objective of this paper was to look into the failed attempt to de-politicize senior appointments in Ukraine through the introduction of the state secretary positions, to understand whether the diagnosis of imbalance in the political/administrative interface was correct, and what the reasons behind the reform failure were. While Ukraine ostensibly initiated the reform to de-politicize the appointment arrangements of the senior officials, we argue that the politicized civil service was a problem of the form rather than a function – the immediate problem is the centralization of political policy-making around the president and the undefined political role of the executive. The role compression between the ministers and state secretaries occurred as a result of the reform, when both were de-facto in charge of politicized implementation, yet serving different political masters. The result was that the reforms were unsustainable and the government went back to the previous system, but with a tremendous waste of effort and a heightened distrust about the purpose of reform initiatives. This analysis gives a rise to a policy research agenda focused on a better understanding of the conditions under which a political space is created to initiate an incremental reform process that is based on building functions of the government required for designing and implementing policies in an accountable way. It also poses a question on how international donor support could be provided in a way that supports an evolutionary process of state building rather than particular 12    models of the civil service system, to avoid abuse of the new institutions and procedures for political or private gain. 13    Appendix 1. Survey Description The survey was conducted for this study between October 1 and November 5, 2013. 30 respondents were identified. The respondents either occupied positions of civil servants, state secretaries, and ministers at the time of the reform or were involved in the reform as representatives of the academia and international organizations. Out of 30 respondents, only 15 questionnaires were received. The sample included 1 minister and 2 state secretaries at the time of the reform implementation, 8 civil servants, 2 representatives of the international organizations and 2 representatives of the academia. The questionnaire for the survey consisted of both multiple choice and open-ended questions and is provided below. 1. During the state secretaries reform of 2002-2003 you were a. Minister b. State Secretary c. Civil Servant d. Donor employee e. Academic 2. Was the political function of a minister well defined a. Before the reform initiation? b. After the reform initiation? 3. The main task of the minister before the reform initiation was i. Managing the ministry ii. Policy making 4. The main task of the minister after the reform initiation was i. Managing the ministry ii. Policy making 14    5. What were the main reasons behind initiation of the state secretaries reform? 6. How did the role of a state secretary change compared to the pre-reform deputy minister positions? 7. Was there a clear division of responsibilities between the state secretaries and ministers? 8. What were the main reasons for continuous changes in the mandate of state secretaries through Presidential decrees? 9. Did introduction of the state secretary positions lead to establishing of the professional independence of the civil service? 10. In your opinion what was the main reason for abolishing the state secretary positions? 11. In your opinion was the reform a positive or negative experience for Ukraine? 15    Appendix 2. References Order of State Committee of Labor of the Soviet Union #443 of September 9, 1967 On Approval of the List of Civil Service Positions Presidential Decree #810 of July 22, 1998 On Actions for Implementation of the Administrative Reform Concept in Ukraine Presidential Decree #345 of May 29 2001 On Next Steps for Further Implementation of Administrative Reform in Ukraine Presidential Decree #529 of July 14, 2001 On Sample Terms of Reference for a State Secretary of a Ministry Presidential Decree #22 of January 15, 2002 On Amendments to Some Decrees of the President Presidential Decree #434 of May 26, 2003 On Some Actions for Optimization of Management of Central Executive Power Bodies Law # 3723-XII of December 16, 1993 On Civil Service Andrews M. (2009) Isomorphism and the Limits to African Public Financial Reform, Harvard Kennedy School of Government, Faculty Research Working Paper Series, RWP09-012, http://www.pefa.org/sites/pefa.org/files/attachments/Eng%20- %20MattAndrewsHarvardReport.pdf Averyanov, Vadym (2002) Institute of State Secretaries: From Conceptual Model to Practical Implementation, Civil Service Herald, No 1 Carboni, Nadia (2010) Changing relationships between politicians and bureaucrats in contemporary democracies: an empirical analysis of the Italian experience, International Public Management Review, Volume 11, Issue 1 Christensen, Tom, and P. Loegreid (2007) "Globalization of Administrative Reforms: The Dilemmas of Combining Political Control and Increased Institutional Autonomy." Public and Public Policy – New York - 129: 375. Dooley, Larry M. (2002) Case Study Research and Theory Building, Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol4, No.3: 335-354 Eisenhardt, Kathleen M. and Graebner, Melissa E (2007) Theory Building from Cases: Opportunities and Challenges, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 50, No. 1, 25-32 16    Evans, G. and N. Manning (2003), Helping Governments Keep Their Promises: Making Ministers and Governments More Reliable through Improved Policy Management, South Asia Region: PREM Working Paper Series, Washington DC, World Bank. Gerring J (2004) What is a case study and what is it good for? American Political Science Review 98: 341-354 Heredia, Blanca, and Ben Ross Schneider (1998) "The political economy of administrative reform: building state capacity in developing countries." Trabalho a ser publicado em livro com o mesmo título, organizado pelos autores. Versão de abril Jacobsen, Dag Ingvar (2006) "The relationship between politics and administration: The importance of contingency factors, formal structure, demography, and time." Governance 19, No. 2: 303-323. Koliushko, Ihor (2002a) State Secretaries in the ministries, State design an local self- governance, Issue 2: 72-81 Koliushko, Ihor (2002b) Executive Power and Administrative Reform Problems, Kyiv Koliushko, Ihor and Tymoschuk, Viktor (2003) Liquidation of state secretaries – satisfying appetite or state interests, Weekly Mirror, Issue 21(446) Kliushko, Ihor (2012) New Legislation on Civil Service: Novelties and Problems, http://www.pravo.org.ua/publichna-administratsiia/derzhavna-sluzhba/833-2012-02-06- 09-03-15.html Kovrygenko, Denys (2001) Institute of State Secretaries: Problem Issues, Parliament Herald, Issue 6 Lytvyn, Volodymyr, Interview, Interfax Ukraine, May 29, 2001 Matheson, Alex; Weber, Boris; Manning, Nick; and Arnould, Emmanuelle (2007) Study on the Political Involvement in Senior Staffing and on the Delineation of Responsibilities between Ministers and Senior Civil Servants, OECD Working Papers on Public Governance, Issue 6, OECD Publishing, Paris Meyer-Sahling, Jan-Hinrik (2004) Civil service reform in post-communist Europe: the bumpy road to depoliticisation, West European Politics 27, No. 1: 71-103. 17    Peters, B.G. and Jon Pierre (2004) Politicization of the Civil Service in Comparative Perspective – the Quest for Control, London, Routledge Pollitt, C. & Bouckaert, G. (2011) Public Management Reform: A Comparative Analysis (Third Edition), Oxford, UK, Oxford University Press Pritchett, Lant; Woolcock, Michael; Andrews, Matt (2010) Capability Traps? The Meachanisms of Persistent Implementation Failure, Working Paper 234, Center for Global Development Shefter, M. (1977) Party and Patronage: Germany, England, and Italy, Politics Society, 7:403 Svara, J.H. (2001) The Myth of the Dichotomy: Complementarity of Politics and Public Administration in the Past and Future of Public Administration, Public Administration Review, 61, 2: 176-183 Valevsky, Oleksiy and Kononchuk, Svitlana (2003) Institute of state secretaries in Ukraine: from Idea to Establishment, Ukrainian Independent Centre of Political Studies, Kyiv Weber, M. (1947) The Theory of Social and Economic Organization (tr. Henderson and Parsons), New York World Bank (2000) From Patronage to a Professional State: Bolivia Institutional and Governance Review, Washington DC, World Bank. World Bank (2010) Ukraine Country Economic Memorandum. Strategic Choices to Accelerate and Sustain Growth, Washington DC World Bank (2011) World Governance Indicators, http://www.govindicators.org SIGMA (2006), Ukraine Governance Assessment, OECD, http://www.oecd.org/site/sigma/publicationsdocuments/37127312.pdf 18    Table 1. Political/Civil Service Positions Functions: Pre State Secretaries Reform Pre 2001 De Jure De Facto President Political policy-making Political policy-making (foreign policies) Cabinet of Ministers Political policy-making Negligible role in policy- making Ministers Political policy-making Politicized implementation Deputy Ministers Politicized implementation Politicized implementation 19    Table 2. Political/Civil Service Positions Functions: State Secretaries Reform De Jure De Facto President Political policy-making Political policy-making (external policies) Cabinet of Ministers Political policy-making Negligible role in policy-making Ministers Political policy-making Politicized implementation Deputy Ministers - - State Secretaries Neutral/professional Politicized implementation implementation 20    Table 3. Reporting Lines within the Government Pre 2001 2001 Reform Post 2003 Cabinet of Ministers Report to the Report to the Report to the Parliament and Parliament and the Parliament and the the President President President Ministers Report to the Report to the Report to the Parliament and Parliament and the Parliament and the the President President President Deputy Ministers Report to Report to ministers ministers State Secretaries Report to the Presidential office and ministers Directors of departments Report to deputy Report to state Report to deputy of ministries ministers, secretaries ministers, sometimes sometimes minister minister Source: Various legislation 21