First of all, I have decided to write this post in English as a number of my readers, surprinsingly, are located outside Portugal. I will start writing in English and we will see how it goes…
The issue here is the intention stated by Pedro Passos Coelho to reduce the number of Ministries (a Minister in Portugal is the equivalent of a Secretary of State in the UK).
Pedro Lains wrote a post on the subject in which he claims (to sum up) that reducing the number of Ministries is not the answer to the problem.
Reducing the number of Ministries is not a new idea. In fact, Jornal de Negócios asked its readers back in 2010 to list a number of initiatives to improve the public sector and Government and this reduction was one of the most popular measures suggested by the poll.
As you can imagine, I was never involved in merging Ministries and therefore cannot base my analysis on experience, however the decision to reduce the number of Ministers and their staff can be looked at in a rational way. The main motivation is obviously to reduce expenses. Less Ministers and Ministers could translate into a reduction in the number of Secretaries of State (which in Portugal are the equivalent of Ministers in the UK), their advisors and support staff. This is a potential cost synergy i.e. will lead to cost reductions.
There are risks associated with this reduction as well as strategic implications. There will be barriers to the implementation of this measure. Two major risks in my view are to concentrate power into fewer hands and work overflow.
Ministers are constantly monitored by Parliament. Reducing the number of Ministers would potentially lead to a greater role for Parliament. This would be a welcome change at a time when Parliament’s role and relevance is also being questioned. It would also mitigate the first risk.
Work overflow may not be an issue at all. Being a Minister, as far as I know, is not similar to being a factory worker. Whereas someone working in a production line will only produce as much in an hour, a Minister, provided that he or she is properly briefed, can take decisions relatively quickly if needed. Reducing the number of Ministers could in fact increase the Minister’s productivity and can be seen as a positive.
There are of course strategic implications. Some issues which deserve the attention of a Minister at present will get less attention. There are 14 Ministries at the moment (source Ministry of Justice and loosely translated!)
- Defense
- Justice
- Internal Affairs
- Foreign Affairs
- Finance and Public Administration
- Economy and Innovation
- Agriculture, Rural Development and Fisheries
- Education
- Culture
- Science, Technology and “Upper Education”
- Public Works, Transportation and Communications
- Environment and Regional Development
- Work and Social Solidarity
- Health
In addition, Government includes the Prime Minister, the Minister of the Presidency (in charge of liaising with the President) and the Minister of Parliamentary Affairs (in charge of liaising with Parliament).
A rational and dispassionate way to look at this question would be to use similar criteria to those used when looking at the benefits of a merger between two companies. Companies merge for a number of reasons which cannot be properly detailed in a post. In this particular case, if it is felt that the end users of public services (i.e. all of us) are not getting any value from some of these 14 Ministries, then their existence can be questioned. To draw a parallel, if a company is not adding anything relative to its competitors, if it does not have any competitive advantages, it is likely that shareholders will question whether it should merge with a competitor in order to produce synergies.
The same could happen with Ministries. What is the added value of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries? Did it contribute in any way to create competitive industries? As far as I know the answer is no. How about the Ministry for the Economy and Innovation? The proof is in the pudding and again the answer seems to be negative. A merger is a way not only to reduce costs but also to send a signal: if a Ministry is unable to produce any tangible results over a decade, it should be axed. I know – it is a tough measure, designed for tough times.
Innovation Models 