14
Monica Brezzi – Francesca Utili Department for Development Policies Ministry of Economic Development 17 th session of the Territorial Development Policy Committee Symposium Setting standards for local public goods provision: challenges for regional development The Italian case Rome, 20 June 2007

Monica Brezzi – Francesca Utili Department for Development Policies Ministry of Economic Development 17 th session of the Territorial Development Policy

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Monica Brezzi – Francesca Utili

Department for Development PoliciesMinistry of Economic Development

17 th session of the Territorial Development Policy Committee

SymposiumSetting standards for local public goods

provision: challenges for regional development

The Italian case

Rome, 20 June 2007

Regional development policy = long-term policy of public investments in infrastructure and training of human resources.

Not only infrastructure but also services

Outcomes observable in a shorter time span

Increase the public support on the policy long term objectives

Engage citizens

Essential services in regional development policy

Regional disparities

South: 8 regions; Population 21 millions (36%)

Centre- North

24.819

28.434

13.96316.360

-

5.000

10.000

15.000

20.000

25.000

30.000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Centre-North

South

GPD per capita in the South is at 58% of Centre-North

20

30

40

50

60

70

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Centre-North

South

Per capita GDP (current euros)

Female activity rate

…also in the availability of essential services

8,7

31,8

4,2

15,5

25,5

16,8

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Centre-North South Centre-North South Centre-North South

early school leavers (2006) child care coverage (2004) Recycled urban waste(2005)

(%)

Italy’s seven years program of regional development policy – 100 billion euros aimed at 8 Southern regions includes:

Explicit targets on the provision and quality of essential services

Incentive scheme – financial rewards for Southern regions

Complex combination of political and administrative responsibilities

Current regional policy strategy

Description of the scheme

11 indicators on provision and quality of-Education-Child and elderly care-Water service-Waste management

Targets are set at minimum standard

Financial incentive3 billion euros assigned to eight Southern Regions if quantified targets are met in 2013

A share of the resources is assigned in 2009 on the basis of the improvements from the current situation

Resources not assigned in 2013 to Regions that don’t achieve the targets can be assigned to other better performing Regions

Early school leavers (%)

0,0

5,0

10,0

15,0

20,0

25,0

30,0

2004 2005 2006

%

Centre-North South

Target agreed at European level for year 2010 (Lisbon strategy) = max 10%

Percentage of students (aged 15) with poor competency in mathematics, 2003

19,3

47,5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Centre-North South

%

OECD countries, year 2003 = 21,4%

Not only provision, but also quality of service

Criteria to select indicators and to apply binding targets:

visibility easy to interpret relevant for stakeholders involving citizens measurable chain of responsibilities to attain the objective selected in cooperation with regional decision-makers

Setting targets for policy objectives

Difficult to translate them in verifiable measures

Many variables and actors affect results

Child care provision (% of population 0-3 years covered) - 2004

0

5

10

15

20

25

30E

mili

a -

Ro

ma

gn

a

Valle

d'A

ost

a

Tosc

an

a

Ma

rch

e

Lig

uri

a

Lom

ba

rdia

Um

bri

a

Pie

mo

nte

Tre

nti

no

-AA

Ven

eto

Sa

rde

gn

a

Friu

li -

VG

Lazi

o

Ab

ruzz

o

Sic

ilia

Ba

silic

ata

Pug

lia

Mo

lise

Ca

lab

ria

Ca

mp

an

ia

(%) Italy = 12%

SouthCentre-North

Targets ambitious but achievable

Why do we need an incentive mechanism?

Incentive mechanism for Southern regions:

successful previous experience

provides visibility

reshapes the agenda for public action

strengthens commitment and cooperation in a multilevel governance framework

gains the political support and favor civic participation

• lack of local administrations’ accountability

•adjustment of preferences to lower expectations

Services Statistical indicatorCentral

administrationLocal

administration

Early school leavers

Students with poor competency in reading

Students with poor competency in mathematics

Percentage of municipalities with child care

Children in child care

Share of old people beneficiary of home assistance

Ministry of Health

Municipalities; local public health

agenciesAmount of urban waste landfilledPercentage of recycled urban waste

Percentage of composted waste

Percentage of water distributed

Population served by waste water treatment plants

EducationMinistry of Public

educationCounties; Schools

Child and elderly care

Ministry of welfare;

Department for family's policies

Municipalities

Urban waste management

Ministry of environment

Local Water agencies;

Municipalities

Water sectorLocal Water

agencies

Accountability requires a clear identification of responsibilities

After a careful and lengthy process specific commitments at all levels are identified

Local incentives can be also implemented

Actions required included in regional plans

Strengthening the delivery of results/1

Objectives must become part of the political agenda, at local, regional and central level

Political commitment is stated in formal agreement signed by Regional governments and Ministers

Strong engagement of citizens

transparency of the mechanism (rules and indicators are public); information on progress always available during implementation.

Feedback on policy actions.

Strengthening the delivery of results/2

Tension between local community’s vision and Central administration’s vision

long process to convey information spread among different stakeholders: while completing the information in a “technical” way, it is also building consensus on the necessary changes

200

250

300

350

400

450

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Centre-North

South

Quantity of municipal waste landfilled (kg per person)

Municipal recycled waste (% over total urban waste)

-2005

Quantity of municipal waste composted (thousand of tons)

0

500

1.000

1.500

2.000

2.500

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Centre-North

South

Target 40%. Too ambitious? …other experiences show strong improvements in a short period…European and National targets …explicit even more challenging targets in regional waste plans and national Budget Law

Address explicitly the objective of reduce municipal waste land filled and increase the recovery, according to Regional plans