Executive Summary

Why and how InCiSE has been developed

The International Civil Service Effectiveness (InCiSE) Index was launched as a pilot in2017. Recognising the important role civil services can play in helping their countries to prosper, InCiSE aims to assess how effectively civil services around the world perform and to identify in which areas their strengths lie relative to their international counterparts.

Previous initiatives have sought to develop reliable civil service effectiveness measurement tools, but no other comprehensive set of indicators currently exists. There are, however, many existing data surveys and indices available globally that can be integrated to provide a single snapshot of information on a regular basis. This is what InCiSE aims to do.

InCiSE is focused only on the central government civil service. As a result, it does not seek to measure service delivery outcomes, for example health care and education. This is because effectiveness in these areas is often driven by other parts of the public sector as well.

InCiSE aspires progressively to become a comprehensive, comparative measure of civil service performance but is not that yet – mainly because of data limitations. In addition, InCiSE does not seek to be definitive: it will be important to assess its results alongside other evidence available to leaders and citizens. The InCiSE Index should be seen as one of a range of tools available to measure civil service effectiveness globally.

It is envisaged that InCiSE will have the following uses:

• As a performance improvement tool to enable senior civil service leaders, as well as other stakeholders, to find out which countries perform best in which areas and learn from them.
• As an accountability tool which allows citizens, government officials and politicians to find out how well their civil service is performing.

How the InCiSE framework has been compiled

A detailed explanation of the InCiSEframework is set out in a separate Technical Report.

InCiSE’s starting point is to define the core characteristics of an effective central government central service. Effectiveness is then assessed based on two interrelated components:

• Core functions – the key things a civil service does (“what”). There are 11 core function indicators.
• Attributes – the main characteristics of a civil service that can drive what they do(“how”). There are 6 attribute indicators.

It has not been possible so far to measure all indicators, largely because of data gaps. The total number of indicators measured has remained static for the 2019 report – 8 core functions (although one of these has changed) and 4 attributes.

How InCiSE 2019 has been refined

The InCiSE 2019 Index builds on the lessons learned from the 2017 Pilot, helped by consultations with a wide range of actors over the last year. The methodology and approach have been enhanced, while the volume of metrics has increased, and many have been strengthened too. The range of data sources has increased significantly as well, while country coverage has been expanded from 31 to 38 countries.

Although one core function, procurement, has been added to the 2019 framework, the social security administration indicator has not been included this time because of data reliability issues.

The 2019 framework uses the most recently available data as at 30 November 2018. Data quality inevitably varies from country to country. Only one country has data covering the full set of expanded metrics but many have close to the full set. Any missing data has been estimated using standard methods. Countries with the highest number of missing data points inevitably have the larger proportion of estimated metrics and this should be borne in mind when interpreting results.

2019 Index Results

The UK is ranked top overall, followed by New Zealand and Canada respectively. No single country appears in the top 5 positions for every indicator, although there are some strong all-round performers. These are highlighted in the country summary pages of this report. Standout country scores for specific indicators have been highlighted as well.

When analysing results it is important to remember that all country scores are relative to others included in the Index and are not an absolute measure. A country which scores well against a particular indicator or metric may still have performance issues.

It is also important to note that it is not possible to directly compare scores between the 2017 and 2019 results. While this is partly because of methodology changes between the two indexes, it is also because each set of results relates to the specific data range and country set used for each Index.

Some interesting trends can be observed in the 2019 report. As also found by the pilot edition of InCiSE, the four Commonwealth countries in the Index (Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the UK) rank in the top 5. The Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden) are also placed highly, with all but Iceland in the top 10. The remaining countries of northern and western Europe tend to rank more highly than countries in southern and eastern Europe. Countries from outside Europe are distributed throughout the ranking.

Next Steps

Looking ahead, the overriding priority is to secure long-term funding to enable the InCiSE project to expand further. The founding institutions are reviewing the future potential of the Index and how it could be funded, as well as broader collaboration opportunities with potential new partners.

An International Advisory Panel has been formed which is providing strategic advice and support to the project. The goal now is to produce the InCiSE Index on a regular basis – and to increase country coverage more rapidly than first envisaged without compromising on data quality.

Subject to funding, priority tasks over the next two years will include: further expansion of the country coverage; developing InCiSE as a practical learning and development tool, including by enhancing the interactive website; continuing to strengthen data collection and fill gaps; refining the InCiSE framework and methodology; and targeted outreach work to increase global awareness of InCiSE.

The pilot edition of the Index stimulated wide-ranging discussions at both country and global levels about civil service effectiveness issues. InCiSE was welcomed not only by countries which featured in the Index but also by many who did not. Some of the non-listed countries remain keen to be involved in the project so that they can learn from others and take part in broader discussions on civil service performance issues. The InCiSE team will continue to explore ways of achieving this, for example through the delivery of learning workshops in overseas locations and alongside other relevant public events.

The project will also continue to explore ways of including non-OECD and developing countries in the Index over time. To this end one of the InCiSE founders, the Blavatnik School of Government, has already completed two country case studies – focusing on Brazil and Nigeria – to assess the potential for InCiSE to be used in countries at different stages of economic development and with diverse political structures and traditions. These studies have provided valuable insights and ideas about what would be required to extend the Index to a wider set of countries.

Producing a comprehensive and robust set of comparative civil service performance indicators remains a work in progress. The InCiSE team will continue to coordinate with others who are engaged in similar efforts to assess civil service effectiveness. Feedback from a wide range of interested partners is crucial to help improve the Index as well.