6 Inclusiveness
The inclusiveness indicator is defined as: the extent to which the civil service is representative of the citizens it serves. A model civil service should be representative of the public it stands to serve, and therefore institutions must be inclusive in nature. In their Post-2015 Millennium Development Goal reflections, the OECD (n.d.) outlines the greater success felt by inclusive public bodies: “Inclusive governments and an active civil society put forward more responsive, equitable policies” and that these “build trust in government and help create… public services that are better suited to diverse needs”. The guiding principles to the international civil service, set out by the International Civil Service Commission, support the claim that civil servants must “respect the dignity, worth and equality of all people” and have: “a willingness to work without bias with persons of all nationalities, religions and cultures” (2002).
The OECD (2015) states that “a more representative public administration can better access previously overlooked knowledge, networks and perspectives for improved policy development and implementation”. The same report also points out that the opinion on the groups in need of representation in public administration has widened “and now includes a range of dimensions such as women; racial, ethnic, and religious minorities; the poor; the elderly; the disabled; and other minority groups such as indigenous populations”. A paper by OPM & CIPFA (2004) highlights the potential benefits of this view: “Public trust and confidence in governance will increase if governance … [is] done by a diverse group of people who reflect the community”.
The inclusiveness indicator is comprised of five metrics, and is unchanged in structure from the 2017 Pilot. It uses the following source data:
- OECD data on the central government share of women in the central government and in top management positions [2016], as processed and published in their Government at a Glance 2017 report.
- The University of Gothenburg’s Quality of Government Expert Survey (QoG) [2015].
- Figures on women’s representation in the government workforce are compared to data from the International Labour Organisation on the composition to calculate the difference between government and the workforce as a whole (ILO) [2015].
| Metric | Source | Type | Public sector proxy | Data transformation | Weighting within indicator | Definition of the source metric (e.g. question wording) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| In theme (A) | Theme (B) | Total (C=A*B) | ||||||
| Gender | ||||||||
| Women in central government | OECD | Government assessment | No | Composite | 25.0% | 75.0% | 18.8% | Share of total central government employment filled by women |
| Women in the public sector | QoG | Expert assessment | Yes | Composite | 25.0% | 75.0% | 18.8% | Thinking about the country for which you have chosen to submit your answers, what is the proportion of women among public sector employees? |
| Women in senior management | OECD | Government assessment | No | Composite | 25.0% | 75.0% | 18.8% | Share of women in top management positions in central government |
| Women in senior government | QoG | Expert assessment | No | Composite | 25.0% | 75.0% | 18.8% | Thinking about the country for which you have chosen to submit your answers, what is the proportion of women among senior positions in central government? |
| Ethnic minorities | ||||||||
| Ethnic and religious group representation | QoG | Expert assessment | Yes | None | 100.0% | 25.0% | 25.0% | Key ethnic and religious groups in society are proportionally represented among public sector employees [Rated 1-7; mean score] |
| Tables 3.4.A & 3.4.B in the original 2019 publication | ||||||||
6.1 Imputation of missing data
None of the 38 countries selected for the 2019 edition of InCiSE have completely missing data for the inclusiveness metrics. As a result the imputation of missing data for the inclusiveness metrics is based solely on the data within the indicator.
6.2 Changes from the 2017 Pilot
There are no changes in the structure of the inclusivness indicator from the 2017 Pilot.