Back to the nineteenth century: the managerial reform of the French civil service

Abstract

The French civil service managerial reform initiated in 2007 was supposed to establish a brand new professional world where civil servants would be called to use new public management (NPM) methodology and tools in order to be more efficient and accountable. The final goal was to ‘privatize’ civil servants at least partially. Beyond the economic argument in a time of deep fiscal crisis, the rationale of the reform was political and philosophical, to eliminate the specificity of the civil service. The implementation of the reform and a massive reduction in force have produced systematic conflicts with unions, and most managers have rejected measures that had been designed to foster their individual motivation. A central argument of this article is to show that the values of this NPM reform run counter to those of a majority of civil servants and that public management is not politically neutral. Another argument, based on empirical surveys, is to demonstrate that this reform is of a conservative nature, designed to reinforce traditional hierarchies within the State bureaucracy. Finally, the so-called modernity of public management has produced an involution regression toward the social and professional structures of the nineteenth century.

Notes

^1. Sarkozy, Speech at Nantes.

^2. Derlien and Peters, eds., Public Sector Employment.

^3. According to the National Council on Retirement Pensions (Conseil d'orientation des retraites), the financial weight of the State civil service pensions could rise from 2.11% of the GNP in 2003 up to 2.33% in 2020 and 2.63% in 2050, while the financial weight of the local and hospital civil service pensions could rise at the same dates from 0.55% of the GNP up to 0.84% and 1.19% (Conseil d'orientation des retraites, Retraites). See data on http://www.cor-retraites.fr.

^4. Lafarge and Le Clainche, “La révision générale.”

^5. Bodiguel and Rouban, Le fonctionnaire detrôné?

^6. Siwek-Pouydesseau, “Les syndicats de la fonction publique.”

^7. This reform has been enacted by the 5 July 2010 law, which establishes a new framework for the social dialogue in the civil service. This law puts an end to the principle of ‘paritarisme’ (equal representation) established with the 1946 civil service general statute, which meant that an equal number of representatives came from the unions and from the hierarchy for debating and voting on major decisions at the various organizational levels of a ministry. This procedure had been created in order to have some kind of a ‘co-management’ within the public services. As a matter of fact, this philosophy, inherited from the Resistance and the Communist Party in the World War II aftermath, has vanished progressively and the practical effect of this ‘co-management’ has disappeared rapidly. It survived only within administrative committees (‘commissions administratives paritaires’) negotiating promotions or individual professional changes (such as demands for training sessions, and for geographical mobility). But these committees have only a consulting role and the final decision is in the hands of the hierarchy. The 2010 law enlarges the competency of these committees to management questions, but the whole architecture of this law can be interpreted once more as a step toward a convergence between the private- and the public-sector rules.

^8. See, for example, Pollitt and Bouckaert, Public Management Reform; Ongaro, Public Management Reform.

^9. Rouban, “Public Management and Politics.”

^10. Acteurs publics, “Baromètre Acteurs Public.”

^11. Karvar and Rouban, Les cadres au travail; Rouban, “Les élites de la réforme”; Perry and Hondeghem, Motivation in Public Management.

^12. This affirmation should be assessed carefully because the criteria of success for such tools can vary considerably in accordance with the political values shared by a majority of actors. For instance, policy evaluation instruments may be used to demonstrate efficiency through an economic lens or effectiveness through a social lens.

^13. Gervais, “Fusionner pour durer?”

^14. Cevipof, La confiance dans tous ses états.

^15. Ibid.

^16. Rouban. “Reform Without Doctrine”.

^17. Weber, Protestant Ethic.

^18. Rouban, “Le statut des fonctionnaires comme enjeu sociohistorique”.

^19. Dreyfus, L'invention de la bureaucratie; Rouban, “L'inspection générale des Finances”.

^20. Rouban, “L'inspection générale des Finances”.