Lithuania

   

Executive Capacity

#9
Key Findings
Showing significant institutional-reform ability, Lithuania scores well (rank 9) with regard to executive capacity. Its score on this measure is unchanged relative to its 2014 level.

Strategic planning has been streamlined, and the PMO’s office strengthened. A Strategic Analysis center helps the government generate evidence for policymaking. However, major policy initiatives are usually driven by intraparty agreements. Line ministries have considerable autonomy, but work collaboratively with the prime minister’s office.

RIAs are treated as a formality, with little impact. Challenges in managing COVID-19 exposed digitalization flaws. Public consultation is currently routine, but often superficial. Successive governments experienced difficulties in communicating a coherent strategy on the coronavirus and other serious policy issues.

The persistence of crises has pushed the government’s agenda of structural reforms into the future. Nonetheless more attention is being paid to monitoring implementation of the government program. Policymakers did not internalize pandemic lessons well enough to prepare for successive waves. A broad reform of the public administration is in the planning stages.

Strategic Capacity

#9

How much influence do strategic planning units and bodies have on government decision-making?

10
 9

Strategic planning units and bodies take a long-term view of policy challenges and viable solutions, and they exercise strong influence on government decision-making.
 8
 7
 6


Strategic planning units and bodies take a long-term view of policy challenges and viable solutions. Their influence on government decision-making is systematic but limited in issue scope or depth of impact.
 5
 4
 3


Strategic planning units and bodies take a long-term view of policy challenges and viable solutions. Occasionally, they exert some influence on government decision-making.
 2
 1

In practice, there are no units and bodies taking a long-term view of policy challenges and viable solutions.
Strategic Planning
8
Lithuania’s strategic-planning system was introduced in 2000 and has been updated several times since. At the central level of government, the planning system involves all stages (planning, monitoring and evaluation) of managing strategic and operational performance. The main strategic documents include the long-term Lithuania 2030 strategy and the medium-term National Progress Program, which is in turn linked to short-term strategic-performance plans and budget programs. The planning system in general is well-institutionalized; its functioning is supported by a network of strategic-planning units within each ministry and a governmental Strategic Committee that was reintroduced in 2013. However, the strategic-planning system suffers from unnecessary complexity. About 250 strategic documents exist, while strategic action plans include 1,800 monitoring indicators. The 2016 – 2020 government developed guidelines and an action plan for restructuring the strategic-planning and budget-formulation system to focus more on results and ensure fiscal sustainability. A new draft law on strategic management is intended to regulate the results-oriented strategic-management system. Implementation of this legislation would reduce the number of strategic-planning documents from 290 to 100; however, many types of strategic-planning documents would remain. In 2020 the Act of Strategic Planning was adopted with the aim of reducing the overall number of strategic documents and goals, and creating a more efficient planning and monitoring system. Furthermore, in 2021 a new strategic-management methodology was approved by the government.

A State Progress Council composed of politicians, public and civil servants, academics, business leaders, and other representatives of Lithuanian society was established to help design the Lithuania 2030 strategy and monitor its implementation. The Council’s composition was updated after the 2012 to 2016 government came to office and meetings were held on a regular basis until 2016. Although the 2016 to 2020 government was initially reluctant to employ this governance arrangement, after almost two years of putting Council activities on hold it decided to update its composition. The Šimonytė government that came to power in 2020 has promised to prepare a long-term strategy called “Lithuania 2050” by the end of 2023. In early 2022, the government approved new members for the State Progress Council, and it started its work on preparing this strategy.

More generally, although these strategic and advisory bodies take a long-term perspective and offer viable policy solutions, their influence on governmental decision-making varies by policy issue. There is a certain gap between the long-term policy aims contained in various strategic documents and both the outcomes of concrete legislative decisions and the actual practices of individual public sector organizations, especially during the times of crisis. The persistent problems in properly applying impact assessments in the legislative process to a large extent explain this gap. In addition, politically important decisions are sometimes made without due consideration of strategic priorities and performance-monitoring, with strategic-planning documents and performance reports often playing little role in daily decision-making processes or the activities of street-level bureaucrats.

Does the government regularly take into account advice from non-governmental experts during decision-making?

10
 9

In almost all cases, the government transparently consults with non-governmental experts in the early stages of government decision-making.
 8
 7
 6


For major political projects, the government transparently consults with non-governmental experts in the early stages of government decision-making.
 5
 4
 3


In some cases, the government transparently consults with non-governmental experts in the early stages of government decision-making.
 2
 1

The government does not consult with non-governmental experts, or existing consultations lack transparency entirely and/or are exclusively pro forma.
Expert Advice
6
Lithuanian decision-makers are usually quite attentive to the recommendations of the European Commission and other international expert institutions. They are also receptive to involving non-governmental academic experts in the early stages of government policymaking. The governments led by Andrius Kubilius and Algirdas Butkevičius set up expert advisory groups (including the so-called Sunset Commission, which involved several independent experts). The Skvernelis government, however, did not renew the mandate of the Sunset Commission. Instead, the Skvernelis government decided to develop a Government Strategic Analysis Center (STRATA) tasked with generating new evidence for policymaking, using the government’s reformed Research and Higher Education Monitoring and Analysis Center (MOSTA) as a basis.

However, major policy initiatives are usually driven by intra- or interparty agreements rather than empirical evidence provided by non-governmental academic experts. In many cases, expert recommendations are not followed when the main political parties are unable to come to a political consensus. In addition, the rarity of ex ante impact assessments involving experts and stakeholder consultation contributes to the lack of timely evidence-based analysis. For example, debates on the amendments to the Alcohol Control Law, which was adopted by the parliament in 2017, were affected by the lack of timely evidence-based analysis. Some initiatives publicly discussed by the government in 2018 – 2019 (e.g., the introduction of vouchers for buying food from small retailers, or the relocation of the Ministry of Agriculture from Vilnius to Kaunas) were not accompanied by impact assessments.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, governments started relying much more on expert advice in selecting measures to tackle the spread of the virus and address challenges in the healthcare system. However, this for the most part concerned experts in medicine and epidemiology, and to a lesser extent data scientists. Experts in the social sciences were much less involved. Medical experts were not initially involved systematically, but a more comprehensive approach emerged with the creation of the Medical Experts Council as an initiative of the president.

The conservative-liberal coalition government formed in late 2020 stated in its program that it intends to devote more attention to the conduct of impact assessments and consultations with stakeholders, including experts. The government also received a set of recommendations from the OECD, which prepared a policy study on how to better utilize evidence for policymaking purposes. In November 2021, STRATA and the European Commission jointly organized a workshop on the use of science to inform policymaking, in which other ways of improving the use of science for policymaking purposes were also discussed. After the 2020 elections, the parliament established a Committee for the Future, which regularly invites experts to its discussions. However, consultations with experts on concrete legislative initiatives proposed by members of the parliament are rare, and depend on the personal initiative of specific committee chairpeople.

Citations:
Bortkevičiūtė et al., Nuo greitų pergalių prie skaudžių pralaimėjimų: Lietuvos viešosios politikos atsakas į COVID-19 pandemiją ir šios krizės valdymas 2020 m, 2021, Vilnius: Vilnius University.
OECD, Mobilising Evidence at the Centre of Government in Lithuania. Strengthening decision-making and policy evaluation for long-term development, Paris: OECD, 2021.
European Commission, Science for policymaking in Lithuania workshop, November 23, 2021, https://knowledge4policy.ec.europa.eu/event/science-policymaking-lithuania_en

Interministerial Coordination

#15

Does the government office / prime minister’s office (GO / PMO) have the expertise to evaluate ministerial draft bills according to the government’s priorities?

10
 9

The GO / PMO provides regular, independent evaluations of draft bills for the cabinet / prime minister. These assessments are guided exclusively by the government’s priorities.
 8
 7
 6


The GO / PMO evaluates most draft bills according to the government’s priorities.
 5
 4
 3


The GO / PMO can rely on some sectoral policy expertise but does not evaluate draft bills.
 2
 1

The GO / PMO does not have any sectoral policy expertise. Its role is limited to collecting, registering and circulating documents submitted for cabinet meetings.
GO Expertise
7
Under Prime Minister Kubilius (2008 – 2012), the Office of the Government was reorganized into a Prime Minister’s Office and given the task of assisting in the formulation and execution of government policies. This reform increased the capacities of the core government to assess the policy content of draft government decisions, at the expense of its capacity to review their legal quality. However, this latter function was moved to the Ministry of Justice. Shortly after taking power, the Butkevičius government (2012 – 2016) reversed this organizational reform, reorganizing the Prime Minister’s Office once again into the Office of the Government. Under Prime Minister Skvernelis (2016 – 2020), the Office of the Government was again reorganized to better support the formulation of strategic reforms and centralize efforts to exert quality control over draft legal acts. It commissioned a study conducted by the OECD on increasing the use of expertise. The Šimonytė government (in office since 2020) is also aiming to increase capacities at the center of the government and within the ministries, with the goal of increasing the quality of the draft bills prepared and submitted by ministries, as well as of the reviews conducted by the government office. Overall, the Office of the Government has sectoral-policy expertise and evaluates important draft legal acts.

Over the last 10 years, the development of evidence-based decision-making instruments (e.g., a monitoring information system, a budget-program assessment system, and an impact-assessment system) has increased the capacity of the core government to monitor and evaluate draft policy decisions based on the government’s political agenda. However, the degree of effectiveness has varied by instrument, as well as with the relevance and quality of the empirical evidence available for decision-making. After assessing the coordination of regulatory policy in Lithuania, the OECD recommended establishing an integrated strategic plan for better regulation, a high-level coordination body and a better-regulation unit within the central government.

In 2021, STRATA and the Office of the Government launched a project designed to create an interinstitutional competence network, with the aim of better coordinating the various public sector institutions and organizations with analytical competences. Implementation was set to start in 2022.

Citations:
OECD, Regulatory Policy in Lithuania: Focusing on the Delivery Side, OECD Reviews of Regulatory Reform, OECD Publishing, Paris, 2015 http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/governance/regulatory-policy-in-lithuania_9789264239340-en.
OECD, Mobilising Evidence at the Centre of Government in Lithuania. Strengthening decision-making and policy evaluation for long-term development, Paris: OECD, 2021.

To what extent do line ministries involve the government office/prime minister’s office in the preparation of policy proposals?

10
 9

There are inter-related capacities for coordination between GO/PMO and line ministries.
 8
 7
 6


The GO/PMO is regularly briefed on new developments affecting the preparation of policy proposals.
 5
 4
 3


Consultation is rather formal and focuses on technical and drafting issues.
 2
 1

Consultation occurs only after proposals are fully drafted as laws.
Line Ministries
7
The government adopts multiannual political priorities, coordinates their implementation and regularly monitors progress. As a result, it focuses on policy proposals and strategic projects related to these annual priorities. The majority of policy proposals are initiated by ministries and other state institutions, but the Office of the Government is kept informed with regard to their status and content. The fact that all policy areas are legally assigned to particular ministers, coupled with the fact that since 2000 governments have been formed by party coalitions rather than a single party, has meant that line ministries enjoy considerable autonomy within their policy areas. The Office of the Government is sometimes called upon to mediate policy disagreements between line ministries. The Šimonytė government, which took office in 2020, has aimed to increase coordination capacities, with the prime minister often personally devoting her attention to the legislative proposals of line ministries. In 2021, the government compiled a list of top-priority initiatives for which ex ante impact assessments were to be conducted by line ministries, with advice provided by STRATA experts. STRATA also conducted a number of training sessions for line ministries, with the goal of increasing their skills in conducting ex ante impact assessments.

A recent survey of the Lithuanian regulatory system described the ex post regulatory assessment process as “nascent,” and in the process of institutionalization. Currently, the Ministry of Justice is responsible for coordinating the ex post evaluation framework. The survey noted that “while the Ministry of Justice has a high level of legal expertise, it is not appropriately equipped in terms of analytical capacities for providing a leading function for ex post regulatory assessments.” It was therefore suggested that the coordination function be transferred to the Office of the Government, “while mandating STRATA to provide methodological and analytical support for ex post evaluation.” The Ministry of Justice should continue to be responsible for “ex ante legal conformity,” the report said, while the Office of Government “would focus exclusively on the overall quality of higher impact legislation.” The OECD also recommended that analytical skills be cultivated within line ministries by establishing a separate track within the civil service for policy analysts and evaluators.

Citations:
STRATA/OECD, Evidence at the Centre of Government in Lithuania : Strengthening Decision-Making and Policy Evaluation for Long-term Development, https://strata.gov.lt/lt/apie-mus/projektai/irodymais-gristos-politikos-formavimas-ir-politikos-vertinimas-vyriausybes-centre
OECD, Mobilising Evidence at the Centre of Government in Lithuania. Strengthening decision-making and policy evaluation for long-term development, Paris: OECD, 2021.

How effectively do ministerial or cabinet committees coordinate cabinet proposals?

10
 9

The vast majority of cabinet proposals are reviewed and coordinated first by committees.
 8
 7
 6


Most cabinet proposals are reviewed and coordinated by committees, in particular proposals of political or strategic importance.
 5
 4
 3


There is little review or coordination of cabinet proposals by committees.
 2
 1

There is no review or coordination of cabinet proposals by committees. Or: There is no ministerial or cabinet committee.
Cabinet Committees
7
Although Lithuania’s government can create advisory bodies such as government committees or commissions, the number and role of such committees has gradually declined since the beginning of the 2000s, when coalition governments became the rule. Top-priority policy issues are frequently discussed in governmental deliberations organized before the official government meetings. The Strategic Committee is composed of several cabinet ministers, the chancellor and a top prime-ministerial deputy who manages the government’s performance priorities, policy and strategy. Another government committee, the Crisis Management Committee, advises the government on crisis management. A Governmental European Union Commission continues to act as a government-level forum for discussing Lithuania’s EU positions; made up of relevant vice-ministers and chaired by the minister of foreign affairs. Separately, a new commission established at the end of 2018 has been tasked with developing a strategy for sustainably increasing the wages of public sector employees through 2025. In 2019, another commission was created to advise the government on issues related to technology, science and innovation. Furthermore, there is a commission focusing on the monitoring of national human resources, as well as a petitions commission. However, these coordination processes are often detached from the daily political agenda, and paid little attention by ministers, who are often driven by their party agendas; for example, this means that some policymakers show little interest in the EU agenda and its connection to Lithuania’s national policies.

How effectively do ministry officials/civil servants coordinate policy proposals?

10
 9

Most policy proposals are effectively coordinated by ministry officials/civil servants.
 8
 7
 6


Many policy proposals are effectively coordinated by ministry officials/civil servants.
 5
 4
 3


There is some coordination of policy proposals by ministry officials/civil servants.
 2
 1

There is no or hardly any coordination of policy proposals by ministry officials/civil servants.
Ministerial Bureaucracy
7
The process of drafting laws and resolutions requires consultation with the ministries and state institutions affected by the issue. The coordination process is led by the ministry responsible for a given issue area. Coordination takes place at various levels of the administrative hierarchy: coordination at the civil-servant level is followed by that of ministerial representatives (junior ministers and ministerial chancellors) representing the ministries at the government level. The latter meetings, which had been initially discontinued under the Skvernelis government, were later reintroduced in the form of inter-institutional meetings after a change of the government chancellor.

Coordination is a lengthy, well-documented process. Joint working groups are sometimes established, while interministerial meetings are used to coordinate the preparation of drafts and resolve disagreements before proposals reach the political level. All draft legislation must be coordinated with the Ministry of Justice and/or the Office of the Government. However, the substance of coordination could be improved if the initiators of draft legislation were to use consultation procedures more extensively in assessing the possible impact of their proposals. The importance of coordination should be recognized not only during the planning phase, but also during the implementation, monitoring and evaluation phases of the policy process.

How effectively do informal coordination mechanisms complement formal mechanisms of interministerial coordination?

10
 9

Informal coordination mechanisms generally support formal mechanisms of interministerial coordination.
 8
 7
 6


In most cases, informal coordination mechanisms support formal mechanisms of interministerial coordination.
 5
 4
 3


In some cases, informal coordination mechanisms support formal mechanisms of interministerial coordination.
 2
 1

Informal coordination mechanisms tend to undermine rather than complement formal mechanisms of interministerial coordination.
Informal Coordination
7
Formal mechanisms of interministerial coordination still dominate the decision-making process, despite the emergence of new informal coordination mechanisms and practices at the central level of government. Political councils have at times been created to solve political disagreements within the ruling coalition, though this practice was not continued under the Šimonytė government that took office in 2020. In addition, the leadership of political parties represented in the government is often involved in the coordination of political issues. Informal meetings are sometimes called to coordinate various issues at the administrative or political level. Since the Skvernelis government decided at the end of 2018 to make all government meetings public (official government sessions had already been public before this decision), cabinet ministers have more frequently engaged in informal policy discussions.

Furthermore, the 2012 to 2016 government planned to develop a senior civil service stratum, which could actively engage in policy coordination at the managerial level. However, these politically sensitive provisions were later withdrawn from subsequent drafts of the Civil Service Law. New civil service legislation adopted in 2018 did not establish a higher civil service. In addition, by making ministerial chancellors into political appointees, Lithuanian authorities have further politicized the ministry administrations.

How extensively and effectively are digital technologies used to support interministerial coordination (in policy development and monitoring)?

10
 9

The government uses digital technologies extensively and effectively to support interministerial coordination.
 8
 7
 6


The government uses digital technologies in most cases and somewhat effectively to support interministerial coordination.
 5
 4
 3


The government uses digital technologies to a lesser degree and with limited effects to support interministerial coordination.
 2
 1

The government makes no substantial use of digital technologies to support interministerial coordination.
Digitalization for Interministerial C.
8
Lithuanian authorities use digital technologies frequently quite effectively to support interministerial coordination during policy development and monitoring. Various document management systems track the execution of activities set out in the Government Program’s Action Plan and other documents, while the MIS (Monitoring Information System) supports the preparation of strategic (action) plans and budget programs. There are two systems and IT tools for monitoring the implementation of EU-financed and national interventions (the Structural Funds’ MIS and MIS). Also, there is a special information system that enables online cooperation among state institutions and external stakeholders in the negotiation of EU legislation, while a new system for the coordination of systemic projects is under development within the framework of managing government priorities.

Although Lithuanian authorities rely strongly on IT systems during interministerial coordination, the application of collaborative knowledge management tools (e.g., shared spaces and collaborative learning) is underdeveloped. New IT solutions are being developed centralizing support services in a newly established National Center of Shared Services that will provide accounting and personnel management services to more than 100 institutions associated with the central government. Digital technologies do support policy coordination, but their potential is not exploited for jointly improving policy content during policy formulation, or to take corrective management actions during policy-monitoring processes. Several new laboratories have been established (PolicyLAB and GovTech) that may promote the development of innovative digital solutions in the public sector.

In the E-Government Development Index, Lithuania was ranked 20th in the world in 2020, up 20 places compared to its 2018 ranking. In addition, in the 2019 International Civil Service Effectiveness (INCISE) index, Lithuania scored quite well in terms of digital services (eighth place among surveyed countries, which included high-income countries). Nevertheless, digital competencies and digital resources are still insufficient, as revealed in part by the challenges faced in managing the COVID-19 pandemic. The planned investments for economic transformation under the Recovery and Resilience Fund (2021 – 2026) include measures to further upgrade the use of IT and advance digitalization within the public administration.

Citations:
United Nations, E-Government Development Index, 2019, https://publicadministration.un.org/egovkb/Data-Center
International Civil Service Effectiveness (INCISE) index, 2019, https://www.bsg.ox.ac.uk/about/partnerships/international-civil-service-effectiveness-index-2019

Evidence-based Instruments

#17

To what extent does the government assess the potential impacts of existing and prepared legal acts (regulatory impact assessments, RIA)?

10
 9

RIA are applied to all new regulations and to existing regulations which are characterized by complex impact paths. RIA methodology is guided by common minimum standards.
 8
 7
 6


RIA are applied systematically to most new regulations. RIA methodology is guided by common minimum standards.
 5
 4
 3


RIA are applied in some cases. There is no common RIA methodology guaranteeing common minimum standards.
 2
 1

RIA are not applied or do not exist.
RIA Application
7
Although impact assessments became mandatory for draft government decisions in 2003, high-profile regulatory initiatives are in most cases not in fact subject to in-depth assessment. The OECD argued that impact assessment in Lithuania remains a largely formal exercise intended to justify choices that have already been made (with a strong preference for the regulatory option). A recent OECD study concluded that “most RIAs are conducted as a formality, with limited impact.” The principle of proportionality, under which important legislative initiatives with far-reaching possible effects would be given more detailed impact assessments, is often ignored. Consequently, this instrument is generally disregarded by ministers and especially members of parliament.

The insufficient use of RIAs is a function of both demand and supply problems. On the supply side, there is a dearth of skilled policy analysts, both due to the low attractiveness of work in the civil service, as well as general characteristics within the labor market and education system. Moreover, “in most Lithuanian ministries, analytical capacities are dispersed through line departments and understaffed policy units.” In general, “skills and capacities to supply robust and credible evidence remain low” (OECD). On the demand side, the problems are related to a lack of a developed culture fostering evidence-based policy, as well as the very high number of legislative proposals – what is referred to as legislative inflation. In addition, policymakers themselves at times do not possess the necessary skills to understand and use the results of policy evaluations.

In 2019, the Government Strategic Analysis Center (STRATA) was created (on the basis of the Research and Lithuanian Science and Education Monitoring and Analysis Center (MOSTA)). The goal of the new center is “to strengthen evidence-informed decision-making mechanisms from a center-of-government perspective” (STRATA, 11). STRATA has been granted a much broader mandate, but its current analytical and staff capacities are inadequate to address this enlarged scope of activity. In 2020 and 2021, STRATA organized training sessions for line ministries and civil servants from the parliament on how to conduct ex ante impact assessments. Its experts also provide advice to line ministries on high-priority impact assessments as they are being conducted. The program of the Šimonytė government (which took power in late 2020) contains provisions on improving the conduct of impact assessments and focusing on the quality rather than the quantity of new legal initiatives. In late 2021, OECD presented a set of concrete recommendations on improving RIA skills, advising that quality be more closely monitored and that the government pay greater political attention to the issue. However, it remains to be seen how those recommendations will be implemented by the government. Moreover, there is little interest among the members of the parliament in using impact assessments more systematically for their own legislative initiatives. Although the statute has provisions describing its use, there is no specific methodology on how RIAs should be conducted, and the use of external expertise depends on the particular chair of each committee.

The recent developments with government’s policy vis-a-vis Taiwan and China is a good case in point. It appears that little in the way of impact assessment was carried out before significant foreign policy steps were taken, with profound implications for the country’s geopolitics, businesses and economy.

Citations:
OECD, Lithuania: Indicators of Regulatory Policy and Governance, 2021 https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/6f5c1860-en/index.html?itemId=/content/component/6f5c1860-en
STRATA/OECD, Strengthening Decision-Making and Policy Evaluation for Long-Term Development, 2021, https://strata.gov.lt/lt/apie-mus/projektai/irodymais-gristos-politikos-formavimas-ir-politikos-vertinimas-vyriausybes-centre
OECD, Regulatory Policy in Lithuania: Focusing on the Delivery Side, OECD Reviews of Regulatory Reform, OECD Publishing, Paris, 2015 http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/governance/regulatory-policy-in-lithuania_9789264239340-en.
OECD, Mobilising Evidence at the Centre of Government in Lithuania. Strengthening decision-making and policy evaluation for long-term development, Paris: OECD, 2021.

Does the RIA process ensure participation, transparency and quality evaluation?

10
 9

RIA analyses consistently involve stakeholders by means of consultation or collaboration, results are transparently communicated to the public and assessments are effectively evaluated by an independent body on a regular basis.
 8
 7
 6


The RIA process displays deficiencies with regard to one of the three objectives.
 5
 4
 3


The RIA process displays deficiencies with regard to two of the three objectives.
 2
 1

RIA analyses do not exist or the RIA process fails to achieve any of the three objectives of process quality.
Quality of RIA Process
5
The process of regulatory impact assessment does not ensure sufficient participation by relevant stakeholders. External stakeholders in Lithuania do not see impact assessment as a useful tool, because it provides little room for their feedback or contributions. Although four institutions are tasked with overseeing the quality of impact assessment, the quality of impact assessments is not in fact systematically monitored. Therefore, draft government legislation is checked primarily for legality, with little attention paid to the possible impact of the proposed legislation. Though RIA results are available for decision-making, they are rarely debated or otherwise used in the policy process. The principle of proportionality is not applied as major political initiatives are raised without proper impact assessments.

The OECD has noted that although “consultation is systematically required once a regulation is drafted … it does not frequently take place before a decision to regulate is made” (OECD). At the same time, the report pointed out that Lithuania has been developing its “stakeholder engagement and consultation methodology,” in particular related to “written guidance on how to conduct stakeholder engagement in 2019” (OECD). The Skvernelis government (2016 – 2020) adopted guidelines on consulting stakeholders during the legislative process, a task that is meant to be performed during the conduct of ex ante impact assessments. This issue was been discussed during the training sessions for civil servants conducted by STRATA in 2020 and 2021 on how to properly conduct impact assessments. The OECD study presented in late 2021 provided concrete recommendations on how to improve quality control at the center of the government. However, it remains to be seen how these recommendations will implemented and followed in the course of daily business.

Citations:
OECD, OECD Regulatory Policy Outlook 2021, https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/6f5c1860-en/index.html?itemId=/content/component/6f5c1860-en
https://epilietis.lrv.lt/lt/dalyvauk-priimant-ir-keiciant-sprendimus/organizuok/viesuju-konsultaciju-metodika-ir-jos-taikymo-gaires
OECD, Mobilising Evidence at the Centre of Government in Lithuania. Strengthening decision-making and policy evaluation for long-term development, Paris: OECD, 2021.

Does the government conduct effective sustainability checks within the framework of RIA?

10
 9

Sustainability checks are an integral part of every RIA; they draw on an exhaustive set of indicators (including social, economic, and environmental aspects of sustainability) and track impacts from the short- to long-term.
 8
 7
 6


Sustainability checks lack one of the three criteria.
 5
 4
 3


Sustainability checks lack two of the three criteria.
 2
 1

Sustainability checks do not exist or lack all three criteria.
Sustainability Check
6
In 2003, the government adopted the National Sustainable Development Strategy (updated last in 2011). The Ministry of Environment is responsible for coordinating projects related to this document. Lithuanian policymakers are supposed to conduct sustainability checks within the existing framework for regulatory impact assessment. The 2012 impact-assessment guidelines provide for the assessment of economic, social and environmental impacts, among other factors. Both short-term and long-term impacts should be assessed under the new guidelines. However, the guidelines do not provide an exhaustive set of impact indicators addressing these impact dimensions. Producing high-quality environmental reviews remains a challenge under the new system, which focuses on impacts within the business environment and remains a largely formal exercise. The ex ante evaluation of the 2014 to 2020 operational program supported by EU structural funds included strategic environmental assessment that considered the likely effects of EU investments on the environment (in line with EU and national legislation). Lithuania belongs to the group of OECD countries (57% of the group’s members) that have not adopted “green budgeting” practices. To sum up, although sustainability criteria are included in the list of factors to be considered when conducting impact assessments, the formal nature of those assessments means that sustainability checks suffer from the same problems as general impact assessments. If the government succeeds in improving its impact assessment processes, sustainability checks are also likely to become more effective.

Citations:
OECD/European Commission, Joint survey on emerging green budgeting practices, 2021.
OECD, Mobilising Evidence at the Centre of Government in Lithuania. Strengthening decision-making and policy evaluation for long-term development, Paris: OECD, 2021.

To what extent do government ministries regularly evaluate the effectiveness and/or efficiency of public policies and use results of evaluations for the revision of existing policies or development of new policies?

10
 9

Ex post evaluations are carried out for all significant policies and are generally used for the revision of existing policies or the development of new policies.
 8
 7
 6


Ex post evaluations are carried out for most significant policies and are used for the revision of existing policies or the development of new policies.
 5
 4
 3


Ex post evaluations are rarely carried out for significant policies and are rarely used for the revision of existing policies or the development of new policies.
 2
 1

Ex post evaluations are generally not carried out and do not play any relevant role for the revision of existing policies or the development of new policies.
Quality of Ex Post Evaluation
7
Government ministries sometimes evaluate the effectiveness and/or efficiency of public policies, but most evaluations are related to the use of EU funds; it is mandatory to evaluate the implementation of operational programs financed from EU structural and investment funds. For instance, 63 evaluations were performed during the programming period from 2007 to 2013. Many evaluations were executed during the 2014 to 2020 period. For instance, annual evaluation plans contain about 10 evaluations each year.

The implementation of recommendations derived from these evaluations is monitored on a regular basis, but a 2013 study revealed that only about 60% of all recommendations provided by evaluators had been implemented by Lithuanian ministries or other state institutions. This average rate of implementation was attributed to insufficient institutional and staff capacities in the administration; this in turn reduces the demand for evaluations, hinders quality-assurance efforts and limits the use of evaluation results. The administration has also showed limited progress in implementing National Audit Office recommendations.

The ex post system of evaluation is still in its early stages in Lithuania, as in many other OECD countries. According to Lithuanian legislation, “if a law regulates a previously unregulated field or amends it significantly, or has a high impact to a specific policy area, individuals or groups of them, an ex post evaluation clause should be included.” However, the law does not describe sources of funding or data provision (OECD). Thus, there have been no ex post evaluations implemented yet in accordance with this legislation. In its study presented in late 2021, the OECD recommended that the ex post evaluation system be made more robust by providing clear processes, financial resources and data collection provisions. Furthermore, improvements can and should be made with regard to enhancing the coherence and compatibility of ex ante and ex post evaluations. In 2021, the government finalized a new methodology for conducting ex post impact assessments. However, it remains to be seen how this will be implemented in practice.

Citations:
STRATA/OECD, Strengthening Decision-Making and Policy Evaluation for Long-Term Development, 2021, https://strata.gov.lt/lt/apie-mus/projektai/irodymais-gristos-politikos-formavim as-ir-politikos-vertinimas-vyriausybes-centre
OECD, Mobilising Evidence at the Centre of Government in Lithuania. Strengthening decision-making and policy evaluation for long-term development, Paris: OECD, 2021.

Societal Consultation

#9

Does the government consult with societal actors in a fair and pluralistic manner?

10
 9

The government always consults with societal actors in a fair and pluralistic manner.
 8
 7
 6


The government in most cases consults with societal actors in a fair and pluralistic manner.
 5
 4
 3


The government does consult with societal actors, but mostly in an unfair and clientelistic manner.
 2
 1

The government rarely consults with any societal actors.
Public Consultation
7
In Lithuania, major societal actors are consulted through institutionalized arrangements such the Tripartite Council, as well as through various ad hoc means. Major societal actors were also involved in the preparation and monitoring of the long-term Lithuania 2030 strategy, working through the State Progress Council. Under the Skvernelis government, a new accord was signed between the government, business organizations and trade unions. The accord provides for the preparation of a separate agreement between these partners, which would reduce taxes on wages in exchange for employers’ commitment to increase wages. However, at the end of 2019, the main business associations threatened to withdraw from the agreement, accusing the government of not respecting its commitment to safeguard the stability of the tax environment following the introduction of new tax-code changes alongside the 2020 budget.

In recent years, rather substantial efforts were made to strengthen NGOs. The NGO registry and fund were created, and the NGO Council was moved from the Ministry of Social Security and Labor to the level of the government. Furthermore, there have been attempts to involve stakeholders more closely in policy formation, such as the development of the National Forest Agreement, although there have also been complaints regarding unequal levels of participation and undue influence by powerful interests.

The practice of prior consultation in developing regulations is mandated by the Law on the Basics of Legislation. Citizens can provide feedback on draft laws by using the Legislative Information System, a feature on the parliament’s website. However, during the 2014 – 2016 period, Lithuanian ministries failed to publish 98% of legislative initiatives in a way that would allow for citizen feedback. In addition, this procedure allows citizens to voice their opinions or concerns only during the last stage of lawmaking, when decisions have been already proposed by state institutions; moreover, the 10 to 15 days allowed for feedback are usually not sufficient for all stakeholder contributions.

Therefore, neither the scope of consultation with societal actors nor the time allocated to consultation is sufficient in Lithuania. The consultation process is usually limited to an exchange of information and positions, and the quality of feedback is often poor. For these reasons, a 2015 OECD report recommended that the country develop public-consultation guidelines. In response, the Office of the Government launched a large stakeholder-consultation project co-funded by the European Social Fund at the end of 2016. The project developed a public-consultation methodology and application guidelines, but it has not yet established the professional public-consultation standard that would be needed to bring societal consultation to a higher level. Moreover, use of the public-consultation feature on the E-Citizen platform (part of the Office of the Government’s “My Government” webpage) has been rather slow to build momentum. In the period from 20 March 2014 to 16 July 2019, 55 public consultations were announced on E-Citizen, but only a few of these were executed in a professional and ultimately successful way. For instance, a public consultation on the Demographics, Migration and Integration Strategy for 2018 – 2030, which was jointly organized by the Office of the Government and the Ministry of Social Security and Labor, attracted a high number of citizen responses and provided useful feedback for the adoption of this strategy in parliament. The question of why public consultation is important in the legislative process was also discussed during training sessions for civil servants conducted by STRATA in 2020 and 2021.

Attempts to “internalize” consultations within ministries was unsuccessful, and thus these processes depend on political will of the government. The Office of the Government has been pushing ministries to consult with civil society groups on the most important legislative proposals, and has also offering help in conducting such discussions.

Early consultation with stakeholders in the regulation-making process is not systematic (as is also the case in 27 other OECD members). However, stakeholders were consulted on both COVID-19 recovery packages and on other pandemic-management strategies.

Citations:
OECD, Government at a Glance 2021, Country Fact Sheet: Lithuania, 2021, https://www.oecd.org/gov/gov-at-a-glance-2021-lithuania.pdf
OECD, Regulatory Policy in Lithuania: Focusing on the Delivery Side, OECD Reviews of Regulatory Reform, OECD Publishing, Paris, 2015 http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/governance/regulatory-policy-in-lithuania_9789264239340-en.
https://epilietis.lrv.lt/lt/dalyvauk-priimant-ir-keiciant-spre ndimus/organizuok/viesuju-konsultaciju-metodika-ir-jos-taikymo-gaires
OECD, Mobilising Evidence at the Centre of Government in Lithuania. Strengthening decision-making and policy evaluation for long-term development, Paris: OECD, 2021.

Policy Communication

#26

To what extent does the government achieve coherent communication?

10
 9

Ministries are highly successful in aligning their communication with government strategy.
 8
 7
 6


Ministries most of the time are highly successful in aligning their communication with government strategy.
 5
 4
 3


Ministries occasionally issue public statements that contradict the public communication of other ministries or the government strategy.
 2
 1

Strategic communication planning does not exist; individual ministry statements regularly contradict each other. Messages are often not factually consistent with the government’s strategy.
Coherent Communication
5
The political fragmentation associated with Lithuania’s ruling coalitions has made it difficult to formulate and implement an effective government communications policy. Line ministries and other state institutions are responsible for communicating with the public within their individual areas of competence; however, the Communications Department of the Office of the Government attempts to coordinate these activities and provides the public with information about the government’s performance. For instance, a unified government portal that aims at providing relevant information to the citizens about the performance of the whole government (the cabinet, the Office of the Government, ministries and government agencies) was launched in 2015.

In a 2015 report, the OECD recommended that the core government rebalance its engagement with other institutions by emphasizing its role as a facilitator of exchange and dialogue across government and with non-state stakeholders, rather than primarily focusing on top-down communication.

On the whole, the government continues to lack a coherent communication policy today. While contradictory statements are rare, they do occur to varying degrees depending on the particular government and the elections calendar. The Skvernelis government (2016 – 2020), composed mostly of nonpartisan ministers (so-called professionals), faced difficulties in coordinating its communications on policy priorities and reforms undertaken. This was particularly evident in 2018 and 2019 due to pending election campaigns, changes in the composition of the governing majority and preparations for the 2020 parliamentary elections. The Šimonytė government (which came to power 2020) has not been immune to communication difficulties either. For example, a major scandal broke out when it was discovered that shipments of Belarusian fertilizers were being transported via Lithuania, despite Lithuania’s vocal political support for sanctions against the Belarusian regime. Part of the reason for the scandal were mismanaged expectations about what the sanctions would entail. Furthermore, both the Skvernelis and Šimonytė governments faced difficulties in communicating a coherent strategy regarding the management of the COVID-19 pandemic. The government also failed to clearly communicate the goals and rationale of is foreign policy strategy regarding Taiwan and China. As a result, a poll carried out in January 2022 showed that 60% of Lithuanians were opposed to the government’s foreign policy on this issue, and only 13% were in favor.

Citations:
OECD, Regulatory Policy in Lithuania: Focusing on the Delivery Side, OECD Reviews of Regulatory Reform, OECD Publishing, Paris, 2015 http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/governance/regulatory-policy-in-lithuania_9789264239340-en.

Implementation

#16

To what extent can the government achieve its own policy objectives?

10
 9

The government can largely implement its own policy objectives.
 8
 7
 6


The government is partly successful in implementing its policy objectives or can implement some of its policy objectives.
 5
 4
 3


The government partly fails to implement its objectives or fails to implement several policy objectives.
 2
 1

The government largely fails to implement its policy objectives.
Government Effectiveness
7
During the fast process of transition and accession to the EU, Lithuanian governments’ narrow focus on this task produced a lag in policy implementation. The performance of the four most recent governments has been mixed. Kubilius government policy of fiscal consolidation represented one important success, few major structural reforms occurred in Lithuania during the 2008 to 2012 period, with the exception of higher-education reform, a partial optimization of the healthcare network and a restructuring of the energy sector. Although the Butkevičius government (2012 – 2016) outlined a broad set of policy priorities, its implementation record was also mixed. The government introduced the euro in 2015, developed the new “social model,” completed the construction of the liquefied-natural-gas terminal in Klaipėda and advanced the renovation of apartment blocks. However, less progress was achieved in other policy areas, including the structural reform of higher education and training, healthcare, and public administration. The Skvernelis government (2016 – 2020) was able to push through a few important reform policies, including a new labor code (largely prepared by the previous government), the merger of state-owned forestry companies, and amendments to the alcohol control law as well as tax and pension reforms. It was able to achieve this progress despite its diminished parliamentary majority following a split within the Social Democratic party’s parliamentary group, but its effectiveness has declined toward the end of its political term. Coalition politics, shifting political attention, the conflicting strategies of various advocacy coalitions and weak political leadership frequently explain the government’s failure to implement major policy objectives. For example, the consolidation of higher-education institutions has been deviating from the government’s initial plan, with a number of amendments made both during parliamentary deliberations and during actual implementation shifting the character of the reform.

It is somewhat difficult to assess the Šimonytė government’s record, as the government has largely pushed structural reforms into future. At the beginning of the government’s term, policymakers decided to focus their attention on fighting multiple crises, such as the pandemic, illegal migration and geoeconomics (due to relations with China). The junior party in the coalition – the Freedom Party – had several clear policy goals, in particular related to legalizing same-sex partnerships and decriminalizing the use of psychoactive substances. However, neither of these proposals were approved by the parliament, as some members of the coalition were opposed to them. After these failed attempts, tensions have appeared within the coalition. On the other hand, the coalition managed to adopt a new law enabling names to be spelled in official documents using Latin letters that are not part of Lithuanian alphabet – a longstanding issue important for the non-Lithuanian population.

The government should also continue improving the effectiveness and efficiency of its spending. In the World Bank’s 2020 Worldwide Governance Indicators, Lithuania scored at the 83rd percentile for government effectiveness, a slight improvement of three percentage points relative to 2017. In its 2019 report, the European Commission recommended improving the efficiency of public investment as a means of stimulating overall productivity growth in the country.

Citations:
The Worldwide Governance Indicators of World Bank are available at http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/#home
Vitalis Nakrošis, Ramūnas Vilpišauskas and Vytautas Kuokštis: Fiscal consolidation and structural reforms in Lithuania in the period 2008-2012: from grand ambitions to hectic firefighting. International Review of Administrative Sciences 81 (3), 2015, p. 522–540.
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT, country report Lithuania 2019: https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/file_import/2019-european-semester-country-report-lithuania_en.pdf

To what extent does the organization of government provide mechanisms to ensure that ministers implement the government’s program?

10
 9

The organization of government successfully provides strong mechanisms for ministers to implement the government’s program.
 8
 7
 6


The organization of government provides some mechanisms for ministers to implement the government’s program.
 5
 4
 3


The organization of government provides weak mechanisms for ministers to implement the government’s program.
 2
 1

The organization of government does not provide any mechanisms for ministers to implement the government’s program.
Ministerial Compliance
7
The government’s organization provides ministers with various incentives to implement the government’s agenda. The primary organizational instruments include coalition agreements, government programs, multiannual government priorities, identified priority actions and monitoring processes, cabinet meetings and deliberations, and the assignment of ministerial responsibility for policy areas. Since prime-ministerial powers within the executive are limited by constitutional provisions and the fragmentation of coalition governments, officeholders need to seek support from other cabinet ministers (including ministers of finance, who tend to share the prime minister’s party affiliation), from parliamentary groups, and from the president (who has a veto power over draft laws) as they seek to implement the major objectives of the government program. In addition, as they implement governmental policy, line ministries tend to focus on the sectoral-policy aims falling under their responsibility at the expense of related horizontal-policy aims. However, the previous Skvernelis government (2016 – 2020), in which most ministers were nonpartisan, with their selection based on their professional record as well as support from the president, increasingly faced tensions due to disagreements between the prime minister, sectoral ministers and members of the then-governing Lithuanian Farmers and Greens Union parliamentary faction. This led to three ministers being sacked by the prime minister. An internal lack of agreement on draft policy proposals was reported to be one of the main reasons for delays in the implementation of some government-program measures in 2017 and 2018. Under the Šimonytė government, more attention has been devoted to monitoring implementation of the government’s program, including by the prime minister herself. However, since most important reforms foreseen in the program were explicitly planned for the years 2022 – 2023, it remains to be seen how they will be implemented.

How effectively does the government office/prime minister’s office monitor line ministry activities with regard to implementation?

10
 9

The GO / PMO effectively monitors the implementation activities of all line ministries.
 8
 7
 6


The GO / PMO monitors the implementation activities of most line ministries.
 5
 4
 3


The GO / PMO monitors the implementation activities of some line ministries.
 2
 1

The GO / PMO does not monitor the implementation activities of line ministries.
Monitoring Ministries
8
The Office of the Government effectively monitors policy implementation, through several channels. First, it administratively tracks the execution of government actions assigned to different ministries and other state institutions. Second, through its information system of monitoring, it assesses the achievement of government priorities and linked policy objectives on the basis of performance indicators. Progress in the implementation of policy is discussed during cabinet meetings and other government-level deliberations. However, information derived from this monitoring process is only infrequently used to propose corrective action when progress is deemed insufficient. Thus, the monitoring process does not always prevent the prioritization of sectoral or bureaucratic over full-government and horizontal interests in policy implementation. As part of one EU-funded project, the Office of the Government reviewed monitoring and evaluation practices, and made a number of recommendations as to how performance measurement could be improved in line ministries (including the development of key performance indicators or indicator libraries in various policy areas). Despite the implementation of this project, the National Audit Office stated that the country’s monitoring and reporting system continues to lack quality information, while the government and line ministries often provide incomplete information regarding the achievement of their policy aims and objectives in their reports.

How effectively do federal and subnational ministries monitor the activities of bureaucracies/executive agencies with regard to implementation?

10
 9

The ministries effectively monitor the implementation activities of all bureaucracies/executive agencies.
 8
 7
 6


The ministries monitor the implementation activities of most bureaucracies/executive agencies.
 5
 4
 3


The ministries monitor the implementation activities of some bureaucracies/executive agencies.
 2
 1

The ministries do not monitor the implementation activities of bureaucracies/executive agencies.
Monitoring Agencies|Bureaucracies
6
Lithuania’s fragmented structure of agencies and other public sector organizations undermines the effective monitoring of bureaucratic performance. While agencies subordinate to the central government or individual ministries can be monitored relatively efficiently, autonomous organizations such as public nonprofit institutions, foundations and state-owned enterprises that carry out administrative functions are more difficult to control. Parent ministries and third parties acting on behalf of the ministries use a combination of ex ante and ex post oversight mechanisms, including the assessment of agency results. However, many Lithuanian ministries have no professional staff specifically assigned to monitor agency activities, and the interest shown by ministers and other politicians in the performance of agencies depends on the changing salience of political issues. In 2012, the Governance Coordination Center was established as part of the State Property Fund. Among other tasks, it monitors the implementation of state-owned enterprises’ goals, and produces regular reports on the performance of these enterprises. Beginning in 2013, the scope of annual public sector reports produced by the Lithuanian Ministry of the Interior was expanded to include municipal organizations. However, this ministry’s reports remain of a descriptive nature, lacking specific recommendations as to how the performance of individual organizations or their groups might be improved. In 2015, the Sunset Commission reviewed the performance of public nonprofit institutions and proposed several recommendations, some of which were related to improving the monitoring of these institutions. However, the Sunset Commission ceased operating in 2016. The relationship between the center of the government, its ministries and agencies might be affected by the planned reform of the public administration, which is one of the high-priority reforms identified by the Šimonytė government (which took office in 2020). It is set to be adopted in 2022.

To what extent does the central government ensure that tasks delegated to subnational self-governments are adequately funded?

10
 9

The central government enables subnational self-governments to fulfill all their delegated tasks by funding these tasks sufficiently and/or by providing adequate revenue-raising powers.
 8
 7
 6


The central government enables subnational governments to fulfill most of their delegated tasks by funding these tasks sufficiently and/or by providing adequate revenue-raising powers.
 5
 4
 3


The central government sometimes and deliberately shifts unfunded mandates to subnational governments.
 2
 1

The central government often and deliberately shifts unfunded mandates to subnational self-governments.
Task Funding
6
Lithuanian municipalities perform both state-delegated (funded through grants from the central government) and independent (funded through a national tax-sharing arrangement and local sources of revenue) functions. Lithuania has a centralized system of government with powers and financial resources concentrated at the central level. The central government provides grants for the exercise of functions delegated to the local level, as local authorities have minimal revenue-raising powers. In 2018, the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities reported that the overall environment for local self-government in Lithuania was generally positive. However, its rapporteurs expressed a concern that despite the country’s quick economic recovery from the financial crisis, and despite increases in local budgets, local authorities’ financial resources were still not commensurate with their responsibilities. This limits municipalities’ ability to deliver the services that are within their area of responsibility. The management of the illegal migration crisis in 2021, when municipalities were playing an important role, again attracted public attention to the issue of adequate funding.

Citations:
Congress of Local and Regional Authorities (2018). Local democracy in Lithuania, Report, CPL35(2018)02prov. Available at: https://rm.coe.int/summary-of-reports-presented-at-the-35th-congress-session/16808ea978

To what extent does central government ensure that subnational self-governments may use their constitutional scope of discretion with regard to implementation?

10
 9

The central government enables subnational self-governments to make full use of their constitutional scope of discretion with regard to implementation.
 8
 7
 6


Central government policies inadvertently limit the subnational self-governments’ scope of discretion with regard to implementation.
 5
 4
 3


The central government formally respects the constitutional autonomy of subnational self-governments, but de facto narrows their scope of discretion with regard to implementation.
 2
 1

The central government deliberately precludes subnational self-governments from making use of their constitutionally provided implementation autonomy.
Constitutional Discretion
6
The central government generally respects local authorities’ constitutional scope of power, but centrally determined political, legal, administrative or fiscal measures sometimes constrain subnational policymaking and implementation autonomy. In addition to the problems of limited powers and insufficient fiscal resources, the elimination of county administrations and other central-level decisions have reduced municipalities’ policymaking and implementation capacities in areas such as territorial planning, construction and the regulation of land ownership. Furthermore, according to the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities, many legal regulations tend to restrict municipal autonomy and local authorities’ ability to act independently.

Citations:
Congress of Local and Regional Authorities (2018). Local democracy in Lithuania, Report, CPL35(2018)02prov. Available at: https://rm.coe.int/summary-of-reports-presented-at-the-35th-congress-session/16808ea978

To what extent does central government ensure that subnational self-governments realize national standards of public services?

10
 9

Central government effectively ensures that subnational self-governments realize national standards of public services.
 8
 7
 6


Central government largely ensures that subnational self-governments realize national standards of public services.
 5
 4
 3


Central government ensures that subnational self-governments realize national minimum standards of public services.
 2
 1

Central government does not ensure that subnational self-governments realize national standards of public services.
National Standards
6
National public-service standards at the subnational level are ensured through centralized or regional governance arrangements. For example, landfills are connected in a regional network of service providers. The decentralized provision of other public services at the local level has produced uneven quality in areas such as school education or the accessibility of primary healthcare services. The Public Management Improvement Program aims at defining minimal-quality standards for various public functions such as healthcare, education and social services. A recent report from the National Audit Office found that the central government still lacks reliable and comprehensive data on the provision of public services, which is necessary for the effective modernization and standardization of services. More specifically, the National Audit Office recommended improving the accessibility of personal healthcare services in Lithuania.

Citations:
The Public Management Improvement Program, Plans for 2019-20 (in Lithuanian) is available at https://e-seimas.lrs.lt/portal/legalAct/lt/TAD/e147d990767e11e99ceae2890faa4193?jfwid=bkaxly2s

To what extent is government enforcing regulations in an effective and unbiased way, also against vested interests?

10
 9

Government agencies enforce regulations effectively and without bias.
 8
 7
 6


Government agencies, for the most part, enforce regulations effectively and without bias.
 5
 4
 3


Government agencies enforce regulations, but ineffectively and with bias.
 2
 1

Government agencies enforce regulations ineffectively, inconsistently and with bias.
Regulatory Enforcement
7
In the World Bank’s 2020 Worldwide Governance Indicators, Lithuania scored at the 83rd percentile, a position that has shown little change in the 2017 – 2020 period. A 2017 OECD report indicated mixed effectiveness in regulatory delivery efforts in Lithuania. Although food safety inspections were effective and in line with best practices, compliance with occupational safety rules was problematic, and the regulation of fire safety was of concern. To improve the enforcement system in Lithuania, the report recommended gathering better data and conducting more analysis, paying more political attention to enforcement, improving risk assessment in enforcement activities, rethinking priorities, reallocating resources, and paying more attention to education and outreach.

The better-regulation policy of the Lithuanian government seeks to reduce administrative burden, manage risks better, fight corruption and move to compliance promotion. Regulatory reform momentum was strong at first but has slowed down considerably in recent years. No regulatory institution is named on the list of the most corrupt institutions in the country, though some corruption scandals involved a few regulatory agencies. For instance, in 2016 the Special Investigation Service called on the State Food and Veterinary Service to eliminate corruption after its food safety inspections had yielded no action against any food product deemed harmful to human health. In late 2018, the Ministry of Economy and Innovation released the first study of regulatory institutions’ activities, assessing the methods and instruments used by institutions that regulate businesses. The study determined that 61% of institutions (33 out of 50) assessed were performing unsatisfactorily, with grades below 5.5 out of 10. Only two institutions, State Tax Inspection and State Labor Inspection, received grades above nine. In general, those institutions that mostly deal with regulating business activities performed better than those which have business regulation as only one of their activities. On the basis of these assessments, the Ministry of Economy and Innovation issued its recommendations on reducing administrative burdens for businesses. The Skvernelis government planned to merge some regulatory institutions, reducing their number from 55 to 47 by 2020, but failed to achieve this goal.

In October 2019, a major fire broke out in a tire-recycling facility in Alytus, leading the town’s authorities to declare a state of emergency. This case demonstrated the inadequacy of legislation and the lack of effective enforcement in the fields of pollution control and fire safety; as a consequence, substantial damage was done to the environment. Similarly, the illegal migration crisis in 2021 exposed the limited ability of various levels of the administration to deal with such a crisis, even though a simulation of a similar crisis had been performed only a few years before, involving the arrival of 10 times as many migrants as appeared in 2021. The Šimonytė government has initiated a reform of the crisis management system with the goal of making it more resilient and effective at managing future crises.

Citations:
National Audit Office, Consolidation of Institutions Regulating Business, 2020 https://www.valstybeskontrole.lt/LT/Product/23913
OECD, Regulatory Policy in Lithuania: Focusing on the Delivery Side, OECD Reviews of Regulatory Reform, OECD Publishing, Paris, 2015 http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/governance/regulatory-policy-in-lithuania_9789264239340-en.
The Worldwide Governance Indicators of World Bank are available at http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/#home
Ministry of Economy, Report of Regulatory Institutions December 2018, available so far only in Lithuania at https://ukmin.lrv.lt/lt/veiklos-sritys/verslo-aplinka/verslo-prieziuros-politika/svieslente

Adaptability

#4

To what extent does the government respond to international and supranational developments by adapting domestic government structures?

10
 9

The government has appropriately and effectively adapted domestic government structures to international and supranational developments.
 8
 7
 6


In many cases, the government has adapted domestic government structures to international and supranational developments.
 5
 4
 3


In some cases, the government has adapted domestic government structures to international and supranational developments.
 2
 1

The government has not adapted domestic government structures, no matter how beneficial adaptation might be.
Domestic Adaptability
9
Lithuania’s policymakers have over time significantly adapted domestic government structures to international and supranational developments. A network of semi-independent regulatory agencies was developed during the pre-accession period. After the completion of EU accession negotiations, Lithuania’s system of coordinating EU affairs was gradually moved from the core government to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and, in the case of specific sectoral matters, decentralized to line ministries.

Lithuania has managed to maintain a rather good record of transposition and implementation of EU law, as illustrated by the low transposition deficit and relatively small number of infringement cases initiated against the country. Lithuania absorbs EU investments relatively quickly. As much as 40% of EU payments were disbursed by 3 October 2019, compared to the EU-28 average of 35%. Although the management of EU funds and control systems is functioning well and in compliance with EU requirements, it is challenging for the Lithuanian authorities to ensure the result-orientation of EU funds while maintaining a high rate of absorption during the programming period from 2014 to 2020. The adoption of EU policy has largely taken place on a formal basis, rather than indicating substantial policy learning. The central bank’s capacities were strengthened as a result of preparations for the introduction of the euro in 2015, while the adoption of economic-governance rules for the euro area resulted in an expansion in the role and capacities of the National Audit Office. Accession to the OECD in 2018 was expected to strengthen the quality of regulation and the efficacy of state-owned enterprises, but the autumn 2019 decision by a newly appointed minister of transport and communications to dismiss the board members of the state-owned Lithuanian Post indicated that there is some risk that these reforms will be reversed.

The COVID-19 pandemic presented Lithuanian authorities with numerous challenges. Although the initial reaction by the authorities was swift and largely appropriate given the circumstances, later responses – especially those that required more complex decision-making and analysis – often lagged behind the developments. Moreover, policymakers did not internalize lessons sufficiently to enable them to prepare for successive pandemic waves. The management of the illegal migration crisis and the more general geopolitical tensions originating from the increasingly aggressive behavior of authoritarian regimes in Russia, Belarus and China drove the government to draft a new National Security strategy in 2021, and prompted a review of the country’s crisis management system. Russia’s war against Ukraine and Belarus’ military dependency on Russia are likely to result in significant mobilization of national and allied resources for security purposes.

To what extent is the government able to collaborate effectively with international efforts to foster global public goods?

10
 9

The government can take a leading role in shaping and implementing collective efforts to provide global public goods. It is able to ensure coherence in national policies affecting progress.
 8
 7
 6


The government is largely able to shape and implement collective efforts to provide global public goods. Existing processes enabling the government to ensure coherence in national policies affecting progress are, for the most part, effective.
 5
 4
 3


The government is partially able to shape and implement collective efforts to provide global public goods. Processes designed to ensure coherence in national policies affecting progress show deficiencies.
 2
 1

The government does not have sufficient institutional capacities to shape and implement collective efforts to provide global public goods. It does not have effective processes to ensure coherence in national policies affecting progress.
International Coordination
7
Lithuania actively engages in international policy cooperation on behalf of democracy and market-economic systems, in particular by providing reform support to its eastern neighbors (the Eastern Partnership countries), by providing technical and financial assistance, and by serving as an advocate for their interests within the EU institutional framework. Lithuania has been part of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan since 2005. The country’s policymakers have managed to coordinate their involvement in these international fields quite effectively. In 2012, Lithuania joined the OECD’s Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes as well as completed a first compliance assessment. In 2015, Lithuania was invited to start its accession process to the OECD. In the second half of 2013, Lithuania took over the rotating presidency of the European Council and was afterward assessed by other EU institutions and member states as performing effective work. Furthermore, Lithuania became a non-permanent member of the U.N. Security Council for the 2014 to 2015 term. For several years now, Lithuania has honored its pledge to allocate 2% of GDP for defense, which is further evidence of a willingness to support NATO. Lithuanian authorities have actively pushed the United Nations and other international organizations to refrain from recognizing Russia’s occupation and annexation of Crimea and Sevastopol.

However, the government has been less willing or able to contribute to such global challenges as climate-change or trade liberalization (except in the context of its presidency of the European Council presidency). In 2017, the European Commission fined Lithuanian Railways (Lietuvos geležinkeliai) €27.9 million for breaching EU antitrust rules by removing a rail track connecting Lithuania and Latvia, which hindered competition in the rail freight market. Lithuanian authorities have also experienced problems in trying to convince regional partners to agree on the preferred option for synchronizing electricity systems with the Central European grid and a common position on the safety risks posed by the new nuclear power plant being constructed in Astravyets, Belarus. In addition, Lithuanian diplomats have not coordinated sufficiently with the country’s EU partners with respect to planned decisions vis-a-vis Taiwan and China.

Citations:
Vilpišauskas, R. “Lithuania’s EU Council Presidency: Negotiating Finances, Dealing with Geopolitics,” Journal of Common Market Studies, vol. 52, Annual Review, August 2014, pp. 99-108.

Organizational Reform

#3

To what extent do actors within the government monitor whether institutional arrangements of governing are appropriate?

10
 9

The institutional arrangements of governing are monitored regularly and effectively.
 8
 7
 6


The institutional arrangements of governing are monitored regularly.
 5
 4
 3


The institutional arrangements of governing are selectively and sporadically monitored.
 2
 1

There is no monitoring.
Self-monitoring
8
Lithuania’s policymakers monitor institutional governing arrangements (both institutions and rules of procedure) regularly and effectively. The Ministry of the Interior has established a committee to monitor the implementation of the Public Government Improvement Program, which includes representatives from that ministry, the Office of the Government, and other key ministries and state institutions. However, these monitoring and review processes do not include representatives of the business community or civil society, or individual experts. Non-governmental actors used to participate in the activities of the Sunset Commission, but its mandate was not extended through the 2016 – 2020 government term. Also, the rules of procedure and business processes are frequently reviewed using quality-management instruments, the application of which is becoming increasingly widespread in the country’s public administration. A uniform project-management standard introduced by the Skvernelis government for the governmental and ministerial levels provides for the establishment of a project monitoring group and the application of monitoring procedures during the implementation of projects.

However, the results of these monitoring processes are not sufficiently used in making decisions, and some changes to institutional arrangements remain motivated by governments’ short-term political needs. The country’s OECD accession has offered new possibilities for benchmarking Lithuanian’s public sector performance against other OECD members, thus creating opportunities to draw political attention to the need to monitor governance arrangements. The OECD study presented in late 2021 is a case in point.

Citations:
OECD, Mobilising Evidence at the Centre of Government in Lithuania. Strengthening decision-making and policy evaluation for long-term development, Paris: OECD, 2021.

To what extent does the government improve its strategic capacity by changing the institutional arrangements of governing?

10
 9

The government improves its strategic capacity considerably by changing its institutional arrangements.
 8
 7
 6


The government improves its strategic capacity by changing its institutional arrangements.
 5
 4
 3


The government does not improve its strategic capacity by changing its institutional arrangements.
 2
 1

The government loses strategic capacity by changing its institutional arrangements.
Institutional Reform
9
Lithuania’s government has in some cases improved its strategic capacity considerably by changing its institutional arrangements. The Skvernelis government developed a new concept paper on the institutional setup of public administration, which proposed reducing the number of institutions by 15%. The number of public sector institutions fell by 23% (by 1,000 in absolute numbers) between 2016 and 2019. Although there was more rationalization activity at the central level in 2018, the process of optimization has been very sluggish at the local level.

At the end of 2018, the Skvernelis government (2016 – 2020) approved a set of reform guidelines for ministerial and agency administrations, which led to organizational restructuring in 2019. Skvernelis’ government also decided to rename two government ministries: the Ministry of National Economy became the Ministry of Economy and Innovation after it took over responsibility for innovation (digital economy and IT infrastructure), while the Ministry of Education and Science added “Sport” to its name after gaining control over this policy field. The Šimonytė government (in office since late 2020) has begun a reform of the innovation sector involving the merger of several institutions (Enterprise Lithuania; the Agency for Science, Innovation and Technology; and the Lithuanian Business Support Agency). The goal is to “create the foundations for an effective (and high quality) expansion of the innovation ecosystem and the development of priority economic sectors at the international level” (Enterprise Lithuania). Preparations for a broad reform of the public administration are being made, with adoption planned for 2022.

Citations:
Vidaus reikalų ministerija ir Strata, “Viešojo sektoriaus ataskaita, 2016-2019 metai.” Vilnius, 2020 https://vrm.lrv.lt/uploads/vrm/documents/files/LT_versija/Veiklos%20ataskaitos/Vie%C5%A1ojo%20sektoriaus%20ataskaita_galutin%C4%97%20(002).pdf

Enterprise Lithuania, “Inovacijų agentūros koncepcija.”
https://www.verslilietuva.lt/apie-mus/apie-inovaciju-agentura/inovaciju-agenturos-koncepcija/
Back to Top