Decision‐making: the role of the deputy minister

Abstract

Abstract. This paper examines the role of the deputy minister in public decision‐making. It notes the theoretical distinction between policy‐making, on the one hand, and policy‐execution or administration on the other, with the qualification that in practice the two are inevitably intermingled. It advances the view that changes in policy should be based on experience, in which the external impressions of politicians are complemented by the sense of continuity and inside knowledge of officials. The analysis by the Fulton Commission on the Civil Service of the United Kingdom of the fourfold functions of the permanent secretary as (1) the minister's most immediate policy adviser; (2) the managing director of the day‐to‐day operations of the department; (3) the possessor of ultimate responsibility for questions of staff and organization; and (4) accounting officer with ultimate responsibility for all departmental expenditures is compared with the duties and responsibilities of the deputy minister in Canada.The contribution to public policy‐making by the recent developments in rationalizing the cabinet committee system and in arranging, inter alia, for the attendance of senior advisers at committee meetings, is noted and the influence of economists and other outside professional advisers is considered. Finally, the question as to who in government makes decisions is answered by the conclusion that in government decisions are made by ministers, or by officials in the name and on the responsibility of ministers at many levels of the administrative machine.Sommaire. L'auteur de cette communication examine le rôle du sous‐ministre dans le prise de décision publique. Il prend note de la distinction théorique entre d'une part la prise de décision et d'autre part, l'exécution des politiques ou leur administration, tout en faisant remarquer que dans la pratique ces deux functions se fusionnent inévitablement. Il prétend que les changements de politique devraient se faire sur la base de l'expérience, les impressions extemes des ministres étant complétées par le sens de la continuité et les connaissances internes des fonctionnaires. Il compare les devoirs et responsabilités des sousministres au Canada à l'analyse qu'a faite la Commission Fulton sur la function publique du Royaume‐Uni et plus précisément sur le quadruple rôle du secretaire permanent en tant que (1) » conseiller le plus proche du ministre «, (2) directeur des opérations quotidiennes du ministère, (3) détenteur de la responsabilité en dernier ressort des questions de personnel et d'organisation et (4), dans le domaine financier, responsable en dernier ressort de toutes les dépenses du ministère.Il souligne les apports à la prise de décision publique des derniers développements visant à rationnaliser le système des comités du cabinet et à assurer, entre autres, l'assistance des conseillers aux réunions des comités et évalue également l'influence des économistes et des autres conseillers professionnels de rextérieur. Finalement il répond à la question de savoir qui prend les decisions au sein du gouvernement en concluant que les décisions sont prises par les ministres ou par les fonctionnaires au nom de ceux‐ci et sous leur responsabilité, à différents niveaux du mécanisme administratif.

Leadership on the run: time management among deputy ministers in Canada

“…In this sense, their role is very similar to senior executives in other public services, like Permanent Secretaries in the United Kingdom or General Secretaries in European continental public administrations. The activity of DMs in Canada has been analyzed independently of their time management approaches in decision-making (Balls, 1976), in their role as members of the administrative machinery (Bourgault and Dion, 1989, 2016) and in strategic planning as part of the broader senior executive cadre (Elbanna et al ., 2016). The literature has also looked at the increased politicization of senior public servants (Heintzman, 2016; Bourgault and Gow, 2020), their role in public sector bargaining (Bourgault, 2011; Bourgault and Van Dorpe, 2013).…”

The time management styles of deputy ministers in Canada: Towards a taxonomy

“…Over time, observers of their work have essentially adapted the seminal theory established by Luther Gulick and Lyndall Urwick (Gulick, 1937) to describe the work of DMs—they essentially plan, organize, staff, direct, coordinate, report and budget (PODSCORB). A relatively broad literature explores how DMs operate within the administration (Bourgault & Dion, 1989, 2016), and generally within the senior executive structure (Elbanna et al, 2016), their role in public sector bargaining (Bourgault, 2011; Bourgault & Van Dorpe, 2013), in translating and implementing political decisions (Bourgault, 2003), and how they decide (Balls, 1976). Public policy analysis has largely sidestepped the role of Deputy Ministers either by focusing on public management (Hughes, 2018), general trends (Peters & Pierre, 1998), or on policy priorities (Pollitt & Bouckaert, 2011).…”