Ministries remain central to government organisation, yet in recent decades their structure and performance have received limited attention. Interest has instead focused on the rise of public agencies and state owned enterprises. SIGMA’s regular assessments highlight persistent weaknesses in how ministries are organised and operate in the Western Balkans and the European Union (EU) Eastern Neighbourhood, alongside a lack of clear reform direction in an increasingly complex public administration landscape. This study aims to address this divide, analysing current challenges and examining ways forward. While no single model guarantees effective organisation, the report reviews European practices and shows that, despite differing administrative traditions, ministries share several common features. It identifies recurring issues in the Western Balkans, Armenia, Moldova, and Ukraine such as excessive politicisation, limited merit-based management, and weak inter-ministerial co-ordination. The study also presents potential reform actions and frames of reference to enhance ministerial effectiveness across diverse governance contexts.
Ministries in the Western Balkans and selected countries of the European Eastern Neighbourhood
Abstract
Contents
Exploring the diversity of ministries in European governments
- Ministries in numbers
- Creating and restructuring ministries. How much flexibility?
- Typology. Classic ministries and newcomers
- Who runs the ministry?
- Reforming ministries – selected initiatives
- Key takeaways and some lessons learnt
Key characteristics and major challenges in the Western Balkans, Armenia, Moldova and Ukraine
- Ministries within the governments: what is the ministerial landscape?
- Inside ministries: who runs the ministry?
- Ministerial power: how do ministries perform?
Reinforcing ministries: recommendations and tools
- Rational design of government
- Reinforcing ministerial leadership
- Transforming the ministry into a policy powerhouse
- Bolstering merit rule
- The ministry as an attractive employer
- Enhancing managerial accountability
Ministries in numbers
Overall, the analysed period (2017-2025) brought quite intense changes in the landscape of ministries in most of the SIGMA-9. Bosnia and Herzegovina stands out as an “oasis of stability”.
Key problems affecting the performance of the ministries
- Decades of agencification and general deterioration of working conditions in the central administration have undermined ministries as employers. Unattractive staff salaries and lack of stability in managerial positions (related to excessive politicisation) have been pushing talent towards agencies and the private sector.
- Centralisation is deeply embedded in post-socialist administrations, hindering managerial accountability, flexibility, and agility. There is tight central control of internal organisation of ministries. In many cases, even the job descriptions of individual employees in ministries require the approval of the whole government. Internally, ministries also follow a highly centralised model, where most decisions, including technical ones, require approval by a minister.
- Efforts to introduce a merit-based top management have often failed. Reforms in this field have been inconsistent and largely unsuccessful. In particular, attempts to empower secretaries general as top-of-pyramid civil servants and promote meritocratic governance have faltered due to lack of consistent political endorsement.
Comparison of staffing of ministries in SIGMA-9 and EU-9
SIGMA analysed data on staffing in the ministries of nine unitary EU Member States of population comparable to most of the SIGMA-9 (except for Ukraine). Not only is the average staff number in this EU-9 much higher than among the SIGMA-9, but none of them has a single ministry below fifty employees and only Croatia, Estonia and Latvia have one ministry each with below 100 staff members.
Way forward
The paper includes a toolkit for reinforcing and modernising ministries, targeting challenges of the greatest relevance for SIGMA-9 governments. It comprises principles of good governance and measures supporting their implementation.
Ministries should have sufficient staff and a mandate that is broad enough to develop and ensure implementation of large-scale policy initiatives. Proliferation of micro ministers or ministers without portfolio does not contribute to these objectives.
The internal organisation of ministries could be determined in a more flexible and decentralised manner, with greater autonomy of each ministry in setting its internal structure.
Mechanisms for inter-ministerial policy co‑operation, evidence-informed policy design, and quality control of legislative initiatives within the ministries should be institutionalised. Emphasis should be placed on overcoming the silo-based approach to policymaking and enhancing co-ordination within governments.
Strengthening the role of the professional civil service in ministerial governance, supplemented with clear delineation between the political and meritocratic (civil service) levels in the ministry, is important.
Restoring the status of ministries within the broader public sector salary systems is essential to attract and retain talent. Competitive remuneration and more focus on career development frameworks could help reverse the “brain drain” to agencies and the private sector.
It is essential to ensure that the political leadership is relieved from operational management of the ministry. The culture of delegation of decision-making powers ensures empowerment of the managers at various levels of the ministerial structure.
