Arbetsmarknadsutredningen puts the finger on a few central problems with the governance of the public employment service and labour market policy. An effective work is prevented by a large administrative burden, a sprawling toolbox and weak incentives to deliver results cost-effectively.
Arbetsmarknadsutredningen suggests that the most cost-effective interventions should be given the opportunity to grow, and to less effective efforts to reduce in scope. It is a good model that would also reduce the need for political centralisation. Governance results-builds confidence and creates greater stability.
today, the competition is distorted which creates difficulties for stand-alone players to be able to get predictable and long-term conditions. In practice, the work of public and independent actors with a variety of conditions. The research has unfortunately missed to take into account in their evaluations. Important to focus on is the same time that research has shown that the unemployed are more satisfied with the efforts of the stand-alone players give, than the help they received through the public Employment service matching in-house.
The research investigator Cecilia Fahlberg points to in its investigation, has a large number of gaps where, for example, has not taken into account the degree of micro-management, the quality of the models for competition or differences in matchningsaktiviteter. In addition, ignoring the research, from the broad reform implemented in Australia and whose success is the basis for the agreement on the reform of the employment services between the S, MP, C and L.
The first logical conclusion of this reasoning is that all the matching to competition in the system of choice.
The other logical conclusion is that the same organization cannot be both the client and the providers. It means that the performers must be clearly organizationally separate from the responsible authorities. Equal competition, requires that the producers be separated into distinct profit centers that create transparency on the efficiency of their efforts. It is very difficult to see how a ”utförarneutralt range of labour market services” shall be offered by an agency which is not only order and review the operations, but also perform it in-house.
Which is the very foundation that they stand-alone, the players have great freedom to define the content of their efforts. Detaljstyrningen should be low, competition, to determine what actions and actors that should be maintained and which should be scaled by.
in Conclusion, we welcome the inquiry advocating the strengthening of competition in the performance and increased control against the cost-effective results. It is the right way to go to rebuild the confidence of the authority and labour market policy. To maintain the matching in-house means, however, that trying to both eat the cake and have it too. A pure model in which independent actors make education and matchningsjobbet and where the authority stands for the exercise of authority is a much clearer and better solution. Above all, it is a solution that leads to that job seekers get better opportunities to get jobs.
