The 2023 Trust Survey results captures people's perceptions of public governance drivers of trust in public institutions. These drivers include government competence, which encompasses responsiveness and reliability, and government values such as openness, integrity, and fairness. This chapter examines how these five aspects of public governance are perceived by the Slovenian public, both in their day-to-day interactions with their government and regarding decision making processes on complex policy challenges.
Lessons from the 2023 OECD Trust Survey in Slovenia
Abstract
The 2023 Trust Survey results captures people's perceptions of public governance drivers of trust in public institutions at a moment in time. This chapter examines how these the Slovenian public perceives different dimensions of public governance related to government competence and government values, both in their day-to-day interactions with public institutions and regarding decision making processes on complex policy challenges. The first part of the chapter explores the levels of satisfaction with public services in Slovenia, perceptions of integrity and fairness during interactions with public employees, and the potential benefits of strengthening feedback mechanisms to ensure services meet people’s needs. The second part discusses the public's trust in the government's ability to protect them from threats, manage complex long-term challenges, and ensure that decision-making processes favor the public interest. The chapter concludes by examining the need for a more open and responsive decision-making process that allows for greater public influence and participation.
In line with the pattern observed across many OECD countries, people in Slovenia perceive day-to-day interactions with public institutions more positively than government decision making on complex policy issues. This is notably true for their perceptions of the reliability of government in providing certain public services, for which satisfaction is on par with the OECD average; but they also have a relatively positive perception of the more complex area of reliably protecting people in the case of large-scale emergencies. In contrast, perceptions of fairness and openness are more negative relative to the OECD average both in the realm of day-to-day interactions and complex decision-making. Perceptions of the integrity of public officials and the government are generally the least positively regarded public governance dimension across most OECD countries, but these perceptions are no worse in Slovenia than on average across the OECD.
3.1.1. Slovenians are more satisfied with their education and administrative services compared to the health system
Implementing reliable programmes and public services that respond to people's needs is key to building trust between the public and the institutions established to serve them. In Slovenia, public institutions are generally seen as reliable providers of various services. The education system and administrative services receive positive feedback, but the healthcare system does not receive the same level of approval. Amid the ongoing digital transformation and service modernisation, Slovenians also express concerns over the legitimate use of their data by public institutions.
In Slovenia, a majority (57%) of those who were enrolled in an educational institution in the past two years or had a family member enrolled were satisfied with the educational system (Figure 3.1). This share is equal to the OECD average.
The positive perceptions of the education system are mirrored by positive international test results: Evidence from PISA 2022 indicates Slovenian students notably outperformed the OECD average in mathematics and science, though their reading scores were slightly lower (OECD, 2023[1]). The ratio of high-performing students in Slovenia is also similar to the OECD average, and socio-economic factors exert a comparable influence on performance to the OECD average. However, Slovenia, like many other OECD countries, experienced a reported increase in teaching staff shortages in 2022: 42% of Slovenian students were in schools with insufficient teaching staff, up from 23% in 2018.
Share of recent users who indicate satisfaction with education, healthcare system and administrative services in Slovenia and OECD average, 2023
Note: The figure presents the OECD and Slovenia averages of "high satisfaction" responses to the questions, "On a scale of 0 to 10, how satisfied are you with the healthcare/education/administrative system in [COUNTRY]?". The Slovenia and OECD average represents the shares of respondents who had recently contacted the respective services. The "high satisfaction" proportion aggregates responses ranging from 6 to 10 on the scale. "OECD Average" represents the unweighted average across countries, while "Slovenia" shows the weighted country average.
Source: OECD Trust Survey 2023
Satisfaction with the healthcare system in Slovenia is lower than with other essential services. Only 35% of those who used or had a household member use the healthcare system in the past 12 months were satisfied, compared to the OECD average of 52%. Moreover, 31% of Slovenians listed essential services including healthcare as one of the top three issues in the country, compared to 28% on average across the OECD. Satisfaction is lower among individuals who feel they belong to a group which experiences discrimination (26%), compared to 37% among those who do not identify in this way. Likewise, 32% of individuals who report significant financial concerns are satisfied with the health system, compared to 45% among those with no financial concerns (Figure 3.2). These findings suggest that more needs to be done to address the medical needs of the entire population, particularly these two vulnerable groups, as a priority.
Share of recent users who indicate satisfaction with the healthcare system by age, education level, gender, financial concern and feeling of group-based discrimination in Slovenia, 2023
Note: The figure presents the weighted Slovenia averages of responses to the question “On a scale of 0 to 10, how satisfied are you with the healthcare system in Slovenia?” by respondents’ age, education level, gender, feeling of discrimination and status of financial concerns. Shown here is the proportion of respondents that have “high satisfaction” based on the aggregation of responses from 6-10 on the 0-10 response scale. The status of discrimination is grouped by whether respondents stated whether they feel they belong to a discriminated group: ‘’Would you describe yourself as being a member of a group that is discriminated against in Slovenia?’’. Financial concerns are measured by asking ‘’In general, thinking about the next year or two, how concerned are you about your household's finances and overall social and economic well-being?’’ and aggregating responses 3 (somewhat concerned) and 4 (very concerned).
Source: OECD Trust Survey 2023
Slovenia's healthcare system, despite its strong performance in terms of care quality, faces significant financial and human resource pressures, which may shed light on these results. The performance of the Slovenian healthcare system surpasses the OECD average on 63% of care quality indicators (OECD, 2023[2]). Although the health insurance-based system provides near universal coverage, and out-of-pocket expenditure is low, disparities between income groups have recently increased. Slovenia also struggles with physician shortages in primary healthcare, exacerbated by nursing shortages. Waiting times remain a persistent challenge and the primary cause of unmet needs, as 5 % of the Slovenian population reported unmet needs for medical care due to costs, distance to travel, or waiting time more than double the EU average.
Staff shortages and concerns over the attractivity of the medical profession in Slovenia have become a sticking point between doctors and the government. Despite an agreement in early 2023 to create a separate pay pillar for healthcare workers within reforms to the public employee salary system, the government did not introduce the proposed bill for legislative procedure by the agreed deadline of 30 June 2023. Since January 2024 (thus after the collection of the Trust Survey data), the country has been experiencing the longest doctors' strike in its history, driven by a dispute centred around salary adjustments and the structure of the public employee salary system (Poldrugovac and Albreht, 2024[3]). The continuing strike has limited non-emergency health services as many doctors have withdrawn consent to work overtime.
Two thirds (66%) of people in Slovenia who have used administrative services in the previous year are satisfied with the service quality, on par with the OECD average (Figure 3.1). Satisfaction with administrative services significantly influences trust in the national civil service and in local government in Slovenia (see Chapter 4). Most administrative service-users express satisfaction with various features of their most recently obtained service. Specifically, 79% were satisfied with the clarity of language and information, exceeding the OECD average of 73%. However, enhancing the accessibility of administrative services, particularly digital ones, could further increase satisfaction, as levels of satisfaction with these service aspects are slightly below the OECD average. When analysing the link between satisfaction with individual service components and overall satisfaction with administrative services through an econometric analysis, satisfaction with the ability to access services in one’s preferred manner, the overall ease and speed service access and the ease of using digital services are most strongly associated with higher service satisfaction in Slovenia (Figure 3.3).
Percentage point change in likelihood of being satisfied with administrative services following an increase in satisfaction with any of the service aspects among service users in Slovenia (left Y-axis, represented by bar) and share of users satisfied with service aspect (right Y-axis, represented by dots), 2023
Note: On the right Y-axis and represented by dots, the figure presents the share who indicated satisfaction with the respective aspect when answering the question: “Thinking about the most recent administrative service that you personally made use of, how satisfied were you with each of the following? Please give your answer on a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 means you are not at all satisfied, and 10 means you are completely satisfied”. The satisfied proportion is the aggregation of responses from 6-10 on the scale. ‘Don’t know’ and ‘not applicable’ were separate answer options. The percentage point change in satisfaction with administrative services, on the Y-left axis represented by bars, corresponds to the average marginal effect of a being satisfied as compared to not being satisfied with any of the eight service aspects, when all the other service aspects, age, gender, and education levels are kept constant. The average marginal effects are statistically significant at p<0.01.
Source: OECD Trust Survey 2023
The Slovenian government has been actively promoting the digitalisation of public services over the past 15 years, as reflected in five strategic documents adopted during this period. Notably, the Digital Slovenia 2030 and Digital Public Services Strategy set out that by 2030, all key public services will be provided online and accessible to all users; at least 80% of key public services that are digitally accessible will be also performed digitally, and at least 80% of users of public services will use their digital identity1. However, the process of data exchange between organisations raises potential concerns about data usage that differs from the original collection intention. Result from the OECD Trust Survey suggest only 39% of Slovenians believe the government will use their data exclusively for legitimate purposes, below the OECD average of 52%, indicating a need for the government to address these concerns alongside its digitalisation initiatives. Slovenia enforces strict data protection as per the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and its new Personal Data Protection Act effective from January 2023 (Republic of Slovenia, 2024[4]). Despite this rigorous approach, in 2021, the OECD Digital Government Review of Slovenia noted a gap in understanding how to treat data in a user-centred way and enabling citizens and businesses to exercise their rights effectively (OECD, 2021[5]).
3.1.2. Perceptions of integrity and fairness in people’s daily interactions with public employees could be improved
Public employees serve as the "face" of government. Consequently, people's experiences with them can influence their overall perception of the civil service and the government. Citizens are entitled to expect fairness and integrity from public officials during these interactions. However, in Slovenia, a minority believe public employees would treat service users fairly, regardless of their background, or would refuse a bribe.
In Slovenia, in line with trends seen across the OECD, respondents expressed more confidence in their personal applications being treated fairly than in all people being treated equitably (OECD, 2024[6]). In Slovenia, 40% believed their benefits application would be treated fairly compared to the OECD average of 52% (Figure 3.4). Meanwhile, 32% thought a public employee would treat everyone equally regardless of their background, 12 percentage points below the OECD average. Confidence that public employees treat all people equally is an important driver of trust in the civil service and could therefore represent a potential area of opportunity to bolster its relationship with the population (see Chapter 4).
Share of the population who find it likely that they would be treated fairly and that all people would be treated equally, 2023
Note: The figure shows the within-country distributions of the share who respond that it is ‘likely’ (responses 6-10 on a 0-10 scale) to the questions “If a public employee interacted with the public in the area where you live, how likely do you think it is that they would treat all people equally regardless of their income level, gender identity, sexual orientation, ethnicity or country of origin?” (blue) and “If you or a member of your household applied for a government benefit or service, how likely do you think it is that your application would be treated fairly?” (yellow).
Source: OECD Trust Survey 2023
Results from the OECD Trust Survey found a disparity in the perceived fairness of benefits applications and equal treatment by public employees in Slovenia. Individuals who identify as belonging to a group that is discriminated against or have high financial concerns are less likely to believe their applications for benefits would be treated fairly, with 29% and 37% respectively, compared to those who don't feel discriminated against or have no financial concerns, with 43% and 51% respectively. A similar trend is observed in the belief that public employees treat everyone equally2. A more diverse workforce, along with robust training, can help people feel more represented, decrease bias (Nolan-Flecha, 2019[7]) and thus improve perceptions of fair treatment. Research by Cingolani (2022[8]) revealed that in 2018, ethnic minorities, non-nationals, and young people were underrepresented in Slovenia's civil service. Furthermore, in 2020, Slovenia reported no policies or specific targets to improve the gender balance and representation of under-represented groups in the central government (OECD, 2021[9]).
Instances of corruption in the delivery of programmes and services compound and entrench inequalities by favouring those who are well connected or more affluent. In this sense, perceptions of bribery or impropriety can be highly detrimental to public trust (Espinal, Hartlyn and Kelly, 2006[10]; Van de Walle and Migchelbrink, 2020[11]). In Slovenia, a smaller share of the population (24%) compared to the OECD average (36%) believe a public employee would refuse a bribe to expedite a public service (Figure 3.5).
This pessimistic picture does not seem to align with available evidence on the incidences of corruption and bribery at this level of government. Global Corruption Barometer data from 2021 reveals that while 51% of Slovenians perceived an increase in corruption over the previous year, only 4% reported paying a bribe for a service in the previous 12 months, below the EU average of 7% (Transparency International - Slovenia, 2021[12]). 18% reported using personal connections to access a service, the second-lowest share in the EU, significantly below the average of 33%, positioning Slovenia favourably within the EU in terms of corruption and public service integrity. Different public entities in Slovenia, including the Ministry of Public Administration and the Centre for Judicial Education, carry out trainings for public employees and office holders, with the objective is to educate and support public sector employees and management to better identify and prevent corruption risks, conflicts of interest and other unethical behaviour. The Police holds training sessions for example for police officers specialised in white-colour crime regarding the detection of corruption offences, integrity in law enforcement and whistleblower protection.
Share of the population reporting different levels of perceived likelihood that a public employee would refuse a bribe, 2023
Note: The figure shows the within-country distributions of responses to the question “If a government employee was offered money by a citizen or a firm for speeding up access to a public service, how likely do you think it is that they would refuse it?”. The “likely” proportion is the aggregation of responses from 6-10 on the scale; “neutral” is equal to a response of 5; “unlikely” is the aggregation of responses from 1-4; and “don't know” was a separate answer choice. “OECD” presents the unweighted average of responses across countries.
Source: OECD Trust Survey 2023
3.1.3. Strengthening feedback mechanisms could enhance the administration's responsiveness to people's concerns and needs
It is crucial for public institutions to tailor their policies, programs, and services to be responsive to needs of the people they serve. This is particularly relevant in Slovenia, where the ability to listen and respond to public feedback could be improved. This requires considering the experiences and needs of different societal groups, who interact with public services in varying ways and may face distinct challenges. By understanding and addressing the unique needs of these diverse groups, governments can improve public service delivery and enhance trust.
Slovenia exhibits a notably lower perception of responsiveness for public services compared to the OECD average. Only 30% of Slovenians believe that an innovative idea would be adopted by a responsible institution to improve a service, falling short of the OECD average of 39% (Figure 3.6). Similarly, less than a third of Slovenians (29%) believe that a public service would improve if many people complained about its poor performance, compared to the OECD average of 39%. Individuals with financial concerns, those who feel discriminated against, and those over the age of 50 in Slovenia perceive public institutions as less responsive, suggesting that these groups do not feel heard when their needs are not met.
Share of the population who find it likely that public institutions adopt innovative ideas, and that government improves services following the complaints, 2023
Note: The figure shows the within-country distributions of the share who respond that it is ‘likely’ (responses 6-10 on a 0-10 scale) to the questions “If there was an innovative idea that could improve a public service, how likely do you think it is that it would be adopted by the responsible institution?” (blue) and “If many people complained about a public service that is working badly, how likely do you think it is that it would be improved?” (yellow).
Source: OECD Trust Survey 2023
Public services in Slovenia currently do not have a unified approach to gathering user feedback and monitoring performance3. The Decree on Administrative Operations mandates biennial customer satisfaction surveys for user-facing bodies, with the methodology set by the Ministry for Public Administration. However, the results of these surveys are not required to be public or reported. In 2016, the Ministry for Public Administration developed a new methodology for the 58 administrative units over which it has jurisdiction. A pilot project in 2018 aimed to develop a comprehensive methodology to measure satisfaction for all public administration organisations, but it was not implemented due to a government change. Currently, the Slovenian government is collaborating with the OECD on an EU-funded project4 to measure citizen satisfaction with key government services based on life events, aiming to use feedback to improve performance. Country practices from countries such as Australia, France, or Singapore could provide some guidance as to how feedback from the population can be harnessed to adjust public service design and delivery (Box 3.1).
Survey of Trust in Australian public services (TAPS, formerly the Citizen Experience Survey)
The Survey of Trust in Australian public services is a regular, national survey measuring public satisfaction, trust, and experiences with Australian public services. TAPS offers a whole-of-Australian Public Service (APS) and cross-sectional view of service experience, complementing existing work undertaken by APS agencies. Data is collected on satisfaction with various life events, as well as overall trust levels. The large sample allows detailed analysis by gender, age, and region. The survey is led by the Australian Public Service Commission (previously by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet), allowing a direct feedback loop to senior policymakers. Survey results support the APS to continually improve Australian public services.
France Services Publics+ Program
Services Publics+ is France’s continuous improvement program for public services. It focuses on making service delivery closer, simpler, and more efficient for citizens. Inputs on the operation of public services are gathered: Government measures of the complexity faced by users; the public can also directly submit testimony of their experiences with public services via a web portal. This information from users forms the basis of a continuous improvement cycle. Government agencies identify and prioritise actions that lead to concrete improvements in services. Local operational teams in charge of different services are empowered to make changes. Performance against targets is published online.
Singapore Whole of Government Analytics Application (WOGAA)
Singapore’s WOGAA system monitors the performance of government websites and digital services in real-time. The system presents key information such as website traffic, and collates user feedback, and recommendations to improve site performance. It also benchmarks against whole-of-government (WOG) averages in a single dashboard. Data is presented in real time. This allows public officers to conveniently access the information they need so to make effective data-driven decisions and proactively improve their services.
3.2.1. Nearly half of Slovenians trust government emergency preparedness
The state's primary responsibility is to protect its citizens from natural and human-made threats and is a core feature of government reliability. About 47% of Slovenians trust their government's emergency preparedness, mirroring the OECD average of 53% (Figure 3.7). However, individuals with high levels of financial concerns or who feel they belong to a group facing discrimination in Slovenia are significantly less confident in the government's ability to protect them. Slovenia, due to its location, faces diverse threats such as floods, earthquakes, disease outbreaks, fires, and various accidents (Republic of Slovenia, 2023[14]). The Administration of the Republic of Slovenia for Protection and Rescue is responsible for disaster risk assessment and preparing a joint national disaster risk assessment, with individual authorities handling individual risk assessments. So far, the government has produced risk assessments for 15 types of disasters, and three joint risk assessments (Republic of Slovenia, 2023[15]). Based on these assessments, protection and rescue plans are drawn up by planning bodies at the national, regional and municipal level (Republic of Slovenia, 2023[16]).
Share of the population reporting different levels of confidence in the emergency preparedness of institutions, 2023
Note: The figure presents the within-country distributions of responses to the question “If there was a large-scale emergency, how likely do you think it is that government institutions would be ready to protect people’s lives?”. The “likely” proportion is the aggregation of responses from 6-10 on the scale; “neutral” is equal to a response of 5; “unlikely” is the aggregation of responses from 0-4; and “don't know” was a separate answer choice. “OECD” presents the unweighted average of responses across countries.
Source: OECD Trust Survey 2023
The OECD Trust Survey was conducted in the fall of 2023, following one of Slovenia's most devastating natural disasters, which likely influenced respondents' views on the country’s emergency preparedness. In August 2023, Slovenia experienced severe floods which triggered its national flood protection and rescue plan. The disaster resulted in at least six deaths and damaged nearly 90% of all Slovenian municipalities (IFRC, 2023[17]; Bezak et al., 2023[18]). The direct damage was estimated at roughly EUR 10 billion, impacting local and regional road networks, supply chains, and inundating 16 000 hectares of agricultural land. In response to the floods and their aftermath, the government swiftly enacted measures such as amending the Natural Disaster Recovery Act and preparing emergency legislation to assist the population, economy, and municipalities (Republic of Slovenia, 2024[19]). Measures included the Reconstruction, Development, and Financing Act to target comprehensive country reconstruction. To effectively coordinate the flood recovery, the government established the Flood Recovery Coordination Working Group and the Post-Flood and Landslide Reconstruction Office. Furthermore, a Joint Task Force, comprising representatives from the European Commission and Slovenia, was created to secure funding from various EU instruments more efficiently.
Among Slovenians with financial concerns, only 44% trust the government's ability to protect people during an emergency, compared to 58% of those without financial concerns. Similarly, only about one third (32%) of those who feel they belong to a discriminated group trust that the government would be ready to protect people in an emergency, compared to half (52%) of those who do not identify as such. This scepticism likely reflects increased vulnerability to disasters within these population groups as people with limited financial resources often have more difficulties investing in risk-reducing measures (UNDRR, 2023[20]).
3.2.2. Slovenians have less confidence in their government's ability to manage complex challenges with long-term implications compared to the OECD average
In an environment characterised by rapid changes, disruptions, and uncertainty, governments must continually anticipate and adapt to be perceived as reliable. Decision-making regarding emerging or complex policy issues, which have long-term and global implications, poses unique challenges. Governments often must operate with limited evidence and many unknowns, making impacts difficult to measure and anticipate. These issues frequently necessitate a comprehensive government approach, which traditional government work, usually conducted in functional silos, may not be well-prepared for. These inherent difficulties likely contribute to lower confidence levels in the Slovenian government's ability to manage new technologies and balance the needs of current and future generations.
Slovenians hold high expectations for their government in terms of governing and using recent technologies. 80% think that the government should prioritise helping workers adapt to automation and new technologies, which aligns closely with the OECD average of 77%. However, 46% feel that the government is underperforming and are doubtful it would effectively regulate new technologies, such as artificial intelligence or digital applications, and assist businesses and citizens in using them responsibly (Figure 3.8). On average, a smaller share of people (35%) across the OECD shares these concerns about their own government.
Share of the population reporting different levels of confidence that national government regulates new technologies appropriately and can adequately balance the interests of current and future generations, 2023
Note: The figure shows the Slovenia and OECD averages for responses to the questions (1) “If new technologies (for example artificial intelligence or digital applications) became available, how likely do you think it is that the national government will regulate them appropriately and help businesses and citizens use them responsibly?”, and (2) “On a scale of 0 to 10, how confident are you that the national government adequately balances the interests of current and future generations?”. The “likely” proportion is the aggregation of responses from 6-10 on the scale; “neutral” is equal to a response of 5; “unlikely” is the aggregation of responses from 1-4; and “don't know” was a separate answer choice. “OECD” presents the unweighted average of responses across countries.
Source: OECD Trust Survey 2023
The OECD Recommendation for Agile Regulatory Governance to Harness Innovation [OECD/LEGAL/0464], which Slovenia has adhered to, provides some guidance in this regard, and seeks to help governments consider regulatory structures that best bolster innovation in their countries in light of rapidly-evolving emerging technologies, with many unknowns and little available evidence. More recently, the OECD has gathered additional evidence to help governments develop regulatory experimentation constructively and appropriately as part of their implementation of the 2021 OECD Recommendation (see Box 3.2). Slovenia is already active in this direction, having created the Policy Lab, which built on its Stop Bureaucracy project aimed at preventing new and removing existing unnecessary administrative barriers for businesses and citizens; and Inovativen.si, which aimed to solve specific challenges reported by public sector bodies. The Policy Lab aims to involve the public at early stages of policy development, rather than at the later stage when a policy or regulation is already drafted, through workshops and the piloting of solutions. The methods and phases will be adapted to the specificities of the concrete challenge, and will typically follow all or some of the iterative phases of policy issue re-definition, exploration, problem analysis, solution co-creation and testing.
The case for considering regulatory experimentation
Resorting to regulatory experimentation can improve regulatory quality and outcomes in various interrelated ways:
It can make regulatory frameworks more adaptive through continuous learning and adjustment, as well as more innovation-friendly and technology-neutral.
It can help lower uncertainty surrounding regulatory decision-making, especially in environments dominated by innovation where traditional approaches like information gathering and consultations can't reliably predict the potential impacts or effectiveness of policy/regulatory options.
It can improve the evidence base that informs the revision of existing regulations or inspires new ones, complementing traditional regulatory tools and approaches.
Regulatory sandbox put in place by the French Energy Regulatory Commission to address the “knowledge problem” in decision making
The French Energy Regulatory Commission (CRE) implemented a regulatory sandbox under the Energy and Climate law of November 2019. The sandbox, which includes a significant evaluation component, permits relevant entities like the CRE or Ministry of Energy to provide temporary regulatory exceptions. These exceptions, valid for four years and renewable once, support the experimental deployment of innovative technologies or services that contribute to energy transition and the development of smart networks and infrastructures.
Though the effectiveness of this approach is yet to be clearly determined, it has fostered communication and information sharing with key actors on this market. In certain instances, the potential advantages of participating in the sandbox have encouraged disclosure of information about potential regulatory shortcomings. This otherwise hard-to-obtain information can then be used by regulatory authorities for more informed decision-making.
Source: (OECD, 2024, pp. 22-25[21])
In Slovenia, only 24% of people are confident that the national government successfully balances the interests of current and future generations, which is significantly lower than the OECD average of 37% (Figure 3.8). The perception does not vary significantly among different age groups within Slovenia. Efforts to improve perception of intergenerational fairness are likely to yield significant gains, as those who have a more positive perception of the government's handling of intergenerational fairness are more likely to trust the national government (see Chapter 4).
Perceptions of intergenerational fairness in decision-making may be influenced by the ongoing pension reform, a potential source of concern for many. This reform is a key objective of Slovenia's current presidency, which recognises the changing population age structure and its test on the intergenerational solidarity that underpins the pension system (President of the Republic of Slovenia, 2024[22]). Furthermore, pension and long-term care reforms form a significant part of Slovenia's Recovery and Resilience plan (European Commission, 2024[23]). As such, funding from this plan partly relies on the successful implementation of these reforms by 2025. As of April 2024, the Slovenian government has agreed on certain starting points for the reform and is now initiating preliminary discussions with stakeholders. Drawing from pension reform experiences in OECD countries, a collaborative and consultative approach will be crucial for the reform's success (OECD, 2010[24]). Additionally, robust communication is essential to garner support for the reform (see Chapter 5, in particular Box 5.3).
Close to one third (34%) of people in Slovenia express confidence that the country will reduce greenhouse gas emissions, below the 42% OECD average. Moreover, 71% of Slovenians believe the government should prioritise climate change, slightly higher than the OECD average of 69%. Slovenia faces environmental challenges as a carbon-intensive economy with a low share of renewables and a high dependency on road transport (European Commission, 2024[23]). Slovenia’s mitigation objectives are nevertheless clearly laid out in its strategic and legal framework and coordinated through a clear institutional setup. The Ministry of the Environment, Climate, and Energy (MECE) is responsible for implementing climate policy, with the Slovenian Environment Agency handling emission inventories (Republic of Slovenia, 2023[25]). The Integrated National Energy and Climate Plan aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 36% compared to 2005 and increase renewable energy consumption to at least 27% by 2030 (Republic of Slovenia, 2023[26]). The National Assembly adopted the Resolution on Long-Term Climate Strategy on 13 July 2021, which aims for a climate-neutral society by 2050 (Climate Change Laws of the World, 2021[27]). The updated Recovery and Resilience Plan allocates 49% of funds towards climate objectives, including investments in renewable energy, sustainable renovation, adaptation to climate measures, sustainable mobility, and the transition to a circular economy (European Commission, 2024[23]). Recently, the Slovenian government has partnered with EIT Climate-KIC, a body of the European Union, on the Deep Demonstration of a Circular, Regenerative and Low-Carbon Economy in Slovenia. This project aims to develop strategies for a transition to climate neutrality through a circular economy using a systems innovation approach (EIT Climate - KIC[28]).
Evidence-informed policymaking is critical for elaborating and implementing effective public policies in such complex environments, however successfully bridging the gap between evidence and policymaking is challenging. In Slovenia, for instance, only 29% of the population believes that the government uses the best available evidence in decision-making, a figure lower than the 41% OECD average (see Chapter 5, Figure 5.3). Frequent levers to promote the use of evidence in policymaking include a robust institutional structure, adequate skills and capacity, and an effective knowledge-brokering function (OECD, 2020[29]; OECD, 2023[30]). As such, enhancing the government’s ability to adopt an evidence-informed approach to policymaking is a crucial aspect of sound public governance.
3.2.3. In Slovenia, as in other OECD countries, there are concerns that decision-making processes may not always be in the public interest
In democracies, a system of checks and balances between government branches exist to protect the public interest. However, OECD Trust Survey findings highlight concerns in Slovenia regarding the effectiveness of mechanisms of oversight and control, and the disproportionate influence of private interests on government, potentially diverting policy decisions away from public interest towards special interests. This perceived bias can undermine democratic values, exacerbating a sense of exclusion and inequality. In societies characterised by diversity, defining and pursuing the "public interest" presents a significant challenge. Yet, irrespective of their differing needs and preferences, citizens value decision-makers who prioritise societal good, striking a fair balance between the interests of different regions or groups. Demonstrating integrity and fairness in decision-making processes is therefore crucial to enhancing trust in public institutions.
Checks and balances, supported by constitutional safeguards, ensure that no single government branch, including the executive national government, can make decisions without the other branches' oversight. According to the OECD Trust Survey, only a quarter (26%) of people in Slovenia believe that parliament can effectively hold the government accountable, such as questioning a minister or reviewing the budget. However, a majority (53%) are sceptical. In contrast, an average of 38% in the OECD are confident in their legislature's ability to hold the executive accountable.
Slovenia operates under a parliamentary government system where only the National Assembly adopts laws. In recent years, Slovenia has seen a significant increase in the number of laws passed via an urgent procedure, which involves less comprehensive scrutiny from the legislature (European Commission, 2023[31]). As for the judiciary's independence perception, it remains average among both the general public and businesses in Slovenia: according to the 2023 Rule of Law Report, more than half (53%) of the general public and 40% of businesses consider the independence of courts and judges to be fairly or very good (European Commission, 2023[31]).
Perceptions of corruption or undue influence in decision-making in Slovenia, while not positive, are close to the OECD average. On average, 29% of respondents in Slovenia believe it is likely that the national government would refuse the demands of a corporation promoting a policy beneficial to their industry but harmful to society, almost identical to the OECD average of 30 % (Figure 3.9). However, it is worth noting that the proportion of respondents who provide a neutral response (19%) or don't know (4%) is particularly high. Responses to the OECD Trust Survey in Slovenia also suggest a degree of pessimism with regards to the integrity of high-level political officials and their decision-making processes. On average, only 31% of Slovenians, the same percentage as the OECD average, predict that a high-level political official would refuse to grant a political favour in exchange for the offer of a well-paid private sector job (Figure 3.9)
The 2024 OECD Anti-corruption and Integrity Outlook report highlights Slovenia's strengths and weaknesses in anti-corruption and integrity efforts (OECD, 2024[32]). Slovenia is a top performer in political finance regulation, fulfilling 100% of OECD criteria, significantly higher than the OECD average of 73%. In terms of corruption risk management and audit as well as lobbying, Slovenia also stands out, surpassing the OECD averages for both regulations and practice. But despite having a robust regulation system, Slovenia still lacks a comprehensive national strategy on public integrity risks with the Resolution on Prevention of Corruption still awaiting adoption. Moreover, Slovenia did not provide data on the implementation of conflict of interest and political finance regulations, leading to concerns over the effectiveness of implementation.
Slovenia has been carrying out systemic activities directed towards increasing the openness and transparency of public sector. The Public Information Access Act was adopted to proactively disseminate public information and to enable the access to and re-use of information. Its latest revision introduced “Open Data rules” for public-sector institutions to provide Open Data as a basis for the development of innovative digital services and data analytics for enhanced transparency. The National Open Data Portal serves as a single entry point for publishing open data for the entire public sector, including government documents and data of the National Statistical Office, and is accessible to the public including civil society, researchers and the media.
Share of the population who find it likely that government refuses to policy in corporations’ interest and that politicians refuses well-paid job for political favour, 2023
Note: The figure shows the within-country distributions of the share who respond that it is ‘likely’ (responses 6-10 on a 0-10 scale) to the questions “If a corporation promoted a policy that benefited its industry but could be harmful to society as a whole, how likely do you think it is that the national government would refuse to the corporation’s demand?” (blue) and “If a politician was offered a well-paid job in the private sector in exchange for a political favour, how likely do you think it is that they would refuse it?” (yellow).
Source: OECD Trust Survey 2023
Policymaking involves a challenging balancing act of different needs and interests. In Slovenia, just 27% find it likely that the parliament would adequately balance the interests of different groups and regions when debating a new policy, while a majority (51%) find it unlikely. The share who finds it likely is thus lower in Slovenia than the OECD average of 36%. In order to elicit trust from citizens, decision makers should aim to achieve procedural fairness, which allows policies to be perceived as fair, despite disagreements on their impacts or benefits (Norheim et al., 2020[33]). This involves decision-making based on evidence, equal consideration of all interests, especially those from more disenfranchised groups who may struggle to make their voices heard, and based on a rationale that can be widely understood. This notion of procedural fairness is explicitly tied to trust in Slovenia, as the national parliament balancing the needs of different groups is an important driver of trust in the local government (see Chapter 4).
3.2.4. Most people in Slovenia feel decision-making could be more open and responsive
Representative democracy requires citizens to delegate some autonomy to representatives. As such, decision-making processes should be responsive the population's wishes and needs (Saunders, 2010[34]), which can be achieved mainly through elections and supplemented by additional civic engagement at various stages to ensure everyone's voices are heard. For this system to work effectively, citizens must have opportunities and confidence to participate in politics. However, in Slovenia, a small minority believes that the government allows people "like them" to influence its decisions. Moreover, confidence to participate varies across different population groups, suggesting that some groups may have less influence over decision-making.
People's perception of their "political voice", or their ability to influence government actions, is a driving factor in their participation in public life and their trust in the government. However, only 15% of Slovenia's population believes the government allows people "like them" to have a say in government decisions, a figure that is half the average across the OECD. The perception is higher among the younger population (23% for ages 18-29 vs. 13% for those over 50) and those with low or no financial concerns (20% vs. 13% with high financial concerns).
Many perceive the national government in Slovenia as unresponsive to public feedback on policies, with only one third (34%) believing that if over half of the population expressed opposition to a national policy, it would be revised. This number is similar to the OECD average (37%). However, in democracies, the goal is not necessarily majority rule, but rather the responsiveness of decisions to the people's expressed wishes. Majority rule, although acceptable in many contexts, can be unjust and undemocratic when it permanently excludes a certain minority from having any influence (Saunders, 2010[34]). At the local level, only 31% of people in Slovenia believe they will have the opportunity to express their opinion when the local government makes a decision affecting their community, 10 percentage points below the OECD average of 41%. This dimension of public governance is an important driver of trust in the local government (see Chapter 4).
Beyond elections, the main mechanism through which individuals may influence decision-making is through participation in politics. In Slovenia, like in many OECD countries, confidence to participate is low, with only 36% of people feeling confident in their ability to participate, slightly below the OECD average of 40%. This lack of confidence is more pronounced among women, with only 27% feeling confident compared to 45% of men. Additionally, those with high financial concerns and lower levels of education also feel less able to participate, with confidence levels of 34% and 31% respectively. These disparities indicate that the policymaking process might be more responsive to certain groups, creating a pressing need to address such inequalities.
The OECD Trust Survey provides insights into Slovenian citizen participation and ways the government could be more responsive. A significant 48% of Slovenians have directly contacted a politician or government in the last 12 months, well above the OECD average of 12% (Figure 3.10). This could be due to Slovenia's political system, characterised by close contact with the population, facilitated by small electoral districts for National Assembly members and numerous small municipalities. In addition to being one of the smallest countries in a 30-country survey, Slovenia is also among the most densely populated, increasing the likelihood of interpersonal contact. About 31% have created or signed a petition, slightly above the OECD average. However, 27% reported not participating in any listed activities, indicating potential disengagement. Formal government-initiated participation mechanisms have low engagement, with only 6% of Slovenians reporting participation in public consultations, and scepticism regarding government responsiveness prevails: just one in four feel it is likely the government would listen to the opinions that emerge from public consultations. To improve perceptions of openness, the government could integrate these consultations more transparently into decision-making processes and communicate how outcomes were used. While providing more opportunities for formal participation is important, the survey suggests it's also necessary to “meet people where they are” and listen to voices expressed through people’s preferred modes of participation, even if informal, to ensure people feel heard.
Share of the population who participated in various political activities in Slovenia, 2023
Note: The figure shows the weighted Slovenia average of the share of respondents who answered “yes” to one of the given activities in the question “Over the last 12 months, have you done any of the following activities?”.
Source: OECD Trust Survey 2023
In Slovenia, public institutions are generally seen as reliable providers of various services: Users of the education system and administrative services are largely satisfied (57% and 66%, respectively). However, just 35% are satisfied with the healthcare system. Moreover, a minority of people in Slovenia believe public employees would treat service users fairly, regardless of their background, or would refuse a bribe. The Slovenian government may consider:
Closely and regularly monitoring satisfaction with the healthcare system, and continuing efforts to build consensus around healthcare reforms to bridge the satisfaction gap between health services and other types of services.
Enhancing the accessibility of administrative services, particularly digital ones, could further increase satisfaction in administrative services, which could yield important trust gains in the civil service and the local government (see Chapter 4).
Addressing citizen concerns over the use of personal data, in conjunction with efforts to digitalise and modernise service delivery.
Aiming to increase representation and diversity within the public sector, along with robust training to counter biases.
Ensuring public integrity frameworks are in place and fully implemented, as well as clearly communicating on these initiatives (clearly displayed charters, visible guidelines online, etc.).
In the aftermath of the pandemic and the devastating 2023 floods, close to half of the population in Slovenia feels confident their government would protect them in case of an emergency. People express lower confidence levels in the Slovenian government's ability to manage new technologies and balance the needs of current and future generations. The Slovenian government may consider:
Integrating the perspectives and needs of financially vulnerable individuals within the strategic framework for emergency preparedness.
Developing regulatory and policy making processes that best promote responsible use of innovation.
Aiming for a collaborative and consultative approach for successful reform implementation, bolstered by robust communication strategies (see Chapter 4).
In Slovenia, as in other OECD countries, many are concerned decision-making processes are biased in favor of private, particular interests, and may not serve the public interest. To better anchor decision-making processes in democratic principles, the Slovenian government may consider:
Reinforcing checks and balances, supported by constitutional safeguards, to ensure no single government branch can make decisions without the other branches' oversight.
Adopting comprehensive national strategy on public integrity risks, and regularly collecting and acting on data on the implementation of conflict of interest and political finance regulations.
Increasing transparency and communication surrounding decision-making processes to clarify how these decisions have come about, and how they serve the public interest.
Strengthening the use of evidence in policymaking, by examining the capacities to supply evidence, the processes and frameworks in place to support evidence-informed decision-making, and lastly the regulatory frameworks and practices. This could notably involve mapping the mechanisms and skills needed to bring scientific evidence as an input to policy making, extending cooperation mechanisms between science and policy makers, or reviewing processes and requirements for ex-ante and ex-post assessments of policies (See also Chapter 4 on communication surrounding the use of evidence in policy making).
Slovenians are less confident in the responsiveness of their public institutions than the OECD average. Only 30% of Slovenians believe that an innovative idea would be adopted by a responsible institution to improve a service, and just 29% believe that a public service would improve if many people complained about its poor performance. Moreover, only a small minority believes that the government allows people "like them" to influence its decisions. Considering these results, the Slovenian government may consider:
Establishing a unified approach to gathering user feedback and monitoring performance.
Ensuring people’s input is linked to decision-making processes through feedback loops to improve services and programmes considering this information.
Empowering people, in particular from population groups that are less likely to do so, to provide feedback on public services and participate in public debate and impact political processes by fostering a legal, political, and social environment that enables a vibrant civic space.
Integrating more direct and deliberative participation mechanisms into decision-making processes and communicating on how the outcomes of these mechanisms were used.
Meeting people where they are, by listening to voices expressed through people’s preferred modes of participation, even if informal, to ensure people feel heard.
References
[18] Bezak, N. et al. (2023), “Brief communication: A first hydrological investigation of extreme August 2023 floods in Slovenia, Europe”, Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, Vol. 23/12, pp. 3885-3893, https://doi.org/10.5194/NHESS-23-3885-2023.
[8] Cingolani, L. (2022), “Diversity in the public administration: a Multidimensional Index of Bureaucratic Underrepresentation”, https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/IEPHLG.
[27] Climate Change Laws of the World (2021), Long-Term Climate Strategy until 2050 - Slovenia, https://climate-laws.org/document/long-term-climate-strategy-until-2050_61eb (accessed on 30 April 2024).
[28] EIT Climate - KIC (n.d.), Slovenia: Systems innovation for the transition to a circular, regenerative and low-carbon economy, https://www.climate-kic.org/circularslovenia-2-2/ (accessed on 30 April 2024).
[10] Espinal, R., J. Hartlyn and J. Kelly (2006), “Performance Still Matters”, Comparative Political Studies, Vol. 39/2, pp. 200-223, https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414005281933.
[23] European Commission (2024), Slovenia’s recovery and resilience plan, https://commission.europa.eu/business-economy-euro/economic-recovery/recovery-and-resilience-facility/country-pages/slovenias-recovery-and-resilience-plan_en (accessed on 30 April 2024).
[31] European Commission (2023), 2023 Rule of Law Report Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Slovenia, https://commission.europa.eu/publications/2022-rule-law-report-communication-and-country-chapters_en (accessed on 22 April 2024).
[36] Gerson, D. (2020), “Leadership for a high performing civil service: Towards senior civil service systems in OECD countries”, OECD Working Papers on Public Governance, No. 40, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/ed8235c8-en.
[17] IFRC (2023), Slovenia Flood 2023 - DREF Operation (MDRSI003) - Slovenia | ReliefWeb, https://reliefweb.int/report/slovenia/slovenia-flood-2023-dref-operation-mdrsi003 (accessed on 30 April 2024).
[7] Nolan-Flecha, N. (2019), “Next generation diversity and inclusion policies in the public service: Ensuring public services reflect the societies they serve”, OECD Working Papers on Public Governance, No. 34, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/51691451-en.
[33] Norheim, O. et al. (2020), “Difficult trade-offs in response to COVID-19: the case for open and inclusive decision-making”.
[6] OECD (2024), OECD Survey on Drivers of Trust in Public Institutions – 2024 Results: Building Trust in a Complex Policy Environment, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9a20554b-en.
[21] OECD (2024), “Regulatory experimentation: Moving ahead on the agile regulatory governance agenda”, OECD Public Governance Policy Papers, No. 47, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/f193910c-en.
[32] OECD (2024), Slovenia | Country notes | Anti-Corruption and Integrity Outlook 2024, https://www.oecd.org/publication/anti-corruption-and-integrity-outlook/2024/country-notes/slovenia-395190ad/#section-d1e280 (accessed on 1 May 2024).
[13] OECD (2023), Drivers of Trust in Public Institutions in New Zealand, Building Trust in Public Institutions, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/948accf8-en.
[2] OECD (2023), Health at a Glance 2023 - How does Slovenia perform overall?, https://www.oecd.org/slovenia/health-at-a-glance-Slovenia-EN.pdf (accessed on 29 April 2024).
[30] OECD (2023), “Lessons from the OECD Trust Survey in Portugal”, OECD Public Governance Policy Papers, No. 27, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9754dd09-en.
[1] OECD (2023), Slovenia | Factsheets | OECD PISA 2022 results, https://www.oecd.org/publication/pisa-2022-results/country-notes/slovenia-a325fb1f/ (accessed on 29 April 2024).
[5] OECD (2021), Digital Government Review of Slovenia: Leading the Digital Transformation of the Public Sector, OECD Digital Government Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/954b0e74-en.
[9] OECD (2021), Government at a Glance 2021, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/1c258f55-en.
[29] OECD (2020), Building Capacity for Evidence-Informed Policy-Making: Lessons from Country Experiences, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/86331250-en.
[24] OECD (2010), Making Reform Happen: Lessons from OECD Countries, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264086296-en.
[3] Poldrugovac, M. and T. Albreht (2024), Longest doctors’ strike in Slovenia history still ongoing, https://eurohealthobservatory.who.int/monitors/health-systems-monitor/analyses/hspm/slovenia-2022/longest-doctors-strike-in-slovenia-s-history-still-ongoing (accessed on 29 April 2024).
[22] President of the Republic of Slovenia (2024), Pension reform, https://www.predsednica-slo.si/en/emphases/objectives-of-the-presidents-term/pension-reform/ (accessed on 30 April 2024).
[4] Republic of Slovenia (2024), General Data Protection Regulation - IPRS, https://www.ip-rs.si/en/legislation/general-data-protection-regulation/ (accessed on 29 April 2024).
[19] Republic of Slovenia (2024), Government measures for flood relief | GOV.SI, https://www.gov.si/en/registries/projects/government-measures-for-flood-relief/ (accessed on 30 April 2024).
[26] Republic of Slovenia (2023), Climate Change | GOV.SI, https://www.gov.si/en/policies/environment-and-spatial-planning/environment/climate-change/ (accessed on 30 April 2024).
[16] Republic of Slovenia (2023), Načrti zaščite in reševanja | GOV.SI, https://www.gov.si/teme/nacrti-zascite-in-resevanja/ (accessed on 30 April 2024).
[15] Republic of Slovenia (2023), Ocenjevanje tveganj nesreč | GOV.SI, https://www.gov.si/teme/ocenjevanje-tveganj-za-nesrece/ (accessed on 30 April 2024).
[14] Republic of Slovenia (2023), Ogroženost Slovenije | GOV.SI, https://www.gov.si/podrocja/obramba-varnost-in-javni-red/varstvo-pred-naravnimi-in-drugimi-nesrecami/ogrozenost-slovenije/ (accessed on 30 April 2024).
[25] Republic of Slovenia (2023), Slovenia’s Eight National Communication and Fifth Biennial Report under the UNFCC.
[34] Saunders, B. (2010), “Democracy, Political Equality, and Majority Rule*”, https://doi.org/10.1086/656474, Vol. 121/1, pp. 148-177, https://doi.org/10.1086/656474.
[35] STA (2024), Zdravniki morajo po novem tudi med stavko izdajati potrdila - N1, https://n1info.si/novice/slovenija/kaj-morajo-po-novem-kljub-stavki-se-poceti-zdravniki/ (accessed on 29 April 2024).
[12] Transparency International - Slovenia (2021), Svetovni barometer korupcije 2021 | TI Slovenia, https://www.transparency.si/novica/svetovni-barometer-korupcije-2021/ (accessed on 29 April 2024).
[20] UNDRR (2023), Poverty and inequality as a risk driver of disaster, https://www.preventionweb.net/understanding-disaster-risk/risk-drivers/poverty-inequality (accessed on 30 April 2024).
[11] Van de Walle, S. and K. Migchelbrink (2020), “Institutional quality, corruption, and impartiality: the role of process and outcome for citizen trust in public administration in 173 European regions”, Journal of Economic Policy Reform, Vol. 25/1, pp. 9-27, https://doi.org/10.1080/17487870.2020.1719103.
← 1. Information provided by the Government of Slovenia as part of the TSI project on Measuring Citizen’s Satisfaction with Key Government Services for Better Performance and Enhanced Trust.
← 2. Lower rates among those feeling discriminated against (25%) or with financial concerns (30%) compared to those who do not feel discriminated against (34%) or have no financial concerns (40%)
← 3. Information provided by the Government of Slovenia as part of the TSI project on Measuring Citizen’s Satisfaction with Key Government Services for Better Performance and Enhanced Trust.
← 4. The project supports 10 beneficiary Member States including Slovenia (Austria, Croatia, Estonia, Finland, Greece, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovenia and Spain). The beneficiary Member States, DG REFORM and OECD compose the Advisory Group for this Project.