This chapter provides an overview of how public administrative services are organised across OECD Member countries, and how satisfied people are with them.
Serving Citizens 2026
Delivering Better Public Administrative Services
Abstract
Governments offer large numbers of PAS, and most public sector agencies are involved in delivering them. Catalogues of public administrative services can include hundreds or thousands of separate processes and procedures which government makes available to the public. An example is Greece’s National Registry of Administrative Public Services (MITOS). While not an exhaustive listing, it details procedures for almost 600 separate PAS, in diverse sectors, from agriculture to education to tourism (Government of Greece, 2026[1]). Spain’s Administrative Information System (SIA) keeps track of all administrative procedures. Currently, at the central administrative level alone, more than 5,500 procedures are registered, and can be searched by members of the public (Government of Spain, n.d.[2]). The Government of Canada’s “GC Infobase” lists around 1700 separate services which were available to the public and businesses in 2022-23 (OECD calculations from (Government of Canada, 2026[3])). Many of these are either administrative or contain administrative aspects.
Common PAS like submitting tax returns and crossing the border are familiar to most people. Others are rarely used but critically important to those who use them: Canada, for example, recorded 1 application in a year for a license to operate a hatchery and 1 for a statement of competency to perform in an airshow. Experiences with PAS are important for people’s lives and help define their perceptions of public institutions.
The 2025 OECD Trust Survey finds that two-thirds (68%) of recent users of PAS in 34 OECD countries are satisfied (Figure 2.1). A majority of recent users are satisfied with PAS in 33 of the 34 OECD countries for which data is available, and more than 80% are satisfied in a handful of high performing countries: Estonia, Finland, Luxembourg, and Switzerland. This is a positive finding and satisfaction with PAS is among the aspects of public administration which people rate most positively in the OECD Trust Survey (OECD, 2026[4]). Nonetheless, these data also illustrate that there is scope to implement reforms to improve satisfaction in every country.
Satisfaction with the delivery of PAS also varies substantially within and across countries. In eight OECD countries in the OECD Trust Survey, less than 60% of recent users are satisfied. These countries lag substantially behind the best performers and the OECD average of 68%. There is also substantial variation in satisfaction within countries. Across the OECD nearly a quarter of recent PAS users (19%) are dissatisfied with public administrative services, and a further 12% are neutral, with systematic differences across population groups. Satisfaction is markedly lower among recent PAS users in more vulnerable socio-economic situations. The largest gap is observed among PAS users who feel they experience discrimination (59% of sample), whose satisfaction level is 9 percentage points below the OECD average for recent users. Recent users with low levels of education (63% of sample), those aged 18–29 (66%), individuals with financial concerns (6%) and women (6%) also report comparatively low satisfaction, around 2 to 5 percentage points below the OECD average.1
Results are more mixed when looking at satisfaction with other types of public services. On average across countries in the 2025 OECD Trust Survey, 60% of people are satisfied (broadly defined) with their overall education system, and 54% with their healthcare system. The OECD Risks that Matter Survey finds lower levels of satisfaction when mentioning quality across a range of social programmes; for example, only around 38% and 30% of people, on average, believe that they would have access to good quality employment services and housing services, respectively, in case of need (OECD, 2023[5]). While these results relate to a much broader range of public services like education, healthcare and housing, all of these incorporate at least some administrative aspects (enrolment, maintenance of programme participation, etc.). Improving the PAS incorporated within these other public services could play an important role in improving satisfaction with these services overall.
Share of recent users reporting different levels of satisfaction with administrative services in their country, 2025
Note: The figure presents the within-country distributions of responses among recent users to the question “On a scale of 0 to 10, how satisfied are you with the quality of administrative services in [COUNTRY] (for example applying for an ID, registering a birth or applying for benefits)?” Recent users replied in the affirmative to the question “In the last 12 months, have you personally made use of an administrative in [COUNTRY] (for example, applying for a passport, registering a birth, or applying for benefits etc.)?”. The “satisfaction” proportion is the aggregation of responses from 6-10 on the scale; “neutral” is equal to a response of 5; “dissatisfaction” is the aggregation of responses from 0-4; and “Don't know” was a separate answer choice. “OECD” presents the unweighted average across countries.
Source: OECD Trust Survey (OECD, 2026[4])
To begin understanding how PAS delivery is organised across levels of government, Serving Citizens asked countries which level(s) of government are responsible for delivering 12 commonly used PAS: Birth, marriage, death certificates; Business registration and licensing; Citizenship applications; Drivers licenses; Filing income taxes; Health insurance registration; National ID cards; Old-age pensions; Passport issuance; Unemployment benefits; Vehicle registration; Visa issuance and processing. This is far from a complete list and does not offer a full overview. Nonetheless, the responses show that countries organise PAS differently, reflecting their diverse histories, institutions and distributions of responsibilities across levels of government. However, in 22 of 31 respondent OECD countries (71%), central government is responsible for at least half (6 out of 12) of the surveyed PAS. At the same time, sub-national governments remain important providers in many OECD countries, and multi-level delivery is common.
Figure 2.2 suggests some broad categories to help understand the degree of centralisation in PAS delivery in different countries. The first group consists of countries which have fully centralised delivery of the 12 common PAS asked about in the survey. This includes countries such as Ireland and Turkey, where all 12 PAS examined in Serving Citizens are delivered by the central government. A second group includes countries which are mostly centralised, such as Costa Rica and Hungary, where more than 65% of commonly used PAS are centrally delivered; sub-national authorities play a more limited role. A third group might be characterised as shared delivery, where central government retains responsibility for a substantial share of PAS but delivers a minor share jointly with, or through, sub-national governments; countries such as Australia and Belgium deliver at least 35% of commonly used PAS through sub-national governments or mixed arrangements. The fourth group contains countries which report being mostly decentralised. Most commonly used PAS are delivered by sub-national governments or through shared arrangements, for example, in Austria and Denmark. Federal countries tend to appear as shared delivery or mostly decentralised, but countries with unitary governments also appear in these categories. This indicates local government often plays an important role in PAS delivery.
% of 12 commonly used PAS delivered by “Central / federal” vs “State, local or multiple” levels of government, 2024
Note: The figure above presents the responses to the question “Q3. Which level(s) of government are responsible for delivering the following commonly used public administrative services? Please select all that apply”. Services covered are: Birth, marriage, death certificates; Business registration and licensing; Citizenship applications; Driving licenses; Filing income taxes; Health insurance registration; National ID cards; Old-age pensions; Passport issuance; Unemployment benefits; Vehicle registration; Visa issuance and processing. Unemployment benefits do not apply in Costa Rica. Health insurance registration and national ID cards do not apply in New Zealand.
Source: (OECD, 2026[6])
Even within the broad groupings above, institutional models vary considerably. Some countries rely heavily on executive agencies rather than ministries, others organised delivery around regional or local government while others use “deconcentrated” models of central government to deliver services at the local level. In some cases, the modalities which governments use for PAS are very different to those they use for other services; for example Finland, which appears as fully centralised with regards to the PAS examined, operates a highly decentralised model for other types of public services such as healthcare (Finland Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, 2026[7]). Different delivery models appear to partly reflect a desire to balance between offering centralised, standardised processes that are delivered in a consistent and efficient way across the country versus allowing local discretion to front line service provides to innovate and adapt delivery models to the needs, expectations and norms of their user groups.
Level of government providing different public administrative services, 2024
Note: The figure above presents the responses to the question “Q3. Which level(s) of government are responsible for delivering the following commonly used public administrative services? Please select all that apply”. Services covered are: Birth, marriage, death certificates; Business registration and licensing; Citizenship applications; Drivers licenses; Filing income taxes; Health insurance registration; National ID cards; Old-age pensions; Passport issuance; Unemployment benefits; Vehicle registration; Visa issuance and processing. Unemployment benefits do not apply in Costa Rica. Health insurance registration and national ID cards do not apply in New Zealand.
Source: (OECD, 2026[6])
Central government almost always oversees visitor or long-stay visas (27 out of 31 OECD countries, 87%), income tax filing (26 out of 31, 84%), old-age pensions (24 out of 31, 77%) and citizenship applications (23 out of 31, 74%) (Figure 2.3). These may be PAS that benefit from uniform national procedures to ensure regulatory compliance, or which have significant economies of scale when delivered via a single system. Civil registration services such as birth, marriage and death certificates are the most decentralised of any of the services, being delivered solely by local government in 11 out of 31 OECD countries (35%). Similarly, relatively few countries manage driving licensing tests (17 out of 30, 57%) or business licensing (15 out of 30, 50%) entirely within central government. These may be services that benefit from in-person interaction with the user, or detailed knowledge of local conditions, so benefit from the involvement from local government. In some cases, multi-level models help to balance competing prerogative. For example, in Austria, passport applications are managed by local government, while issuance is managed by central: this allows biometric passports to be issued centrally, while enabling compliance with regulations around centralised retention of biometric information.
Box 2.1 provides some further examples on how different countries have organised PAS, balancing the needs for consistency and flexibility within their existing structures of government. No single institutional arrangement can be considered inherently better for delivering public administrative services. Different models can support effective, efficient and human-centred service delivery. However, the degree of centralisation does influence how the Recommendation is put into practice. Fully or mostly centralised systems may face more challenges in tailoring services to regional or local needs, whereas more decentralised systems may struggle to ensure consistency and uniform national standards.
Countries balance consistency and flexibility in public administrative service (PAS) delivery through institutional arrangements that reflect administrative considerations such as economies of scale or the need for local presence, and also their histories, institutional structures and administrative capacities. More decentralised systems rely on strong legal frameworks, shared standards and common infrastructure to preserve national consistency alongside local implementation.
Ireland
In Ireland, the central government delivers all twelve public administrative services covered by the Serving Citizens survey. Centralisation enables Ireland to ensure consistent eligibility rules, service standards and legal certainty nationwide for high-impact services such as passports, taxation, and social protection, which are delivered through national agencies including the Passport Service, Revenue, and the Department of Social Protection. Flexibility is therefore pursued primarily through digital delivery, service integration and service design improvements rather than through devolved administrative authority. The Better Public Services Strategy explicitly aims to improve responsiveness and user experience within this centralised model, illustrating how Ireland seeks to balance consistency and flexibility primarily through process reform rather than institutional delegation. Comparatively, in Ireland local government has traditionally had a narrower functional remit, focused on place-based services such as housing, planning, local roads, environmental protection and amenities, rather than individual entitlements or regulatory administration.
Costa Rica
Costa Rica is characterised above as mostly centralised with 11 of 12 surveyed public administrative services delivered by central government institutions or nationally mandated autonomous entities. Core administrative services are entrusted to national or autonomous bodies with high levels of technical capacity and central visibility. Identity management and civil registration are delivered by the Tribunal Supremo de Elecciones, health insurance registration by the Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social, taxation by the Ministry of Finance, and immigration services are by the Dirección General de Migración y Extranjería. Concentrating these services at the national level supports consistency and economies of scale, particularly where authoritative registries, uniform procedures and compliance oversight are critical. At the same time, municipalities retain responsibility for territorially specific services such as land-use permits, commercial licensing and certain local taxes, where local knowledge and discretion are relevant. This functional separation limits fragmentation in the governance of core administrative services while allowing flexibility where services are inherently local.
Australia
Australia falls within the shared delivery model above, partly shaped by its federal structure division of responsibilities across levels of government. The federal, or Commonwealth, government delivers services requiring national consistency and economies of scale, including income tax filing, unemployment benefits, pensions, immigration services and passport issuance, while state and territory governments are responsible for services such as driver licensing, vehicle registration and civil registration. These arrangements reflect constitutionally delegated state mandates in regulating transport, licensing and civil status, alongside the Commonwealth’s role in redistribution and national administrative systems. National agencies such as the Australian Taxation Office, Services Australia and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (through the Australian Passport Office) promote uniform rights and standards across the country; decentralised delivery enables states and territories to adapt implementation to local infrastructure, enforcement contexts and user needs. Flexibility is embedded through federalism itself, with co-ordination supported through national standards, intergovernmental agreements and shared digital frameworks. Rather than consolidating responsibilities at the federal level, the APS Reform Agenda reinforces this approach by emphasising user-centred services within a multi-level governance system.
Denmark
Denmark operates a mostly decentralised model for the PAS examined by Serving Citizens, with municipalities acting as the primary providers for many of the surveyed public administrative services. This reflects a history of strong municipal responsibility for welfare and administrative services. Municipalities deliver services such as civil registration, passports, driver licensing, unemployment benefits and health insurance registration through local Citizen Service Offices (Borgerservice), while the central government retains responsibility for services where uniform national rules are essential, including taxation, business registration, visa processing and citizenship applications.
Consistency across jurisdictions is maintained through strong national legislation, extensive procedural guarantees and shared digital infrastructure, including the CPR civil registration system and the national citizen portal borger.dk, which is jointly maintained by central and local government actors. This combination allows municipalities to exercise flexibility in front-line delivery while national frameworks and common infrastructure ensure coherence across the country.
Efficient delivery of PAS is important for both public satisfaction and for governments’ performance and capacity to simplify and deliver services at lower costs while freeing resources for other priorities. However, information to assess the effectiveness and efficiency of most PAS across countries is not readily available, and data on public expenditure devoted specifically to PAS are not available. This makes it difficult to measure the scale of resources allocated to PAS or to assess their relative efficiency.
Disentangling spending on PAS from other types of government expenditure is difficult, even within individual ministries and agencies. The bulk of costs associated with delivering PAS are likely to be staff wages, as managing and delivering PAS are often labour intensive. On average across the OECD, governments spent around 8.5% of GDP on wages for public sector employees in 2023 (calculations based on (OECD, 2025[8])). However, identifying what share of this expenditure was devoted to PAS is difficult. Many ministries pay wages both to staff who deliver PAS and to those who perform other roles, such as communications, administration, policy advice and analysis and sectoral service delivery. Even within individual organisations, such as universities or hospitals, there may be staff whose main role is to deliver PAS, such as managing enrolment or appointments, while others do not. Costs are further obscured because much of the infrastructure used for PAS is multi-purpose. For example, a single digital government system may support both PAS and internal government operations. Moreover, some PAS may be partially financed through user fees, which offset public expenditure but complicate cross-country comparisons. An alternate option to looking at the costs of delivery of PAS would be a “bottom-up” option, looking at the costs of delivering individual services. Approaches of this sort are commonly applied to estimate the costs to users of complying with regulatory requirements, but less commonly to look at the costs incurred by governments.
As a result, national accounts data do not allow spending on PAS to be reliably identified. This limits understanding of the size, cost and relative efficiency of PAS delivery across OECD countries. One partial exception is the area of business-related administrative services, where international benchmarking exercises such as the Business Ready programme at the World Bank have provided some comparable metrics specifically in the field of business licensing and registration. Yet this remains a narrow sub-section of the full range of PAS delivered by government.
In a context of fast evolving needs and fiscal pressures, a human-centred approach to PAS offers strong potential for improving programme outcomes, improving satisfaction, growing trust in government and – ideally – fostering efficiencies. Traditional approaches to PAS reform have often focused on structural matters, such as the degree of decentralisation or the trade-offs between standardisation and responsiveness. While these issues remain relevant, rapid technological change is transforming the possibilities of administrative services reform. Digital transformation and advances in data governance have transformed administrative services in many countries already by integrating diverse services across ministries and level of government; reducing reliance on paper-based processes, in-person visits and long waiting times; and simplifying the information demanded in user applications; and speeding up application reviews, thereby addressing some of the most common sources of user dissatisfaction. Online portals, pre-filled forms, data sharing across public agencies and increasingly automated state-people interactions have enabled faster processing and more convenient access to services for many users.
Yet technology alone is not sufficient to guarantee better outcomes. Careful service design and delivery, supported by reliable and inclusive digital foundations, and efforts to simplify bureaucratic requirements, are essential to avoid replicating existing bureaucratic complexities, shifting administrative burden onto users, or exacerbating inequalities for those with limited digital access. Given the large number and diversity of PAS, and the pace at which new technologies are emerging, designing and delivering better services in the future will require governments to enable and empower public servants to design and redesign services in collaborative, inclusive and innovative ways to achieve expected outcomes and meet people’s needs. This shift towards more human-centred reform demands that those responsible for delivering PAS are encouraged and supported to prioritise users’ needs, expectations and constraints.
References
[7] Finland Ministry of Social Affairs and Health (2026), Healthcare and social welfare system and responsibilities, https://stm.fi/en/social-and-health-services/responsible-agencies.
[3] Government of Canada (2026), GC Service Inventory - Service Identification Information & Metrics (2024), https://open.canada.ca/data/en/dataset/3ac0d080-6149-499a-8b06-7ce5f00ec56c/resource/c0cf9766-b85b-48c3-b295-34f72305aaf6.
[1] Government of Greece (2026), MITOS National Register of Administrative Procedures, https://en.mitos.gov.gr/index.php/Main_Page.
[2] Government of Spain (n.d.), Administrative information system, https://administracion.gob.es/pag_Home/en/espanaAdmon/SIA.html.
[6] OECD (2026), “OECD Serving Citizens 2026: Delivering Better Public Administrative Services database”.
[4] OECD (2026), OECD Survey on Drivers of Trust in Public Institutions 2026 Results: Navigating Rising Expectations and New Horizons, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9eb63fec-en.
[8] OECD (2025), Government at a Glance 2025, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/0efd0bcd-en.
[5] OECD (2023), Main Findings from the 2022 OECD Risks that Matter Survey, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/70aea928-en.
← 1. Results come from the 2025 OECD Trust Survey. To note, restricting the sample to only recent users of public administrative services – that is, those who made us of a public service within the last year - excludes around 45% of respondents. Statistically, this reduces the subgroup sizes and increases uncertainty in some countries’ estimates. Substantively, this restriction may systematically exclude more vulnerable individuals who avoid interacting with administrative services altogether. As a result, satisfaction gaps may be understated. Non-users refer to all respondents who have not used any administrative service in the past year.