This chapter presents findings on how OECD member countries are implementing the first pillar of the OECD Recommendation on Human-Centred Public Administrative Services, “Strategic Vision, Values and Rights”. It examines their work to foster and promote a strategic vision for service delivery, and protect the rights of service users.
Serving Citizens 2026
Delivering Better Public Administrative Services
Abstract
With human-centred user experiences, improved efficiencies and cost savings as goals, the rest of this report explores how countries are performing vis-à-vis the pillars of the Recommendation. Examples of good practice from across the OECD are included to support peer learning for future reform. Beginning with Strategic vision, values and rights, OECD countries have a clear strategic focus on reform of public administrative services, which can provide a solid foundation for effective implementation of the Recommendation in the coming years.
The Recommendation calls on adherents to “foster and promote a strategic vision and approach to strengthen the design and delivery of services, based on the values and culture of a human-centred approach” (OECD, 2024[1]). In practice, this means governments should adopt a written strategy which sets out priorities, objectives and guiding principles for improving PAS. Setting this whole-of-government strategy and vision for the future is a necessary starting point for reform. It helps to provide momentum and direction by securing high-level support and buy-in; providing senior public servants with guidance and clarity on goals and outcomes; and enables and authorises public servants to co-ordinate activities across public agencies where needed. Strategies also play an important institutional role of formalising policy objectives, which is important in allocating appropriate funds from the government budget. To be effective, it is important that strategies are endorsed by the relevant government Ministers and/or the cabinet. In general, they should also be published, to allow oversight and accountability to the public.
Encouragingly, most OECD countries (26 out of 30 for which data are available, 87%) already have a government-wide strategy in place that covers PAS reform (Figure 4.1). Of these, 15 out of 30 countries (50%) have adopted a standalone government-wide strategy dedicated specifically to service improvement. A further 11 countries (37%) address PAS reform within a broader strategy, most commonly a digital government strategy or a public administration reform strategy. Each approach has benefits and drawbacks, and neither is necessarily preferred. Standalone strategies can have the advantage of providing clearer focus and higher visibility for PAS reform, both within the administration and with the public. However, tackling public administration reform within the context of a wider strategy can help integrate service delivery improvements with complementary reforms in other aspects of government operations, such as upgrades in digital infrastructure or workforce skills. Box 4.1 explores this further, presenting two leading examples of clear reform strategies within OECD countries: Australia, which uses a standalone strategy to guide reform, and Chile, which integrates service improvement within a wider state modernisation strategy. Only four OECD countries (13%) report not yet having a government-wide strategy for PAS reform as of 2024.
Countries with a government wide strategy for improving public administrative services, 2024
Note: Figure presents the distribution of responses to the question “Q4. Is a government-wide strategy for improving public administrative services currently being implemented?” No data for Türkiye.
Source: (OECD, 2026[2])
Ireland: Using a dedicated reform strategy to drive PAS improvement
Ireland has adopted a dedicated strategy for improving public administrative services, Better Public Services – A Transformation Strategy to Deliver for the Public and Build Trust. Adopted in 2023, the strategy provides a unifying framework for PAS improvement until 2030, explicitly linking service improvement to outcomes such as increased user satisfaction, improved service quality and higher levels of public trust.
The strategy articulates a clear vision of inclusive, high-quality and integrated public services designed to meet the needs of people, businesses and communities across Ireland. It is structured around a Public Service Transformation Framework, which aligns reform efforts across the civil service, wider public sector bodies and sectoral organisations. The framework is outcome-focused and grounded in OECD drivers of trust, including responsiveness, reliability, openness, integrity and fairness, and is organised around three reform pillars:
Digital and innovation at scale, focusing on digitally enabled services, joined-up delivery platforms such as MyGovID, and system-wide digital capability;
Workforce and organisation of the future, aimed at building skills, leadership, organisational capability and an innovative culture of public service;
Evidence-informed policy and services designed for and with the public, emphasising user-centred design, systematic use of data and insights, and engagement with service users in policy and service design.
Implementation of the strategy is co-ordinated through central stewardship arrangement, notably the Public Service Leadership Board (PSLB), which unites senior leaders across government departments and public bodies to drive shared priorities and system-wide coherence. Responsibility for delivery is distributed across public service organisations.
Australia: Using an integrated reform strategy to drive PAS improvement
Australia’s APS Reform program 2022-25, was a government-wide strategy for public administration reform, with a defined organisational structure and explicit delivery mechanisms. The agenda articulated a long-term vision for the Australian Public Service (APS) structured around four priority areas: 1) strengthening integrity, 2) putting people and business at the centre of policy and services, 3) being a model employer and 4) building long-term capability. Priority area 2 contained a number of initiatives to improve public administrative services, including: developing a vision for user centred service excellence; strengthening the transparency of agency customer feedback; and providing service excellence guidance. Other complementary actions that indirectly supported improvements in public services included delivering a data and digital government strategy, and improving skills and capacity within the public sector workforce through initiatives like introducing innovative hiring practices and embedding flexible work.
These priorities were operationalised through a sequenced reform programme, with responsibilities distributed across agencies and co-ordinated through central stewardship bodies, including the APS Commission and the Department of Finance. The agenda combined high-level objectives with defined implementation arrangements, including time-bound reform actions, agency-level responsibilities and public reporting. Progress was monitored through annual APS Reform Progress Reports, which tracked implementation milestones, highlighted risks and identified areas requiring further action. Not all reforms were underpinned by quantified service-level KPIs; however, the agenda embedded accountability through Australia’s Public Governance, Performance and Accountability (PGPA) Act, which requires agencies to define objective, performance measures and results.
The agenda also explicitly aligned PAS reform with social and equity objectives, notably through its integration with the National Agreement on Closing the Gap, which embedded shared decision-making, institutional reform and measurable socio-economic outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples within mainstream service delivery optimisation. These features granted the APS Reform Agenda clarity of mission, visibility across the whole of government, and durability, while allowing flexibility in implementation across a federal system. The APS Reform program is now in its third phase - Continuous Improvement characterised by distributed ownership of initiatives, where the work is embedded, evolving and influencing the system it was designed to serve.
Chile State Modernisation Strategy – Aligning PAS reform with wider state and productivity outcomes
Chile’s State Modernisation Agenda 2022-2026 provides a comprehensive example of an integrated reform strategy in which PAS improvement is embedded within a broader programme of institutional modernisation, democratic renewal and reinforcing trust. The agenda is explicitly framed around the objective of rebuilding public trust following a sustained decline in institutional confidence and is grounded in the OECD’s framework for the drivers of trust in public institutions. It is structured around a clear conceptual model that links public value and trust to both institutional competencies, such as responsiveness and reliability, and public service values, such as integrity, openness and impartiality.
The agenda is organised into six thematic pillars: 1) people in the state, 2) citizen services and user experience, 3) decentralisation, 4) digital transformation, 5) transparency and integrity, and 6) better public spending. These pillars are operationalised through 30 concrete initiatives, each with defined objectives, responsible institutions, expected results and annual milestones. For example, Pillar 2 includes reform objectives for public services, with objectives focused on improving service quality and consistency across institutions, reducing administrative burden on people, strengthening user-centred service design and embedding service quality and user experience as core management tools. Initiatives are explicitly sequenced as enabling actions, short- to medium-term improvements in citizen experience, and longer-term structural reforms; this reflects an intentional balance between rapid visible change and sustainable transformation. While many longer-term initiatives, such as under the digital transformation, people in the state or better public spending, are not framed exclusively as PAS reforms, they support sustained improvements in PAS over time.
Implementation is supported by a central governance model led by the State Modernisation Secretariat in the Ministry of Finance. A permanent Committee for State Modernisation is responsible for co-ordination and prioritisation, and a Permanent Advisory Council provides strategic advice to the President. Monitoring and accountability mechanisms are clearly articulated: each initiative is accompanied by a fiche for implementation, annual progress reports, and an implementation report produced toward the end of each presidential term to ensure continuity across administrations. While the Agenda does not systematically identify dedicated funding envelopes for each initiative, it does include detailed implementation planning, inter-institutional co-ordination and explicit integration with related frameworks, including Chile’s Digital Transformation Law and Productivity Agenda. This integrated structure allows Chile to pursue a coherent and consistent approach to improving public service delivery in co-ordination with other complementary reforms.
Building on this experience, the current administration is developing the State Modernization Agenda 2026–2030, called Transformation Agenda 2030. For public administrative services, the new Agenda puts user experience and measurable results at the center, with a stronger focus on simplifying and integrating services around life events for people and legal entities. It aims to reduce time and administrative burdens, strengthen interoperability and data reuse across institutions, and move toward more proactive service delivery and evidence-based decisions. User satisfaction and life-event evidence will also be used to identify critical service journeys and monitor improvements in people’s interactions with the State at different levels.
Strategies are typically most detailed in articulating long-term direction and objectives. Nearly all strategies for PAS reform include explicit objectives to deliver more human-centred services (24 out of 26 countries with a strategy, 92%) (Figure 4.2). A large majority set out indicative timelines for implementation (22 out of 26, 85%). Many strategies also align PAS reform with other relevant government strategies (21 out of 26, 81%) and consider how government will simplify processes for PAS delivery (20 out of 26, 77%).
Strategies for PAS reform are often less developed in assuring that the resources and capabilities required for implementation are in place. Just over half of strategies include any form of capacity analysis, such as an assessment of the skills and organisational capabilities needed to deliver PAS reform and their current availability across government (14 out of 26, 54%). As explored below, improving services to make them more human-centred often requires specialised skills, such as customer research and product design. Better assessing and analysing the capacities of civil servants are important for understanding if existing public servants have the relevant skills and experience to implement the strategy and deliver concrete service improvements, and for identifying where specialist support may be required.
Only a small minority of PAS reform strategies provide information on the expected costs of implementation or identify dedicated funding sources to support delivery (7 out of 26, 27%). The lack of information on expected implementation is also concerning, partly because their absence from PAS strategies risks reducing the effectiveness of implementation, weakening accountability and undermining the credibility of reform commitments. There may also be gaps in monitoring and evaluation (M&E) arrangements. Robust M&E can help to ensure strategies’ implementation by tracking progress, assessing their effectiveness, and allowing governments to change course when implementation is off track. However, such arrangements are not consistently built into PAS reform strategies (16 out of 26, 62%). This is an important accountability mechanism for any government strategy. Without clear monitoring mechanisms, governments may struggle to assess whether reforms are being implemented as intended or to adjust delivery, resourcing or priorities when progress falls short.
Contents of government wide strategies for improving public administrative services, 2024
Note: Figure presents the distribution of responses to the question “Q6 If a government-wide strategy is in place, which of the following aspects are included in the government-wide strategy for improving public administrative services? Select all that apply: a) Alignment with other strategies; b) Government-wide policy objectives for making services more human-centred; c) Analysis of capacities or needs for delivery ; d) Implementation plan or timeline; e) Defined actions to achieve objectives, and assigned responsibilities; f) Actions to make public service delivery greener and more environmentally friendly; g) Defined sources of funding for all actions included in the strategy; h) Cost estimation and allocation of funds for implementing the strategy; i) Activities linked to specific institutions with assigned responsibilities; j) Activities linked to specific institutions with clear deadlines for completion; k) Consultation with the public; l) Consultation with groups which may have differential requirements for public administrative services (e.g. those in vulnerable and disadvantaged situations etc); m) Monitoring, reporting, and evaluation requirements or delivery targets. No data for Türkiye.
Source: (OECD, 2026[2])
Only 16 of 26 countries (62%) undertook consultation to develop their strategies and only 12 of 26 (46%) consulted with people in vulnerable and disadvantaged situations (Figure 4.2). The relatively low levels of consultation are an important gap. Any efforts to make PAS more human centred should be guided by a clear understanding of the changes which users require, including those who may have special requirements to access and use PAS. Several practices show wide involvement in creating reform strategies. For example, Finland undertook a participatory process to develop its 2020-2030 Strategy for Public Governance Renewal. The direction and means of administrative reform were defined together through a “co-creation process”, with dozens of workshops and joint working sessions organised with different agencies, municipalities, civil society, researchers and stakeholders. This included in particular a strong emphasis on the inclusion of youth with co-development events with discussions with a range of youth groups and researchers (Government of Finland, 2020[6]).
The Recommendation places strong emphasis on the protection of service users’ rights and calls on adherents to “uphold the protection of both the public interest, and the rights and legitimate interests of users, through the design and delivery of services that offer procedural guarantees and administrative and judicial review” (OECD, 2024[1]). By positioning this principle at the outset, the Recommendation underscores the central role of legal and procedural safeguards in governing access to public administrative services and in regulating interactions between users and public authorities.
Public institutions exercise legal authority on behalf of the state and are often empowered to make binding decisions that can significantly affect individuals’ rights, obligations and livelihoods. For example, delays or refusals in services such as passport issuance, identity documents or driving licenses can restrict individuals’ ability to travel, work or participate fully in society in accordance with their legal rights. In other cases, individuals and businesses are legally required to use PAS to comply with statutory obligations, such as filing taxes or obtaining mandatory licenses; public authorities may also impose fees, penalties or other legally binding consequences where regulatory requirements are not met. Public authorities have a legal mandate to act in the public interest and to provide services impartially to all eligible users. Users often have limited or no alternative provider, creating an asymmetry of power that makes robust procedural guarantees particularly important in the public sector. For these reasons, the Recommendation highlights the need for clear legal rights for PAS users, including rights to information, justification of decisions, appeal and effective remedy, and stresses the importance of accessible administrative and judicial review mechanisms to ensure accountability and remedy errors.
The rights of users of PAS are de jure protected across OECD countries, with the core principles of good administration enshrined in law or regulation in most countries (Figure 4.3). Most users have the right to be informed of all administrative actions affecting them (26 of 31 countries, 84%), the right to access files and information which public institutions hold about them (29 of 31, 95%), and the right to have their applications processed in a timely manner (28 out of 31, 90%). Several countries have attempted to ensure that services are delivered in a fair, transparent and consistent manner to all users: 26 out of 31 countries (84%) give users the legal right to be provided with the information necessary to understand how decisions affecting them have been reached. Users may remain dissatisfied with service outcomes and may feel that their rights have been breached in some aspect of the process. To counter this, the OECD recommends that PAS agencies should provide users with access to an independent, efficient and effective judiciary to challenge the lawfulness of administrative actions and obtain effective protection of their rights. However, only 22 out of 31 countries (71%) giving users the right to seek “effective remedy”.
New rights can emerge and evolve over time. An example is the “right to make a mistake”, which has emerged in recent years and which allows a user to correct a mistake made in good faith in a declaration to a public institution without risking a financial penalty or loss of a benefit (République Française, 2023[7]). Though this right is in place in at least thirteen OECD Member countries, it is nevertheless one of the least common service user rights across OECD countries. Broader application of this emerging right could increase trust in public institutions, and satisfaction with PAS, especially where PAS require users to make complex disclosures of information or understand complex regulations, e.g. in tax declarations. France has made the Right to Make a Mistake a centrepiece of PAS delivery reforms (Box 4.2). As governments work in an environment with evolving technologies, developing, defining and enforcing users’ rights will remain important.
Countries in which different rights of service users are protected by laws or regulations, 2024
Note: The figure presents the responses to the question “Q7. Do laws or regulations in your country guarantee any of the following procedural guarantees or rights to service users? Please select all that apply a) Right to be informed of administrative actions affecting the service user, b) Right of users to access their files and information, c) Right to timely processing and response, d) Right to understand why decisions regarding their case have been made, e) Right to appeal decisions relating to denial of a service, f) Right to consultation, g) Right to make mistakes, h) Right to effective remedy, i) Right to accommodation of people with disabilities, j) Other please specify"
Source: (OECD, 2026[2])
France’s Law for a State at the Service of a Trust-Based Society (ESSOC), adopted on 10 August 2018, seeks to strengthen trust between people and public administrations. It introduced several guiding principles, including: benevolence and prior trust; a shift in administrative posture towards support rather than control; and the right to make a mistake (droit à l’erreur). Under this right, individuals or businesses cannot be sanctioned for a first error in an administrative procedure, if they were acting in good faith, which is presumed to be case unless proven otherwise by the administration. To benefit from this provision, the error must be corrected - either spontaneously by the user or upon request from the administration - within the set timeframe. In such cases, no financial penalty applies. This right does not prevent the application of the rule of law (for example, an undue benefit must be repaid, but without penalty). The right does not extend to all situations. It excludes intentionally false declarations, errors that cannot be corrected, sanctions required under EU law, breaches of rules directly protecting public health, the environment, or safety, as well as criminal sanctions, penalties imposed by regulators or contracts, and obligations arising from international conventions (e.g. in labour law). The right to make a mistake has been put at the core of the new values of the French public service, formalised through “Services Publics+”. Under this framework, to support implementation, French administrations receive training on ESSOC principles and are encouraged to:
provide users with clear, anticipatory information to prevent common mistakes,
establish contact channels (including digital ones) for users to report or correct errors, and
ensure staff are equipped to identify errors and assist users in resolving them.
References
[4] Australian Government (n.d.), APS Reform, https://www.apsreform.gov.au/.
[6] Government of Finland (2020), 2020-2030 Strategy for Public Governance Renewal, https://julkaisut.valtioneuvosto.fi/handle/10024/162571.
[3] Government of Ireland (2023), Better Public Services - A transformation strategy to deliver for the public and build trust, https://assets.gov.ie/static/documents/better-public-services-public-service-transformation-2030-strategy.pdf.
[5] Ministry of Finance (2022), State Modernisation Agenda 2022-2026, https://modernizacion.gob.cl/agenda/agenda-periodo-2022-2026.
[2] OECD (2026), “OECD Serving Citizens 2026: Delivering Better Public Administrative Services database”.
[1] OECD (2024), Recommendation of the Council on Human-Centred Public Administrative Services, https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0503.
[7] République Française (2023), What is the right to make a mistake in administration?, https://www.service-public.fr/particuliers/vosdroits/F34677?lang=en.
[8] République Française (2020), Guide de déploiement des engagements Services Publics +, https://www.plus.transformation.gouv.fr/sites/default/files/ressource/20201019%20SP%2B%20Guide%20d%C3%A9ploiment%20engagements_0.pdf.