The warning is part of the study ‘Continuity and Change in Public Policies in Portugal,’ conducted by the Francisco Manuel dos Santos Foundation (FFMS). The study examines the three main tools available to governments to steer public policy direction: administrative reorganizations, budget allocations, and appointments to leadership positions.
In this context, researchers caution against the use of the substitution regime, which “although designed to ensure service continuity during transition periods, has often been utilized in a prolonged manner, circumventing more rigorous and transparent selection processes.”
“This practice not only undermines meritocracy and the professionalization of public administration but can also lead to instability and discontinuity in sectoral policies,” they add.
This “excessive use” became more apparent “from the end of the first decade of the 21st century” and “seems to suggest” it is used “as a tool to bypass merit-based selection mechanisms, such as CReSAP” (the committee overseeing public administration leadership recruitment), established in 2011, notes the study authored by António F. Tavares, Patrícia Silva, and Pedro J. Camões, analyzing the evolution of public policies from 1976 to 2020.
Therefore, and despite recognizing the “flexibility” provided by this regime in emergency situations, as well as its ability to “avoid the bureaucratic rigidity” associated with recruitment processes, the researchers admit that “it may be necessary to strengthen legislation,” to limit the use and duration of such appointments.
They recommend the “creation of a Public Appointments Observatory, integrated into CReSAP, but with functional autonomy,” with the purpose of “monitoring and evaluating all appointment processes, including those in a substitution regime,” as a means of “enhancing monitoring and transparency.”
Generally speaking, this observatory would have four objectives: “maintain an updated database of all appointments in a substitution regime, including their duration, justification, and profile of appointees,” “issue periodic reports on the usage patterns of this regime,” “create an automatic alert system when a substitution regime appointment exceeds a certain period,” and “make this information publicly available through an open-access digital platform.”
The researchers also propose as an alternative the creation of a “mandatory prior evaluation system for substitution regime appointments exceeding a certain period (e.g., 90 days),” involving an independent technical panel whose opinion would be binding.
“These mechanisms would enable greater transparency and accountability in the use of the substitution regime without compromising its agility when truly necessary,” they conclude.
