Ever fewer, ever bigger – The evolution of government agencies’ size and the structure of public administration 2011–2023

In previous reports, the Swedish Agency for Public Management noted that the number of full-time equivalent positions in central government has long been increasing, while at the same time the number of agencies has been decreasing. In the present report we examine what the reasons are for these changes in the size and structure of public administration over time. The analysis covers developments between 2011 and 2023.

The Swedish Agency for Public Management produced this report within the framework of our mandated task to provide supporting documentation to the government in developing administrative policy.

Fewer but bigger still applies

During the period from 2011 to 2023, full-time equivalent positions in central government increased by approximately 24 per cent. That is a relatively large increase compared with the preceding decade. During the same period, the number of government agencies decreased by 13 per cent.

As yet no sizeable impact on the distribution of full-time equivalents

The number of full-time equivalent positions in central government has increased above all as a result of relatively large investments in the judicial system and in the defence and education sectors. Despite these investments, however, the distribution of full-time equivalent positions between the different areas of public administration has not changed appreciably.

Some indications that public servants do other things

Increases which are not due to the investments in the judicial system, defence and education are harder to attribute to individual investments or factors – instead they are likely the result of several concurrent factors. Aside from policy initiatives, we note that there appears to be a number of more general factors that may have contributed to the increase in the number of full-time equivalents. These factors apply, to a greater or lesser extent, for all areas of activity in central government and indicate a possible shift in the tasks that public employees currently carry out, compared with earlier.

We see signs, for example, that central government engages in oversight and control to a greater extent, particularly in certain areas such as health and medical care, education and social protection. This development could be a consequence of the fact that privatisations and deregulation have led to an increased number of actors to oversee. It could also be a consequence of increased central government control of municipalities and regions, e.g. by means of various forms of support and oversight.

We further note that the ambitions in certain administration-wide areas and for cross-sectoral matters have been raised. In interviews, agency representatives highlighted the fact that the number of cross-sectoral requirements has grown. This includes e.g. new legislation in data protection (GDPR) and cybersecurity (the NIS and NIS2 Directives). Additionally, the civil preparedness reform has led to new tasks and mandates for a large number of agencies, thus requiring greater resources.

Several of the agencies in our study also point to work within the EU as an explanation for why additional full-time equivalents are needed. An example of this is the task of drawing up, introducing and applying new legislation in different areas.

The increase was mainly financed with increased administration appropriations

The analysis indicates that the increased number of full-time equivalents was primarily financed by the government raising agencies’ administration appropriations. An exception to this is the trend among smaller agencies and agencies in certain sectors, where a growing share of the increases were financed with special appropriations.  

The share of employees with core skills has not grown

The agencies have distributed the increased resources evenly between employees with core skills, support skills and management skills. This is despite the government’s long-held ambition of safeguarding and promoting agencies’ core tasks.

A less fragmented but more micro-managed administration

On the basis of our observations we can draw certain conclusions about how the government’s management has changed.

An administration with bigger agencies can make management both simpler and more difficult

Over time, the government’s ambition has been to reduce the number of government agencies. In practice, fewer agencies has meant that those agencies have instead grown larger, as tasks are rarely removed. The fact that agencies have grown has several consequences for public administration and for the government’s ability to manage it. One consequence, for example, might be that public administration becomes more transparent, not least from the citizens’ perspective. Still, the Swedish Agency for Public Management also sees a potential challenge in that bigger agencies may become harder to manage.

Few reassessments within central government

The increase in the number of full-time equivalent positions in central government is primarily a consequence of initiatives to raise or maintain quality, rather than of any expansion of the central government’s undertaking. It also suggests that there have been few real reassessments of the central government’s undertaking that have impacted the structure of public administration. Instead new tasks have been handed to existing government agencies.

Increased micro-management in some sectors

The analysis by the Swedish Agency for Public Management indicates that the number of temporary appropriations has increased in some areas and for some types of agencies. This development amounts to a gradual shift away from the idea of performance management, i.e. that agencies themselves are best suited to determine how to distribute their funds within the framework of their operations. This in turn makes the agencies’ financial situation more uncertain, which makes it harder for them to plan as well as to ensure that they have access to the appropriate skills for their operations.