What public capabilities are needed to govern during times of crisis?

What enables a local government to adapt, learn, and transform its actions over the long term? This is precisely what the Public Sector Capabilities Index—developed on an experimental basis by the Institute for Innovation and Public Purpose (IIPP) at University College London (UCL), founded by Mariana Mazzucato—aims to measure. We had the opportunity, along with a small group of local government officials and researchers, to speak with the team developing the index to explore the potential and the necessary conditions for testing it in French cities.

The index is based on the concept of “dynamic capabilities,” which originates in strategic management: a high-performing organization is not merely one that succeeds today; it is also one that is capable of reallocating its resources, learning, adapting its practices, and continuing to produce results in a changing environment. The IIPP team sought to apply this concept to the operations of local governments; to this end, it worked with local governments in various countries to identify the capabilities that are actually mobilized when a city successfully carries out a complex transformation.

Five major categories of capabilities emerged:

- developing a strategic vision and understanding future trends;

- redefining priorities as the context changes;

- building coalitions with local stakeholders (including citizens);

- organizing cycles of learning and experimentation;

- being able to reconfigure public action by redeploying competencies, resources, and organizations.

The index thus focuses less on identifying “best practices” or innovative projects than on observing routines, organizational structures, and decision-making processes—in other words, everything that remains once projects are completed: not the visible innovation itself, but the conditions that make it possible.

Another unique aspect of this approach lies in its methodology. The method—which places minimal demands on participating local governments—is based on four interviews conducted with four executives or elected officials, whose roles may vary depending on the context: general management, finance, the mayor’s office, innovation, data, and so on. The interviews are open-ended but follow a common framework of about twenty questions. To avoid overly flattering self-reports and to rely on evidence, these discussions are then cross-checked against factual data: strategic plans, budget documents, evaluations, indicators, public data, and so on. The score is therefore not assigned because a local government claims to be doing something, but because there is evidence to support it. This approach seeks to illustrate how a capability manifests itself in different local contexts and cultures. The researchers explain that it is impossible to “see” a capability directly; however, it is possible to observe whether a local government is consistently able to solve complex problems that require that capability—and how it does so.

Actually, the concept of "capability" is not new - from the work of economist Amartya Sen, it was used since the 1990s to talk about the ability of companies or administrations to achieve objectives, but also to adapt to new situations : what are called dynamic capabilities. A few years ago, the City of Nancy developed a tool to assess the innovation capabilities of public officials for its own needs. More recently, an initiative somewhat similar to that of the IIPP has emerged: the “Institutional Architecture Lab,” created by Demos Helsinki and the former director of the UK’s Nesta, Geoff Mulgan, which proposes a new “design of institutions” based on six guiding principles very similar to the IIPP’s capabilities (see our article). The advantage of the IIPP indicators is that they have been designed specifically for cities and local authorities, and have already been tested on 200 cities around the world.

The IIPP team emphasizes that the goal is not to create a new ranking of cities. The cities interviewed quickly expressed their reluctance to be compared with municipalities that are unlike them, and to have a ranking made public. The team is therefore working on “clustering” mechanisms to compare municipalities with similar characteristics. Currently, the criteria focus primarily on size, areas of jurisdiction, and levels of institutional responsibility. French participants, however, point out that other variables are extremely important to us, such as urban density, social dynamics, the network of civic organizations, financial margins, local political history, and the actual powers exercised. The index also focuses on urban characteristics, raising questions about its applicability to rural areas.

For the IIPP, this aspect of contextualization is still a work in progress. Ultimately, the index is not intended merely to provide a snapshot but, above all, to serve as a tool for progress. To this end, each participating city receives detailed feedback on its strengths and weaknesses, as well as resources, recommendations, and access to an international community of local governments facing similar challenges. The assessment is therefore just the first step; the next steps remain to be defined: action-oriented training programs for teams tailored to each local government’s challenges, learning cohorts, and so on. The hypothesis put forward by the IIPP team is that such an approach will also be of interest to international donors, development banks, and foundations, which will thus be able to identify the areas where an investment in support or funding would be most useful.

What could this index offer French local governments? First, a common language that allows senior management, elected officials, and innovation teams to discuss their administration’s capacity for transformation—both internally and with other cities in France and around the world. Second, a relatively objective assessment that can inform strategic decisions or modernization efforts. Finally, from our perspective, it provides a foundation for developing support pathways and action research programs better tailored to identified needs. We can envision several applications for this: at the start of a new term in office, as part of a transformation strategy, as a reference point for an innovation department, or even in executive training programs. 

For the 27th Region, such an initiative also opens up interesting possibilities. The index addresses a question that many local governments are asking today: we know our challenges, we know where we want to go, but do we really know if our organization is capable of getting there? We believe it would be stimulating to partner with the IIPP to adapt the indicator for France (for example, by adding dimensions that we feel are too implicit, such as the democratic dimension), to serve as a trusted third party in conducting interviews, to provide a space for sharing and putting lessons into practice, and then to support local governments in developing the identified capabilities, collectively and experimentally.

This could naturally be coordinated with other stakeholders: associations of elected officials, networks of local governments for peer learning, the CNFPT for training programs, or even officials in charge of innovation for pilot projects. The value of such a system would be to bring to light questions that are often implicit: Are we capable of changing course? Of learning? To cooperate? To reorganize our actions as the stakes evolve? At a time when local governments are facing environmental, democratic, and budgetary challenges of unprecedented scale, shifting the focus from projects to the capabilities that make those projects possible is undoubtedly worth the time and energy.