The term "revolving door effect" is used to describe a situation where people leave the public sector to work in the same field as their private counterparts. And vice versa.

Even though movement between the public and private sectors comes with the benefit of the exchange of know-how and experience, it also raises serious ethical questions. A potential conflict of interest is created where private goals might take precedence over public ones.

In-house measures can help avoid problems when people move from the private sector to a public institution. Things are more complicated when an official or politician (member of the parliament or government) transfers to the private sector. How to avoid a conflict of interest when moving from the economy ministry to an energy company, from the environment ministry to an oil shale chemistry company or from the defense ministry to the defense industry? Should such efforts be made?

We must remember that the constitution allows people to freely choose their profession and place of work, and while this right can be limited, said limitations need to be purposeful and proportional.

The labor market is open and state personnel policy increasingly favors mobility between the public and private sectors, as well as limited terms of office. Top public servants are appointed for a term of five years. When that time is up, a specialist on top of their professional game must have a way to put their skills to work and make a living. Adding too many restrictions would only keep capable people out of the public sector to begin with.

The problem is hardly new. The UN Convention against Corruption (UNCAC), which was passed 20 years ago, provides that states need to prevent conflicts of interest "by imposing restrictions, as appropriate and for a reasonable period of time, on the professional activities of former public officials or on the employment of public officials by the private sector after their resignation or retirement, where such activities or employment relate directly to the functions held or supervised by those public officials during their tenure."

Estonia has complied with this guideline as minimally as possible. Transferring from a supervisory position in the public sector to an ownership, management or supervisory board role in a company owned by the person or their next of kin is prohibited for one year.

Other countries apply a plethora of different rules, and even if it is often impossible to monitor compliance in full, strict restrictions send the message of what is considered reprehensible behavior.

There is usually a so-called cooling-off period of between six months and three years, during which a complete ban on working in certain sectors might be in place or the person might not be allowed to be responsible for transactions or lobbying efforts.

For example, there is a two-year ban on transactions with companies the former public servant used to control, run or make tender-related decisions in Latvia. In Lithuania, there is a one-year ban on working for companies the public official used to control or decide the funding a year from leaving public service.

In several countries, an official will need to seek permission from a special commission or ethics committee if they want to work for a company that is active in their former field. Alternatively, former officials have to consult with their direct superior in terms of how to avoid possible conflicts of interest arising from changing jobs, with rules put in place for use of information in the course of work or lobby efforts involving former colleagues.

In Australia, a former official using information obtained in the course of their previous work to benefit themselves or associated persons can even result in a five-year prison sentence. More relaxed regulations can prescribe signing an ethical conduct agreement upon taking or leaving public office.

Restrictions are also increasingly sectoral. For example, people often move from the defense ministry or armed forces to defense industrial complex businesses. In addition to bans on using sensitive information, companies that involve former officials in certain projects may be sanctioned or even refused public contracts.

Why is all this effort put into regulations and clarification to rule out conflicts of interest? As the revolving door effect can harm the credibility of government actions, jeopardize the fairness and independence of policymaking and cause economic harm through unfair competition or inefficient public spending.

Public sector officials who move to the private sector take with them inside information, networks of contacts and reputation, which can open a lot of doors. This runs the very real risk of creating an unfair competition situation. Even when still in office, public servants are not immune to making biased decisions and shaping policy in a way to benefit future employers' expectations or secure a favorable position for themselves in the future.

Personally, I am against regulation compliance which cannot be reliably monitored. However, simply shrugging our shoulders is not enough, even if there might not always be a foolproof solution. We could at the very least arrive at a widespread understanding of why and when the revolving door effect might be harmful for society, expensive for the state and a burden on the budget. And for people moving between the public and private sectors to know which kind of behavior is reprehensible and which is not when making career choices.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and Twitter and never miss an update!