PA Decree Italy 2026: October 6 marks the deadline for converting Decree-Law No. 144 of August 7, 2026—the so-called “PA Decree”—into law. Twenty-six articles, five chapters, six major areas of intervention: personnel, local government investments, financial distress, social policies, civil protection, and tax collection. An omnibus measure—as has become customary with late-summer emergency decrees—that arrives at a pivotal moment for Italy’s public administration: a time when the country must begin to ask itself what will remain, in terms of administrative capacity, once PNRR funds cease to be the primary driver of change.
It is a technical decree, composed of articles and paragraphs that speak the language of public finance and administrative law. But behind the technical language lie decisions that directly address one of the questions we most frequently ask in these pages: what is needed for the state to once again attract and retain the best talent?
PA Decree Italy 2026, the heart of the measure: farewell to historical spending caps
The provision with the greatest structural impact is the elimination of historical spending caps on personnel costs, which, for nearly twenty years, have constrained the hiring capacity of municipalities and local authorities. This move goes beyond the limits set by Law 296 of 2006, replacing them with a criterion based on the entity’s financial sustainability rather than on historical percentages calculated on personnel expenses that, in many cases, were based on staff levels reduced by the long period of hiring freezes.
This is a paradigm shift that, on paper, could have a direct effect on the generational turnover that the public administration structurally needs: according to data from the Randstad Research report released this summer, more than one-third of the workforce in the public administration in the strict sense is over 55 years old, while the presence of young people remains marginal. Freeing up hiring capacity is not enough to solve the problem—competitive exams, career paths, and competitive salaries are needed—but it is the prerequisite without which every other measure remains theoretical.
The decree also addresses public management, in coordination with Law 119/2026 and the Consolidated Law on Public Employment (Legislative Decree 165/2001): the percentages of external managerial appointments are redefined; the transition of non-general managers to general roles is made possible; and—perhaps the most interesting measure for those concerned with merit-based promotion—savings resulting from lower performance-based pay must be allocated to the training of those managers themselves. A small signal, but one consistent with the idea that investing in skills, not just in salaries, is part of the solution.
Criticism from ANCI
It is precisely on this point that the criticism from ANCI, the National Association of Italian Municipalities, focuses: the measure addresses “a multitude of unresolved critical issues in local governments” by choosing “to proceed with ad hoc measures and extensions rather than a systemic intervention.” This is a snapshot of how Italy traditionally tends to reform its administrative machinery: through successive additions, reacting to emergencies—PNRR targets to meet, vulnerable areas to support, structural issues that have dragged on for years—rather than through a comprehensive plan. Even in the regulations governing local governments in financial distress—where the decree addresses the revolving fund, loans, extraordinary liquidation bodies, and the permanently rebalanced budget—there are technical adjustments to a framework that, in its underlying architecture, remains the one established by the Consolidated Law on Local Governments over twenty years ago.
The Parliamentary Debate: Open Hearings and Union Stances
The conversion bill (A.C. 3083) is currently under joint review by the Chamber of Deputies’ Committee V (Budget) and Committee VIII (Environment), with Erica Pella serving as rapporteur for the Budget Committee and Fabrizio Rossi for the Environment Committee. Informal hearings have been held in recent days to provide the factual basis for amendments, ahead of the October 6 deadline for conversion.
Several requests for changes are already on the table. FP CGIL, CISL FP, and UIL FP have asked to be heard by the joint committees to urge action on the retraining of staff in local government educational services: a commitment that, according to the unions, had already been agreed upon with ARAN during the renewal of the National Collective Bargaining Agreement for Local Government Employees, but which has not yet been included in the decree.
These requests differ from one another but converge on one point: internal mobility within the public administration remains one of its most obvious limitations today. A system that struggles to circulate skills internally is also a system that struggles to retain them, pushing the most qualified professionals to seek growth opportunities elsewhere that the administration cannot offer internally.
Looking Beyond the PNRR
The reference to the PNRR in the ANCI statement is crucial. Much of the additional administrative capacity built up in recent years—new hires, technical support offices for small municipalities, and digital expertise integrated into central structures—has been funded through the Plan. As the Plan nears its conclusion, the pressing question is whether that capacity will survive the withdrawal of dedicated funds, or whether we will revert to a more fragile structure.
From this perspective, the Public Administration Decree offers some signs of continuity: the removal of historical spending caps, the stabilization until December 31, 2026, of personnel on secondment to certain administrations, and the push—albeit partial—toward executive mobility. These are tools aimed at consolidating, with regular funding, a change that has so far relied largely on extraordinary resources. But they remain, after all, merely tools: their effectiveness will depend on the ability of each individual administration—a municipality of a few thousand residents no less than a ministry—to truly use them to build a workforce that is younger, more competent, and more stable.
Three Elements for Building a Better Public Administration
If we examine the measure through the lens of the attractiveness of public-sector employment, three elements seem more promising than others for building a better public administration in the coming years:
The liberalization of local governments’ hiring capacity, which could lead to more frequent competitive exams and a workforce that is finally rejuvenated—provided that municipalities—especially smaller ones with limited administrative capacity—are actually able to announce and manage the selection processes.
The link between managerial performance and training, which introduces a virtuous cycle for the first time: resources not distributed as bonuses are returned to the system in the form of investment in skills, rather than simply being “saved.”
The focus—still in its early stages but present in the parliamentary debate—on the issue of mobility across sectors: if the public administration truly succeeds in opening channels for internal movement between education, healthcare, local governments, and the central administration, the entire system will become better able to retain those who today, faced with a career dead end, simply choose to leave.
None of these levers, on its own, resolves the structural problem of a public administration that still struggles to compete with the private sector on salaries and career prospects. But together, they point in a direction: that of a public administration that stops reacting to emergencies and instead builds, one step at a time, the conditions for its own permanent transformation. The coming weeks will reveal whether Parliament will be able to contribute constructively to charting a clear course.