The Influence of Government Priorities on Public-Administration Reforms in Europe1

• Authors: Vitalis Nakrošis
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

The article assesses how and the extent to which political or policy priorities of European governments condition reform processes and their results in times of crisis. This research is based on desk research and statistical analysis of the 2013 EUPAN survey data on public-administration reform initiatives in Europe. The article finds that the place of public-administration reforms on the governmental agenda partially explains the process of public-administration reforms, but it cannot account for the variation in the (perceived) reform results. Also, the results of this research confirm that EU-13 and (potential) candidate countries face more difficulties in reform implementation due to a combination of comprehensive reform strategies and weak administrative capacities. If the quantitative analysis was able to uncover some broad trends common to European public administrations, more qualitative approaches (causal process-tracing and case studies) are needed to capture specific contexts and changing processes in different European public administrations on which delivery progress is inevitably contingent. In order to explain why some windows of opportunities are seized while others are missed during the process of public-administration reforms, it is important to undertake process-tracing in within-case and between-case analysis and focus on causal configurations in the study of particular reform cases.

Keywords

EN

government priorities; public-administration reforms; policy implementation

• Publisher: Sciendo
• Journal: NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy
• Year: 2015
• Volume: 8
• Issue: 1
• Pages: 21-40

Dates

published

2015-06-01

online

2015-07-27

Contributors

author

Vitalis Nakrošis

• Professor in public administration at the Institute of Intemational Relations and Political Science, Vilnius University, Lithuania.

References

• Aberbach, J. D. and T. Christensen. 2014. “Why Reforms So Often Disappoint.” American Review of Public Administration 44(1), 3 – 16.[Crossref][WoS]
• Barzley, M. and R. Gallego. 2010. “The Comparative Historical Analysis of Public Management Policy Cycles in France, Italy, and Spain: Symposium Conclusion.” Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions 23(2), 297 – 307.[WoS]
• Bezes, P. and S. Parrado. 2013. “Trajectories of Administrative Reform: Institutions, Timing and Choices in France and Spain.” West European Politics 36(1), 22 – 50.[WoS][Crossref]
• Blatter, J. and M. Haverland. 2014. “Case Studies and (Causal-) Process Tracing.” In I. Engeli and C. Rothmayr (eds). Comparative Policy Studies: Conceptual and Methodological Challenges. Houndsmills Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 59 – 84.
• Bouckaert, G., V. Nakrošis and J. Nemec. 2011. “Public Administration and Management Reforms in CEE: Main Trajectories and Results.” NISPACEE Journal of Public Administration and Policy 4(1), 9 – 29.
• Bovens, M., P. ’t Hart and B. G. Peters. 2001. Success and Failure in Public Governance: A Comparative Analysis. Cheltenham, UK/Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar.
• Christiansen, P. M. and M. B. Klitgaard. 2010. “Behind the Veil of Vagueness: Success and Failure in Institutional Reforms.” Journal of Public Policy 30(2), 183 – 200.[WoS][Crossref]
• Cierco, T. 2013. “Public Administration Reform in Macedonia.” Communist and Post-Communist Studies 46, 481 – 491.[Crossref][WoS]
• Dan, S. and C. Pollitt. 2014. “NPM Can Work: An Optimistic Review of the Impact of New Public Management Reforms in Central and Eastern Europe.” Public Management Review. Online first, open-access version.[Crossref]
• Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. 2012. Progress on the Implementation of the Government’s Public Service Reform Plan. September. Available at (last accessed 21 October 2014).
• Dunn, W. N., K. Staronova and S. Pushkarev. 2006. “Implementation: The Missing Link.” In W. N. Dunn, K. Staronova and S. Pushkarev (eds). Implementation: The Missing Link in Public Administration Reform in Central and Eastern Europe. Bratislava: NISPAcee, 13 – 25.
• Epstein, R. A. and W. Jacoby. 2014. “Eastern Enlargement Ten Years On: Transcending the East-West Divide?” Journal of Common Market Studies 52(1), 1 – 16.[WoS]
• EUPAN. 2013. Discussion Note on Sustainable Reform within Public Administration: Responses from EUPAN members. Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. Available at (last accessed 21 October 2014).
• Hammerschmid, G., A. Oprisor and V. Štimac. 2013. COCOPS Executive Survey on Public Sector Reform in Europe: Research Report. Available at (last accessed 21 October 2014).
• Jones, B. D. and F. R. Baumgartner. 2012. “From There to Here: Punctuated Equilibrium to the General Punctuation Thesis to a Theory of Government Information Processing.” Policy Studies Journal 40(1), 1 – 20.[WoS][Crossref]
• Kay, A. and P. Baker. 2015. “What Can Causal Process Tracing Offer to Policy Studies? A Review of the Literature.” The Policy Studies Journal 43(1), 1 – 21.[WoS][Crossref]
• Kickert W., T. Randma-Liiv and R. Savi. 2013. Fiscal consolidation in Europe: A Comparative Analysis. COCOPS deliverable 7.2, September. Available at (last accessed 21 October 2014).
• Kovač, P. 2014. “Evaluation of Agencification within Public Administration Reform: Case Study of Slovenia.” Paper for the EGPA 2014 conference (Speyer, Germany).
• Meier, K. J. and L. J. O’Toole Jr. 2012. “Subjective Organizational Performance and Measurement Error: Common Source Bias and Spurious Relationships.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 1 – 27 (first published online).
• Meyer-Sahling, J.-H. 2012. Civil Service Professionalisation in the Western Balkans. SIGMA Paper: 48, GOV/SIGMA: (2012)1.
• Meyer-Sahling, J.-H. 2009. Sustainability of Civil Service Reforms in Central and Eastern Europe Five Years after EU Accession. SIGMA Paper: 44, GOV/SIGMA: (2009)1.
• Nakrošis, V., R. Vilpišauskas and V. Kuokštis. 2015. “Fiscal Consolidation and Structural Reforms in Lithuania in the Period 2008 – 2012: From Grand Ambitions to Hectic Fire-Fighting.” International Review of Administrative Sciences 81(3). (accepted for publication).
• Neshkova, M. I. and T. Kostadinova. 2012. “The Effectiveness of Administrative Reform in New Democracies.” Public Administration Review 72(3): 324 – 333. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2011.02483.x.[Crossref][WoS]
• OECD. 2010. Making Reform Happen: Lessons From OECD Countries. Place: OECD Publishing. Available at (last accessed 21 October 2014).
• Pollitt, C. 2009. “Structural Change and Public Service Performance: International Lessons?” Public Money and Management 29(5), 285 – 291.
• Pollitt, C. and G. Bouckaert. 2011. Public Management Reform: A Comparative Analysis – New Public Management, Governance, and the Neo-Weberian State. 3rd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Sabatier, P. A. and H. C. Jenkins-Smith. 1999. “The Advocacy Coalition Framework: An Assessment.” In P. A. Sabatier (ed.). Theories of the Policy Process. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 117 – 166.
• Savage, L. 2013. “Party System Polarisation and Government Duration in Central and Eastern Europe.” West European Politics 36(5), 1029 – 1051.[WoS][Crossref]
• Schimmelfennig, F. and U. Sedelmeier (eds). 2005. The Europeanization of Central and Eastern Europe. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
• Spendzharova, A. B. and M. A. Vachudova. 2012. “Catching Up? Consolidating Liberal Democracy in Bulgaria and Romania after EU Accession.” West European Politics 35(1), 39 – 58.[WoS][Crossref]
• Tompson W. 2009. The Political Economy of Reform: Lessons from Pensions, Product Markets and Labour Markets in Ten OECD Countries. Paris: OECD.
• Weaver, R. K. and B. A. Rockman (eds). 1993. Do Institutions Matter? Government Capabilities in the United States and Abroad. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution.
• Weible, C. M., P. A. Sabatier, H. C. Jenkins-Smith, D. Nohrstedt, A.D. Henry and P. deLeon. 2011. “A Quarter Century of the Advocacy Coalition Framework: An Introduction to the Special Issue.” Policy Studies Journal 39(3), 349 – 360.[Crossref][WoS]
• Williamson, J. (ed.). 1994. The Political Economy of Policy Reform. Washington, DC: Institute for International Economics.
• Zubek, R. and H. Klüver. 2013. “Legislative Pledges and Coalition Government.” Party Politics 1(12) (published online before print).[WoS]

Identifiers

DOI

10.1515/nispa-2015-0002