Public Administration and Management Reforms in CEE: Main Trajectories and Results

• Authors: Geert Bouckaert , Vitalis Nakrošis , Juraj Nemec
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

The common feature of CEE systems is that they change drastically. Political systems change, e.g. from dictatorships to democracies, and their elites are removed. Democratic checks and balances are established. State structures are reshuffled, e.g. toward more decentralisation. The economic system changes its nature, e.g. from state monopolies to market systems with private firms. Societal and social systems with NGOs, not-for-profit organisations and citizen action groups are established and are designed for people to participate actively in the public debate and to become stakeholders of their society and their communities (Peters 1996).To achieve planned changes, CEE countries had to choose their strategies. In focusing on the administration and the management of public systems, five scopes of reform are possible, from very narrow and limited to a very widespread and broad span of reform (Pollitt and Bouckaert 2004). Choosing one of these models has tremendous practical implications for the content of a reform programme, for the choice of the reform projects, for the sequence and timing of the reform portfolio. It also requires different tactical choices to be made. One of the issues is how many degrees of freedom there are to reform the public sector.Just as in many other countries, mixed strategies have been chosen for public- sector reform in CEE countries, and these choices have changed over time. However, it seems that the span of reform has rather been broad than narrow. It also seems that tactics could have been more visible than strategy because of electoral cycles.This brings us to the question of the trajectories to move ahead. Our article, heavily based in the joint NISPAcee research project4 tries to respond to some selected dimensions of the question of what the common and different trajectories and selected outcomes of public administration / management reforms are in the CEE region.

• Publisher: Sciendo
• Journal: NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy
• Year: 2011
• Volume: 4
• Issue: 1
• Pages: 9-29

Dates

published

2011-07-01

online

2011-06-24

Contributors

author

Geert Bouckaert

• Public Management Institute, Catholic University of Leuven, Belgium

author

Vitalis Nakrošis

• Institute of International Relations and Political Science, University of Vilnius, Lithunia

author

Juraj Nemec

• Faculty of Economics, Matej Bel University, Slovakia

References

• Allen, Richard and Daniel Tommasi. 2001. Managing Public Expenditure: A Reference Book for Transition Countries. Paris: OECD.
• Bouckaert, Geert. 2009. "Public Sector Reform in CEE Countries: An Introduction". In Geert Bouckaert, Juraj Nemec, Vitalis Nakrošis, Gyorgy Hajnal and Kristiina Tõnnisson (eds). Public Management Reforms in Central and Eastern Europe. Bratislava: NISPAcee.
• Bouckaert, Geert, and John Halligan. 2008. Managing Performance: International Comparisons. London: Routledge.
• Bouckaert, Geert, Juraj Nemec, Vitalis Nakrošis, Győrgy Hajnal and Kristiina Tõnnisson. 2009. Public Management Reforms in Central and Eastern Europe. Bratislava: NISPAcee.
• Coombes, David and Tony Verheijen. 1997. Public Management Reform: Comparative Experience from East and West. Brussels: European Commission.
• Drechsler, Wolfgang. 2005. "The Re-Emergence of ‘Weberian’ Public Administration after the Fall of New Public Management: The Central and Eastern European Perspective." Halduskultuur 6, 94-108.
• Dunn, William N., Katarina Staronova and Sergei Pushkarev. 2006. Implementation: The Missing Link in the Public Administration Reform in CEE. Bratislava: NISPAcee.
• Eurostat. 2009. Government finance statistics 2008. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
• Jenei, Gyorgy and Akos Szalai. 2002. "Modernizing Local Governance in a Transitional Nation: Evaluating the Hungarian Experience." Public Management Review 4 (3), 367-386.[Crossref]
• Linz, Juan José and Alfred C. Stepan. 1996. Problems of Democratic Transition and Consolidation: Southern Europe, South America, and Post-Communist Europe. Baltimore, London: Johns Hopkins University Press.
• Meyer-Sahling, Jan-Hinrik. 2009. Post-Accession Sustainability of Civil Service Reform in Central and Eastern Europe. Paris: OECD-SIGMA Publications.
• Nakrošis, Vitalis. 2008. "Reforming Performance Management in Lithuania: Towards Result-Based Management". In Guy B. Peters (ed.). Mixes, Matches and Mistakes: New Public Management in Russia and the Former Soviet Republics. Budapest: Open Society Institute.
• Nemec, Juraj and Colin Lawson. 2008. "Health Care Reforms in CEE: Processes, Outcomes and Selected Explanations." NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy 1 (1), 27-50.
• Obolonskij, Alexandr. 2009. Gosudarstvennaja sluzba. Moscow: Delo.
• Pavel, Jan. 2009. Veřejné zakázky v ČR. Praha: Hálkova nadace.
• Peters, Guy B. 2008. "Mixes, Matches and Mistakes: New Public Management in Russia and the Former Soviet Republics." In Guy B. Peters (ed.). Mixes, Matches and Mistakes: New Public Management in Russia and the Former Soviet Republics. Budapest: Open Society Institute.
• Peters, Guy B. 2001. The Future of Governing. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
• Peters, Guy B. 1996. The Future of Governing: Four Emerging Models. Lawrence: University. Press of Kansas.
• Pollitt, Christopher and Geert Bouckaert. 2004. Public Management Reform: A Comparative Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Pollitt, Christopher and Geert Bouckaert. 2000. Public Management Reform: A Comparative Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Schick, Alan. 1998. "Why Most Developing Countries Should not Try New Zealand Reforms." World Bank Research Observer 13 (1), 123-131.[Crossref]
• Shakarashvili, George (ed.). 2005. Decentralization in Healthcare. Budapest: OSI-LGI.
• Verheijen, Tony and Yelena Dobrolyubova. 2007. "Performance Management in the Baltic States and Russia: Success against the Odds ?" International Review of Administrative Sciences 73 (2), 205-215.[Crossref]
• World Bank. 2006. Report on Strategic Planning and Policy Management in Lithuania and Latvia. October. Available at
• World Bank. 2003. Understanding Public Sector Performance in Transition Countries: An Empirical Contribution. 30 June. Available at

Identifiers

DOI

10.2478/v10110-011-0001-9