He Who Appoints the Piper: Understanding Reasons and Implications of Agency Management “Politicisation” in Slovakia

• Authors: Miroslav Beblavy , Emilia Sicakova-Beblava , Darina Ondrusova
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

Discussion of politico-administrative relations as well as the research on agencies generally treats the “politicisation” of agency management as a single, “black-box” concept, according to which agency managements (and other senior civil servants) are either political or not. Our paper shows that, using a strict, but widely applied definition of what constitutes a political appointment, agency heads in Slovakia are overwhelmingly “political”, but that the implications of politicisation vary, depending on the type of politicisation. In particular, we distinguish personal nominations of the responsible minister and contrast them with party nominations based on coalition agreements. Based on a series of interviews with senior policy-makers on both sides of the politico-administrative divide, we show that the selection mechanism, incentive structure and robustness of actual accountability mechanisms differs more between these two types of politicisations than between the ministerial and formally “non-political” appointment.

• Publisher: Sciendo
• Journal: NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy
• Year: 2012
• Volume: 5
• Issue: 2
• Pages: 121-139

Dates

published

2012-12-01

online

2013-05-16

Contributors

author

Miroslav Beblavy

author

Emilia Sicakova-Beblava

author

Darina Ondrusova

References

• Aberbach, J. D., R. D. Putnam and B. A. Rockman. 1981. Bureaucrats and Politiciansin Western Democracies. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
• Bearfield, M. 2009. “What Is Patronage ? A Critical Reexamination.” Public AdministrationReview 69(1), 64 - 76.
• Beblavý, M. 2009. “Europeanization and Bureaucratic Autonomy in the New Member States: A Case Study of the Agricultural Paying Agency in Slovakia.” PublicAdministration 87(4), 923 - 937.[WoS]
• Beblavý, M. 2002. “Understanding the Waves of Agentification and the Governance Problems they have Raised.” OECD Journal of Budgeting 1, 121 - 139.
• Gill, D. 2002. “Making Sense of the Zoo: From Agencification To Principled Choice of Government Organisational Forms.” (Unpublished draft manuscript, OECD, Paris).
• Gregory, R. 2004. “Dire Exp ectations but Subtle Transformations ? Politicization and the New Zealand Public Service.” In B. G. Peters and J. Pierre (eds). Politicizationof the Civil Service in Comparative Perspective. London : Routledge, pp. 159 - 179.
• Huber, J. and C. Shipan. 2002. Deliberate Discretion ? The Institutional Foundationsof Bureaucratic Autonomy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Kaufman, H. 1956. “Emerging Conflicts in the Doctrine of American Public Administration.” American Political Science Review 50(4), 1057 - 1073.[Crossref]
• Kopecky, P., M. Spirova and G. Scherlis. 2011. “Beyond the Cartel Party ? Party Patronage and the Nature of Parties in New Democracies.” Paper prepared for the Joint IPSA / ECPR conference, Sao Paulo, Brazil, 16 - 19 February 2011.
• Malíková, Ľ. 2006. “Relations between Politicians and Civil Servants in Slovakia: Contextual Factors.” European Review of Public Law 18(4), 1365 - 1385.
• Meyer-Sahling, J. H. 2004. “Civil Service Reform in Post-Communist Europe: The Bumpy Road to Depoliticisation.” West European Politics 27(1), 71 - 103.[Crossref]
• Mulgan, R. 1999. “Politicising the Australian Public Service.” Research Paper 3 / 1998 - 99. Department of the Parliamentary Library.
• Ondrušová, D. and M. Beblavý. 2012. “Politically Appointed Positions in Slovak Local State Administration - Changes and Tendencies.” Proceedings from the conference “Modern and Current Trends in the Public Sector Research.” Brno: Masaryk University.
• Page, E. and V. Wright. 1999. Bureaucratic Elites in Western Democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Peters, B. G. 2010. The Politics of Bureaucracy. 6th edn. White Plains: Longman.
• Peters, B. G. and J. Pierre. 2004. “Po liticization of the Civil Service: Concepts, Causes, Consequences.” In B. G. Peters and J. Pierre (eds). Politicization ofthe Civil Service in Comparative Perspective. London : Routledge, pp. 1 - 14.
• Randma-Liiv, T. and J. Järvalt. 2011. “Public Personnel Policies and Problems in the New Democracies of Central and Eastern Europe.” Journal of ComparativePolicy Analysis: Research and Practice 13(1), 35 - 49.[WoS]
• Rouban, L. 2004. “Politicization of the Civil Service in France: From Structural to Strategic Politicization.” In B. G. Peters and J. Pierre (eds). Politicization ofthe Civil Service in Comparative Perspective. London : Routledge, pp. 81 - 101.
• Svara, J. H. 2001. The Myth of the Dichotomy: Complementarity of Politics and Administrationin the Past and Future of Public Administration. Raleigh: North Carolina State University.
• Van der Meer, F. M. 2009. “Public Sector Reform in Western Europe and the Rise of the Enabling State: An Approach to Analysis.” In R Mathur (ed.). Glimpses ofCivil Service Reform. Hyderabad: Icfai Press, 171 - 195.
• Van der Meer, F. M., T. Steen and A. Wi lle. 2007 “Western European Civil Service Systems: A Comparative Analysis.” In J. C. N. Raadschelders, T. A. Toonen and F. M. Van der Meer (eds). Civil Service in the 21st Century: ComparativePerspective. Basingstoke : Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 34 - 49.

Identifiers

DOI

10.2478/v10110-012-0008-x