Suchergebnisse

In this article we describe the adoption and execution of public administration reforms in Central and Eastern Europe between 2008 and 2013, as well as examine whether post-communist countries differ from other groups of European countries in terms of the substance of reforms and their implementation process. Instead of following popular Western administrative theoretical frames, we adopt the policy process approach. We focus on the role of policy actors during reform policymaking and implementation at the level of policy subsystems. More specifically, we employ the rational-comprehensive and garbage can perspectives to understand the reform processes in the post-communist region. Our research is based on the statistical analysis of survey data and two case studies of reforms initiated by the 2008-2012 Lithuanian government. The article concludes that countries in Central and Eastern Europe share some common characteristics: they focused on the issues of civil service and public or administrative services, their reform policy was often formulated on a top-down basis, and its execution often lacked adequate capacities. Despite a rational reform façade in these countries, the implementation of governance change appears to be quite erratic, as anticipated in the garbage can perspective. This can have negative consequences on the effectiveness of public policy, continuing to generate public distrust in post-communist state institutions.

The article analyses changes in the reform agendas of the Lithuanian government in the period 2004 – 2017. Instead of exploring the systemic and formal agendas of administrative reforms based on government strategies and programmes, it focuses on the institutional and actual agendas of Lithuanian authorities using a set of 20 reform initiatives. In addition to the analysis of the institutional context, we also assess a coupling logic and the exercise of political or bureaucratic entrepreneurship during reform policy making. Th e article finds that budgetary constraints and the reform policy priorities of the Lithuanian governments explain the ambitious agendas of administrative reforms during the 2008 – 2012 government and, to a lesser extent, during the 2016 – 2020 government. Th e political logic of coupling and political entrepreneurship dominated the fl ow of the reform process when these governments were in office, producing the top-down approach to reform policy making. In contrast, the 2004 – 2006, 2006 – 2008 and 2012 – 2016 governments relied strongly on a policy-centred logic of coupling together with bureaucratic entrepreneurship, which resulted in the bottom-up approach to administrative reforms in the country.

The article analyses changes in the reform agendas of the Lithuanian government in the period 2004 – 2017. Instead of exploring the systemic and formal agendas of administrative reforms based on government strategies and programmes, it focuses on the institutional and actual agendas of Lithuanian authorities using a set of 20 reform initiatives. In addition to the analysis of the institutional context, we also assess a coupling logic and the exercise of political or bureaucratic entrepreneurship during reform policy making. Th e article finds that budgetary constraints and the reform policy priorities of the Lithuanian governments explain the ambitious agendas of administrative reforms during the 2008 – 2012 government and, to a lesser extent, during the 2016 – 2020 government. Th e political logic of coupling and political entrepreneurship dominated the fl ow of the reform process when these governments were in office, producing the top-down approach to reform policy making. In contrast, the 2004 – 2006, 2006 – 2008 and 2012 – 2016 governments relied strongly on a policy-centred logic of coupling together with bureaucratic entrepreneurship, which resulted in the bottom-up approach to administrative reforms in the country.

In this article we describe the adoption and execution of public administration reforms in Central and Eastern Europe between 2008 and 2013, as well as examine whether post-communist countries differ from other groups of European countries in terms of the substance of reforms and their implementation process. Instead of following popular Western administrative theoretical frames, we adopt the policy process approach. We focus on the role of policy actors during reform policymaking and implementation at the level of policy subsystems. More specifically, we employ the rational-comprehensive and garbage can perspectives to understand the reform processes in the post-communist region. Our research is based on the statistical analysis of survey data and two case studies of reforms initiated by the 2008-2012 Lithuanian government. The article concludes that countries in Central and Eastern Europe share some common characteristics: they focused on the issues of civil service and public or administrative services, their reform policy was often formulated on a top-down basis, and its execution often lacked adequate capacities. Despite a rational reform façade in these countries, the implementation of governance change appears to be quite erratic, as anticipated in the garbage can perspective. This can have negative consequences on the effectiveness of public policy, continuing to generate public distrust in post-communist state institutions.

The article analyses changes in the reform agendas of the Lithuanian government in the period 2004 – 2017. Instead of exploring the systemic and formal agendas of administrative reforms based on government strategies and programmes, it focuses on the institutional and actual agendas of Lithuanian authorities using a set of 20 reform initiatives. In addition to the analysis of the institutional context, we also assess a coupling logic and the exercise of political or bureaucratic entrepreneurship during reform policy making. Th e article finds that budgetary constraints and the reform policy priorities of the Lithuanian governments explain the ambitious agendas of administrative reforms during the 2008 – 2012 government and, to a lesser extent, during the 2016 – 2020 government. Th e political logic of coupling and political entrepreneurship dominated the fl ow of the reform process when these governments were in office, producing the top-down approach to reform policy making. In contrast, the 2004 – 2006, 2006 – 2008 and 2012 – 2016 governments relied strongly on a policy-centred logic of coupling together with bureaucratic entrepreneurship, which resulted in the bottom-up approach to administrative reforms in the country.

The article analyses changes in the reform agendas of the Lithuanian government in the period 2004 – 2017. Instead of exploring the systemic and formal agendas of administrative reforms based on government strategies and programmes, it focuses on the institutional and actual agendas of Lithuanian authorities using a set of 20 reform initiatives. In addition to the analysis of the institutional context, we also assess a coupling logic and the exercise of political or bureaucratic entrepreneurship during reform policy making. Th e article finds that budgetary constraints and the reform policy priorities of the Lithuanian governments explain the ambitious agendas of administrative reforms during the 2008 – 2012 government and, to a lesser extent, during the 2016 – 2020 government. Th e political logic of coupling and political entrepreneurship dominated the fl ow of the reform process when these governments were in office, producing the top-down approach to reform policy making. In contrast, the 2004 – 2006, 2006 – 2008 and 2012 – 2016 governments relied strongly on a policy-centred logic of coupling together with bureaucratic entrepreneurship, which resulted in the bottom-up approach to administrative reforms in the country.

In this article we describe the adoption and execution of public administration reforms in Central and Eastern Europe between 2008 and 2013, as well as examine whether post-communist countries differ from other groups of European countries in terms of the substance of reforms and their implementation process. Instead of following popular Western administrative theoretical frames, we adopt the policy process approach. We focus on the role of policy actors during reform policymaking and implementation at the level of policy subsystems. More specifically, we employ the rational-comprehensive and garbage can perspectives to understand the reform processes in the post-communist region. Our research is based on the statistical analysis of survey data and two case studies of reforms initiated by the 2008-2012 Lithuanian government. The article concludes that countries in Central and Eastern Europe share some common characteristics: they focused on the issues of civil service and public or administrative services, their reform policy was often formulated on a top-down basis, and its execution often lacked adequate capacities. Despite a rational reform façade in these countries, the implementation of governance change appears to be quite erratic, as anticipated in the garbage can perspective. This can have negative consequences on the effectiveness of public policy, continuing to generate public distrust in post-communist state institutions.

AbstractThis article presents the results of our research on party patronage and state politicisation in different Lithuanian public sector organisations (government agencies and agencies under the ministries, state-owned enterprises, personal health care and educational institutions). Although repeating alterations of governments best explained the frequent turnover of some public sector heads, their politicisation was related to the length of party rule in power, beliefs of the political and administrative elite and density of the party networks. The legal protection of civil service jobs was only important in the case of the agencies under the ministries whose managers always held career civil service positions. Furthermore, substantial variation in the scope of politicisation was related to such administrative factors as the political salience of policy areas and organisational functions, as well as budget size, which suggested different motivations and opportunities of party patronage in the Lithuanian public sector.

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. Th e 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 diff erent 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 confi gurations in the study of particular reform cases.

This article analyses main public management doctrines (traditional administration, NPM and post-NPM), assesses the doctrinal basis of public management reforms in the 2004–2010 period, provides suggestions concerning principles, directions and process of future public management reforms in Lithuania. Despite different political views and terms of various Governments, important decisions of public management reforms were based on the party logic, whose purpose is to strengthen political authority of the government in office. The implementation of the 'bureaucratic' public administration strategy, whose content was informed by the ideas of post-NPM, was initially unsuccessful because of limited political ownership and the legalistic approach. The XV Lithuanian Government undertook wide public management reforms based on the managerial doctrine with prevailing NPM characteristics. A mix of the party logic and the NPM doctrine could be contradictory and risky in Central and Eastern European countries. Also, the NPM has not yielded good results in Continental Europe, its solutions do not match Lithuania's problems and there is no solid empirical evidence about its effectiveness in Lithuania. Therefore, its application should be limited and selective during Lithuania's public management reforms. Post-NPM is the best doctrine for future public management reforms, whose implementation in Lithuania should be supported by broader political consensus, better inter-institutional cooperation and a more managerial implementation approach. ; Šiame straipsnyje analizuojamos svarbiausios viešojo valdymo doktrinos (tradicinis administravimas, Naujoji viešoji vadyba, po-NVV ir su ja susijusios doktrinos), įvertinamas doktrininis viešojo valdymo reformų pagrindas Lietuvoje 2004–2010 m., pateikiama siūlymų dėl būsimosios viešojo valdymo reformos darbotvarkės (principų, krypčių ir proceso). Nepaisant vyriausybių politinių pažiūrų ir kadencijų skirtumų, svarbūs viešojo valdymo reformos sprendimai Lietuvoje buvo pagrįsti partine logika, kurios paskirtis yra stiprinti esamą politinę valdžią. Biurokratinės viešojo administravimo strategijos, kurioje buvo linkstama prie po-NVV doktrinos, įgyvendinimas pradžioje nebuvo sėkmingas dėl nepakankamos politinės nuosavybės ir legalistinio požiūrio. Penkioliktosios Andriaus Kubiliaus Vyriausybės vykdomos viešojo valdymo reformos pagrįstos vadybine doktrina, kurioje vyrauja NVV doktrinos bruožai. Partinės logikos ir NVV derinys gali būti prieštaringas ir pavojingas Rytų ir Vidurio Europos šalyse. Kadangi NVV doktrina nedavė gerų rezultatų žemyninės Europos šalyse, jos sprendimai mažai atitinka Lietuvos problemas ir nėra tvirtų įrodymų, jog NVV gali efektyviai veikti Lietuvoje, viešojo valdymo reformų metu ją siūloma taikyti ribotai ir selektyviai. Po-NVV doktrina yra geriausias pagrindas būsimosioms viešojo valdymo reformoms, kurių įgyvendinimas turi būti pagrįstas platesniu politiniu kompromisu, geresniu tarpinstituciniu koordinavimu ir vadybiškesniu požiūriu.

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. Th e 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 diff erent 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 confi gurations in the study of particular reform cases.

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. Th e 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 diff erent 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 confi gurations in the study of particular reform cases.

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. Th e 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 diff erent 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 confi gurations in the study of particular reform cases.

Šiame straipsnyje analizuojamos svarbiausios viešojo valdymo doktrinos (tradicinis administravimas, Naujoji viešoji vadyba, po-NVV ir su ja susijusios doktrinos), įvertinamas doktrininis viešojo valdymo reformų pagrindas Lietuvoje 2004–2010 m., pateikiama siūlymų dėl būsimosios viešojo valdymo reformos darbotvarkės (principų, krypčių ir proceso). Nepaisant vyriausybių politinių pažiūrų ir kadencijų skirtumų, svarbūs viešojo valdymo reformos sprendimai Lietuvoje buvo pagrįsti partine logika, kurios paskirtis yra stiprinti esamą politinę valdžią. Biurokratinės viešojo administravimo strategijos, kurioje buvo linkstama prie po-NVV doktrinos, įgyvendinimas pradžioje nebuvo sėkmingas dėl nepakankamos politinės nuosavybės ir legalistinio požiūrio. Penkioliktosios Andriaus Kubiliaus Vyriausybės vykdomos viešojo valdymo reformos pagrįstos vadybine doktrina, kurioje vyrauja NVV doktrinos bruožai. Partinės logikos ir NVV derinys gali būti prieštaringas ir pavojingas Rytų ir Vidurio Europos šalyse. Kadangi NVV doktrina nedavė gerų rezultatų žemyninės Europos šalyse, jos sprendimai mažai atitinka Lietuvos problemas ir nėra tvirtų įrodymų, jog NVV gali efektyviai veikti Lietuvoje, viešojo valdymo reformų metu ją siūloma taikyti ribotai ir selektyviai. Po-NVV doktrina yra geriausias pagrindas būsimosioms viešojo valdymo reformoms, kurių įgyvendinimas turi būti pagrįstas platesniu politiniu kompromisu, geresniu tarpinstituciniu koordinavimu ir vadybiškesniu požiūriu.