Incentives and Obstacles to the Public Sector and Civil Service Reform: A Conceptual Analysis
In this paper, the nature of incentives and obstacles to public sector and civil service reform is analysed. We will critically examine the popular idea that rationally-conceived reform plans can contribute to reform success. In particular, we will examine the assumption that reform failures can be attributed to a political ‘distortion’ of rationallyconceived reform plans. We will illustrate our analysis with an examination of the (top) civil service reform in the EU27, especially with regard to Eastern European member states.
Research Design & Methods:
This paper is a conceptual paper. The central question is addressed through a systematic examination of crucial concepts using the civil service reform in the EU27 as an illustration.
The argument that political and bureaucratic obstructions thwart the good intentions of rationally-operating reformers is too one-sided and is not helpful in explaining the reform successes and failures developments in the EU27, and in particular in Eastern European countries. Decisions on these reform issues are highly political, as they involve making binding choices about the future and about the existing problems on behalf of both society and government. This is not a technical and unbiased exercise to be completed by neutral internal or external experts.
Implications / Recommendations:
Reforms are essentially the product of a long-lasting process of political, administrative, and societal changes. For reforms to be successful, they must match these changes.
Contribution / Value Added:
Only a corresponding and incremental societal, political, and bureaucratic reform process can offer a solution. Complaints over irrational reform obstacles are thus not only inconducive to successful reforms, but they may actually hinder them.
reforms; political vs. bureaucratic point of view; doctrine of reform neutrality; historic institutional reform foundations
Aberbach, J. D., & Christensen, T., (2014). “Why Reforms So Often Disappoint”. The American Review of Public Administration, 44(1), 3–16.
Avis, W. R. (2015). Factors important to the establishment, renewal or rehabilitation of the civil service. University of Birmingham.
Bouckaert, G., Nemec, J., Nakrosis, V., Hajnal, G., & Tonnisson, K. (2009). Public Management Reforms in Central and Eastern Europe. NISPAcee Press.
Cardona, F. (2009). Integrating National Administrations into the European Administrative Space. Sigma.
Dijkstra, G. S. A., & Van der Meer, F. M. (2020). “The Background, direction, ideas, triggers, and durability of public sector reforms: A conceptual analysis of the EU28 and the Visegrád 4”. In S. Mazur (Ed.), Public Administration in Central Europe: Ideas as Causes of Reform (pp. 75–90). Routledge.
Dijkstra, G. S. A., & Van der Meer, F. M. (2022). “The Politics of Staffing”. In A. Ladner & F. Sager (Eds.), Handbook on the Politics of Public Administration. Edward Elgar, To be published.
Dimitrova, A. (2010). “The New Member States of the EU in the Aftermath of Enlargement: Do New European Rules Remain Empty Shells?” Journal of European Public Policy, 17(1), 137–148.
Drechsler, W., & Randma-Liiv, T. (2015). “The New Public Management Then and Now: Lessons from the Transition in Central and Eastern Europe”. In The New Public Management Then and Now: Lessons from the Transition in Central and Eastern Europe, 12, 33–49. The Other Canon Foundation and Tallinn University of Technology Working Papers in Technology Governance and Economic Dynamics 57, TUT Ragnar Nurkse Department of Innovation and Governance.
Easton, D. (1953). The Political System. An Inquiry in the State of Political Science. Knopf.
Gajduschek, G., & Staronova, K. (2021). “Politicization beyond the Merit-system Façade: The Intricate Relationship between Formal and Informal Institutions of the Senior Civil Service Systems in Central and Eastern Europe”. International Journal of Public Administration, 1–12.
Hobsbawm, E., & Ranger, T. (Eds.) (1983). The Invention of Tradition. Cambridge University Press.
Kiser, L. L., & Ostrom, E. (1982). “The three worlds of action: A metatheoretical synthesis of institutional approaches”. In M. D. McGinnis (Ed.), Polycentric Games and Institutions: Readings from the Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis (pp. 56–89). University of Michigan Press.
Kovač, P., & Bileišis, M. (Eds.) (2017). Public Administration Reforms in Eastern European Union Member States: Post-Accession Convergence and Divergence. University Of Ljubljana, Faculty of Administration Mykolas Romeris University.
Kreko, P., & Enyedi, Z. (2018). “Explaining Eastern Europe: Orbán’s Laboratory of Illiberalism”. Journal of Democracy, 29(3), 39–51.
Lasswell, H. D. (1958). Politics: Who Gets What, When, How. Whittlesey House.
Mazur, S., & Kopyciński, P. (Eds.) (2017). Public Policy and the Neo-Weberian State. Routledge Frontiers of Political Economy, Vol. 235. Routledge.
Meyer-Sahling, J.-H. (2009). “Sustainability of Civil Service Reforms in Central and Eastern Europe Five Years after EU Accession”. SIGMA Papers, No. 44. OECD Publishing.
Meyer-Sahling, J.-H. (2010). “In Search of Past Legacies. Explanations and Administrative Reforms in Post-Communist East Central European Countries”. In M. Painter & B. G. Peters (Eds.), Tradition and Public Administration (pp. 203–217). Palgrave Macmillan.
Meyer-Sahling, J.-H. (2011). “The Durability of EU Civil Service Policy in Central and Eastern Europe after Accession”. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions, 24(2), 231–260.
Meyer-Sahling, J.-H. (2017). “Bureaucracies in Central and Eastern Europe and the Western Balkans”. In A. Fagan & P. Kopecký (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of East European Politics (pp. 126–138). Routledge.
Meyer-Sahling, J.-H., & Toth, F. (2020) “Governing illiberal Democracies; Democratic Backsliding and the Political Appointment of Top Officials in Hungary”. NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy, 13(2), 93–113.
Meyer-Sahling, J.-H., & Yesilkagit, K. (2011). “Differential legacy effects: three propositions on the impact of administrative traditions on public administration reform in Europe East and West”. Journal of European Public Policy, 18(2), 311–322.
Nemec, J. (2018). “Public Administration Reforms in Slovakia: Limited Outcomes (Why?)”. The NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy, 11(1), 115–134.
Nemec, J., & Špaček, D. (Eds.) (2017). 25 Years of Public Administration Developments and Reforms in V4 Region. Masaryk University.
Painter, M., & Peters, B. G. (Eds.) (2010). Tradition and Public Administration. Palgrave Macmillan.
Peters, B. G., & Pierre, J. (2004). The Politicisation of the Civil Service in Comparative Perspective: The Quest for Control. Routledge.
Pakulski, J. (Ed.) (2016). The Visegrád Countries in Crisis. Collegium Civitas.
Pollitt, Ch., & Bouckaert, G. (2011). Public Management Reform. A comparative Analysis – New Public Management, Governance and the Neo-Weberian State. Oxford University Press.
Pollitt, Ch., & Bouckaert, G. (2017). Public Management Reform. A comparative Analysis – Into the Age of Austerity. Oxford University Press.
Pollitt, Ch., Bouckaert, G., Drechsler, W., & Randma-Liiv, T. (Eds.). The NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy, Special Issue: A Distinctive European Model? The Neo-Weberian State, 1(2), 1–108.
Raadschelders, J. C. N. (1998). “Evolution, institutional analysis and path dependency: an administrative history perspective on fashionable approaches and concepts”. International Review Administrative Sciences, 64(4), 565–582.
Raadschelders, J. C. N., & Bemelmans-Videc, M. L. (2015). “Political (System) Reform: Can Administrative Reform Succeed Without?” In F. M. van der Meer, J. C. N. Raadschelders, & Th. A. J. Toonen (Eds.), Comparative Civil Service Systems: Comparative Perspectives (pp. 279–296). Palgrave Macmillan.
Randma-Liiv, T., & Drechsler, W. (2017). “Three decades, four phases: Public administration development in Central and Eastern Europe, 1989–2017”. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 30(6–7), 595–605.
Riggs, F. W. (1964). Administration in Developing Countries: The Theory of Prismatic Society. Houghton Mifflin Company.
Riggs, F. W. (2006). “The Prismatic Model: Conceptualizing Transitional Societies”. In E. E. Otenyo & N. S. Lind (Eds.), Comparative Public Administration. Research in Public Policy Analysis and Management, Vol. 15 (pp. 17–61). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Thijs, N., & Hammerschmid, G. (Eds.) (2018). The Public Administration in EU28. Publications Office of the European Union.
Thijs, N., Hammerschmid, G, & Palaric, E. (2018). A Comparative Overview of Public Administration Characteristics and Performance in the EU28. Publications Office of the European Union.
Van der Meer, F. M., & Dijkstra, G. S. A. (2021). The latitude for loyal contradiction and public leadership: A conceptual and comparative approach. IJPL Pre-release.
Van der Meer, F. M., Raadschelders, J. C. N., & Toonen, Th. A. J. (2008). Administrative Models, Traditions and Reform: Explanations of Last Resort?” Chilean Journal of Public Administration, 31, 85–103.
Van der Meer, F. M., Raadschelders, J. C. N., & Toonen, Th. A. J. (2015). Comparative Civil Service Systems: Comparative Perspectives. Palgrave Macmillan.
Van der Meer, F. M., Steen, T. P. S., & Wille, A. C. (2007). “Western European civil service systems: A comparative analysis”. In: F. M. van der Meer, J. C. N. Raadschelders, & Th. A. J. Toonen (Eds.), Comparative Civil Service Systems in the 21st Century (pp. 34–49). Palgrave.
Verheijen, A. (2000). “Administrative Capacity Development: A Race against Time? Scientific Council for Government Policy”. Working Documents, 107.
Verheijen, A. (2010). “The New Member States, Constructed and Historical Traditions”. In M. Painter & B. G. Peters (Eds.), Tradition and Public Administration (pp. 217–223). Palgrave Macmillan.
Verheijen, A., & Rabrenovic, A. (2015). “Civil Service Development in Central and Eastern Europe: A Perfect Storm”. In F. M. van der Meer (Ed.), Comparative Civil Service Systems: Comparative Perspectives (pp. 15–37). Palgrave Macmillan.
Wright, V., & Page, E. C. (Eds.) (1999). Bureaucratic elites in Western European states. Oxford University Press.
Wright, V., & Page, E. C. (Eds.) (2007). From the active to the enabling State: The changing role of top officials in European nations. Palgrave.
Yesilkagit, K. (2010). “The Future of Administrative Reform and Administrative Traditions”. In M. Painter & B. G. Peters (Eds.), Tradition and Public Administration (pp. 145–158). Palgrave Macmillan.