Search results

Despite the growing volume of European Union (EU) investments into reforms and public administration, how EU support contributes to administrative reform and capacity building at domestic level is still unclear. The article explains the EU's influence, domestic politicisation and previous administrative capacity on organisational change whilst implementing European Social Fund-financed projects during the programming period 2014–2020.

By going beyond the EU-centred approach and based on different strands of the new institutionalism, the authors offer three explanations on the influence of EU support. The authors performed the qualitative content analysis of 29 case studies and matched the implementation of the projects with the authors' explanations.

The authors' research results indicate that progress in the implementation of the projects was determined by domestic factors rather than EU conditionalities. The influence of domestic politicisation was found to be mixed, but higher levels of initial administrative capacity proved to be most important to achieving organisational change.

The authors' judgement of the project implementation and their success was based on the information provided in the case studies at the time of implementation.

The authors' research points to the essential need for the initial and gradual development of administrative capacity to achieve good reform results.

Based on the different logics of the new institutionalism, we developed specific mechanisms for organisational change. The authors' research results deepen the understanding of how politicisation positively or negatively shapes reform implementation, as well as how pre-existing administrative capacity and further development of pre-existing administrative capacity dynamically occurs through a process of socialisation and learning.

Examines recent reform initiatives in the PRC compared with advanced industralised democracies, searching for common attributes in order to establish, if possible, global patterns in such administrative reform initiatives. Reviewing these issues, admits that administrative reform, along with all other matters, is decided by the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party. Details the history of Chinese administrative reform since the early 1950s. Asks, in conclusion, whether reform initiatives in the PRC are similar to those elsewhere. The PRC clearly differs in this from the principles of the New Public Management (NPM). However, with global economic competition and the increasingly free dissemination of ideas the PRC may find it hard to resist reform. Even so, administrative reforms borrowed from elsewhere will invariably be influenced by Chinese ethnocentric characteristics.

Japan has had four periods of public sector reform since World War II. This chapter discusses the leadership for reform during the occupation period, the high economic growth period, the low economic growth period and the search for a ‘new’ Japan under various present difficulties. Reforms reflect the priorities of the time and interests of prime ministers, whose style of functioning also affects how public sector reforms are advanced. During the occupation period, the Administrative Management Agency was established in the Prime Minister’s Office and was responsible for the overall management of national government organizations. It was staffed by civil servants who were experts in their areas. Since the 1980s, furthering privatization, deregulation and reorganization, advisory councils for the prime minister were also used, involving influential business leaders and scholars.

This chapter shows that political leadership, especially that of the prime minister and minister in charge of administrative reform, is important in deciding on highly political issues, to persuade or direct politicians and administrators to follow the leadership, to inspire and get the support of the general public and to ensure the support or acceptance of those concerned. Where prime ministers are not directly involved, leadership is provided by professional administrators under the general support of the prime minister and the minister responsible for administrative reforms. It is also pointed out that reform sustainability occurs through institutionalization, incentives, management and producing meaningful results.

China′s market‐oriented reforms have brought about fundamental changes not just to its economy, but also to urban governance. The reforms have significantly changed urban development from its previous pattern which was largely determined by decision makers within the central government. Reform measures have transformed the role, functions and processes of urban government and have made them a force to be reckoned with in the whole reform endeavour. Examines and analyses issues of administrative reform at the urban government level in ten years of economic reform since 1979. Looks at three aspects of the problem – the trend towards financial decentralization; institutional changes in local administration; and changes in the relationship between urban government and the local economy. Argues that there is an unfinished agenda of administrative reform that needs to be faced by the authorities concerned if the mighty endeavour of economic reform is to succeed.

An attempt will be made to shed light on the course and pattern of the decentralization process by analyzing the historical development of local government and the territorial-administrative reform of 2015-2020 in Albania and the factors that have been shaping it. The scope is to understand the impact of the reform elements on the subnational governments and in general their overall impact on the government. The purpose of this paper is to fill the gap in the existing literature for Albania and at offering some insights on the administrative-territorial reform. Furthermore, it will contribute to the current debate on fiscal decentralization in South Eastern European (SEE) countries and the public management model implemented after the last reforms.

The first section analyzes the historical development of local government reforms from the 1990s to today and will help to identify if there is instrumentalism advocacy. The second section explains the determinants of the local government’s fiscal autonomy in Albania of the period from 2003 to 2016. Three indicators are used as proxies for fiscal decentralization: the proportion of subnational expenditure over national expenditure, of total subnational revenues over total revenues of central government and the indicator of own subnational revenues over total revenues of the central government. The data from the budget and the revised budgets are then compared.

Despite Albania’s commitment to decentralize its government functions, there is still work to do. The territorial and administrative reform has not generated the expected results. Almost 90 percent of the revenues still come from the central government’s unconditional transfers. Therefore, the Albanian Government should build capacities and skills, and train the employees of each level of government that currently benefit from international assistance.

The analysis represents a single case study on the territorial-administrative reform in Albania. Its implementation started in 2015 and it is probably too early to discuss outcomes. However, it might be useful to analyze the first results after a two-and-a-half-year period of implementation of reforms. Despite contributing to the existing gap in the literature, additional research will be necessary to better understand the decentralization process not only in Albania, but in all SEE countries.

It is necessary to first understand the lack of initial output, as well as the various challenges faced, in order to take the corrective measures on time.

This paper discusses in detail the reform adopted and the progress made by the Albanian local government units. The reform attempts to develop better relationships between the central and local governments and hence improve their service delivery, transparency and accountability. This paper is the first one that is attempting to analyze the initial output of the territorial-administrative reform of 2015-2020.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate organisational accountability to less economically powerful stakeholders in the absence of formal corporate social reporting (CSR) guidelines. In addition, this study emphasises the role of administrative and institutional reforms in empowering stakeholders in a developing country context, namely, Bangladesh.

Consistent with prior literature, this qualitative study collected data through semi-structured interviews with 23 representatives from NGOs, media, civil society, customers, regulators, trade union leaders and employees who are considered as less economically powerful stakeholders. This paper draws on the demand for administrative reforms along with an institutional support structure (Owen et al., 1997) to enhance CSR and corporate accountability.

The empirical evidence shows that there is a need for a stand-alone mandatory CSR to achieve stakeholder accountability. It also shows that there are demands from “stakeholders to right to know” about the company’s social and environmental performance along with stakeholder engagements. There is a perceived demand for administrative reform along with institutional supports that can contribute to the CSR development in Bangladesh. These administrative reforms would encourage transparent corporate social and environmental practices. Given the socio-economic and vulnerable environmental conditions of Bangladesh, stakeholders in this study suggested contextually relevant CSR guidelines towards greater accountability.

This paper is one of the few engagement-based studies which explore the perceptions of less economically powerful stakeholders towards CSR developments in an emerging economy – Bangladesh. The findings of this study using the theoretical lens of accountability with administrative and institutional reforms lead us to conclude that companies in Bangladesh have low level of CSR towards stakeholder accountability and stakeholder engagements.

The paper contributes to the CSR literature by highlighting the needs of CSR from the stakeholder’s accountability perspective.

In his pioneering book, Gerald E. Caiden defined administrative reform as “the artificial inducement of administrative transformation against resistance” (Caiden, 1969, p. 1). Caiden's definition has three implications: (1) administrative reform is artificially stimulated by man and is not accidental, automatic, or natural; (2) administrative reform is a transformatory process; and (3) resistance is a concomitant of the process of administrative reform (Dey, 1971, p. 560).

The chapter summarises findings from a study on administrative reforms covering all central government ministries and agencies in 19 countries, examining reform trajectories seen from the top of the central administrative apparatus. Core structural features of the central bureaucracy are described, along with role perceptions, values and motivation of administrative executives. Reform processes, trends, content and management tools are addressed, leading up to similarities and differences between the Nordic countries and between them and other European families of countries. A main finding is that the Nordic bureaucracy represents a layered, complex and hybrid system combining different reform trends and that there is a clear North–South divide in Europe when it comes to administrative reforms.

The paper proposes to look at the transformational strategies undertaken in relation to the 1989‐1997 French administrative reform process and to examine their impact on the ministerial field services through using Burgelman's “model of the interaction of strategic behaviour, corporate context and the concept of strategy”.

Empirical research was carried out in a field service of the French Education Ministry with the presentation of the findings being structured around Burgelman's criteria for autonomous strategic behaviour. These criteria – operational slack, project champion, circumvention of the structural context and organisational champion – provided a mechanism to assess whether operational and institutional factors at field service level impeded or facilitated moves towards a more managerial logic of appropriateness as envisaged by the reform programmes during this period.

The explanatory insights of Burgelman's model show how the resilience of traditional institutional features minimised the transformational impact of the reforms.

Burgelman's model is able to facilitate a greater understanding of the 1989‐1997 French administrative reform process through identifying those conditions conducive to micro‐organisational actors exercising greater autonomy in their operational management. In this way, the organisational dynamics that constrained the transformational impact of the reforms could be highlighted and an explanation provided of why the respective reform programmes had minimal effect at field service level.

The paper will be of relevance to those interested in the effect of the new public management agenda on national administrations in Europe and the applicability of private sector models in affording explanatory insights into such processes of change.

This study examines the administrative role played by the state of North Carolina in the provision of welfare. A survey of county professionals was conducted in April 2000 assessing perceptions of how well the state was performing its administrative functions. Fifty-three survey items composed ten indices that were grouped into three categories of resources, leadership and accountability. Logistic regression analyses examined perceptions of the state's Resources, Leadership, and Accountability administrative capacity in relationship to the four Work First Report Card measures of (1) putting people to work, (2) having them stay off of welfare, (3) reducing the number on welfare, and (4) collecting child support. Findings indicate that the state's efforts are not perceived as contributing to the success of welfare reform. Administrative capacity perceptions account for little of the variation explained by the logistic regressions. The state is not perceived as contributing to putting people to work or helping them to stay off of welfare subsequently. It actually is seen as slightly hindering efforts at reducing the welfare rolls. Only in the area of child support collection does state administrative capacity (in leadership and budgeting) improve the odds for success.