Search results

The purpose of this chapter is to provide a comprehensive review of empirical research on performance management (PM) in former communist Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries, to evaluate the state of knowledge in this area and suggest possible directions for future research.

An examination of the literature was undertaken to review the empirical studies treating on PM in ex-communist countries from CEE. A total of 96 journal articles, PhD thesis, and conference papers were identified, categorized, and analyzed according to research questions, methodology, and theoretical framework. Contributions are classified by countries, according to progress in transition process (post-transition/transition countries) and membership in the Soviet Union (Soviet/non-Soviet countries). The review examines publications in four languages (English, French, Romanian, and Russian).

The literature review identified various stages of development of PM research and practice in the different groups of CEE countries.

In post-transition CEE countries, PM research follows the trends settled up in the developed countries (quantitative studies examining the extent of usage of different PM tools, influence of contingent factors, relationship PM-strategy, and impact on company’s performance). Also, the findings illustrate the modernization of PM practices: increasing importance of nonfinancial indicators and integrated performance management systems (PMS), although financial indicators are prevailing.

On the contrary, in transition countries PM research and practices are at an early stage, the reviewed literature highlights some specific issues related to transition context: the dynamic aspect of PM, change management, importance of informal systems, cultural aspects, and business traditions.

Because of the large number of CEE countries and the diversity of their national languages, many studies conducted in native languages have not been addressed in this literature review, which is essentially based on publications in English and French. Only for three CEE countries (Russia, Romania, and Moldova) publications in national language were considered.

This literature review may be useful for practitioners, providing insights on the extent of diffusion and usage of different PM tools and identifying difficulties and pitfalls to avoid in their implementation.

The chapter represents one of the first contributions to the knowledge about PM research and practice in former communist CEE countries. The adopted framework for reviewing and classifying the literature allows identifying the differences in PM research and practices between post-transition/transition and Soviet/non-Soviet countries.

This chapter begins with an examination of the complexities, challenges, and contradictions that are presented by policies and practices associated with the College Entrance Examination (CEE) and higher education admissions during the three decades of China's reform era. It then focuses on recent reform polices as outlined in the national education 2020 Blueprint (National Educational Reform and Development Plan, 2010–2020), which deepens the debate about the role of the CEE in shaping the mission of education and distributing opportunities and “talents” affecting social mobility, university autonomy, and national development. The CEE stands at the epicenter of educational reform, criticized for hamstringing institutional autonomy and innovation; reducing schooling to a soulless competition; and unfairly advantaging urban children with greater educational opportunities. This chapter explains the staying power of the CEE and concludes that China's examination culture will intensify in the short term, as the CEE is clung to as a last bastion of meritocracy and is reinforced by the state's desire to cultivate what the 2020 Blueprint labels elite “selected innovative” and “pragmatic” talents. Content and policy analysis is used to explain CEE reform since 1978 and provide a backdrop for discussion of pedagogical, market, and compensatory reform strategies that tinker at the CEE's margins. To take into account micro-institutional processes involved in the CEE's creation, maintenance, and resistance to change, we examine stakeholders' frames of common perception through 2010 interviews with exam candidates and their parents, and faculty and administrators from four Gansu Province universities. These interviews illustrate what the CEE means to diverse families and reveal how admission policies impact students, teachers, and university faculty and administrators at both elite and non-elite higher education institutions. The slow change of CEE reform discourse and practice as China inches from examination-based selection criteria to ability-based selection criteria has begun to redefine the trajectories of recognized “elites,” whose actions are motivated by and reflect the changing needs of society and economic development. Friction and resistance on the ground, therefore, point to the ways in which the changing needs of the labor market, the policy mandates of the national agenda, the meritocratic ideal and the educational desires of China's citizenry intertwine to shape, and be shaped by, CEE policies.

Purpose – This paper contributes to the discussion of the effects of the global financial and economic crisis of 2008–2009 (GFEC) on strategies of multinational companies (MNC) in the unique regional context of Central and Eastern Europe (CEE).

Methodology/approach – The considerations are based on secondary data and accessible studies dealing with corporate responses to the recent economic downturn.

Findings – The author argues that the business model which guided the expansion into CEE still remains valid. The huge market potential did not disappear and the advantages stemming from a skilled workforce and favourable resource situation were not eliminated by the crisis. What markedly changed is the perception of risk of doing business in CEE. As a consequence, foreign investors follow a more cautious and selective approach in their regional strategy. Regional players will try to stay in CEE and benefit from the exit of weaker competitors. Multi-tier brand strategies and affordability initiatives will gain in importance.

Research limitations/implications – As this is a discussion paper further research is necessary to validate the propositions.

Practical implications – An external shock such as the recent crisis forces management to conduct a comprehensive review of the pillars of their strategy. This paper offers a guideline for review of a regional strategy.

Originality/value of paper – The paper provides a comprehensive review of the business model for CEE in the light of the recent global crisis and highlights probable strategic responses of foreign MNCs.

The objective of this chapter is to outline the problem of information security in Russia and Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries since 2000. It demonstrates the specifics of Russian propaganda in the CEE, which visibly poses a security threat to those countries. To address this issue, the authors present the evolution of Russian information policy, propaganda, its tools and instruments (traditional and social media), and examine the mechanisms of exerting social influence used in practice in the CEE countries. The authors discuss the implications of Russia’s information war with the West and for the CEE states’ domestic problems, which provide vast opportunities for Russian activity in the region. Changes in information policy and information management are bound to a revision of Russian foreign policy. The authors assumed that the information war in the CEE is not directed toward the countries of this region but rather aims to weaken the West, especially the European Union. Moreover, there is a need to speak out about the rise of populism and extremist movements exploited through Russian media influence to undermine regional stability and weaken state authorities. Additionally, it is suggested more attention should be paid to education and public awareness. The lack of new media literacy skills, together with the combination of populism and pro-Russia business links in the CEE states, will increase their vulnerabilities to more risks than information security.

This essay explores the relationship between neo-liberal transformation in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) and globalization in the region. It starts with an overview of the increasing level of globalization activities in the CEE countries. The first section of this essay also shows remarkable cross-country diversity among the CEE countries regarding the extent to which their citizens participate in four aspects of globalization, outbound tourism, citizens working abroad, students studying abroad, and internet use. The second section of the essay identifies three ways in which neo-liberalism could affect citizens’ participation in globalization activities. A direct impact of neo-liberalism on globalization could be expected through the spread of similar neo-liberal economic policies and practices in CEE, which would then create the conditions for making citizens in the region more likely to get involved in globalization. Indirectly, neo-liberalism is expected to (1) increase self-reliance among citizens and (2) reduce the level of government spending on social programs, such as education and health care, thus creating less attractive social conditions in each country. The analysis in section three of this essay shows conflicting evidence about the linkages between neo-liberalism and globalization in Central and Eastern Europe. Increased labor-flexibility, one of the most pronounced aspects of neo-liberalism, is associated with reduced participation in globalization activities. The indirect impact of neo-liberalism, however, is quite pronounced. Neo-liberalism is positively associated with the extent of self-reliance among the CEE citizens, yet it also leads to reduced government spending on healthcare and education. Both reduced reliance on the state and reduced spending for these programs, on the other hand are associated with an increase in globalization activities of CEE citizens.

This chapter reports the current status of management practices in the Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) region as seen by international expatriates. Based on the results and expert insights, we aim at giving guidance to MNE leaders and strategy makers as well as operative HRM staff and other expatriate managers how to best exploit the value-added opportunities in the CEE region by adopting the region-specific talent management and staffing policies and practices.

This study is based on the views of 1108 managers on the local management in six CEE countries: Bulgaria, Czechia,¹

In this chapter, the term Czechia is used to refer to the Czech Republic.

MNEs have been able to successfully capitalize on the economic integration and growth of the CEE region during the past 25 years. A new generation of competitive local managers is now growing into leadership positions, but MNEs need to find a more sophisticated way to retain those in the region in order to be able to exploit growth opportunities in future too.

Because the national cultural differences between the six analyzed CEE countries remain very characteristic and divergent, talent management and staffing strategies and policies of MNEs must be adopted and fine-tuned accordingly. Language and communication difficulties, knowledge of the standards management techniques are not a challenge anymore. Instead local management’s soft skills, leadership values and attitudes need to be developed now simultaneously with increasing wages, as the most talented local staff and management is readily relocating into higher-wage countries.

The originality and scholarly interest of this study lies in its cross-cultural, comparative approach. The originality and practical interest of this study is that it gives clear recommendations to MNE and expat managers. Furthermore the presented results have been tested during critical forum discussions with more than 60 CEE-experienced managers, expatriates, and the representatives several foreign chambers of trade and commerce held at the Central European University Business School in spring 2015.

The authors’ aim is to establish the variance of youth welfare citizenship regimes in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) and to revisit the applicability of the regime approach to the emerging welfare regimes (EWRs).

The empirical analysis follows the descriptive case study strategy aiming to discover diversity of youth welfare citizenship patterns. The case selection is made within the CEE country group, which includes countries in Central Europe, the Baltics, Eastern Europe and Southeast Europe, all sharing the communist past. The subdivision of these countries in reference to the welfare states can be made via the European Union (EU) membership based on the assumption that EU social policy frameworks and recommendations have an important effect on domestic policies. We included countries which are in the EU, i.e., with a similar political and economic transition path. There were three waves of accession to the EU in CEE countries. In the first wave (2004), all the Baltic countries, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland, Hungary and Slovenia joined. In the second wave (2007), Romania and Bulgaria joined. Finally, Croatia joined the EU in 2013. Altogether 11 CEE countries are the EU members today, the remaining CEE countries are non-EU members and thus are excluded from the current research. Those countries which are part of the EU share similarities in social and economic reforms during the pre-accession period and after in order to reach a comparatively similar system with other member states. So, in terms of casing strategy these six countries can be named as emerging welfare regimes (EWRs) evolving transformations across different public policy areas. Handpicking of six countries out of 11 relies on the assumption that the Anglo-Saxon welfare system characteristics are more evident in the Baltic countries (Aidukaite, 2019; Aidukaite et al., 2020; Ainsaar et al., 2020; Rajevska and Rajevska, 2020) and Slovenia, while in Bulgaria and Croatia certain outcomes reflect the Bismarckian principles of social security (Hrast and Rakar, 2020; Stoilova and Krasteva, 2020; Dobrotić, 2020). This brings important variety into our analysis logic. Last but not least, we juxtapose six CEE EWR countries under analysis with six mature welfare regime countries representing different welfare regime types. Those mature welfare regime countries (Finland, Sweden, France, Germany, Italy, UK) are not an explicit object of the study but help to put analysed CEE EWR cases into larger context and thus, reflect upon theoretical claims of the welfare regime literature.

The authors can confirm that the EWR countries can be rather well explained by the welfare citizenship typology and complement the existing knowledge on youth welfare regime typology clusters in the Western Europe. Estonia is clustered close to the Nordic countries, whereas Latvia, Lithuania, Croatia and Slovenia are close to the Bismarckian welfare model despite rather flexible, non-restricted educational path, universal child and student support. Bulgaria is an outlier; however, it is clustered together with mature Mediterranean welfare regimes. Former intact welfare regime clusters are becoming more diverse. The authors’ findings confirm that there is no any intact cluster of the “post-communist” welfare regime and Eastern European countries are today “on move”.

Altogether 11 CEE countries are the EU members today. The remaining CEE countries are non-EU members and thus are excluded from the current research. Those countries which are part of the EU share similarities in social and economic reforms during the pre-accession period and after in order to reach a comparatively similar system with other member states. At least one CEE country was chosen based on existing theoretical knowledge on the welfare regime typology (Anglo Saxon, Beveridgean, Bismarckian) for the Post-communist country groups.

In the social citizenship dimension we dropped social assistance schemes and tax-relief indices and included poverty risk and housing measures. Youth poverty together with housing showed rather clear distinction between familialized and individualised countries and thus, made the typology stronger. In the economic dimension the preliminary picture was much fuzzier, mainly due to the comprehensive education in the region and intervention of the EU in domestic ALMPs (and VET) reforms. The authors added a new indicator (pro-youth orientation of ALMP) in order better to capture youth-sensitivity of policy.

The authors included a working poverty measure (in-work poverty rate) in order to reflect labour market insecurity as an increasing concern. Yet, the analysis results were still mixed and new indicators did not help locating the regime types.

In order to improve the validity of the youth welfare citizenship regime economic dimension, Chevalier's (2020) model may also be worth revisiting. The authors argue that this dichotomy is not sufficient, because inclusive type can have orientation towards general skills or occupational skills (i.e. monitored or enabling citizenship clusters), which is currently ignored. Chevalier (2020) furthermore associates inclusive economic citizenship with “coordinated market economies” (referring to Hall and Soskice, 2001), which seems hardly hold validity in the Nordic and at least some CEE countries.

The purpose of this paper is to present an analysis of the size of the banking sectors in central and Eastern European (CEE) countries. The banking sectors' ability is focused to provide financial intermediation between savers and investors in the economy.

The existing literature on banking in transition economies argues in unison that banking sectors in CEE countries are too small and do not provide sufficient levels of financial intermediation. In this paper, a common drawback of the existing measures used to indicate the size of CEE banking sectors is detected: they all relate the volume of bank intermediation to gross domestic product (GDP). It is argued that since transition economies have a low stock of financial wealth relative to economic activity, a more objective measure of the size of the banking sector is the ratio of bank assets to a proxy of the stock of financial wealth rather than to GDP.

There is evidence that the estimation of the size of the banking sectors relative to GDP produce downward biased measures for the ability of CEE banks to intermediate available financial resources. When the size of the banking sector is measured relative to financial wealth, the gap between the developed European Union banking systems and those of the CEE countries is not as severe as argued in studies based on the traditional approach of measuring the size of the banking system with respect to GDP.

Using the downward biased measure of financial system development to stress the underdevelopment of the financial intermediation in CEE may produce misleading policy recommendations, e.g. recommendations in the direction of rapid financial system expansion by lowering barriers of entry for new banks. The authors' new measure presents an alternative that should be considered by policy makers in the design of measures promoting financial system development.

The paper challenges the existing consensus on severe underdevelopment of the CEE banking sectors. It presents a new approach of accessing financial system development in emerging economies.

The purpose of this paper is to provide a comprehensive overview of the public administration (PA) development in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) from an ex post perspective covering the past three decades.

The paper reviews prior literature on CEE and PA paradigms. The authors propose to distinguish between four main phases of public sector development in new democracies: post-communist transition, EU accession, post-accession fine-tuning, and e-governance.

There were many common features in the polities and PAs of the CEE countries at the beginning of the 1990s because of their common communist legacy, and also during the EU accession period, stemming from the “administrative capacity” requirement by the EU. However, domestic decisions of individual CEE governments following accession have moved them apart from each other. While some CEE countries face reversals of democratic public governance reforms, others are leading e-government initiatives – the current phase of public sector development.

The choice of countries is limited to the new member states of the European Union.

The paper shows that it is increasingly difficult to generalize findings, let alone to offer recommendations, that apply to all CEE countries. This is likely to lead to an end of a specific CEE administrative tradition as previously conceptualized in academic literature.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the issues faced by institutional investors looking to invest in the Central and Eastern European (CEE) region. In particular, the paper seeks to ascertain the views of practitioners on the reasons for undertaking CEE investment, the structures of their investment processes for the CEE region, the barriers to CEE investment, and the future of the CEE region.

A series of semi‐structured interviews was conducted with institutional investors who had substantial knowledge and experience of investing in the CEE region.

The findings indicated that funds followed a bottom‐up approach whereby they researched company fundamentals and then applied a macroeconomic overview in their decision. The risks considered were not those frequently discussed in the current literature. For example, while currency risk and political risk were not seen as problematic, interviewees were concerned with liquidity problems and corporate governance issues. Finally, investors thought that the economic growth of the CEE region, together with its convergence with the EU, would create a more attractive investment environment than that available in other emerging market regions.

The paper addresses the more qualitative aspects of CEE investment decisions, such as perceptions about the risks of acquiring shares in CEE firms, by analysing practitioner perspectives on equity investment in the region. This qualitative approach facilitates an investigation of issues which cannot be captured in quantitative analyses.