Paper/Speech Details of Conference Program for the 15th NISPAcee Annual Conference Program Overview I. Working Group on Politico-Administrative Relations Author(s) Maria Keris Tallinn University Tallinn Estonia Title Minister’s advisors interfacing at the “summit”: the case of Estonia File Paper files are available only for conference participants, please login first. Presenter Abstract Abstract The political-administrative dichotomy has always influenced the formation and performance of elites involved in decision-making process. In turn, the former is also much influenced by the region’s leadership and managers. Changes in style and form of “administering the summit” (administration of the core executives; Peters et al (eds.) (2000) occur permanently and is a process itself. For example, the results of institutionalization or emergence of new bodies or elites within the summit, as for example, advisory bodies, ministerial cabinets etc. The formers are strongly penetrated into the system of leadership as they have those new competences very frequently required within a public sector: to be not only good administrator, but also a good politician and visa versa. This brings alone new forms of leadership and management. In fall 2005, the comparative case study of ministers’ advisors in Estonia has been carried. As there were no studies done on this concrete topic before, it has revealed many important things concerning the actual policy and politics making different styles within a single ministry through the prisma of minister’s advisor position. Among other issues, there has been a clear conclusion that advisor has much more political-background information which helps in smoothing the policy-making within the ministry. This information is coming from advisor’s status to represent ministry outside, ex in parliamentary commissions, so to act much as a broker for a single minister’s policy implementing, or at least, meet a lot with politicians and officials “out of the house.” What is interesting, however, are such interactions outsides a single ministry, with other elites, structures and processes that interface at the ‘summit’ (for example PMO) and what does it give, how does it result in, for example, agenda setting, policy advice and coordination/steering in a single ministry. According to previous study conclusions there are different types of advice and advisors, so, we can assume it would also have its impact on how they act at the “summit.”
