Paper/Speech Details of Conference Program for the 20th NISPAcee Annual Conference Program Overview PA Reform Author(s) Karin Hilmer Pedersen Aarhus University Aarhus C Denmark Johannsen Lars, Title Pluralism in public administration: The Baltic countries File Paper files are available only for conference participants, please login first. Presenter Karin Hilmer Pedersen Abstract The transformation of the public administration in Eastern Europe has resulted in administrative pluralism, that is reminisces of Soviet administration, Weberianism transferred from the European Union, and New Public Management promoted by bilateral projects and a specific Zeitgeist. We claim that each of these administrative models carry with them risks in terms of corruption, the principal obstacle for improving quality of government and sustainability of democracy. The Soviet administrative model mixed formal hierarchical control and extensive informal use of personal ties and networks which under the siege of the Communist Party and in light of chronicle shortage was the way to get the administration going. Intuitively, continuing use of personal connections contains a risk that administrative decisions are taken in an impartial way whether or not this includes direct corrupt acts. In the model of New Public Management model the risk of corruption stems from the model’s focus on the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of administrative systems thereby neglecting variables including probity, equality, process-orientation and accountability (Gregory 2002; Savoie 1995). ‘Werberianism’ in public administration, the third model, reflects a system in which civil servants are appointed and operate under the principles of merit selection, impartiality, hierarchy, division of labour, career advancement, the written form and legality. The paper analyses if and how different combinations of the three public administration models enhance vis-á-vis prevent the level of corruption. Empirically the paper is based on a survey among 1500 civil servants in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania conducted spring 2011. In the analysis we first identify the concrete combination of public administration models is measured by how civil servants describe their own organization. Second, we contrast these combinations with the same civil servants’ perception of the level of corruption within their own organization.
