Classic bureaucratic theory (e.g. Weberian), scholars examining development (e.g. Amsden et al, 1994; Evans, 1995; Evans & Rauch, 1999; Nelson, 1994), and transnational bodies (e.g. OECD and the EU) argue that economic development necessitates stable and professional administrative systems. But what are the opportunities for this normative realisation in an environment of frequent change and prolonged uncertainty? The Working Group intends to deal with the often unpredictable nature of the CEE/FIS transitional context. It will explore the consequences of large-scale changes and prolonged uncertainty (i.e. in a political, economic, and systemic sense, etc.) in CEE/FIS countries on administrative behaviour and thus, on the wider governance environment.

This investigation is particularly pressing in light of the fragile state of transition throughout much of the region-- marked by (to name a few) frequent large-scale changes, unpredictable flux, and deep political and societal divisions. This phenomenon has been most recently and considerably accentuated by the global economic and financial (Euro) crisis. Undoubtedly, this chaotic environment carries implications for the internal resilience and stability of both newer and more established public organisations. Some examples of large-scale change and sources of prolonged uncertainty may include high political polarisation, low economic performance and recession, major fiscal constraints, transnational pressure and influence (e.g. the EU, IMF), government centralisation or decentralisation, turnovers in personnel and leadership, institutional reorganisation and restructuring, expansions or reductions in organisational autonomy and independence, changing legal regulations and frameworks, and new public administration reform programmes, etc.

This pattern of regional vulnerability to unpredictability begs the questions: how do public organizations manage in this environment? What are the coping mechanisms of administrative personnel and leadership? And what are the wider implications for governance and governance models? The idea to explore these questions more directly and collaboratively was borne out of a research project concerning appointed elites and personnel turnovers in public organisations in Hungary (Zemandl, 2013). A pilot study linked to this project identified the phenomenon of frequent change and subsequent prolonged uncertainty as a major concern in terms of performance quality and capacity for those working in public organisations. Other contributions have touched on the change and uncertainty phenomenon in various ways, e.g. Heywood and Meyer-Sahling (2008); Meyer-Sahling & Veen (2012); and Evans & Rauch (1999). At the same time, a more extensive exploration of these behavioural questions could inform debates about administrative/governance paradigms in CEE, as well as the appropriate balance between stability and flexibility (e.g. see Randma-Liiv in NISPAcee Winter 2008/2009, Vol. 1, Issue 2). It is difficult to know how models such as the Neo-Weberian State are relevant if we are unclear about the capacity and cultural inclination of administrations to manage both change and stability.

Within the framework of the 2014 NISPAcee conference, we are open to papers which build, advance, or challenge concepts and theories of organisational design and behaviour; methodological discussions on indicators and measures of change and behaviour and empirical case studies treating any or more of the following questions:

(1)What manifestation of large-scale change and prolonged uncertainty - potentially carrying implications for administrative behaviour - are prevalent in CEE? What are the causes?

(2)What are the behavioural implications of frequent change and prolonged uncertainty on administrative personnel and leadership in CEE public organisations? What are the effects on administrative behaviour, culture, and ethos?

(3)Are large-scale changes and prolonged uncertainty compatible with the implementation of different governing models (e.g. Weberian, NPM, governance, etc. etc.)? Is change necessarily undesirable?

(4)If and when deemed necessary, how can organisations foster internal stability in a climate of sustained uncertainty? What best practices exist in the region?