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? Having held its first inaugural sessions during the 2014 annual NISPAcee Conference in Budapest, Xorking Group XI will continue to deal with this question in the context of CEE/FIS countries, exploring the implications of prolonged uncertainty of administrative behaviour and governance. In this vein, the Working Group is aimed at exploring answers to the following lines of inquiry:

1. What are causes of prolonged uncertainty in CEE/FIS?

2. What are the effects of prolonged uncertainty on administrative behaviour and culture? How much uncertainty can we tolerate and for how long?

3. How can public organisations cope with uncertainty and ensure more stability? To what extent are western models applicable? What are the best practices in the region?

This investigation is particularly pressing in light of the fragile state of transition throughout much of the region—marked by frequent large-scale changes, unpredictable flux, and deep political and societal divisions. Undoubtedly, this chaotic environment carries implications for the internal resilience and stability of both newer and more established public organisations.

In 2014, Working Group contributions featured broad and rich examples of large-scale change and sources of prolonged uncertainty. They can be distilled down to the following overarching themes, each presenting an opportunity for further exploration within the NISPAcee framework: unresolved issues concerning fundamental political, societal, and institutional systems and structures, lack of continuity and maturity of reforms, short-termism, lack of political consensus and long-term strategising, radicalisation, lack of trust (political and societal), conflict (political, societal), radicalisation, and low government capacity.

This pattern of regional vulnerability to unpredictability poses the following questions: How do public organisations manage in this environment? What are the coping mechanisms? and, What are the wider implications for governance and governance models? The idea of exploring these questions more directly and collaboratively was borne out of a research project concerning appointed elites and personnel turnover 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.

In general, the papers and subsequent discussions emanating from the 2014 conference recognised the merits of western models (e.g., Weberian public administration, governance), but also highlighted the incompatibility between the political, social, and institutional reality on the ground and the wholesale implementation of these models. Transcending the focus to western models, one presenter, for example, promoted the notion of "strategic governance” and proposed that a panel be devoted to this topic at the 2015 NISPAcee conference. Another participant floated the notion of a "search for a national idea” as a way to address uncertainty during phases of transition.

The 2014 conference generated a great deal of lively debate and information exchange. In light of the interesting contributions and fruitful (but unresolved) discussions which ensued, we think that the new Working Group has great potential to advance knowledge in not only diagnosing, but also remedying, the schizophrenic effects of prolonged uncertainty in a transition context.

The 2015 Call will invite contributions to address all or any of the WG’s three main lines of inquiry, but we wish to build from the debates and discussions of the 2014 conference. In that respect, we are particularly interested in papers which have a strong theoretical component. Therefore, we encourage you to submit papers which address the following (cross-country collaborations are especially encouraged!):

·What are the effects of prolonged uncertainty on administrative behaviour and culture? How much uncertainty can we tolerate and for how long? How can the theory of organisationsoffer a way forward in understanding and dealing with these phenomena (if indeed it can)?

·What are the opportunities and limits of governance paradigms which incorporate long-term thinking and strategising?

Since the WG is still in its infancy, we also aim to take advantage of the 2015 conference to build up our membership. The contributions will be published on the conference CD, and there may also be opportunities to publish in the NISPAcee journal.