Around the Central and Eastern European (CEE) region, the concepts of government and governance are in the spotlight. Far-reaching developments, achievements and, especially in the last few years, problems of the state and public administration are raising the basic questions of government and governance; what their role should be, what they can and cannot do, and how best to do it.

Governance has, over the past two decades, become an often-used term in globally as well as in our region. This alleged shift from a more traditional "government orientation” to "governance orientation” – involving, among others, an increased reliance on horizontal, market- and partnership-based state-society relations as opposed to a more hierarchy- and authority based one – has already been analysed extensively. However, the particular and common developments, opportunities and risks of the CEE countries have received less attention. In addition, the conclusions of the debate are even less clear-cut in this part of the world. Some argue that markets and, increasingly, networks provide the CEE countries with great improvement potentials that were suppressed during the previous historical epochs of state dominance. However, the voices drawing attention to the associated threats of corruption, ungovernability and even state capture – exacerbated by such factors as the weakness of formal and informal institutions of liberal democratic governance – kept on growing in number and strength over the past years.

The debate unfolding in the context of these tensions both in academic and policy arenas triggered several influential and new concepts and propositions regarding future (and, possibly, favourable) syntheses such as ‘New Public Governance’, ‘post-NPM’, or the ‘Neo-Weberian State’. The practical relevance of such alternatives to governance has increased over the past few years, and especially since the outbreak of the present economic and financial crisis. It seems that the state is, in an increasing number of CEE countries and to an increasing extent, ‘back in’ once again.

In 2014, re-visiting the propositions, products and prospects of Neo-Weberian approaches is especially timely because this year, we celebrate the 150th anniversary of the birth of Max Weber. Here, again, we confront a number of questions. Many of these are similar to those appearing in other regions of Europe, such as the challenges and possibly diverse outcomes related to imbuing Weberian bureaucracies with an outward-looking and proactive orientation or to tackling increasingly ‘wicked’ and globalized policy issues using hierarchy-based philosophies and instruments. However, here again, a number of issues more pressing, or even more idiosyncratic, appear on CEE countries’ horizon. The sources of these challenges are in many respects similar to those that appeared in relation to the government vs. governance debate. However, several additional ones deserve further attention, which in the final analysis might come down to the malleability of classical Weberian virtues of public administration and the continued existence, possibly even dominance, of pre-Weberian ethos, culture and practices – sometimes even institutions – of public governance.

Thus academics and practitioners interested in, or facing, public administration and governance-related problems of the CEE countries encounter an intriguing array of questions and issues. To mention but a few: