The 31th NISPAcee Annual Conference

Conference 2023 Beograd, Serbia, May 25-27, 2023

Excellent conference. I really enjoyed the papers, speakers, schedule and location and great staff!

D.B., United States, 27th NISPAcee Annual Conference 2019, Prague

...relating to public administration and policy. Good opportunities for networking.

N.D., Georgia, 27th NISPAcee Annual Conference 2019, Prague

Excellent participants, argument-driven discussions, impartial and supportive Chairs in the Working Group.

D.G., Republic of North Macedonia, 27th NISPAcee Annual Conference 2019, Prague

...to detail and I really enjoyed the supportive and encouraging atmosphere there. Thank you!

R.B., Lithuania, 27th NISPAcee Annual Conference 2019, Prague

...both in terms of academic quality and logistics, and also social events. It was a true joy.

E.Z., Bulgaria, 27th NISPAcee Annual Conference 2019, Prague

...The special programmes were really excellent and we took home many varied experiences.

P.N., Hungary, 27th NISPAcee Annual Conference 2019, Prague

...Sessions were interesting, scholars were engaging and all the social events were amazing!

B.K., Kazakhstan, 26th NISPAcee Annual Conference 2018, Iasi

Excellent organization, excellent food. Compliments to the organizers, they did a wonderful job!

V.J., Netherlands, 26th NISPAcee Annual Conference 2018, Iasi

...I must say that the PhD pre-conference seminar was the most useful seminar of my life. Very well...

K.V., Czech Republic, 26th NISPAcee Annual Conference 2018, Iasi

... I would even argue that they are the very best - both in terms of scientific content and also entertainment…

P.W., Denmark, 26th NISPAcee Annual Conference 2018, Iasi

An opportunity to learn from other researchers and other countries' experiences on certain topics.

G.A.C., Hungary, 25th Conference 2017, Kazan

Very well organised, excellent programme and fruitful discussions.

M.M.S., Slovakia, 25th Conference 2017, Kazan

The NISPAcee conference remains a very interesting conference.

M.D.V., Netherlands, 25th Conference 2017, Kazan

Thank you for the opportunity to be there, and for the work of the organisers.

D.Z., Hungary, 24th Conference 2016, Zagreb

Well organized, as always. Excellent conference topic and paper selection.

M.S., Serbia, 23rd Conference 2015, Georgia

Perfect conference. Well organised. Very informative.

M.deV., Netherlands, 22nd Conference 2014, Hungary

Excellent conference. Congratulations!

S. C., United States, 20th Conference 2012, Republic of Macedonia

Thanks for organising the pre-conference activity. I benefited significantly!

R. U., Uzbekistan, 19th Conference, Varna 2011

Each information I got, was received perfectly in time!

L. S., Latvia, 21st Conference 2013, Serbia

The Conference was very academically fruitful!

M. K., Republic of Macedonia, 20th Conference 2012, Republic of Macedonia

 :: Anonymous user Login / Register 

Optimised for Tablet | Smartphone

 Paper/Speech Details of Conference Program  

for the  31st NISPAcee Annual Conference
  Program Overview
WG4: Politico-Administrative Relations in CEE
Author(s)  Róbert Martin Hudec 
  Comenius University
Bratislava  Slovakia
Bernadette Connaughton, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland Róbert Martin Hudec, Comenius University, Bratislava, Slovakia Katarína Staroňová, Comenius University, Bratislava, Slovakia 
 
 Title  Centralization of decision-making – a way to bypass expert advice? Comparison of Irish and Slovak advisory bodies for Covid-19 crisis
File   Paper files are available only for conference participants, please login first. 
Presenter  Róbert Martin Hudec
Abstract  
  
During last decades, the decision-making process started to change, with greater involvement of different types of actors, including policy advisors and experts. This decentralization has various possible forms and differs in levels of political control over the influence and entrance of advisors and experts in decision-making processes. However, the cases of both the financial crisis and the Covid-19 pandemics show us attempts of governments to reassert control over policy advice and centralize decision making.

This article aims to explain how two different countries used their PAS (policy advisory system) during times of crisis. The comparison is made in two selected cases, Ireland and Slovakia. These countries differ greatly in their political systems, administrative traditions, and their setting of politico-administrative relationships, where Irish public administration is highly meritocratic, which contrasts with Slovak over politicized unstable civil service. However, during the Covid-19 pandemics, both countries established new advisory units instead of using the already established ones, the Irish National Public Health Emergency Team and the Permanent Crisis Committee in Slovakia. In Slovakia, in addition, an informal Consortium of experts was in operation.

This paper focuses on analyzing how and why these bodies created and how they replaced existing advisory units that were already functioning within the countries, what their role within advice making was and how was their advice utilized by decision makers.