- Bernadette Connaughton, Department of Politics and Public Administration, University of Limerick, Ireland, Bernadette.Connaughton@ul.ie
- Arnošt Veselý, Faculty of Social Sciences, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic, email@example.com
Despite long-standing scholarly interest in the actual daily work of public officials, empirical evidence was, until recently, rather rare. This changed during the mid-2000s with qualitative case studies (Page & Jenkins, 2005; Colebatch, 2006), and a series of large-scale quantitative studies (Wellstead, Stedman & Lindquist, 2009; Howlett & Wellstead, 2011). However, with a few exceptions (Meyer-Sahling 2009, Veselý 20414) very little empirical research on the work, beliefs and relations with politicians has been carried out (and published) in CEE countries.
A cognate literature on the role of political staff (Hustedt, Kollveit and Houlberg Salomonsen; 2017; Craft 2016) also emerged during the mid-2000s. Political staff – whether they are special advisers, personal political assistants, or partisan appointees – are appointed by ministers and are located in the borders between politics and administration. The scholarship on political staff has evolved from empirical studies of the institutional arrangements of political appointees in Westminster systems (Eichbaum and Shaw, 2010), to studies incorporating other political-administrative traditions. It has also advanced to comparative analysis (Maley, 2018) and theorising the role of political staff (Shaw and Eichbaum, 2018). The role undertaken by these actors may be recognised under a variety of labels but empirical insights from CEE countries are under-represented in this literature.
• Policy work of public officials in CEE
• Role of political staff (partisan appointees, special advisers, policy adviser) in CEE and their institutional arrangements
• Assessments of politico-administrative relations in CEE and comparative papers