Report
The Working Group on Politico-Administrative Relations (PAR) in CEE held three sessions at the Belgrade conference gathering. The PAR themes covered were explored in relation to country representation from Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Ireland, Poland, Romania, and Slovakia.
Our papers investigated familiar, yet enduring, themes in politico-administrative relations – the appointment, retention and turnover of top public servants, patronage and rewards, control of the bureaucracy vs meritocracy, political and administrative coordination, impacts of government formation/coalition, governments, legislative changes, trust. Underlying the PAR challenges arising in most of the cases covered is the entrenchment and extent of politicisation. The central level of government was covered in most papers which looked at advisers, the role of external actors and experts, advisory committees/structures, coordination mechanisms, the expansion and (political) capacities of Prime Ministers’ Offices, and policy advisory systems (PAS) (notably Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovakia). Attention to the local level was illustrated in the Romanian case and Labour Offices in Slovakia.
The sessions also included a study of developing a climate action plan at the local level. The analysis of the Prague climate plan case used a framework to acknowledge the significance of ceremony and ritual in policy formulation and understanding the interactions and influence of key policy making actors. An additional paper looking at the local level in Poland explored governance structures, leadership, and community power. All those who registered had been also present. 2 people from accepted papers did not register.
Two significant issues arose in the deliberations:
-First, a reminder that conceptual frameworks and theoretical approaches developed to investigate PAR in Western liberal democracies may have limited utility in guiding explanations of PAR in Central and Eastern European settings experiencing democratic backsliding, recurrent crises, hyper-politicisation, lack of trust and transparency. There are a range of circumstances and experiences in the countries reviewed in the working group whereby standard typologies and interpretations of politicisation phenomena clearly do not demonstrate a ‘goodness of fit’. This is evident in role definitions and accommodations, the complexities in mapping career pathways, patterns of personalisation and patronage, the use of personal networks to address deficits in expertise, so-called ‘invisible advisers’, the pervasiveness and grip of party (and leadership) control in state institutions and distribution of resources.
-Second, the dilemma of a lack of publicly available electronic data sources, the potential limitations of freedom of information requests and some evidence of misreporting on the civil and public service. Authors referred to the ‘research of the missing data’ as these gaps makes it very difficult to map and survey PAR themes and illustrate a lack of transparency.
A call for papers for the 32nd NISPAcee conference in Tbilisi will be issued in the coming months. We look forward to collaborating with our working group members and welcome new participants. Early career researchers and PhD students working on PAR themes are also encouraged to submit abstracts on PAR topics for the next working group sessions.