WG Programme Coordinators:
Diana-Camelia Iancu, National School of Political Studies and Public Administration, Faculty of Public Administration, Bucharest, Romania
Veronica Junjan, University of Twente, School of Management and Governance, Enschede, Netherlands
Place: 27th NISPAcee Annual Conference, Prague, Czech Republic
Date: May 24-26, 2019
Aims of the
Working Group
The Working
Group on Public Administration Reform in CEE and CA provides a forum for
structured research and reflection on the dynamics of public administration
reform in the NISPAcee target region countries. Specifically, the group focuses
on patterns of reform in the EU New Member States (Central and Eastern Europe),
the West Balkans, and in Central Asia. Public administration reform is
defined as any restructuring of the administrative part of the public sector in
order to solve organisational and/or societal problems associated with this
structure and intended as promoting a professional, merit-based and neutral
civil service.
Theoretical
background of the Call 2019
For the
Annual NISPAcee conference in 2019, the group focuses on the relationship
between social science and policy making, which has been a recurrent topic in
social science literature for some time. Weiss (1979:426) introduced the
concept of "research utilisation", and proposed one of the first
classifications of the mechanisms that influence the use of research in the
policy process. With the New Public Management paradigm for reform in the
public sector, the focus on actively using evidence-based knowledge in policy
and administration increased significantly. The core assumption is that the
decision-making process improves through the use of the research evidence
(Head, 2016). Pollitt (2006: 259-261) discussed different types of
knowledge provided by academics to practitioners, and proposed a range of roles
performed by academics in relation to administrative practice. According to
Pollitt (2006), the tasks of the academics in their relationship to the world
of policy and administration include using scientific methods to structure the
problem that needs to be addressed, help with concept clarification, act as
facilitator/moderator, help with decision structuring by using appropriate
scientific methods, question false assumptions, provide methodological advice
on how to collect data, and to put forward advice based upon limited
generalisations. A different direction of the research in this area
focused on the transition from the traditional knowledge production systems
where academics provide the answers to the problems posed by practice, towards
investigating the communication between practitioners and academics, with the
extension towards co-production, characterised by cooperation between the two
worlds (Cepiku, 2011: 132, Gibbons et. al, 1994).
Expected
contributions
Most of the
research on this topic, however, is conducted in Anglo-Saxon countries and in
Western Europe. Administrative reforms, particularly designed and implemented
in a period of continuously shrinking resources, can benefit enormously from
the knowledge provided by scientific research. Mechanisms facilitating (or
impeding upon) incorporation of scientific knowledge in the policy process tend
to function differently in various politico-administrative contexts.
Strengthening the uptake of research in policy can also provide useful
recommendations for practitioners in charge of designing, deciding, and
implementing reforms. In this sense, relatively little is known about the use
of scientific research in CEE and CA countries in regard to issues such as reform
development, decision-making, and implementation.
For the Annual Conference 2019, the Working Group on PAR in CEE and CA is
looking forward to extending the existing knowledge regarding research
utilisation and use of research evidence in the CEE and CA contexts.The
group welcomesresearch proposals regarding the use of scientific research
in policy development/policy design, decision-making, and implementation.Longitudinal
studies, comparative case designs, and in-depth case studies documenting the use
of research for policy development/policy design, decision-making, and
implementation are of particular interest.
Special attention will be paid to Policy Design and Policy Practice in the
European Integration Context.
Literature
Weiss, C. H. (1979), ‘The many meanings of research utilization’ Public
Administration Review 39(5), 426-431
Pollitt, C., (2006) ‘Academic Advice to Practitioners-What is its Nature, Place
and Value within Academia?' Public Money & Management, 26:4, 257-264
Cepiku, D. (2011), ‘Two ships passing in the night? Practice and academia in
public management‘, Public Money & Management, 131-138
Gibbons, M., Limoges, L., Nowotny, H., Schwartman, S., Scott, P. and Trow, M.
(1994), The New Production of Knowledge. The Dynamics of Science and Research
in Contemporary Societies, (Sage, London)
Head, B. W. (2016), ‘Toward More "Evidence-Informed” Policy Making?’,
Public Administration Review, Vol. 76, Issue. 3, pp. 472–484