Modern Models of Public Administration in EU Countries: Implementation Experience
The comparative characteristics of European public administration systems are presented. Particular attention is paid to new models of public administration in EU countries: New Public Management (NPM); New Public Governance (NPG) or New public service (NPS); Good Governance (GG). Both positive and negative characteristics of these government models are listed. Successful reform of public administration is revealed through the creation of appropriate institutions and adherence to the relevant principles, procedures, and standards of public administration and values that should be guided by civil servants. It is proved that the sphere of organization of public administration and civil service in the EU has wide experience through the implementation of so-called «soft» standards. The focus is on highlighting effective tools for reforming public administration in the EU, their main functions. The implications of NPM implementation for European regions, which were adapted by Walter Kicker’s presentation, are outlined. The key features of the new public administration and the cardinal directions of administrative reforms implemented in each EU country are identified, as well as the improvement of the main interconnected components of the public administration system, which include: institutions; rules and procedures, processes and mechanisms for coordination of cooperation; personnel potential. The realization of the reform of the public administration through the reform of administrative procedures, the development of the civil service, the process of decentralization and agencification were clarified. In modern democratic states, managerial innovations are aimed at supporting market mechanisms for democratization of public authorities; market marketing (transformation) of the work of the state with the mass introduction of methods of state managerialism. In these government models, a customer-centric approach is put in place to develop an appropriate strategy based on consumer values, meeting expectations from service providers and implementing information technology.
Rhodes, R. (1999). Understanding Governance. Policy Network, Government, Reflexivity and Accountability. Buckingham, Philadelphia: Open University Press.
ОЕСР (1992), OECD (1992). Development Assistance Committee’s Work on Participatory Development and Good Governance. Paris: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.
Osborne, S. P. (2006). The New Public Governance? Public Management Review, 8 (3), pp. 377–388. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719030600853022.
Peters, B. G., & D. J. Savoie (Eds.) (1998). Taking Stock: Assessing Public Sector Reforms. Montreal: Canadian Centre for Management Development.
Denhardt, R. B., & Denhardt, J. V. (2000). The New Public Service: Serving Rather Than Steering. Public Administration Review, 60 (6), pp. 549–559. https://doi.org/10.1111/0033-3352.00117.
Koppell, J. (2010). Administration without Borders. Public Administration Review. Special Issue on the Future of Public Administration in 2020, 70(1), pp. 46–55. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2010.02245.x.
Pollitt, C., & Bouckaert, G. (2011). Public Management Reform: A Comparative Analysis-New Public Management, Governance, and the NeoWeberian State. (3rd ed.). Oxford : Oxford University Press.
Bouckaert, G., Nakrošis, V., & Nemec, J. (2011). Public Administration and Management Reforms in CEE: Main Trajectories and Results, The NISPACEE Journal of Public Administration and Policy, 4 (1), pp. 9–29. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10110-011-0001-9.
Guogis, A., Smalskys, V., & Ferraz D. (2012). Is the New Governance Supplementary or Opposite to New Public Management? The Lithuanian and Portuguese. International Public Management Journal. January, 2–49.
Dunleavy, P., Margetts, H, Bastow, S., & Tinkler, J. (2006). New Public Management Is Dead — Long Live Digital-Era Governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16 (3). pp. 467–494. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mui057.
Nunberg, B. (1992). Managing the Civil Service: Reform Lessons from Advanced Industrialized Countries. Policy Research Working Paper, WPS 945. Washington D.C. The World Bank. Retrieved from The World Bank: http://bit.ly/2wXqaNT.
European Public Administration Network. (n.d.). Retrieved from EUPAN: http://www.eupan.org.
Support for Improvement in Governance and Management by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development and European Union. SIGMA — OECD. (n.d.). Retrieved from: http://www.sigmaweb.org.
Instrument instytutsiinoi rozbudovy TWINNING. (n.d.). Retrieved from Derzhavna sluzhba Ukrainy z bezpeky na transporti: http://bit.ly/2TOILVG.
Hood, C. (1991) Public management for all seasons. Public Administration. Spring, pp. 3–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.1991.tb00779.x.
Kickert, W. (2010) Public Management, the Fiscal Crisis and Beyond. European Social Services Conference. Barcelona, 22 June 2010. Retrieved from European Social Network: http://bit.ly/3aNgAfg.
Kovač, P., & Bileišis, M. (eds) (2017) Public Administration Reforms in Eastern European Union. Member States Post-Accession Convergence and Diverge. University of Ljubljana, faculty of administration. Ljubljana, Vilnius. 506 p.
Contemporary issues in the public management of social services in Europe Contemporary issue. (n.d.). Retrieved from European Social Network: http://bit.ly/2wWpVTi.
Deming, W. E. (1982) Quality productivity and Competitive. Cambridge : Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Center for Advanced Engineering Study.