Where and How You Sit: How Civil Servants View Citizens’ Participation

Administration and Society

Volumn 48, Issue 1, 2016, Pages 104-129

  Pedersen, Karin Hilmer ^a   Johannsen, Lars ^a  

^a AARHUS UNIVERSITY   (Denmark)

Author keywords

citizens participation; Latvia; Lithuania; post communist Estonia; public administration

Indexed keywords

EID: 84947912513     PISSN: 00953997     EISSN: 15523039     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0095399714555753     Document Type: Article

References (84)

1. B.R.Barber (1983). Strong democracy: Participatory politics for a new age. Berkeley: California University Press.
2. M.Bevir (2010). Democratic governance. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
3. T.A.Bryer (2009). Explaining responsiveness in collaboration: Administrator and citizen role perceptions. Public Administration Review, 69, 271-283.
4. Z.Brzezinski (1970). Between two ages: America’s role in the technetronic era. New York, NY: Penguin Books.
5. K.Callahan (2007a). Citizen participation: Models and methods. International Journal of Public Administration, 30, 1179-1196.
6. K.Callahan (2007b). People, politics, participation, and place. Public Administration Review, 67, 950-954.
7. J.G.Christensen (2012). Pay and prerequisites for government executives. In B.G.PetersJ.Pierre (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of public administration (2nd ed., pp. 102-129). London, England: SAGE.
8. T.ChristensenP.Lægreid (2001). New public management: The effects of contractualism and devolution on political control. Public Management Review, 3, 73-94.
9. Constitution of Estonia. (1992). Retrieved from http://www.legaltext.ee/text/en/X0000K1.htm
10. Constitution of Latvia. (1998). Retrieved from http://www.saeima.lv/en/legislation/constitution
11. Constitution of Lithuania. (1992). Retrieved from http://www3.lrs.lt/home/Konstitucija/Constitution.htm
12. Constitution of the Soviet Union. (1977). Retrieved from http://www.constitution.org/cons/ussr77.txt
13. B.J.Cook (2007). Woodrow Wilson’s ideas about local government reform: A regime perspective on the new push for citizen engagement in public administration. Administration & Society, 39, 294-314.
14. R.Dahl (1989). Democracy and its critics. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
15. C.DahlströmV.LapuenteJ.Teorell (2012). The merit of meritocratization: Politics, bureaucracy, and the institutional deterrents of corruption. Political Research Quarterly, 65, 656-668.
16. C.DemmkeT.Moilanen (2010). Civil services in the EU of 27: Reform outcomes and the future of the civil service. Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang.
17. R.B.DenhardtJ.V.Denhardt (2000). The new public service: Serving rather than steering. Public Administration Review, 60, 549-559.
18. A.Dimitrova (2005). Europeanization and civil service reform. In F.SchimmelfennigU.Sedelmeier (Eds.), The Europeanization of Central and Eastern Europe (pp. 71-90). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
19. W.Drechsler (2004). Governance, good governance, and government: The case for Estonian administrative capacity. Trames, 8, 388-396.
20. C.Ebdon (2002). Beyond the public hearing: Citizen participation in the local government budget process. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management, 14, 273-294.
21. EU Commission. (2001). White paper on governance. Brussels, Belgium: Author.
22. J.Habermas (1996). Between facts and norms: Contribution to a discourse theory of law and democracy. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
23. J.J.Hesse (1997). Rebuilding the state: Public sector reform in Central and Eastern Europe. In J.-E.Lane (Ed.), Public sector reform: Rationale, trends and problems (pp. 114-146). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
24. M.M.Howard (2003). The weakness of civil society in the post-communist Europe. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
25. R.A.IrvinJ.Stansbury (2004). Citizen participation in decision making: Is it worth the effort?Public Administration Review, 64, 55-65.
26. D.JansoneI.Reinholde (2001). Politico-administrative relations: The case of Latvia. In T.Verheijen (Ed.), Politico-administrative relations: Who rules? (pp. 203-225). Bratislava, Slovakia: Network of Institutes and Schools of Public Administrations in Central and Eastern Europe (NISPAcee).
27. L.JohannsenK.H.Pedersen (2009). When nation building is at odds with economic reform and EU membership. Politics in Central Europe, 5, 55-77.
28. L.JohannsenK.H.Pedersen (2011a). Path making: Democracy in the Baltic states twenty years after. Politics in Central Europe, 7, 57-73.
29. L.JohannsenK.H.Pedersen (2011b). The institutional roots of anti-corruption policies: Comparing the three Baltic states. Journal of Baltic Studies, 42, 329-346.
30. L.JohannsenK.H.Pedersen (2012). How to combat corruption: Assessing anti-corruption measures from a civil servant’s perspective. Halduskultuur—Administrative Culture, 13, 130-146.
31. L.JohannsenK.H.PedersenS.Pivoras (2015). Falling between two stools: The case of the Lithuanian civil servant reform of 2013. Journal of Comparative Politics, 8.
32. P.C.KathiT.L.Cooper (2005). Democratizing the administrative state: Connecting neighborhood councils and city agencies. Public Administration Review, 65, 559-567.
33. C.S.KingK.M.FelteyB.O’Niel Susel (1998). The question of participation: Toward authentic public participation in public administration. Public Administration Review, 58, 317-326.
34. G.J.KingE.VanagsI.VilkaD.E.McNabb (2004). Local government reforms in Latvia, 1990-2003: Transition to a democratic society. Public Administration, 82, 931-950.
35. I.LazareviciuteJ.TirvieneJ.Poniskaitis (2001). Politico-administrative relations in Lithuania. In T.Verheijen (Ed.), Politico-administrative relations: Who rules? (pp. 226-267). Bratislava, Slovakia: Network of Institutes and Schools of Public Administrations in Central and Eastern Europe (NISPAcee).
36. A.V.Ledeneva (1998). Russia’s economy of favours: Blat, networking and informal exchange. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
37. R.H.MacNairR.CaldwellL.Pollane (1983). Citizen participants in public bureaucracies: Foul-weather friends. Administration & Society, 14, 507-524.
38. J.G.MarchJ.P.Olsen (1989). Rediscovering institutions: The organizational basis of politics. New York, NY: Free Press.
39. J.MarloweS.Portillo (2006). Citizen engagement in local budgeting: Does diversity pay dividends?Public Performance & Management Review, 30, 179-202.
40. J.H.Meyer-Sahling (2009). Varieties of legacies: A critical review of legacy explanations of public administration reform in East Central Europe. International Review of Administrative Science, 75, 509-528.
41. R.E.MilesJr. (1978). The origin and meaning of Miles’ Law. Public Administration Review, 38, 399-403.
42. V.Nakrošis (2001). Lithuanian public administration: A usable state bureaucracy?Journal of Baltic Studies, 32, 170-181.
43. V.NakrošisM.Budraitis (2012). Longitudinal change in Lithuanian agencies: 1990-2010. International Journal of Public Administration, 35, 820-831.
44. M.I.NeshkovaH.Guo (2011). Public participation and organizational performance: Evidence from state agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22, 267-288.
45. O.NørgaardL.Johannsen (1999). The Baltic states after independence. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
46. B.Nunberg (2000). Ready for Europe: Public administration reform and European Union accession in Central and Eastern Europe. Washington, DC: The World Bank.
47. J.P.Olsen (2008). The ups and downs of bureaucratic organization. Annual Review of Political Science, 11, 13-37.
48. J.P.Olsen (2009). Change and continuity: An institutional approach to institutions of democratic government. European Political Science Review, 1, 3-32.
49. Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development. (2001). Citizens as partners: OECD handbook on information, consultation and public participation in policy-making. Paris, France: Drafted by Marc Gramberger.
50. E.Ostrom (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
51. E.Ostrom (2010). Analyzing collective action. International Association of Agricultural Economists, 41, 155-166.
52. E.OstromV.Ostrom (2011). The institutional perspective on values and virtues. In M.S.de VriesP.S.Kim (Eds.), Value and virtue in public administration: A comparative perspective (pp. 115-134). London, England: Palgrave Macmillan.
53. M.PainterG.B.Peters (Eds.). (2010). Tradition and public administration. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
54. J.Pakulski (1986). Bureaucracy and the Soviet system. Studies in Comparative Communism, 19, 3-24.
55. J.Palidauskaite (2005). Codes of ethics in transitional democracies: A comparative perspective. Public Integrity, 8, 35-48.
56. J.Palidauskaite (2011). The value profile of civil servants in new European democracies through the lens of embedded ethics. In M.S.de VriesP.S.Kim (Eds.), Value and virtue in public administration: A comparative perspective (pp. 186-207). London, England: Palgrave Macmillan.
57. J.PalidauskaiteA.PevkurI.Reinholde (2010). A comparative approach to civil service ethics in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Journal of Baltic Studies, 41, 45-71.
58. R.A.Panagiotou (2001). Estonia’s success: Prescription or legacy. Communist and Post-Communist Studies, 34, 261-277.
59. B.G.PetersJ.Pierre (2000). Citizens versus the new public manager: The problem of mutual empowerment. Administration & Society, 32, 9-28.
60. S.Pivoras (2013). Post-communist public administration in Lithuania. In S.LiebertS.E.Condrey (Eds.), Public administration in post-communist countries: Former Soviet Union, Central and Eastern Europe, and Mongolia (pp. 135-160). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group.
61. C.PollittG.Bouckaert (2011). Public management reform: A comparative analysis—New public management, governance, and the neo-Weberian state (3rd ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
62. T.Randma-LiivJ.Järvalt (2011). Public personnel policies and problems in the new democracies of central and eastern Europe. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 13, 35-49.
63. J.RauchP.Evans (2000). Bureaucratic structure and bureaucratic performance in less developed countries. Journal of Public Economics, 75, 49-71.
64. S.Rose-Ackerman (2007). From elections to democracy in Central Europe: Public participation and the role of civil society. East European Politics and Societies, 21, 31-47.
65. S.Rose-Ackerman (2008). The voluntary sector and public participation: The case of Hungary. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 79, 601-623.
66. B.Rothstein (2012). Political legitimacy for public administration. In G.PetersJ.Pierre (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of public administration (pp. 407-419). London, England: SAGE.
67. E.V.RubinA.Whitford (2008). Effects of the institutional design of the civil service: Evidence from corruption. International Public Management Journal, 11, 404-425.
68. J.Ruus (2011). Democratic participation at the local level in post-communist states: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania. In T.Schiller (Ed.), Local direct democracy in Europe (pp. 268-289). Wiesbaden, Germany: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
69. K.Sarapuu (2012). Administrative structures in times of changes: The development of Estonian ministries and government agencies 1990-2010. International Journal of Public Administration, 35, 808-819.
70. SIGMA. (1999, November). European principles for public administration (SIGMA Paper No. 27). Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/site/sigma/publicationsdocuments/36972467.pdf
71. G.Sootla (2001). Evolution of roles of politicians and civil servants during the post-communist transition in Estonia. In T.Verheijen (Ed.), Politico-administrative relations: Who rules? (pp. 109-146). Bratislava, Slovakia: Network of Institutes and Schools of Public Administrations in Central and Eastern Europe (NISPAcee).
72. C.W.Stenberg (1972). Citizens and the administrative state: From participation to power. Public Administration Review, 32, 190-198.
73. J.C.Thomas (2013). Citizen, customer, partner: Rethinking the place of the public in public management. Public Administration Review, 73, 786-796.
74. United Nations Public Administration Network (Unpan) (2004a). Republic of Estonia: Public administration country profile. United Nations Division for Public Administration and Development Management.
75. United Nations Public Administration Network (Unpan) (2004b). Republic of Latvia: Public administration country profile. United Nations Division for Public Administration and Development Management.
76. United Nations Public Administration Network (Unpan) (2004c). Republic of Lithuania: Public administration country profile. United Nations Division for Public Administration and Development Management.
77. E.VanagsI.Vilka (2006). Local government in the Baltic states: Similar but different. Local Government Studies, 32, 623-637.
78. T.Verheijen (2007). Administrative capacity in the new member states: The limits of innovation? World Bank Working Paper No. 115. Washington, DC: World Bank.
79. T.VerheijenY.Dobrolyubova (2007). Performance management in the Baltic states and Russia: Success against the odds?International Review of Administrative Sciences, 73, 205-215.
80. K.YangK.Callahan (2007). Citizen involvement efforts and bureaucratic responsiveness: Participatory values, stakeholder pressures, and administrative practicality. Public Administration Review, 67, 249-264.
81. K.YangS.K.Pandey (2011). Further dissecting the black box of citizen participation: When does citizen involvement lead to good outcomes?Public Administration Review, 71, 880-892.
82. Y.ZhangY.Liao (2011). Participatory budgeting in local government: Evidence from New Jersey Municipalities. Public Performance & Management Review, 35, 281-302.
83. Y.ZhangK.Yang (2009). Citizen participation in the budget process: The effect of city managers. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management, 21, 289-317.
84. R.ZubekK.H.Goetz (2010). Performing to type? How state institutions matter in East Central Europe. Journal of Public Policy, 30, 1-22.