Internal ministerial advisory bodies: An attempt to transform governing in the Slovak Republic

Michal Sedlačko 1  and Katarína Staroňová 2
  • 1 Competence Centre for Administrative Sciences, Vienna
  • 2 Institute of Public Policy, Bratislava


In the Slovak Republic, a number of internal ministerial advisory bodies, intended to provide high-quality analyses and evidence based policy making for national policy, have been established over the last two years. We have studied how the rational technocratic model of scientific policy advice as a specific mode of governing, acted out through these new institutional sites of expertise, survives in a highly politicised environment of the Slovak public administration. Central to our study was the reconstruction of an intersubjective account central to the work of organising on which the analytical centres and their staff, as well as their patrons, participate. Complementary to this, we focused on intersubjectively shared elements of the analysts’ community and subculture within the dominant CEE public administration culture. The vision of governing with expertise shared by analytical centres rests on the principles of transparency, orientation on professional merit (primarily econometric, analytical skills), voluntarism, conflict avoidance, political opportunism and institutional autonomy. Analytical centres identify themselves as a distinct professional group – in fact, they form a distinct organisational subculture around traits such as demographic characteristics (predominantly young males with economic or mathematical/IT background), symbols, hierarchies, working culture, humour, as well as artefacts. Analysts see their mission in the provision of impartial, objective analytical evidence for informed decision making, yet they negotiate the boundary between politics and expertise on a daily basis, and, as we found, in numerous aspects of analysts’ work politics cannot be entirely bracketed.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • Alavi, M., Kayworth, T.R., & Leidner, D.E. (2006). An empirical examination of the influence of organizational culture on knowledge management practices. Journal of Management Information Systems, 22(3), 191–224.

  • Boswell, C. (2009). The political uses of expert knowledge: Immigration policy and social research. Cambridge University Press.

  • Bourdieu, P. (1971). Une interpretation de la théorie de la religion selon Max Weber. Archives européennes de sociologie, 12(1), 3–21.

  • Bressers, D., van Twist, M.J.W., van der Steen, M.A., & Schulz, J.M. (2018). The contested autonomy of policy advisory bodies: the tradeoff between autonomy and control of policy advisory bodies in the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and Sweden. In E. Ongaro & S. Van Thiel (Eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of Public Administration and Management in Europe (pp. 1189–1211). London: Palgrave Macmillan.

  • Bristow, D., Carter, L., & Martin S. (2015). Using evidence to improve policy and practice: the UK What Works Centres. Contemporary Social Science, 10(2), 126–137.

  • Cash, D., Clark, W., Alcock, F., Dickson, N., Eckley, N., & Jäger, J. (2003). Salience, credibility, legitimacy and boundaries: linking research, assessment and decision making. KSG Working Paper Series. Harvard University.

  • Cobarzan, B. (2008). Special advisors to the minister in Romania: carriers of political and administrative roles. In B. Connaughton, G. Sootla, & G. Peters (Eds.), Politico-Administrative Relations at the Centre: Actors, Structures and Processes Supporting the Core Executive (pp. 293–307). Bratislava: NISPAcee Press.

  • Colebatch, H.K. (2017). Policy, learning and regime change: Western concepts and CEE experience. Central European Journal of Public Policy, 11(2), 2–10.

  • Colebatch, H.K. (2010) Giving accounts of policy work. In H.K. Colebatch, R. Hoppe, & M. Noordegraaf (Eds.), Working for Policy (pp. 31–43). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

  • Craft, J., & Howlett, M. (2013). The dual dynamics of policy advisory systems: the impact of externalization and politicization on policy advice. Policy and Society, 32(3), 187–197.

  • Craft, J., & Wilder, M. (2017). Catching a second wave: context and compatibility in advisory system dynamics. Policy Studies Journal, 45(1), 215–239.

  • Crowley, K., & Head, B. (2017). Expert advisory councils in the policy system. In M. Brans, I. Geva-May, & M. Howlett (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of Comparative Policy Analysis (pp. 181–198). NY and London: Routledge.

  • Dimitrova, A. L. (2010). The new member states of the EU in the aftermath of enlargement: Do new European rules remain empty shells? Journal of European Public Policy, 17(1), 137-148.

  • European Commission (2012). Position of the Commission Services on the Development of Partnership Agreement and Programs in Slovakia for the Period 2014 – 2020. Retrieved from (accessed 10 January 2018).

  • Falkner, G., & Treib, O. (2008). Three worlds of compliance or four? The EU-15 compared to new member states. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 46(2), 293–313.

  • Filko, M., Kiss, Š., & Ódor, Ľ. (2016). Najlepší z možných svetov: Hodnota za peniaze v slovenskej verejnej politike [The Best of Possible Worlds: Value for Money in Slovak Public Policy]. Bratislava: Ministerstvo financií SR.

  • Gajduschek, G. (2007). Socialist and post-socialist civil service in Hungary. In A. Jakab, P. Takács, A.F. Tatham (Eds.), The Transformation of the Hungarian Legal Order 1985–2005: Transition to the Rule of Law and Accession to the European Union (pp. 123–126). Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International.

  • Government Office of the Slovak Republic (2014). Civil Service in 2013. Report from the Survey among Civil Service. Bratislava: Government Office of the Slovak Republic.

  • Grzymala-Busse, A. (2010). The best laid plans: the impact of informal rules on formal institutions in transitional regimes. Studies in Comparative International Development, 45(3), 311–333.

  • Gunnell, J.G. (1982). The technocratic image and the theory of technocracy. Technology and Culture, 23(3), 392–416.

  • Habermas, J. (1990). Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action. Cambridge: MIT Press.

  • Halligan, J. (1995). Policy advice and the public service. In B.G. Peters, & D.J. Savoie (Eds.), Governance in a changing environment (pp. 138–172). Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

  • Hood, C., & Jackson, M. W. (1991). Administrative argument. Aldershot: Dartmouth.

  • Howlett, M. (2013). Policy work, policy advisory systems and politicization. Central European Journal of Public Policy, 7(1), 4–7.

  • Jasanoff, S. (1990). The Fifth Branch. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

  • Jørgensen, T. B., & Bozeman, B. (2007). Public values: an inventory. Administration & Society, 39(3), 354–381.

  • Keris, M. (2008). Ministerial advisors in Estonia: role perceptions as multifunctionalism. In B. Connaughton, G. Sootla, & G. Peters (Eds.), Politico-Administrative Relations at the Centre: Actors, Structures and Processes Supporting the Core Executive (pp. 206–224). Bratislava: NISPAcee Press.

  • Majcherkiewicz, T. (2008). Between the pool of spoils and shallow professionalism: recruitment, composition and functioning of the political cabinets of prime ministers and ministers in Poland 1997–2006. In B. Connaughton, G. Sootla, & G. Peters (Eds.), Politico-Administrative Relations at the Centre: Actors, Structures and Processes Supporting the Core Executive (pp. 268–292). Bratislava: NISPAcee Press.

  • Majone, G. (1989). Evidence, Argument and Persuasion in the Policy Process. Connecticut: Yale University Press.

  • Mannheim, K. (1936[1997]). The sociological problem of the ‘intelligentsia’. In: Ideology and utopia: collected works of Karl Mannheim (pp. 136–145). Vol. 1. New York: Routledge.

  • Martin, D. (1969). The dissolution of the monasteries. In D. Martin (Ed.), Anarchy and Culture: The Problem of the Contemporary University. London: Taylor & Francis.

  • Martin, J., & Siehl, C. (1983). Organizational culture and counterculture: an uneasy symbiosis. Organizational dynamics, 12(2), 52–64.

  • Meuser, M., & Nagel, U. (2005). ExpertInneninterviews – vielfach erprobt, wenig bedacht. Ein Beitrag zur qualitativen Methodendiskussion. In A. Bogner, B. Littig, & W. Menz (Eds.), Das Experteninterview – Theorie, Methoden, Anwendung (pp. 71–93). 2nd ed. Opladen: Leske + Budrich.

  • Meyer-Sahling, J-H., & Veen, T. (2012). Governing the post-communist state: government alternation and senior civil service politicisation in Central and Eastern Europe. East European Politics, 28(1), 4–22.

  • Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis. London: Sage Publications.

  • Múčka, F. (2014, 24 November). Keď naši hipsteri robia policy [When our hipsters conduct policy]. Týždeň. Retrieved from (accessed 16 February 2018).

  • OECD (2014). Slovak Republic. Developing a Sustainable Strategic Framework for Public Administration Reform. Paris: OECD. Retrieved from (accessed 16 February 2018).

  • OECD (2017). Policy Advisory Systems: Supporting Good Governance and Sound Public Decision Making. Paris: OECD.

  • Perry, J.L., & Hondeghem, A. (2008). Building theory and empirical evidence about public service motivation. International Public Management Journal, 11(1), 3–12.

  • Perry, J.L., Hondeghem, A., & Wise, L.R. (2010). Revisiting the motivational bases of public service: twenty years of research and an agenda for the future. Public administration review, 70(5), 681–690.

  • Peters, B.G. (2001). The Politics of Bureaucracy. Abingdon: Routledge.

  • Peters, G., & Barker, A. (1993). Advising West European Governments: Inquiries, Expertise and Public Policy. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

  • Randma-Liiv, T., & Drechsler, W. (2017). Three decades, four phases: public administration development in central and Eastern Europe, 1989–2017. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 30(6-7), 595–605.

  • Raudla, R. (2012). Pitfalls of contracting for policy advice: preparing performance budgeting reform in Estonia. Governance, 26(4), 605–629.

  • Rose, R.A. (1988). Organizations as multiple cultures: a rules theory analysis. Human Relations, 41(2), 139–170.

  • Schäfer, H. (2004). Priests, prophets or sorcerers? on intellectual elites and politics in modernizing Latin America. In I. Lawford (Ed.), The Role of the Educated Class in Africa: Between African Renaissance and Globalisation Critique (pp. 193–219). Rehburg: Loccum.

  • Schmitt-Egner, P. (2015). Gemeinwohl: Konzeptionelle Grundlinien zur Legitimität und Zielsetzung von Politik im 21. Jahrhundert. Nomos.

  • Sedláček, V., & Veselý, A. (2016). Policy Analysis Outsourcing. In A. Veselý, M. Nekola, & E. Hejzlarová (Eds.), Policy Analysis in the Czech Republic (pp. 203–214). Bristol: Policy Press University of Bristol.

  • Staroňová, K. (2014). L’institutionnalisation des études d’impact en Europe centrale et orientale” (Institutionalization of the Regulatory Impact Assessment in CEE countries). Revue Francaise D’Administration Publique, 149(1), 123–143.

  • Staroňová, K., & Gajduschek, G. (2017). Politicization beyond the meritsystem façade: the intricate relationship between formal and informal institutions in the senior civil service systems in Central and Eastern Europe. XXI IRSPM Annual Conference, 19–21 April 2017, Budapest, Hungary.

  • Staroňová, K., & Rybář, M. (2018). Ministerial or party roots of civil service patronage? Evidence from a parliamentary democracy. 68th Political Studies Association Annual International Conference, 26–28 March 2018, Cardiff, UK.

  • Sundell, A. (2014). Are formal civil service examinations the most meritocratic way to recruit civil servants? Not in all countries. Public Administration, 92(2), 440–457.

  • Van den Berg, C. (2017). Dynamics in the Dutch policy advisory system: externalization, politicization and the legacy of pillarization. Policy Sciences, 50(1), 63–84.

  • Van Maanen, J., & Barley, S. (1985). Fragments of a theory. In P.J. Frost, L.F. Moore, M.R.E. Louis, C.C. Lundberg, & J.E. Martin (Eds.), Organizational Culture (pp. 31–55). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

  • Vandenabeele, W., & Van de Walle, S. (2008). International Differences in public service motivation: comparing regions across the world. In J.L. Perry, & A. Hondeghem (Eds.), Motivation in Public Management: The Call of Public Service (pp. 223–244). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Van de Haar, E. (2015). CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis: Dutch (economic) policy-making. Contemporary Social Science, 10(2), 182–190.

  • Veit, S., Hustedt, T., & Bach, T. (2017). Dynamics of change in internal policy advisory systems: the hybridization of advisory capacities in Germany. Policy Sciences, 50(1), 50–63.

  • Veselý, A. (2013). Externalization of policy advice: theory, methodology and evidence. Policy and Society, 32(3), 199–209.

  • Wallace, W. (1996). Truth and power, monks and technocrats: theory and practice in international relations. Review of International Studies, 22(3), 301–321.

  • Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Yanow, D. (1996) How Does a Policy Mean? Interpreting Policy and Organizational Actions. Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press.


Journal + Issues