The goal of this paper is to document and to analyse public administration reform dynamics and outcomes in three selected areas – transparency and accountability, civil service and local self-governments.
The high level of potential access to government information in Slovakia does not “produce” increased accountability, predictability and also does not effectively serve as a tool to control corruption. We argue that citizens are not only victims, but also accomplishers: their tolerance for corruption, excessive bureaucracy and rentseeking is confirmed by many existing studies.
Concerning civil service reform, Slovakia shows a substantial reform reversal towards politicisation and centralisation after 2001, which clearly threatens the fundamental features of democratic governance. Soon after the EU accession in 2004 major regressive changes took place, and the Civil Service Office was abolished in 2006. The new legislation in force from 2017 (forced by the EU conditionality) should return the Slovak civil service back on the right track – let us to see.
With regard to self-government the reforms aimed towards the establishment of more independent local and regional self-government. However, the major issue here is the extreme fragmentation on the municipal level – almost 3,000 municipalities in the country, most of them bellow 1,000 inhabitants. Many studies confirm that amalgamation (or at least functional amalgamation) is necessary – but there is no political will to start it.
What are the main lessons from the Slovak case ? The information provided indicates that the Slovak Republic belongs to the “standard” group of CEE countries – after the first wave of democratisation reforms immediately after 1989, most of the later changes were realised “thanks to” external motivations and pressures – and not always really welcomed. The specific issue, however, is the decentralisation reform in 2000 – 2005. This change, providing really fragmented local self-government by extra rights and responsibilities, was internally driven, with positive results from the point of view of self-government principles, but with many hurdles caused by too large a number of too small municipalities.
Baldersheim, H. and L. Rose. 2008. A Comparative Analysis of Territorial Choice in Europe. Oslo: Political Institute.
Bours, A. 1993. Management, Tiers, Size and Amalgamations of Local Government: Local Government in the New Europe. London: Belhaven.
Bovaird, T. and E. Löffler. 2003. “Evaluating the Quality of Public Governance: Indicators, Models and Methodologies.” International Review of Administrative Sciences 69(3), 313 – 328.
Bovaird, T. and E. Löffler. 2009. Public Management and Governance. London: Routledge.
Bucek, M. and J. Nemec. 2012. “Local Government in Slovakia.” In A. M. Moreno (ed.). Local Government in the Member States of the European Union: A Comparative Legal Perspective. Madrid: INAP, 555 – 576.
Buncak, J., R. Dzambazovic, M. Hrabovsky and J. Sopoci. 2009. Nazory obcanov na buducnost Slovenska. Bratislava: Academy of Sciences.
Dahl, R. A. and E. R. Tufte. 1973. Size and Democracy (Vol. 2). Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Denters, B. 2002. “Size and Political trust: Evidence from Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, and the United Kingdom.” Environment and Planning C 20(6), 793 – 812.
Goldsmith, M. and E. Page (eds). 1987. Central and Local Government Relations: A Comparative Analysis of West European Unitary States. London: Sage Publications.
Grega, M. 2013. “Analyza verejneho obstaravania vo vybranom slovenskom meste v roku 2012.” Acta Aerarii Publici 10(2), 25 – 38.
Hunady, J. 2017. “Individual and Institutional Determinants of Corruption in the EU Countries: The Problem of its Tolerance.” Economia Politica 34(1), 139 – 157.
King, D. N. 1984. Fiscal Tiers: The Economics of Multi-Level Government. London: Allen & Unwin.
Klimovský, D. 2014. Inter-Municipal Cooperation in Slovakia: The Case of Regions with Highly Fragmented Municipal Structure. Novo mesto: Faculty of Organization Studies.
Klimovský, D. 2015. “Slovakia as Decentralization Champion: Reality or Myth ?” Regions: The Voice of the Membership 2(298), 14 – 16.
Kosorín, F. 2003. Verejná správa (koncepcia, reformy, organizácia). Bratislava: Ekonóm.
Matejova, L., J. Nemec, M. Krapek and D. Klimovsky. 2017. “Economies of Scale on the Municipal Level: Fact or Fiction in the Czech Republic ?” The NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy 1 / 2017, 39 – 60.
Mesiková, E. 2008. “Vývoj územného a správneho členenia na Slovensku.” Politické vedy 11(3), 72 – 96.
Meyer-Sahling, J. 2009. “Sustainability of Civil Service Reforms in Central and Eastern Europe Five Years after EU Accession.” Sigma Papers 44. Paris: OECD Publishing.
Mouritzen, P. E. 1989. “City Size and Citizens’ Satisfaction: Two Competing Theories Revisited.” European Journal of Political Research 17(6), 661 – 688.
Nechala, P., M. Kormanova, J. Kubikova and M. Pisko. 2015. Slovak Companies Owned by Public Sector Remain Non-Transparent: Transparency of State, City and County Owned Companies in Slovakia – the Results of the Second Ranking. Bratislava: Transparency International Slovakia.
Nemec, J., J. Medved and M. Sumpikova. 2005. “Ohodnotenie výkonnosti verejnej správy: Teoretického východiská a skúsenosti z experimentu v SR.” Politická ekonomie 53(1), 95 – 110.
Nemec, J., F. Ochrana and M. Sumpikova. 2008. “Czech and Slovak Lessons for Public Administration Perfomance Evaluation, Management and Finance.” Ekonomicky casopis 56(4), 353 – 369.
Nemec, J., M. Orviska and C. Lawson. 2016. “The Role of Accountability Arrangements in Social Innovations: Evidence from the UK and Slovakia.” The NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy 9(1), 73 – 96.
Nemec, J. and D. Spacek. 2017. 25 Years of Public Administration Developments and Reforms in V4 region. Brno: Masarykova univerzita.
Newton, K. 1982. “Is Small Really so Beautiful ? Is Big Really so Ugly ? Size, Effectiveness, and Democracy in Local Government.” Political Studies 30(2), 190 – 206.
Nielsen, H. J. 1981. “Size and Evaluation of Government: Danish Attitudes towards Politics at Multiple Levels of Government.” European Journal of Political Research 9(1), 47 – 60.
OECD. 2015. OECD Public Governance Reviews: Slovak Republic. Better Co-ordination for Better Policies, Services and Results. Paris: OECD.
Orviska, M. and J. Hudson. 2003. “Tax Evasion, Civic Duty and the Law Abiding Citizen.” European Journal of Political Economy 19(1), 83 – 102.
Osborne, S. 2010. The New Public Governance. London: Routledge. Randma-Liiv, T. and W. Drechsler. 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.
Rose, L. E. 2002. “Municipal Size and Local Nonelectoral Participation: Findings from Denmark, the Netherlands, and Norway.” Government and Policy 20(6), 829 – 852.
SIGMA. 2014. The Principles of Public Administration. Paris: OECD Publishing.
Sipos, G., S. Spac and M. Kollarik. 2015. Not in Force until Published Online. Bratislava: Transparency International Slovakia.
Staňová, L. 2014. Explaining Developments of Central Structures for Civil Service Management: The Case of the Slovak Civil Service Office. Dissertation thesis, Comenius University Bratislava
Staroňová, K., L. Staňová and E. Sičáková-Beblavá. 2014. Systémy štátnej služby: Koncepty a trendy. Bratislava: UK.
Swianiewicz, P. 2010. “If Territorial Fragmentation is a Problem, is Amalgamation a Solution ? An East European Perspective.” Local Government Studies 36(2), 183 – 203.
Thijs N., G. Hammerschmid and E. Palaric. 2017. Characteristics, Capacity and Performance of EU Public Administrations. Brussels: European Commission – DGEMPL.
Tichy, D. 2005. “Združovanie obcí ako predpoklad rýchlejšieho rozvoja samospráv a regiónov.” Ekonomický časopis 53(4), 364 – 382.
Velsic, M. 2004. Využívanie zákona o slobodnom prístupe k informáciám. Bratislava: Transparency International Slovakia.
Vesely, A. 2013. “Accountability in Central and Eastern Europe: Concept and Reality.” International Review of Administrative Sciences 79(2), 310 – 330.