A Content Analysis of the Rule of Law within Public Governance Models: Old vs. New EU Member States

Marko Ropret 1 , Aleksander Aristovnik 1  und Polonca Kovač 1
  • 1 University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Administration,, Ljubljana, Slovenia


This paper aims to analyze the development of the rule of law and its key characteristics as a principle within public governance model (PGM) research. In the study, we analyzed two main EU cultural and geographical subgroups, selected old and new EU member states, in order to identify the main convergences and differences characteristic of the respective clusters. With the accession to the European Union, these acceding countries were to transfer EU law into national law and reform their governance models accordingly. The aim of the research was achieved by following an original methodology, encompassing 431 relevant scientific papers from the Scopus database. Th e known QDA Miner 5.0.11 soft ware package was selected as the main tool for the analysis. Th e research questions were aimed at covering: (i) the role of the rule of law as one of the key governance principles in relation to the countries’ historical legacy and different governance models, (ii) the relationship between the rule of law and other governance principles and (iii) opportunities for further research within the two selected geographical subgroups. The results, concerning the first research question, reveal a greater frequency of papers per year about the relevant PGM studies focusing on the old EU member states. Likely, due to a broader socio-administrative tradition within these countries, law-related topics are better covered. As regards the relationship between the rule of law and other governance principles, we have shown that the rule of law as a principle is importantly related to effective governance and PA reforms and must not be taken as an antipode to efficiency. In new EU MS, i.e. Central and East Europe (CEE), in particular the rule of law in administrative relations is also one of the salient elements of the on-going transitional development compared to the old Western democracies. However, within the processes of privatization, globalization and marketization, the rule of law is challenged; even with PAR that might undermine the core principles of democratic governance. While demanding further research, encompassing specific socio-economic needs of individual public administrations and an evaluation of legal and related highly important reform preconditions proves vital for tomorrow’s public administration, more effectively and efficiently coping with the needs of the modern society.

Falls das inline PDF nicht korrekt dargestellt ist, können Sie das PDF hier herunterladen.

  • Aristovnik, A., P. Kovač, J. Stare and L. Todorovski (eds). 2016. Slovenska javna uprava na razpotju strateških sprememb [Slovenian Public Administration at the Cross-roads of Strategic Changes]. Ljubljana: Faculty of Administration.

  • Bach, S. and L. Bordogna. 2011. “Varieties of New Public Management or Alternative Models ? Th e Reform of Public Service Employment Relations in Industrialized Democracies.” Th e International Journal of Human Resource Management 22(11), 2281-2294.

  • Bartuševičienė, I. and E. Šakalytė. 2013. “Organizational Assessment: Efficiency vs. Efficiency.” Social Transformations in Contemporary Society 1, 45-53.

  • Bauer, M. and J. Trondal (eds). 2015. Th e Palgrave Handbook of the European Administrative System. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.

  • Bevir, M. (ed.). 2011. Th e SAGE Handbook of Governance. London: Sage.

  • Bovaird, T. and E. Loffl er. 2012. “From Engagement to Co-Production: Th e Contribution of Users and Communities to Outcomes and Public Value.” Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofi t Organizations 23(4), 1119 - 1138.

  • Busch, C., P. S. De Maret, T. Flynn, R. Kellum, S. Le, B. Meyers, M. Saunders, R. White and M. Palmquist. 2012. “Content Analysis.” Writing@CSU. Colorado State University. Available at https://writing.colostate.edu/guides/guide.cfm?guideid=61 (last accessed 30. 4. 2018).

  • Christensen, T. 2012. “Post-NPM and Changing Public Governance.” Meiji Journal of Political Science and Economics 1(1), 1 - 11.

  • Drechsler, W. 2014. “Th e Rise and Demise of the New Public Management: Lessons and Opportunities for South East Europe.” International Public Administration Review 7(3), 7 - 27.

  • Dunleavy, P., H. Margetts, S. Bastow and J. Tinkler. 2006. “New Public Management is Dead - Long Live Digital-Era Governance.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Th eory 16(3), 467 - 494.

  • Edquist, C. 2010. “Systems of Innovation Perspectives and Challenges.” African Journal of Science, Technology, Innovation and Development 2(3), 14 - 45.

  • Elias Sarker, A. 2006. “New Public Management in Developing Countries: An Analysis of Success and Failure with Particular Reference to Singapore and Bangladesh.” International Journal of Public Sector Management 19(2), 180 - 203.

  • European Commission. 2010. EUROPE 2020: A Strategy for Smart, Sustainable and Inclusive Growth. Brussels: European commission.

  • European Commission. 2014. Promoting Good Governance: European Social Fund Thematic Paper. Brussels: EC.

  • Frederickson, H. G. 2005. “Governance, Governance Everywhere.” In Ferlie, E., Lynn, L. E. and Pollitt, C. (eds.). Th e Oxford Handbook of Public Management. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 282.

  • Galetta, D.-U., H. C. H. Hofmann, O. Mir Puigpelat and J. Ziller. 2015. Th e General Principles of EU Administrative Law. Brussels: European Parliament.

  • Guogis, A., V. Smalskys and D. Ferraz. 2012. “Is there a New Governance Paradigm ?” Latvijas Zinātņu Akadēmijas vēstis 60(1 - 2), 55 - 74.

  • Hammerschmid, G., S. van de Walle, R. Andrews and P. Bezes (eds). 2016. Public Administration Reforms in Europe, Th e View from the Top. Cheltenham, Northampton: Edward Elgar.

  • Hintea, C. E., M. C. Profi roiu and T. C. Ticlau. 2015. “Strategic Planning and Public Management Reform: Th e Case of Romania.” Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences 11(SI), 30 - 44.

  • Hoff , K. and J. E. Stiglitz. 2004. “Aft er the Big Bang ? Obstacles to the Emergence of the Rule of Law in Post-Communist Societies.” Th e American Economic Review 94(3), 753 - 763.

  • Hughes, O. E. 1998. Public Management and Administration. London: Macmillan.

  • Hupe, P. L. and T. van der Krogt. 2013. “Professionals Dealing with Pressures.” In M. Noordegraaf and A. Steijn (eds). Professionals Under Pressure: Perspectives on Professionals and Professionalism. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 55 - 72.

  • Kalimullah, N. A., K. M. Ashraf and M. N. Ashaduzzaman. 2012. “New Public Management: Emergence and Principles.” Bup Journal 1(1), 1 - 22.

  • Kickert, W. (ed.). 2008. Th e Study of Public Management in Europe and the US. London: Routledge.

  • Koivisto, I. 2014. “Varieties of Good Governance: A Suggestion of Discursive Plurality.” International Journal for the Semiotics of Law - Revue internationale de Sémiotique juridique 27(4), 587 - 611.

  • Koprić, I. 2012. “Managing Public Aff airs in South Eastern Europe: Muddled Governance.” In A. M. Bissessar (ed.). Governance: Is it for everyone ? Hauppauge: Nova Science Publisher, 25 - 47.

  • Kovač, P. and M. Bileišis (eds). 2017. Public Administration Reforms in Eastern European Union Member States: Post-Accession Convergence and Divergence. Ljubljana: University of Ljubljana; Vilnius: Mykolas Romeris University.

  • Kovač, P. and T. Jukić. 2016. “Development of Public Administration and its Research in Slovenia through the Lenses of Content Analysis of the International Public Administration Review.” International Public Administration Review 14(1), 75 - 114.

  • Kovač, P., N. Tomaževič, A. Leben and A. Aristovnik. 2016. “Reforming Public Administration in Slovenia: Between Th eory and Practice of Good Governance and Good Administration.” International Journal of Public Policy 12(3 - 6), 130 - 148.

  • Mak, E. 2008. “Th e European Judicial Organisation in a New Paradigm: Th e Infl uence of Principles of ‘New Public Management’ on the Organisation of the European Courts.” European Law Journal 14(6), 718 - 734.

  • Meyer-Sahling, J. H. 2009. “Varieties of Legacies: A Critical Review of Legacy Explanations of Public Administration Reform in East Central Europe.” International Review of Administrative Sciences 75(3), 509 - 528.

  • Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 2017. Government at a Glance 2017. Paris: OECD Publishing.

  • Peters, B. G. 2009. “Th e Two Futures of Governing: Decentering and Recentering Processes in Governing.” Th e NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy 2(1), 7 - 24.

  • Pollitt, C. and G. Bouckaert. 2011. Public Management Reform: A Comparative Analysis: New Public Management, Governance, and the Neo-Weberian State. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Randma-Liiv, T. 2008. “New Public Management versus Neo-Weberian State in Central and Eastern Europe.” Th e NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy 1(2), 69 - 81.

  • Ropret, M. and A. Aristovnik. 2018. “Public Governance Models: A Systematic Review of 30 Years’ Research.” Paper Prepared for 26th NISPAcee Annual Conference: Public Administration for Well-being and Growth, Iaşi, Romania, May 24 - May 26, 2018.

  • Suerdem, A. K. 2014. Workshop in Applied Analysis Soft ware. Available at: http://abicqu.webfactional.com/test/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/5.-Stata-Workshop.pdf (last accessed 30. 4. 2018).

  • De Vries, M. and J. Nemec, J. 2013. “Public Sector Reform: An Overview of Recent Literature and Research on NPM and Alternative Paths.” International Journal of Public Sector Management 26(1), 4 - 16.


Zeitschrift + Hefte