New Public Governance in the Baltic States: Flexible Administration and Rule Bending

References

• Aucoin, P. (2012). New political governance in Westminster systems: Impartial public administration and management performance at risk. Governance, 25(2), 177–199.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Auers, D. (2015). Comparative politics and government of the Baltic States: Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania in the 21st century. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan UK.
   Google Scholar
• Bach, S., & Bordogna, L. (2011). Varieties of new public management or alternative models? The reform of public service employment relations in industrialized democracies. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22(11), 2281–2294.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Behn, R. D. (1998). The new public management paradigm and the search for democratic accountability. International Public Management Journal, 1(2), 131–164.
   Google Scholar
• Bryer, T. A. (2007). Toward a relevant agenda for a responsive public administration. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 17(3), 479–500.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bryer, T. A. (2009). Explaining responsiveness in collaboration: Administrator and citizen role perceptions. Public Administration Review, 69(2), 271–283.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cepl, V. (1997). The transformation of hearts and minds in Eastern Europe. Cato Journal, 17(2), 229–234.
   Google Scholar
• Dahlström, C., Lapuente, V., & Teorell, T. (2012). The merit of meritocratization: Politics, bureaucracy, and the institutional deterrents of corruption. Political Research Quarterly, 65(3), 656–668.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Vries, M., & Nemec, J. (2012). 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.
   Google Scholar
• Demmke, C., & Moilanen, T. (2010). Civil services in the EU of 27: Reform outcomes and the future of the civil service. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
   Google Scholar
• Denhardt, J. V., & Denhardt, R. B. (2000). The new public service: Serving rather than steering. Public Administration Review, 60(6), 549–559.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Drechsler, W. (2004). Governance, good governance, and government: The case for Estonian administrative capacity. Trames, 8(4), 388–396.
   Google Scholar
• Drechsler, W. (2005). The rise and demise of the New Public Management. Post-Autistic Economics Review, 17–28. http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue33/Drechsler33.htm (Assessed 25th June 2017).
   Google Scholar
• Frank, B., Lambsdorff, J. G., & Boehm, F. (2011). Gender and corruption: Lessons from laboratory corruption experiments. European Journal of Development Research, 23, 59–71.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gerring, J. (2001). Social science methodology. A criterial framework. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
   Google Scholar
• Goetz, K. H. (2001). Making sense of post-communist central administration: Modernization, Europeanization or Latinization? Journal of European Public Policy, 8, 1032–1051.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jansone, D., & Reinholde, I. (2001). Politico-administrative relations: The case of Latvia. In T. Verheijen (Ed.), Politico-administrative relations. Who Rules? (pp. 203–225). Bratislava: NISPAcee.
   Google Scholar
• Johannsen, L., & Pedersen, K. H. (2012). How to combat corruption: Assessing anti-corruption measures from a civil servant’s perspective. Halduskultuur—Administrative Culture, 13, 130–146.
   Google Scholar
• Johannsen, L., Olafsson, E. M., & Pedersen, K. H. (2016). Women the fairer sex: Gendered attitudes towards corruption and experiences with bribery. In B. Davis (Ed.), Corruption: Political, economic and social issues (pp. 121–130). New York: Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Jordan, J. M. (2002). Patronage and corruption in the Czech republic. RFE/RL East European Perspective, 4(4–5), 19–52.
   Google Scholar
• Kathi, P. C., & Cooper, T. L. (2005). Democratizing the administrative state: Connecting neighborhood councils and city agencies. Public Administration Review, 65(5), 559–567.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klitgaard, R. (1988). Controlling corruption. Berkeley: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Koppenjan, J., & Koliba, C. (2013). Transformations towards New Public Governance: Can the new paradigm handle complexity? International Review of Public Administration, 18(2), 1–8.
   Google Scholar
• Landman T. (2000). Issues and methods in comparative politics. An introduction. London & NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Lazareviciute, I., Tirviene, J., & Poniskaitis, J. (2001). Politico-administrative relations in Lithuania. In T. Verheijen (Ed.), Politico-administrative Relations. Who Rules? (pp. 226–267). Bratislava: NISPAcee.
   Google Scholar
• Ledeneva, A. V. (1998). Russia’s economy of favours. Blat, networking and informal exchange, Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
   Google Scholar
• Mahoney, J. (2000). Strategies of causal inference in Small-N analysis. Sociological Methods & Research, 28(4), 387–424.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maravic, P. von, & Reichard, C. (2003). New public management and corruption: IPMN dialogue and analysis. International Public Management Review, 4(1), 84–130.
   Google Scholar
• Nakrošis, V., & Budraitis, M. (2012). Longitudinal change in Lithuanian agencies: 1990–2010. International Journal of Public Administration, 35(12), 820–831.
   Google Scholar
• Nunberg, B. (2000). Ready for Europe: Public administration reform and European Union accession in Central and Eastern Europe. Washington, DC: World Bank Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Nørgaard, O., & Johannsen, L. (1999). The Baltic States after independence. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• Olsen, J. P. (2008). The ups and downs of bureaucratic organization. Annual Review of Political Science, 11(1), 13–37.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Osborne, S. P. (2006). Editorial. The New Public Governance? Public Management Review, 8(3), 277–387.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Osborne, S. P. (2010). Delivering public services: Time for a new theory? Public Management Review, 12(1), 1–10.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Painter, M., & Peters, G. B. (2010). Tradition and public administration. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Pakulski, J. (1986). Bureaucracy and the Soviet system. Studies in Comparative Communism, XIX(1), 3–24.
   Google Scholar
• Panagiotou, R.A. (2001). Estonia’s success: Prescription or legacy. Communist and Post-Communist Studies, 34, 261–277.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pedersen, K.H., & Johannsen, L. (2007). The talk of the town: Comparing corruption in the baltic states and Poland. In M. Schartau, S. Berglund & B. Henningsen (Eds.). Political culture: Values and identities in the baltic sea region (pp. 117–134). Berlin: BWV Berliner Wissenschafts-Verlag GmbH.
   Google Scholar
• Pedersen, K. H., & Johannsen, L. (2015). European values and practices in post-communist public administration. The Baltic States. In P. Overeem & F. Sager (Eds.), The European public servant. A shared administrative identity (pp. 219–241). Colchester: ECPR press.
   Google Scholar
• Pedersen, K. H., & Johannsen, L. (2016). Where and how you sit. How civil servants view citizens’ participation. Administration & Society, 48(1), 104–129.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peters, B. G., & Pierre, J. (2000). Citizens versus the new public manager. The problem of mutual empowerment. Administration & Society, 32(1), 9–28.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peters, B. G. (2001). The future of governing (2nd ed.). Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
   Google Scholar
• Pollitt, C., & Bouckaert, G. (2011). Public management reform: A comparative analysis—new public management, governance, and the Neo-Weberian state. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pollitt, C., & Dan, S. (2013). Searching for impacts in performance-oriented management reform. A review of the European literature. Public Performance & Management Review, 37(1), 7–32.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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, 595–605
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Randma-Liiv, T. (2005). Demand- and supply-based policy transfer in Estonian public administration. Journal of Baltic Studies, 36(4), 467–487.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rauch, J., & Evans, P. B. (2000). Bureaucratic structure and bureaucratic performance in less developed countries. Journal of Public Economics, 75(1), 49–71.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rivas, F. (2012). An experiment on corruption and gender. Bulletin of Economic Research, 65(1), 10–42.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rothstein, B., & Teorell, J. (2008). What is quality of government? A theory of impartial government institutions. Governance, 21(2), 165–190.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rothstein, B. (2014). What is the opposite of corruption? Third World Quarterly, 35(5), 737–752.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sarapuu, K. (2012). Administrative structures in times of changes: The development of Estonian ministries and government agencies 1990-2010. International Journal of Public Administration, 35(12), 808–819.
   Google Scholar
• Sigma. (1999). European principles for public administration, SIGMA papers no. 27. Available at http://www.oecd.org/site/sigma/publicationsdocuments/36972467.pdf (Accessed November 2012).
   Google Scholar
• Sootla, G. (2001). Evolution of roles of politicians and civil servants during the post-communist transition in Estonia. In T. Verheijen (Ed.), Who Rules? Politico-administrative relations, (pp. 107–146). Bratislava: NISPAcee.
   Google Scholar
• Svendsen, G. L. H., & Svendsen, G. T. (2003). On the wealth of nations: Bourdieuconomics and social capital. Theory and Society, 32, 607–631.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Svendsen, G. T., & Svendsen, G. L. H. (2009). The troika of sociology, political science and economics. In G. T. Svendsen & G. L. H. Svendsen (Eds.), Handbook of social capital. The troika of sociology Political Science and economics, (pp. 1–16). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• Teicher, J., Alam, Q., & van Gramberg, B. (2006). Managing trust and relationships in PPPs: Some Australian experiences. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 72(1), 85–100.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Torfing, J., & Triantafillou, P. (2013). What’s in a name? Grasping new public governance as a political-administrative system. International Review of Public Administration, 18(2), 9–25.
   Google Scholar
• Transparency International. (2017). https://www.transparency.org/news/feature/corruption_perceptions_index_2017 (Accessed April 2018).
   Google Scholar
• Weber, M., Roth, G. & Wittich C. (Eds.) ([1968] 2013). Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology. Berkeley: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Yang, K., & Callahan, K. (2007). Citizen involvement efforts and bureaucratic responsiveness: Participatory values, stakeholder pressures, and administrative practicality. Public Administration Review, 67(2), 249–2.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar