Ar įvyko biurokratijos saulėlydis Lietuvoje ? Saulėlydžio komisijų teiktų rekomendacijų poveikis viešojo valdymo politikai 1999–2016 metais

Q4 Social Sciences Politologija Pub Date : 2018-12-07 DOI:10.15388/POLIT.2018.92.4
Rasa Bortkevičiūtė, Vitalis Nakrošis
{"title":"Ar įvyko biurokratijos saulėlydis Lietuvoje ? Saulėlydžio komisijų teiktų rekomendacijų poveikis viešojo valdymo politikai 1999–2016 metais","authors":"Rasa Bortkevičiūtė, Vitalis Nakrošis","doi":"10.15388/POLIT.2018.92.4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"[full article and abstract in Lithuanian; abstract in English] \nLithuania has a fragmented advisory system, with a total of 213 advisory bodies working at the central level of government in 2017. Ad hoc advisory bodies have low average lifespans, while the permanent advisory bodies usually have small administrative capacities. The Sunset Commissions were an exception because they advised Lithuanian governments for more than ten years – having been active since 1999 – and operated within a well-developed institutional framework. They provided recommendations on how to improve the efficiency and quality of public management for five Lithuanian governments until 2016 when Skvernelis’s government decided to discontinue its activities. There was almost no systematic monitoring of the extent to which the recommendations were carried out. Therefore, it is important to analyze the impact of the Sunset Commissions’ recommendations on public management policy in Lithuania. \nBy combining the advisory systems and public policy process literature, the article identifies the main factors that may affect the successful use of advice: the compatibility of recommendations with the dominant political ideas, the composition of an advisory body, the government’s expectations toward its purpose, economic conditions, the support of the parliamentary majority and the political attention to its recommendations and the role of the changing leaders during public management reforms. Our empirical study – which was based on desk research, an analysis of administrative information, interviews and a survey of the Commissions’ members – consisted of two main stages. First, we assessed the impact of the Sunset Commissions on public management policy. Second, we determined the causal configurations underpinning the adoption and implementation of the recommendations set out by this advisory body. \nThe results of our assessment reveals a good deal of variation in the use of the Commissions’ recommendations. The 1999–2000 and 2009 Commissions were the most successful in terms of the recommendations adopted and implemented. The lifespan of these Sunset Commissions was marked by economic downturns that opened “windows of opportunity” for major reforms. These advisory bodies are also characterized by high performance indicators. In contrast, the advisory bodies that worked during 2006–2008 and 2013–2016 received less political attention in the Lithuanian government in the context of economic growth, which made implementation more difficult. Overall, our assessment suggests that a more active performance of the advisory body is not sufficient to explain the level of adoption and implementation of its recommendations, as the political and economic conditions significantly shape the use of advice. \nThe second part of the empirical study allowed us to determine the main causal configurations that explain the adoption and implementation of the recommendations suggested by the Sunset Commissions. The most important condition for successful adoption is the compatibility of advice: in other words, the more the given advice corresponds to a particular government’s priorities, the more successful the use of recommendation becomes. In addition, the uptake of recommendations is more frequent during economic downturns as well as when prime ministers exercise transformational leadership during the reform process. Meanwhile, the composition of the advisory body, the expectations of the government toward its performance and the leadership exercised by the heads of the commissions are less important. The conditions for the successful implementation of recommendations are slightly different. Although transformational leadership maintains its importance during the implementation phase, the exercise of transactional leadership can also lead to an incremental change if policy implementation is pursued adequately at the administrative level. \nTo conclude, our research reveals that the Sunset Commissions had a substantial impact on Lithuanian public management policy. Even though the effectiveness of the advisory body varied during the rule of the Lithuanian governments, a majority of the Commissions’ members agreed that its work should be continued. The research also allows us to offer practical recommendations for the further performance of the Sunset Commissions. The main suggestions include, but are not limited to, strengthening the mandate of the Commission, enhancing administrative discipline during the execution of the recommendations and allocating financial resources for supporting the performance of the Commission.","PeriodicalId":35151,"journal":{"name":"Politologija","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-12-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Politologija","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15388/POLIT.2018.92.4","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

[full article and abstract in Lithuanian; abstract in English] Lithuania has a fragmented advisory system, with a total of 213 advisory bodies working at the central level of government in 2017. Ad hoc advisory bodies have low average lifespans, while the permanent advisory bodies usually have small administrative capacities. The Sunset Commissions were an exception because they advised Lithuanian governments for more than ten years – having been active since 1999 – and operated within a well-developed institutional framework. They provided recommendations on how to improve the efficiency and quality of public management for five Lithuanian governments until 2016 when Skvernelis’s government decided to discontinue its activities. There was almost no systematic monitoring of the extent to which the recommendations were carried out. Therefore, it is important to analyze the impact of the Sunset Commissions’ recommendations on public management policy in Lithuania. By combining the advisory systems and public policy process literature, the article identifies the main factors that may affect the successful use of advice: the compatibility of recommendations with the dominant political ideas, the composition of an advisory body, the government’s expectations toward its purpose, economic conditions, the support of the parliamentary majority and the political attention to its recommendations and the role of the changing leaders during public management reforms. Our empirical study – which was based on desk research, an analysis of administrative information, interviews and a survey of the Commissions’ members – consisted of two main stages. First, we assessed the impact of the Sunset Commissions on public management policy. Second, we determined the causal configurations underpinning the adoption and implementation of the recommendations set out by this advisory body. The results of our assessment reveals a good deal of variation in the use of the Commissions’ recommendations. The 1999–2000 and 2009 Commissions were the most successful in terms of the recommendations adopted and implemented. The lifespan of these Sunset Commissions was marked by economic downturns that opened “windows of opportunity” for major reforms. These advisory bodies are also characterized by high performance indicators. In contrast, the advisory bodies that worked during 2006–2008 and 2013–2016 received less political attention in the Lithuanian government in the context of economic growth, which made implementation more difficult. Overall, our assessment suggests that a more active performance of the advisory body is not sufficient to explain the level of adoption and implementation of its recommendations, as the political and economic conditions significantly shape the use of advice. The second part of the empirical study allowed us to determine the main causal configurations that explain the adoption and implementation of the recommendations suggested by the Sunset Commissions. The most important condition for successful adoption is the compatibility of advice: in other words, the more the given advice corresponds to a particular government’s priorities, the more successful the use of recommendation becomes. In addition, the uptake of recommendations is more frequent during economic downturns as well as when prime ministers exercise transformational leadership during the reform process. Meanwhile, the composition of the advisory body, the expectations of the government toward its performance and the leadership exercised by the heads of the commissions are less important. The conditions for the successful implementation of recommendations are slightly different. Although transformational leadership maintains its importance during the implementation phase, the exercise of transactional leadership can also lead to an incremental change if policy implementation is pursued adequately at the administrative level. To conclude, our research reveals that the Sunset Commissions had a substantial impact on Lithuanian public management policy. Even though the effectiveness of the advisory body varied during the rule of the Lithuanian governments, a majority of the Commissions’ members agreed that its work should be continued. The research also allows us to offer practical recommendations for the further performance of the Sunset Commissions. The main suggestions include, but are not limited to, strengthening the mandate of the Commission, enhancing administrative discipline during the execution of the recommendations and allocating financial resources for supporting the performance of the Commission.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
立陶宛出现了官僚主义的太阳吗?太阳能委员会提出的建议对1999-2016年公共治理政策的影响
[立陶宛文全文和摘要;英文摘要]立陶宛的咨询系统支离破碎,2017年共有213个咨询机构在政府中央层面开展工作。特设咨询机构的平均寿命较低,而常设咨询机构的行政能力通常较小。日落委员会是一个例外,因为它们为立陶宛政府提供了十多年的咨询服务——自1999年以来一直很活跃——并且在一个完善的体制框架内运作。他们就如何提高立陶宛五个政府的公共管理效率和质量提出了建议,直到2016年斯克韦内利斯政府决定停止其活动。几乎没有系统地监测这些建议的执行程度。因此,分析日落委员会的建议对立陶宛公共管理政策的影响很重要。通过结合咨询系统和公共政策过程文献,文章确定了可能影响咨询成功使用的主要因素:建议与主流政治思想的兼容性、咨询机构的组成、政府对其目标的期望、经济条件,议会多数派的支持,对其建议的政治关注,以及在公共管理改革中不断变化的领导人的作用。我们的实证研究基于案头研究、行政信息分析、访谈和对委员会成员的调查,包括两个主要阶段。首先,我们评估了日落委员会对公共管理政策的影响。其次,我们确定了通过和执行该咨询机构提出的建议的因果关系。我们的评估结果显示,委员会建议的使用存在很大差异。就通过和执行的建议而言,1999-2000年和2009年的委员会是最成功的。这些日落委员会的任期以经济衰退为标志,为重大改革打开了“机会之窗”。这些咨询机构的特点也是业绩指标高。相比之下,在经济增长的背景下,2006-2008年和2013-2016年期间工作的咨询机构在立陶宛政府中受到的政治关注较少,这使得实施更加困难。总的来说,我们的评估表明,咨询机构更积极的表现不足以解释其建议的通过和执行程度,因为政治和经济条件在很大程度上影响了咨询意见的使用。实证研究的第二部分使我们能够确定解释日落委员会建议的采纳和执行情况的主要因果结构。成功采纳建议的最重要条件是建议的兼容性:换句话说,所提供的建议越符合特定政府的优先事项,建议的使用就越成功。此外,在经济衰退期间以及总理在改革过程中发挥转型领导作用时,采纳建议的频率更高。与此同时,咨询机构的组成、政府对其表现的期望以及委员会负责人行使的领导权都不那么重要。成功执行建议的条件略有不同。尽管变革型领导在实施阶段保持其重要性,但如果在行政层面充分执行政策,行使交易型领导也可能导致渐进的变化。总之,我们的研究表明,日落委员会对立陶宛的公共管理政策产生了重大影响。尽管在立陶宛政府统治期间,咨询机构的效力各不相同,但委员会的大多数成员都同意应继续开展其工作。这项研究还使我们能够为日落委员会的进一步表现提供切实可行的建议。主要建议包括但不限于,加强委员会的任务,在执行建议期间加强行政纪律,并为支持委员会的工作分配财政资源。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Politologija
Politologija Social Sciences-Political Science and International Relations
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
19
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
Tarp sėkmės ir katastrofos: dvi perspektyvos į perėjimo procesą postkomunistinėse valstybėse Challenging Political Representation in the Era of Big Data Nuo akmens iki sėklos: objektai ir kontratminties aktyvizmas Brazilijoje antikolonijinio demonumentalizavimo sąlygomis Aukštų pareigūnų skyrimas pusiau prezidentiniame modelyje: Lietuvos atvejis* The Theoretical Model of Smart Governance in Local Government
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1