Civil Service Development in Central and Eastern Europe and the CIS: A Perfect Storm?

  • Tony J. G. Verheijen
  • Aleksandra Rabrenovic


Earlier stock-taking work on civil service system development in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) and the Commonwealth of independent States (CIS) (Verheijen, 1999) showed a move from a relative similarity of approach in the early 1990s, when all transition states struggled to overcome the legacy of politicized and discredited state administrations, to a much more divergent pattern that emerged from the start of the last decade. The three factors identified that determined the civil service development path taken were proximity to the EU (and likelihood of EU membership), vision on the role of the state and model of political governance.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Baker, R. (2002) Transitions from Authoritarianism: The Role of Bureaucracy (New York: Praeger).Google Scholar
  2. Barro, R.J. (1991) ‘Economic Growth in a Cross-Section of Countries,’ Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106(2), 407–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bekke, H.A.G.M., James L. Perry and Theo A.J. Toonen (eds) (1996) Civil Service Systems in a Comparative Perspective (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press).Google Scholar
  4. Bhatti, Z.K., Z. Kusek and T. Verheijen (2014) Lessons from South Asia on How People and Government Can Connect (World Bank Publications).Google Scholar
  5. Cardona, F. (2000) European Public Administration Principles. SIGMA Papers 27 (Paris: OECD).Google Scholar
  6. Dimitrova, A. (2002) ‘Enlargement, Institution-Building and the EU’s Administrative Capacity Criteria,’ West European Politics, 25(4), 171–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Emrich-Bakenova, S. (2009) ‘Trajectory of Civil Service Development in Kazakhstan: Nexus of Politics and Administration,’ Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration and Institutions, 22(4), 717–745.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fournier, J. (1998) ‘Governance and European Integration — Reliable Public Administration in OECD,’ in OECD (ed.) Preparing Public Administrations for the European Administrative Space. SIGMA Papers 23 (Paris: OECD).Google Scholar
  9. Goetz, K.H. (2001) ‘Making Sense of Post-Communist Central Administration: Modernization, Europeanization or Latinization?’ Journal of European Public Policy, 5(6), 1032–1051.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Goetz, K.H. and H. Margetts (1999) ‘The Solitary Centre: The Core Executive in Central and Eastern Europe,’ Governance, 12(4), 425–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Iancu, D.C. and M. Ungureanu (2013) ‘Conditionality and Reform Reversal: The Case of the Romanian Civil Service.’ Draft paper presented at the NISPAcee conference in Belgrade, May.Google Scholar
  12. Inkina, S. (2013) ‘Civil Service Reform in Transition: A Case Study of Russia,’ Review of European and Russian Affairs, 8(1), 1–12.Google Scholar
  13. Kickert, W., T. Randma-Liiv and R. Savi (2013) Fiscal Consolidation in Europe: A Comparative Analysis. COCOPS Trend Report.Google Scholar
  14. Knack, S. and P. Keefer (1995) ‘Institutions and Economic Performance: Crosscountry Tests Using Alternative Institutions Measures,’ Economics and Politics, 7(2), 207–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Konov A. n.d. Public Service and Administrative Reforms in Russia. Report by the Working Group on Public Sector Quality. (accessed October 2013).
  16. Kotchegura, A. (2008). Civil Service Reform in Post-Communist Countries — The Case of the Russian Federation and the Czech Republic (Leiden: Leiden University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mauro, P. (1995) ‘Corruption and Economic Growth,’ Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110(3), 681–712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Meyer-Sahling, J. (2012) Civil Service Professionalisation in the Western Balkans. SIGMA Papers 48 (Paris: OECD Publishing).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Painter, M. and B. Guy Peters (eds) (2010) Tradition and Public Administration (London: Palgrave Macmillan).Google Scholar
  21. Peters, B.G., L. Vass and T. Verheijen (eds) (2005) Coalitions of the Unwilling? Politicians and Civil Servants in Coalition Governments (Bratislava: NISPAcee).Google Scholar
  22. Pierre, J. and B.G. Peters (2003) Handbook of Public Administration (London: Sage).Google Scholar
  23. Rabrenovic, A. and T. Verheijen (2005) ‘Politicians and Top Level Officials in Former Yugoslav States, Back to Discarded Traditions?’ in A. Rosenbaum and J. Nemec (eds) Democratic Governance in the Central and Eastern European Countries: Challenges for the XXI century (Bratislava: NISPAcee), pp. 133–150.Google Scholar
  24. Rauch, James B. and Peter B. Evans (2000) ‘Bureaucratic Structure and Bureaucratic Performance in Less Developed Countries,’ Journal of Public Economics, 75, 49–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. RCPAR (2010) Comparative Research in Challenges for Public Sector Human Resources Management in an Economic Downturn, (UNDP, Bratislava Regional Centre).Google Scholar
  26. SIGMA (2012a) Assessment: Bosnia and Herzegovina, March 2012. (accessed September 30, 2014).Google Scholar
  27. SIGMA (2012b) Assessment, Serbia, 2012. (accessed September 30, 2014).Google Scholar
  28. SIGMA (2012c) Assessment: Montenegro, March 2012. (accessed September 30, 2014).Google Scholar
  29. Staronova, K. (2013) Innovative Elements in Civil Service Reform of Slovakia: Road to Professionalization? Paper presented at the NISPAcee conference in Belgrade, May.Google Scholar
  30. Verheijen, T. (ed.) (1999) Civil Service Systems in Central and Eastern Europe (Edward Elgar: Cheltenham).Google Scholar
  31. Verheijen, T. (2000) Administrative Capacity Building for EU Membership, A Race against Time? WRR Working Paper 109 (The Hague: WRR).Google Scholar
  32. Verheijen, T. (ed.) (2001) Politico-Administrative Relations, Who Rules? (Bratislava: NISPAcee).Google Scholar
  33. Verheijen, T. (2002) ‘Les Critères Administratifs d’adhésion a l’Union Européenne: sont-ils voues au placard?’ Revue d’Etudes comparatives Est-Ouest, 3, 79–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Verheijen, T. (2003) ‘L’Administration publique en Europe Centrale et Orientale: apparition d’un Modèle Émergent sui generis ou avatar des différentes traditions Européennes,’ Revue Française d’Administration Publique, 105–106 (November), 95–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Verheijen, T. (2004) ‘Administrative Transformation and the Accession Agenda,’ Zeitschrift für Staats- und Europawissenschaften, 3, 373–389.Google Scholar
  36. Verheijen, T. (2007) Administrative Capacity in the New EU Member States: The Limits of Innovation. World bank Working Papers 115 (Washington DC).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Verheijen, T. (2010) ‘The New Member States of the European Union: Constructed and Historical Traditions and Reform Trajectories,’ in M. Painter and B. Guy Peters (eds) Tradition and Public Administration (London: Palgrave Macmillan).Google Scholar
  38. Verheijen, T. and D.L. Coombes (eds) (1998) Innovations in Public Management (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar).Google Scholar
  39. World Bank (2002) Serbia and Montenegro — Public Expenditure and Institutional Review (Washington, DC: World Bank).Google Scholar
  40. World Bank (2003a) Macedonia — Public Expenditure and Institutional Review (Washington, DC: World Bank).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. World Bank (2003b) Croatia — Country Economic Memorandum (Washington, DC: World Bank).Google Scholar
  42. World Bank (2003c) International Public Administration Reform: Implications for the Russian Federation (Washington, DC: World Bank).Google Scholar
  43. World Bank (2004a) Serbia and Montenegro — Public Administration Development, Creating the Conditions for Effective Economic and Social Reform (Washington, DC: World Bank).Google Scholar
  44. World Bank (2004b) Lithuania — Review of the Civil Service Wage System, Report (Washington, DC: World Bank).Google Scholar
  45. World Bank (2004c) The Fiscal Cost of Reform, Russia Public Expenditure Review (Washington, DC: World Bank).Google Scholar
  46. World Bank (2005a) Linking Administrative Reform to Economic Growth Patterns: Review of Methods and Findings. Discussion Paper (Washington, DC: World Bank).Google Scholar
  47. World Bank (2005b) Kazakhstan: Reforming the Public Sector Wage System (Washington, DC: World Bank).Google Scholar
  48. World Bank (2007) EU 8 Administrative Capacity in the New Member States: The Limits of Innovation? (Washington, DC: World Bank).Google Scholar
  49. World Bank (2008) Synthesis Note Vol. 1, Republic of Tajikistan — Public Sector Pay Reform — Policy Note on Medium Term Pay Reform in Public Sector, Civil Service, Education, Health, Social Protection, Science, Culture and Sport. Public Expenditure Review (PER) (Washington, DC: World Bank).Google Scholar
  50. World Bank (2011) Russia — Public Expenditure Review (Washington, DC: World Bank).Google Scholar
  51. World Bank (2012) Public Sector Management Approach (Washington, DC: World Bank).Google Scholar
  52. World Bank and DFID (2004) Serbian Civil Service: Assessment of Pay and Benefits System, Report (PricewaterhouseCoopers).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Tony J.G. Verheijen and Aleksandra Rabrenovic 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tony J. G. Verheijen
  • Aleksandra Rabrenovic

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations