Advertisement

The Future of Public Administration Reform in Romania

  • Sebastian Văduva
Chapter
Part of the SpringerBriefs in Economics book series (BRIEFSECONOMICS)

Abstract

The process of Europeanizing Romania is advanced and has had positive and visible results such as the growth in GDP per capita, the presence of multinational corporations, significant progress in infrastructure, and the development of public administration. In all fairness, even if there are shortcomings and aspects that require improvement, significant progress has been made on varying fronts. This Europeanization process, as analyzed in the previous chapters, has had a significant impact on the public administration of Romania. The legal framework is in place along with the Commissions’ monitoring reports verifying the progress of the nation and the adoption of the European public administrative space.

Keywords

Public Choice Political Party Public Administration Public Management Reform Initiative 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Acemoglu, D., & Robinson, J. (2008). The role of institutions in growth and development. Washington, DC: The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. World Bank on Behalf of the Commission on Growth and Development.Google Scholar
  2. Akman, I., Yazici, A., Mishra, A., & Arifoglu, A. (2005). E-Government: A global view and an empirical evaluation of some attributes of citizens. Government Information Quarterly, 22(2), 239–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson, J. A. (1975). Public policy-making. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  4. Archmann, S. (2010). Balkan public administration between traditions and modernity. Transformational government and beyond, from Weberian Bureaucracy to new public management. South-Eastern Public Administrative Studies.Google Scholar
  5. Atkinson, R. D., & Leigh, A. (2003). Customer-oriented e-government: Can we ever get there? In G. G. Curtin, M. H. Sommer, & V. Vis-Sommer (Eds.), The world of e-government (pp. 159–181). Binghamton, NY: Haworth Press.Google Scholar
  6. Aucoin, P. (1990). Administrative reform in public management: Paradigms, principles, paradoxes and pendulums. Governance. An International Journal of Policy and Administration, 3(2), 115–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bately, R. (1999). The new public management in developing countries: Implications for policy and organizational reform. Journal of International Development, 11, 761–765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Baumgartner, F. R., & Jones, B. D. (1993). Agendas and instability in American politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  9. Bertot, J. C., & Jaeger, P. T. (2006). User-centered e-government: Challenges and benefits for government web sites. Government Information Quarterly, 23, 163–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Borins, S. (1994). Government in transition: A new paradigm in public administration—A Report on the Inaugural Conference of CAPAM. The Commonwealth Association for Public Administration and Management, Toronto 1994, CAPAM.Google Scholar
  11. Borins, S. (1995). The new public management is here to stay. Canadian Public Administration, 38, 125–126.Google Scholar
  12. Boston, J., Martin, J., Pallot, J., & Walsh, P. (1996). Public management: The New Zealand model. Auckland, New Zealand: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Box, R. C., Marshall, G. S., Reed, B. J., & Reed, C. M. (2001). New public management and substantive democracy. Public Administration Review, 61, 608–619. doi: 10.1111/0033-3352.00131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bozeman, B. (1991). Introduction: Two concepts of public management. In B. Bozeman (Ed.), Public management—The state of the art. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  15. Bozeman, B. (2007). Public values and public interest. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Brzezinski, Z. K. (1967). The Soviet bloc: Unity and conflict. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Buchanan, J. M. (1975). The limits of liberty: Between Anarchy and Leviathan. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  18. Buchanan, J. M. (1986). Liberty, market and state—Political economy in the 1980s. Brighton, England: Harvester Press.Google Scholar
  19. Buchanan, J. M., & Tullock, G. (1962). The calculus of consent—Logical foundations of constitutional democracy. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  20. Bulmer, S., & Burch, M. (1998). Organizing for Europe: Whitehall, the British State and European Union. Public Administration., 76, 601–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Buti, D. (2011). Ce sunt partidele politice? Spre o nouă abordare în stasiologie (What are the political parties? Towards a new approach in politics). Sfera Politicii nr, 5(159), 2011.Google Scholar
  22. Carter, L., & Bélanger, F. (2005). The utilization of e-government services: Citizen trust, innovation and acceptance factors. Information Systems Journal., 15(1), 5–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Carter, L., & Weerakkody, V. (2008). e-Government adoption: A cultural comparison. Information Systems Frontiers., 10(4), 473–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Cepiku, D., & Mititelu, C. (2010). Public administration reforms in transition countries: Albania and Romania between the Weberian model and the new public management. Rome, Italy: TRAS.Google Scholar
  25. Colesca, S., & Dobrica, L. (2008). Adoption and use of e-government services: The case of Romania. Journal of Applied Research and Technology, 6(3), 204–217.Google Scholar
  26. deLeon, L., & deLeon, P. (2002). The democratic ethos and public management. Administration & Society, 34, 229–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Diamond, L. (2008). Democratic Rollback: The resurgence of the predatory state. The Foreign Aff, 87, 36.Google Scholar
  28. Dolowitz, D., & Marsh, D. (1996). Who learns what from whom: A review of the policy transfer literature. Political Studies, 44, 343–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of political action in a democracy. The Journal of Political Economy, 2(1957), 135–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Downs, A. (1968). An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
  31. Drechsler, W. (2005a). The rise and demise of the new public management. Post-Autistic Economics Review, 33, 14.Google Scholar
  32. Drechsler, W. (2005b). The re-emergence of “Weberian” public administration after the fall of new public management: The Central and Eastern European perspective. Trames, 6, 94–108.Google Scholar
  33. Dunleavy, P., Margetts, H., Bastow, S., & Tinkler, J. (2005). New public management is dead—Long live digital-era governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16(3), 467–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Dunleavy, P., Yared, H., & Bastow, S. (2003). Government agility: The scope for improving public sector performance. A Report for AT Kearney by the London School of Economics Public Policy Group.Google Scholar
  35. Dunsire, A. (1995). Administrative theory in the 1980’s: A viewpoint. Public Administration, 73, 17–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Egger, R. (1975). The period of crisis: 1933 to 1945. In F. C. Mosher (Ed.), American public administration: Past, present, future. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
  37. Eisenach, E. J. (1994). The lost promise of progressivism. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.Google Scholar
  38. Evans, P. B., & Rauch, J. E. (2000). Bureaucratic structure and bureaucratic performance in less developed countries. Journal of Public Economics, 75, 49–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Fjeldstad, O.-H., & Isaksen, J. (2008). Anti-corruption reforms: Challenges, effects and limits of World Bank support. Washington, DC: World Bank. IEG Working Paper No. 2008/7.Google Scholar
  40. Gawthrop, L. C. (1998). The human side of public administration. Political Science & Politics, 31, 763–769.Google Scholar
  41. Goerdel, H. T., Nabatchi, T., & Peffer, S. (2011). Public administration in dark times: Some questions for the future of the field. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(1), 29.Google Scholar
  42. Golembiewski, R. T. (1969). Organization development in public agencies: Perspectives on theory and practice. Public Administration Review, 29(1), 43–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Gore, A. J. (1994). The new job of the federal executive. Public Administration Review, 54, 317–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Graicunas, V. A. (1937). Relationship in urbanization. In L. Gulick & L. Urwick (Eds.), Papers on the science of administration. New York: Columbia University.Google Scholar
  45. Greenhouse, S. M. (1966). The planning-programming-budgeting system: Rationale, language, and idea-relationships. Public Administration Review, 26, 35–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Greuning, G. (2001). Origin and theoretical basis of new public management. International Public Management Journal, 4, 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Gross, B. M. (1969). The new systems budgeting. Public Administration Review, 29, 113–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Gulick, L. (1937). Notes on the theory of organization. In L. Urwick (Ed.), Gulick, L (pp. 1–45). New York: Papers on the science of administration. Columbia University.Google Scholar
  49. Hambleton, R. (2004). Beyond new public management: City leadership, democratic renewal, and the politics of place. Paper presented at the City Futures International Conference, Chicago.Google Scholar
  50. Harmsen, R. (2000). Europeanization and governance: A new institutionalist perspective. Yearbook of European Studies, 14, 51–81.Google Scholar
  51. Henderson, J., Hulme, D., Hossein, J., & Phillips, R. (2007). Bureaucratic effects: ‘Weberian’ state agencies and poverty reduction. Sociology of Health & Illness, 41, 515–533.Google Scholar
  52. Henry, G. T. (1990). Program evaluation. In M. L. Whicker & T. W. Areson (Eds.), Public sector management (pp. 113–128). New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  53. Hood, C. (1991). A public management for all seasons? Public Administration, 69, 3–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Hood, C. (1995). The new public management in the 1980’s: Variations on a theme. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 20(2/3), 93–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Hsieh, J. J. P. A., Rai, A., & Keil, M. (2008). Understanding digital inequality: Comparing continued use behavioral models of the socio-economically advantaged and disadvantaged. MIS Quarterly, 32(1), 97–126.Google Scholar
  56. Ingraham, P. W. (2006). Who should rule? In D. H. Rosenbloom & H. E. McCurdy (Eds.), Revisiting Waldo’s administrative state (pp. 71–86). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Jaeger, P. T. (2003). The endless wire: E-government as global phenomenon. Government Information Quarterly., 20(4), 323–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Jenei, G. R., & Szalai, A. K. (2002). Modernizing local governance in a transitional nation: Evaluating the Hungarian experience. Public Management Review, 4(2), 367–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Jordan, A. (2003). The Europeanization of National Government and Policy: A departmental perspective. British Journal of Political Science, 33(2), 261482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Jowitt, K. (1992). New world disorder: The Leninist extinction. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  61. Kaufmann, D. (2004). Human rights and governance: The empirical challenge. Paper presented at the New York University Law School, March 2004.Google Scholar
  62. Kennedy, P. (1987). The rise and fall of great powers (p. 535). New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
  63. Khalil, M., Lanvin, B., & Chaudhry, V. (2002). The e-Government handbook for developing countries: A project of InfoDev and the center for democracy and technology. Washington, DC: InfoDev and the Center for Democracy & Technology.Google Scholar
  64. Kiu, C., Yuen, L., & Tsui, E. (2010). Semantic interoperability for enhancing sharing and learning through e-Government knowledge-intensive portal services. Journal of E-Governance, 2010(33), 108–116.Google Scholar
  65. Knill, C. (2001). The Europeanization of national administrations: Patterns of institutional change and persistence. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Kolsaker, A. (2007). Understanding E-government (G2C) in the knowledge society. International Journal of Information Technology and Management, 2007(6), 1.Google Scholar
  67. Kotler, P. (1978). Marketing for nonprofit organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  68. Kumlin, S., & Rothstein, B. (2005). Making and breaking social capital. The impact of welfare state institutions. Comparative Political Studies, 38, 339–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. La Porta, R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F., Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. (1999). The quality of government. Journal of Law Economics and Organization, 15(1), 79–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Layne, K., & Lee, J. (2001). Developing fully functional e-government: A four stage model. Government Information Quarterly, 18(2), 122–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Lee, E. W.-Y. (1995). Political science, public administration, and the rise of the American administrative state. Public Administration Review, 55, 538–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Lerner, A. W., & Wanat, J. (1992). Public administration: A realistic reinterpretation of contemporary public management. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  73. Lippmann, W. (1955). The political philosopher. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
  74. Lowi, T. J. (1979). The end of liberalism. New York: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
  75. Manning, N. (2001). The legacy of the new public management in developing countries. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 67, 296–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1995). Democratic governance. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  77. Margetts, H., & Dunleavy, P. (2002). Better services through e-government. Academic article in support of Better services through e-government. London: Stationery Office. For the UK National Audit Office, Session 2001–2002 HC 704 Volume 3, April 4.Google Scholar
  78. Mauro, P. (1995). Corruption and growth. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110, 681–712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. McCourt, W. (2007). Impartiality through Bureaucracy? A Sri Lankan approach to managing values. Journal of International Development, 19(3), 429–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Meier, K. J. (1997). Bureaucracy and democracy: The case for more bureaucracy and less democracy. Public Administration Review, 57, 193–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Meier, K. J., O’Toole, & Lawrence, J. (2006). Bureaucracy in a democratic state: A governance perspective. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press.Google Scholar
  82. Milakovich, M. E. (1991). Total quality management in the public sector. National Productivity Review, 10, 195–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Moon, M. J., & Norris, D. F. (2005). Does managerial orientation matter? The adoption of reinventing government and e-government at the municipal level. Information Systems Journal, 15(1), 43–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Mooney, J. D. (1937). The principles of organization. In L. Gulick & L. Urwick (Eds.), Papers on the science of administration (pp. 89–98). New York: Columbia University.Google Scholar
  85. Moore, M. H. (1995). Creating public value: Strategic management in Government. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  86. Morgeson, F. V., III, & Mithas, S. (2009). Does e-government measure up to e-business? Comparing end-user perceptions of U.S. Federal Government and e-Business Websites. Public Administration Review, 69, 740–752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Murray, M. A. (1975). Comparing public and private management: An exploratory essay. Public Administration Review, 35, 364–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Nabatchi, T. (2009). Radical individualism, instrumental rationality, and public administration: A paper formerly titled “Roofied and Rolled”. Public Performance & Management Review, 32, 585–591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Nabatchi, T. (2010). Addressing the citizenship and democratic deficits: The potential of deliberative democracy for public administration. The American Review of Public Administration, 40, 376–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Nickson, A. (1999). Does the NPM work in less developed countries? The case of the urban water supply sector. Journal of International Development, 11, 777–783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Nita, V. (2011). An extended approach to e-inclusion and its implications for Romania. Romanian Journal of European Affairs, 11(1), 63–80.Google Scholar
  92. Norris, D. F., & Lloyd, B. A. (2006). The scholarly literature on e-government: Characterizing a nascent field. International Journal of Electronic Government Research, 2(4), 40–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Painter, M., & Peters, B. G. (Eds.). (2010). Administrative traditions: Inheritances and transplants in comparative perspective. Basingstoke, England: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  94. Parsons, W. (1995). Public policy—An introduction to the theory and practice of policy analysis. Cheltenham, England: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  95. Perkins, D. (1998). Political parties and democracy: A comparative analysis of party mobilization. Boston: APSA.Google Scholar
  96. Petersone, B. (2008a). The process of public policy: An external perspective. In C. Crăciun & P. Collins (Eds.), Public policy management. Iaşi, Romania: Polirom.Google Scholar
  97. Petersone, B. (2008b). Consolidarea capacităţii Guvernului României de a gestiona şi a coordona politicile publice şi de a aplica procesul decizional (The consolidation of Romanian government capacity to administer and coordinate the public policies and to apply the decisional process). In C. Crăciun & P. E. Collins (Eds.), Transformarea guvernării în România. Provocări pentru managementul politicilor, Claudiu Crăciun in Managementul politicilor publice: Transformări şi perspective (pp. 247–269). Iaşi, Romania: Polirom.Google Scholar
  98. Polidano, C., & Hulme, D. (1999). Public management reform in developing countries: Issues and outcomes. Public Management An International Journal of Research, 1(1), 35–43.Google Scholar
  99. Politt, C., & Bouckaert, G. (2000). Public management reform: A comparative Analysis. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  100. Polsby, N. (1984). Political innovation in America: The politics of policy initiation. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  101. Pugh, D. L. (1991). The origins of ethical frameworks in public administration. In J. S. Bowman (Ed.), Ethical frontiers in public management (pp. 9–33). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  102. Rawajbeh, M. A., & Haboush, A. (2011). Enhancing the e-government functionality using knowledge management. World Academy of Science Engineering and Technology, 75, 393–397.Google Scholar
  103. Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  104. Rhodes, R. (2005). The life, death and resurrection of governance. Workshop on Theories of Democratic Network Governance. Roskilde University, Denmark, 28–29 April.Google Scholar
  105. Rodrik, D. (2007). One economics, many recipes: Globalization, institutions and economic growth. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  106. Rodrik, D. (2008). Second-best institutions. American Economic Review, 98(2), 100–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Rohr, J. (1976). The study of ethics in the PA curriculum. Public Administration Review, 36, 398–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Samaratunge, R., Quamrul, A., & Julian, T. (2008). The new public management reforms in Asia. International Review of Public Administration, 75, 25–46.Google Scholar
  109. Schachter, H. L. (1989). Frederick Taylor and the public administration community—A reevaluation. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  110. Schick, A. (1966). The road to PPB: The stages of budget reforms. Public Administration Review, 26, 243–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Schick, A. (1969). Systems politics and systems budgeting. Public Administration Review, 29, 137–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Schick, A. (1998). Why most developing countries should not try New Zealand’s reforms. World Bank Research Observer, 13, 23–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Seabrooke, L. (2002). Bringing legitimacy back in to neo-Weberian state theory and international relations. Canberra, ACT, Australia: Department of International Relations, Australian National University.Google Scholar
  114. Seidman, H. (1970). Politics, position and power. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  115. Sherwood, F. P., & Page, W. J. (1976). MBO and public management. Public Administration Review, 36, 5–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Simon, H. A. (1976). Administrative behavior—A study of decision-making in administrative organization (3rd ed.). New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  117. Simon, H. A., Smithburg, D. W., & Thompson, V. A. (1962). Public administration (7th ed.). New York: Alfred Knopf.Google Scholar
  118. State-Cerkez, M., & Păunescu, M. (2008). O abordare critică a noului management public şi a reformei administraţiei publice din România (A critical approach of the new public management and of public administration reform in Romania). In Management public în România, Iaşi, Romania: Polirom.Google Scholar
  119. Stewart, J., & Walsh, K. (1992). Change in the management of public services. Public Administration, 70, 499–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. Stone, A. B., & Stone, D. C. (1975). Early development of education in public administration. In F. C. Mosher (Ed.), American public administration: Past, present, future (pp. 11–48). Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
  121. Sulieman, E. N. (2003). Dismantling democratic states. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  122. Swiss, J. E. (1992). Adapting total quality management (TQM) to government. Public Administration Review., 52, 356–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. Teo, T. S. H., Srivastava, S. C., & Jiang, L. (2008). Trust and electronic government success: An empirical study. Journal of Management Information Systems, 25(3), 99–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. Thelen, K. (1999). Historical institutionalism in comparative politics. Annual Review of Political Science, 2, 251–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. Theriault, S. M. (2008). Party polarization in congress. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. Tolbert, C. J., & Mossberger, K. (2006). The effects of e-government on trust and confidence in government. Public Administration Review, 66, 354–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. Tullock, G. (1965). The politics of bureaucracy. Washington, DC: Public Affairs Press.Google Scholar
  128. Urwick, L. (1937). Organization as a technical problem. In L. Gulick & L. Urwick (Eds.), Papers on the science of administration (pp. 47–88). New York: Columbia University.Google Scholar
  129. Văduva, S. (2004). Antreprenoriatul. Practici aplicative în România şi în alte ţări în tranziţie, Editura Economică.Google Scholar
  130. Van Riper, P. P. (1987). The American administrative state: Wilson and the Founders. In R. C. Chandler (Ed.), A centennial history of the American administrative state (pp. 3–36). New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  131. Ventriss, C. (1998). New public management: An examination of its influence on contemporary public affairs, and its impact on shaping the intellectual agenda of the field. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 22, 500–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  132. Verheijen, T. (1998). NPM reforms and other western reform strategies: The wrong medicine for Central and Eastern Europe? In T. Verheijen & D. Coombes (Eds.), Innovations in public management (pp. 407–426). Cheltenham, England: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  133. Verheijen, A. J. G. (2003). Public administration in post-communist states. In B. G. Peters & J. Pierre (Eds.), Handbook of Public Administration. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  134. Waldo, D. (1948). The administrative state—A study of the political theory of American public administration. New York: Ronald Press.Google Scholar
  135. Wamsley, G. L., Bacher, R. N., Goodsell, A., Charles, T., Kronenberg, P. S., Rohr, J. A., et al. (Eds.). (1990). Refounding public administration. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  136. Warren, K. F. (1993). We have debated ad nauseam the legitimacy of the administrative state—But why? Public Administration Review, 53, 249–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  137. Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organization. (Trans. A. M. Henderson & T. Parsons). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  138. Weber, M. (1968). On Charisma and institution building. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  139. Wechsler, B., & Backoff, R. W. (1986). Policy making and administration in state agencies: Strategic management approaches. Public Administration Review, 46, 321–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  140. West, D. M. (2004). E-government and the transformation of service delivery and citizen attitudes. Public Administration Review, 64(1), 15–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  141. Woller, G. M. (1998). Toward a reconciliation of the bureaucratic and democratic ethos. Administration & Society, 30, 85–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  142. Wright, V. (1994). Reshaping the state: Implications for public administration. West European Politics, 17, 374–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sebastian Văduva
    • 1
  1. 1.Griffiths School of ManagementEmanuel University of OradeaOradeaRomania

Personalised recommendations