Since the conceptual framework of the European Administrative Space (EAS) in 1990s, at least two convergent trends may be found out. The first trend refers to EAS operationalisation as instrument and mechanism for assessing the reforms of the national public administrations. Herewith, we refer to the deepness of EAS content, which has become more comprehensive, incorporating the most significant aspects on the public administrations reforms. The second trend refers to continuous enlargement of EAS area. The limits of this area are not the same with the EU limits and the internal processes of EAS do not have the same intensity as those of the European integration. Therefore, we may assert that the EAS reveals specific developments related to the traditions, history, administrative culture, national identity etc. of every state. The regional characteristics on the development of public administrations are decisive and the administrative convergence will take them into account. In this context, the current volume aims to reveal a few Balkan realities on EAS. Of course our approach is far from presenting the whole complexity of the phenomena and processes of public administrations in the Balkan states. The arguments on the above difficulty refer to: different stages for the Balkan states related to the European integration; diversity of the administrative models and cultures in the public administrations of the Balkan states; different levels of economic and social development in the Balkan area. Even in those conditions, as the reader may conclude after studying the current volume, the ideal of European integration gets closer or gathers the national efforts and actions, incorporating them in a convergent trend related to the EAS principles and values. The analyses and researches have aimed the following directions: EAS conceptualization and operationalisation in the Balkans; National experiences on the legal, administrative and institutional pillars of EAS; Convergence and Europeanization of the Balkan public administrations as premises of EAS development; Integrating the Balkan traditional administrative values into the EAS concept and practice. Those major research-oriented directions have represented the pillar for several specialists' studies and analyses, especially from academia, which have been selected for the actual volume. The debates on the topics announced have been achieved in the framework of the Workshop: “European Administrative Space - Balkan Realities”, organized by the University of Rijeka on 18 - 19 February 2011. At the same time, the content of the current volume completes the image of the activities and events organized in the framework of Jean Monnet project “South-Eastern European developments on the administrative convergence and enlargement of the European Administrative Space in Balkan states”, which has received funding from the European Community.

The current volume reproduces papers presented in the Workshop which was organized in Athens, in February 2010 by the European Public Law Organization (EPLO) and the Faculty of Public Administration - National School of Political Studies and Public Administration (NSPSPA), Bucharest. The workshop entitled “Public Administration in the Balkans - from Weberian bureaucracy to New Public Management” has aimed to reveal relevant aspects on the developments of national public administrations in some Balkan states related to the traditional or actual models of the administrative organization. The organizers have proposed to approach theoretical and practical aspects focusing on Weberian bureaucracy and New Public Management (NPM). In this context, the general framework of debates was based both on specificity of public administration in the Balkan states and the European integration process, particularly the enlargement of the European Administrative Space to the Balkan area. As shown by a profound analysis in the papers, the characteristics of the public administrations are moreover diverse and get closer to the developments of the public administrations in Europe, such as the Mediterranean ones (Greece, Cyprus etc.) or those of the states in transition (Bulgaria, Romania, Croatia, Serbia etc.). The interactions with different intensities between Weberianism and New Public Management emphasise, generally, the characteristics of “a new Weberian state” (NWS) for the Balkan states (Pollitt and Bouckaert, 2004, Meneguzzo et al, 2010), revealing a higher NPM impact (Cyprus, Greece, Croatia etc.) or a lower one (Bulgaria, Romania, Serbia, Slovenia etc.). NWS represents a metaphor describing a model that co-opts the passive elements of NPM, but on a Weberian foundation (Pollitt and Bouckaert, 2004, Brown, 1978). The fact that the Balkan states belong more or less explicit to NWS triggers their position in post-NPM era, thus the state remaining an important actor, able to facilitate the public-private dialogue and to sustain the processes for enhancing the effectiveness of public services and administration. The public administration reforms in the Balkan states have targeted one or several European models of national administrations. Even if the concepts on reform comprise visible differences, the tradition, geo-political specificity, human and material resources have determined similarities and common characteristics, which could be emphasized in the development and actual status of administration in the Balkan states. At the same time, the administrative reforms have already introduced elements that enable the administrations in the Balkan states to get closer to the features of “public governance.” Herewith we refer mainly to participating in decision-making, introducing the elements of “neo-corporatism” governance etc. The capacity of adaptation and openness represent a valuable feature of the Balkan administrations, most of them holding systemic connections of low intensity, thus being far away from what we call “strong administration”, found especially in the European developed states. Recent studies support the above ideas, referring to “main drivers of public administration modernization”, placing most Balkan states in the “very low” or “medium” area (Demmke et al., 2006). When referring to open government or ethics, the same studies place the Balkan states under the heading “very high influence.” Based on the above assertions, the papers emphasize concrete issues that could be synthesized in some large categories: Balkan public administrations between tradition and modernity; National experiences on the impact of the administrative reforms in Balkan states; Myth or reality in considering “a Balkan model of public administration;” Administrative convergence and dynamics as support of the evolution towards a certain model; Assessing relevant case studies on enforcing NPM in local governance. It is also worth to mention that the approach of the participants in the workshop has been marked by the institutional innovations and trends in European governance, the debates concerning the model and characteristics of the European administration etc. The workshop was organized within the framework of Jean Monnet project “South-Eastern European developments on the administrative convergence and enlargement of the European Administrative Space in Balkan States” with the financial support of the European Community.

Although it has been more than 20 years since Communism crumbled in Central and Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, many scholars and politicians still wonder what the lifting of the Iron Curtain has really meant for these former Communist countries. And, because these countries were largely closed off to the world for so long, there has yet to be an all-inclusive study on their administrative systems—until now. In Public Administration in Post-Communist Countries: Former Soviet Union, Central and Eastern Europe, and Mongolia, expert contributors supply a comprehensive overview and analysis of public administration in their respective post-Communist countries. They illustrate each country’s transformation from an authoritarian system of governance into a modern, market-based, and in some cases, democratic government. The book covers the countries that were officially part of the Soviet Union (Russia, Ukraine, Moldova, Estonia, Lithuania, Georgia, Kazakhstan, and Kyrgyzstan); those that were theoretically independent but were subject to Soviet-dominated Communist rule (Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, and Poland); as well as a satellite republic that was under significant Soviet influence (Mongolia). Each chapter includes a brief introduction to the specific country, an overview of politics and administration, and discussions on key aspects of public management and administration—including human resource management, public budgeting, financial management, corruption, accountability, political and economic reform, civil society, and prospects for future development in the region. The book concludes by identifying common themes and trends and pinpointing similarities and differences to supply you with a broad comparative perspective.

This book examines the issue of free access to information as part of the openness and transparency principles. The free access to public information has become one of the most hotly contested aspects of contemporary government and public administration. Many countries in Europe have well-established Freedom of Information laws (FOIAs), while others have adopted them more recently. The problems that occur in the implementation of FOIAs are different due to the legal and institutional context; nevertheless, patterns of best practices and malfunctioning are comparable. The book analyses in comparative and empirical perspective the respective main challenges. Whilst the existing literature focusses on the legal provisions, this book offers practical insights through 13 national profiles and the EU level, on how effective the legal provisions of FOIAs really prove to be.

This monograph offers a uniquely comprehensive and in-depth legal account of official secrets in the European Union. It critically analyses their implications for oversight and fundamental rights. Based on forty interviews with practitioners and other stakeholders, it offers an understanding of the practices of official secrets and provides a critical and much-needed perspective on how parliamentary, judicial and administrative oversight institutions deal with access to classified material and the dilemma of oversight to concurrently ensure secrecy necessary for EU security policies and openness needed for democratic processes and fundamental rights. The book discerns shifts in institutional practice of oversight at the European Parliament and the Court of Justice of the European Union that disproportionately favour secrecy and the protection of classified documents while creating serious limitations to open democratic deliberations and access to justice, and delivers new insights on the EU's development as a security actor as well as its autonomy from Member States, showing how rules on official secrets were a means for the EU to gain more autonomy in external security cooperation.