Page 122 - RIMD_4
P. 122
122 R e v u ed el ’ I n s t i t u td uM o n d ee td udéveloppement
Success or failure in regard to the reform processes depends – as it is men-
tioned above – on several circumstances. In the following sections I would
like to point out how parties’ decisions and efforts modified the reform
strategies in Slovakia. Such decisions and efforts can be understood as poli-
tical influence for purposes of this paper. Obviously, it is clear that every
reform process has to be politically influenced. Therefore I concentrate in
this paper on those political decisions and efforts that goes against either
expert recommendations or approved strategic documents and that cause
discontinuity in a development of entire public administration system. On
the other hand, expert influence is understood as ability to implement (wit-
hout any crucial modifications) those expert proposals that were elaborated
within estimation stage of policy making.
§ 3 – Initial reform processes (1989-1998)
An idea of necessity of the policy of decentralization has come to light in
Slovakia since the successful overthrowing of regime of the Communist
Party in 1989. The Communist institutions were removed practically im-
mediately but their replacement with a new system institutions (especially
political, administrative, and economic institutions) was rather problema-
tic than trouble-free. One of the most visible uncertainties on the matter of
mentioned replacement was related to its tempo. Videlicet, the new system
institutions were in comparison with removal of the so called old principles
developed very slowly, and moreover, they were developed quite often in a
chaotic and non-strategic manner. The main purpose of the political and
administrative changes was to redesign political and administrative sys-
tems considering their improvement and accommodation to the new social
as well as economic conditions.
Speaking on public administration reform, and especially on decentrali-
zation, two main stages, as it is pointed out by Nižňanský (2006), can be
distinguished. The first of them lasted in years 1990 and 1991 and was asso-
ciated with a renovation of local self-government units, i.e. communities.
The second one began in 1998 (or more precisely in 1999) and was stopped
in 2006 when a new government decided to discontinue in decentralization
processes.
The transformation of the territorial structure of government – its decen-
tralization, particularly the introduction of territorial self-government –
was considered an essential task in the process of rebuilding political and
administrative systems in Central and Eastern Europe after 1989 (Illner,
1999, p. 7), and Czechoslovakia was not an exception. Before 1990, only
o
state administration existed there (Figure n 1). Even though the lower
bodies of this state administration system dealt with all administrative and
political issues and did have the right of establishment of various commit-
o
RIMD–n 4–2013
Success or failure in regard to the reform processes depends – as it is men-
tioned above – on several circumstances. In the following sections I would
like to point out how parties’ decisions and efforts modified the reform
strategies in Slovakia. Such decisions and efforts can be understood as poli-
tical influence for purposes of this paper. Obviously, it is clear that every
reform process has to be politically influenced. Therefore I concentrate in
this paper on those political decisions and efforts that goes against either
expert recommendations or approved strategic documents and that cause
discontinuity in a development of entire public administration system. On
the other hand, expert influence is understood as ability to implement (wit-
hout any crucial modifications) those expert proposals that were elaborated
within estimation stage of policy making.
§ 3 – Initial reform processes (1989-1998)
An idea of necessity of the policy of decentralization has come to light in
Slovakia since the successful overthrowing of regime of the Communist
Party in 1989. The Communist institutions were removed practically im-
mediately but their replacement with a new system institutions (especially
political, administrative, and economic institutions) was rather problema-
tic than trouble-free. One of the most visible uncertainties on the matter of
mentioned replacement was related to its tempo. Videlicet, the new system
institutions were in comparison with removal of the so called old principles
developed very slowly, and moreover, they were developed quite often in a
chaotic and non-strategic manner. The main purpose of the political and
administrative changes was to redesign political and administrative sys-
tems considering their improvement and accommodation to the new social
as well as economic conditions.
Speaking on public administration reform, and especially on decentrali-
zation, two main stages, as it is pointed out by Nižňanský (2006), can be
distinguished. The first of them lasted in years 1990 and 1991 and was asso-
ciated with a renovation of local self-government units, i.e. communities.
The second one began in 1998 (or more precisely in 1999) and was stopped
in 2006 when a new government decided to discontinue in decentralization
processes.
The transformation of the territorial structure of government – its decen-
tralization, particularly the introduction of territorial self-government –
was considered an essential task in the process of rebuilding political and
administrative systems in Central and Eastern Europe after 1989 (Illner,
1999, p. 7), and Czechoslovakia was not an exception. Before 1990, only
o
state administration existed there (Figure n 1). Even though the lower
bodies of this state administration system dealt with all administrative and
political issues and did have the right of establishment of various commit-
o
RIMD–n 4–2013
