3

Revista de cercetare [i interven]ie social\

Review of research and social intervention
ISSN: 1583-3410 (print), ISSN: 1584-5397 (electronic)
Selected by coverage in Social Sciences Citation Index, ISI databases
Reform and Management in Romania.
Strategy and structural change
C\lin Emilian HIN}EA
Revista de cercetare [i interven]ie social\, 2011, vol. 34, pp. 177-196
The online version of this article can be found at:
www.rcis.ro
and
www.scopus.com
Published by:
Lumen Publishing House
On behalf of:
Alexandru Ioan Cuza University,
Department of Sociology and Social Work
and
Holt Romania Foundation
REVISTA DE CERCETARE SI INTERVENTIE SOCIALA
is indexed by ISI Thomson Reuters - Social Sciences Citation Index
(Sociology and Social Work Domains)
Working together
www.rcis.ro
177
Reform and Management in Romania.
Strategy and structural change
C\lin Emilian HIN}EA
1
Abstract
Reform of public management mean consists of deliberate changes in the
structure and processes of public sector organizations with the purpose of making
them function better (Pollitt and Bouckaert, 2004, p. 8). Reform efforts need to be
deliberate, which means planned ahead and well structured. If after the im-
plementation of reform actions the functioning of the public organization is even
worse than at the initial starting point, the reforms cannot be justified. This article
offers both a theoretical and empirical perspective on conceptualization and
specific components of public sector reform as it developed throughout the recent
years in different countries and also a critical view on Romanias approach to
reforming the public sector, since 1989 until now, with a case study on the
Romanian public retirement system.
Keywords: public administration reform; managerialism; New Public Ma-
nagement; public management.
Introduction
At first we govern with a clear radical instinct but without the knowledge and
experience of where that instinct should take us in specific policy terms...we think
it plausible to separate structures from standards, we believe that you can keep
the given parameters of the existing public service system but still make funda-
mental change to the outcomes the system produces. In time we realize that this is
wrong; unless you change structures, you cant raise standards more that in-
crementally... (Blair, 2010)
1
Associate professor, Public Administration Department, Faculty of Political, Administrative and
Communication Sciences, Babe[-Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca, ROMANIA. Tel.: 0040-
264-431.361, E-mail: [email protected]
Working together
www.rcis.ro
178
REVISTA DE CERCETARE {I INTERVEN}IE SOCIAL| - VOLUMUL 34/2011
One of the most difficult topics to analyze in Romania is the reform of public
services. The challenges that arise during the reform process are so often described
and discussed that they tend to be perceived as equally or more important than the
main issue, namely how the public sector can be reformed in an efficient way.
There are three main areas for discussion within the article: (1) The terminology
used: between administrative reform, New Public Management, and Neo-Webe-
rianism; (2) The scope of the reform: What do reform efforts cover? Is it about
specific targets/organizations, specific policy sectors, or the entire mechanism of
public services? Politt and Bouckaert (2004) discuss five possible reform models,
ranging from a limited reform, of specific organizations, to a broad one, including
all elements of the system (Bouckaert, 2008, p.17). In the case of Romania we
discus about the reform of central government, of the local administration, or
about a reform process targeting the entire society, with a focus on the functioning
of the state mechanisms? One should keep in mind that the modern state does not
control all the fields that need to be reformed, and therefore it needs to build
proper negotiation and mediation mechanisms; (3) The degree of implementation
of some concepts developed in the Western world to the area of Central and
Eastern Europe, dominated by historic and cultural differences (Randma, 2008).
What type of a reform are we dealing with? The reform of public admi-
nistration? The reform of public services? The reform of the state? The reform of
public management? Each answer offers a different perspective upon the possible
paths for reform. In Romania most discussions referred to the reform of public
administration; it has been only recent that the reform concept was extended as to
cover the entire state. The discussion regarding the reform of public management
is still in its early stages. Public administration or public management? Tradi-
tionally, Romania, similar to other Eastern European countries, operates under a
legalistic approach to public services (continental model) (Verheijen, 1998; Hin-
]ea, 2008). Public administration translates mostly into the implementation of the
law rather than the creation/development of the law/regulations. It is structured
hierarchically and change often times means the modification of the legal frame-
work following the linear model described below:
Policy problem new law solving of the problem move on to the
next problem on the agenda
The new managerial approach (Hughes, 1998; Hood, 1991; Osborne and
Gaebler, 1992; Osborne, 2006) was developed based on a simple concept: the old
bureaucratic organizational form was no longer capable to meet the requirements
of a modern society undergoing continuous changes, and therefore a new admi-
nistrative model was needed. The traditional public administration is interested
in processes and procedures, the managerial-oriented administration focuses on
179
outcomes. No matter the specific concept used New Public Management (Hood,
1991; OECD, 2005), Neo-Weberianism (Pollitt, Bouckaert, 2004), Reinventing
Government (Osborne and Gaebler, 1992), or New Public Governance (Osborne,
2006), managerialism has become the new administrative religion. The battle
against traditional public administration has targeted three areas (Hughes, 1998):
(1) The scale of the public sector: the idea that the state is simply too big, eating
up too many resources; (2) The scope of government: the idea that the state is
involved in too many areas that can be handled better by other sectors within the
society (private sector or NGOs); (3) The methods of government: the functioning
of the states activity based on bureaucratic principles has become less and less
popular, and it is seen as a source of rigidity and mediocrity.
In essence public management aims at adapting some efficient methods from
the private sector and implementing them in the field of public services, the most
popular ones being Total Quality Management (TQM), Benchmarking, Mana-
gement by Objectives (MBO), Program Planning Budgeting Systems (PPBS).
This goal has raised a significant academic debate regarding the differences
between public and private and the limitations of adapting managerial techniques
from the private sector to the public sector. The difference between the public and
private sectors tends to become more subtle in modern societies: these differences
vary significantly from country to country and from one stage in time to the other.
Metcalfe and Richards (1990) observe that the governments from the most
developed countries are on their way to reconsider or review the fundamental
assumptions regarding the differences between the public and the private sectors.
Romania has also experienced in the last 20 years significant shifts with regard to
ownership of some sectors which traditionally belonged to the state and are now
private (telecommunications, banks, public companies, etc). Currently there is a
huge debate regarding the governments initiative to implement private ma-
nagement in some of the state-owned companies, as a solution for enhancing
efficiency.
Public management is characterized by specific features regarding: the pro-
vision of public goods, the lack of profit as the main indicator of success, specific
ethic values, a restrictive legal framework, a specific organizational culture, the
relationship with the political realm, etc (Rainey, 1997; Shafriz, Russell, Borick,
2009; Mora, }icl\u, 2008). It represents a specific way of organization of the
public sector, focused on performance and results (Greener, 2009).
The evolution and the reform of public administration cannot be understood
outside the contextual analysis of the role of the state in each individual case. The
action of the state influences the public and private sectors and defines the limits
regarding the scope of administrative reform. This has to be understood in the
following context: (1) Macroeconomic: the health of the economy, existing re-
sources, the soundness of the private sector. The states which are incapable of
offering macroeconomic stability, of keeping deficits under control, and of
TOPICS FOR THE FUTURE ISSUES
180
REVISTA DE CERCETARE {I INTERVEN}IE SOCIAL| - VOLUMUL 34/2011
stimulating the private sector have had a negative development in the functioning
of the public sector; (2) Politic: political stability, the quality of political elites,
the capacity of the political system to be reformed from within and to respond to
crises. The capacity of the elites to go beyond mere rhetoric and to build a
coherent, long-term program for the administrative reform is essential but non-
etheless difficult to achieve. On the other hand, the radical political changes do
not automatically imply administrative changes that are equally radical (Kickert,
2009); (3) Cultural: dominant values and beliefs, the degree to which change is
accepted, the historical perception with regard to the role of the state, etc. Peters
(2008) defines administrative tradition as being a historically established set of
values, structures and relations with other institutions which defines the nature of
the proper public administration for society. The differences among countries
are significant and have a major impact regarding the functioning of the admi-
nistrative system. The recent analysis of the reform of public management in
countries with a Napoleonic tradition (Ongaro, 2009) shows the possibility of
having different clusters of administrative evolution in the Latin, Anglo-Saxon,
and Scandinavian countries. Presman, Wildavsky (1973) have shown how top-
down reforms are implemented through a long chain of decision-making and
multiple administrative levels, the chances for success being at the same level
with the weakest link of the chain. The soundness or weakness of these links can
be explained also historically. In Romania it is impossible to understand admi-
nistrative reform in the absence of a historic vision of the evolution of the public
sector in the last 100 years. It is about archaeological maps (March, Olsen,
1995) featuring the past confrontations and compromises, which explain more or
less the structural challenges existing today. Greener (2009, p.47) observes that in
France the reform has been more difficult due to the historical links between the
civil servants and the politicians, which had allowed the blockage of some reform
initiatives. The works of historians such as Lucian Boia (2011) and Neagu Djuvara
(2006) are relevant for understanding the development over time of the Romanian
administrative culture.
Romania has undergone starting with 1989 at least through four different
stages of the administrative reform: (1) Legislative reform, more pronounced
immediately after 1989 but which continues even today. There are two main
reasons for this stage: the real need for the development and the legalistic tradition
described above; (2) Reform at the level of formal structures and procedures: new
forms of organization, new working procedures intra and inter institutions. Decen-
tralization, the settling of the new relations central-local (Drago[, Neam]u, 2007),
the monitoring, control and evaluation mechanisms of performance represent
such models; (3) Reforms at the level of public policies: reform efforts targeting
the human resources, financial mechanisms, and the formulation of public poli-
cies; (4) Structural reforms: the redefinition of the dimensions of the state and of
the areas of priority intervention, the effort to make rational its action regarding
the macroeconomic and administrative behavior.
181
This evolution is explicable from the standpoint of historical realities (an
administrative structure specific for a totalitarian state, in which politics and
administration overlap, the domination of a legalistic model inspired by the French
one, the lack of expertise in public management, the lack of maturity of the
political elites). We are now in the early stages of phase 5 the implementation of
a managerial approach of Western origin, focused on two key factors: quality of
services and performance (management and measurement). There are several
initiatives announcing this managerial stage such as the creation of the city
manager position within the local public administration or the efforts aimed at
stimulating strategic planning at both the central and local levels.
Is there an ideal model for the reform? Is economic boom or rather the eco-
nomic crisis (due to economic constraints) the perfect moment for initiating the
reform? In fact, there is no such thing as a perfect moment for the reform. It will
be always looked upon with distrust, it will always generate resistance, and its
success will always be contingent upon two factors: the political will of the elites
and the technical expertise of the reformers. In Romania resistance to change has
been very strong and has had different forms of manifestation. At the conceptual
level there are at least two theories that justify it: (1) Theory of the moment: the
reforms are good in principle but the timing is bad; (2) Theory of the individual
case: Romania is a specific case; best practices from other countries cannot be
applied here.
Resistance to change, doubled by deficiencies regarding political will and
technical expertise needed for the reform of the public sector, have generated
delays in the implementation of reform initiatives, with significant negative
effects: the chaotic development of different sectors within public administration
as a whole, which do not function coherently together. Bouckaert (2008, p. 13)
argues that the problems which had triggered the need for reform in Western
Europe regarded the macroeconomic dimension (significant deficits) and the lack
of trust of the public in the traditional public institutions. The pressure had been
significant not only from within the system (which is never quite up to completely
change itself), but also from exterior: the market and the citizens. What do all
these pressures mean in the context of Romania, a country where market mecha-
nisms are far from functioning correctly and where the citizens are not aware of
their influence power over the state institutions ({andor, Tripon, 2008) which
have dominated them for a long time? In a research study by OSI from 2007, 61%
of the Romanian citizens consider that the current problems Romania faces are
due to the functioning of public institutions.
In addition, the pressure for reform from within the administrative system has
been less significant than in the case of western systems (resistance to change
cannot be ignored even there). In Romania the external pressures had come not so
much from the citizens but rather from international organizations EU mainly,
TOPICS FOR THE FUTURE ISSUES
182
REVISTA DE CERCETARE {I INTERVEN}IE SOCIAL| - VOLUMUL 34/2011
but also IMF, World Bank, or NATO. This has generated two types of effects: a
positive effect since the external pressure has been for a long time the only driver
for reform (it was however weakened after the EU integration); a negative effect
represented by the slow development of the domestic capabilities for reform
those supposed to implement the reform measures perceived them as foreign,
imposed from outside, and thus it was hard for them to claim ownership of
these reforms (see Figure 1). Another effect had been the creation of institutions
(at the request of foreign experts) which were not prepared at the managerial level
to function efficiently on the short run and to meet the expectations of both
Romanian and foreign reformers (National Agency for Public servants, National
Institute for Public Administration etc.).
Fig. 1. Pressure factors in the reform process of the public sector in Romania
Pollitt and Bouckaert (2004) operate a distinction between the reform specific
in the case of Anglo-Saxon countries, where public management was upgraded by
the implementation of New Public Management principles, and the so-called
Weberian states, structured according to the bureaucratic model, where the
upgrade was based on two values, ensuring the shift to the Neo-Weberian stage:
performance and participation. Where does Romania fit in these categories? What
can be upgraded in our case? With regard to Romania, the biggest challenge
seems to be the shift from a pre-bureaucratic model (politization, limited spe-
cialization) to a post-bureaucratic type of organization, be it New Public Ma-
nagement or Neo-Weberianism. We have to ask ourselves if the Romanian state
can undergo these transformations very quickly, burning stages, when the Western
countries have had a longer time available to go through these transformation in
an almost organic way? We refer here to depolitization, decentralization,

Public
Sector
Politics
(ideology or specific
interest)
International
institutions
(EU, IMF, NATO, WB)
Economy
(resources, private sector,
macroeconomic
indicators, deficits)
Media
(ally or opponent)
Citizens /
Associative sector
Justice
183
professionalization of public management, etc. This seems to be the main problem
Romania has been facing in the last two decades with regard to public admi-
nistration reform.
What does the reform of public management mean? It consists of deliberate
changes in the structure and processes of public sector organizations with the
purpose of making them function better (Pollitt and Bouckaert, 2004, p. 8). This
definition highlights the areas that need to be targeted by reformers: structures
and processes. One should keep in mind that reform efforts need to be deliberate,
which means planned ahead and well structured. Another question, equally im-
portant, would be why do we need the reform of public management? If after the
implementation of reform actions the functioning of the public organization is
even worse than at the initial starting point, the reforms cannot be justified. If a
public service is outsourced to a private firm, does this make it instantly better?
Of course not. There are numerous cases in which public services, after being
privatized, were re-nationalized. In other cases, though the reform intended to
curb unnecessary red tape, it ended up creating even more of it (a textbook of 700
pages regarding the curbing of red tape is a good example). It is true that all
modern politicians want perhaps to be perceived as a true reformer. Margaret
Thatcher and Ronald Reagan are the iconic reformers who as leaders of their
public administrations had fought hard against bureaucracy. They tried to blame
public administration and the bureaucrats for all the ills from within the system,
to mobilize the citizens against it, and to privatize the public sector by transferring
managers and procedures from the private sector. This strategy can lead to ne-
gative consequences on the long run, regarding the credibility and attractiveness
of the public sector: no organization can support the morale of the personnel on
the long run or attract the desired public servants if it is perceived as bad, corrupt,
formed of incompetent people, and subject to public disproval (Hennessy, 1989,
p.170).
Another problem is related to the limited application of the same type of
reform to different countries/administrative systems: the ideas of the New Public
Management and other reforms of the public sector have assumed that the same
reform agenda can be used to improve public management almost anywhere, the
main rationale being that bureaucracies are conceived as being ultimately very
similar, if not identical. Although there is some reason to think that public bu-
reaucracies are similar, there are equal or better reasons to think that they are
distinctive, and that their distinctiveness is likely to persist even in the face of the
pressures for convergence (Painter and Peters, 2009, p. 1). The starting point is
different from one case to the other. The specificity of Eastern Europe doubled by
the communist legacy of the region, are new dimensions to be considered. What
does the culture of performance mean in Romania? Which is the level of ma-
nagerial quality in the private and public sectors?
TOPICS FOR THE FUTURE ISSUES
184
REVISTA DE CERCETARE {I INTERVEN}IE SOCIAL| - VOLUMUL 34/2011
The essence of the reform of public management is the enhancing of the
functioning of the organization or of the system (depending on the scope of the
reform) and not merely advocating for theories and procedures which are fa-
shionable. The increase of performance and quality of services are key concepts
(}icl\u, Mora, }ig\na[, Bacali, 2010). The performance dynamic can be stimulated
by several types of approaches: (Bouckaert, 2008, p.15): (1) The increase of
managerial pressure enhances performance: who and how exercises it in the case
of Romania? (2) The increase of specialization enhances performance: up to what
extent is managerial specialization a feature of the Romanian public administration
apparatus (Profiroiu, Andrei, Nica, Stefanescu, 2010)? (3) The involvement of
citizens enhances performance (Baba, C\t\lin, Chereche[, Mora, }icl\u, 2009):
how involved are the Romanian citizens in the functioning of public services, and
mainly in performance measurement (Antonie, 2011)?
The paths of reform are perceived as ranging from an initial point (Alpha) to
a desirable future stage (Omega). In the case of Romania the Omega point itself
has been hard to define since it is not clear where we want to be in the future.
Aside from broad goals such as the construction of a European state, and EU
integration, the definition of strategic objectives is still lacking. It is not about the
obsession of creating a country project but rather about the drafting of strategic
objectives to be followed in the process of reforming public administration.
Romania has been living in an incrementalism of failure, where level after level
of managerial organization is build deficient, procedures and regulations form a
precarious equilibrium, and where nothing makes sense as a whole (mostly be-
cause it was not planned as a whole). There are elements embedded in the system
which have existed and influenced each other for decades, creating a system that
is hard to reform at least in the short run. Reformers run often into those who
oppose it (sometimes for irrational reasons) and the discontentment of population
with the status quo does not translate automatically into huge support for the
reform.
The international experience has shown us that there are different strategies
for administrative reform. Pollitt and Bouckaert (2004, p.202) categorize these
strategies based on three key criteria: political-administrative system, law, and
market economy. Below are listed several of these strategies: (1) Distancing and
blaming: Used mostly in US, UK, and Australia, it is based on the attack of the
politicians towards the bureaucracy. The problem resides in the malfunctioning of
public administration for which the cure is to bring private managers into the
syste; (2) Maintaining-consolidation of existing mechanisms. The reduction of
the administrative system is accomplished through budget cuts, public campaigns
against the inefficient use of resources, no hiring etc.; (3) Modernization of the
administrative system. It includes new flexible ways of management, new bu-
dgetary mechanisms, provision of public services etc. (4) Transforming the system
into a market-oriented one. It needs to meet as many requests as possible of the
185
MTM - market type mechanism- competition, flexibility, values, the culture of
the private sector; (5) Downsizing of the administrative system. As many tasks as
possible are transferred to the public sector through privatization and outsourcing.
These strategies can be implemented separately or in different combinations,
as long as they are part of a global vision regarding the reform of the administrative
system. The strategic formulation of the objectives of the reform is difficult and
sometimes illusory. Change usually implies a variety of variables and uncon-
trollable risks which make impossible the drafting of a detailed, step-by-step
plan. However, the general strategic objectives can be defined and implemented if
one keeps in mind the Napoleonic adage on sengage et puis on voit which
emphasizes the importance of flexibility and rapid reaction to existing challenges.
Osborne and Gaebler argue that it is cheaper to anticipate problems than to solve
them once they occur. This however implies the existence of a certain kind of
political responsibility: there are three types of people in the world: those
who make things happen; those who watch things happen; and those who dont
know what hit them....Unfortunately most of our governments dont know what
hit them. Especially during crises we understand how much we would like the
politicians and the entire public sector to be more accountable and oriented toward
economic prosperity during the times of economic growth.
What does New Public Management really means? Hood, one of the pioneers
of the new managerial approach in the public sector (1991, p.4-5), considers that
NPM is based on 6 key elements: (1) Professional management for public or-
ganizations; (2) Explicit performance standards; (3) Focus on outcomes as oppo-
sed to procedures; (4) Creation of smaller functional units within the public
services, by breaking down the big organizations into smaller segments, capable
to function efficient at the managerial level; (5) Use of the competition in all areas
of the public sector; (6) Use of the techniques specific to the private sector. The
introduction of the principle do more with less, thus advocating rational and
efficient use of the public resources.
It is important to mention the major influence played by a book called Re-
inventing Government. How the Entrepreneurial Spirit is Transforming the Public
Sector (Osborne and Gaebler, 1992) on both the politicians and the scientists in
the field of public administration/public management. The authors, who coined
the concept of reinventing government, argue that this is based on the following
principles: (1) Catalytic government - separating steering (policy and regulatory
functions) from rowing (service delivery and compliance functions); (2) Commu-
nity owned government - enabling the community to serve their own needs, rather
than the direct provision of services for them; (3) Competitive government -
injecting competition into service delivery to ensure cost-effectiveness and quality
services provision meeting the needs of the market; (4) Mission-driven gover-
nment - transforming rules-and-procedures-driven organizations into entities that
are clear on their missions and mandates, and have few internal obstacles in the
TOPICS FOR THE FUTURE ISSUES
186
REVISTA DE CERCETARE {I INTERVEN}IE SOCIAL| - VOLUMUL 34/2011
way of accomplishing them; (5) Results-oriented government - funding outcomes,
not inputs; (6) Customer-driven government - meeting the needs of the customer,
not the bureaucracy; (7) Enterprising government - earning rather than spending;
(8) Anticipatory government - prevention rather than cure; (9) Decentralized
government - from hierarchy to participation and teamwork; (10) Market-oriented
government - leveraging change through market mechanisms.
The political version of NPM, Reinventing Government is mostly present in
the activity of two administrations at the international level which sought to
structure the public sector based on this post-bureaucratic paradigm: Clinton/
Gore (National Performance Review) and Blair (Modernizing Government). In
the American case the most known advocate was not the president but the vice-
president Al Gore, who lunched in 1996 Creating a government that works better
and costs less: report of the National Performance Review (Gore, 1996). The
manner in which this report is drafted shows from the very beginning the focus on
managerialism: We can no longer afford to pay more for - and get less from - our
government. The answer for every problem cannot always be another program or
more money. It is time to radically change the way the government operates- to
shift from top down bureaucracy to entrepreneurial government that empowers
citizens and communities to change our country from bottom up. We must reward
the people and ideas that work and get rid of dont that dont (1993, p.1). All the
ingredients which form NPM can be found in this report, the attack toward the
bureaucracy, the desire for radical changes, the wish to do more with less. Tony
Blair (1999) in his Modernizing Government offers a similar picture of the reform
of public services, focusing on five dimensions: (1) Policy making: we will be
forward looking in developing policies to deliver outcomes that matter, not simply
reacting to short-term pressures; (2) Responsive public services: we will deliver
public services to meet the needs of citizens, not the convenience of service
providers; (3) Quality public services: we will deliver efficient, high quality public
services and will not tolerate mediocrity; (4) Information age government: we
will use new technology to meet the needs of citizens and business, and not trail
behind technological developments; (5) Public service: we will value public
service, not denigrate it. We will: - modernize the civil service, revise performance
management arrangements, tackle under-representation of women, ethnic mino-
rities and people with disabilities and build the capability for innovation- establish
a public sector employment forum to bring together and develop key players
across the public sector.
Blairs version of the reform includes new aspects such as information age
but it incorporates the same general vision in which the change of the public
sector is based on a managerial approach, using managerial tools and by promoting
a culture which is essentially managerial: modernisation must go further. It
must engage with how government itself works. Modernising government is a
vital part of our programme of renewal for Britain. The old arguments about
187
government are now outdated - big government against small government,
interventionism against laissez-faire. The new issues are the right issues: mo-
dernising government, better government, getting government right. In con-
clusion, we are dealing with a managerial approach to the reform of public
administration, based on several explicit principles such as: outcomes, perfor-
mance, flexibility, etc. it is inevitable to ask ourselves today, in the context of the
economic crises, if these well-packaged reforms have been at all successful. After
attempts aimed at downsizing the public sector, introducing more flexibility, we
are still taking about a government which is too big, about huge public spending
(translated into deficits) and the need to curb waste.
We believe that the only reason that justifies the reform efforts is the en-
hancement of the functioning of the targeted organizations/sectors. If following
the reform the functioning worsen, that the justification for the reform vanishes.
Which is the type of public sector that we want? What type of changes is ne-
cessary? Where are the key strategic issues that the Romanian public admi-
nistration currently faces? How much reform can the system still take? Do we
have the resources necessary for reform? Is it possible to have reforms without
popular support? Where do we start from and how do we offer reform a meaning?
Any strategic reform movement in Romania should consider at least these general
questions.
Romania between legal, public policy and structural reforms
As already discussed, Western societies have experimented for quite a while
with the managerial paradigm with regard the reform of public administration. Be
it NPM, Reinventing Government, Neo-Weberianism, the Western societies had
tries (oftentimes successfully) to transform the complaints regarding the fun-
ctioning of the public sector into an endeavor for building a post-bureaucratic
society. The evolution of Romania (Profiroiu, 2006) has been a lot more intense
and chaotic, due to a process of burning stages in the transition from pre-bureau-
cracy to post-bureaucracy and to some deficiencies regarding the managerial
capacity of the state and of the public organizations. By using the PEST analysis
we strive to offer a preliminary analysis of the context of the administrative
reform in Romania.
Political Factors
Political factors used in the analysis are the following: (1) The difficulty of
assimilating the common strategic decisions, except for EU accession and NATO;
(2) Lack of know-how; the expertise of political parties in post-bureaucracy
reforms is low; in terms of administrative reform, political programs are
TOPICS FOR THE FUTURE ISSUES
188
REVISTA DE CERCETARE {I INTERVEN}IE SOCIAL| - VOLUMUL 34/2011
superficial and generalist; (3) Lack of know how in the key political institutions
(i.e. the Romanian Parliament does not have an assessment unit like GAO); (4)
The politization of the public sector a generalized practice in the last 20 years.
The most sensitive areas are: 4.1. Central Public Administration / Agencies (Pos-
sible solution: limit the politically appointed positions); 4.2. Deconcentrated
institutions (Possible solution: massive decrease in their number and influence
through decentralization/limitation of politically appointed positions); 4.3. Local
administration (Possible solution: limitation of politically appointed positions;
growing pressure from the citizens to increase performance).
The relation between the parliament and the Government has always been
dominated by the aggressive legislative activity undertaken by the government
(even during periods when one party as opposed to a coalition had the majority in
Parliament) (see Figure 6 and Figure 7) .
Fig.6 Number of Emergency Governmental Ordinances (EGO)
Fig.7 The Regulatory Activity of the Parliament 2001-2010
189
Economic Factors
Economic factors used in the analysis are the following: (1) The lack of
strategic perspective with regard to development priorities. The lack of multi-
annual planning; (2) The irrationality of public spending (i.e.: the situation of
about 40.000 public investment programs started in the past and not finished yet);
(3) Government revenue is at 30-31 % of GDP, while in other EU countries it is
Public Servant s
1.200.000
1.400.000
2008 2010
Public Sector Employees
Men
Women
*** Several characteristics of the human resource in the Romanian public sector. By the end of 2010,
the number of public servants was 130,469. The total number of positions in the public sector is
160,019 (a small amount compared to the number of contract staff), while the total number of public
sector employees is 1,266,550. In 2008 the total number of public sector employees was 1,373,780
(107,230 more than in 2010).

Fig. 2. Public Servants Fig. 3. Public Sector Employees

Most of the local public sector employees, in 2008, worked in Administration, Defense, Social Care
(22.1 per thousand inhabitants), Education (17.3) and Health Care (14.6). Source: A.T. Kearney study,
2008.
Fig. 4. Public Sector Employees by gender

By gender:
Men: 36.14%
Women: 63.86%





Fig. 5.
Public Sector Employees by age
groups
Age groups:
20-30 years old: 7.09 %
31-40 years old : 28.94%
41-50 years old : 34.22%
51-60 years old : 26.65%




0,00
10,00
20,00
30,00
40,00
20-30 31-40 41-50 51-60
TOPICS FOR THE FUTURE ISSUES
190
REVISTA DE CERCETARE {I INTERVEN}IE SOCIAL| - VOLUMUL 34/2011
up to 38-39 % of GDP; (4) Low competitiveness issues (they affect the private
and public sector as well).
Socio-cultural Factors
Socio-cultural factors used in the analysis are the following: (1) An atypical
distribution by sectors of the work force in Romania compared with the EU:
approx. 30% of the population works in agriculture; (2) A high percentage of the
active population who works abroad (important effects for the functioning of the
public administration; they develop a comparative, critical assessment of quality
of Romanian public services vs. Western public services); (3) A dysfunctional
educational system. There is no Romanian university in Top 500. The international
PISA study, conducted on a sample of high school students age 15 from 65
countries, places the Chinese region Shanghai in the first positions (Hong Kong is
in the 4
th
), while Romania occupies position 49. This is the worst ranking among
the EU countries and the third worst in Europe (the last two positions are occupied
by Montenegro and Albania); (4) The specific profile of public services con-
sumer in Romania. 61% of the Romanian citizens consider that the current pro-
blems Romania faces are due to the functioning of public institutions. High levels
of trust are related to institutions such as Firefighters: 88%, Army: 71%, Am-
bulance units: 81%, Postal Services: 77%, Romanian National Bank: 68%, Gen-
darmerie: 57%) which are not necessarily connected to elective and democratic
processes. Low levels of trust concern the most important institutions and people
within the democratic design (such as the members of the Parliament: 7%, City
Hall: 27%, Mayor of the community they live in: 26%, NGOs: 27 %, Courts of
law: 21%, Ministries: 16%, Government Agencies: 13%). For example, the low
trust in the court system represents a huge problem for a transition country, where
justice should be the sector which could bring rationality and objectivity. Sources:
Trust Barometer, IRES, March 2010, Public Opinion Barometer, November 2007.
Case study: a structural illness the public retirement system
This section concerns itself with a case study from a specific policy area the
public retirement system. It is illustrative for the structural deficiencies of the
public system in Romania, which have developed over time through an incre-
mentalism of errors. According to Preda, Vlad (2011) there were approx. 2.5
million retired people in 1989 in Romania and there are now almost 6 million
retired people. Over 1.5 million retired people are 59 years old or younger. The
number of people with disability pension grew (by 430%) from 208,000 (1990) to
892,000 (2008.) In Romania there are over 900,000 people that receive disability
pensions (from a total population of almost 22 million citizens) and in some
districts their number rose up to 30% from the total number of the retired
191
population. In other districts only 6% - 7% of the retired people receive disability
pensions. At present, for every taxpayer there are approximately 1.2 people that
receive a pension of some sort. In 2009 the total deficit of the public retirement
fund was 1.7 billion Euros; in 2010 it was 2.55 billion Euros. If this process
continues, the deficit is expected to reach at least 4 billion Euros in 2025. This
brief analysis shows the long-term deficiencies of the retirement system- the use
of retirement as a means to hide high unemployment rates, significant inequalities,
frauds, lack of self-sustainability of the entire system, short-term thinking which
focuses on dealing with urgent matter but without considering the effects on
medium and long terms. This case study is by no means unique in either Romania
or Eastern Europe. Other examples can be found as well.
Technological Factors
Technological factors used in the analysis are the following: (1) We have to
remember that E-Government does not represent merely a technological solution
but rather an integrated component of the administrative reform which implies
specific decisions and priorities; (2) Low access to online public services. In
Romania, out of 20 basic public services, only 45% are available online as well
(the 2
nd
worst position in EU according to Eurostat, 2011); (3) Romania ranks
very low among the EU member states with regard to the percentage of the
households with Internet access (42%). The situation is worse only in Bulgaria
(33%); (4) However, between 2006-2010 internet access in Romania has tripled,
from 14 to 42% (Eurostat); (5) Romania occupies the 4
th
position in the world and
the first place in Europe in a top regarding high speed Internet connections,
conducted by Akamai company.
The profile of the Romanian public administration:
a framework for reform
Aside from the PEST analysis, which offers us the framework within which
reform efforts take place, it is interesting to analyze the profile of the Romanian
public administration after more than 20 years of continuous changes. It is based
on several important characteristics: (1) A mentality of the public administration
which favors the importance of regulations over implementation (the assumption
is that once there is a law, the problem is solved); (2) The precarious functioning
of both public services and private ones theoretically, the private sector should
provide a model of service quality for the public sector (the citizens trust in
publicly owned companies is 42% while in private companies - 29%; in state
universities - 58% and in private universities - 21%); (3) The swing between
pre-bureaucracy and post-bureaucracy. The transition from the communist
TOPICS FOR THE FUTURE ISSUES
192
REVISTA DE CERCETARE {I INTERVEN}IE SOCIAL| - VOLUMUL 34/2011
administrative system to stages of development based on reinventing the
government, new public management and total quality management is difficult.
On top of these challenges, there is also the global economic crisis; (4) The lack
of a managerial culture at the level of public administration and political decision-
makers; (5) The excessive influence of politics in public administration; (6) The
lack of well-defined indicators for performance measurement; (7) Coordination
issues of the reform process at the local and central level; (8) Problems related to
organizational culture, HRM and leadership. Lack of strategic planning capacity.
By connecting the data describing the context for reform (PEST) with the
profile of the Romanian public administration, we find ourselves in the presence
of a state that faces significant structural challenges regarding: (1) Predictability
and coherence; (2) Managerial performance; (3) Rational use of public resources.
The problems the public sector has faced and continues to face had been
initially addressed in an almost entirely legislative approach. As already men-
tioned, immediately after 1989, such an approached seemed logical, since there
was no legal framework in place suited for the functioning of a democratic society.
After 2000, we have the first reforms aiming at specific policy sectors perceived
as crucial (the analysis was heavily influenced by EU and other international
institutions involved in the reform in the pre-accession stage: (1) The reform of
civil service : the creation of a body of professional public servants (andor,
Tripon, 2008); (2) The reform of local public administration (this is based on the
enhancement of public management at the local level and the promotion of
decentralization and de- concentration of public services); (3) The development
of the public policy formulation process (it is based on the enhancement of the
coordination systems of governmental activities and the improvement of ma-
nagerial capacity of governmental agencies).
The occurrence of the global economic crisis at the end of 2008 has generated
a new set of reforms, structural in nature, which aimed at modifying the size, the
structure and the way of functioning of the state. The main areas targeted includes:
(1) Education reform (Classification of universities on the basis of international
assessments, funding follows the student principle, massive decentralization of
pre-university education, new performance standards for professors, focus on
excellence through financial support of the best programs (based on quality
indicators); (2) Re-organization of governmental agencies (reduction from 223 to
112); this example is interesting from the perspective of the anti-bureaucratic
rhetoric found in other countries as well. During the economic boom some of the
Romanian state agencies spent their money on yachts, training sessions in Las
Vegas or on very expensive luxury cars; also, in state agencies (but also in other
areas of public administration system), bonuses like: bonus for returning from
holiday, bonus for birthday, bonus for smiling etc. had become a generalized
193
practice. All these things made them a very appealing target in terms of anti-
bureaucratic discourse; (4) Creating a unitary public pay system. In 2008 there
were big differences in the public payment system, the salaries varied on a scale
from 1 to 100 (some heads of agencies had incomes up to 20.000 Euros/month,
while the lowest salary in the public sector was around 200 Euros), (5) Reforming
the justice (passing 4 new legal codes, the small reform). A new Labor Code
(very criticized by the unions) is pending adoption; (6) Reforming the pension
system: men and women will retire at the same age -65, discouraging the early
retirements by tightening access to this type of pension, new and more stringent
criteria for disability pensions that will discourage abusive retirements which are
medically unjustified, (7) Financial system reform: establishment of a Fiscal
Council which analyzes whether government measures are included in the fiscal
strategy- an effort to curb waste and to encourage rationality in public spendings
through external pressure, a 3-year fiscal budgetary strategy, the introduction of
cost and personnel standards for public administration (limitation of the number
of employees and the maximum cost by type of investment, in local government)
etc.
The examples described above follow the general principles underlying at the
foundation of the post-bureaucratic paradigm, however they present several na-
tional characteristics as well the continuous reform of the legal framework, the
reform of the pay system in the public sector, the obsession regarding the creation
of a highly trained body of civil servants. There is a mix of bureaucratic objectives
depolitization, as well as post-bureaucratic ones performance standards, less
waste, curbing red-tape. It illustrates the strategic problems the Romanian public
system faces, in its effort to build simultaneously or subsequently both a bu-
reaucratic and a post-bureaucratic model. The Romanian administrative system is
placed in a typology of the reforms built upon two main factors: the impact of the
reforms (scope and intensity) and their motivation (reforms initiated due to
external pressures, must do reforms, or reforms motivated ideologically). The
impact of the reforms varies from one period to the other, based on the implication
of the political actors and the macro-economic and social context. The motivation
for reform is still external, more than 20 years after the revolution. This fact can
be explained in various ways- lack of expertise in the field of managerial reform
at the level of the political parties, lack of managerial capacity at the level of the
public sector (the private sector is by no means in Romania a possible model for
the public one yet) and the lack of a third sector, non-governmental, consisting of
think thanks among other entities, which could generate both pressure and input
for the public sector.
TOPICS FOR THE FUTURE ISSUES
194
REVISTA DE CERCETARE {I INTERVEN}IE SOCIAL| - VOLUMUL 34/2011
Tabel 1. What kind of reform do we want
Conclusions
In conclusion, at this point the directions for reform in Romania could be:
- Redefining the size, the role and the functions of the state: (1) Changing the
size: a more flexible, better organized state, able to be a partner for the society; (2)
Redefining priorities: a state focused on good governance and quality of services.
- Increasing the efficiency of the state: (1) Increasing the institutional per-
formance. Making the public institutions focus on results and performance and
not only on procedures; (2) Rational use of resources; (3) Simplifying the admi-
nistrative system: better regulation, simplified procedures and enhanced pre-
dictability in the judicial process.
- The strategic directions must be correlated with operational decisions which
follow the logic of managerial approaches. They need to address the issues that
are still sensitive in the Romanian context: (1) The development of strategic
planning capacity at the level of central and local public administration; (2) The
enhancement of the managerial capacity and performance measurement at the
level of central and local public administration; (3) The development of the
evaluation capacity at the level of central and local public administration; (4)
Contracting out the public services to the private sector and the NGOs.
Romania is just entering a stage in which there are sound prerequisites in place
for a managerial reform oriented toward a post-bureaucratic model focused on
two elements performance and the quality of public services. In order for it to be
successful, a strategic perspective of the reform is needed (clear definition of the
targets to be reached on medium and long term), development of professional
management in public administration, and the building of a managerial culture in
the public sector from Romania. In the absence of structural changes, there are
few chances that reforms aimed at specific policy areas will succeed. The lack of
managerial reform will reinforce the incrementalism of failure.
THE MOTIVATION FOR THE REFORMS
THE IMPACT OF
THE REFORMS
Must do reforms Ideologically driven reforms
Structural reforms
Policy reforms

195
References
Antonie, R. (2011). The role of program evaluation in the decision-making process.
Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences, No. 33 E/2011, 23-29.
Baba, C., Chereche[, R., Mora, C., }icl\u, T. (2009). Public participation in public policy
process case study in seven counties from North-Western Region of Romania.
Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences, 26E / 2009, 5-13
Blair, T. (2010). A journey: my political life, Hutchinson, London
Boia, L. (2011). Istorie [i mit n con[tiin]a romneasc\, Humanitas, Bucuresti.
Bouckaert, G. (2008). Public Sector Reform in CEE Countries: An Introduction, in
Bouckaert, G., Nemec, J., Nakrosis, V., Hajnal, G., Tonnisson, K. (eds), Public
Management Reforms in Central and Eastern Europe, Nispacee Press.
Djuvara, N. (2006), ntre Orient [i Occident, Humanitas, Bucuresti.
Drago[, D., Neam]u, B. (2007). Reforming local public administration in Romania: Trends
and obstacles. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 19/2007, 71-78.
Greneer, I. (2009). Public Management, A Critical Text, Palgrave Macmillan.
Hennessy, P., Whitehall (1989). Secker & Warburg, London.
Hin]ea, C. (2008). Public Management Reforms: Romania, in G. Bouckaert, J. Nemec, V.
Nakrosis, G. Hajnal, K. Tonnisson (eds), Public Management Reforms in Central
and Eastern Europe, Nispacee Press, pp. 271-286.
Hood, C. (1991). A Public Management for All Seasons?. Public Administration, 69 (1).
Hughes, O. (1998). Public Management & Administration, Palgrave.
IRES, Trust Barometer (2010). IRES, March.
Kickert, W. (2009). Distinctive Characteristics of State and Administrative Reform in
Southern Europe, Public Administration.
March, J., Olsen J. (1995). Democratic Governance, Free Press, New York.
Metcalfe, L., Richards, S. (1990). Improving Public Management, Sage, London.
Modernizing Government http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/
cm43/ 4310/4310.htm
Mora, C., ]icl\u, T. (2008), Managerial approach to public administration. Transylvanian
Review of Administrative Sciences, no. 24E/2008, 87-97.
National Performance Review - OECD, (2005). Modernizing Government: the Way
Forward, Paris.
Ongaro, E. (2009). Public Management and Modernization, Trajectories of Administrative
Change in Italy, France, Greece, Portugal and Spain, Edwar Elgar.
Open Society Institute (2007). Public Opinion Barometer, November.
Osborne, D., Gaebler, T. (1993). Reinventing Government, How the Entrepreneurial
Spirit is Transforming the Public Sector, Plume.
Osborne, S. (2006). The New Public Governance?, Public Management Review, 8(3),
377-387.
Painter, M., Peters, G. (eds). (2009). Tradition and Public Administration, Palgrave
Macmillan.
Peters, G. (2008). The Napoleonic Tradition. International Journal of Public Sector
Management, 21(2), 118-132.
Politt, C., Bouckaert, G. (2004). Public Management Reform: A Comparative Analysis,
Oxford University Press.
TOPICS FOR THE FUTURE ISSUES
196
REVISTA DE CERCETARE {I INTERVEN}IE SOCIAL| - VOLUMUL 34/2011
Preda, M., Grigora[, V. (2011). The public pension system in Romania: myths and facts.
Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences, no. 32E/2011, 235-251.
Presman, J, Wildavsky, A. (1973). Implementation, Berkeley, University of California
Press.
Profiroiu, A., Andrei, T., Nica, M., {tef\nescu, E.D. (2010). Analysis of the national
modernizers network of the support for the public administration process reform
from Romania. Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences, No. 31E/2010,
114-132.
Profiroiu, M. (ed). (2006), Reforma administra]iei publice n contextul integr\rii Romniei
n Uniunea European\, Institutul European din Romnia Studii de impact, PAIS
III.
Rainey, H.G. (1997). Understanding and Managing Public Organizations, Jossey Bass
Publishers, San Francisco.
Randma-Liiv, T. (2008). New Public Management versus Neo-Weberian State in Central
and Eastern Europe, paper presented at Trans-European Dialogue, Towards the
Neo-Weberian State? Europe and Beyond, Tallinn.
[andor, S., Tripon, C. (2008). Romanian public servants on public administration reforms.
Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences, no. 24E/2008, 111-122.
Shafriz, J.M., Russell, E.W., Borick, C. (2009). Introducing Public Administration, Pe-
arson.
]icl\u, T., Mora, C., }ig\na[, A., Bacali, L. (2010). Public marketing as a strategic
component of public management. A pilot study in Cluj county on the existence of
basic marketing conditions in the local public administration in Romania. Tran-
sylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences, No. 31E/2010, 147-167.
Verheijen, T. (1998). Public management in Central and Eastern Europe: the nature of the
problem. in T. Verheijen and D. Coombes (eds) Innovations in Public Management:
Perspectives from East and West Europe, Eward Elgar.