Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Future of Public Administration Reform in Romania

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover From Corruption to Modernity

Part of the book series: SpringerBriefs in Economics ((BRIEFSECONOMICS))

  • 530 Accesses

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The most common dwelling name in Romania is “târg” or market, leading us to believe that commercial activity—buying materials in one place (or foreign country such as Turkey) and selling it in the “târg” was considered advanced economic activity.

  2. 2.

    Voter participation in parliamentary election is as follows: in 1990—86.19 %; in 1992—76.29 %; in 1996—76.01 %; in 2000—65.31 %; in 2004—58.51 %; in 2008—39.20 % (Buti, 2011).

References

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, J. A. (1975). Public policy-making. New York: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bately, R. (1999). The new public management in developing countries: Implications for policy and organizational reform. Journal of International Development, 11, 761–765.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baumgartner, F. R., & Jones, B. D. (1993). Agendas and instability in American politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bertot, J. C., & Jaeger, P. T. (2006). User-centered e-government: Challenges and benefits for government web sites. Government Information Quarterly, 23, 163–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Borins, S. (1995). The new public management is here to stay. Canadian Public Administration, 38, 125–126.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boston, J., Martin, J., Pallot, J., & Walsh, P. (1996). Public management: The New Zealand model. Auckland, New Zealand: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Bozeman, B. (2007). Public values and public interest. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brzezinski, Z. K. (1967). The Soviet bloc: Unity and conflict. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan, J. M. (1975). The limits of liberty: Between Anarchy and Leviathan. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan, J. M. (1986). Liberty, market and state—Political economy in the 1980s. Brighton, England: Harvester Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan, J. M., & Tullock, G. (1962). The calculus of consent—Logical foundations of constitutional democracy. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bulmer, S., & Burch, M. (1998). Organizing for Europe: Whitehall, the British State and European Union. Public Administration., 76, 601–628.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Carter, L., & Bélanger, F. (2005). The utilization of e-government services: Citizen trust, innovation and acceptance factors. Information Systems Journal., 15(1), 5–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carter, L., & Weerakkody, V. (2008). e-Government adoption: A cultural comparison. Information Systems Frontiers., 10(4), 473–482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • deLeon, L., & deLeon, P. (2002). The democratic ethos and public management. Administration & Society, 34, 229–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diamond, L. (2008). Democratic Rollback: The resurgence of the predatory state. The Foreign Aff, 87, 36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dolowitz, D., & Marsh, D. (1996). Who learns what from whom: A review of the policy transfer literature. Political Studies, 44, 343–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of political action in a democracy. The Journal of Political Economy, 2(1957), 135–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Downs, A. (1968). An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drechsler, W. (2005a). The rise and demise of the new public management. Post-Autistic Economics Review, 33, 14.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Dunsire, A. (1995). Administrative theory in the 1980’s: A viewpoint. Public Administration, 73, 17–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Eisenach, E. J. (1994). The lost promise of progressivism. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, P. B., & Rauch, J. E. (2000). Bureaucratic structure and bureaucratic performance in less developed countries. Journal of Public Economics, 75, 49–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Gawthrop, L. C. (1998). The human side of public administration. Political Science & Politics, 31, 763–769.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Golembiewski, R. T. (1969). Organization development in public agencies: Perspectives on theory and practice. Public Administration Review, 29(1), 43–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gore, A. J. (1994). The new job of the federal executive. Public Administration Review, 54, 317–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Greenhouse, S. M. (1966). The planning-programming-budgeting system: Rationale, language, and idea-relationships. Public Administration Review, 26, 35–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greuning, G. (2001). Origin and theoretical basis of new public management. International Public Management Journal, 4, 1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gross, B. M. (1969). The new systems budgeting. Public Administration Review, 29, 113–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Harmsen, R. (2000). Europeanization and governance: A new institutionalist perspective. Yearbook of European Studies, 14, 51–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Hood, C. (1991). A public management for all seasons? Public Administration, 69, 3–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hood, C. (1995). The new public management in the 1980’s: Variations on a theme. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 20(2/3), 93–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Jaeger, P. T. (2003). The endless wire: E-government as global phenomenon. Government Information Quarterly., 20(4), 323–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jordan, A. (2003). The Europeanization of National Government and Policy: A departmental perspective. British Journal of Political Science, 33(2), 261482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jowitt, K. (1992). New world disorder: The Leninist extinction. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaufmann, D. (2004). Human rights and governance: The empirical challenge. Paper presented at the New York University Law School, March 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, P. (1987). The rise and fall of great powers (p. 535). New York: Vintage Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Knill, C. (2001). The Europeanization of national administrations: Patterns of institutional change and persistence. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kolsaker, A. (2007). Understanding E-government (G2C) in the knowledge society. International Journal of Information Technology and Management, 2007(6), 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kotler, P. (1978). Marketing for nonprofit organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kumlin, S., & Rothstein, B. (2005). Making and breaking social capital. The impact of welfare state institutions. Comparative Political Studies, 38, 339–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Layne, K., & Lee, J. (2001). Developing fully functional e-government: A four stage model. Government Information Quarterly, 18(2), 122–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, E. W.-Y. (1995). Political science, public administration, and the rise of the American administrative state. Public Administration Review, 55, 538–546.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lerner, A. W., & Wanat, J. (1992). Public administration: A realistic reinterpretation of contemporary public management. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lippmann, W. (1955). The political philosopher. Boston: Little, Brown.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lowi, T. J. (1979). The end of liberalism. New York: W.W. Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manning, N. (2001). The legacy of the new public management in developing countries. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 67, 296–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1995). Democratic governance. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Mauro, P. (1995). Corruption and growth. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110, 681–712.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCourt, W. (2007). Impartiality through Bureaucracy? A Sri Lankan approach to managing values. Journal of International Development, 19(3), 429–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meier, K. J. (1997). Bureaucracy and democracy: The case for more bureaucracy and less democracy. Public Administration Review, 57, 193–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meier, K. J., O’Toole, & Lawrence, J. (2006). Bureaucracy in a democratic state: A governance perspective. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milakovich, M. E. (1991). Total quality management in the public sector. National Productivity Review, 10, 195–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Moore, M. H. (1995). Creating public value: Strategic management in Government. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murray, M. A. (1975). Comparing public and private management: An exploratory essay. Public Administration Review, 35, 364–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nabatchi, T. (2009). Radical individualism, instrumental rationality, and public administration: A paper formerly titled “Roofied and Rolled”. Public Performance & Management Review, 32, 585–591.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Painter, M., & Peters, B. G. (Eds.). (2010). Administrative traditions: Inheritances and transplants in comparative perspective. Basingstoke, England: Palgrave.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parsons, W. (1995). Public policy—An introduction to the theory and practice of policy analysis. Cheltenham, England: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perkins, D. (1998). Political parties and democracy: A comparative analysis of party mobilization. Boston: APSA.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Politt, C., & Bouckaert, G. (2000). Public management reform: A comparative Analysis. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Polsby, N. (1984). Political innovation in America: The politics of policy initiation. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Rodrik, D. (2007). One economics, many recipes: Globalization, institutions and economic growth. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodrik, D. (2008). Second-best institutions. American Economic Review, 98(2), 100–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rohr, J. (1976). The study of ethics in the PA curriculum. Public Administration Review, 36, 398–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Samaratunge, R., Quamrul, A., & Julian, T. (2008). The new public management reforms in Asia. International Review of Public Administration, 75, 25–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schachter, H. L. (1989). Frederick Taylor and the public administration community—A reevaluation. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schick, A. (1966). The road to PPB: The stages of budget reforms. Public Administration Review, 26, 243–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schick, A. (1969). Systems politics and systems budgeting. Public Administration Review, 29, 137–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schick, A. (1998). Why most developing countries should not try New Zealand’s reforms. World Bank Research Observer, 13, 23–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Seidman, H. (1970). Politics, position and power. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sherwood, F. P., & Page, W. J. (1976). MBO and public management. Public Administration Review, 36, 5–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A. (1976). Administrative behavior—A study of decision-making in administrative organization (3rd ed.). New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A., Smithburg, D. W., & Thompson, V. A. (1962). Public administration (7th ed.). New York: Alfred Knopf.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Stewart, J., & Walsh, K. (1992). Change in the management of public services. Public Administration, 70, 499–518.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Sulieman, E. N. (2003). Dismantling democratic states. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swiss, J. E. (1992). Adapting total quality management (TQM) to government. Public Administration Review., 52, 356–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thelen, K. (1999). Historical institutionalism in comparative politics. Annual Review of Political Science, 2, 251–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Theriault, S. M. (2008). Party polarization in congress. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Tolbert, C. J., & Mossberger, K. (2006). The effects of e-government on trust and confidence in government. Public Administration Review, 66, 354–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tullock, G. (1965). The politics of bureaucracy. Washington, DC: Public Affairs Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Văduva, S. (2004). Antreprenoriatul. Practici aplicative în România şi în alte ţări în tranziţie, Editura Economică.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Waldo, D. (1948). The administrative state—A study of the political theory of American public administration. New York: Ronald Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Warren, K. F. (1993). We have debated ad nauseam the legitimacy of the administrative state—But why? Public Administration Review, 53, 249–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organization. (Trans. A. M. Henderson & T. Parsons). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber, M. (1968). On Charisma and institution building. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wechsler, B., & Backoff, R. W. (1986). Policy making and administration in state agencies: Strategic management approaches. Public Administration Review, 46, 321–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • West, D. M. (2004). E-government and the transformation of service delivery and citizen attitudes. Public Administration Review, 64(1), 15–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woller, G. M. (1998). Toward a reconciliation of the bureaucratic and democratic ethos. Administration & Society, 30, 85–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, V. (1994). Reshaping the state: Implications for public administration. West European Politics, 17, 374–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Griffiths School of Management, Emanuel University of Oradea, Oradea, Romania

    Sebastian Văduva

Authors
  1. Sebastian Văduva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Văduva, S. (2016). The Future of Public Administration Reform in Romania. In: From Corruption to Modernity. SpringerBriefs in Economics. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-26997-9_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation