normative indicators such as rule of law, neo-liberal marketizing of public administration, decentralization, public/private partnerships and principal/agent discourses that mask reality. In addition to clienteles the potential obstacles to reform present barriers. Those favoring New Public Management will stress revivification of market solutions. Those preferring the rechsstaat will prefer direct services. A host of states will have centralized most public administration. For that purpose, we include four civil service models: patronage/personal; meritocracy; ascriptive; pro forma. This permits us to create a generalized model that accounts for indigenous differences. We have seen how EU candidate and accession countries have prepared their accession chapters regarding public administration. Promises are made and some are kept. Where compliance has been intolerable, such as in Bulgaria and lesser so in Romania, the EU simply withheld funds. Perhaps the aid giving donors will do the same in other countries. Thus, we seek a generalized model that can be constructed or de-constructed to suit state needs. The actual reform process will then emerge, if at all, within a political/economic/social milieu, according to disparate national interests. Despite national interests, external sources will participate in the discourses. The recent elections for the Members of the European Parliament produced a French Green representation of 16.28% of the vote, behind only the Socialists, 16.48%, and Sarkozy’s center right party at 27.87%. Said the Green’s leader, Daniel Cohn-Bendit, “We have a project for Europe, an idea; the ecological transformation of our way of production and way of life, with a social shield to protect the people who are negatively affected by the process of transformation.” We are saying then that changing conditions permit us to construct a general model. Those changing conditions include globalization, networks, knowledge societies, perverse vs. rewarding incentives, changing intrinsic/extrinsic values, changing public/private philosophy. The model would be based on the following assumptions: Crises exist in the world and in individual states: pollution of the environment; continuing un-sustainable use of hydro-carbons; substantial under provision of health care services; collapsed financial institutions; an ageing planet and continued demographic imbalance reaching nine billion persons by 2050; under-expenditures in research and development; Individual public administration systems will differ: ascriptive, patronage, meritocracy and pro forma;
theoretical construct, it cannot “…provide a full account of the actual occurrence of change.” He further concludes that additional empirical testing would be useful. Table 3, below, encapsulates selected public administration activity since the 1930s depression. ACTORS/STATES CONDITIONS EFFECT ON BUREAUCRACY ACTIONS TAKEN F.D. Roosevelt, U.S. Depression; high unemployment; collapse of financial markets; decline in production Many lawyers joined the government; critical education created new public agencies Regulation of banks; government challenged private sector, e.g. in utilities such as TVA J.F. Kennedy/L.B. Johnson, U.S. rights activism More lawyers joined the government as civil rights law implemented Affirmative action; hiring quotas; school bussing; legal activism Reagan/Thatcher, U.S./UK Government seen as “the problem” Emphasis on private sector managerial practices; NPM Fired striking air controllers; “trickle down economics” Post-Communism, CEE Collapse of Communism; privatization; structuring market systems New CEE bureaucracies were formed despite probable path dependencies A vetting process was established to attempt to screen out former police and security personnel NATO/EU Common market; integrative procedures; accession requirements Politicized bureaucracies required merit oriented, technical skills Negotiations between EU and members created organizational challenges in Brussels and in member states EU ACCESSION OF EU 12 Partial division of EU 15 and EU 12; old vs. young members; western vs. eastern Europe; some antagonism to “Democratic Deficit” Certain members of EU 12 had continuing difficulty in eliminating corruption; NPM created horizontal and vertical coordination problems EU withheld funds from Bulgaria and struggled with Romania’s perceived corruption; EU members moved away from NPM & toward JUG and Whole of Govt.