Understanding the Waves of Agencification and the Governance Problems They Have Raised in Central and Eastern European Countries

Cited by

  1. Tõnurist, Piret. In: Framework for analysing the role of state owned enterprises in innovation policy management: The case of energy technologies and Eesti Energia. Technovation, Vol. 38, 2015. pp. 1 – 14.
  2. Merk, O.: In: The OECD experience: benefits, pitfalls and management. Budget Reform Seminar. Pretoria: CABRI, 2005, p. 121.
  3. Moynihan, D. P.: In: Ambiguity in policy lessons: The agencification experience. Public Administration, Vol. 84, No. 4, 2006. pp. 1029-1050.
  4. Marique, Y.: In: The rule-making powers of independent administrative agencies. Electronic Journal of Comparative Law, Vol. 11.3, 2007. pp. 113-30.
  5. Manning, N. – Shepherd, G.: In: Public management reform: does Latin America have anything to learn from the OECD? Revista Del Clad Reforma y Democracia, Vol. 44, 2009. p. 5.
  6. Pavel, J. – Sičáková-Beblavá, E.: In: Testing the validity of the Brown-Potoski model in the Czech and Slovak Republics. Prague Economic Papers, Vol. 18, No. 4, 2009. pp. 327-341.
  7. Staroňová, K, – Malíková, Ľ.: In: Governance-módny pojem alebo užitočný koncept? Governance v lesníctve. Zvolen: Národné lesnícke centrum, 2009, p. 42.
  8. Karo, E. – Kattel, R.: In: Coordination of innovation policies in the catching-up context: a historical perspective on Estonia and Brazil. International Journal of Technological Learning, Innovation and Development, Vol. 3, No. 4, 2010. p. 323.
  9. Sičáková-Beblavá E. – Ondrušová, D. – Klimovský, D. – Jacko, T.: Teoretické aspekty politicko-administratívnych vzťahov. Prešov: Adin, 2010.
  10. Hajnal, G.: In: Agencies and the politics of agentification in Hungary. Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences, Vol. 2011, No. Sp. Iss., 2011. p. 91.
  11. Musa, A. – Koprić, I.: In: What kind of agncification in Croatia? Trends and future directions. Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences, Vol. 2011, No. Sp. Iss., 2011. p. 52.
  12. Nakrošis, V. – Martinaitis, Ž.: In: “Sunrise” and “sunset” of Lithuanian agencies. Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences, Vol. 2011, No. Sp. Iss., 2011. p. 112.
  13. Nakrošis, V. – Martinaitis, Ž.: In: Chapter 1: Introduction. Lithuanian agencies and other public sector organisations: organisation, autonomy, control and performance. Vilnius: Vilnius University, 2011, p. 292.
  14. Nakrošis, V.: In: Chapter 2: The system of the Lithuanian public sector organisations and its evolution in the 1990 – 2010 period. Lithuanian agencies and other public sector organisations: organisation, autonomy, control and performance. Vilnius: Vilnius University, 2011, p. 295.
  15. Nemec, J. – Mikušová Meričková, B. – Vozárová, Z.: In: Agencification in Slovakia: the current situation and lessons learned. Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences, Vol. 2011, No. Sp. Iss., 2011. p. 154.
  16. Randma-Liiv, T. – Nakrošis, V. – Hajnal, G.: In: Public sector organization in Central and Eastern Europe: from agencification to de-agencification. Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences, Vol. 2011, No. Sp. Iss., 2011. p. 174.
  17. Sarapuu, K.: In: Post-communist development of administrative structure in Estonia: from fragmentation to segmentation. Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences, Vol. 2011, No. Sp. Iss., 2011. p. 70.
  18. Van Thiel, S.: In: Comparing agencification in Central Eastern European and Western European countries: fundamentally alike in uniomportant respects? Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences, Vol. 2011, No. Sp. Iss., 2011. p. 30.
  19. Acimovic, S.: In: Inconsistencies in the creation of regulatiory bodies as important economic institutions in transition countries: example of Serbia. Montenegrin Journal of Economics, Vol. 8, No. 2, Sp. Iss., 2012. p. 308.
  20. Attila, G.: In: Budgets reflecting Agencies’ Behaviour. Innovation Vision 2020. Norristown: IBIMA, 2012, pp. 277-282.
  21. Nemec, J.: In: Slovakia. Government agencies: practices and lessons from 30 countries. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012, pp. 461.
  22. Randma-Liiv, T. – Nakrošis, V., Hajnal G.: In: Comparing agencification in Central and Eastern Europe. Government agencies: practices and lessons from 30 countries. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012, p. 461.
  23. Sarapuua, K.: In: Administrative structure in times of changes: The development of Estonian ministries and government agencies 1990–2010. International Journal of Public Administration, Vol. 35, No. 12, 2012. pp. 808-819.
  24. Tarallo, M. A.: Public Administration: Key Issues Challenging Practitioners. Bloomington: AuthorHouse, 2012, p. 43.
  25. Van Thiel, S.: In: Comparing agencies across countries. Government agencies: practices and lessons from 30 countries. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012, p. 441.
  26. Vesely, A.: In: Accountability in Central and Eastern Europe: Concept and reality. International Review of Administrative Sciences, Vol. 79, No. 2, 2013. pp. 310-330.
  27. Staroňová, K. – Gajduschek, G. – Uudelepp, A.: Senior Civil Service in Central and Eastern Europe: case study of Estonia, Hungary and Slovakia. In. Nemec, J. Europeanisation in Public Administration Reforms. 2016.
  28. Overman, S. – Van Thiel, S.:. Agencification and Public Sector Performance: A systematic comparison in 20 countries. Public Management Review, 18(4), 611-635. 2016.
  29. Sarapuu, Külli: Institutional Choices during Post-Communist Transition to Democracy: Investigating the Legacy Explanations. Paper – Conference: Transatlantic Dialogue 13. April 2017