Administrative Culture <p>Administrative Culture (AC), published by&nbsp;<a title="RND" href="" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Ragnar Nurkse Department of Innovation and Governance</a> at Tallinn University of Technology, is a peer-reviewed multi-language interdisciplinary journal of administrative studies. The journal publishes contributions in English, the lingua franca of our times, and also in the languages of the region: Estonian, Finnish, German, Russian. The journal appears bi-annually.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <h2 style="font-size: 24px; color: #df691a;"><strong>Relaunching <em>Halduskultuur – The Estonian Journal of Administrative Culture and Digital Governance</em></strong></h2> <p>With the next issue, 19(2), Administrative Culture will be relaunched as a fully open-access, online journal under its previous title, <strong><em>Halduskultuur</em></strong>, and with a new, programmatic subtitle,<strong><em> The Estonian Journal of Administrative Culture and Digital Governance</em></strong>, as well as with a suitably updated design. Robert Krimmer (TalTech) will join the Editorial Board to represent Digital Governance, and as new Advisory Board members, we are excited to welcome</p> <ul class="new-ab-members"> <li class="show">Caspar van den Berg, University of Groningen</li> <li class="show">Yannis Charalabidis, University of the Aegean</li> <li class="show">Mila Gasco, SUNY Albany</li> <li class="show">Thad Hall, University of Utah</li> <li class="show">Andrew Massey, University of Exeter</li> <li class="show">Ines Mergel, University of Konstanz</li> <li class="show">Akira Nakamura, Meiji University</li> <li class="show">Reuben Ng, Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore</li> <li class="show">Janine O’Flynn, University of Melbourne and ANZSOG (joined 2018 already)</li> <li class="show">Leslie A. Pal, Carleton University</li> <li class="show">Theresa Pardo, Center for Technology in Government, SUNY Albany</li> <li class="show">Peter Parycek, Danube University of Krems and Fraunhofer FOCUS Institute Berlin</li> <li class="show">Jos Raadschelders, Leiden University</li> <li class="show">S. Reddy, University of KwaZulu Natal, South Africa</li> <li class="show">Hiroko Shimada Logie, Kyoto University</li> <li class="show">Ploy Suebvises, National Institute of Development Administration, Bangkok</li> <li class="show">Lhawang Ugyel, Australian National University</li> </ul> <p>Stay tuned for the exciting relaunch itself in Spring!</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> Ragnar Nurkse Department of Innovation and Governance en-US Administrative Culture 1736-6070 Different Faces of Fiscal Bureaucracy <p>In light of the growing importance of finance ministries and the financial dimension in policy-making, opening up the “black box” of fiscal bureaucracies is more warranted than ever. Our paper addresses the following research question: What kinds of roles can be assumed by fiscal bureaucrats in fiscal policy-making and budgeting? We propose four dichotomies that can be employed for examining the roles played by fiscal bureaucracies: 1) developers vs guardians; 2) initiators vs followers; 3) mediators vs insulators; 4) modellers vs estimators. In developing these dimensions, we juxtaposed the insights from various streams of institutionalist research and also on literature on public budgeting and public policy with the themes that emerged from the interviews we conducted in four different countries: Estonia, Latvia, Sweden and Norway. We find that fiscal bureaucracies in Estonia and Latvia tend to be closer to the guardian-insulator-estimator ends of the continuums, whereas the officials in Sweden and especially Norway lean towards the developer-mediator-modeller end of the scale. The division between the initiator vs follower roles is less clear-cut.</p> Ringa Raudla Lars Mjøset Rainer Kattel Aleksandrs Cepilovs Olga Mikheeva Bent Sofus Tranøy ##submission.copyrightStatement## 2018-10-29 2018-10-29 19 1 5 36 10.32994/ac.v19i1.177 Narratives on Complexity: Interpretations on Local Government Leadership Change <p>This article, based on narratives of experienced (born between 1945 and 1950) municipal chief executive officers, investigates changes that challenge leadership inlocal government. Four factors emerge: the dissolution of municipal boundaries; cooled relations between the State and municipalities; municipal inhabitants’ changing role from participatory residents to exacting customers; and fragmentation oflocal politics. These four changes reveal the diversity of local leaders’ everyday environment, illustrating and exploring how day-to-day management takes place in the intersection of more and more complex governance relations.</p> Arto Haveri, Henna Paananen Jenni Airaksinen ##submission.copyrightStatement## 2018-10-29 2018-10-29 19 1 37 53 10.32994/ac.v19i1.207 Politico-Administrative Relations in the National Reception of OMC Policies: Comparing Policy Sectors in Slovenia <p>The article examines the relationship between the national politicians and their civil servants in the reception of the Open Method of Coordination (OMC) policies. Our comparative case study of three policy fields in Slovenia identifies variations in the politico-administrative relations among different policy sectors. These variations can be explained by the weight of the ideological-political burden that determines the extent to which a particular policy sector is politicised. Although the reception of OMC policy is first and foremost in the hands of the national politicians, national civil servants have greater scope to act autonomously in those policy sectors which are less politicised.</p> Danica Fink-Hafner Damjan Lajh ##submission.copyrightStatement## 2018-10-29 2018-10-29 19 1 55 75 10.32994/ac.v19i1.184 Indicators for Public Sector Innovations: Theoretical Frameworks and Practical Applications <p>The paper maps and analyzes all existing practical exercises aiming to develop indicators for public sector innovations. To our knowledge this is the first attempt to comprehensively gather information about various international efforts. We only considered such exercises where actual indicators were developed and used at least once. We map five such exercises through extensive desk research and 13 interviews with surveyed project members. The paper shows that all existing attempts to measure public sector innovations operate within a rather limited conception of the public sector (efficiency), neglecting other possible logics (e.g. legitimacy); the existing exercises also neglect large areas of public sector activities, e.g. cooperation with business and third sectors (such as service co-creation, public-private partnership practices). This narrow focus often dictates that indicators and their technical assumptions are copied from the private sector; none of the five analyzed exercises utilized public administration experience and research (e.g. on performance measurement). The paper argues that instead of trying to come up with quantified indicators, public sector innovations should be assessed in complex evaluation frameworks.</p> Rainer Kattel Aleksandrs Cepilovs Veiko Lember Piret Tõnurist ##submission.copyrightStatement## 2018-10-29 2018-10-29 19 1 77 104 10.32994/ac.v19i1.208 Authoritarian Neoliberalism: Its Ideological Antecedents and Policy Manifestations from Carl Schmitt’s Political Economy of Governance <p>The regime of authoritarian neoliberalism is underway. In contemporary political economy of governance, this regime has been construed as a crisis response of the capitalist class to manage the conflict-ridden consequences of economic globalization; and, as an ideological project of a section of the ruling elites to justify the embedding of market-oriented development processes in a politically repressive government institution. To contribute to recent scholarship attempts at defining the character and tendencies of this emergent regime, the article traces one of its key ideological antecedents from Carl Schmitt’s earlier formulation for a “strong state, free economy”. It then presents a survey of how this concept articulating the compatibility of authoritarianism and capitalism has manifested in related theories and actual policies since the long twentieth century – notably in: German ordoliberalism, Thatcherism and Reaganomics, the Kirkpatrick Doctrine and Political Development Theory, the Asian Values discourse, and the Effective State and Good Governance agendas. The governing authority in this regime can be called an authoritarian-neoliberal state.</p> Bonn Juego ##submission.copyrightStatement## 2018-10-29 2018-10-29 19 1 105 136 10.32994/ac.v19i1.209 Book Review: Public Administration in Search of a Theory of Change <p>Edoardo Ongaro<br>Philosophy and Public Administration: An Introduction.<br>Edward Elgar, 2017<br>ISBN-13: 978-1784718435</p> Rainer Kattel ##submission.copyrightStatement## 2018-10-29 2018-10-29 19 1 137 139 10.32994/ac.v19i1.210