Administrative Structure in Times of Changes: The Development of Estonian Ministries and Government Agencies 1990–2010

Abstract

The article addresses the change in administrative structure at the center of the Estonian government during the twenty years of post-communist development. The focus is on three issues of theoretical relevance-the rate of change in the core parts of public administration, the aspired retrenchment of administrative structures, and the combination of national and international forces behind structural change. In analyzing the factors behind Estonian administrative formation, the initial deinstitutionalization of the politico-administrative system appears to be a critical factor for understanding the direction and content of the reforms undertaken.

Changing public service delivery: learning in co-creation

“…Estonia (with its communist background) is characterized by an authoritative state tradition. The culture of governance is formally a Rechtsstaat-based legal and governing system but just as in Finland (Pollitt & Bouckaert, 2011), the culture of governance is changing from a Rechtstaat to a more plural one (Sarapuu, 2012). In most social policy areas, the role of the state is described by familial responsibility rather than by a legal one (Tõnurist & De Tavernier, 2017).…”

Mapping Public Sector Organizations: An Agenda for Future Research

“…In the Norwegian case, it is found that periods of significant agencification preceded NPM and the decline of agencies started well before post-NPM doctrines on despecialization (Rolland & Roness, 2012). In the Estonian case, the reforms have been completely different from NPM-type structural reforms and can be, instead, characterized as deagencification and consolidation of the structure (Sarapuu, 2012). In Lithuania, we also find significant departure from ideal-type NPM models (Nakrošis & Budraitis, 2012).…”

“…Although the effect of the crisis and, first of all, its pressure to reduce the size and cost of the state is more or less pronounced in the case of four countries represented in this issue-Estonia, Hungary, Ireland, and Lithuania-it does not appear as a prominent issue in the Norwegian case. Similarly, the factor of accession to the EU emerges as a critical driver of change in the context of the CEE countries (Nakrošis & Budraitis, 2012;Sarapuu, 2012) but does not have such a momentous role in the case of administrative change in Ireland or Norway.…”

“…The country studies of Estonia (Sarapuu, 2012), Lithuania (Nakrošis & Budraitis, 2012), and Hungary (Hajnal, 2012) examine organizational change after 1990. They expand considerably our knowledge of Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries, where the focus has tended to be on the development of political institutions and systems rather than their systems of public administration.…”

Trends in confidence in public institutions: A comparative analysis of the Baltic countries

“…Th e initial "de -sovietising" reforms to the governing system also made it more receptive to international infl uences which could then shape its development (Sarapuu 2012). Indeed, of the post -communist CEE countries, Estonia implemented the most radical reforms, and to a large extent, these were based on a New Public Management (NPM) approach (Nemec 2008).…”