Conference Agenda

In current times of “polycrisis” and in the face of prevalent challenges such as the erosion of trust in public institutions and democratic backsliding, the public sector represents a “stability anchor” (German Coalition Agreement 2025, p. 57). As “‘carriers of the institutional norms and values”, bureaucratic leaders in particular “set the moral compass” (Kutsal et al. 2023, p. 420) for other civil service employees and citizens in liberal democracies. While questions of recruitment and motivation have typically been discussed in this context, there are increasing calls for the expansion of systematic personnel development measures for senior civil servants (Gerson 2022), reminding both schools of public administration and organisers of civil service training programmes of their duties (Kutsal et al. 2023, p. 420). However, European countries appear to react very differently to such claims. Assuming that education and training of senior civil servants are embedded in a specific context, which encompasses societal, political and organisational-administrative factors (van Wart et al. 2015, p. 6–7), the article examines public leadership development on the central state level from a comparative European perspective.

In detail, the paper proceeds as follows: After briefly clarifying the terms ‘management’ and ‘leadership’, it reflects on two different strands of literature: on the one hand, broader neo-institutional organisation theory (e.g. Di Maggio, Powell 1983; Zucker 1988; Scott 1995), and on the other, selected leadership approaches drawing both on personal characteristics of the respective leaders (Bass 1990, t’Hart 2014, Vogel 2016, Ritz 2019) and their leadership behaviour (i.e. Bass, Avolio 1990).

Based on an in-depth document analysis of mission statements, module schedules and ministerial websites etc. from France, Spain, Sweden, Poland and Germany as well as on supplementary expert interviews, the article adds to the existing literature on top civil servant training (van Wart et al. 2015) and administrative responses to democratic backsliding (Bauer 2023, 2024) by analysing systems from different administrative cultures which have so far received less attention from a comparative European perspective, in which right-wing parties (RN, VOX, SD, PiS, AfD) are successful and far-reaching reforms can be observed at the moment (esp. France, Spain). It expands on both context and background of leadership development in the selected countries and asks in how far these countries are currently changing and adapting the organisation of leadership development (esp. competences taught and methods used) to respond to dynamic challenges and to enhance both the individual and the organisational resilience of public administration. It scrutinises to what extent external changes shape timing and content of reforms while analysing the relevance of aspects such as “responsible leadership” or “orientation towards common goods” in training programmes. Empirically striking is, among others, that, after long-lasting reform processes, France is currently on the way to a systemic and inter-ministerial model, following a neo-Weberian logic and striving for a comprehensive, holistic approach to leadership competences. The article concludes by discussing questions about the effectiveness of leadership training (cf. Jacobsen et al. 2023) as well as challenges associated with the respective country-specific models.

Authoritarianism is on the rise globally, often advancing gradually and subtly under democratically elected leaders who seek to maintain a democratic façade. This challenges dominant structuralist theories of (de-)democratization, which tend to focus on legal-institutional changes at the country level. Additionally, existing theoretical frameworks and empirical strategies struggle to capture anti-democratic dynamics within democracies. To address these limitations, we propose shifting the unit of analysis to the meso, “practice” level and introduce the concept of authoritarian governance practices (AGPs), defined as purposive practices aimed at extending and entrenching the power holders’ authority by sabotaging their accountability. Based on an effort to conceptualize and operationalize AGPs and relying on explorative empirical work focusing on the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, and Slovakia from 2017 to 2022, we constructed a mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive taxonomy of AGPs with 12 AGP types and conducted an illustrative empirical analysis of AGPs in the four countries. The conceptual apparatus and taxonomy enable the identification of empirical instances of AGPs unambiguously, which, along with the taxonomy, allows for systematic comparative work about the phenomenon.

The global rise of populism presents profound challenges to public administration and poses a serious threat to democratic governance. In many countries, authoritarian-leaning leaders are undermining the rule of law and weakening public institutions in efforts to consolidate power and advance anti-democratic agendas. Central to these efforts is the reform—or dismantling—of civil service systems, which are increasingly targeted as obstacles to political control. This paper explores the role of civil service systems in resisting populist overreach and maintaining democratic accountability. It argues that professional, merit-based bureaucracies not only ensure the effective delivery of public services but also serve as essential safeguards against impulsive, ideologically driven political reforms. Drawing on historical and comparative perspectives, the analysis revisits long-standing debates on political control of the bureaucracy, administrative responsibility, and the need for institutional neutrality. The paper contends that while decades of New Public Management-inspired reforms have weakened bureaucratic structures, the current populist wave underscores the need to reinvest in and fortify civil service systems. Working alongside independent judiciaries and other resilient democratic institutions, a strong civil service can help preserve pluralistic governance and protect democratic norms from erosion.