Conference Agenda

Abstract

Decentralization is frequently promoted as a pathway to democratization and more responsive governance, yet it often produces limited empowerment rather than genuine self-governance. This article examines Georgia as a paradigmatic case of “decentralization without empowerment,” inquiring into the factors that explain the country’s limited and reversible decentralization despite repeated reform waves and European Union (EU) integration incentives. Drawing on the qualitative, longitudinal case study method and surveying legal and policy documents, statistical data and reports from domestic and international organizations, the study analyses Georgia’s decentralization trajectory from 2004 to 2024.

The analysis combines three theoretical perspectives: Tulia Falleti’s sequential theory of decentralization (2005), Europeanization scholarship, and selectorate theory, which explains elite-driven reversals rooted in regime survival. Findings reveal that EU conditionality triggered necessary legal and institutional reforms, including the introduction of directly elected mayors and partial fiscal decentralization. However, domestic elites repeatedly recalibrated or reversed these reforms to preserve central control, resulting in a pattern of reactive feedback and stagnation despite a long chain of purposeful reforms in local governance.

By integrating Europeanization and rational-choice perspectives into Falleti’s model, the article provides a conceptual framework for understanding the trajectories of decentralization in democratizing regimes under external influence, with implications for other EU candidate states, such as Moldova, Ukraine, and the Western Balkans.

Key Words: Local governance; Decentralization; Sequential theory of decentralization; Europeanization; Selectorate theory; Georgia.

The Changing Face of Work: Trends in Employee Motivation and Human Capital in the

Public Sector

Public administration across Europe faces complex external shocks and transformations,

including security crises, demographic changes, technological advances, and evolving

expectations from both employees and citizens. Understanding how public sector

employees respond and adapt to these shifts is crucial for enhancing administrative

resilience and ensuring effective governance. This study addresses this imperative by

exploring the motivations, expectations, and organizational perceptions of public sector

employees in Romania, situating the findings within the broader context of European public

administration trends.

Specifically, the study examines how the public administration workforce responds and

adapts to a changing environment and increased uncertainty. Using a mixed-methods

approach, including an extensive online survey (N=1481) and a qualitative research based

on multiple focus groups and interviews conducted among public administration employees

in Romania, the research identifies key factors used in evaluating public sector

attractiveness, specific perceptions regarding organizational environment, leadership and

overall job satisfaction

Findings reveal a strong preference among public employees for job stability and security,

meaningful work with significant social impact, increased importance of work-life balance

and continuous professional development. These preferences resonate with broader

European trends that emphasize intrinsic motivation, public value, and organizational

resilience, particularly critical in managing crises or uncertain situations.

Leadership emerges as a pivotal factor, with employees expressing a clear preference for

participatory and supportive leadership styles that align with public service values. Results

also indicate increased mobility of workforce between sectors which has multiple ripple

effects on overall system functioning and effectiveness.

However, the study highlights specific barriers within Romanian public administration, such

as limited career development opportunities, insufficient administrative flexibility, and slow

technology adoption—issues that could impede effective crisis management and

responsiveness.

The study underscores the importance of addressing these barriers to strengthen the

adaptability and resilience of public administration systems across Europe, recommending

increased flexibility, proactive adoption of innovative technologies, and cultivation of

inclusive leadership practices.

Societal issues including climate change, biodiversity loss, rising inequality, pandemics, and geopolitical tensions are challenging countries all around the world to seek for innovative approaches and practices. Yet, populist movements and authoritarian tendencies do not exactly support innovations in public administration (Cheung, 2020; Eymeri-Douzans, 2024). This paper binds two strands of research: 1) how COVID-19 pandemic affected political leaders and the rise of populist leadership in Slovakia and 2) how the populist leadership is a possible barrier to innovations in Slovak public administration.

The COVID-19 pandemic offers an excellent empirical lens for scrutinizing the phenomenon of polycrises governance because it occurred while European countries were struggling with the impacts of several prior, ongoing, or newly arrived crises (Kuhlmann et al., 2024). In Slovakia, the COVID-19 pandemic is linked with elections, change of government, and later the government crisis that occurred a year after the elections, which led to the change of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Health. These circumstances were accompanied by the secret purchase of the Sputnik vaccine and an initiative to increase people's motivation to vaccinate through a vaccination lottery (Hays, et al., 2023). In the proposed paper we identify the populist leadership that manifested during the crisis in Slovakia based on the works of Collinson (2017) and Moffitt (2015).

Understanding the factors that can influence innovations in public administration is very important. As pointed out by Lewis et al. (2018), leadership has a stronger effect than innovation drivers. Based on the identified populist leadership, the paper analyses the possible impact of populism on innovation.

References:

Cheung, A. B. (2020). Administrative reform: Opportunities, drivers, and barriers. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics.

Collinson, D. (2017). Critical leadership studies: A response to Learmonth and Morrell. Leadership, 13(3), 272-284.

Eymeri-Douzans, J. M. (2024). France: Which Prospects of Hybridization for the Neo-Weberian State in the Homeland of the ‘State-in Majesty’?. Journal of Policy Studies, 39(3).

Hays II, G., Hayden, J. M., & Polišenská, M. (2023). Leadership in the Time of Covid: Pandemic Responses in Central Europe. New York: Central European University Press.

Kuhlmann, S., Franzke, J., Peters, N., & Dumas, B. P. (2024). Institutional designs and dynamics of crisis governance at the local level: European governments facing the polycrisis. Policy Design and Practice, 7(4), 409-429.

Lewis, J. M., Ricard, L. M., & Klijn, E. H. (2018). How innovation drivers, networking and leadership shape public sector innovation capacity. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 84(2), 288-307.

Moffitt, B. (2015). How to perform crisis: A model for understanding the key role of crisis in contemporary populism. Government and Opposition, 50(2), 189-217.