Varieties of legacies: a critical review of legacy explanations of public administration reform in East Central Europe

Abstract

This article examines the status of historical legacies in debates on the reform of public administration in East Central Europe. It identifies limitations of existing accounts and derives three dimensions for the further development of legacy explanations of administrative reform in East Central Europe. First, legacy arguments tend to zoom in on the negative effects of the communist past. Yet there is not one but many legacies that matter for post-communist reforms and these many legacies have to be carefully distinguished and conceptualized. Second, legacy explanations tend to search for broad similarities between the administrative past and the present set-up of East Central European administrations in order to demonstrate the importance of the legacy. The identification of similarities is, however, not sufficient for the identification of legacy effects. Instead, the article argues in favour of the identification of causal mechanisms of legacification to explain recent administrative developments in East Central Europe. Finally, the article draws attention to the interaction of legacy effects with other determinants of administrative reform such as European integration and political parties.Points for practitionersThis article addresses primarily policy-makers who deal with the reform of public administration in Central and Eastern Europe. It addresses the issue of how administrative traditions and, generally, historical legacies affect the design of administrative reforms and the successful implementation of reforms. Conventional wisdom concentrates on the negative effects of the communist-type administration on contemporary reform in Central and Eastern Europe. This article advances a more differentiated perspective on the impact of historical legacies. It argues that communist administrations evolved over time and differed considerably across countries. The administrative experience of other historical periods further interacts with the communist legacy of the past. The article also identifies various mechanisms that help to ‘transport’ the legacy of the past into the contemporary administrative reform context. For administrative policy-makers this approach implies that they cannot take for granted that the effect of the communist legacy is identical across countries and they cannot even assume that the communist administration will be long-lasting after transition. Instead, it is recommended that the specifics of local administrative traditions and the kind of mechanisms that produce legacy effects in the context of contemporary reform efforts be examined more closely.