untitled


114

Abstract
The reform process of the state and implicitly 

of the public administration was a priority for the 
past governments of Romania. During 2004-
2009, within the reform process, the main actors 
involved in the coordination, implementation 
and monitoring of reform measures were: the 
Prime Minister, the Superior Council for Public 
Administration Reform, Public Policy Coordination 
and Structural Adjustment, the Ministry of Public 
Finance, the General Secretariat of Government, 
Ministry of Administration and Interior (renamed for 
a short time Ministry of Interior and Administrative 
Reform), the Central Unit for Public Administration 
Reform, National Institute of Administration, the 
National Agency of Civil Servants, and the National 
Modernizers Network.

For evaluation of aspects related to the reform 
process it was designed a selective research 
within the members of the National Modernizers 
Network, for assessing their perception of the public 
administration reform undertaken by the institutions 
presented above. Evaluating their opinion can be 
an important point in the revitalization of the area 
of the administration reform process. 

Also, the research conducted aimed at 
assessing the degree of modernizers’ involvement 
in activities related to important aspects of the 
reform process: strategic planning, formulating and 
evaluating public policies, financial management, 
human resources management, decentralization, 
introduction of new information and communication 
technologies and administrative simplification.

 

ANALYSIS OF THE NATIONAL 
MODERNIZERS NETWORK 
FOR THE SUPPORT OF THE 
PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REFORM 
PROCESS FROM ROMANIA*1

Alina PROFIROIU
Tudorel ANDREI
Marian NICA
Elena Daniela ŞTEFĂNESCU 

Alina PROFIROIU (corresponding author) 
Associate Professor, Faculty of Administration and Public 
Management, Academy of Economic Studies, Bucharest, Romania 
Tel.: 0040-021-319.1900 
Email: alina_profiroiu@yahoo.com

Tudorel ANDREI
Professor, Statistics and Econometrics Department, Faculty of 
Cibernetics, Statistics and Economic Computation, Academy of 
Economic Studies, Bucharest, Romania

Marian NICA
PhD Candidate, Academy of Economic Studies, Bucharest, 
Romania

Elena Daniela ŞTEFĂNESCU 
PhD, National Institute of Statistics, Bucharest, Romania 

*1 Acknowledgement: The research was conducted 
under phase V of the project Quantitative and 
qualitative analysis of public administration 
reform impact on the EU integration process 
from the perspective of decreasing inequalities 
in economic regional development, funded 
through National Priority Programs (NP II).

Transylvanian Review
of Administrative Sciences,
No. 31E/2010 pp. 114-132



115

1. Introduction

The reform process of the state and implicitly of the public administration has 
become a priority for the past governments of Romania. During 2004-2009, within 
the reform process, the main actors (Strategy for the Public Administration Reform 
in Romania, 2004) involved in the coordination, implementation and monitoring of 
reform measures were following:

• The Prime Minister – who coordinated the overall government reform and 
delegated specific tasks to all ministers.

• The Superior Council for Public Administration Reform, Public Policy 
Coordination and Structural Adjustment – which analyzed the sectoral 
strategies for each individual ministry or in whole, and made suggestions and 
recommendations to ministers and to the Prime Minister; this Council was 
dismantled and replaced in 2005 with an Inter-ministerial Permanent Council 
for Administration and Civil Service, decentralization, local communities.

• The Ministry of Public Finance – which develops and implements the Govern-
ment’s strategy in public finance; together with the Ministry of Administration and 
Interior are responsible for carrying out fiscal decentralization process, providing 
technical support to the Inter-Ministerial Technical Committee and working 
groups on financial issues specific to decentralization process; the Ministry has 
an important role in providing financial support to civil service reform.

• The General Secretariat of Government, the Public Policy Unit – strengthening the 
government capacity to coordinate the process of formulation, implementation 
and monitoring of public policies and providing the interface between different 
institutions which have an important role in public policy formulation.

• The Ministry of Administration and Interior (renamed for a short time the 
Ministry of Interior and Administrative Reform - MIAR), which had a role in 
public administration reform process, by its special structure – Central Unit for 
Public Administration Reform (CUPAR).

At the level of the Ministry of Administration and Interior the following actors 
were involved in the reform process: 

• The Central Unit for Public Administration Reform1 (CUPAR), structure 
within the ministry which provided the technical support and monitored the 
entire reform process, as well as implementation of the decentralization and 
deconcentration process; provides together with the Public Policy Unit (PPU), 
the secretariat of the Governmental Council and executes its decisions; 

1 CUPAR was created in 2002 and is divided into 2 Units (Modernization and Decentralization) 
and a Monitoring Service. Its mission is to coordinate the reform process in the public 
administration by proposing instruments, mechanisms and procedures for a new public 
management which should be implemented at the level of local and central public 
administration, for meeting the citizens’ demand. 



116

• The National Institute of Administration (NIA), which currently has been 
dismantled, developed and ensured the implementation of the strategy for training 
of civil servants, played the role of a training school of excellence for civil servants, 
and it was the coordinator of the network of regional centers for continuous training 
at local administration level and support within the network of partners; 

• The National Agency of Civil Servants (NACS) is responsible for managing the 
civil service;

• The groups for monitoring the public administration reform at counties and 
ministries level, coordinated by the Central Unit for Public Administration 
Reform. Public managers2, which are a category of officials with special status, 
might be part of these groups.

For the evaluation of some aspects related to the activity of some actors involved 
in the support of the reform process it was designed a selective research within the 
members of the National Modernizers Network (NMN). The research was carried 
out within the 5th phase of the project Quantitative and qualitative analysis of the 
effects of the public administration reform on the EU integration process in terms 
of reducing economic development disparities between regions, funded through the 
National Programs by priority domains (NP II).

In this approach was applied a statistical survey at the level of a group of 72 
modernizers from the entire network.

To achieve this objective the following stages took place:
 – Develop a tool for measuring the capacity of actors involved in supporting public 

administration reform process;
 – Implementation of the National Network tool. The questionnaire was applied in 

April 2010 to the Modernizers Network, with the support of the Central Unit for 
Public Administration Reform.

The questions integrated into the questionnaire took into consideration the 
evaluation of the public administration reform undertaken by the following institutions: 
Government, Ministry of Administration and Internal Affairs (MAI), Ministry of 
Public Finance (MPF), National Agency of Civil Servants (NACS), National Institute 
of Administration (NIA), Central Unit for Public Administration Reform (NACS) and 
Public Policy Unit (PPU). 

The research conducted on the National Modernizers Network was aimed to have 
the modernizers’ assessment on several aspects of the work undertaken by different 

2 Governmental Emergency Ordinance no. 56/2004 regarding the creation of the special 
status of the civil servant called public manager, approved with changes and amendments 
through the Law no. 452/2004, with its changes and amendments. The Public Manager, 
through its attributions and responsibilities, should contribute to the efficiency and 
continuity of the public administration reform, from the strategic levels to operational 
ones, as well as to the integration within EU structures through adopting and implementing 
the communitarian acquis, within the authority or institution where s/he is working. 



117

actors involved in implementing reform measures. Evaluating their opinion can be 
an important point in the revitalization of the area of administration reform process, 
taking into account several issues:
 – Resize this sector in relation to new restrictions imposed by the economic crisis, 

nationally and worldwide, but also the need to create a modern administration 
that supports the development of the economic environment;

 – Excessive politicization of state institutions and its effects on economic performance 
and social process at national and regional level;

 – The need for the implementation of the new wage system.

2. Developments at the level of National Modernizers Network 

A first question in the survey was to assess the view of the modernizers on the 
public administration reform process in the past four years. Based on the question, 
it is defined an ordinal variable based on the application below:

Q
1 
: N {1,2,3,4,5}

To define this variable it was used a measure scale with five levels, coded as 1 – if 
there is a negative opinion; 2 – if the view is moderately negative; 3 – if an opinion is 
neutral, meaning that respondents may not be aware of any remarkable changes in 
the reform process; 4 – if the view is moderately positive; 5 – if the opinion is positive. 
Distribution of answers to this question is presented in Table 1 and in Figure 1.

Table 1: Distribution of answers regarding the evolution of the reform process (%)

Relative frequency Cumulative frequency
It is noticed an involution every year 4.1 4.1
There are no important changes 8.2 12.3
The process is perceived in small degree 45.2 57.5
The process is perceived in high degree 38.4 95.9
Changes are radical 4.1 100.0

For this variable we calculated the average. It is obtained an amount equal to 3.30. 
The result highlights a slight evolution of public administration reform process. In 
fact, almost half of the respondents considered that the reform process is perceived 
at small degree. However, it should be noted that a majority (38.4%) of modernizers 
perceived at high degree the process of administrative reform.



118

Figure 1: Distribution of answers regarding the evolution of the reform process

An important aspect to be considered within the implementation of the reform 
process in any sector is the motivation of its promoters, by assessing if there is a 
match between their aspirations and changes in the system. To determine whether 
changes in public administration coincide with the aspirations of the modernizers, 
the following variable was defined:

Q
2 
: N {1,2,3,4}

To define this variable a scale with four values was used: 1, if change in the 
system does not coincide with the aspirations of the modernizers; 2, if there is a 
small correlation between the system change and their aspirations; 3, if there are 
considerable similarities between changes and aspirations; 4, if the aspirations of 
modernizers fully coincide with changes in the system. The D\distributions of values 
of this variable are presented in Table 2 and in Figure 2.

Table 2: Distribution of answers regarding the degree in which 
the changes coincide with the modernizers’ aspirations (%)

Relative Frequency Cumulative Frequency
Not at all 6.8 6.8
In a small degree 58.9 65.7
In a high degree 34.2 100.0

The average of this variable, which is 2.27, indicates that the current changes 
coincide to a lesser extent with their expectations. In fact, more than 50% of respondents 
considered that change within public administration coincide to a lesser extent with 
their own aspirations.



119

Figure 2: Degree in which changes correspond to modernizers’ aspirations 

To assess the quality of the work of the National Modernizers Network three 
issues were considered: work undertaken at national level; work undertaken by team 
members at county level; and quality of coordination work performed by CUPAR. 
For each case it was used a scale with five levels. 

These values are defined as follows: 1, for an unsatisfactory appreciation; 2, two 
for a satisfactory opinion; 3, for a better appreciation of the work performed; 4, for a 
good appreciation; 5, no answer.

Based on information collected directly from the application of the questionnaire 
the following three variables can be defined:

Q
31

, Q
32

, Q
33 

: N {1,2,3,4,5}

We used only the values of primary variables which have values in the crowd 
{1,2,3,4} thus defining the following variable for a global assessment:

Q
3 
: N [1,4], Q

3
 = 1 (Q

31
+Q

32
+Q

33
)3

The value distribution for each variable is presented in the following table:

Table 3: Distribution of answers regarding the appreciation
on the work of National Modernizers Network

Activity at national level Activity at county level Network coordination by 
CUPAR

Not satisfactory 11.0 13.7 4.1
Satisfactory 17.8 38.4 24.7
Well 47.9 38.4 56.2
Very well 6.8 2.7 8.2
I do not know 16.4 6.8 4.1
No answer 0.0 0.0 2.7

For an overall assessment of the National Modernizers Network on each component 
it is calculated the mean of the three primary variables based on questionnaires 



120

which have an assessment in relation to each criterion considered. Average for the 
three variables are: for work at national level was obtained 2.60; for the activity at 
the county level it was obtained 2.32; for the coordination of the network by CUPAR 
it was obtained an average of 2.73. Average aggregate variable Q

3
 is equal to 2.55, 

indicating a negative assessment of the work of the National Modernizers Network.

Figure 3: Appreciation of the activity of National Modernizers Network
reported to the activity at national, county and CUPAR coordination 

Using two questions from the questionnaire we highlighted the most important 
strengths and weaknesses of the National Modernizers Network. Therefore, among 
the network’s strengths it can be mentioned: Coordination of the network by 
CUPAR; Making a more efficient public administration through alternative methods 
presented; Support for strengthening the role of the Prefect in managing the process 
of deconcentration of public services and ensuring integrated management of public 
services of the ministries, for improving the human resources policy; Expanding the 
communication with the citizens; Modernization instruments launched at the level 
of public institutions; The increased availability of CUPAR experts’ advice, ensuring 
prompt information and undertaking objective evaluations; Work in team with 
maximum openness; Opportunity of experience sharing and best practices. 

Among the weaknesses of the system can be noted: sometimes poor communication 
and lack of information on standing issues; lack of communication between the networks 
from county level and CUPAR, as coordinator of the NMN, poor communication 
between modernizers and public institutions leadership; lack of information on 
modernizers’ activity; People which should be part of the modernization do not have 
the necessary knowledge and as a consequence do not have responsibilities in the 
job description; At this moment, the modernizers’ group (at least at county level) 
does not add value to the process of public administration modernization as it is 



121

not operational; Little monitoring of the implementation of reform measures at the 
local level, lack of implementation of measures that require material costs and of the 
obligation to apply certain modernizing instruments; Failure to support the process 
of simplifying administrative procedures; Insufficient training of the modernizers’ 
groups and reduced number of the meetings with NMN members at national level, 
determining a low cohesion at NMN level; Poor coordination of the modernizers 
groups at the level of some counties; Transfer knowledge and best practices among 
network members is done sporadically; Lack of a plan of action at the network level; 
Poor preparation of network members in terms of reform.

An important aspect of NMN is related to the number of meetings from 2006-2009. 
Thus based on information obtained after processing the questionnaire, distributions 
data were obtained, as presented in Table 4.

Table 4: Distribution of modernizers by the number of meetings they attended

Number of meetings 2006 2007 2008 2009
0 2.7 5.5 12.3 16.4
1 19.2 23.3 13.7 9.6
2 16.4 11.0 2.7 2.7
3 5.5 2.7 0.0 0.0
4 2.7 1.4 1.4 0.0

NA 53.4 56.1 69.9 71.2

Based on the above table we can make the following comments. During the period 
analyzed there is a reduction from year to year in the number of meetings of the 
NMN. There is large number of modernizers which did not provide any response to 
the question above. The lowest level of activity is noted in the year 2009.

An important tool that can ensure good communication within NMN, is an 
information bulletin. To determine the extent to which NMN members know of 
the existence of a newsletter it was ashed a question whether there is a newsletter. 
Distribution of answers to this question is presented in Figure 4.

Figure 4: Answer distribution regarding the newsletter’s existence



122

To determine to what extent the newsletter fulfills the expectations of NMN 
members, for those who answer affirmative to the previous question, it was inserted 
a question to assess the satisfaction regarding the newsletter. Based on this variable 
variable Q

6
 is defined, by the below application:

Q
6 
: N {1,2,3,4}

For the definition of the above variable it was used a scale with four levels defined 
as follows: 1, the interviewee believes that newsletter is not useful; 2, the utility of 
newsletter is low; 3, the newsletter has a large utility; 4, the usefulness of this tool is 
very high. The overall results are presented in Table 5 below.

Table 5: Appreciation degree of the newsletter, by NMN members (%)

1 
(not useful)

2
(low)

3
(large)

4 
(high)

No answer

Weight 0.0 2.7 23.3 0.0 74.0

Following the distribution of the above table, it is shown a poor appreciation of 
the quality of the newsletter by the NMN members. It should be noted that most of 
the respondents (74%) were not aware of the existence of this instrument.

3. Promoting modern tools at the level of public administration 

An important role in modernizing public administration it played by the use 
of modern instruments implementing specific EU policies to the national context. 
We included a question in the questionnaire to assess the awareness regarding the 
implementation of three modern instruments: Common Assessment Framework (CAF), 
Multi-annual Plan of Modernization (MPM) and Strategic Planning (SP). Distribution 
of the answers to this question is presented in Table 6.

Table 6: Application of three instruments at the institutions’ level

CAF MPM SP
No 32.9 11.0 17.8
Yes 41.1 71.2 60.3
Do not know 13.7 8.2 15.1
No answer 12.3 9.6 6.8

For CAF and MPM it is evaluated the modernizers’ opinion on their usefulness at 
the level of the institutions where they are implemented. To define this question there 
were considered the following response alternatives: Implementation of the instrument 
is a bureaucratic activity which supports the reform process (A); Implementation 
of the instrument is cumbersome in the current stage of the development of public 
administration (B); Each tool is effective in modernizing the administration and the 
application has already brought results (C); Each tool is effective in modernizing and 
will produce results in the future (D).

Distribution of responses on the usefulness of the two instruments at the level of 
public administration is presented in Table 7. To determine the two distributions 



123

there have been used only modernizers’ answers who mentioned at previous question 
that CAF and MPM are used.

Table 7: Use of CAF and MPM at the public administration level

CAF MPM
A 0.0 0.0
B 6.7 15.4
C 36.7 44.2
D 53.3 36.5

No answer 3.3 3.8

To assess the modernizers’ opinion regarding the usefulness of MPM implementation 
there were considered the following four aspects: Internal organization; Human 
resource management; Use of methods and tools of public administration management; 
Introduction/extension of the use of information and communications technologies. 
In all four cases a five values scale was used to measure the five variables: 1 – if the 
implementation of MPM was not a positive contribution; 2 – if contribution was to 
a lesser extent; 3 – if there was a moderate contribution; 4 – if the contribution was 
pretty good; 5 – if there was a very large contribution. Within the questionnaire it 
was introduced a question to determine to what extent MPM helped to improve 
some aspects related to the functioning of the institution. Based on the information 
gathered, through the application of this question there were defined four primary 
variables and an aggregate variable. These are listed below:

• For evaluation of MPM contribution to in internal organization:

Q
131 

: N {1,2,3,4,5}

Distribution of values of this variable is presented in Table 8. 

Table 8: Appreciation of MPM contribution to internal organization

Relative frequency (%)
Not at all – 1 2.3
Lesser extent – 2 11.4
Moderate – 3 29.5
Pretty good – 4 36.4
Large contribution – 5 9.1
I don’t know/No answer 11.3
Total 100.0

• For evaluating the contribution of MPM to the improvement of human resource 
management:

Q
132 

: N {1,2,3,4,5}

The distribution of the values of this variable is presented in Table 9. 



124

Table 9: Contribution of MPM to the improvement of human resource management

Relative frequency (%)
Not at all - 1 2.3
Lesser extent - 2 22.7
Moderate - 3 43.2
Pretty good – 4 18.2
Large contribution - 5 2.3
I don’t know/No answer 11.3
Total 100.0

• For evaluating the contribution of MPM to the improvement of using the public 
management methods and instruments:

Q
133 

: N {1,2,3,4,5}

The distribution of the values of this variable is presented in Table 10. 

Table 10: Contribution of MPM to the improvement
of using the public management methods and instruments

Relative frequency (%)
Not at all – 1 2.3
Lesser extent – 2 22.7
Moderate – 3 38.6
Pretty good – 4 25.0
Large contribution – 5 0.0
I don’t know/No answer 11.4
Total 100.0

• For evaluating the contribution of MPM to the improvement of using the new 
information and communication technologies:

Q
134 

: N {1,2,3,4,5}

The distribution of the values of this variable is presented in Table 11. 

Table 11: Contribution of MPM to the improvement
of using the new information and communication technologies

 Relative frequency (%)
Not at all – 1 2.3
Lesser extent – 2 11.4
Moderate – 3 18.2
Pretty good – 4 38.6
Large contribution – 5 18.2
I don’t know/No answer 11.3
Total 100.0



125

• For evaluating the global contribution of MPM to the improvement of activity in 
the public institution in which it was implemented. This is a variable defined as 
the arithmetic mean of the four primary variables defined above:

Q
13 

: N [1,5], Q
13

 = 1 (Q
131

+Q
132

+Q
133

+Q
134

)
4

The distribution of values for this variable is presented in Figure 5. 

Figure 5: Distribution of modernizers’ appreciation of MPM utility

Average utility of this variable shows a low utility of MPM at the level of public 
administration institutions. 

4. Activity of the actors involved in the public administration reform

In assessing the work of important stakeholders involved in implementing public 
administration reform process a question was introduced in the questionnaire with 
four possible answers: unsatisfactory, satisfactory, good and very good. 

For assessing the activity of each actor involved in this process one variable was 
defined as follows: 

• For the Government activity it was defined the following variable: 
Q

141 
: N {1,2,3,4}; 

• For MAI activity it was defined the following variable: Q
142 

: N {1,2,3,4}; 

• For MFP activity it was defined the following variable: Q
143 

: N {1,2,3,4}; 

• For NACS activity it was defined the following variable: Q
144 

: N {1,2,3,4}; 

• For NAI activity it was defined the following variable: Q
145 

: N {1,2,3,4}; 

• For CUPAR activity it was defined the following variable: Q
146 

: N {1,2,3,4}; 



126

• For PPU activity it was defined the following variable: Q
147 

: N {1,2,3,4}

To define these variables a scale with four values was used: 1 – for an unsatisfactory 
assessment of the stakeholders’ activity; 2 – for a satisfactory assessment; 3 – for a 
good opinion; 4 – for a very good opinion. The distribution of answers to this question 
is presented in the table below.

Table 12: Appreciation of involved stakeholders in the reform process

unsatisfactory satisfactory good very good Non answer
Government 9.6 23.3 45.2 12.3 9.6
MAI 5.5 9.6 58.9 19.2 6.8
MPF 12.3 37.0 35.6 6.8 8.3
NACS 9.6 27.4 42.5 13.7 6.8
NAI 4.1 20.5 46.6 19.2 9.6
CUPAR 2.7 6.8 45.2 37.0 8.3
PPU 8.2 16.4 42.5 12.3 20.6

For each of the seven variables their means was computed and the following results 
were obtained: for the Government’s activity in public administration reform, it was 
obtained the value of 2.67; for the MAI activity the mean was 3.00; MPF activity 
was assessed with 2.40; NACS assessment yielded an mean equal to 2.65; NIA was 
assessed with an mean of 2.89; CUPAR activity was assessed with 3.26; PPU was 
assessed with the value of 2.74. The means obtained for the involved actors in the 
reform process are shown in figure below.

Figure 6: Appreciation of activity of involved stakeholders in the reform process

For an overall assessment of the actors involved in the reform process the variable 
is defined as the arithmetic mean of the seven primary variables defined above:

Q
14 

: N [1,4], Q
14

 = 1 (Q
141

+…+Q
147

)
7



127

The mean of this variable is 2.77, which indicates a negative opinion of the 
modernizers regarding the work undertaken by the stakeholders involved in this 
process. There should be noted the negative opinions expressed by modernizers 
related to the activity of MPF, but positive views regarding the activity of CUPAR.

The distribution of the values of the variables used for global assessment of the 
work of important stakeholders in the public administration reform is presented in 
Figure 7.

Figure 7: Distribution of variable values Q
14

5. Independence of civil service by political system 

An important result of the reform process in public administration must be reflected 
in the increased independence of the civil service from the political level. To assess 
the modernizers’ opinion about the magnitude of civil service change on the political 
criteria, the following question was introduced into the questionnaire. Two variables 
were developed in order to assess the extent of personnel changes as a result of 
changes in the political system.

Q
151

,Q
152 

: N {1,2,3,4}

To define the two variables a scale with four values was used, assigned as follows: 
1, if in the modernizers’ view there were no changes in civil service following political 
changes; 2, changes were insignificant; 3, changes were significant; 4, for changes 
that were generalized, in which political changes have caused a large fluctuation of 
management and implementation staff from the institution.

The distribution of values for the two variables is presented in the table and figure 
below. 



128

Table 13: Frequency of personnel changes on political criteria (%)

Management level Execution level
no changes 11.0 23.3
changes were insignifi cant 21.9 46.6
changes were signifi cant 46.6 19.2
changes were generalized 15.1 5.5
No answer 5.5 5.5

Figure 8: Frequency of personnel changes on political criteria 

The results obtained above reveal a reduced independency of civil service from the 
political system. Thus, more than 60% of the modernizers appreciated that changes 
of management staff on political criteria are significant or widespread.

6. Including in the modernizers’ job description the tasks related to the reform

To track the extent to which activities related to public administration reform 
process by modernizers are stipulated into the job description the following question 
was included into the questionnaire: Are your tasks related to the reform included 
in your job description? To define this question it was used a five values scale, as 
follows: 1 – in case in which the tasks related to reform are included in full in the 
job description; 2 – where most of these tasks are included the job description; 3 – if 
such tasks are shown only partially in the job description; 4 – for negative situation in 
which reform-related tasks are not at all mentioned; 5 – for the case when modernizer 
does not know if these tasks are included in the job description. 

The distribution of answers to this question is presented in Figure 9.



129

Figure 9: Distribution of answers regarding the inclusion
of tasks related to the reform into the job description 

The results obtained show that modernizers’ tasks related to public administration 
reform are not very often specified in their job descriptions. 

To estimate the time allocated by modernizers to issues related to public 
administration reform process, in the questionnaire was included a question with four 
response alternatives: every day an insignificant portion of the program; occasionally, 
as required; a significant part of the daily work; most of the work program. The results 
obtained are shown in the table below.

Table 14: Time allocated to tasks related to the reform process

Relative frequency (%)
insignifi cant portion of daily program - 1 2.7
occasionally - 2 69.9
a signifi cant part of the daily work - 3 23.3
most of the work program - 4 2.7
No answer - 5 1.4
Total 100.0

7. Conclusions 

Finally, the research conducted aimed at assessing the degree of modernizers’ 
involvement in activities related to seven important aspects of the reform process: 
strategic planning, formulating and evaluating public policies, financial management, 
human resources management, decentralization, introduction of new information and 
communication technologies and administrative simplification.

To assess the views of employees in public administration regarding the extent 
to which they were involved in supporting reform processes in relation to the above 
issues, in the questionnaire there were introduced eight related questions. Based on 
these questions, primary variables were defined as follows: Improving the capacity of 
strategic planning - Q201; Improving public policy formulation and evaluation - Q202, 



130

Improving Financial Management - Q203, Improving human resource management 
(planning, recruitment and advancement based on merit, pay based on performance) 
- Q204, Commencement of organizational change for a better implementation of 
decentralization - Q205, Introduction of Practice on Information Technology and 
Communications (ICTs) - Q206, Introduction of management performance related 
techniques (the introduction of measurement systems performance, benchmarking, 
performance-based funding) - Q207, and Involvement in the implementation of quality 
improvement initiatives - Q208.

To measure the modernizers’ opinion in relation to each criterion presented above 
it was used a scale to measure the following five values: 1 – if it has been heavily 
involved; 2 – if it has been pretty much involved; 3 – for moderate involvement; 4 – if 
it has been involved in an insignificant degree; 5 - if he was not at all involved. The 
results are presented in Table 18.

Table 18: Distribution of answers regarding modernizers’
implication in various activities (%)

High 
degree

Consi-
derable

Mode-
rate

Insignifi cant 
degree

Not at 
all

No 
answer

Improving the capacity of strategic planning 21.9 20.5 21.9 16.4 12.3 6.8
Improving public policy formulation and evaluation 12.3 0.0 27.4 26.0 27.4 6.8
Improving Financial Management 1.4 13.7 19.2 24.7 34.2 6.8
Improvement of human resource management (planning, 
recruitment and advancement based on merit, pay based 
on performance)

4.1 17.8 26.0 20.5 26.0 5.5

Commencement of organizational change for a better 
implementation of decentralization

5.5 9.6 28.8 16.4 34.2 5.5

Introduction of Practice on Information Technology and 
Communications (ICT)

15.1 24.7 28.8 6.8 20.5 4.1

Introduction of management performance related 
techniques (the introduction of measurement systems 
performance, benchmarking, performance-based funding)

9.6 17.8 31.5 19.2 15.1 6.8

Implementation of quality improvement initiatives 
(introducing standards for public services, introducing 
information stop shops, involvement of the clients and 
partners from the services sector in the process of making 
decisions; quality control in offering public services 
through adoption of a citizens’ charter’, simplifi cation of 
administrative procedures)

26.0 24.7 34.2 2.7 8.2 4.1

For each of the seven primary variables it was calculated the average of the 
modernizers’ opinion. The obtained average values and standard deviations are 
presented in Table 19 and are plotted in Figure 13.



131

Table 19: Means for variables used for quantifying the modernizers’ involvement

Variable Variable’s mean Standard deviation
Q201 2.76 1.371
Q202 3.59 1.289
Q203 3.82 1.136
Q204 3.49 1.218
Q205 3.68 1.242
Q206 2.97 1.381
Q207 3.11 1.204
Q208 2.48 1.226

2.76

3.59
3.82

3.49 3.68

2.97 3.11

2.48

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

Q201 Q202 Q203 Q204 Q205 Q206 Q207 Q208

Figure 13: Level of involvement of modernizers in different type of activities

For an overall assessment of the extent of modernizers’ involvement in certain 
categories of activities undertaken to support the reform process, it was defined 
variable Q20, as the average of the eight primary variables defined above:

Q
20 

: N [1,5], Q
20

 = 1 (Q
201

+…+Q
208

)
8

It should be noted that a low average of this variable highlights a high level of 
modernizers’ involvement in various activities to support the reform process. It is noted 
that the greatest involvement relates to the improvement of financial management 
and the lowest involvement is related to the implementation of quality improvement 
initiatives. The variable’s mean is equal to 3.23. Mean values and distribution obtained 
from the figure below highlight a reduced modernizers’ involvement in the mentioned 
activities to support the reform process of the institution.



132

References:

1. Allen, R. and Tomassi, D., Managing Public Expenditure, Paris: SIGMA OECD, 2001. 
2. Boston, J., Martin, J., Pallot, J. and Walsh, P., Public Management. The New Zeeland 

Model, Auckland: Oxford University Press, 1996.
3. Bouckaert, G., Nemec, J., Nakrosos, V., Hajnal, G. and Tonnisson, K., Public Management 

Reforms in CEE, Bratislava: NISPAcee, 2008.
4. Coombes, D. and Verheijen, T. (eds.), Public Management Reform: Comparative 

Experiences from East and West, European Commission, 1997.
5. Gajduschek, G. and Hajnal, G., ‘Evaluation of the Hungarian General Civil Service 

Training Program’, LGI Discussion Papers no. 16, 2000. 
6. Hovsepyan, A. and Khudaverdyan, A., ‘Public Reforms in Armenia 1999-2005: 

Achievements and Challenges’, SIPRG (Armenian International Policy Research 
Group) Working paper no. 06/03, 2006. 

7. Jenei, G.R. and Szlai, A.K., ‘Modernizing Local Governance in a Transitional Nation: 
Evaluating the Hungarian Experience’, 2002, Public Management Review, 4/2, pp. 367-86.

8. Norman, R., Obedient Servants? Management Freedoms and Accountabilities in the 
New Zealand Public Sector, Wellington: Victoria University Press, 2003.

9. Perry, J. and Kraemer, K. (eds.), Public Management: Public and Private Perspectives. 
California: Mayfield, 1983.

10. Petters, B.G., The Future of Governing: Four Emerging Models, University Press of 
Kansas, 1996.

11. Strategy for the Public Administration Reform in Romania (2004-2007), [Online] 
available at http://www.gov.ro, accessed on March, 10, 2010.