<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> There appears to be a remarkable contradiction between what is happening in public-administration science and in public-administration practice. In the former, legal approaches have been displaced by managerial and political approaches. Th is shift sharply contrasts with the continuous legalization and juridification of publicadministration practice. Public-administration practice has gradually converged with the law. Lawyers and legal scholars applaud the convergence of the law and public administration as the ultimate realization of the ideal of the Rechtsstaat. A public-administration perspective should take a more critical stance. From a publicadministration perspective, the Rechtsstaat produces both functional and dysfunctional effects. Assessing these effects requires comparative and multi-disciplinary research. Comparative research will reveal different legal and administrative traditions both within Europe and between Europe and other parts of the world. The Rechtsstaat should therefore return onto the public-administration research agenda.</abstract>

Rule of Law or Law Overruled ? Why the Rule of Law Should Be on the Public Administration Research Agenda

<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> The article presents the current organization and the past and potential development of administrative procedural law - particularly the General Administrative Procedure Act - in Slovenia from its independence in 1991 till 2011. The author critically evaluates the regulation of general and special administrative procedures in Slovenia in light of the insufficient overcoming of traditional patterns. Namely the regulation in place overprotects the rights of parties and rather neglects the efficiency of administrative procedures as a whole. The evaluations are supported by the development of the theory of governance, radical changes in society and the need for a shift in the understanding of state / authority in the system in Slovenia and other countries (e.g. Finland, Croatia or the USA). The Slovenian system is firstly analyzed using the historical method and later on, it is assessed in terms of the efficiency of administrative procedures as regulated and run in administrative and judicial practice by means of a SWOT analysis. Additionally, particular emphasis is put on the comparative analysis of the Slovenian system to internationally recognized principles in administrative matters, deriving from the experience of the ECHR, the EU Ombudsman code and EU member states, and theory. The main finding is that in comparison, the standardization of parties’ rights far exceeds basic rights of defense as framed in constitutional terms which in several ways diminishes the overall efficiency of administration. The author therefore proposes the basis for a multilevel model of governing administrative relations de lege ferenda, intended to regulate in more detail the procedural status of the parties on one side and simultaneously the pursuit of public interest on the other. Based on the latest scientific findings, the criteria for differentiation include: relevance of the subject, degree of conflictuality of interests, need for rationality and efficiency of administration, and the position of the authoritative body. The objective is to move administrative procedural law from the margins of modernization of the public administration as found in the development of the Slovenian system in the last two decades and to make it its driving force, instead.</abstract>

Modernizing Administrative Procedural Law in Slovenia as a Driving Force of Efficient and Good Administration

Ombudsman’s Assessments of Public Administration Conduct: Between Legal and Good Administration Norms

AHEAD OF PRINT

Volume 16 (2023): Issue 2 (December 2023)

Volume 16 (2023): Issue 1 (June 2023)

Volume 15 (2022): Issue 2 (December 2022)

Volume 15 (2022): Issue 1 (June 2022)

Volume 14 (2021): Issue 2 (December 2021)

Volume 14 (2021): Issue 1 (June 2021)

Volume 13 (2020): Issue 2 (December 2020)

Volume 13 (2020): Issue 1 (June 2020)

Volume 12 (2019): Issue 2 (December 2019)

Volume 12 (2019): Issue 1 (June 2019)

Volume 11 (2018): Issue 2 (December 2018)

Volume 11 (2018): Issue 1 (June 2018)

Volume 10 (2017): Issue 2 (December 2017)

Volume 10 (2017): Issue 1 (June 2017)

Volume 9 (2016): Issue 2 (December 2016) Openness, Transparency and Ethics in Public Administration: Do they Support Each Other?

Volume 9 (2016): Issue 1 (June 2016)

Volume 8 (2015): Issue 2 (December 2015) Issue Title: Towards Meaningful Measurement: Performance Management at the Crossroads of Internal Efficiency and Social Impacts, Issue Editors: Juraj Nemec, Gyorgy Hajnal Wouter van Dooren Jarmo Vakkuri Aleksander Aristovnik

Volume 8 (2015): Issue 1 (June 2015)

Volume 7 (2014): Issue 2 (December 2014) Special Issue: Strong Local Governments: Community, Strategy, Integration, Editors: Juraj Nemec, Calin Hintea, Bogdana Neamtu, Colin Copus, Linze Schaap

Volume 7 (2014): Issue 1 (June 2014)

Volume 6 (2013): Issue 2 (December 2013)

Volume 6 (2013): Issue 1 (June 2013)

Volume 5 (2012): Issue 2 (December 2012) The Politics of Agency Governance

Volume 5 (2012): Issue 1 (June 2012)

Volume 4 (2011): Issue 2 (December 2011) Law and Public Management Revisited

Volume 4 (2011): Issue 1 (June 2011) Editors: Juraj Nemec, Geert Bouckaert, Wolfgang Drechsler and Gyorgy Jenei

Volume 3 (2010): Issue 2 (December 2010) Public Management Now and in the Future: Does Technology Matter?, Editors: Wolfgang Dreschler, Rebecca Moody, Christopher Pollitt and Mirko Vintar

Volume 3 (2010): Issue 1 (July 2010)

Volume 2 (2009): Issue 2 (December 2009) Citizens vs. Customers, Editors: Steven Van de Walle, Isabella Proeller and Laszlo Vass

Volume 2 (2009): Issue 1 (June 2009)

NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy

Online ISSN: 1338-4309  The Journal is predominantly devoted to public administration, public policy and public governance issues in Central and Eastern Europe, but high-level submissions from any other part of the world are also considered, especially if they focus on the issues relevant to the NISPAcee region. The goal is to publish top quality papers based on empirical research (of qualitative, quantitative or mixed character), theoretical articles and literature reviews, developing general public administration, public policy and public governance theory, or their specific dimensions. It is devoted to all interested parties – academicians, politicians and public officials – to help develop public administration and public policy theory and practice in our region. A high-quality standard review process is the principal quality assurance tool of the Journal and its main intention is to become one of the top periodicals in the area.   Why subscribe and read  A high quality standard review process is the principal quality assurance tool of our Journal and our intention is to become one of the top periodicals in the area.  Why submit  Fast, fair and constructive peer review; promotion of each published article.   Archiving  Sciendo archives the contents of this journal in Portico - digital long-term preservation service of scholarly books, journals and collections.  Plagiarism Policy  The editorial board is participating in a growing community of Similarity Check System's users in order to ensure that the content published is original and trustworthy. Similarity Check is a medium that allows for comprehensive manuscripts screening, aimed to eliminate plagiarism and provide a high standard and quality peer-review process. 

Volume 4 (2011): Issue 2 (December 2011) - Law and Public Management Revisited

Law and Public Management Revisited

Volume 4 (2011): Issue 2 (December 2011)