Search

In the current economic, social and political context, the problem of the competitiveness reform in public sector lies in the assumption of strategic approaches focused on meeting the public interest, with the lowest cost for society. The philosophy management which governs public sector reform tends to create new paradigms and contributes to shaping a new way of thinking and behavior. Central idea of this paper is that the two dominant models of administration: bureaucracy and governance, provides a range of institutional opportunities but also raises a number of barriers to strategic approaches to emerging public sector. Bureaucracy is for example, criticized because the lack of prioritization skills and lack of goals and also because lacks to stimulate innovation in the public sector. Bureaucracy leads to uniformity, flattening of public services. Governance model contains a number of similarities with the strategic approach in the public sector, when we talk about networks, interdependence and self-organizing nature of public administration. The issue that we are trying reveal to your attention is that the current institutional conditions are more complex than two models mentioned are able to cover. These new demands require the types of organizational structures based on flexible, decentralized structure to replace the traditional centralized, which now is totally inapplicable. Institutional framework may, for example, to provide an opportunity for the New Public Management, but also create a barrier to governance.

This paper addresses a broader issue related to transparency of decision-making and implementation of legislation in terms of public satisfaction in local government activity in some sectors from Bucharest. One of the most important objective of this paper is to see how much the public opinions are taken into account along the decision making process developed by the local public administration from Bucharest. Through the current research were primarily aimed to determine the degree of transparency in local government decision in Bucharest, on the example of a district mayors and barriers along the decision making process and how is working the communication process between local government and citizens. The first part of the paper provides information about the legislation about the transparency of the decision-making and access of the citizens to public information in the Romanian local public administration. The second part describes the hypotheses and research objectives. The third part contains information about the structure of the sample, followed by presentation of data obtained from the centralization of the questionnaire responses, which were processed and analyzed. The last part of the paper contains the main findings of research and the conclusions.

The link between strategy and public organization is of growing interest since years and we especially question what organizations strategically do when they implement new organizational arrangements imposed by public policies. And we especially contribute to what public organizations strategically do when they face changes (Bryson and al., 2010). We especially focus on actors who face such changes which are both strategic and institutional (when changes modify the existing institutions). And we question what actors strategically do when they have to appropriate new organizational arrangements. Taking into account the complex and fragmented institutionalized context public organizations operate in, we observe that the literature has put little attention to this level of analysis as being strategically molded / created by organizations and we answer this gap by mobilizing the perspective of the Negotiated Order (NO) (Beaulieu and Pasquero, 2002; Strauss and al., 1963, Turcotte and Pasquero, 2001). Through this perspective, we analyze how actors negotiate and elaborate local and situated agreements to strategically implement new organizational arrangements in institutional contexts. We propose an additional strategy which rests on the process of constructing (i.e. enacting) stakeholders to build organization as local negotiated order. Through the process of stakeholders’enactment, the actors determined how these stakeholders may be identified and differentiated so as to better channel the institutional logics interplays which shape the actors during negotiations; and we have identified 5 ways of enacting stakeholders. We contribute to the literature on NO by enlightening the political process of NO building and proposing one additional strategy of NO building, as well as to the literature on strategy of public organization by better understanding how public organizations strategically mold the (local) rules of the game through negotiations and consensus.