Abstract The goal of this paper is to document and to analyse public administration reform dynamics and outcomes in three selected areas – transparency and accountability, civil service and local self-governments. The high level of potential access to government information in Slovakia does not “produce” increased accountability, predictability and also does not effectively serve as a tool to control corruption. We argue that citizens are not only victims, but also accomplishers: their tolerance for corruption, excessive bureaucracy and rentseeking is confirmed by many existing studies. Concerning civil service reform, Slovakia shows a substantial reform reversal towards politicisation and centralisation after 2001, which clearly threatens the fundamental features of democratic governance. Soon after the EU accession in 2004 major regressive changes took place, and the Civil Service Office was abolished in 2006. The new legislation in force from 2017 (forced by the EU conditionality) should return the Slovak civil service back on the right track – let us to see. With regard to self-government the reforms aimed towards the establishment of more independent local and regional self-government. However, the major issue here is the extreme fragmentation on the municipal level – almost 3,000 municipalities in the country, most of them bellow 1,000 inhabitants. Many studies confirm that amalgamation (or at least functional amalgamation) is necessary – but there is no political will to start it. What are the main lessons from the Slovak case ? The information provided indicates that the Slovak Republic belongs to the “standard” group of CEE countries – after the first wave of democratisation reforms immediately after 1989, most of the later changes were realised “thanks to” external motivations and pressures – and not always really welcomed. The specific issue, however, is the decentralisation reform in 2000 – 2005. This change, providing really fragmented local self-government by extra rights and responsibilities, was internally driven, with positive results from the point of view of self-government principles, but with many hurdles caused by too large a number of too small municipalities.

中文翻译：

---

斯洛伐克的公共行政改革：有限的结果（为什么？）

摘要本文的目的是记录和分析三个选定领域的公共行政改革动力和成果：透明度和责任制，公务员制度和地方自治。斯洛伐克政府信息的潜在访问量很高，并未“产生”更多的责任感，可预测性，也未有效地充当控制腐败的工具。我们认为，公民不仅是受害者，而且是成就者：他们对腐败，过度官僚主义和寻租的忍耐已被许多现有研究证实。关于公务员制度改革，斯洛伐克显示出在2001年之后政治化和集权化的重大改革逆转，这显然威胁着民主施政的基本特征。在2004年欧盟加入欧盟后不久，发生了重大的变化，公务员办公室在2006年被废除了。自2017年起生效的新立法（受欧盟附带条件的约束）应使斯洛伐克的公务员重返正轨–让我们来看。关于自治，改革旨在建立更独立的地方和区域自治。但是，这里的主要问题是市政当局的极端分化–全国有将近3,000个市政局，其中大多数都在1,000名居民以下。许多研究证实合并（或至少是功能合并）是必要的-但是没有政治意愿开始合并。斯洛伐克案的主要教训是什么？所提供的信息表明，斯洛伐克共和国属于中欧和东欧国家的“标准”类别-在1989年之后第一波民主化改革浪潮之后，大部分后来的变化都是“由于”外部动机和压力而实现的-并非总是如此欢迎。但是，具体的问题是2000年至2005年的分权改革。这种变化是内部驱动的，通过额外的权利和责任提供了真正分散的地方自治，是从自治原则的角度看取得积极成果的，但是太多的小城市导致了许多障碍。后来的大多数变化都是“由于”外部动机和压力而实现的，并不总是很受欢迎。但是，具体的问题是2000年至2005年的分权改革。这种变化是内部驱动的，通过额外的权利和责任提供了真正分散的地方自治，是从自治原则的角度看取得积极成果的，但是太多的小城市造成了许多障碍。后来的大多数变化都是“由于”外部动机和压力而实现的，并不总是很受欢迎。但是，具体的问题是2000年至2005年的分权改革。这种变化是内部驱动的，通过额外的权利和责任提供了真正分散的地方自治，是从自治原则的角度看取得积极成果的，但是太多的小城市导致了许多障碍。