This article assesses whether the reduction of budgetary allocations to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Latvia in 2008-2012 led to more modest foreign policy in the sense of both objectives and execution. After assessing four goals of Latvian foreign policy since 2008regional cooperation, bilateral development cooperation, facilitation of Latvia's economic interests abroad, and relations with the Latvian diasporathe authors conclude that the decrease in funding for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs had little impact on Latvia's ability to achieve foreign policy objectives.

No abstract

Nodaļā atspoguļoti drošības subjektīvās uztveres izpētes svarīgākie metodoloģiskie aspekti, kuri izmantoti Latvijas iedzīvotāju viedokļu noskaidrošanai empīrisko datu ieguvē. Drošības izzināšanai Latvijā ir senas tradīcijas, tomēr tās subjektīvie aspekti nav pietiekami apzināti. Tiem ir īpaša loma laikā, kad valstī tiek ieviesta visaptverošā valsts aizsardzība, kurā iedzīvotāji ir ne tikai drošības patērētāji, bet arī radītāji. Izpētes metodoloģisko rāmējumu veido šādi secīgi soļi: sabiedriskās domas apaujas rezultātu analīze, kas liecina par iedzīvotāju dominējošām attieksmēm pret drošību valstī, pētāmo drošības sektoru identificēšana, attiecīgu indikatoru izvēle katram no tiem, pārvaldības indikatoru noteikšana kopumā un atbilstoši katram sektoram, fokusa grupu interviju veikšanas ietvars, pašvaldības darbinieku intervēšana atbilstoši iegūtajiem datiem par subjektīvo uztveri attiecīgajā kopienā un rekomendāciju izstrāde, kas balstīta pētījumu rezultātos. Izstrādātais un lietotais Latvijas iedzīvotāju drošības subjektīvās uztveres metodoloģiskais rāmējums ļauj iegūt dažādus datus indivīda, grupas, kopienas un valsts līmenī, tādējādi veidojot politiku, kura atbilst iedzīvotāju vajadzībām un rada nosacījumus iesaistei visaptverošā valsts aizsardzībā.

The COVID-19 pandemic is testing the ability of the national governments to manage a crisis by covering policy sectors, which are decisive for health, well-being, sustainability of individuals, and society at large. Communication plays a crucial role in situations when society is at risk. Communication is a source of prevention, action, mitigation, and empowerment. Therefore, the ways and means of how national governments and governmental institutions implement adopted strategies, and how they make their actions understandable and reasonable to their societies, become an important element of crisis management at large. Diversification of the modern information environment makes governments’ communication even more complex. The media landscape, especially social media, impact reality’s perception, including crisis and emergencies. As a result, governments are struggling with different forms of messaging and a choice of narratives to be shared with the broader public or societal groups. Considering the existing division in the perception of political realities between Latvian and Russian-speaking communities, Latvia is a case of particular interest for analysis. The article aims to explore how the society has been led through the current crisis communication-wise by the government and what strategies are used for the particular linguistic groups. The article looks at the main factors influencing the perceptions of the Russian-speaking community in Latvia and the main reasons for the existing divergence between perceptions of Latvian and Russian-speaking representatives. The study is based on focus group interviews organized authors.

The article addresses main OECD SIGMA recommendations regarding national European Union (EU) policy co-ordination in Ukraine and provides relevant lessons from Latvia and other EU Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) Member States in addressing similar challenges from the EU pre-accession and post-accession experience. Efficiency of a national policy co-ordination is one of the core determinants to succeed europeanization of a national core executive power and further integration with the EU. The OECD SIGMA Baseline Measurement Assessment Report on Principles of Public Administration in Ukraine published in June 2018 reveals important concerns in steering and co-ordination of some reform initiatives, overlapping competences of public bodies in co-ordinating policy planning and implementation monitoring of the Government’s performance in public sector reforms. Effective implementation of national reforms is vital also in the terms of implementation of the Ukraine–EU Association Agreement (AA) that entered into force on September 1, 2017 and Actual problems of international relations. Release 140. 2019 16 requires a high level of coordination in the Ukrainian government. Relevant national EU policy co-ordination experience of the EU CEE Member States is revisited as a possible lesson for Ukraine in implementation of essential structural reforms on the national level. Key words: europeanization, Association Agreement, principles of public administration, national policy co-ordination, policy planning