The Baltic Republics and the Crisis of 2008–2011

Kattel, Rainer; Raudla, Ringa

doi:10.1080/09668136.2013.779456

Cited by 102 publications

(84 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition, the last decade of public sector reforms has been implemented under the radical austerity conditions (Kattel and Raudla 2013) that has provided additional strong impetus for technology-intensive reforms. Thus, we aim to test our framework in a highly supportive digital environment where one would expect to see rapid evolution of technological capacities across the public sector.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Technological capacity in the public sector: the case of Estonia

Lember

Kattel

Tõnurist

2018

International Review of Administrative Sciences

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Technology is clearly a critical factor in lives of organizations, yet there are only few studies that deal with technology and public organizations. In this paper we propose to understand technological change in public sector, in particular how technology influences administrative capacity, through a new concept of technological capacity. We use the case of Estonia -internationally associated with a strong e-state profile -as an exploratory case to answer two research questions: why and how technological change takes place in public sector, and how does technological change influence administrative capacity in public organizations. We demonstrate how dynamic and static change in technological capacities is influenced by four different public sector feedback and selection mechanisms. We conclude that in spite of neglected position of technology in public administration literature, technology is an intrinsic factor in how administrative capacity evolves. Points for practitionersThis article argues that technological change in public sector is not just a matter of technical skills, but technology changes fundamentally how public organizations function and how services are delivered. There are, however, key differences in speed and direction of how technology's impacts unfolds in various organizations and services. Some organizations master to develop dynamic technological capacities and experience rapid and transformative changes, and others do not and accordingly go through incremental changes. This difference has both internal and external causes.Those organizations to show dynamic technological capabilities manage well ambidexterity: to seek new solutions while managing to offer high level services. We provide new explanations why this is the case.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Technological capacity in the public sector: the case of Estonia

Lember

Kattel

Tõnurist

2018

International Review of Administrative Sciences

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Knibbe (2011), Kajaks (2013 or Kattel and Raudla (2013). Before the crisis the Baltic countries were among the fastest-growing economies in Europe (Latvia grew by 12% annually in 2006, Lithuania 8% and Estonia by 10%), but when the crisis began they fell into one of strongest recessions on the continent.…”

Section: Discussion Of Regional Differencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Comparison Of GDP Growth Of European Countries During 2008-2012 From The Regional And Other Perspectives

Mazurek

2015

CER

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of the article is to compare the total real GDP growth of European countries from the 3rd quarter of 2008 with the 3rd quarter of 2012, the period characterized by a predominant economic stagnation or economic recession in the majority of examined European countries. The countries are divided into groups based on the following grounds: whether they are geographically close to the economic center (Germany) or peripheral, whether they are in the eurozone or not, whether they are (new) EU members or ‘old’ ones, etc. The main findings from the comparisons are as follows: 1. European countries close to the economic center (Germany and its neighbours) experienced, on average, positive economic growth during examined period, while countries from European periphery on average experienced negative economic growth during the same period. This difference was found statistically significant at the α = 0.01 level. 2. Differences between eurozone and non-eurozone, old and new EU members, and between more and less populated countries were found statistically insignificant. 3. European regions with the most negative real total GDP growth included the Baltics, the Balkans, Southern Europe (Italy, Portugal) and Iceland. The most successful countries with the most positive real total GDP growth were central European countries (Poland, Slovakia, Germany, Switzerland, Austria) and those in northern Europe (Sweden and Norway).

show abstract

“…Finally, Source: Eurostat, author's calculations. Kattel -Raudla (2013) mention that the use of EU structural funds substantially helped the Baltic countries during the downturn and partly compensated for the budget revenue loss.…”

Section: Outcomes Of the Anti-crisis Policymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…helped in terms of putting less pressure on the state budget benefits, which in turn eased the fiscal situation and helped to pursue fast fiscal consolidation. Finally, Kattel -Raudla (2013) mention that the use of EU structural funds substantially helped the Baltic countries during the downturn and partly compensated for the revenue loss. Last but not least, one should also note that what happened in the Baltics during the adjustment was a continuation of a historically strong productivity growth mentioned previously (see also Appendix 1 as well as Blanchard et al on Latvia 2013: 351).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Jingle bells and struggling GIPS: Comparing the Baltic and the southern euro zone’s crisis experience using the varieties of capitalism framework

Kuokštis

2015

Acta Oeconomica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article compares the experience of the Baltic countries and the eurozone's southern members, the GIPS (Greece, Italy, Portugal, Spain), in terms of the run-up to the Great Recession and the eurozone crisis, responses during the downturn, and the subsequent recovery (or lack thereof). It discusses numerous apparent similarities in terms of the build-up of macroeconomic vulnerabilities and the content of anti-crisis strategies pursued as well as the substantially different results of these policies. This article applies the VoC (Varieties of Capitalism) approach. To this end, it presents theoretical expectations regarding different varieties' vulnerability to macroeconomic imbalances, preferences regarding anti-crisis policy as well as the likely outcome of the internal devaluation strategy. The article fi nds the VoC approach largely useful, although it is more helpful in accounting for the nature of reaction to the crisis and the outcomes of anti-crisis policy, while less so in explaining the initial accumulation of vulnerabilities.

show abstract

The Baltic Republics and the Crisis of 2008–2011

Cited by 102 publications

References 30 publications

Technological capacity in the public sector: the case of Estonia

Technological capacity in the public sector: the case of Estonia

A Comparison Of GDP Growth Of European Countries During 2008-2012 From The Regional And Other Perspectives

Jingle bells and struggling GIPS: Comparing the Baltic and the southern euro zone’s crisis experience using the varieties of capitalism framework

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About