Previous studies of policy reforms that were undertaken during the recent global financial crisis mostly focused on fiscal consolidation, with much less attention paid to other structural reforms. Although the impact of such external shocks as crisis or change of government on systemic change is widely acknowledged, little agreement exists on which intervening factors can best account for successes or failures of reform commitments. In this article, we propose an innovative explanation that focuses on the variables of political attention and change leadership, and which analyses temporal political and policy dynamics of reform decision making. We conduct a comparative analysis of the four performance priorities of the 2008–2012 Lithuanian Government led by Prime Minister A. Kubilius. The article concludes that a combination of persistent high political attention to policy reforms and strong reform leadership aimed at mobilising coalition support are essential factors in fulfilling reform commitments.
AberbachJDChristensenT (2014) Why reforms so often disappoint. The American Review of Public Administration44(I): 3–16.
2.
BlatterJHaverlandM (2014) Case studies and (causal-) process tracing. In: EngeliIRothmayrC (eds) Comparative Policy Studies: Conceptual and Methodological Challenges, Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 59–83.
3.
BoinA‘t HartPvan EschF (2012) Political leadership in times of crisis: Comparing leader responses to financial turbulence. In: HelmsL (eds) Comparative Political Leadership, London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 119–141. .
4.
CairneyP (2013) Standing on the shoulders of giants: How do we combine the insights of multiple theories in public policy studies?. The Policy Studies Journal41(1): 1–21.
5.
Heifetz R, Grashow A and Linsky M (2009) Leadership in a (permanent) crisis. Harvard Business Review 87(7-8): 62–69.
6.
HenryADIngoldKNohrstedtD, et al.(2014) Policy change in comparative contexts: Applying the advocacy coalition framework outside of Western Europe and North America. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice16(4): 299–312.
7.
HewlettMCashoreB (2014) Conceptualising public policy. In: EngeliIRothmayrC (eds) Comparative Policy Studies: Conceptual and Methodological Challenges, Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 17–33.
8.
IngoldKVaroneF (2011) Treating policy brokers seriously: Evidence from the climate policy. Journal of Public Administration Research Theory22: 319–346.
9.
JonesBBaumgartnerF (2012) From there to here: Punctuated equilibrium to the general punctuation thesis to a theory of government information processing. The Policy Studies Journal40(1): 1–20.
10.
KayABakerP (2015) What can causal process tracing offer to policy studies? A review of the literature. The Policy Studies Journal43(1): 1–21.
11.
KickertWRandma-LiivTSaviR (2015) Politics of fiscal consolidation in Europe: A comparative analysis. International Review of Administrative Sciences81: 562–584.
12.
MarshDMcConnelA (2010) Towards a framework for establishing policy success. Public Administration88(2): 564–583.
13.
MoynihanDPSossJ (2014) Policy feedback and the politics of administration. Public Administration Review74(2): 320–332.
14.
NakrošisVVilpišauskasRKuokštisV (2015) Fiscal consolidation and structural reforms in Lithuania in the period 2008–2012: From grand ambitions to hectic firefighting. International Review of Administrative Sciences81(3): 522–540.
15.
OraziDCTurriniAValottiG (2013) Public sector leadership: New perspectives for research and practice. International Review of Administrative Sciences79(3): 486–504.
16.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2010) Making Reform Happen: Lessons From OECD Countries, OECD Publishing. Available at: http://www.oecd.org/site/sgemrh/46159078.pdf (accessed 21 October 2014).
17.
OstromE (2011) Background on the institutional analysis and development framework. The Policy Studies Journal39(1): 7–26.
18.
Parliament of Lithuania (2008) Decree on the Programme of the Lithuanian Government, Vilnius, Lithuania: Žinios, pp. 146–5870.
19.
PeterBGPierreJRandma-LiivT (2011) Global financial crisis, pubic administration and governance: Do new problems require new solutions?. Public Organization Review11: 13–27.
20.
PollittC (2016) An outside-in perspective on the future public sector in Europe. Public Policy and Administration31(1): 3–28.
21.
Randma-LiivTKickertW (2017) The impact of fiscal crisis on public administration reforms in Europe. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice19(2): 91–99.
22.
RaudlaRDouglasJWRandma-LiivT, et al.(2015) The impact of fiscal crisis on decision-making processes in European governments: Dynamics of a centralization cascade. Public Administration Review75(6): 842–852.
23.
SabatierPAJenkins-SmithHC (1999) The advocacy coalition framework: An assessment. In: SabatierPA (ed.) Theories of the Policy Process, Boulder, CO: Westview Press, pp. 117–168.
24.
SabatierPAWeibleCM (2007) The advocacy coalition framework: Innovations and clarifications. In: SabatierPA (ed.) Theories of the Policy Process, 2nd ed. Boulder: Westview Press, pp. 189–222.
25.
SchmidtEGroeneveldSVan de WalleS (2017) A change management perspective on public sector cutback management: Towards a framework for analysis. Public Management Review19(10): 1538–1555.
Van AarleB (2013) Structural reforms and fiscal adjustments: Policy options for the euro area. Journal of Economic Policy Reform16(4): 320–335.
28.
Van der HeijdenJ (2014) Selecting cases and inferential types in comparative public research. In: EngeliIRothmayrC (eds) Comparative Policy Studies: Conceptual and Methodological Challenges, Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 35–56.
29.
WeibleCMSabatierPAJenkins-SmithHC, et al.(2011) A quarter century of the advocacy coalition framework: Introduction to the special issue. The Policy Studies Journal39: 349–360.
30.
WilliamsonJ (1994) The Political Economy of Policy Reform, Washington, DC: Institute for International Economics.
