This research study investigates the role of international aid in public service reform and capacity building in the context of post-communist Albania. It takes a two-pronged approach towards exploring the interaction between the key research variables. First, challenging the technocratic, results-based management frameworks used by aid organizations, it offers a qualitative and critical assessment of the role of aid in a specific arena, administrative reform and capacity building, given its significance as key to (and conditionality for) the EU accession process. Secondly, the research points to the specificity of the national politico-administrative context and its ability to modify the process of policy transfer from aid organizations to the Albanian bureaucracy. In doing so, it attempts to illustrate the domestic challenges in the transfer process towards policy learning thus making a contribution to the debate over the (voluntary vs. coercive) administrative reform in Southeast Europe in relation to the politics of EU accession. Therefore, the findings of the study are two-fold. First, based on the multi-level analysis of policy transfer, the research provides an account of (aid-supported) policies/programmes and institutions/mechanisms of transfer towards administrative reform and capacity building. Thus, the analysis reveals the conflicting nature of international aid via the dichotomy between the ‘career’ versus ‘managerialist’ approaches promoted respectively by the EU and the WB as the drivers of administrative reform in post-communist Albania. The study maintains that aid towards administrative reform and capacity building has been confined to regulatory frameworks while its impact on the capacities of the public sector HRM functions has been rather limited. Besides, it claims that programmes and mechanisms of transfer have supported alignment with EU standards and compliance with global aid effectiveness agenda towards a broader public sector reform. The study concludes that while administrative reform and capacity building are conditionality for EU accession, the significantly reduced funding combined with the use of alternative policy incentives (signing into SAA in 2006 and admission into the Schengen agreement in 2010) might be taken to indicate a silent abandonment of administrative reform as a national matter. The findings suggest that this has indeed led to a complacent relationship between the EU and Albania, which may jeopardize the country’s chances of accession into the EU. The study also challenges the views of the literature locating Albania among countries which have adopted the hybrid NWS, drawing on both NPM and Weberian reform doctrines. Accounts of an adversarial and polarized political culture in which political patronage and high staff turnover persist, coupled with a hierarchy-/clan-based administrative culture may explain the ability of the national context not only to modify but also to block policy transfer. The findings imply that the Albanian case provides a ‘classic’ example whereby transfer based on reform doctrines has been used by governing elites to solidify their political position. While the above may explain non-transfer towards policy learning, the role of aid is also reduced by other factors including overreliance on NGOs as ‘implementation partners’, ‘mixed feedback’ to bureaucrats and ‘strong’ informal donor-beneficiary-contractor networks characterized by a certain ability to affect donor behaviour.

Following state-building campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, the UK has increasingly eschewed large-scale intervention in favour of local proxy forces. Whilst this strategy might appeal to the war-weary and cash strapped interventionist, frequent use of military capacity building as a tool of foreign policy inevitably raises questions about the accountability of those local forces being trained. This thesis examines the exportation of Western concepts of civil-military relations into the Republic of Sierra Leone Armed Forces (RSLAF), carried out by the British-led International Military Advisory and Training Team (IMATT) during intervention and post-conflict stabilisation in Sierra Leone. It argues that external interventionists can reshape local military culture, to promote both democratic civil-military norms and professional military effectiveness, but only through extensive institutional change. In Sierra Leone, IMATT attempted to change the organisational culture of the RSLAF by reforming its institutional mechanisms for socialisation, training, education and promotion. By inculcating a new normative ethos in a cohort of junior RSLAF officers, IMATT sought to promulgate cultural change throughout the military via a structured process of intra-service competition and generational replacement. This novel blend of internal and external processes of military change challenges existing scholarship on military innovation and adaptation, advancing our understanding of the relationship between military culture, military change, and external intervention. However, this process of institutional redevelopment and cultural change in the RSLAF proved to be both heavily contested and deeply political, ultimately leading to partial results. Consequently, IMATT’s experience of RSLAF reform holds important implications for the study of civil-military relations and security sector reform, and with it, the conduct of contemporary military capacity building and liberal intervention.

As demographic and economic contexts have shifted, the need for pension systems to reform has increased. Often, however, these systems have proved difficult to change – especially in continental Europe. Despite this, Germany, by many considered particularly reform resistant, succeeded in reforming its pension system; while France, with its strong executive power, has not. As research has yet to find a consensus on what factors makes welfare retrenchment possible, this field requires more attention. Therefore, the aim of this thesis is to analyse the developments of the German and French pension systems, from 1990-2010, and to unearth what factors made successful reform possible in Germany while it failed in France. Using a comparative case study, all major pension reforms in the two countries during the time period, are analysed from four institutionalist perspectives. The results point to three main factors explaining Germany’s successful reform. Firstly, the shock brought on by the reunification of East and West Germany forced politicians to act. France on the other hand, experienced no such shock. Secondly, the subduing of the unions removed the main veto player against reform. In contrast, the French unions, whose political power lies in their ability to call for manifestations and shift public opinion, could not be outflanked. Lastly, the new liberal ideas that permeated German politics around the turn of the century provided a locus for change that was lacking in France. These results suggest the importance of external pressure, veto players and ideational factors to major welfare reform.