In the transition process many 'experts' from international organizations and Western countries came to CEE countries to enable them to become EU members, to advise them on policy issues and to help them improve their situation. Despite the spread of such experts and the costs involved, little is known until now about the substance of their advice, nor of the extent to which such advice has an effect, that is, is implemented. Although offstage sometimes the most horrible but also positive stories are heard it is not yet systematically investigated what is done by these 'experts' and what effect they brought about. In the literature much is known about how they should behave, (see f.i. Ieva Lazareviciute, How to Be a Better Policy Advisor? Manual for trainers, Nispacee, 2003), but the question remains whether this is reflected in practice.
This paper addresses this issue. It starts by summarizing the literature about the desired substance of advice. This provides the yardstick for the second part of paper in which we first investigate the advisory process from the experts' point of view and second, the process as seen from the point of view of recipients. The empirical part is based on a number of interviews in which such advisors were the respondents. If possible we will also present the outcomes of a research among policy makers being the recipients of such advice. Subsequently, the empirical results will be compared to the yardstick in order to judge the advisors role in CEE countries.
II. Working Group on Public Sector Quality