Polonca KOVAČ, Tina SEVER* COLLABORATIVE PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION AND ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES: THE ADMINISTRATIVE CONSULTATION WIKI Abstract. In 2009 an applicative and scientific problem-based research portal of an interdisciplinary character - the Administrative Consultation Wiki (ACW) - was conceived, providing professionally verified and thus reliable information when resolving complex procedural legal dilemmas in administrative matters. The article explores the ACW as a collaborative PA platform inviting different stakeholders to co-participate in the context of identified social, cognitive, and professional boundaries, through boundary spanning. The ACW is evaluated by its holders' goals, a survey of users, and a SWOT analysis, which determined it to be one of the possible ways to systematically enhance the collaboration of PA stakeholders in the form of partnerships and net- 971 working in order to strive for good public government and governance. Key words: collaborative public administration, administrative procedures, Administrative Consultation Wiki, participation, evaluation Introduction As a result of radical societal changes, even in terms of fundamental principles, public administration (PA) is changing significantly and rapidly. The main focus of the changes concern the participation of societal groups and the development of partnerships in order to enhance the collaborative democratic state and overall sound public governance (Magiera et al., 2008; Bevir et al., 2011; Eymeri-Douzans and Pierre, 2011; Kuhlmann and Wollmann, 2013). The interdisciplinary nature of PA is one of its most important features, requiring the synergetic collaboration of different disciplines since only a research-based approach generates the new knowledge necessary to resolve the complex issues involved. Simultaneously, co-decision-making in public affairs should be supported in designing and * Polonca Kovač, PhD, Associate Professor, Faculty of Administration, University of Ljubljana, Tina Sever, PhD, Assistant, Faculty of Administration, University of Ljubljana. TEORIJA IN PRAKSA let. 52, 5/2015 Polonca KOVAČ, Tina SEVER implementing effective public policies. Hence, linking political-administrative authorities with citizens, business, and NGOs, as the addressees of authoritative norms in different procedures, must be effected. PA activities, of course, vary both in terms of procedure with different goals, and in terms of the level of regulation or programming. Yet it is only the procedural support of the administrative relation that allows the exercise of a substantive right.1 In addition to regulations, participants in administrative relations also need to make use of other, knowledge-providing interpretative legal resources. As such, an Administrative Consultation Wiki (ACW), as an interdisciplinary scientific problem-based research platform, is emerging, connecting participants in administrative procedures from different disciplinary and professional backgrounds, i.e. law, computer science, and organizational science, on the one hand, and public authorities, academia, the private sector, and NGOs, on the other. Basically it is a portal designed in 2009 by the Faculty of Administration of the University of Ljubljana and the Slovenian Ministry of Public Administration (now the Ministry of the Interior), since then constantly upgraded by, in particular, the legal and administrative sciences (for more, see Kovac and Decman, 2009: 65-86; cf. Kovac 972 and Stare, 2014: 2-12). This article analyses the ACW as a new dynamic space of interplay within different boundaries (particularly social/political, cognitive, and professional) in terms of collaborative administration. The article aims to incorporate the ACW into the theoretical framework on administrative procedure as a collaborative tool, i.e. as a tool to enhance dialogue between the rulers and the ruled. The main research question addresses the level and nature of a collaborative PA through new networks such as the ACW when dealing with administrative procedural dilemmas. In this context, the paper focuses on the following three sub-questions: (1) Which stakeholders are involved in the ACW? (2) How and at what level do they participate in the ACW and at what level do their interests match as anticipated within this point of intersection? (3) Which boundaries appear among them as well as which levels of boundary spanning? Finally, the authors research how the ACW contributes to PA becoming user oriented, moving from an authoritative to a participative, inclusive approach with a common goal, i.e. effective collaborative 1 The purpose of the procedure is not yet clearly determined at the beginning of the procedure, as it is influenced in the course thereof by various unpredictable interactions between the participants and by consequent procedural actions (cf Statskontoret, 2005: 35; Schmidt-Assmann in Barnes, 2008: 47). Procedural law ensures instrumentality and the protection of dignity as well as other procedural functions, such as the expression of authority, the acceptability of decisions, economic and investment development, effective policies, and democratic stability in public governance (Nehl, 1999:20-26, 166; Schuppert, 2000: 772-810; Rusch, 2013: 8). TEORIJA IN PRAKSA let. 52, 5/2015 Polonca KOVAČ, Tina SEVER PA. In this context, the authors critically identify the goals, added value, and further potentials of the ACW and its weaknesses in view of the relevance and extent of the network's contribution to different aspects of collaboration in PA. Theoretical and methodological considerations of the ACW as a collaborative PA tool The theoretical framework of administrative procedures within collaborative PA Collaborative PA is one of the foundations of modern society, being defined by societal and political processes, normative bases, as well as new theories aimed at solving "wicked problems" - i.e. complex and ambiguous interdisciplinary challenges in governance (see Schuppert, 2000: 41-48; Raadschelders, 2011: 178-200; Bevir et al., 2011: 17-200). Administrative science or PA evolved, particularly in the German environment, to address PA problems in an integral and interdisciplinary, and even transdisciplinary manner.2 Integration on the level of interdisciplinarity is of great importance to PA since the most complex and dynamic societal (wicked) prob- 973 lems cannot be tackled by only a mono- or even multidisciplinary approach. Administrative science studies PA as a societal subsystem and bearer of the instrumental level of public governance in the sense of implementing institutional public policies (Raadschelders, 2011: 12-41). The evolvement of PA into collaborative good administration is - within interdisciplinary and autonomous administrative science - both a tool and an objective by which and towards which the state can transform its PA model from mere public administration to integral governance, combining bureaucracy and democracy in order to move towards result-based legitimacy (Eymeri-Douzans and Pierre, 2011: 8, 109). Participation allows citizens, businesses, NGOs, and other participants in administrative relations to have access to information, reconcile their interests, and collaborate in or even co-decide on public matters. Such concepts lead to greater acceptance of authoritative decisions and thus greater efficiency of public policies and a higher level of public trust.3 There is a shift from traditional closed public 2 Cf. Raadschelders, 2011: 30. For developments in the German environment, see Kannecke, 2007: 3, 22; cf. Schuppert, 2000: 35; Magiera et al., 2008: 199, 763, 802; Ziller in Peters and Pierre, 2005: 265; Fleischer and Jann in Eymeri-Douzans and Pierre, 2011: 68; Kuhlmann and Wollmann, 2013: 14 (on transdisciplinarity), 19. 3 Cf. Schuppert, 2000: 790; Craig in Peters and Pierre, 2005:271; McLaverty in Bevir, 2011: 402-418; Eymeri-Douzans and Pierre, 2011: 27; Hoffmann-Riem et al., 2012: 699-702. For more on the development and forms of partnerships, collaborative governance, and participation, cf. Schuppert, Bingham, and TEORIJA IN PRAKSA let. 52, 5/2015 Polonca KOVAČ, Tina SEVER sector organizations to outward-looking, externally-oriented, and demand-driven organizations. Citizens, business and NGOs are involved in a participatory approach at all stages of the sustainability cycle, i.e. co-design, co-decision-making, co-production, and co-evaluation, resulting in co-governance (Pollitt et al., 2006: 18). With the good administration doctrine, administrative relations are thus being forged into a less top-down authoritative system characterized by networking and partnerships among the participants (Bevir et al., 2011: 289; Rusch, 2013: 5). Administrative procedures have recently come to be considered a key process and the main communication channel in PA. Influenced by contemporary trends, they have focused on creating partnerships between the various parts of society. The reasons range from the growing scope and complexity of administrative relations to the ever more frequent transfer of public tasks beyond classic administration. The importance of procedural rules further increases with the impossibility of a precise determination of substantive law.4 In addition, new doctrines have been emerging that lead to a redefinition of PA and its processes (cf. Bevir et al., 2011: 256; Eymeri-Douzans and Pierre, 2011: 27; Venice Commission, 2011; Kuhlmann and Wollmann, 2013: 19, 43). In particular, these concepts include New Public 974 Management, the Neo-Weberian state stating that public service is a distinc- tive function in society, and good/sound/new public governance, which reset the goals of administration and call for the "interaction" of legal and managerial principles. (Administrative) procedure thus serves the goal it pursues, while at the same time it is understood not merely as a tool of predictability and legal certainty but - through collaboration between the administration and the parties - a goal of procedure in itself. The essence of procedural law is to analyze - in the context of legal certainty - the course of actions leading to the achievement of the goal of procedure regulated by law, whereby it is necessary to ensure the opportunity to participate to all legitimate participants. This enables realization of their interests and, eventually, the pursuit of the rule of law. Thus, procedure may well be considered a tool of democracy as well as of collaborative administration or good governance between public, private, and third sectors. Also quite relevant is Barnes' distinction between three generations of administrative procedures (Rose-Ackerman and Lindseth, 2011: 350). The third and newest generation comprises procedural agreements with the addressees of future general norms and can be considered a communication channel to reconcile the McLaverty in Bevir, 2011: 286-299, 386-418. Schuppert, for instance, suggests four governance modes of partnerships: co-optation, delegation, co-regulation, and self-regulation (in the shadow of a hierarchy). 4 For more on this aspect, taking into account the ever more complex relations in society or the technical nature of the subject of regulation, see Nehl, 1999: 107; Galligan et al., 1998: 29; Peters and Pierre, 2005: 284; Heckmann, 2007: 41; Kunnecke, 2007:167-172; Rose-Ackerman and Lindseth, 2011:342. TEORIJA IN PRAKSA let. 52, 5/2015 Polonca KOVAČ, Tina SEVER interests of the parties in the design and enforcement of public policies, aimed at a holistic solution of the problem. The parties are seen as partners with legal and social values. However, the predominance of the public interest puts the parties in a subordinate position; hence understanding their rights protects them from authoritative arbitrariness. This is of particular importance since no citizen can avoid administrative procedures and the acquired rights often have multiple effects (e.g. an entrepreneur obtaining a building permit for a new facility will employ new workers). Adequate interpretations of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) are therefore important for the citizens. Administrative procedure therefore supports PA in its modernization and striving for good governance and administration. Under the doctrine of good administration (see Venice Commission, 2011: 8, 13, 17; Rusch, 2013: 5), the benefits of pursuing the rights of the parties in their relations with the authorities are directly seen in the impacts on democratic governance, policy efficiency, and economic development. In the European context, another positive result is the convergence of minimum standards for the equivalent and effective implementation of the acquis communautaire, also by means of uniform procedural provisions.5 It is not so important which factors influence(d) the development of administrative procedures or the 975 codification thereof in individual contexts,6 but rather what is the role and potential of administrative procedures for the development of partnership networks in the society (Schuppert in Bevir, 2011: 286-299). From networks, collaborative PA, and boundaries to the ACW evaluation methodology Networks, in general and also within PA, are important for solving and overcoming social and public challenges. We can distinguish cooperative, coordinative, and finally collaborative networks, which differ by the type of relationship, degree of risk, the commitment involved, the network's focus, and the end result (more in Mandell and Keast, 2014).7 Collaborative net- 5 Cf. Nehl, 1999: 80; Statskontoret, 2005; Heckmann et al., 2007: 234; Magiera et al., 2008:199, 763, 79; Kuhlmann and Wollmann, 2013:59. Cf. also Council of Europe recommendations, the EU Ombudsman Code on Good Administrative Behaviour (as amended in 2012), and the Resolution of the Committee on Legal Affairs on the Law of Administrative Procedure of the EU of 15 January 2013■ 6 On the development and codification of administrative procedure in the USA, cf Craig in Peters and Pierre, 2005: 270; and McCubbins et al., 2007: 3-16, emphasizing the purpose of the APA of1946 to guarantee "fairness in administrative operation" and "the effectuation of the declared policies of Congress." In Germany emphasis has been devoted to the Rechtsstaat and higher foreign investments (cf. Kunnecke, 2007:23). For a comparison of German and Anglo-Saxon trends and Eastern Europe specifics, cf. Galligan et al., 1998; Kovac and Sever, 2014; Rusch, 2013. 7 A coordinative network relates to the integration of existing services so that they are performed TEORIJA IN PRAKSA let. 52, 5/2015 Polonca KOVAČ, Tina SEVER works, as the most advanced type of network, occur when dealing with very complex problems. Here participants are reciprocally interdependent with a commitment to work in new ways with other participants to achieve program implementation. Collaborative PA in particular was developed on the basis of several theories and guidelines and is further divided into various sub-forms, depending on the following: • the participants - thus divided into collaboration with and among (public) organizations (cf. McGuire et al., 2010: 8) and with the public (Bingham in Bevir, 2011: 387); or • the level of citizen participation - thus differentiating between (see Vigoda-Gadot, 2002): (a) coerciveness, (b) delegation, (c) responsiveness, and (d) collaboration. However, collaborative administration and networks with PA can be recognized as such only when (1) different public and private actors (2) in administrative matters (3) work collectively, i.e. in a consensus-oriented manner, in a particular formal way so as to (4) establish laws for the provision of public programs, goods, or services (cf. Bingham in Bevir, 2011; McGuire et al., 2010; Ansell and Gash, 2007: 544, 550). Collaborative admin-976 istration can thus be understood in several contexts, leading to different relations between participants or different problem-solving methods. Generally, certain boundaries, such as geographic, social/political, cognitive, professional, etc., are detected within networks. Boundaries are of a rather paradoxical nature, since to overcome them we first need to define them. Since boundaries reflect frontiers (Lee et al., 2014: 4), revealing new opportunities to deal with wicked issues by connecting different knowledge, resources, and ambitions, they form touch points for interactions, which lead to innovative solutions (Termeer and Bruinsma, 2014: 2). We can distinguish between tangible as well as intangible boundaries; this article focuses on the following three types: social/political, cognitive, and professional. As to social/political boundaries, we understand functioning in a certain community, with certain common social values, which can also be public values. The members of a community share desires, fears, and expectations, bonding them with each other. Cognitive boundaries reflect common values, interests, and meanings, which can lead to the inclusion and exclusion of actors. Finally, professional boundaries involve different disciplines evolving their own systems of thinking, tasks to perform, use of language, etc. The collision and intersection of boundaries provides more efficiently; participants remain independent and continue operating in their usual manner. A cooperative network involves the sharing of information and expertise, with dependent relationships (interaction occurs only when necessary) and no or very low risks involved (Mandell and Keast, 2014). However, coordinative, cooperative, and collaborative networks and modes can co-exist. TEORIJA IN PRAKSA let. 52, 5/2015 Polonca KOVAČ, Tina SEVER opportunities for different ways of working and new forms of collaboration (Lee et al., 2014: 3). Furthermore, within the intersection of different groups/ participants in collaborative administration, the linking of an organization's internal networks with external networks, termed boundary spanning, can occur (cf. Termeer and Bruinsma, 2014: 3; cf. also Mandell and Keast, 2014, on collaborative networks and breaking down boundaries within the concept of "boundaryless"). The article further analyzes ACW as a cooperative solution contributing to quality improvement as well as a reform process by involving citizens as co-participants in co-governance or in the so-called sustainability cycle (Pollitt et al., 2006: 3, 6-7). The study relies on a combination of research methods to analyze the ACW as an example of collaborative administration. A project's efficiency is best measured by evaluating its users. For such purpose, an ACW user evaluation survey was conducted in 2010 and 2014 using an anonymous web questionnaire of altogether 16 questions, both open-ended and closed type (with a defined interval range scale). In addition to the descriptive methodology and dogmatic approach applied in the introductory chapters and the user evaluation survey, the analysis includes case study and comparative methods. Finally, the project is evaluated according to an axiological-deontological method. The authors analyze the existing 977 network in view of organizational and, in particular, social, cognitive, and professional boundaries, determining them through a SWOT analysis and proposing solutions to improve the tool in the sense of enhancing collaborative administration. Results of evaluating the ACW as collaborative boundary spanning Analysis of the ACW within collaborative PA elements The shift whereby the source of democratic authority moves from the elected representatives of the people to experts and professionalized institutions is attributed key importance in the development of good public governance (cf. Auby in Rose-Ackerman and Lindseth, 2011: 336, 515; McCubbins et al., 2007: 19). By delegating the issuance, interpretation, and authoritative implementation of regulations to other parties, the state and its most democratic regulator - the legislature - renounce direct authority over abstract regulation of (also administrative) legal relations. In present-day society, the source of democracy is no longer only demos and the holders of power elected thereby, but PA, which acts in a highly professional and technical manner. Decentralization, externalization (e.g. through specialized agencies), the delegation of tasks and privatization in the framework of New Public Management, Neo-Weberianism and good governance theories TEORIJA IN PRAKSA let. 52, 5/2015 Polonca KOVAČ, Tina SEVER all lead to new forms of democratic accountability (Bevir et al., 2011: 237, 298; Eymeri-Douzans and Pierre, 2011: 80, 121, 149). In such context, it is vital that line ministries attract independent experts and NGOs to participate in the creation and implementation of public policies, thus merging the non-profit sector with the governmental and economic sectors. Only in such a manner can all stakeholders be involved and society become fully collaborative and inclusive (cf. Vigoda, 2002: 530-537). But the ACW is meant not only to connect practice and theory at the level of content (practical problems are resolved according to theoretical principles and rules), but mainly to establish a networking platform for various stakeholders: (1) portal users (citizens, NGOs, businesses), (2) the Faculty of Administration, with academia being the basis of scientific research and a promoter of innovation and knowledge, and (3) the Ministry of Public Administration as the key field authority and policy maker. In terms of social networking, the collaboration of national ministries with faculties and academia is particularly encouraging, yet only if it is developed systematically and with due consideration of the equality of the roles of both players. However, cross-boundary effects are only possible when the responsibility for the final outcome is shared between authori-978 ties and academia. This does not involve (merely) public contracts or con- tracting out (from the Ministry to the Faculty), but a series of public-public partnerships (cf. Bevir et al., 2011: 292, 330). In this respect, the Faculty of Administration conceived the ACW as a combination of practical needs and theoretical understanding of participative-collaborative administrative relations in contemporary society. Namely, a key function of the administrative procedure rules that regulate the (co)operation of the administration with clients is to ensure balanced protection of the subordinate party; public interest should of course prevail over private interests, yet not absolutely. Administrative procedure can thus be seen as the basic tool of legitimacy and democracy (Nehl, 1999: 70; Ziller in Peters and Pierre, 2005: 261). However, analyses of administrative practice and case law have shown that in some cases different interpretations of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) were being used, which reduced the level of legality and public policy efficiency. Being the leading educational and research institution in the field of PA, the Faculty responded to the problems in collaboration with the Ministry of Public Administration as the central state institution in the field of PA. In accordance with Article 321 of the APA, the Ministry is the guardian of its implementation and the body responsible for the interpretation of the APA in relation to its users (parties to administrative procedures). Hence, through the ACW, the Faculty and the Ministry function as a link that provides interpretation of the APA and other field legislation by offering generalized case studies using modern IT solutions. The contribution of academia TEORIJA IN PRAKSA let. 52, 5/2015 Polonca KOVAČ, Tina SEVER and administrative science in this sense is twofold (Vigoda, 2002: 537): (1) by pointing out theoretical considerations and conceptual grounding; and (2) by reconfirming discussion on collaboration - in both cases leading to mutual social efforts and increased participation in public governance. Therefore, the ACW is a knowledge-providing legal source, answers being only a supplement to formal legal sources, and may not replace the jurisdiction of administrative bodies in determining rights, legal entitlements, and obligations. The ACW is formally only of a consultative nature, meaning officials and judges are not obliged to use it, but can rely on it and use it if they find the argumentation strong enough. The ACW's members (altogether eight professionals) are working on the project during their regular working hours and partly during their free time as a commitment to the public good, meaning that there is certain lack of resources, but on the other hand such nature of work contributes to the impartiality of the legal opinions. The ACW also involves students of the University of Ljubljana, thereby supporting the development of their skills and improving their employability, leading towards a more knowledge-based society (for more detail, see Kovač and Stare, 2014). To sum up, most people participate in the project on a voluntarily basis and in a project-like manner, which creates social inclusion (cf. Koikkalainen in Bevir, 2011: 979 454). Their resulting commitment is also a key factor in collaborative governance (Ansell and Gash, 2007: 559), which is important for the development of trust in general. The ACW furthermore integrates PA authorities and clients - two necessary types of participants in any administrative procedure - into a democratic discourse. Having the right information regarding administrative services and their own rights protects the parties from authoritative arbitrariness and helps them gain what they are entitled to, particularly where such rights have economically multiplicative effects (Rusch, 2013: 7). The findings of administrative science, focusing on resolving complex administrative procedural dilemmas, are formulated in a user-friendly (directly applicable) way and are based on wiki technology (for more, see Kovač and Dečman, 2009; cf. Klein, 2008). The platform is simple and user-focused, highly transparent, encouraging users to participate in a familiar work environment. If no solution is provided by already published cases on the ACW platform, users can send an email containing their question to a specific email address.8 The 8 The e-mail editor examines the question and sends it to a particular student, who prepares the case under the mentorship of the relevant professor. The student sends the solution to the mentor, who reviews it and either approves it or requires an improvement. When the case is approved, it is sent to the Ministry to check it. When the case is agreed upon, it is published on the ACW and immediately available to users (for more in general, see Kovač and Dečman, 2009; for more on the development of students' competencies, see Kovač and Stare, 2014). TEORIJA IN PRAKSA let. 52, 5/2015 Polonca KOVAČ, Tina SEVER system functions as follows: first, real dilemmas surrounding the application of regulations in practice are identified. Then, the exposed dilemmas are resolved by means of the relevant scientific methods: (1) identification of the problems in a particular legal case, (2) analysis of the scientific literature (commentaries on law, scientific articles, etc.) and case law, and (3) drafting the solution with a generalized question-and-answer approach, so that it can be applied in all similar legal cases, irrespective of the participants and fields involved. The ACW is thus an instrument of good governance where authorities actively collaborate in the implementation and (re)design of cogent norms with the addressees thereof and civil society (Bevir et al., 2011: 286, 386, 402).9 The ACW thus offers solutions not only to the party with the problem, but also to the interested public. Users participate actively in this process and co-decide. The ACW can thus be considered to be a variety of the triangulation model of collaboration (Figure 1, cf. Vigoda, 2002: 534). Figure 1: ACW TRIANGULATION AS A NEW GENERATION OF PA 980 Source: own analysis, cf. Vigoda, 2002. Finally, the ACW's effectiveness and potentials are best analyzed in comparison to other similar approaches. There is indeed a striking analogy with legal clinics since the ACW, too, is intended for both students (helping in preparing the drafts of answers) and parties to legal procedures. Legal clinics operate based on similar fundamental principles (for more, see Vogler, 2013: 135-140).10 Yet the compared legal clinics do not make their replies 9 Since the ACW provides tangible and growing results on different levels of networking and refers to several EU policies (HR development, life-long learning, the e-Europe Action Plan, etc.), it was recognized in 2013 by the European Commission, based on a call for the most innovative PA project (www.ec.europa.eu/ admin-innovators, last accessed October 2014), as one of the six finalists among 206 applications. 10 Cf. Düsseldorf University at http://www.jura.hhu.de/en/hilfe/faq.html; Leibnitz University Hannover at http://www.jura.uni-hannover.de/legalclinic.html?&no_cache=1; Faculty of Law of the TEORIJA IN PRAKSA let. 52, 5/2015 Polonca KOVAČ, Tina SEVER available online and thus accessible to the general public. Therefore the ACW is distinguished by important differences that can well be considered as its added value, such as the wide applicability and generalization of solutions useful to other users and areas of (administrative) law. Such collaboration does not merely contribute to the solution to an individual case/procedure, but upgrades it to a systemic solution, affecting PA and the administrative system as a whole, as well as society as its common user.11 This proves the importance of the ACW as a tool of dialogue between all mentioned stakeholders, thus producing final overall systemic solutions for the society as a whole. The ACW creates synergies between stakeholders involving legal experts (academia), policymakers (the Ministry), and users, who share competences and knowledge in different disciplines, such as law, organization, management, political science, and IT. It promotes better understanding among the participants and the improvement of public services. Finally, the ACW can be seen as a regulatory feedback loop, providing feedback not only to citizens, but also contributing to better regulation. The results of the users' evaluation survey on the ACW in 2010 and 2014 The increasing frequency of ACW visits over past years, with approx. 800 981 users per week in 2010 to 3,300 in 2013, points to the growing recognition and importance of the project for all stakeholders involved. Aiming at an evaluation of the ACW as a tool of collaborative administration, a user survey was conducted in 2014, following a survey in 2010. The 2014 survey included a sample of 174 respondents using ACW mostly monthly (36.7 %) or several times a year (37.3 %). When users were asked to what extent they consider ACW to be a tool University of Zagreb at http://klinika.pravo.unizg.hr/; Polish legal clinics at http://www.fupp.org.pl/en/ legal-clinics/clinics-in-poland; the John Paul II Catholic University at http://www.kul.pl/university-legal-clinic,art_15082.html and several Slovenian clinics operating in specific fields (e.g. refugees and aliens, the environment, sick children, sport, etc.); http://www.zaotroke.org; http://www.pf.uni-lj.si/ob-studiju/pravna-klinika-za-begunce-in-tujce/; http://www.pf.uni-lj.si/ob-studiju/pravna-klinika-za-varstvo-okolja/; http:// www.pf.uni-lj.si/ob-studiju/pravna-klinika-pravo-v-sportu-21810/. 11 An example of such a systemic solution is the ACW interpretation of the legal effects of administrative decisions in the case of a pension assessment in 2013, since the Slovenian Constitutional Court abrogated the relevant law affecting a few thousand citizens by determining lower pensions. The Court required the Pension and Disability Insurance Institute to issue new decisions to all the respective pensioners, which led to the dilemma of how to implement the constitutional decision. The proposed ACW solution served as a basis for an overall solution to the problem. Another case with a major social impact concerned the personal income tax. Namely, the tax authority took into account a too low tax base when issuing personal income tax assessments, which later became final administrative decisions. The problem was how to replace such final decisions based on a wrongfully established actual state. The solution was again provided based on an ACW suggestion and incorporated by the line ministry in redefining the law for future similar events. TEORIJA IN PRAKSA let. 52, 5/2015 Polonca KOVAČ, Tina SEVER for the collaboration and participation of all participants in administrative relations, 44.1 % of the users considered the ACW to be a collaborative tool, 20.7 % considered it to be such to a large extent, and 28.5 % to a minor extent. Only 6.7 % of the users did not deem the ACW to have such a role (see Figure 2). Such a large share of positive recognition of the ACW due to the goals aimed at in this respect confirms the hypothesis that the ACW portal is a possible venue of participatory networking in even a collaborative administration. Figure 2: THE ACW AS A TOOL FOR THE COLLABORATION AND PARTICIPATION OF PARTICIPANTS IN ADMINISTRATIVE RELATIONS Source: own analysis. With regard to the type of technology, namely the Web 2.0 (wiki) approach applied in the ACW, we asked users specifically about the added value of this mode since Web 2.0 is supposed to encourage the collaborative co-design and co-evaluation of citizens in public affairs (for more detail, see Klein, 2008; cf. Pollitt et al., 2006). In 2010 approximately 89 % of users supported this approach (67 % very much; 22 % with some reservations) and in 2014 73.5% supported it (33% of users very much; 40.5% with some reservations). A comparison shows that in 2014 the percentage of users who "very much support" Web 2.0 decreased by a half; on the other hand, the percentage of users who "only" support this technology increased to the same extent. Since the public production of this project only started in October 2009, we assume that at the beginning users were more optimistic as regards this mode of collaboration, since it was a novelty in the PA environment. However, during recent years, with the project existing already half a decade, users became more reserved as a result of different factors, i.e. a deeper understanding of the system and therefore the possibility of finding answers to their questions already through existing published cases (cf. Figure 3), the growth of the crisis also in PA has had an influence on users' TEORIJA IN PRAKSA let. 52, 5/2015 Not at all Xo a very (£>■1%) large extent ^^^^ (20.7%) 982 Polonca KOVAČ, Tina SEVER (dis)trust, thus deepening their inactivity and fear of exposing themselves. However, it can be concluded that the general trend in both compared years shows a still high percentage of support for Web 2.0, proving that this technology supports the integration and intertwining of various stakeholders and scientific disciplines, which together generate a joint product, i.e. a problem-based research platform for administrative operations. However, as of 2014 the ACW comprised over 1,500 published cases (with approx. 700 in 2009). Thus, there is a great probability that a solution to a certain dilemma has already been published, at least to some extent or for some legal issues. This explains why users are mostly focused on reading already resolved and published cases (89.6 %) when searching for a solution that fits their own case. Approximately 10 % of thereof pose new, additional questions and present new dilemmas based on published cases. About 90 % of the users in 2010 and 2014 found answers to their questions on the ACW, which means that the ACW serves its targeted purpose (Figure 3). This also confirms the usefulness and transferability of the generalized case-solving approach. Figure 3: DID YOU FIND THE ANSWER TO YOUR CONCRETE PROBLEM ON THE ACW PORTAL? 983 Source: own analysis. Users who posed new questions obtained a solution to their dilemma in 5-10 days on average (86.6 %), which means that the ACW network is rather accurate, responsive, and well organized. Timely and quick answers are of great importance for users who are bound by time limits (for example, to lodge an appeal, etc.). On average, more than half of the users were satisfied with the received answer, finding it comprehensive and concrete. In comparison with 2010 when 10 % of the users were not satisfied with the answer (being either insufficient or incomprehensible), such share decreased to only 1.4 % in 2014 (see Figure 4). Mostly not (4.7%) Mostly y TEORIJA IN PRAKSA let. 52, 5/2015 Polonca KOVAČ, Tina SEVER Figure 4: IF YOU POSED A QUESTION TO THE ACW, HOW WOULD YOU ASSESS THE ANSWER? Source: own analysis. Additionally, we carried out an evaluation of user subgroups within the ACW, namely differing individual parties in administrative procedures versus other users (Figure 5). As expected, the latter have other resources as compared to the former, who are fully dependent on the ACW. Neverthe-984 less, the comparison indicates a significant difference, with 75 % being very satisfied parties vs. 56.9 % thereof among other users. Furthermore, 76.7 % of the users find the answers on the ACW to be clear and adequately professionally explained and only 11.3 % as being too short or simple and 9 % too detailed or complex. This again proves the thesis of the ACW being a knowledge-providing interpretative legal resource with the specific added value of the ACW as a collaborative tool in particular between authorities and addressees of authoritative norms/decisions. Figure 5: EVALUATION OF USER SUBGROUPS 100% 40% 20% \J,