From command-and-control to good forest governance: A critical interpretive analysis of Lithuania and Slovakia

•We conducted critical interpretive analysis of forest governance in two countries.•Applied criteria: Efficiency, Equity, Transparency, Participation, and Adaptiveness.•The shift from command-and-control in Lithuania and Slovakia has been very limited.•Both countries score highest on Transparency, with poor performance on other criteria. As countries with a socialist history, Lithuania and Slovakia have experienced radical transitions in all societal spheres. Despite economic liberalization and privatisation, both countries retain centralized forest management systems. Our study suggests a new methodology for assessing to what extent forestry in a given country is steered by command-and-control as opposed to more adaptive forms of governance. Our ‘Critical Interpretive Analysis’ (CIA) differs in several important aspects from more positivist methods prevalent in recent comparative analyses of forest policies in (post)transitional countries. The analysis involves five criteria, four of which (Efficiency, Equity, Transparency and Participation) are established principles of good governance, and a fifth criterion (Adaptiveness) stemming from the concept of adaptive governance. We found that Lithuania and Slovakia perform best for Transparency, primarily due to extensive availability of information about forest resources. Performance on the other criteria is poor; many of the shortcomings stem from excessive regulation that curbs the decision freedom in all forests irrespective of their ownership or functional priorities. We conclude that forest governance still largely follows the command-and-control traditions in both countries.