@article{FranzkedelaFuente2021, author = {Franzke, Jochen and de la Fuente, Jos{\´e} M. Ruano}, title = {New Challenges in Local Migrant Integration Policy in Europe}, series = {Local Integration of Migrants Policy}, journal = {Local Integration of Migrants Policy}, publisher = {Palgrave Macmillan}, address = {Cham}, isbn = {978-3-030-50978-1}, issn = {2523-8248}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-030-50979-8_1}, pages = {1 -- 9}, year = {2021}, abstract = {In this introductory chapter, the editors describe the main theoretical basis of analysis of this book and the methodological approach. The core of this book consists of 14 country-specific chapters, which allow a European comparison and show the increasing variance in migration policy approaches within and between European countries. The degree of local autonomy, the level of centralisation and the traditional forms of migration policy are factors that especially influence the possibilities for local authorities to formulate their own integration policies.}, language = {en} } @article{Franzke2021, author = {Franzke, Jochen}, title = {Germany: From Denied Immigration to Integration of Migrants}, series = {Local Integration of Migrants Policy}, journal = {Local Integration of Migrants Policy}, publisher = {Palgrave Macmillan}, address = {Cham}, isbn = {978-3-030-50978-1}, issn = {2523-8248}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-030-50979-8_7}, pages = {107 -- 121}, year = {2021}, abstract = {The chapter begins with a brief historical overview of Germany's transition in the twentieth and twenty-first century from a transit and emigration country to one of immigration. The next part of this chapter looks at the challenges and problems facing German immigration policy within a multi-level federal system. Finally, the chapter gives an analysis of some of the trends in German migration policy since the refugee crisis in 2015, such as changes in the party system and in the concepts underlying migration policies to better manage, control and limit immigration to Germany.}, language = {en} } @article{Fleischer2021, author = {Fleischer, Julia}, title = {Federal Administration}, series = {Public Administration in Germany}, journal = {Public Administration in Germany}, publisher = {Palgrave Macmillan}, address = {Cham}, isbn = {978-3-030-53696-1}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-030-53697-8_5}, pages = {61 -- 79}, year = {2021}, abstract = {The federal administration is significantly small (around 10 percent of all public employees). This speciality of the German administrative system is based on the division of responsibilities: the central (federal) level drafts and adopts most of the laws and public programmes, and the state level (together with the municipal level) implements them. The administration of the federal level comprises the ministries, subordinated agencies for special and selected operational tasks (e.g. the authorisation of drugs, information security and registration of refugees) in distinct administrative sectors (e.g. foreign service, armed forces and federal police). The capacity for preparing and monitoring government bills and statutory instruments is well developed. Moreover, the instruments and tools of coordination are exemplary compared with other countries, although the recent digital turn has been adopted less advanced than elsewhere.}, language = {en} } @article{KurzOrlandPosadzy2018, author = {Kurz, Verena and Orland, Andreas and Posadzy, Kinga}, title = {Fairness versus efficiency}, series = {Experimental Economics}, volume = {21}, journal = {Experimental Economics}, number = {3}, publisher = {Springer}, address = {Dordrecht}, issn = {1386-4157}, doi = {10.1007/s10683-017-9540-5}, pages = {601 -- 626}, year = {2018}, abstract = {We investigate in a laboratory experiment whether procedural fairness concerns affect how well individuals are able to solve a coordination problem in a two-player Volunteer's Dilemma. Subjects receive external action recommendations, either to volunteer or to abstain from it, in order to facilitate coordination and improve efficiency. We manipulate the fairness of the recommendation procedure by varying the probabilities of receiving the disadvantageous recommendation to volunteer between players. We find evidence that while recommendations improve overall efficiency regardless of their implications for expected payoffs, there are behavioural asymmetries depending on the recommendation: advantageous recommendations are followed less frequently than disadvantageous ones and beliefs about others' actions are more pessimistic in the treatment with recommendations inducing unequal expected payoffs.}, language = {en} } @article{BruttelGueth2018, author = {Bruttel, Lisa Verena and Gueth, Werner}, title = {Asymmetric voluntary cooperation}, series = {International Journal of Game Theory}, volume = {47}, journal = {International Journal of Game Theory}, number = {3}, publisher = {Springer}, address = {Heidelberg}, issn = {0020-7276}, doi = {10.1007/s00182-018-0633-y}, pages = {873 -- 891}, year = {2018}, abstract = {This paper tests the robustness of voluntary cooperation in a sequential best shot game, a public good game in which the maximal contribution determines the level of public good provision. Thus, efficiency enhancing voluntary cooperation requires asymmetric behavior whose coordination is more difficult. Nevertheless, we find robust cooperation irrespective of treatment-specific institutional obstacles. To explain this finding, we distinguish three behavioral patterns aiming at both, voluntary cooperation and (immediate) payoff equality.}, language = {en} } @article{Wenzel2017, author = {Wenzel, Bertolt}, title = {Organizing coordination for an ecosystem approach to marine research and management advice}, series = {Marine policy}, volume = {82}, journal = {Marine policy}, publisher = {Elsevier}, address = {Oxford}, issn = {0308-597X}, doi = {10.1016/j.marpol.2017.05.009}, pages = {138 -- 146}, year = {2017}, abstract = {This study examines the reorganization of formal coordination structures of a unique international public organization involved in marine governance in Europe, namely the structural reorganizations of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) between 1999 and 2009. The findings indicate that the reorganizations of ICES' formal coordination structures were not driven primarily for reasons of efficiency, by clear and consistent goals, and by clear means-ends considerations for organizational design as proposed by rational perspectives in organization theory. Instead, the formal coordination structures have also been adapted to live up to changing expectations in the institutional environment, to modern management concepts in marine governance such as the Ecosystem Approach to Management (EAM), and to ensure the legitimacy of the organization. However, it is also found that institutional explanations alone are insufficient to comprehensively understand why the formal organizational structures of ICES were reorganized. Instrumental and cultural perspectives in organization theory as well as resource-dependence theory additionally add to understand how ICES responded to external demands and why organizational structures have been changed.}, language = {en} } @article{Wenzel2016, author = {Wenzel, Bertolt}, title = {Organizing coordination in a public marine research and management advice organization: The case of the Norwegian Institute of Marine Research}, series = {Marine policy}, volume = {64}, journal = {Marine policy}, publisher = {Elsevier}, address = {Oxford}, issn = {0308-597X}, doi = {10.1016/j.marpol.2015.11.017}, pages = {159 -- 167}, year = {2016}, abstract = {Public organizations involved in marine management are increasingly confronted with coordination challenges in marine governance. This study examines why and how the Norwegian Institute of Marine Research (IMR) reorganized its formal coordination structures between the areas of fisheries management and marine environmental management The findings indicate that organizing efficient and, at the same time, legitimate coordination structures between different areas of marine governance is a "wicked" organizational problem with no ultimate and single optimal solution. In contrast to the assumptions of classical organization and management theory, the study finds that the reorganization of formal coordination structures is not necessarily driven for reasons of efficiency and perceived coordination problems. Instead, public marine management organizations also change their organizational structures to live up to external expectations to adopt modern management concepts, such as the Ecosystem Approach to Management (EAM). However, the study indicates that the adoption of the EAM has stimulated coordination and integration efforts in the research and advisory activities of the IMR. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.}, language = {en} }