@article{Kuhlmann2015, author = {Kuhlmann, Sabine}, title = {Administrative Reforms in the Intergovernmental Setting}, series = {Multi-Level Governance: The Missing Linkages (Critical Perspectives on International Public Sector Management)}, volume = {4}, journal = {Multi-Level Governance: The Missing Linkages (Critical Perspectives on International Public Sector Management)}, publisher = {Emerald Group Publishing Limited}, address = {Bingley}, isbn = {978-1-78441-874-8 (print)}, issn = {2045-7944}, doi = {10.1108/S2045-794420150000004008}, pages = {183 -- 215}, year = {2015}, abstract = {Purpose This chapter is aimed at contributing to the question of how institutional reforms affect multi-level governance (MLG) capacities and thus the performance of public task fulfillment with a particular focus on the local level of government in England, France, and Germany. Methodology/approach Drawing on concepts of institutional evaluation, we analytically distinguish six dimensions of impact assessment: vertical coordination; horizontal coordination; efficiency/savings; effectiveness/quality; political accountability/democratic control; equity of service standards. Methodologically, we rely on document analysis and expert judgments that could be gleaned from case studies in the three countries and a comprehensive evaluation of the available secondary data in the respective national and local contexts. Findings Institutional reforms in the intergovernmental setting have exerted a significant influence on task fulfillment and the performance of service delivery. Irrespective of whether MLG practice corresponds to type I or type II, task devolution (decentralization/de-concentration) furthers the interlocal variation and makes the equity of service delivery shrink. There is a general tendency of improved horizontal/MLG type I coordination capacities, especially after political decentralization, less in the case of administrative decentralization. However, decentralization often entails considerable additional costs which sometimes overload local governments. Research implications The distinction between multi-purpose territorial organization/MLG I and single-purpose functional organization/MLG II provides a suitable analytical frame for institutional evaluation and impact assessment of reforms in the intergovernmental setting. Furthermore, comparative research into the relationship between MLG and institutional reforms is needed to reveal the explanatory power of intervening factors, such as the local budgetary and staff situation, local policy preferences, and political interests in conjunction with the salience of the transferred tasks. Practical implications The findings provide evidence on the causal relationship between specific types of (vertical) institutional reforms, performance, and task-related characteristics. Policy-makers and government actors may use this information when drafting institutional reform programs and determining the allocation of public tasks in the intergovernmental setting. Social implications In general, the euphoric expectations placed upon decentralization strategies in modern societies cannot straightforwardly be justified. Our findings show that any type of task transfer to lower levels of government exacerbates existing disparities or creates new ones. However, the integration of tasks within multi-functional, politically accountable local governments may help to improve MLG type I coordination in favor of local communities and territorially based societal actors, while the opposite may be said with regard to de-concentration and the strengthening of MLG type II coordination. Originality/value The chapter addresses a missing linkage in the existing MLG literature which has hitherto predominantly been focused on the political decision-making and on the implementation of reforms in the intergovernmental settings of European countries, whereas the impact of such reforms and of their consequences for MLG has remained largely ignored.}, language = {en} } @misc{KuhlmannWayenberg2016, author = {Kuhlmann, Sabine and Wayenberg, Ellen}, title = {Institutional impact assessment in multi-level systems}, series = {International review of administrative sciences}, volume = {82}, journal = {International review of administrative sciences}, number = {2}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-405314}, pages = {22}, year = {2016}, abstract = {Comparative literature on institutional reforms in multi-level systems proceeds from a global trend towards the decentralization of state functions. However, there is only scarce knowledge about the impact that decentralization has had, in particular, upon the sub-central governments involved. How does it affect regional and local governments? Do these reforms also have unintended outcomes on the sub-central level and how can this be explained? This article aims to develop a conceptual framework to assess the impacts of decentralization on the sub-central level from a comparative and policyoriented perspective. This framework is intended to outline the major patterns and models of decentralization and the theoretical assumptions regarding de-/re-centralization impacts, as well as pertinent cross-country approaches meant to evaluate and compare institutional reforms. It will also serve as an analytical guideline and a structural basis for all the country-related articles in this Special Issue.}, language = {en} } @incollection{Kuhlmann2016, author = {Kuhlmann, Sabine}, title = {Local Government in Germany}, series = {Comparative Studies on Vertical Administration Reforms in China and Germany (Speyerer Forschungsberichte ; 285)}, booktitle = {Comparative Studies on Vertical Administration Reforms in China and Germany (Speyerer Forschungsberichte ; 285)}, editor = {Wang, Yukai and F{\"a}rber, Gisela}, publisher = {Deutsches Forschungsinstitut f{\"u}r {\"o}ffentliche Verwaltung}, address = {Speyer}, organization = {Deutsches Forschungsinstitut f{\"u}r {\"o}ffentliche Verwaltung Speyer}, isbn = {978-3-941738-23-2}, publisher = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam}, pages = {51 -- 67}, year = {2016}, language = {en} } @incollection{KuhlmannBouckaert2016, author = {Kuhlmann, Sabine and Bouckaert, Geert}, title = {Conclusion : Tensions, Challenges, and Future "Flags" of Local Public Sector Reforms and Comparative}, series = {Local Public Sector Reforms in Times of Crisis : national trajectories and international comparisons}, booktitle = {Local Public Sector Reforms in Times of Crisis : national trajectories and international comparisons}, publisher = {Palgrave Macmillan}, address = {London}, isbn = {978-1-137-52547-5}, publisher = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam}, pages = {347 -- 354}, year = {2016}, language = {en} } @book{KuhlmannBouckaert2016, author = {Kuhlmann, Sabine and Bouckaert, Geert}, title = {Introduction : Comparing Local Public Sector Reforms}, series = {Local Public Sector Reforms in Times of Crisis : national trajectories and international comparisons}, journal = {Local Public Sector Reforms in Times of Crisis : national trajectories and international comparisons}, editor = {Kuhlmann, Sabine and Bouckaert, Geert}, edition = {1}, publisher = {Palgrave Macmillan}, address = {London}, isbn = {978-1-137-52547-5}, publisher = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam}, pages = {1 -- 20}, year = {2016}, language = {en} } @misc{EbingerKuhlmannBogumil2018, author = {Ebinger, Falk and Kuhlmann, Sabine and Bogumil, J{\"o}rg}, title = {Territorial reforms in Europe}, series = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaftliche Reihe}, journal = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaftliche Reihe}, number = {100}, issn = {1867-5808}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-420583}, pages = {24}, year = {2018}, abstract = {Territorial reform is the most radical and contested reorganisation of local government. A sound evaluation of the outcome of such reforms is hence an important step to ensure the legitimation of any decision on the subject. However, in our view the discourse on the subject appears to be one sided, focusing primarily on overall fiscal effects scrutinised by economists. The contribution of this paper is hence threefold: Firstly, we provide an overview off territorial reforms in Europe, with a special focus on Eastern Germany as a promising case for cross-country comparisons. Secondly, we provide an over-view of the analytical classifications of these reforms and context factors to be considered in their evaluation. And thirdly, we analyse the literature on qualitative performance effects of these reforms. The results show that territorial reforms have a significant positive impact on functional performance, while the effects on participation and integration are indeed ambivalent. In doing so, we provide substantial arguments for a broader, more inclusive discussion on the success of territorial reforms.}, language = {en} }