@article{KuhlmannHellstromRambergetal.2021, author = {Kuhlmann, Sabine and Hellstrom, Mikael and Ramberg, Ulf and Reiter, Renate}, title = {Tracing divergence in crisis governance}, series = {International review of administrative sciences : an international journal of comparative public administration}, volume = {87}, journal = {International review of administrative sciences : an international journal of comparative public administration}, number = {3}, publisher = {Sage Publ.}, address = {London}, issn = {0020-8523}, doi = {10.1177/0020852320979359}, pages = {556 -- 575}, year = {2021}, abstract = {This cross-country comparison of administrative responses to the COVID-19 pandemic in France, Germany and Sweden is aimed at exploring how institutional contexts and administrative cultures have shaped strategies of problem-solving and governance modes during the pandemic, and to what extent the crisis has been used for opportunity management. The article shows that in France, the central government reacted determinedly and hierarchically, with tough containment measures. By contrast, the response in Germany was characterized by an initial bottom-up approach that gave way to remarkable federal unity in the further course of the crisis, followed again by a return to regional variance and local discretion. In Sweden, there was a continuation of 'normal governance' and a strategy of relying on voluntary compliance largely based on recommendations and less - as in Germany and France - on a strategy of imposing legally binding regulations. The comparative analysis also reveals that relevant stakeholders in all three countries have used the crisis as an opportunity for changes in the institutional settings and administrative procedures. Points for practitioners COVID-19 has shown that national political and administrative standard operating procedures in preparation for crises are, at best, partially helpful. Notwithstanding the fact that dealing with the unpredictable is a necessary part of crisis management, a need to further improve the institutional preparedness for pandemic crises in all three countries examined here has also become clear. This should be done particularly by way of shifting resources to the health and care sectors, strengthening the decentralized management of health emergencies, stocking and/or self-producing protection material, assessing the effects of crisis measures, and opening the scientific discourse to broader arenas of experts.}, language = {en} } @article{KuhlmannHellstroemRambergetal.2021, author = {Kuhlmann, Sabine and Hellstr{\"o}m, Mikael and Ramberg, Ulf and Reiter, Renate}, title = {Tracing divergence in crisis governance}, series = {International review of administrative sciences}, volume = {87}, journal = {International review of administrative sciences}, number = {3}, publisher = {Sage}, address = {Los Angeles, California}, issn = {0020-8523}, doi = {10.1177/0020852320979359}, pages = {556 -- 575}, year = {2021}, abstract = {This cross-country comparison of administrative responses to the COVID-19 pandemic in France, Germany and Sweden is aimed at exploring how institutional contexts and administrative cultures have shaped strategies of problem-solving and governance modes during the pandemic, and to what extent the crisis has been used for opportunity management. The article shows that in France, the central government reacted determinedly and hierarchically, with tough containment measures. By contrast, the response in Germany was characterized by an initial bottom-up approach that gave way to remarkable federal unity in the further course of the crisis, followed again by a return to regional variance and local discretion. In Sweden, there was a continuation of 'normal governance' and a strategy of relying on voluntary compliance largely based on recommendations and less - as in Germany and France - on a strategy of imposing legally binding regulations. The comparative analysis also reveals that relevant stakeholders in all three countries have used the crisis as an opportunity for changes in the institutional settings and administrative procedures.}, language = {en} } @article{KuhlmannHeuberger2021, author = {Kuhlmann, Sabine and Heuberger, Moritz}, title = {Digital transformation going local}, series = {Public money \& management}, volume = {43}, journal = {Public money \& management}, number = {2}, publisher = {Taylor \& Francis}, address = {Abingdon}, issn = {0954-0962}, doi = {10.1080/09540962.2021.1939584}, pages = {147 -- 155}, year = {2021}, abstract = {Digital government constitutes the most important trend of post-NPM reforms at the local level. Based on the results of a research project on local one-stop shops, this article analyses the current state of digitalization in German local authorities. The authors explain the hurdles of implementation as well as the impact on staff members and citizens, providing explanations and revealing general interrelations between institutional changes, impacts, and context factors of digital transformation.}, language = {en} } @article{BergstroemKuhlmannLaffinetal.2022, author = {Bergstr{\"o}m, Tomas and Kuhlmann, Sabine and Laffin, Martin and Wayenberg, Ellen}, title = {Special issue on comparative intergovernmental relations and the pandemic}, series = {Local government studies}, volume = {48}, journal = {Local government studies}, number = {2}, publisher = {Taylor \& Francis}, address = {London}, issn = {0300-3930}, doi = {10.1080/03003930.2022.2039636}, pages = {179 -- 190}, year = {2022}, abstract = {This introduction and the special issue are a contribution to comparative intergovernmental studies and public administration. This introduction provides an analytical overview of the intergovernmental relations policy responses to the Covid-19 pandemic across ten European countries, focussing on the early waves of the disease. These policy responses are analysed in terms of three types of IGR process: (1) a predominantly multi-layered policy process involving limited conflict, (2) a centralised policy process as the central government attempts to suppress conflict and (3) a conflicted policy process where such attempts are contested and tend to contribute to poor policy outcomes. The conclusion, then, reviews the difficulties and trade-offs involved in attaining a balanced multi-layered, intergovernmental process.}, language = {en} } @article{KuhlmannFranzke2022, author = {Kuhlmann, Sabine and Franzke, Jochen}, title = {Multi-level responses to COVID-19}, series = {Local government studies}, volume = {48}, journal = {Local government studies}, number = {2}, publisher = {Taylor \& Francis}, address = {London}, issn = {0300-3930}, doi = {10.1080/03003930.2021.1904398}, pages = {312 -- 334}, year = {2022}, abstract = {This article is aimed at analysing local and intergovernmental responses to the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany during the 'first wave' of the pandemic. It will answer the question of how the intergovernmental system in Germany responded to the crisis and to what extent the pandemic has changed patterns of multi-level governance (MLG). The article argues that the coordination of pandemic management in Germany shifted between two ideal types of multi-level governance. While in the first phase of the pandemic the territorially defined multi-level system with the sub-national and local authorities as key actors of crisis management was predominant, in the second phase a more functional orientation with increased vertical coordination gained in importance. Later on, more reliance was given again on local decision-making. Based on this analysis, we will draw some preliminary conclusions on how effective MLG in Germany has been for coordinating pandemic management and point out the shortcomings.}, language = {en} } @article{KuhlmannBouckaertGallietal.2021, author = {Kuhlmann, Sabine and Bouckaert, Geert and Galli, Davide and Reiter, Renate and van Hecke, Steven}, title = {Opportunity management of the COVID-19 pandemic}, series = {International review of administrative sciences}, volume = {87}, journal = {International review of administrative sciences}, number = {3}, publisher = {Sage}, address = {Los Angeles, California}, issn = {0020-8523}, doi = {10.1177/0020852321992102}, pages = {497 -- 517}, year = {2021}, abstract = {This article provides a conceptual framework for the analysis of COVID-19 crisis governance in the first half of 2020 from a cross-country comparative perspective. It focuses on the issue of opportunity management, that is, how the crisis was used by relevant actors of distinctly different administrative cultures as a window of opportunity. We started from an overall interest in the factors that have influenced the national politics of crisis management to answer the question of whether and how political and administrative actors in various countries have used the crisis as an opportunity to facilitate, accelerate or prevent changes in institutional settings. The objective is to study the institutional settings and governance structures, (alleged) solutions and remedies, and constellations of actors and preferences that have influenced the mode of crisis and opportunity management. Finally, the article summarizes some major comparative findings drawn from the country studies of this Special Issue, focusing on similarities and differences in crisis responses and patterns of opportunity management.}, language = {en} } @article{BogumilKuhlmann2021, author = {Bogumil, J{\"o}rg and Kuhlmann, Sabine}, title = {Digitale Transformation in deutschen Kommunen}, series = {Die Verwaltung}, volume = {54}, journal = {Die Verwaltung}, number = {1}, publisher = {Duncker \& Humblot}, address = {Berlin}, issn = {0042-4498}, doi = {10.3790/verw.54.1.105}, pages = {105 -- 132}, year = {2021}, abstract = {Deutschland landet in europ{\"a}ischen Rankings zur Verwaltungsdigitalisierung regelm{\"a}ßig im hinteren Mittelfeld. Die bisherige Bilanz der Digitalisierung f{\"u}r die deutsche {\"o}ffentliche Verwaltung ist trotz verst{\"a}rkter Anstrengungen aller f{\"o}deraler Ebenen, wie sie insbesondere in der Umsetzung des Onlinezugangsgesetzes (OZG) zum Ausdruck kommen, nach wie vor als eher ern{\"u}chternd einzusch{\"a}tzen. Vor diesem Hintergrund besch{\"a}ftigt sich der vorliegende Beitrag mit der Umsetzung, den H{\"u}rden und ausgew{\"a}hlten Wirkungsaspekten der Verwaltungsdigitalisierung auf kommunaler Ebene. Die empirische Basis bildet eine 2019 abgeschlossene Studie zur digitalen Transformation in einem Schl{\"u}sselbereich b{\"u}rgerbezogener Leistungserbringung, den st{\"a}dtischen B{\"u}rger{\"a}mtern, welche die am meisten nachgefragten kommunalen Dienstleistungen bereitstellen. Aus der Analyse lassen sich wichtige Erkenntnisse f{\"u}r die zuk{\"u}nftige Entwicklung der Digitalisierung {\"o}ffentlicher Leistungserbringung in Deutschland ableiten.}, language = {de} } @article{BouckaertGalliKuhlmannetal.2020, author = {Bouckaert, Geert and Galli, Davide and Kuhlmann, Sabine and Reiter, Renate and van Hecke, Steven}, title = {European coronationalism?}, series = {Public administration review}, volume = {80}, journal = {Public administration review}, number = {5}, publisher = {Wiley-Blackwell}, address = {Oxford}, issn = {0033-3352}, doi = {10.1111/puar.13242}, pages = {765 -- 773}, year = {2020}, abstract = {The COVID-19 crisis has shown that European countries remain poorly prepared for dealing and coping with health crises and for responding in a coordinated way to a severe influenza pandemic. Within the European Union, the response to the COVID-19 pandemic has a striking diversity in its approach. By focusing on Belgium, France, Germany, and Italy—countries that represent different models of administrative systems in Europe—the analysis shows that major similarities and convergences have become apparent from a cross-country perspective. Moreover, coping with the crisis has been first and foremost an issue of the national states, whereas the European voice has been weak. Hence, the countries' immediate responses appear to be corona-nationalistic, which we label "coronationalism." This essay shows the extent to which the four countries adopted different crisis management strategies and which factors explain this variance, with a special focus on their institutional settings and administrative systems.}, language = {en} } @article{BonomiSavignonMeneguzzoKuhlmannetal.2021, author = {Bonomi Savignon, Andrea and Meneguzzo, Marco and Kuhlmann, Sabine and Cepiku, Denita}, title = {Guest editorial: Interinstitutional performance management}, series = {International journal of public sector management : IJPSM}, volume = {34}, journal = {International journal of public sector management : IJPSM}, number = {3}, publisher = {Emerald Group Publishing Limited}, address = {Bingley}, issn = {0951-3558}, doi = {10.1108/IJPSM-03-2021-0057}, pages = {241 -- 246}, year = {2021}, language = {en} } @article{Kuhlmann2020, author = {Kuhlmann, Sabine}, title = {Rezension zu: Marketization in Local Government: Diffusion and Evolution in Scandinavia and England / Hrsg.: Andrej Christian Lindholst, Morten Balle Hansen. - Cham : Springer, 2020. - XXII, 345 p. - ISBN 978-3-030-32478-0}, series = {Marketization in Local Government: Diffusion and Evolution in Scandinavia and England}, journal = {Marketization in Local Government: Diffusion and Evolution in Scandinavia and England}, publisher = {Springer}, address = {Cham}, isbn = {978-3-030-32478-0}, year = {2020}, language = {de} }