@article{BrenneckeCoutinhoGildingetal.2024, author = {Brennecke, Julia and Coutinho, James A. and Gilding, Michael and Lusher, Dean and Schaffer, Graham}, title = {Invisible iterations: how formal and informal organization shape knowledge networks for coordination}, series = {Journal of management studies}, journal = {Journal of management studies}, publisher = {Wiley-Blackwell}, address = {Oxford}, issn = {0022-2380}, doi = {10.1111/joms.13076}, pages = {1 -- 42}, year = {2024}, abstract = {This study takes a network approach to investigate coordination among knowledge workers as grounded in both formal and informal organization. We first derive hypotheses regarding patterns of knowledge-sharing relationships by which workers pass on and exchange tacit and codified knowledge within and across organizational hierarchies to address the challenges that underpin contemporary knowledge work. We use survey data and apply exponential random graph models to test our hypotheses. We then extend the quantitative network analysis with insights from qualitative interviews and demonstrate that the identified knowledge-sharing patterns are the micro-foundational traces of collective coordination resulting from two underlying coordination mechanisms which we label 'invisible iterations' and 'bringing in the big guns'. These mechanisms and, by extension, the associated knowledge-sharing patterns enable knowledge workers to perform in a setting that is characterized by complexity, uncertainty and ambiguity. Our research contributes to theory on the interplay between formal and informal organization for coordination by showing how self-directed, informal action is supported by the formal organizational hierarchy. In doing so, it also extends understanding of the role that hierarchy plays for knowledge-intensive work. Finally, it establishes the collective need to coordinate work as a previously overlooked driver of knowledge network relationships and network patterns. © 2024 The Authors. Journal of Management Studies published by Society for the Advancement of Management Studies and John Wiley \& Sons Ltd.}, language = {en} } @phdthesis{Danken2017, author = {Danken, Thomas}, title = {Coordination of wicked problems}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-396766}, school = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam}, pages = {VI, 237}, year = {2017}, abstract = {The thesis focuses on the inter-departmental coordination of adaptation and mitigation of demographic change in East Germany. All Eastern German States (L{\"a}nder) have set up inter-departmental committees (IDCs) that are expected to deliver joint strategies to tackle demographic change. IDCs provide an organizational setting for potential positive coordination, i.e. a joint approach to problem solving that pools and utilizes the expertise of many departments in a constructive manner from the very beginning. Whether they actually achieve positive coordination is contested within the academic debate. This motivates the first research question of this thesis: Do IDCs achieve positive coordination? Interdepartmental committees and their role in horizontal coordination within the core executive triggered interest among scholars already more than fifty years ago. However, we don't know much about their actual importance for the inter-departmental preparation of cross-cutting policies. Until now, few studies can be found that analyzes inter-departmental committees in a comparative way trying to identify whether they achieve positive coordination and what factors shape the coordination process and output of IDCs. Each IDC has a chair organization that is responsible for managing the interactions within the IDCs. The chair organization is important, because it organizes and structures the overall process of coordination in the IDC. Consequently, the chair of an IDC serves as the main boundary-spanner and therefore has remarkable influence by arranging meetings and the work schedule or by distributing internal roles. Interestingly, in the German context we find two organizational approaches: while some states decided to put a line department (e.g. Department of Infrastructure) in charge of managing the IDC, others rely on the State Chancelleries, i.e. the center of government. This situation allows for comparative research design that can address the role of the State Chancellery in inter-departmental coordination of cross-cutting policies. This is relevant, because the role of the center is crucial when studying coordination within central government. The academic debate on the center of government in the German politico-administrative system is essentially divided into two camps. One camp claims that the center can improve horizontal coordination and steer cross-cutting policy-making more effectively, while the other camp points to limits to central coordination due to departmental autonomy. This debate motivates the second research question of this thesis: Does the State Chancellery as chair organization achieve positive coordination in IDCs? The center of government and its role in the German politic-administrative system has attracted academic attention already in the 1960s and 1970s. There is a research desiderate regarding the center's role during the inter-departmental coordination process. There are only few studies that explicitly analyze centers of government and their role in coordination of cross-cutting policies, although some single case studies have been published. This gap in the academic debate will be addressed by the answer to the second research question. The dependent variable of this study is the chair organization of IDCs. The value of this variable is dichotomous: either an IDC is chaired by a Line department or by a State Chancellery. We are interested whether this variable has an effect on two dependent variables. First, we will analyze the coordination process, i.e. interaction among bureaucrats within the IDC. Second, the focus of this thesis will be on the coordination result, i.e. the demography strategies that are produced by the respective IDCs. In terms of the methodological approach, this thesis applies a comparative case study design based on a most-similar-systems logic. The German Federalism is quite suitable for such designs. Since the institutional framework largely is the same across all states, individual variables and their effect can be isolated and plausibly analyzed. To further control for potential intervening variables, we will limit our case selection to states located in East Germany, because the demographic situation is most problematic in the Eastern part of Germany, i.e. there is a equal problem pressure. Consequently, we will analyze five cases: Thuringia, Saxony-Anhalt (line department) and Brandenburg, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern and Saxony (State Chancellery). There is no grand coordination theory that is ready to be applied to our case studies. Therefore, we need to tailor our own approach. Our assumption is that the individual chair organization has an effect on the coordination process and output of IDCs, although all cases are embedded in the same institutional setting, i.e. the German politico-administrative system. Therefore, we need an analytical approach than incorporates institutionalist and agency-based arguments. Therefore, this thesis will utilize Actor-Centered Institutionalism (ACI). Broadly speaking, ACI conceptualizes actors' behavior as influenced - but not fully determined - by institutions. Since ACI is rather abstract we need to adapt it for the purpose of this thesis. Line Departments and State Chancelleries will be modeled as distinct actors with different action orientations and capabilities to steer the coordination process. However, their action is embedded within the institutional context of governments, which we will conceptualize as being comprised of regulative (formal rules) and normative (social norms) elements.}, language = {en} } @incollection{Franzke2022, author = {Franzke, Jochen}, title = {German local authorities in the COVID-19 pandemic}, series = {Local government and the COVID-19 pandemic}, booktitle = {Local government and the COVID-19 pandemic}, editor = {Nunes Silva, Carlos}, publisher = {Springer}, address = {Cham}, isbn = {978-3-030-91111-9}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-030-91112-6_6}, pages = {131 -- 154}, year = {2022}, abstract = {This study evaluates the challenges, institutional impacts and responses of German local authorities to the COVID-19 pandemic from a political science point of view. The main research question is how they have contributed to combat the COVID-19 pandemic and to what extent the strengths and weaknesses of the German model of municipal autonomy have influenced their policy. It analyses the adaptation strategies of German local authorities and assesses the effectiveness of their actions up to now. Their implementation is then evaluated in five selected issues, e.g. adjustment organization and staff, challenges for local finances, local politics and citizen's participation. This analysis is reflecting the scientific debate in Germany since the beginning of 2020, based on the available analyses of political science, law, economics, sociology and geography until end of March 2021.}, language = {en} } @article{FuertesJantzKlenketal.2014, author = {Fuertes, Vanesa and Jantz, Bastian and Klenk, Tanja and McQuaid, Ronald}, title = {Between cooperation and competition: The organisation of employment service delivery in the UK and Germany}, series = {International journal of social welfare}, volume = {23}, journal = {International journal of social welfare}, publisher = {Wiley-Blackwell}, address = {Hoboken}, issn = {1369-6866}, doi = {10.1111/ijsw.12100}, pages = {S71 -- S86}, year = {2014}, abstract = {The increased emphasis on labour market activation in many European countries has led to new forms of governance in recent decades. Primarily through qualitative data and document analysis, this article compares the restructuring of labour market service delivery in the UK and Germany. The comparison suggests the emergence of complex governance arrangements that seek to balance public regulation and accountability with the creation of room for market competition. As a result, we can observe in both countries a greater use of markets, but also of rules. While in both countries the relationships between different providers of labour market services can best be described as a mixture of cooperation and competition, differences exist in terms of instruments and the comprehensiveness of coordination initiatives. The findings suggest that the distinctions between governance models may be more important in theory than in practice, although the combinations of theoretical forms vary in different circumstances.}, 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} } @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} } @article{KuhlmannWayenberg2016, author = {Kuhlmann, Sabine and Wayenberg, Ellen}, title = {Institutional impact assessment in multi-level systems: conceptualizing decentralization effects from a comparative perspective}, series = {International review of administrative sciences : an international journal of comparative public administration}, volume = {82}, journal = {International review of administrative sciences : an international journal of comparative public administration}, number = {2}, publisher = {Sage}, address = {London}, issn = {0020-8523}, doi = {10.1177/0020852315583194}, pages = {233 -- 272}, 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 policy-oriented 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. Points for practitioners Decentralization reforms are approved as having a key role to play in the attainment of 'good governance'. Yet, there is also the enticement on the part of state governments to offload an ever-increasing amount of responsibilities to, and overtask, local levels of government, which can lead to increasing performance disparities within local sub-state jurisdictions. Against this background, the article provides a conceptual framework to assess reform impacts from a comparative perspective. The analytical framework can be used by practitioners to support their decisions about new decentralization strategies or necessary adjustments regarding ongoing reform measures.}, language = {en} } @misc{KurzOrlandPosadzy2018, author = {Kurz, Verena and Orland, Andreas and Posadzy, Kinga}, title = {Fairness versus efficiency}, series = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaftliche Reihe}, journal = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaftliche Reihe}, number = {117}, issn = {1867-5808}, doi = {10.25932/publishup-43261}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-432611}, 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} } @incollection{OehlertKuhlmann2024, author = {Oehlert, Franziska and Kuhlmann, Sabine}, title = {Inter-administrative relations in migrant integration}, series = {New perspectives on intergovernmental relations}, booktitle = {New perspectives on intergovernmental relations}, editor = {Kuhlmann, Sabine and Laffin, Martin and Wayenberg, Ellen and Bergstr{\"o}m, Tomas}, publisher = {Palgrave Macmillan}, address = {Cham}, isbn = {978-3-031-61789-8}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-031-61790-4_5}, pages = {77 -- 101}, year = {2024}, abstract = {Migrant integration is a prime example of intergovernmental coordination and multilevel governance; first because no level of government can carry out this task alone, and second because its cross-cutting nature often leads to fragmented institutional structures that must be overcome. Within the research strand of intergovernmental relations (IGR), the focus has been on executive actors and governmental decision-makers, resulting in an underexposure of the role of public administration, known as inter-administrative relations (IAR). Against this backdrop, we aim to remedy some of the deficits in IGR research by (1) adopting an explicit IAR perspective which systematically addresses the role of local governments; (2) including a comparative dimension in IAR research that accounts for different administrative 'starting conditions' in European countries; and (3) using the policy area of migrant integration as a case in point to empirically investigate developments of institutional convergence and divergence in IAR patterns. It is argued that the coordination of migrant integration in the three countries examined has moved towards more intergovernmental coordination, on the one hand, and that the role of municipalities in this context has been enhanced—varying degrees of (de-)centralization notwithstanding. While certain convergent patterns of inter-governmental coordination have become apparent during the migration crisis, historical path dependencies and administrative cultures still appear to be factors that influence institutional development.}, language = {en} } @phdthesis{Radtke2020, author = {Radtke, Ina}, title = {Organizing immigration}, school = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam}, pages = {174}, year = {2020}, abstract = {Immigration constitutes a dynamic policy field with - often quite unpredictable - dynamics. This is based on immigration constituting a 'wicked problem' meaning that it is characterized by uncertainty, ambiguity and complexity. Due to the dynamics in the policy field, expectations towards public administrations often change. Following neo-institutionalist theory, public administrations depend on meeting the expectations in the organizational field in order to maintain legitimacy as the basis for, e.g., resources and compliance of stakeholders. With the dynamics in the policy field, expectations might change and public administrations consequently need to adapt in order to maintain or repair the then threatened legitimacy. If their organizational legitimacy is threatened by a perception of structures and processes being inadequate for changed expectations, an 'institutional crisis' unfolds. However, we know little about ministerial bureaucracies' structural reactions to such crucial momentums and how this effects the quest for coordination within policy-making. Overall, the dissertation thus links to both policy analysis and public administration research and consists of five publications. It asks: How do structures in ministerial bureaucracies change in the context of institutional crises? And what effect do these changes have on ministerial coordination? The dissertation hereby focusses on the above described dynamic policy field of immigration in Germany in the period from 2005 to 2017 and pursues three objectives: 1) to identify the context and impulse for changes in the structures of ministerial bureaucracies, 2) to describe respective changes with regard to their organizational structures, and 3) to identify their effect on coordination. It hereby compares and contrasts institutional crises by incremental change and shock as well as changes and effects at federal and L{\"a}nder level which allows a comprehensive answer to both of the research questions. Theoretically, the dissertation follows neo-institutionalist theory with a particular focus on changes in organizational structures, coordination and crisis management. Methodologically, it follows a comparative design. Each article (except for the literature review), focusses on ministerial bureaucracies at one governmental level (federal or L{\"a}nder) and on an institutional crisis induced by either an incremental process or a shock. Thus, responses and effects can be compared and contrasted across impulses for institutional crises and governmental levels. Overall, the dissertation follows a mixed methods approach with a majority of qualitative single and small-n case studies based on document analysis and semi-structured interviews. Additionally, two articles use quantitative methods as they best suited the respective research question. The rather explorative nature of these two articles however fits to the overall interpretivist approach of the dissertation. Overall, the dissertation's core argument is: Within the investigation period, varying dynamics and thus impulses for institutional crises took place in the German policy field of immigration. Respectively, expectations by stakeholders on how the politico-administrative system should address the policy problem changed. Ministerial administrations at both the federal and L{\"a}nder level adapted to these expectations in order to maintain, or regain respectively, organizational legitimacy. The administration hereby referred to well-known recipes of structural changes. Institutional crises do not constitute fields of experimentation. The new structures had an immediate effect on ministerial coordination, with respect to both the horizontal and vertical dimension. Yet, they did not mean a comprehensive change of the system in place. The dissertation thus challenges the idea of the toppling effect of crises and rather shows that adaptability and persistence of public administrations constitute two sides of the same coin.}, language = {en} }