@book{KuhlmannFranzkeDumasetal.2023, author = {Kuhlmann, Sabine and Franzke, Jochen and Dumas, Beno{\^i}t Paul and Heuberger, Moritz}, title = {Regierungs- und Verwaltungshandeln in der Coronakrise}, publisher = {Universit{\"a}tsverlag Potsdam}, address = {Potsdam}, isbn = {978-3-86956-553-8}, doi = {10.25932/publishup-56646}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-566469}, publisher = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam}, pages = {145}, year = {2023}, abstract = {Die Coronapandemie hat die zentrale Rolle von Staat und Verwaltung f{\"u}r die Krisenbew{\"a}ltigung deutlich gemacht sowie ins Zentrum wissenschaftlicher und {\"o}ffentlicher Aufmerksamkeit ger{\"u}ckt. Das intergouvernementale Pandemiemanagement, das Zusammenwirken verschiedener Politik- und Verwaltungsebenen im f{\"o}deralen Staat und die Einbringung wissenschaftlicher Expertise haben sich in der Pandemie als entscheidende institutionelle Stellschrauben erwiesen. Zugleich sind erhebliche Schwachstellen und Engp{\"a}sse zu Tage getreten, die teilweise zu institutioneller {\"U}berforderung, Reibungsverlusten, Koordinationsschw{\"a}chen oder gar Institutionenversagen gef{\"u}hrt haben. Beklagt wurden zudem Maßnahmenpakete und Entscheidungsoutputs, die hinsichtlich ihrer Evidenz- und Wissensbasis teils umstritten waren und in ihrem Zustandekommen hinreichende Legitimation, Zurechenbarkeit, Nachvollziehbarkeit und Transparenz vermissen ließen. Der seit M{\"a}rz 2020 andauernde Krisenzustand hat einen neuartigen, vom bisherigen Normalzustand stark abweichenden Modus des Regierens und des Verwaltungsmanagements in Deutschland geschaffen. In diesem Bereich herrscht weiterhin ein erheblicher politik- und verwaltungswissenschaftlicher Forschungsbedarf, zu dessen Befriedigung diese Studie beitragen soll.}, language = {de} } @incollection{Kuhlmann2023, author = {Kuhlmann, Sabine}, title = {From Weberian bureaucracy to digital government?}, series = {Handbook of public administration reform}, booktitle = {Handbook of public administration reform}, editor = {Goldfinch, Shaun F.}, publisher = {Edward Elgar Publishing}, address = {Cheltenham, UK}, isbn = {978-1-80037-674-8}, doi = {10.4337/9781800376748.00016}, pages = {207 -- 226}, year = {2023}, abstract = {Over the past decades, the traditional profile of the German administrative system has significantly been reshaped and remoulded through reforms and transformations. Manifold modernization efforts have been undertaken to adjust administrative structures and procedures to increasing challenges and pressures. In this chapter, the attempt is made to outline major institutional reform paths in Germany from Weberian bureaucracy to most recent reforms towards a digital transformation of public administration. We will show to what extent the German administrative system has moved away from the classical Weberian bureaucracy to a hybrid system where elements of the 'old' model and new reform paradigms such as the NPM and digital government are hybridized, labelled the Neo Weberian State. The question will be addressed as to what extent this shift has taken shape and which hurdles and path-dependencies can be identified to explain partial persistence and continuity over time.}, language = {en} } @incollection{KuhlmannVeit2023, author = {Kuhlmann, Sabine and Veit, Sylvia}, title = {Evaluation of and in public administration}, series = {Handbook of public policy evaluation}, booktitle = {Handbook of public policy evaluation}, editor = {Varone, Fr{\´e}d{\´e}ric and Jacob, Steve and Bundi, Pirmin}, publisher = {Edward Elgar Publishing}, address = {Cheltenham, UK}, isbn = {9781800884892}, doi = {10.4337/9781800884892.00023}, pages = {220 -- 237}, year = {2023}, abstract = {This chapter addresses the role of evaluation of and in public administration. We focus on two analytical key dimensions: a) the provider of the evaluation and b) the subject of the evaluation. Four major types of evaluation are distinguished: (1) external institutional evaluation, (2) internal institutional evaluation, (3) external evaluation of administrative action/results, (4) internal evaluation of administrative action/results. Type 1 and 2 refer to evaluation of administrative structures and processes as the subject of administrative reform. Type 3 and 4 represent different versions of evaluation in public administration, because the subject is administrative action and its outputs. The chapter highlights salient approaches and organizational settings of evaluation and provides insights into the institutionalization of an evaluation function in public administration. Finally, the chapter draws lessons regarding strengths and potentials but also remaining weaknesses and challenges of evaluation of and in public administration.}, language = {en} } @incollection{KuhlmannMarienfeldt2023, author = {Kuhlmann, Sabine and Marienfeldt, Justine}, title = {Comparing local government systems and reforms in Europe}, series = {Handbook on local and regional governance}, booktitle = {Handbook on local and regional governance}, editor = {Teles, Filipe}, publisher = {Edward Elgar Publishing}, address = {Cheltenham, UK}, isbn = {978-1-80037-119-4}, doi = {10.4337/9781800371200.00033}, pages = {313 -- 329}, year = {2023}, abstract = {The study of subnational and local government systems and reforms has become an increasingly salient topic in comparative public administration. In many European countries, policy implementation, the execution of public tasks and the delivery of services to citizens are largely carried out by local governments, which, at the same time, have been subjected to multiple reforms and sometimes comprehensive institutional re-organizations. This chapter discusses analytical key concepts and outcomes of the comparative study of local governments and local government reforms. It outlines frameworks and analytical tools to capture the variety of institutional settings and developments at the local level of government. It provides an introduction into crucial comparative dimensions, such as functional, territorial and political profiles of local governments, and analyses current reform approaches and outcomes based on recent empirical findings. Finally, the chapter addresses salient issues to be taken up in future comparative studies about local government.}, language = {en} }