@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}
}
@article{HickmannFuhrHoehneetal.2017,
  author    = {Hickmann, Thomas and Fuhr, Harald and H{\"o}hne, Chris and Lederer, Markus and Stehle, Fee},
  title     = {Carbon Governance Arrangements and the Nation-State: The Reconfiguration of Public Authority in Developing Countries},
  series = {Public administration and development},
  volume    = {37},
  journal   = {Public administration and development},
  publisher = {Wiley},
  address   = {Hoboken},
  issn      = {0271-2075},
  doi       = {10.1002/pad.1814},
  pages     = {331 -- 343},
  year      = {2017},
  abstract  = {Several scholars concerned with global policy-making have recently pointed to a reconfiguration of authority in the area of climate politics. They have shown that various new carbon governance arrangements have emerged, which operate simultaneously at different governmental levels. However, despite the numerous descriptions and mapping exercises of these governance arrangements, we have little systematic knowledge on their workings within national jurisdictions, let alone about their impact on public-administrative systems in developing countries. Therefore, this article opens the black box of the nation-state and explores how and to what extent two different arrangements, that is, Transnational City Networks and Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation, generate changes in the distribution of public authority in nation-states and their administrations. Building upon conceptual assumptions that the former is likely to lead to more decentralized, and the latter to more centralized policy-making, we provide insights from case studies in Indonesia, South Africa, Brazil, and India. In a nutshell, our analysis underscores that Transnational City Networks strengthen climate-related actions taken by cities without ultimately decentralizing climate policy-making. On the other hand, Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation tends to reinforce the competencies of central governments, but apparently does not generate a recentralization of the forestry sector at large.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{HustedtSalomonsen2014,
  author    = {Hustedt, Thurid and Salomonsen, Heidi Houlberg},
  title     = {Ensuring political responsiveness: politicization mechanisms in ministerial bureaucracies},
  series = {International review of administrative sciences : an international journal of comparative public administration},
  volume    = {80},
  journal   = {International review of administrative sciences : an international journal of comparative public administration},
  number    = {4},
  publisher = {Sage Publ.},
  address   = {London},
  issn      = {0020-8523},
  doi       = {10.1177/0020852314533449},
  pages     = {746 -- 765},
  year      = {2014},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{ReichersdorferChristensenVrangbaek2013,
  author    = {Reichersdorfer, Johannes and Christensen, Tom and Vrangbaek, Karsten},
  title     = {Accountability of immigration administration comparing crises in Norway, Denmark and Germany},
  series = {International review of administrative sciences : an international journal of comparative public administration},
  volume    = {79},
  journal   = {International review of administrative sciences : an international journal of comparative public administration},
  number    = {2},
  publisher = {Sage Publ.},
  address   = {London},
  issn      = {0020-8523},
  doi       = {10.1177/0020852313478251},
  pages     = {271 -- 291},
  year      = {2013},
  abstract  = {Accountability can be conceptualized as institutionalized mechanisms obliging actors to explain their conduct to different forums, which can pose questions and impose sanctions. This article analyses different crises' in immigration policies in Norway, Denmark and Germany along a descriptive framework of five different accountability types: political, administrative, legal, professional and social accountability. The exchanges of information, debate and their consequences between an actor and a forum are crucial to understanding how political-administrative action is carried out in critical situations. First, accountability dynamics emphasize conventional norms and values regarding policy change and, second, formal political responsibility does not necessarily lead to political consequences such as minister resignations in cases of misbehaviour. Consequences strongly depend on how accountability dynamics take place.},
  language  = {en}
}