@article{Wegrich2005,
  author    = {Wegrich, Kai},
  title     = {Policy analysis and the principal agent model},
  year      = {2005},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{Wegrich2004,
  author    = {Wegrich, Kai},
  title     = {Implementing public policy : Governance in theory and practice},
  issn      = {0140-2382},
  year      = {2004},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{LodgeWegrich2005,
  author    = {Lodge, M. and Wegrich, Kai},
  title     = {Control over government : Institutional isomorphism and governance dynamics in German public administration},
  issn      = {0190-292X},
  year      = {2005},
  abstract  = {The era of public management change is said to challenge traditional "command and control" modes of governance, encouraging a move toward either more informal forms of (co-) governance or market-type incentives and competition. Regardless of whether these claims are made by reform advocates or by more sceptical observers within the wider governance debate, less attention has been paid by either side on the mechanisms that are supposed to facilitate the spread of new forms of control. This article seeks to advance this state of affairs in two ways. First, it utilizes the notion of institutional isomorphism to explore the nature of change of modes of control. In particular, it assesses the mechanisms for change, whether control mechanisms are changing due to coercive, mimetic, or professional mechanisms. Second, it explores the impact of these mechanisms in the federal context of Germany in two policy domains, prison and local government supervision (in the field of building administration). Finally, this article suggests that cultural theory offers considerable insights for the study of institutional isomorphism by emphasizing conflicting worldviews and the diversity of related policy ideas as driving forces of change in modes of governance},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{LodgeWegrich2005,
  author    = {Lodge, M. and Wegrich, Kai},
  title     = {Governing multi-level governance : Comparing domain dynamics in German Land-local relationships and prisons},
  issn      = {0033-3298},
  year      = {2005},
  abstract  = {While the notion of governance has received considerable scholarly attention, much less is known about change, and its sources, across modes of governance within respective policy domains. This article explores these neglected issues in two policy domains characterized by multi-level governance characteristics: Land (state)- local relationships in the domain of building administration and relationships governing the prisons domain in Germany. It does so in three steps. First, the article explores governance and considers endogenous and exogenous sources of change. Second, it discusses the institutional arrangements in the two domains and analyses modes of governance and their change. Third, the article compares the different dynamics of change and links these findings to wider debates regarding change across and within modes of governance. The analysis of the two domains suggests that 'hunting around' effects (i.e. permanent instability) are less prominent than suggested by cultural theory, while external pressures for change are filtered by the preferences of the actors within the respective domains},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{JannWegrichVeit2005,
  author    = {Jann, Werner and Wegrich, Kai and Veit, Sylvia},
  title     = {Verfahren und Instrumente erfolgreicher (De-)Regulierung},
  isbn      = {3-89204-866-5},
  year      = {2005},
  language  = {de}
}
@article{JannWegrich2004,
  author    = {Jann, Werner and Wegrich, Kai},
  title     = {Governance und Verwaltungspolitik},
  isbn      = {3-8100-3946-2},
  year      = {2004},
  language  = {de}
}
@article{JannWegrich2003,
  author    = {Jann, Werner and Wegrich, Kai},
  title     = {Phasenmodelle und Politikprozesse: Der Policy Cycle},
  year      = {2003},
  language  = {de}
}
@article{JannWegrich2019,
  author    = {Jann, Werner and Wegrich, Kai},
  title     = {Generalists and specialists in executive politics: Why ambitious meta-policies so often fail},
  series = {Public administration},
  volume    = {97},
  journal   = {Public administration},
  number    = {4},
  publisher = {Wiley},
  address   = {Hoboken},
  issn      = {0033-3298},
  doi       = {10.1111/padm.12614},
  pages     = {845 -- 860},
  year      = {2019},
  abstract  = {This article contributes to the politics of policy-making in executive government. It introduces the analytical distinction between generalists and specialists as antagonistic players in executive politics and develops the claim that policy specialists are in a structurally advantaged position to succeed in executive politics and to fend off attempts by generalists to influence policy choices through cross-cutting reform measures. Contrary to traditional textbook public administration, we explain the views of generalists and specialists not through their training but their positions within an organization. We combine established approaches from public policy and organization theory to substantiate this claim and to define the dilemma that generalists face when developing government-wide reform policies ('meta-policies') as well as strategies to address this problem. The article suggests that the conceptual distinction between generalists and specialists allows for a more precise analysis of the challenges for policy-making across government organizations than established approaches.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{JannWegrich2008,
  author    = {Jann, Werner and Wegrich, Kai},
  title     = {Wie b{\"u}rokratisch ist Deutschland? : Und warum? ; Generalisten und Spezialisten im Entb{\"u}rokratisierungsspiel},
  series = {Der moderne Staat : dms; Zeitschrift f{\"u}r Public Policy, Rech und Management},
  volume    = {1},
  journal   = {Der moderne Staat : dms; Zeitschrift f{\"u}r Public Policy, Rech und Management},
  number    = {1},
  publisher = {Budrich},
  address   = {Leverkusen},
  issn      = {1865-7192},
  pages     = {49 -- 72},
  year      = {2008},
  abstract  = {Das verbreitete Stereotyp Deutschlands als {\"u}berm{\"a}ßig b{\"u}rokratisierter Staat kann einer n{\"u}chternen empirischen Bestandsaufnahme kaum standhalten. Im internationalen Vergleich zeigt sich vielmehr ein unterschiedliches Ausmaß der „B{\"u}rokratisierung" entlang von drei zentralen Dimensionen der h{\"a}ufig undifferenziert betrachteten B{\"u}rokratieproblematik. Einer intelligenten Strategie der Entb{\"u}rokratisierung muss daher eine systematische Analyse der Mechanismen der B{\"u}rokratisierung in einzelnen Dimensionen der B{\"u}rokratiekritik - zu viel Staat, zu viel Regulierung, zu b{\"u}rokratische Organisation - zugrunde liegen. Der Beitrag stellt einen zentralen Mechanismus f{\"u}r die Regulierungsproblematik als derzeit besonders intensiv diskutiertes B{\"u}rokratieproblem dar: Das relative politische Kr{\"a}fteverh{\"a}ltnis von „Generalisten" und „Spezialisten" wird als entscheidend f{\"u}r den Erfolg von Initiativen zur Deregulierung und „besseren Regulierung" identifiziert. Diskutiert wird der Beitrag unterschiedlicher theoretischer Perspektiven zur konzeptionellen Begr{\"u}ndung dieser Generalisten-Spezialisten-These. Hieraus ergeben sich schließlich handlungsrelevante Hypothesen zur Wirksamkeit von verbreiteten Ans{\"a}tzen der „besseren Regulierung".},
  language  = {de}
}
@article{JannWegrich2009,
  author    = {Jann, Werner and Wegrich, Kai},
  title     = {Phasenmodelle und Politikprozesse : der Policy Cycle},
  isbn      = {978-348-65889-2-7},
  year      = {2009},
  language  = {de}
}