@incollection{Kuhlmann2016, author = {Kuhlmann, Sabine}, title = {Local Government in Germany}, series = {Comparative Studies on Vertical Administration Reforms in China and Germany (Speyerer Forschungsberichte ; 285)}, booktitle = {Comparative Studies on Vertical Administration Reforms in China and Germany (Speyerer Forschungsberichte ; 285)}, editor = {Wang, Yukai and F{\"a}rber, Gisela}, publisher = {Deutsches Forschungsinstitut f{\"u}r {\"o}ffentliche Verwaltung}, address = {Speyer}, organization = {Deutsches Forschungsinstitut f{\"u}r {\"o}ffentliche Verwaltung Speyer}, isbn = {978-3-941738-23-2}, publisher = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam}, pages = {51 -- 67}, year = {2016}, 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{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} } @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} }