@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}
}
@article{TrounsonBuschCollieretal.2020,
  author    = {Trounson, Karl M. and Busch, Aglaja and Collier, Neil French and Robertson, Samuel},
  title     = {Effects of acute wearable resistance loading on overground running lower body kinematics},
  series = {PLoS one},
  volume    = {15},
  journal   = {PLoS one},
  number    = {12},
  publisher = {PLoS},
  address   = {San Francisco, California, US},
  issn      = {1932-6203},
  doi       = {10.1371/journal.pone.0244361},
  pages     = {19},
  year      = {2020},
  abstract  = {Field-based sports require athletes to run sub-maximally over significant distances, often while contending with dynamic perturbations to preferred coordination patterns. The ability to adapt movement to maintain performance under such perturbations appears to be trainable through exposure to task variability, which encourages movement variability. The aim of the present study was to investigate the extent to which various wearable resistance loading magnitudes alter coordination and induce movement variability during running. To investigate this, 14 participants (three female and 11 male) performed 10 sub-maximal velocity shuttle runs with either no weight, 1\%, 3\%, or 5\% of body weight attached to the lower limbs. Sagittal plane lower limb joint kinematics from one complete stride cycle in each run were assessed using functional data analysis techniques, both across the participant group and within-individuals. At the group-level, decreases in ankle plantarflexion following toe-off were evident in the 3\% and 5\% conditions, while increased knee flexion occurred during weight acceptance in the 5\% condition compared with unloaded running. At the individual-level, between-run joint angle profiles varied, with six participants exhibiting increased joint angle variability in one or more loading conditions compared with unloaded running. Loading of 5\% decreased between-run ankle joint variability among two individuals, likely in accordance with the need to manage increased system load or the novelty of the task. In terms of joint coordination, the most considerable alterations to coordination occurred in the 5\% loading condition at the hip-knee joint pair, however, only a minority of participants exhibited this tendency. Coaches should prescribe wearable resistance individually to perturb preferred coordination patterns and encourage movement variability without loading to the extent that movement options become limited.},
  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}
}
@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}
}