@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}
}
@incollection{Jann2016,
  author    = {Jann, Werner},
  title     = {Accountability, performance and legitimacy in the welfare state},
  series = {The Routledge Handbook to Accountability and Welfare State Reforms in Europe},
  booktitle = {The Routledge Handbook to Accountability and Welfare State Reforms in Europe},
  editor    = {L{\ae}greid, Per and Cristensen, Tom},
  publisher = {Routledge},
  address   = {London},
  isbn      = {978-1-4724-7059-1 (print)},
  publisher      = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam},
  pages     = {31 -- 44},
  year      = {2016},
  abstract  = {Accountability is one of the most widely discussed concepts of public administration research and teaching in the last decade. But why is this case? Obviously accountability is, like its counterpart transparency, a "magic concept", and an indispensable part of the prominent and omnipresent discourse on "good governance" as well as a significant element in debates about public sector reform. The same holds true for performance, which has been a magic and contested concept ever since New Public Management (NPM) entered the discourse about "modern" processes and structures of the public sector. But the third term in the title of this paper, legitimacy, even though it is one of the basic concepts of political science and democracy and is at the heart of Max Weber's theory of bureaucracy, has been surprisingly absent from current debates about the challenges of modern public administration, and for that sake also about the future of the welfare state. This chapter argues that different concepts of legitimacy lie at the heart of most debates about accountability and performance (input, output and throughput legitimacy), and that a better understanding of the relationships between accountability, performance and legitimacy can clarify some of the puzzles of contemporary research.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{KrollKrauseVogeletal.2012,
  author    = {Kroll, Alexander and Krause, Tobias and Vogel, Dominik and Proeller, Isabella},
  title     = {Was bestimmt die Reformbereitschaft von F{\"u}hrungskr{\"a}ften in der Ministerialverwaltung?},
  series = {Verwaltung \& Management : VM ; Zeitschrift f{\"u}r moderne Verwaltung},
  volume    = {18},
  journal   = {Verwaltung \& Management : VM ; Zeitschrift f{\"u}r moderne Verwaltung},
  number    = {2},
  publisher = {Nomos},
  address   = {Baden-Baden},
  issn      = {0947-9856 (print \& online)},
  doi       = {10.5771/0947-9856-2012-2-75},
  pages     = {75 -- 80},
  year      = {2012},
  abstract  = {Bestehende Forschung hat gezeigt, dass die Reformbereitschaft von F{\"u}hrungskr{\"a}ften eine wichtige Voraussetzung f{\"u}r die erfolgreiche Umsetzung von Ver{\"a}nderungsprojekten ist. Dieser Artikel geht der Frage nach, wie erkl{\"a}rt werden kann, warum einige F{\"u}hrungskr{\"a}fte in der {\"o}ffentlichen Verwaltung reformbereiter sind als andere. Er greift dabei auf eine F{\"u}hrungskr{\"a}ftebefragung aus dem Jahr 2010 zur{\"u}ck, die auf den Einsch{\"a}tzungen von 351 Verwaltungsmanagern aus der Ministerialverwaltung von Bund und L{\"a}ndern basiert. Eine statistische Analyse dieser Daten kommt zu dem Ergebnis, dass die typische reformbereite F{\"u}hrungskraft intrinsisch motiviert ist, auf eine aufgabenorientierte F{\"u}hrung setzt sowie Arbeitserfahrung außerhalb der {\"o}ffentlichen Verwaltung und keine juristische Ausbildung besitzt. Sie arbeitet auf oberer Hierarchieebene, ist jedoch eher mit Fach- als mit F{\"u}hrungsaufgaben besch{\"a}ftigt. Der Artikel vertieft und erl{\"a}utert diese Befunde sowie deren Implikationen f{\"u}r die Verwaltungspraxis.},
  language  = {de}
}
@misc{Borgnaes2016,
  author    = {Borgn{\"a}s, Kajsa},
  title     = {The Policy Influence of Sustainability Indicators},
  doi       = {10.1080/09644008.2016.1193160},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-96342},
  pages     = {1 -- 20},
  year      = {2016},
  abstract  = {In 2002 Germany adopted an ambitious national sustainability strategy, covering all three sustainability spheres and circling around 21 key indicators. The strategy stands out because of its relative stability over five consecutive government constellations, its high status and increasingly coercive nature. This article analyses the strategy's role in the policy process, focusing on the use and influence of indicators as a central steering tool. Contrasting rationalist and constructivist perspectives on the role of knowledge in policy, two factors, namely the level of consensus about policy goals and the institutional setting of the indicators, are found to explain differences in use and influence both across indicators and over time. Moreover, the study argues that the indicators have been part of a continuous process of 'structuring' in which conceptual and instrumental use together help structure the sustainability challenge in such a way that it becomes more manageable for government policy.},
  language  = {en}
}