@article{BergstroemKuhlmannLaffinetal.2022,
  author    = {Bergstr{\"o}m, Tomas and Kuhlmann, Sabine and Laffin, Martin and Wayenberg, Ellen},
  title     = {Special issue on comparative intergovernmental relations and the pandemic},
  series = {Local government studies},
  volume    = {48},
  journal   = {Local government studies},
  number    = {2},
  publisher = {Taylor \& Francis},
  address   = {London},
  issn      = {0300-3930},
  doi       = {10.1080/03003930.2022.2039636},
  pages     = {179 -- 190},
  year      = {2022},
  abstract  = {This introduction and the special issue are a contribution to comparative intergovernmental studies and public administration. This introduction provides an analytical overview of the intergovernmental relations policy responses to the Covid-19 pandemic across ten European countries, focussing on the early waves of the disease. These policy responses are analysed in terms of three types of IGR process: (1) a predominantly multi-layered policy process involving limited conflict, (2) a centralised policy process as the central government attempts to suppress conflict and (3) a conflicted policy process where such attempts are contested and tend to contribute to poor policy outcomes. The conclusion, then, reviews the difficulties and trade-offs involved in attaining a balanced multi-layered, intergovernmental process.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{HickmannWiderbergLedereretal.2021,
  author    = {Hickmann, Thomas and Widerberg, Oscar and Lederer, Markus and Pattberg, Philipp H.},
  title     = {The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Secretariat as an orchestrator in global climate policymaking},
  series = {International review of administrative sciences : an international journal of comparative public administration},
  volume    = {87},
  journal   = {International review of administrative sciences : an international journal of comparative public administration},
  number    = {1},
  publisher = {Sage},
  address   = {Los Angeles, Calif. [u.a.]},
  issn      = {0020-8523},
  doi       = {10.1177/0020852319840425},
  pages     = {21 -- 38},
  year      = {2021},
  abstract  = {Scholars have recently devoted increasing attention to the role and function of international bureaucracies in global policymaking. Some of them contend that international public officials have gained significant political influence in various policy fields. Compared to other international bureaucracies, the political leeway of the Secretariat of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change has been considered rather limited. Due to the specific problem structure of the policy domain of climate change, national governments endowed this intergovernmental treaty secretariat with a relatively narrow mandate. However, this article argues that in the past few years, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Secretariat has gradually loosened its straitjacket and expanded its original spectrum of activity by engaging different sub-national and non-state actors into a policy dialogue using facilitative orchestration as a mode of governance. The present article explores the recent evolution of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Secretariat and investigates the way in which it initiates, guides, broadens and strengthens sub-national and non-state climate actions to achieve progress in the international climate negotiations. <br /> Points for practitioners <br /> The Secretariat of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change has lately adopted new roles and functions in global climate policymaking. While previously seen as a rather technocratic body that, first and foremost, serves national governments, the Climate Secretariat increasingly interacts with sub-national governments, civil society organizations and private companies to push the global response to climate change forward. We contend that the Climate Secretariat can contribute to global climate policymaking by coordinating and steering the initiatives of non-nation-state actors towards coherence and good practice.},
  language  = {en}
}
@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}
}
@techreport{Lkhagvadorj2007,
  type      = {Working Paper},
  author    = {Lkhagvadorj, Ariunaa},
  title     = {Status quo on fiscal decentralisation in Mongolia},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-16159},
  year      = {2007},
  abstract  = {This paper gives a review on the theoretical foundation for fiscal decentralisation and a status quo analysis of the intergovernmental relations in Mongolia. It consists of two parts. Part I briefly reviews the theories of fiscal decentralisation and its impact on the nations' welfare considering the major challenges for a transition economy. Part II of the paper describes the general structure and scope of the government and examines the current fiscal autonomy in Mongolia focusing on the four main areas of intergovernmental relations. This paper concludes that local governments in Mongolia are still far away from having the political, administrative and fiscal autonomy. New approaches for the assignments of expenditures and revenues in Mongolia are urgently needed.},
  language  = {en}
}