@incollection{KuhlmannVeitBogumil2015, author = {Kuhlmann, Sabine and Veit, Sylvia and Bogumil, J{\"o}rg}, title = {Public Service Systems at Subnational and Local Levels of Government : a British-German-French Comparison}, series = {Comparative Civil Service Systems in the 21st Century}, booktitle = {Comparative Civil Service Systems in the 21st Century}, publisher = {Palgrave Macmillan}, address = {Hampshire}, isbn = {978-1-137-32578-5}, publisher = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam}, pages = {162 -- 184}, year = {2015}, language = {en} } @article{Kuhlmann2015, author = {Kuhlmann, Sabine}, title = {Administrative Reforms in the Intergovernmental Setting}, series = {Multi-Level Governance: The Missing Linkages (Critical Perspectives on International Public Sector Management)}, volume = {4}, journal = {Multi-Level Governance: The Missing Linkages (Critical Perspectives on International Public Sector Management)}, publisher = {Emerald Group Publishing Limited}, address = {Bingley}, isbn = {978-1-78441-874-8 (print)}, issn = {2045-7944}, doi = {10.1108/S2045-794420150000004008}, pages = {183 -- 215}, year = {2015}, abstract = {Purpose This chapter is aimed at contributing to the question of how institutional reforms affect multi-level governance (MLG) capacities and thus the performance of public task fulfillment with a particular focus on the local level of government in England, France, and Germany. Methodology/approach Drawing on concepts of institutional evaluation, we analytically distinguish six dimensions of impact assessment: vertical coordination; horizontal coordination; efficiency/savings; effectiveness/quality; political accountability/democratic control; equity of service standards. Methodologically, we rely on document analysis and expert judgments that could be gleaned from case studies in the three countries and a comprehensive evaluation of the available secondary data in the respective national and local contexts. Findings Institutional reforms in the intergovernmental setting have exerted a significant influence on task fulfillment and the performance of service delivery. Irrespective of whether MLG practice corresponds to type I or type II, task devolution (decentralization/de-concentration) furthers the interlocal variation and makes the equity of service delivery shrink. There is a general tendency of improved horizontal/MLG type I coordination capacities, especially after political decentralization, less in the case of administrative decentralization. However, decentralization often entails considerable additional costs which sometimes overload local governments. Research implications The distinction between multi-purpose territorial organization/MLG I and single-purpose functional organization/MLG II provides a suitable analytical frame for institutional evaluation and impact assessment of reforms in the intergovernmental setting. Furthermore, comparative research into the relationship between MLG and institutional reforms is needed to reveal the explanatory power of intervening factors, such as the local budgetary and staff situation, local policy preferences, and political interests in conjunction with the salience of the transferred tasks. Practical implications The findings provide evidence on the causal relationship between specific types of (vertical) institutional reforms, performance, and task-related characteristics. Policy-makers and government actors may use this information when drafting institutional reform programs and determining the allocation of public tasks in the intergovernmental setting. Social implications In general, the euphoric expectations placed upon decentralization strategies in modern societies cannot straightforwardly be justified. Our findings show that any type of task transfer to lower levels of government exacerbates existing disparities or creates new ones. However, the integration of tasks within multi-functional, politically accountable local governments may help to improve MLG type I coordination in favor of local communities and territorially based societal actors, while the opposite may be said with regard to de-concentration and the strengthening of MLG type II coordination. Originality/value The chapter addresses a missing linkage in the existing MLG literature which has hitherto predominantly been focused on the political decision-making and on the implementation of reforms in the intergovernmental settings of European countries, whereas the impact of such reforms and of their consequences for MLG has remained largely ignored.}, language = {en} } @article{KuhlmannBogumil2015, author = {Kuhlmann, Sabine and Bogumil, J{\"o}rg}, title = {Legitimation von Verwaltungshandeln - Ver{\"a}nderungen und Konstanten}, series = {Der moderne Staat : dms ; Zeitschrift f{\"u}r Public Policy, Recht und Management}, volume = {8}, journal = {Der moderne Staat : dms ; Zeitschrift f{\"u}r Public Policy, Recht und Management}, number = {2}, publisher = {Budrich}, address = {Leverkusen}, issn = {1865-7192}, pages = {237 -- 251}, year = {2015}, abstract = {Der Beitrag untersucht das Wechsel- und Zusammenspiel von {\"o}ffentlichem Verwaltungshandeln und Legitimit{\"a}t. Ausgegangen wird davon, dass in den letzten Jahren sowohl die Input- als auch die Outputdimension staatlicher Legitimationsbeschaffung signifikante Ver{\"a}nderungen durchlaufen haben, die die {\"o}ffentliche Verwaltung intensiv ber{\"u}hren. Mit R{\"u}ckgriff auf die anderen Beitr{\"a}ge des Schwerpunktheftes und unter Hinzuziehung weiterer Erkenntnisse wird {\"u}berblicksartig untersucht, ob sich die Legitimationsproduktion durch Verwaltungshandeln ver{\"a}ndert hat und wenn ja, inwiefern. Im Ergebnis ergibt sich ein partieller Wandel hinsichtlich der Legitimationsquellen von Verwaltungshandeln. Sowohl im Input-Bereich (Transparenzgesetze, vorgezogene B{\"u}rgerbeteiligung) als auch im Output-Bereich (z.B. Normenkontrollrat) gibt es neue bzw. einen st{\"a}rkeren Einsatz schon bekannter Instrumente (Expertenkommissionen). Ob dieser Wandel der Instrumente und der potenziellen Quellen von Legitimation allerdings tats{\"a}chlich die Legitimit{\"a}t des Verwaltungshandelns ver{\"a}ndert, also zu einer Legitimit{\"a}tssteigerung f{\"u}hrt, wird teils skeptisch beurteilt und bedarf daher weiterer empirischer Untersuchung.}, language = {de} } @article{Kuhlmann2015, author = {Kuhlmann, Sabine}, title = {Verwaltung und Verwaltungsrefomen im internationalen Vergleich}, series = {Modernisierung des {\"o}ffentlichen Sektors / Sonderband ; 45}, journal = {Modernisierung des {\"o}ffentlichen Sektors / Sonderband ; 45}, editor = {D{\"o}hler, Marian and Franzke, Jochen and Wegrich, Kai}, publisher = {Nomos, Ed. sigma}, address = {Baden-Baden}, isbn = {978-3-8487-2062-0}, issn = {0945-1072}, pages = {109 -- 132}, year = {2015}, language = {de} } @incollection{Kuhlmann2015, author = {Kuhlmann, Sabine}, title = {Politikevaluation/Evaluationsforschung}, series = {Kleines Lexikon der Politik}, booktitle = {Kleines Lexikon der Politik}, publisher = {C. H. Beck}, address = {M{\"u}nchen}, isbn = {978-3-406-68106-6}, publisher = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam}, pages = {480 -- 483}, year = {2015}, language = {de} } @misc{KuhlmannRadtke2015, author = {Kuhlmann, Sabine and Radtke, Ina}, title = {Die Bundesverwaltung als moderner Betrieb II : Teil 4}, publisher = {Hochschule des Bundes f{\"u}r {\"o}ffentliche Verwaltung}, address = {Br{\"u}hl}, pages = {67}, year = {2015}, language = {de} }