@book{Kuhlmann2009, author = {Kuhlmann, Sabine}, title = {Politik- und Verwaltungsreform in Kontinentaleuropa : Subnationaler Institutionenwandel im deutsch- franz{\"o}sischen Vergleich}, series = {Staatslehre und politische Verwaltung}, volume = {14}, journal = {Staatslehre und politische Verwaltung}, publisher = {Nomos}, address = {Baden-Baden}, isbn = {978-3-8329-3728-7}, pages = {353 S.}, year = {2009}, language = {de} } @article{KuhlmannJaekel2013, author = {Kuhlmann, Sabine and J{\"a}kel, Tim}, title = {Competing, collaborating or controlling? - Comparing benchmarking in European local government}, series = {Public money \& management : integrating theory and practice in public management}, volume = {33}, journal = {Public money \& management : integrating theory and practice in public management}, number = {4}, publisher = {Routledge, Taylor \& Francis Group}, address = {Abingdon}, issn = {0954-0962}, doi = {10.1080/09540962.2013.799815}, pages = {269 -- 276}, year = {2013}, abstract = {The way that local authorities in OECD countries compare and benchmark their performance varies widely. This paper explains some of the reasons behind the variations. The current local government benchmarking schemes in Europe their governance, coverage and impactlargely depend on the institutional characteristics of the respective administrative and local government systems (in other words, the starting conditions). There are signs that, as a result of the fiscal crisis in Europe and need to cut public sector costs, many countries (but not England and Wales) are leaning towards compulsory large-scale benchmarking projects.}, language = {en} } @article{Kuhlmann2006, author = {Kuhlmann, Sabine}, title = {Local government reform between 'exogenous' and 'endogenous' driving forces : Institution building in the city of Paris}, issn = {1471-9037}, doi = {10.1080/14719030500518790}, year = {2006}, abstract = {The article attempts to analyse institutional reforms in the multi-level system of the French capital city. The key questions are the developments in central-local relations and what factors influenced these changes over the last century. The author seeks to identify 'critical junctures' in institutional development and explore their impact on the relationships between state and municipality on the one hand and between upper and lower tiers of city- government on the other. Looking at institution building in Paris as the dependent variable the article takes a primarily institutionalist approach in identifying the relevant factors which explain local government reform in the capital city ('what shapes institutions?')}, language = {en} } @article{JaekelKuhlmann2014, author = {J{\"a}kel, Tim and Kuhlmann, Sabine}, title = {Lernen von den Besten? Steuerung und Nutzung von Leistungsvergleichen in europ{\"a}ischen Verwaltungen}, isbn = {978-3-8474-0117-9}, year = {2014}, language = {de} } @article{KroppKuhlmann2014, author = {Kropp, Sabine and Kuhlmann, Sabine}, title = {Wissen und Expertise in Politik und Verwaltung : eine einleitende Zusammenfassung}, isbn = {978-3-8474-0117-9}, year = {2014}, language = {de} } @article{Kuhlmann2013, author = {Kuhlmann, Sabine}, title = {Frankreichs inkrementeller Weg der Kommunalreform : territoriale Konsolidierung ohne Fusion}, isbn = {978-3-8329-7917-1}, year = {2013}, language = {de} } @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} } @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{KuhlmannReiter2016, author = {Kuhlmann, Sabine and Reiter, Renate}, title = {Decentralization of the French welfare state: from 'big bang' to 'muddling through'}, series = {International Review of Administrative Sciences}, volume = {82}, journal = {International Review of Administrative Sciences}, number = {2}, publisher = {Sage}, address = {London}, issn = {0020-8523}, doi = {0.1177/0020852315583194}, pages = {255 -- 272}, year = {2016}, abstract = {This article analyses the decentralization of the French welfare state focusing on the transfer of the Revenu minimum d'insertion (RMI) welfare benefit to the departments in 2003 and 2004. We map and explain the effects of the reform on the system and performance of the subnational provision of welfare tasks. To evaluate the impact of decentralization on the RMI-related action of the departments, we carry out a qualitative document analysis and use data from two case studies. The RMI decentralization offers an exemplary insight into the incremental implementation of French decentralization. We find many unintended effects in terms of the performance and outcome of the subnational welfare provision. This is traced back to the combining of institutional and policy reforms and the inadequate translation of high political expectations into an inadequate action programme both resulting in excessive demands on the local actors. Points for practitioners The decentralization of public tasks is associated with high expectations in terms of the effects on the performance of public services and public governance on the subnational levels. For an in-depth measure the range of administrative performance and political systems effects should be taken into account. We propose a five-dimensional scheme allowing for the determination of decentralization effects on the resource input to and the operative output of subnational public services, on the horizontal coordination between subnational task holders and the affected non-public stakeholders, on the vertical intergovernmental coordination, and on the democratic accountability of subnational authorities.}, language = {en} } @article{KuhlmannBogumilHafner2016, author = {Kuhlmann, Sabine and Bogumil, J{\"o}rg and Hafner, Jonas}, title = {Verwaltungshandeln in der Fl{\"u}chtlingskrise}, series = {Verwaltung \& Management : VM ; Zeitschrift f{\"u}r moderne Verwaltung}, journal = {Verwaltung \& Management : VM ; Zeitschrift f{\"u}r moderne Verwaltung}, number = {3}, publisher = {Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft}, address = {Baden-Baden}, issn = {0947-9856}, pages = {126 -- 136}, year = {2016}, abstract = {In dem Beitrag werden das Verwaltungshandeln in der Fl{\"u}chtlingskrise und m{\"o}gliche Ursachen der aufgetretenen Vollzugsprobleme untersucht. Im Fokus stehen vor allem die Vollzugsrealit{\"a}t und die Verwaltungsvarianz im Bereich der Erstaufnahme von Fl{\"u}chtlingen auf der L{\"a}nderebene sowie die durch das BAMF als auch die Bundes l{\"a}nder mittlerweile begonnenen Reformen im Verwaltungsvollzugssystem. Leitfrage des Aufsatzes ist, ob das bestehende Verwaltungsvollzugssystem nicht nur in den jeweiligen Zust{\"a}ndigkeiten reformbed{\"u}rftig ist, sondern ob es auch zu einer neuen Zust{\"a}ndigkeitsverteilung im Bundesstaat kommen sollte.}, language = {de} } @incollection{Kuhlmann2016, author = {Kuhlmann, Sabine}, title = {Verwaltung in der Vergleichenden Politikwissenschaft}, series = {Handbuch Vergleichende Politikwissenschaft}, booktitle = {Handbuch Vergleichende Politikwissenschaft}, publisher = {Springer-VS}, address = {Wiesbaden}, publisher = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam}, pages = {345 -- 359}, year = {2016}, abstract = {Die international vergleichende Verwaltungswissenschaft (Comparative Public Administration) ist in den vergangenen Jahrzehnten zu einem wichtigen Teilsegment der vergleichenden Politikwissenschaft geworden. Im vorliegenden Beitrag wird am Beispiel wesentlicher Typologien, Begriffe und Forschungsertr{\"a}ge herausgearbeitet, welche Rolle das Vergleichen in der Verwaltungswissenschaft und die {\"o}ffentliche Verwaltung als Gegenstandsbereich der vergleichenden Politikwissenschaft spielen. Es werden zentrale Befunde zur Wirkungsweise und zum Erkl{\"a}rungsbeitrag unterschiedlicher Verwaltungssysteme in vergleichender Perspektive vorgestellt.}, language = {de} } @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{KuhlmannBouckaert2016, author = {Kuhlmann, Sabine and Bouckaert, Geert}, title = {Conclusion : Tensions, Challenges, and Future "Flags" of Local Public Sector Reforms and Comparative}, series = {Local Public Sector Reforms in Times of Crisis : national trajectories and international comparisons}, booktitle = {Local Public Sector Reforms in Times of Crisis : national trajectories and international comparisons}, publisher = {Palgrave Macmillan}, address = {London}, isbn = {978-1-137-52547-5}, publisher = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam}, pages = {347 -- 354}, year = {2016}, language = {en} } @article{KuhlmannBogumilHafner2016, author = {Kuhlmann, Sabine and Bogumil, J{\"o}rg and Hafner, Jonas}, title = {Verwaltungshandeln in der Fl{\"u}chtlingskrise}, series = {Die Verwaltung : Zeitschrift f{\"u}r Verwaltungsrecht und Verwaltungswissenschaften}, volume = {49}, journal = {Die Verwaltung : Zeitschrift f{\"u}r Verwaltungsrecht und Verwaltungswissenschaften}, number = {2}, publisher = {Duncker und Humblot}, address = {Berlin}, issn = {1865-5211}, doi = {10.3790/verw.49.2.289}, pages = {289 -- 300}, year = {2016}, language = {de} } @book{KuhlmannBouckaert2016, author = {Kuhlmann, Sabine and Bouckaert, Geert}, title = {Introduction : Comparing Local Public Sector Reforms}, series = {Local Public Sector Reforms in Times of Crisis : national trajectories and international comparisons}, journal = {Local Public Sector Reforms in Times of Crisis : national trajectories and international comparisons}, editor = {Kuhlmann, Sabine and Bouckaert, Geert}, edition = {1}, publisher = {Palgrave Macmillan}, address = {London}, isbn = {978-1-137-52547-5}, publisher = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam}, pages = {1 -- 20}, year = {2016}, language = {en} } @incollection{SchwabBogumilKuhlmannetal.2020, author = {Schwab, Christian and Bogumil, J{\"o}rg and Kuhlmann, Sabine and Gerber, Sascha}, title = {Digitalisierung von Verwaltungsleistungen in B{\"u}rger{\"a}mtern}, series = {Handbuch Digitalisierung in Staat und Verwaltung}, booktitle = {Handbuch Digitalisierung in Staat und Verwaltung}, publisher = {Springer}, address = {Wiesbaden}, isbn = {978-3-658-23667-0}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-658-23668-7}, pages = {437 -- 448}, year = {2020}, abstract = {Die Digitalisierung der {\"o}ffentlichen Leistungserbringung f{\"u}r die B{\"u}rger bildet gegenw{\"a}rtig einen Schwerpunkt der Modernisierungsaktivit{\"a}ten in Staat und Verwaltung. Hinsichtlich der digitalen Informationsbereitstellung hat es zwar deutliche Fortschritte gegeben, insgesamt zeigt sich jedoch eine allenfalls moderate „E-Government-Performanz" bei der digitalen Kommunikation zwischen Verwaltung und B{\"u}rgern sowie bei Transaktionen, d. h. der medienbruchfreien Abschließbarkeit von Verwaltungsvorg{\"a}ngen. Als wesentliche Gr{\"u}nde f{\"u}r die ern{\"u}chternde Bilanz der lokalen Verwaltungsdigitalisierung sind neben technischen, rechtlichen, finanziellen und personellen Barrieren insbesondere politische und institutionelle H{\"u}rden zu nennen. Viele Probleme sind zudem auch bei E-Government-Funktionen (z. B. der Online-Formulare oder elektronischen Bezahlm{\"o}glichkeiten) zu verzeichnen. Positiv schneidet dagegen die elektronische Terminvergabe ab, die in den B{\"u}rger{\"a}mtern zu wesentlichen Prozess- und Serviceverbesserungen gef{\"u}hrt hat. Allerdings sind neben positiven Effekten, wie beispielsweise schnelleren Bearbeitungszeiten und k{\"u}rzeren Wartezeiten, auch dysfunktionale Digitalisierungseffekte zu verzeichnen, wie erh{\"o}hter Arbeitsstress aufgrund eines gestiegenen Kommunikationsaufkommens (v. a. durch Email) und der damit einhergehenden Verlagerung des Arbeitsaufkommens vom Frontoffice ins Backoffice.}, language = {de} }