@techreport{KuhlmannFranzkeDumasetal.2021, author = {Kuhlmann, Sabine and Franzke, Jochen and Dumas, Beno{\^i}t Paul and Heine, Moreen}, title = {Daten als Grundlage f{\"u}r wissenschaftliche Politikberatung}, publisher = {Universit{\"a}tsverlag Potsdam}, address = {Potsdam}, doi = {10.25932/publishup-51968}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-519683}, pages = {67}, year = {2021}, abstract = {Die vorliegende Studie zeigt, dass Daten in der Krise eine herausragende Bedeutung f{\"u}r die wissenschaftliche Politikberatung, administrative Entscheidungsvorbereitung und politische Entscheidungsfindung haben. In der Krise gab es jedoch gravierende Kommunikationsprobleme und Unsicherheiten in der wechselseitigen Erwartungshaltung von wissenschaftlichen Datengebern und politisch-administrativen Datennutzern. Die Wissensakkumulation und Entscheidungsabw{\"a}gung wurde außerdem durch eine unsichere und volatile Datenlage zum Pandemiegeschehen, verbunden mit einer dynamischen Lageentwicklung, erschwert. Nach wie vor sind das Bewusstsein und wechselseitige Verst{\"a}ndnis f{\"u}r die spezifischen Rollenprofile der am wissenschaftlichen Politikberatungsprozess beteiligten Akteure sowie insbesondere deren Abgrenzung als unzureichend einzusch{\"a}tzen. Die Studie hat dar{\"u}ber hinaus vielf{\"a}ltige Defizite hinsichtlich der Verf{\"u}gbarkeit, Qualit{\"a}t, Zug{\"a}nglichkeit, Teilbarkeit und Nutzbarkeit von Daten identifiziert, die Datenproduzenten und -verwender vor erhebliche Herausforderungen stellen und einen umfangreichen Reformbedarf aufzeigen, da zum einen wichtige Datenbest{\"a}nde f{\"u}r eine krisenbezogene Politikberatung fehlen. Zum anderen sind die Tiefensch{\"a}rfe und Differenziertheit des verf{\"u}gbaren Datenbestandes teilweise unzureichend. Dies gilt z.B. f{\"u}r sozialstrukturelle Daten zur Schwere der Pandemiebetroffenheit verschiedener Gruppen oder f{\"u}r kleinr{\"a}umige Daten {\"u}ber Belastungs- und Kapazit{\"a}tsparameter, etwa zur Personalabdeckung auf Intensivstationen, in Gesundheits{\"a}mtern und Pflegeeinrichtungen. Datendefizite sind ferner im Hinblick auf eine ganzheitliche Pandemiebeurteilung festzustellen, zum Beispiel bez{\"u}glich der Gesundheitseffekte im weiteren Sinne, die aufgrund der ergriffenen Maßnahmen entstanden sind (Verschiebung oder Wegfall von Operationen, Behandlungen und Pr{\"a}vention, aber auch h{\"a}usliche Gewalt und psychische Belastungen). Mangels systematischer Begleitstudien und evaluativer Untersuchungen, u.a. auch zu lokalen Pilotprojekten und Experimenten, bestehen außerdem Datendefizite im Hinblick auf die Wirkungen von Eind{\"a}mmungsmaßnahmen oder deren Aufhebung auf der gebietsk{\"o}rperschaftlichen Ebene. Insgesamt belegt die Studie, dass es zur Optimierung der datenbasierten Politikberatung und politischen Entscheidungsfindung in und außerhalb von Krisen nicht nur darum gehen kann, ein „Mehr" an Daten zu produzieren sowie deren Qualit{\"a}t, Verkn{\"u}pfung und Teilung zu verbessern. Vielmehr m{\"u}ssen auch die Anreizstrukturen und Interessenlagen in Politik, Verwaltung und Wissenschaft sowie die Kompetenzen, Handlungsorientierungen und kognitiv-kulturellen Pr{\"a}gungen der verschiedenen Akteure in den Blick genommen werden. Es m{\"u}ssten also Anreize gesetzt und Strukturen geschaffen werden, um das Interesse, den Willen und das K{\"o}nnen (will and skill) zur Datennutzung auf Seiten politisch-administrativer Entscheider und zur Dateneinspeisung auf Seiten von Wissenschaftlern zu st{\"a}rken. Neben adressatengerechter Informationsaufbereitung geht es dabei auch um die Gestaltung eines normativen und institutionellen Rahmens, innerhalb dessen die Nutzung von Daten f{\"u}r Entscheidungen effektiver, qualifizierter, aber auch transparenter, nachvollziehbarer und damit demokratisch legitimer erfolgen kann. Vor dem Hintergrund dieser empirischen Befunde werden acht Cluster von Optimierungsmaßnahmen vorgeschlagen: (1) Etablierung von Datenstrecken und Datenteams, (2) Schaffung regionaler Datenkompetenzzentren, (3) St{\"a}rkung von Data Literacy und Beschleunigung des Kulturwandels in der {\"o}ffentlichen Verwaltung, (4) Datenstandardisierung, Interoperabilit{\"a}t und Registermodernisierung, (5) Ausbau von Public Data Pools und Open Data Nutzung, (6) Effektivere Verbindung von Datenschutz und Datennutzung, (7) Entwicklung eines hochfrequenten, repr{\"a}sentativen Datensatzes, (8) F{\"o}rderung der europ{\"a}ischen Daten-Zusammenarbeit.}, language = {de} } @article{KuhlmannSeyfriedBrajnik2017, author = {Kuhlmann, Sabine and Seyfried, Markus and Brajnik, Irena Baclija}, title = {Mayors and administrative reforms}, series = {Political Leaders and Changing Local Democracy}, journal = {Political Leaders and Changing Local Democracy}, publisher = {Palgrave}, address = {Basingstoke}, isbn = {978-3-319-67410-0}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-319-67410-0_13}, pages = {387 -- 409}, year = {2017}, abstract = {In recent decades, a wave of administrative reforms has changed local governance in many European countries. However, our knowledge about differences as well as similarities between the countries, driving forces, impacts, perceptions, and evaluation of these reforms is still limited. In the chapter, the authors give an overview about mayors' perceptions and evaluations of two major reform trajectories: (a) re-organisation of local service delivery and (b) internal administrative/managerial reforms. Furthermore, differences between (groups of) countries as well as similarities among them are shown in these two fields of administrative reform. Finally, the authors tried to identify explanatory factors for specific perceptions of administrative reforms at the local level.}, language = {en} } @article{KuhlmannBogumil2021, author = {Kuhlmann, Sabine and Bogumil, J{\"o}rg}, title = {Administrative Reforms in the Multilevel System}, series = {Public Administration in Germany}, journal = {Public Administration in Germany}, publisher = {Palgrave Macmillan}, address = {Cham}, isbn = {978-3-030-53696-1}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-030-53697-8_16}, pages = {271 -- 289}, year = {2021}, abstract = {The chapter analyses recent reforms in the multilevel system of the L{\"a}nder, specifically territorial, functional and structural reforms, which represent three of the most crucial and closely interconnected reform trajectories at the subnational level. It sheds light on the variety of reform approaches pursued in the different L{\"a}nder and also highlights some factors that account for these differences. The transfer of state functions to local governments is addressed as well as the restructuring of L{\"a}nder administrations (e.g. abolishment of the meso level of the L{\"a}nder administration and of single-purpose state agencies) and the rescaling of territorial boundaries at county and municipal levels, including a brief review of the recently failed (territorial) reforms in Eastern Germany.}, language = {en} } @incollection{Kuhlmann2021, author = {Kuhlmann, Sabine}, title = {Managerial reforms from a comparative perspective}, series = {A research agenda for regional and local government}, booktitle = {A research agenda for regional and local government}, editor = {Callanan, Mark and Loughlin, John}, publisher = {Edward Elgar Publishing}, address = {Cheltenham, UK}, isbn = {978-1-83910-663-7}, doi = {10.4337/9781839106644.00013}, pages = {111 -- 132}, year = {2021}, abstract = {This chapter analyses managerial reforms at the subnational level of government from a comparative perspective and outlines possible routes for future comparative research. It examines reforms of the external relationships between local governments and private service providers, which were aimed at transforming the organizational macro-setting of local service provision, the task portfolio and functional profile of local governments. The chapter then moves to scrutinizing internal managerial reforms concerned with the modernization of organization and processes and the improvement of management capacities inside local administrations meant to strengthen performance, output- and consumer-orientation in local service delivery. The country sample includes the United Kingdom (England), Sweden, and Germany that represent three distinct types of administrative culture and local government in Europe.}, language = {en} } @article{Kuhlmann2020, author = {Kuhlmann, Sabine}, title = {Bessere Verwaltung durch Dezentralisierung? Eine l{\"a}ndervergleichende Analyse institutioneller Reformeffekte}, series = {Leidenschaft und Augenmaß : sozialwissenschaftliche Perspektiven auf Entwicklung, Verwaltung, Umwelt und Klima : Festschrift f{\"u}r Harald Fuhr}, journal = {Leidenschaft und Augenmaß : sozialwissenschaftliche Perspektiven auf Entwicklung, Verwaltung, Umwelt und Klima : Festschrift f{\"u}r Harald Fuhr}, publisher = {Nomos}, address = {Bade-Baden}, isbn = {978-3-8487-5249-2}, pages = {39 -- 57}, year = {2020}, language = {de} } @article{KuhlmannFranzkeDumas2022, author = {Kuhlmann, Sabine and Franzke, Jochen and Dumas, Benoit Paul}, title = {Technocratic Decision-Making in Times of Crisis?}, series = {Public Organization Review}, volume = {22}, journal = {Public Organization Review}, number = {2}, publisher = {Springer}, address = {Dordrecht}, issn = {1566-7170}, doi = {10.1007/s11115-022-00635-8}, pages = {269 -- 289}, year = {2022}, abstract = {COVID-19 has demonstrated the importance of data for scientific policy advice. Mechanisms by which data is generated, shared, and ultimately lead to policy responses are crucial for enhancing transparency and legitimacy of decisions. At the same time, the volume, complexity and volatility of data are growing. Against this background, mechanisms, actors, and problems of data-driven scientific policy advice are analysed. The study reveals role conflicts, ambiguities, and tensions in the interaction between scientific advisors and policy-makers. The assumption of a technocratic model, promoted by well-established structures and functioning processes of data-driven government, cannot be confirmed. Reality largely corresponds to the pragmatic model, in parts also the decisionist model, albeit with dysfunctional characteristics.}, language = {en} } @incollection{Kuhlmann2016, author = {Kuhlmann, Sabine}, title = {Benchmarking in der {\"o}ffentlichen Verwaltung}, series = {Praxishandbuch Public Management}, booktitle = {Praxishandbuch Public Management}, publisher = {WEKA}, address = {Z{\"u}rich}, isbn = {978-3-297-00936-9}, publisher = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam}, pages = {321 -- 339}, year = {2016}, language = {de} } @article{HeineltHlepasKuhlmannetal.2017, author = {Heinelt, Hubert and Hlepas, Nikos and Kuhlmann, Sabine and Swianiewicz, Pawel}, title = {Local Government Systems}, series = {Political Leaders and Changing Local Democracy}, journal = {Political Leaders and Changing Local Democracy}, publisher = {Palgrave}, address = {Basingstoke}, isbn = {978-3-319-67410-0}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-319-67410-0_2}, pages = {19 -- 78}, year = {2017}, abstract = {This chapter looks for main differences among local government systems as well as similarities among them. This has been done by the authors with the aim to grasp the institutional setting in which mayors have to act. The authors did it by updating and extending existing typologies and indices of local government systems. Nevertheless, an extension was first of all necessary with respect to vertical power relations because previous typologies considering them took neither the local government systems in Eastern and Central Europe nor the changes in the Western part of the continent into account. Furthermore, reflections about typologies are extended to the present one on public administration at the municipal level. All this have been underpinned by statistical data, the recent work on a 'Local Autonomy Index' (LAI; see Ladner et al. Measuring Autonomy in 39 Countries (1990-2014), Regional and Federal Studies, 26, 321-357, 2016) and information collected by the partners involved in the survey.}, language = {en} } @misc{HlepasKerstingKuhlmannetal.2018, author = {Hlepas, Nikos and Kersting, Norbert and Kuhlmann, Sabine and Swianiewicz, Pawel and Teles, Filipe}, title = {Introduction: Decentralization beyond the municipal tier}, series = {Sub-Municipal Governance in Europe}, journal = {Sub-Municipal Governance in Europe}, publisher = {Palgrave}, address = {Basingstoke}, isbn = {978-3-319-64725-8}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-319-64725-8_1}, pages = {1 -- 24}, year = {2018}, abstract = {In Europe, different countries developed a rich variety of sub-municipal institutions. Out of the plethora of intra- and sub-municipal decentralization forms (reaching from local outposts of city administration to "quasi-federal" structures), this book focuses on territorial sub-municipal units (SMUs) which combine multipurpose territorial responsibility with democratic legitimacy and can be seen as institutions promoting the articulation and realization of collective choices at a sub-municipal level. Country chapters follow a common pattern that is facilitating systematic comparisons, while at the same time leaving enough space for national peculiarities and priorities chosen and highlighted by the authors, who also take advantage of the eventually existing empirical surveys and case studies.}, language = {en} } @article{KerstingKuhlmann2018, author = {Kersting, Norbert and Kuhlmann, Sabine}, title = {Sub-municipal Units in Germany}, series = {Sub-municipal Units in Germany: Municipal and Metropolitan Districts}, journal = {Sub-municipal Units in Germany: Municipal and Metropolitan Districts}, publisher = {Palgrave}, address = {Basingstoke}, isbn = {978-3-319-64725-8}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-319-64725-8_5}, pages = {93 -- 118}, year = {2018}, abstract = {Sub-municipal units (SMUs) in Germany differ in German L{\"a}nder. In Berlin, Hamburg and M{\"u}nchen Metropole Districts fulfill a number of quasi-municipal self-government rights and functions. They have their own budget and strong councils, as well as mayors. In all other L{\"a}nder, most sub-municipal councils were subordinated under the municipal council and directly elected mayor heading the administration. SMUs were introduced as a kind of compensation with different territorial reforms in the 1970s. Although directly elected, sub-municipal councilors are weak, and their advisory role competes with other newly established advisory boards. Here the focus remains on traffic and town planning. Some sub-municipal councils fulfill smaller administrative functions and become more relevant and important in recent decentralization strategies of neighborhood development.}, language = {en} } @book{KuhlmannHeubergerDumas2021, author = {Kuhlmann, Sabine and Heuberger, Moritz and Dumas, Beno{\^i}t Paul}, title = {Kommunale Handlungsf{\"a}higkeit im europ{\"a}ischen Vergleich. Autonomie, Aufgaben und Reformen}, series = {Modernisierung des {\"o}ffentlichen Sektors}, volume = {48}, journal = {Modernisierung des {\"o}ffentlichen Sektors}, number = {1}, editor = {Fleischer, Julia and Kuhlmann, Sabine}, publisher = {Nomos}, address = {Baden-Baden}, isbn = {978-3-7489-2330-5}, issn = {0945-1072}, doi = {10.5771/9783748923305}, pages = {9 -- 124}, year = {2021}, abstract = {Angesichts neuer globaler Herausforderungen geh{\"o}rt eine starke kommunale Ebene zu den Grundvoraussetzungen gesellschaftlicher Probleml{\"o}sungsf{\"a}higkeit. Die St{\"a}rkung kommunaler Selbstverwaltung ist daher ein wichtiges institutionen- und verwaltungspolitisches Zukunftsthema, zu welchem die vorliegende Studie einen Beitrag leisten m{\"o}chte.}, language = {de} } @misc{BouckaertKuhlmann2018, author = {Bouckaert, Geert and Kuhlmann, Sabine}, title = {Foreword}, series = {Sub-Municipal Governance in Europe: Decentralization Beyond the Municipal Tier}, journal = {Sub-Municipal Governance in Europe: Decentralization Beyond the Municipal Tier}, publisher = {Palgrave}, address = {Basingstoke}, isbn = {978-3-319-64725-8}, pages = {V -- VI}, year = {2018}, language = {en} } @article{KuhlmannSeyfried2020, author = {Kuhlmann, Sabine and Seyfried, Markus}, title = {Comparatice methods B}, series = {Handbook of research methods in public administration, management and policy}, journal = {Handbook of research methods in public administration, management and policy}, publisher = {Edward Elgar Publishing}, address = {Cheltenham}, isbn = {978-1-78990-347-8}, pages = {181 -- 196}, year = {2020}, language = {en} } @article{KuhlmannBogumil2018, author = {Kuhlmann, Sabine and Bogumil, J{\"o}rg}, title = {Performance measurement and benchmarking as "reflexive institutions" for local governments}, series = {International journal of public sector management}, volume = {31}, journal = {International journal of public sector management}, number = {4}, publisher = {Emerald Group Publishing Limited}, address = {Bingley}, issn = {0951-3558}, doi = {10.1108/IJPSM-01-2017-0004}, pages = {543 -- 562}, year = {2018}, abstract = {Purpose The purpose of this paper is to discuss different approaches of performance measurement and benchmarking as reflexive institutions for local governments in England, Germany and Sweden from a comparative perspective. Design/methodology/approach These three countries have been selected because they represent typical (most different) cases of European local government systems and reforms. The existing theories on institutional reflexivity point to the potential contribution of benchmarking to public sector innovation and organizational learning. Based on survey findings, in-depth case studies, interviews and document analyses in these three countries, the paper addresses the major research question as to what extent and why benchmarking regimes vary across countries. It derives hypotheses about the impacts of benchmarking on institutional learning and innovation. Findings The outcomes suggest that the combination of three key features of benchmarking, namely - obligation, sanctions and benchmarking authority - in conjunction with country-specific administrative context conditions and local actor constellations - influences the impact of benchmarking as a reflexive institution. Originality/value It is shown in the paper that compulsory benchmarking on its own does not lead to reflexivity and learning, but that there is a need for autonomy and leeway for local actors to cope with benchmarking results. These findings are relevant because policy makers must decide upon the specific governance mix of benchmarking exercises taking their national and local contexts into account if they want them to promote institutional learning and innovation.}, language = {en} } @article{KuhlmannHeuberger2021, author = {Kuhlmann, Sabine and Heuberger, Moritz}, title = {Digital transformation going local}, series = {Public money \& management}, volume = {43}, journal = {Public money \& management}, number = {2}, publisher = {Taylor \& Francis}, address = {Abingdon}, issn = {0954-0962}, doi = {10.1080/09540962.2021.1939584}, pages = {147 -- 155}, year = {2021}, abstract = {Digital government constitutes the most important trend of post-NPM reforms at the local level. Based on the results of a research project on local one-stop shops, this article analyses the current state of digitalization in German local authorities. The authors explain the hurdles of implementation as well as the impact on staff members and citizens, providing explanations and revealing general interrelations between institutional changes, impacts, and context factors of digital transformation.}, language = {en} } @article{KuhlmannHellstroemRambergetal.2021, author = {Kuhlmann, Sabine and Hellstr{\"o}m, Mikael and Ramberg, Ulf and Reiter, Renate}, title = {Tracing divergence in crisis governance}, series = {International review of administrative sciences}, volume = {87}, journal = {International review of administrative sciences}, number = {3}, publisher = {Sage}, address = {Los Angeles, California}, issn = {0020-8523}, doi = {10.1177/0020852320979359}, pages = {556 -- 575}, year = {2021}, abstract = {This cross-country comparison of administrative responses to the COVID-19 pandemic in France, Germany and Sweden is aimed at exploring how institutional contexts and administrative cultures have shaped strategies of problem-solving and governance modes during the pandemic, and to what extent the crisis has been used for opportunity management. The article shows that in France, the central government reacted determinedly and hierarchically, with tough containment measures. By contrast, the response in Germany was characterized by an initial bottom-up approach that gave way to remarkable federal unity in the further course of the crisis, followed again by a return to regional variance and local discretion. In Sweden, there was a continuation of 'normal governance' and a strategy of relying on voluntary compliance largely based on recommendations and less - as in Germany and France - on a strategy of imposing legally binding regulations. The comparative analysis also reveals that relevant stakeholders in all three countries have used the crisis as an opportunity for changes in the institutional settings and administrative procedures.}, language = {en} } @incollection{KuhlmannMarienfeldt2023, author = {Kuhlmann, Sabine and Marienfeldt, Justine}, title = {Comparing local government systems and reforms in Europe}, series = {Handbook on local and regional governance}, booktitle = {Handbook on local and regional governance}, editor = {Teles, Filipe}, publisher = {Edward Elgar Publishing}, address = {Cheltenham, UK}, isbn = {978-1-80037-119-4}, doi = {10.4337/9781800371200.00033}, pages = {313 -- 329}, year = {2023}, abstract = {The study of subnational and local government systems and reforms has become an increasingly salient topic in comparative public administration. In many European countries, policy implementation, the execution of public tasks and the delivery of services to citizens are largely carried out by local governments, which, at the same time, have been subjected to multiple reforms and sometimes comprehensive institutional re-organizations. This chapter discusses analytical key concepts and outcomes of the comparative study of local governments and local government reforms. It outlines frameworks and analytical tools to capture the variety of institutional settings and developments at the local level of government. It provides an introduction into crucial comparative dimensions, such as functional, territorial and political profiles of local governments, and analyses current reform approaches and outcomes based on recent empirical findings. Finally, the chapter addresses salient issues to be taken up in future comparative studies about local government.}, language = {en} } @incollection{KuhlmannSeyfried2020, author = {Kuhlmann, Sabine and Seyfried, Markus}, title = {Comparative methods B}, series = {Handbook of research methods in public administration, management and policy}, booktitle = {Handbook of research methods in public administration, management and policy}, editor = {Vigoda-Gadot, Eran and Vashdi, Dana R.}, publisher = {Edward Elgar Publishing}, address = {Cheltenham, UK}, isbn = {978-1-78990-347-8}, doi = {10.4337/9781789903485.00017}, pages = {181 -- 196}, year = {2020}, abstract = {This chapter outlines the relevance and value of comparative approaches and methods in studying Public Administration (PA). It discusses the roots and current developments of comparative research in PA and discusses various methodological venues for cross-country comparisons, such as most similar/dissimilar systems designs, the method of concomitant variation and the difference-in-difference method. Besides the description of these approaches, we highlight their conceptual value for theory-driven empirical comparative research. Drawing on selected pieces of comparative research, the chapter furthermore provides examples for the application of comparative methods in practice presenting empirical findings and highlighting strengths and weaknesses. The chapter finally emphasizes that the methodological development in comparative PA research has by far not yet reached its end, and that some future challenges need to be addressed, such as the issues of causality, generalizability, and mixed-methods approaches.}, language = {en} } @incollection{KuhlmannVeit2023, author = {Kuhlmann, Sabine and Veit, Sylvia}, title = {Evaluation of and in public administration}, series = {Handbook of public policy evaluation}, booktitle = {Handbook of public policy evaluation}, editor = {Varone, Fr{\´e}d{\´e}ric and Jacob, Steve and Bundi, Pirmin}, publisher = {Edward Elgar Publishing}, address = {Cheltenham, UK}, isbn = {9781800884892}, doi = {10.4337/9781800884892.00023}, pages = {220 -- 237}, year = {2023}, abstract = {This chapter addresses the role of evaluation of and in public administration. We focus on two analytical key dimensions: a) the provider of the evaluation and b) the subject of the evaluation. Four major types of evaluation are distinguished: (1) external institutional evaluation, (2) internal institutional evaluation, (3) external evaluation of administrative action/results, (4) internal evaluation of administrative action/results. Type 1 and 2 refer to evaluation of administrative structures and processes as the subject of administrative reform. Type 3 and 4 represent different versions of evaluation in public administration, because the subject is administrative action and its outputs. The chapter highlights salient approaches and organizational settings of evaluation and provides insights into the institutionalization of an evaluation function in public administration. Finally, the chapter draws lessons regarding strengths and potentials but also remaining weaknesses and challenges of evaluation of and in public administration.}, language = {en} } @article{KuhlmannVeit2021, author = {Kuhlmann, Sabine and Veit, Sylvia}, title = {The Federal Ministerial Bureaucracy, the Legislative Process and Better Regulation}, series = {Public Administration in Germany}, journal = {Public Administration in Germany}, publisher = {Palgrave Macmillan}, address = {Cham}, isbn = {978-3-030-53696-1}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-030-53697-8_20}, pages = {357 -- 373}, year = {2021}, abstract = {Over the last decades, Better Regulation has become a major reform topic at the federal and—in some cases—also at the L{\"a}nder level. Although the debate about improving regulatory quality and reducing unnecessary burdens created by bureaucracy and red tape date back to the 1960s and 1970s, the introduction by law in 2006 of a new independent institutionalised body for regulatory control at the federal level of government has brought a new quality to the discourse and practice of Better Regulation in Germany. This chapter introduces the basic features of the legislative process at the federal level in Germany, addresses the issue of Better Regulation and outlines the role of the National Regulatory Control Council (Nationaler Normenkontrollrat—NKR) as a 'watchdog' for compliance costs, red tape and regulatory impacts.}, language = {en} } @article{BonomiSavignonMeneguzzoKuhlmannetal.2021, author = {Bonomi Savignon, Andrea and Meneguzzo, Marco and Kuhlmann, Sabine and Cepiku, Denita}, title = {Guest editorial: Interinstitutional performance management}, series = {International journal of public sector management : IJPSM}, volume = {34}, journal = {International journal of public sector management : IJPSM}, number = {3}, publisher = {Emerald Group Publishing Limited}, address = {Bingley}, issn = {0951-3558}, doi = {10.1108/IJPSM-03-2021-0057}, pages = {241 -- 246}, year = {2021}, language = {en} } @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{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{Kuhlmann2013, author = {Kuhlmann, Sabine}, title = {Pragmatismus oder „großer Wurf"?}, series = {KWI-Schriften}, journal = {KWI-Schriften}, number = {7}, publisher = {Universit{\"a}tsverlag Potsdam}, address = {Potsdam}, issn = {1867-951X}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-65445}, pages = {155 -- 194}, year = {2013}, abstract = {I. Einleitung II. Modelle kommunaler Selbstverwaltung im deutsch-franz{\"o}sischen Vergleich III. Frankreich IV. Deutschland V. L{\"a}ndervergleich VI. Fazit und Ausblick Literatur}, language = {de} } @misc{EbingerKuhlmannBogumil2018, author = {Ebinger, Falk and Kuhlmann, Sabine and Bogumil, J{\"o}rg}, title = {Territorial reforms in Europe}, series = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaftliche Reihe}, journal = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaftliche Reihe}, number = {100}, issn = {1867-5808}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-420583}, pages = {24}, year = {2018}, abstract = {Territorial reform is the most radical and contested reorganisation of local government. A sound evaluation of the outcome of such reforms is hence an important step to ensure the legitimation of any decision on the subject. However, in our view the discourse on the subject appears to be one sided, focusing primarily on overall fiscal effects scrutinised by economists. The contribution of this paper is hence threefold: Firstly, we provide an overview off territorial reforms in Europe, with a special focus on Eastern Germany as a promising case for cross-country comparisons. Secondly, we provide an over-view of the analytical classifications of these reforms and context factors to be considered in their evaluation. And thirdly, we analyse the literature on qualitative performance effects of these reforms. The results show that territorial reforms have a significant positive impact on functional performance, while the effects on participation and integration are indeed ambivalent. In doing so, we provide substantial arguments for a broader, more inclusive discussion on the success of territorial reforms.}, language = {en} } @misc{KuhlmannWayenberg2016, author = {Kuhlmann, Sabine and Wayenberg, Ellen}, title = {Institutional impact assessment in multi-level systems}, series = {International review of administrative sciences}, volume = {82}, journal = {International review of administrative sciences}, number = {2}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-405314}, pages = {22}, 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 policyoriented 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.}, language = {en} } @incollection{BogumilKuhlmann2022, author = {Bogumil, J{\"o}rg and Kuhlmann, Sabine}, title = {The politics of administrative reforms}, series = {Handbook on the politics of public administration}, booktitle = {Handbook on the politics of public administration}, editor = {Ladner, Andreas and Sager, Fritz}, publisher = {Edward Elgar Publishing}, address = {Cheltenham, UK}, isbn = {978-1-83910-943-0}, doi = {10.4337/9781839109447.00018}, pages = {125 -- 137}, year = {2022}, abstract = {Administrative reforms refer to conscious decisions about institution building and institutional change that are taken at the end of political processes and can be conceived as the attempt by politico-administrative actors to change the institutional order (polity) within which they make and implement decisions. In this paper we proceed from the assumption that the role of politics, the constellation of political actors and arenas vary according to the scope and objectives of administrative reforms. Depending on whether they refer to changes between organizational units/levels/sectors ('external institutional policy') or to an internal reorganization ('internal institutional policy'), different actor strategies, patterns of conflict and power constellations can be expected. As external administrative reforms are aimed at changing functional and/or territorial jurisdictions and thus always involve external actors, larger resistance, heavier political conflicts and generally more politicization are likely to occur than in the case of internal administrative reforms. Yet, for internal reforms, too, actor coalitions which support or block institutional changes, promotors, leaders, and moderators have revealed to shape processes and outcomes. Against this background, this chapter examines the influence of politics on various types of administrative reforms making a distinction between external and internal institutional policies. We analyse the role of politico-administrative actors, their strategies and influence on the formulation, trajectories and outcomes of administrative reforms. Our major focus will be on reforms in the multi-level system on the one hand and on (Post-) NPM reforms on the other as two major international trends. Drawing on reform experiences in different European countries, the chapter will reveal to what extent actors' interests and influences have triggered and shaped administrative reforms and which difference these have made for the reform outcome.}, language = {en} } @incollection{BogumilKuhlmann2020, author = {Bogumil, J{\"o}rg and Kuhlmann, Sabine}, title = {Integrationsverwaltung im F{\"o}deralismus}, series = {Reformbaustelle Bundesstaat}, booktitle = {Reformbaustelle Bundesstaat}, editor = {Kn{\"u}pling, Felix and K{\"o}lling, Mario and Kropp, Sabine and Scheller, Henrik}, publisher = {Springer VS}, address = {Wiesbaden}, isbn = {978-3-658-31236-7}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-658-31237-4_25}, pages = {459 -- 483}, year = {2020}, abstract = {Im vorliegenden Beitrag steht das Zusammenspiel von institutioneller Kompetenzverteilung im f{\"o}deralen Mehrebenensystem und Funktionsf{\"a}higkeit der Verwaltung im Bereich der Integrationspolitik im Zentrum. Dieser Verwaltungsbereich gewinnt zunehmend an Bedeutung, da sich f{\"u}r den Personenkreis der ca. 983.000 anerkannten Fl{\"u}chtlinge, die l{\"a}nger oder dauerhaft in Deutschland bleiben werden, inzwischen neue Problemlagen ergeben, welche vor allem Fragen der Arbeitsmarktintegration, Aus- und Weiterbildung und berufsbezogenen Sprachf{\"o}rderung betreffen. Es wird der Leitfrage nachgegangen, welche institutionellen Strukturen und Aufgabenprofile sich im Bereich der Integrationsverwaltung im f{\"o}deralen Mehrebenensystem herausgebildet haben und inwieweit diese sich als funktional und leistungsf{\"a}hig oder als reformbed{\"u}rftig erwiesen haben. Dabei wird auf Aspekte der Zentralisierung, Dezentralisierung und Verwaltungsverflechtung als wesentliche Institutionalisierungsoptionen eingegangen und aufgezeigt, dass in einigen Bereichen mehr Entflechtung in Form von Dezentralisierung und Aufgabenabschichtung „nach unten" sinnvoll erscheint, w{\"a}hrend in anderen Handlungsfeldern verst{\"a}rkte B{\"u}ndelung und (besser funktionierende) Verwaltungsverflechtung angebracht w{\"a}ren.}, language = {de} } @article{BogumilKuhlmann2021, author = {Bogumil, J{\"o}rg and Kuhlmann, Sabine}, title = {Digitale Transformation in deutschen Kommunen}, series = {Die Verwaltung}, volume = {54}, journal = {Die Verwaltung}, number = {1}, publisher = {Duncker \& Humblot}, address = {Berlin}, issn = {0042-4498}, doi = {10.3790/verw.54.1.105}, pages = {105 -- 132}, year = {2021}, abstract = {Deutschland landet in europ{\"a}ischen Rankings zur Verwaltungsdigitalisierung regelm{\"a}ßig im hinteren Mittelfeld. Die bisherige Bilanz der Digitalisierung f{\"u}r die deutsche {\"o}ffentliche Verwaltung ist trotz verst{\"a}rkter Anstrengungen aller f{\"o}deraler Ebenen, wie sie insbesondere in der Umsetzung des Onlinezugangsgesetzes (OZG) zum Ausdruck kommen, nach wie vor als eher ern{\"u}chternd einzusch{\"a}tzen. Vor diesem Hintergrund besch{\"a}ftigt sich der vorliegende Beitrag mit der Umsetzung, den H{\"u}rden und ausgew{\"a}hlten Wirkungsaspekten der Verwaltungsdigitalisierung auf kommunaler Ebene. Die empirische Basis bildet eine 2019 abgeschlossene Studie zur digitalen Transformation in einem Schl{\"u}sselbereich b{\"u}rgerbezogener Leistungserbringung, den st{\"a}dtischen B{\"u}rger{\"a}mtern, welche die am meisten nachgefragten kommunalen Dienstleistungen bereitstellen. Aus der Analyse lassen sich wichtige Erkenntnisse f{\"u}r die zuk{\"u}nftige Entwicklung der Digitalisierung {\"o}ffentlicher Leistungserbringung in Deutschland ableiten.}, language = {de} } @incollection{BogumilKuhlmann2020, author = {Bogumil, J{\"o}rg and Kuhlmann, Sabine}, title = {Territorial administration in Germany}, series = {Prefects, governors and commissioners : territorial representatives of the state in Europe}, booktitle = {Prefects, governors and commissioners : territorial representatives of the state in Europe}, editor = {Tanguy, Gildas and Eymeri-Douzans, Jean-Michel}, publisher = {Palgrave Macmillan}, address = {Cham}, isbn = {978-3-030-59395-7}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-030-59396-4_15}, pages = {327 -- 352}, year = {2020}, abstract = {This chapter outlines the organization and allocation of functions at the meso-level of government in Germany (states/L{\"a}nder administrations). Furthermore, we shed light on the carriers and qualification profiles of the top bureaucrats in meso-level administrations. These high-rank territorial administrators/executives—state appointed heads of administrative districts (Regierungspr{\"a}sidenten) on the one hand, elected heads of county administrations (Landr{\"a}te) on the other hand—can be regarded as the German 'equivalents' of the prefects in countries with a Napoleonic administrative tradition. Finally, we analyse major reforms that have led to (at times, profound) transformations in territorial administrations, raising the question of to what extent alternative models of territorial bundling and coordination functions are sound and sustainable.}, language = {en} } @article{KuhlmannBouckaertGallietal.2021, author = {Kuhlmann, Sabine and Bouckaert, Geert and Galli, Davide and Reiter, Renate and van Hecke, Steven}, title = {Opportunity management of the COVID-19 pandemic}, series = {International review of administrative sciences}, volume = {87}, journal = {International review of administrative sciences}, number = {3}, publisher = {Sage}, address = {Los Angeles, California}, issn = {0020-8523}, doi = {10.1177/0020852321992102}, pages = {497 -- 517}, year = {2021}, abstract = {This article provides a conceptual framework for the analysis of COVID-19 crisis governance in the first half of 2020 from a cross-country comparative perspective. It focuses on the issue of opportunity management, that is, how the crisis was used by relevant actors of distinctly different administrative cultures as a window of opportunity. We started from an overall interest in the factors that have influenced the national politics of crisis management to answer the question of whether and how political and administrative actors in various countries have used the crisis as an opportunity to facilitate, accelerate or prevent changes in institutional settings. The objective is to study the institutional settings and governance structures, (alleged) solutions and remedies, and constellations of actors and preferences that have influenced the mode of crisis and opportunity management. Finally, the article summarizes some major comparative findings drawn from the country studies of this Special Issue, focusing on similarities and differences in crisis responses and patterns of opportunity management.}, language = {en} } @article{BouckaertGalliKuhlmannetal.2020, author = {Bouckaert, Geert and Galli, Davide and Kuhlmann, Sabine and Reiter, Renate and van Hecke, Steven}, title = {European coronationalism?}, series = {Public administration review}, volume = {80}, journal = {Public administration review}, number = {5}, publisher = {Wiley-Blackwell}, address = {Oxford}, issn = {0033-3352}, doi = {10.1111/puar.13242}, pages = {765 -- 773}, year = {2020}, abstract = {The COVID-19 crisis has shown that European countries remain poorly prepared for dealing and coping with health crises and for responding in a coordinated way to a severe influenza pandemic. Within the European Union, the response to the COVID-19 pandemic has a striking diversity in its approach. By focusing on Belgium, France, Germany, and Italy—countries that represent different models of administrative systems in Europe—the analysis shows that major similarities and convergences have become apparent from a cross-country perspective. Moreover, coping with the crisis has been first and foremost an issue of the national states, whereas the European voice has been weak. Hence, the countries' immediate responses appear to be corona-nationalistic, which we label "coronationalism." This essay shows the extent to which the four countries adopted different crisis management strategies and which factors explain this variance, with a special focus on their institutional settings and administrative systems.}, language = {en} } @incollection{Kuhlmann2023, author = {Kuhlmann, Sabine}, title = {From Weberian bureaucracy to digital government?}, series = {Handbook of public administration reform}, booktitle = {Handbook of public administration reform}, editor = {Goldfinch, Shaun F.}, publisher = {Edward Elgar Publishing}, address = {Cheltenham, UK}, isbn = {978-1-80037-674-8}, doi = {10.4337/9781800376748.00016}, pages = {207 -- 226}, year = {2023}, abstract = {Over the past decades, the traditional profile of the German administrative system has significantly been reshaped and remoulded through reforms and transformations. Manifold modernization efforts have been undertaken to adjust administrative structures and procedures to increasing challenges and pressures. In this chapter, the attempt is made to outline major institutional reform paths in Germany from Weberian bureaucracy to most recent reforms towards a digital transformation of public administration. We will show to what extent the German administrative system has moved away from the classical Weberian bureaucracy to a hybrid system where elements of the 'old' model and new reform paradigms such as the NPM and digital government are hybridized, labelled the Neo Weberian State. The question will be addressed as to what extent this shift has taken shape and which hurdles and path-dependencies can be identified to explain partial persistence and continuity over time.}, 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} } @article{Kuhlmann2020, author = {Kuhlmann, Sabine}, title = {Rezension zu: Marketization in Local Government: Diffusion and Evolution in Scandinavia and England / Hrsg.: Andrej Christian Lindholst, Morten Balle Hansen. - Cham : Springer, 2020. - XXII, 345 p. - ISBN 978-3-030-32478-0}, series = {Marketization in Local Government: Diffusion and Evolution in Scandinavia and England}, journal = {Marketization in Local Government: Diffusion and Evolution in Scandinavia and England}, publisher = {Springer}, address = {Cham}, isbn = {978-3-030-32478-0}, year = {2020}, language = {de} } @article{KuhlmannGrohsBogumil2014, author = {Kuhlmann, Sabine and Grohs, Stephan and Bogumil, J{\"o}rg}, title = {Reforming public administration in multilevel systems}, series = {Public administration and the modern state : assesing trends and impact}, journal = {Public administration and the modern state : assesing trends and impact}, publisher = {Palgrave}, address = {New York}, isbn = {978-1-137-43748-8}, pages = {205 -- 222}, year = {2014}, language = {en} } @article{BogumilHoltkampKissleretal.2007, author = {Bogumil, J{\"o}rg and Holtkamp, Lars and Kißler, Leo and Kuhlmann, Sabine and Reichard, Christoph and Schneider, Karsten and Wollmann, Hellmut}, title = {Konsequenzen aus der Evaluation des neune Steuerungsmodells}, isbn = {978-3-8360-7230-0}, year = {2007}, language = {de} } @article{BogumilKuhlmann2006, author = {Bogumil, J{\"o}rg and Kuhlmann, Sabine}, title = {Wirkungen lokaler Verwaltungsreformen : M{\"o}glichkeiten und Probleme der Performanzevaluation}, isbn = {3-89404-776-3}, year = {2006}, language = {de} } @article{KuhlmannWollmann2006, author = {Kuhlmann, Sabine and Wollmann, Hellmut}, title = {Transaktionskosten von Verwaltungsreformen : ein missing link der Evaluationsforschung}, isbn = {3-89404-776-3}, year = {2006}, language = {de} } @article{JannBogumilBouckaertetal.2004, author = {Jann, Werner and Bogumil, J{\"o}rg and Bouckaert, Geert and Bud{\"a}us, Dietrich and Holtkamp, Lars and Kißler, Leo and Kuhlmann, Sabine and Mezger, Erika and Reichard, Christoph and Wollmann, Hellmut}, title = {Status-Report Verwaltungsreform : eine Zwischenbilanz nach zehn Jahren}, series = {Modernisierung des {\"o}ffentlichen Sektors}, volume = {24}, journal = {Modernisierung des {\"o}ffentlichen Sektors}, publisher = {Ed. Sigma}, address = {Berlin}, isbn = {3-89404-744-5}, pages = {122 S.}, year = {2004}, language = {de} } @book{BogumilHoltkampKissleretal.2007, author = {Bogumil, J{\"o}rg and Holtkamp, Lars and Kißler, Leo and Reichard, Christoph and Kuhlmann, Sabine and Schneider, Karsten and Wollmann, Hellmut}, title = {Perspektiven kommunaler Verwaltungsmodernisierung : Praxiskonsequenzen aus dem neuen Steuerungsmodell}, series = {Modernisierung des {\"o}ffentlichen Sektors}, volume = {30}, journal = {Modernisierung des {\"o}ffentlichen Sektors}, editor = {Bogumil, J{\"o}rg}, publisher = {Ed. Sigma}, address = {Berlin}, isbn = {978-3-8360-7230-4}, issn = {0945-1072}, pages = {99 S.}, year = {2007}, language = {de} } @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} }