@phdthesis{Heinzel2021, author = {Heinzel, Mirko Noa}, title = {World Bank staff and project implementation}, year = {2021}, language = {en} } @article{HeroldLieseBuschetal.2021, author = {Herold, Jana and Liese, Andrea and Busch, Per-Olof and Feil, Hauke}, title = {Why national ministries consider the policy advice of international bureaucracies}, series = {International studies quarterly : the journal of the International Studies Association}, volume = {65}, journal = {International studies quarterly : the journal of the International Studies Association}, number = {3}, publisher = {Oxford Univ. Press}, address = {Oxford}, issn = {0020-8833}, doi = {10.1093/isq/sqab044}, pages = {669 -- 682}, year = {2021}, abstract = {Scholars of international relations and public administration widely assume that international bureaucracies, in their role as policy advisors, directly influence countries' domestic policies. Yet, this is not true across the board. Why do some countries closely consider the advice of international bureaucracies while others do not? This article argues that international bureaucracies' standing as sources of expertise is crucial. We tested this argument using data from a unique survey that measured prevalent practices of advice utilization in thematically specialized policy units of national ministries in a representative sample of more than a hundred countries. Our findings show that ministries' perceptions of international bureaucracies' expertise, that is, specialized and reliable knowledge, are the key factor. International bureaucracies influence national ministries directly and without the support of other actors that may also have an interest in the international bureaucracies' policy advice. Our analysis also demonstrates that the effects of alternative means of influence, such as third-party pressure and coercion, are themselves partly dependent on international bureaucracies' reputation as experts. The findings presented in this article reinforce the emphasis on expertise as a source of international bureaucracies' influence, and provide a crucial test of its importance.}, language = {en} } @article{HaenelBratu2021, author = {H{\"a}nel, Hilkje Charlotte and Bratu, Christine}, title = {Varieties of hermeneutical injustice}, series = {Moral philosophy and politics}, volume = {8}, journal = {Moral philosophy and politics}, number = {2}, publisher = {de Gruyter}, address = {Berlin}, issn = {2194-5616}, doi = {10.1515/mopp-2020-0007}, pages = {331 -- 350}, year = {2021}, abstract = {In this paper, we have two goals. First, we argue for a blueprint for hermeneutical injustice that allows us to schematize existing and discover new varieties of hermeneutical injustices. The underlying insight is that Fricker provides both a general concept of hermeneutical injustice and a specific conception thereof. By distinguishing between the general concept and its specific conceptions, we gain a fruitful tool to detect such injustices in our everyday lives. Second, we use this blueprint to provide a further example of hermeneutical injustice that draws our attention to yet another distinction: Some hermeneutical injustices result from a lack or distortion in the collective conceptual resource and some are due to problems in the application of existing concepts. We argue that to combat hermeneutical injustices, we have to make sure not only that individuals have accurate concepts at their disposal but that they have the capabilities to use these concepts adequately.}, language = {en} } @article{KuhlmannHellstromRambergetal.2021, author = {Kuhlmann, Sabine and Hellstrom, Mikael and Ramberg, Ulf and Reiter, Renate}, title = {Tracing divergence in crisis governance}, 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 = {3}, publisher = {Sage Publ.}, address = {London}, 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. Points for practitioners COVID-19 has shown that national political and administrative standard operating procedures in preparation for crises are, at best, partially helpful. Notwithstanding the fact that dealing with the unpredictable is a necessary part of crisis management, a need to further improve the institutional preparedness for pandemic crises in all three countries examined here has also become clear. This should be done particularly by way of shifting resources to the health and care sectors, strengthening the decentralized management of health emergencies, stocking and/or self-producing protection material, assessing the effects of crisis measures, and opening the scientific discourse to broader arenas of experts.}, language = {en} } @article{BacciniHeinzelKoenigArchibugi2021, author = {Baccini, Leonardo and Heinzel, Mirko and Koenig-Archibugi, Mathias}, title = {The social construction of global health priorities}, series = {International studies quarterly}, volume = {66}, journal = {International studies quarterly}, number = {1}, publisher = {Oxford University Press}, address = {Oxford}, issn = {0020-8833}, doi = {10.1093/isq/sqab092}, pages = {15}, year = {2021}, abstract = {Donors of development assistance for health typically provide funding for a range of disease focus areas, such as maternal health and child health, malaria, HIV/AIDS, and other infectious diseases. But funding for each disease category does not match closely its contribution to the disability and loss of life it causes and the cost-effectiveness of interventions. We argue that peer influences in the social construction of global health priorities contribute to explaining this misalignment. Aid policy-makers are embedded in a social environment encompassing other donors, health experts, advocacy groups, and international officials. This social environment influences the conceptual and normative frameworks of decision-makers, which in turn affect their funding priorities. Aid policy-makers are especially likely to emulate decisions on funding priorities taken by peers with whom they are most closely involved in the context of expert and advocacy networks. We draw on novel data on donor connectivity through health IGOs and health INGOs and assess the argument by applying spatial regression models to health aid disbursed globally between 1990 and 2017. The analysis provides strong empirical support for our argument that the involvement in overlapping expert and advocacy networks shapes funding priorities regarding disease categories and recipient countries in health aid.}, language = {en} } @article{Fuhr2021, author = {Fuhr, Harald}, title = {The rise of the Global South and the rise in carbon emissions}, series = {Third world quarterly}, volume = {42}, journal = {Third world quarterly}, number = {11}, publisher = {Routledge, Taylor \& Francis Group}, address = {Abingdon}, issn = {0143-6597}, doi = {10.1080/01436597.2021.1954901}, pages = {2724 -- 2746}, year = {2021}, abstract = {Jointly with the Global North, the rise of the Global South has come at a high cost to the environment. Driven by its high energy intensity and the use of fossil fuels, the South has contributed a significant portion of global emissions during the last 30 years, and is now contributing some 63\% of today's total GHG emissions (including land-use change and forestry). Similar to the Global North, the Global South's emissions are heavily concentrated: India and China alone account for some 60\% and the top 10 countries for some 78\% of the group's emissions, while some 120 countries account for only 22\%. Without highlighting such differences, it makes little sense to use the term 'Global South'. Its members are affected differently, and contribute differently to global climate change. They neither share a common view, nor do they pursue joint interests when it comes to international climate negotiations. Instead, they are organised into more than a dozen subgroups of the global climate regime. There is no single climate strategy for the Global South, and climate action will differ enormously from country to country. Furthermore, just and equitable transitions may be particularly challenging for some countries.}, language = {en} } @article{CoeruetCoeruet2021, author = {C{\"o}r{\"u}t, G{\"o}zde Yaz{\i}c{\i} and C{\"o}r{\"u}t, İlker}, title = {The neo-liberal conception of empowerment and its limits}, series = {Central Asian survey}, volume = {41}, journal = {Central Asian survey}, number = {1}, publisher = {Routledge, Taylor \& Francis Group}, address = {Abingdon}, issn = {0263-4937}, doi = {10.1080/02634937.2021.1969897}, pages = {118 -- 137}, year = {2021}, abstract = {Through qualitative research conducted in the bazaars of Bishkek, this paper examines the posited tripartite relationship between the free market, micro-finance and women's empowerment by focusing on how loans from micro-finance institutions in Bishkek influence the lives of female loanees. The neo-liberal conception of 'individual autonomy' and 'empowerment', it is argued, may not adequately serve as indicators of actual female empowerment/disempowerment in Bishkek and lead us to fail to recognize moments of self-exploitation and forms of claim-making. The research also underlines the disempowering effects of the affectional burden, that is, the constant sense of anxiety, that the loanees have to manage in order to survive in the neo-liberal business environment, which offers high interest rate loans and exposes the loanees to over-indebtedness. These effects can be followed through the analysis of the role the desire for stability and 'ontological security' plays in the formation of the identities/world views of the loanees.}, language = {en} } @article{FischerHeubergerHeine2021, author = {Fischer, Caroline and Heuberger, Moritz and Heine, Moreen}, title = {The impact of digitalization in the public sector}, series = {Der moderne Staat}, volume = {14}, journal = {Der moderne Staat}, number = {1}, publisher = {Barbara Budrich}, address = {Leverkusen-Opladen}, issn = {1865-7192}, doi = {10.3224/dms.v14i1.13}, pages = {3 -- 23}, year = {2021}, abstract = {The digitalization of public administration is increasingly moving forward. This systematic literature review analyzes empirical studies that explore the impacts of digitalization projects (n=93) in the public sector. Bibliometrically, only a few authors have published several times on this topic so far. Most studies focusing on impact come from the US or China, and are related to Computer Science. In terms of content, the majority of examined articles studies services to citizens, and therefore consider them when measuring impact. A classification of the investigated effects by dimensions of public value shows that the analysis of utilitarian-instrumental values, such as efficiency or performance, is prevalent. More interdisciplinary cooperation is needed to research the impact of digitalization in the public sector. The different dimensions of impact should be linked more closely. In addition, research should focus more on the effects of digitalization within administration.}, language = {en} } @article{LieseHeroldFeiletal.2021, author = {Liese, Andrea and Herold, Jana and Feil, Hauke and Busch, Per-Olof}, title = {The heart of bureaucratic power}, series = {Review of international studies : RIS}, volume = {47}, journal = {Review of international studies : RIS}, number = {3}, publisher = {Cambridge Univ. Press}, address = {Cambridge}, issn = {0260-2105}, doi = {10.1017/S026021052100005X}, pages = {353 -- 376}, year = {2021}, abstract = {Expert authority is regarded as the heart of international bureaucracies' power. To measure whether international bureaucracies' expert authority is indeed recognised and deferred to, we draw on novel data from a survey of a key audience: officials in the policy units of national ministries in 121 countries. Respondents were asked to what extent they recognised the expert authority of nine international bureaucracies in various thematic areas of agricultural and financial policy. The results show wide variance. To explain this variation, we test well-established assumptions on the sources of de facto expert authority. Specifically, we look at ministry officials' perceptions of these sources and, thus, focus on a less-studied aspect of the authority relationship. We examine the role of international bureaucracies' perceived impartiality, objectivity, global impact, and the role of knowledge asymmetries. Contrary to common assumptions, we find that de facto expert authority does not rest on impartiality perceptions, and that perceived objectivity plays the smallest role of all factors considered. We find some indications that knowledge asymmetries are associated with more expert authority. Still, and robust to various alternative specifications, the perception that international bureaucracies are effectively addressing global challenges is the most important factor.}, 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} }