@article{Kuhlmann2019, author = {Kuhlmann, Sabine}, title = {Verwaltungstraditionen und Verwaltungssysteme im Vergleich}, series = {Handbuch zur Verwaltungsreform}, journal = {Handbuch zur Verwaltungsreform}, edition = {5., vollst{\"a}ndig {\"u}berarb. Aufl.}, publisher = {Springer}, address = {Wiesbaden}, isbn = {978-3-658-21562-0}, pages = {39 -- 49}, year = {2019}, 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} } @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} } @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} } @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} } @book{KuhlmannDumasHeuberger2022, author = {Kuhlmann, Sabine and Dumas, Beno{\^i}t Paul and Heuberger, Moritz}, title = {The capacity of local governments in Europe}, publisher = {Palgrave Macmillan}, address = {Cham}, isbn = {978-3-031-07961-0}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-031-07962-7}, pages = {7 -- 55}, year = {2022}, abstract = {This book compares local self-government in Europe. It examines local institutional structures, autonomy, and capacities in six selected countries - France, Italy, Sweden, Hungary, Poland, and the United Kingdom - each of which represents a typical model of European local government. Within Europe, an overall trend towards more local government capacities and autonomy can be identified, but there are also some counter tendencies to this trend and major differences regarding local politico-administrative settings, functional responsibilities, and resources. The book demonstrates that a certain degree of local financial autonomy and fiscal discretion is necessary for effective service provision. Furthermore, a robust local organization, viable territorial structures, a professional public service, strong local leadership, and well-functioning tools of democratic participation are key aspects for local governments to effectively fulfill their tasks and ensure political accountability. The book will appeal to students and scholars of Public Administration and Public Management, as well as practitioners and policy-makers at different levels of government, in public enterprises, and in NGOs.}, language = {en} } @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{KuhlmannLaffinWayenberg2018, author = {Kuhlmann, Sabine and Laffin, Martin and Wayenberg, Ellen}, title = {Subnational Government in the Research Spotlight}, series = {Public Administration in Europe : The Contribution of EGPA}, journal = {Public Administration in Europe : The Contribution of EGPA}, publisher = {Springer}, address = {Cham}, isbn = {978-3-319-92855-5}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-319-92856-2_15}, pages = {147 -- 165}, year = {2018}, abstract = {Kuhlmann, Laffin and Wayenberg point out three main strands of subnational changes that have significantly dominated the research field and focus of Permanent Study Group 5. Elaborating upon the Study Group's contributions, the chapter overviews relevant research questions, approaches and findings that have been touched upon concerning local and regional government systems, subnational reforms and their evaluation in a multi-level governance setting. The chapter concludes with zooming in on austerity as a main driver of future developments upon and amongst all levels of government.}, 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} } @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} } @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} } @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{KuhlmannBogumil2019, author = {Kuhlmann, Sabine and Bogumil, J{\"o}rg}, title = {Neo-Weberianischer Staat}, series = {Handbuch zur Verwaltungsreform}, journal = {Handbuch zur Verwaltungsreform}, edition = {5., vollst{\"a}ndig {\"u}berarb. Aufl.}, publisher = {Springer}, address = {Wiesbaden}, isbn = {978-3-658-21562-0}, pages = {139 -- 151}, year = {2019}, 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} } @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{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} } @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} } @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{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} }