@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} } @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{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{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} } @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} } @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{MarienfeldtKuehlerKuhlmannetal.2024, author = {Marienfeldt, Justine and K{\"u}hler, Jakob and Kuhlmann, Sabine and Proeller, Isabella}, title = {Kommunale Verwaltungsdigitalisierung im f{\"o}deralen Kontext}, series = {der moderne staat - Zeitschrift f{\"u}r Public Policy, Recht und Management}, volume = {17}, journal = {der moderne staat - Zeitschrift f{\"u}r Public Policy, Recht und Management}, number = {1}, publisher = {Verlag Barbara Budrich}, address = {Leverkusen-Opladen}, issn = {1865-7192}, doi = {10.3224/dms.v17i1.03}, pages = {35 -- 59}, year = {2024}, abstract = {Dieser Beitrag vergleicht die kommunale Verwaltungsdigitalisierung in Deutschland, {\"O}sterreich und der Schweiz (DACH-L{\"a}nder) als Vertreter der kontinentaleurop{\"a}isch-f{\"o}deralen Verwaltungstradition bei zugleich unterschiedlichen Digitalisierungsans{\"a}tzen und -fortschritten. Basierend auf Interviews mit 22 Expert*innen und Beobachtungen in je einer Kommune pro Land sowie Dokumenten-, Literatur- und Sekund{\"a}rdatenanalysen untersucht die Studie, wie Verwaltungsdigitalisierung im Mehrebenensystem organisiert ist und welche Rolle dabei das Verwaltungsprofil spielt sowie welche Innovationsschwerpunkte die Kommunen im Hinblick auf die Leistungserbringung und die internen Prozesse setzen. Die Ergebnisse zeigen, dass der hohe Grad lokaler Autonomie den Kommunen erm{\"o}glicht, eigene Akzente in der Verwaltungsdigitalisierung zu setzen. Zugleich wirken die stark verflochtenen komplexen Entscheidungsstrukturen und hohen Koordinationsbedarfe in verwaltungsf{\"o}deralen Systemen, die in Deutschland am st{\"a}rksten, in {\"O}sterreich etwas schw{\"a}cher und in der Schweiz am geringsten ausgepr{\"a}gt sind, als Digitalisierungshemmnisse. Ferner weisen die Befunde auf eine unitarisierende Wirkung der Verwaltungsdigitalisierung als Reformbereich hin. Insgesamt tr{\"a}gt die Studie zu einem besseren Verst{\"a}ndnis daf{\"u}r bei, welche Problematik die Verwaltungsdigitalisierung f{\"u}r f{\"o}deral-dezentrale Verwaltungsmodelle mit sich bringt.}, language = {de} } @article{KuhlmannProellerSchiemankeetal.2021, author = {Kuhlmann, Sabine and Proeller, Isabella and Schiemanke, Dieter and Ziekow, Jan}, title = {German Public Administration}, 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_1}, pages = {1 -- 13}, year = {2021}, abstract = {The international community of public administration and administrative sciences shows a great interest in the basic features of the German administrative system. The German public administration with its formative decentralisation (called: administrative federalism) is regarded as a prime example of multilevel governance and strong local self-government. Furthermore, over the past decades, the traditional profile of the German administrative system has significantly been reshaped and remoulded through reforms, processes of modernisation and the transformation process in East Germany. Studies on the German administrative system should focus especially on key institutional features of public administration; changing relationships between public administration, society and the private sector; administrative reforms at different levels of the federal system; and new challenges and modernisation approaches, such as digitalisation, open government and better regulation.}, language = {en} } @article{Kuhlmann2019, author = {Kuhlmann, Sabine}, title = {Dezentralisierung, Kommunalisierung, Regionalisierung}, 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 = {239 -- 250}, year = {2019}, language = {de} } @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{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} }