TY - JOUR A1 - Bergström, Tomas A1 - Franzke, Jochen A1 - Kuhlmann, Sabine A1 - Wayenberg, Ellen T1 - Future Outlook and Scenarios JF - The Future of Local Self-Government : European Trends in Autonomy, Innovations and Central-Local Relations N2 - Where is local self-government heading in the future? Among trends identified is firstly an intensification of multilevel, intermunicipal, and cross-border governance. In the future even more of cooperation and coordination among different political and administrative levels will be required. Territorial boundaries have become increasingly incongruent with functional public activities. Secondly, the innovative potential of introducing markets as templates for organisational reform has reached its end. Future reforms will most likely try to adapt market reforms to local public contexts, or even reverse the development. Finally, a tightening of state steering and an increased dependence on state funding to uphold local services is expected. Waves of amalgamations might slow down this process but they will not make financial problems disappear completely. KW - Local self-government KW - Governance KW - Organisational reform KW - Dependence KW - Amalgamations KW - Financial problems Y1 - 2021 SN - 978-3-030-56058-4 SN - 978-3-030-56059-1 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-56059-1_20 SP - 227 EP - 286 PB - Springer CY - Cham ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Bergström, Tomas A1 - Kuhlmann, Sabine A1 - Laffin, Martin A1 - Wayenberg, Ellen T1 - Special issue on comparative intergovernmental relations and the pandemic BT - how European devolved governments responded to a public health crisis JF - Local government studies N2 - 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. KW - intergovernmental relations KW - pandemic comparative KW - government comparative KW - public policy Y1 - 2022 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1080/03003930.2022.2039636 SN - 0300-3930 SN - 1743-9388 VL - 48 IS - 2 SP - 179 EP - 190 PB - Taylor & Francis CY - London ER - TY - CHAP A1 - Bogumil, Jörg A1 - Kuhlmann, Sabine ED - Ladner, Andreas ED - Sager, Fritz T1 - The politics of administrative reforms T2 - Handbook on the politics of public administration N2 - 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. KW - administrative reforms KW - institutional policy KW - actor constellations KW - micro-politics KW - managerial reforms KW - territorial reforms Y1 - 2022 SN - 978-1-83910-943-0 SN - 978-1-83910-944-7 U6 - https://doi.org/10.4337/9781839109447.00018 SP - 125 EP - 137 PB - Edward Elgar Publishing CY - Cheltenham, UK ER - TY - CHAP A1 - Bogumil, Jörg A1 - Kuhlmann, Sabine ED - Knüpling, Felix ED - Kölling, Mario ED - Kropp, Sabine ED - Scheller, Henrik T1 - Integrationsverwaltung im Föderalismus T2 - Reformbaustelle Bundesstaat N2 - Im vorliegenden Beitrag steht das Zusammenspiel von institutioneller Kompetenzverteilung im föderalen Mehrebenensystem und Funktionsfähigkeit der Verwaltung im Bereich der Integrationspolitik im Zentrum. Dieser Verwaltungsbereich gewinnt zunehmend an Bedeutung, da sich für den Personenkreis der ca. 983.000 anerkannten Flüchtlinge, die länger oder dauerhaft in Deutschland bleiben werden, inzwischen neue Problemlagen ergeben, welche vor allem Fragen der Arbeitsmarktintegration, Aus- und Weiterbildung und berufsbezogenen Sprachförderung betreffen. Es wird der Leitfrage nachgegangen, welche institutionellen Strukturen und Aufgabenprofile sich im Bereich der Integrationsverwaltung im föderalen Mehrebenensystem herausgebildet haben und inwieweit diese sich als funktional und leistungsfähig oder als reformbedürftig 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, während in anderen Handlungsfeldern verstärkte Bündelung und (besser funktionierende) Verwaltungsverflechtung angebracht wären. KW - Integration KW - Migration KW - Verwaltung KW - Flüchtlingskrise KW - Verflechtung KW - Mehrebenensystem KW - Dezentralisierung KW - Ausländerbehörde KW - Arbeitsmarkt KW - Kommune Y1 - 2020 SN - 978-3-658-31236-7 SN - 978-3-658-31237-4 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-31237-4_25 SP - 459 EP - 483 PB - Springer VS CY - Wiesbaden ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Bogumil, Jörg A1 - Kuhlmann, Sabine T1 - Digitale Transformation in deutschen Kommunen BT - das Beispiel der Bürgerämter und was man daraus lernen kann JF - Die Verwaltung N2 - Deutschland landet in europäischen Rankings zur Verwaltungsdigitalisierung regelmäßig im hinteren Mittelfeld. Die bisherige Bilanz der Digitalisierung für die deutsche öffentliche Verwaltung ist trotz verstärkter Anstrengungen aller föderaler Ebenen, wie sie insbesondere in der Umsetzung des Onlinezugangsgesetzes (OZG) zum Ausdruck kommen, nach wie vor als eher ernüchternd einzuschätzen. Vor diesem Hintergrund beschäftigt sich der vorliegende Beitrag mit der Umsetzung, den Hürden und ausgewählten Wirkungsaspekten der Verwaltungsdigitalisierung auf kommunaler Ebene. Die empirische Basis bildet eine 2019 abgeschlossene Studie zur digitalen Transformation in einem Schlüsselbereich bürgerbezogener Leistungserbringung, den städtischen Bürgerämtern, welche die am meisten nachgefragten kommunalen Dienstleistungen bereitstellen. Aus der Analyse lassen sich wichtige Erkenntnisse für die zukünftige Entwicklung der Digitalisierung öffentlicher Leistungserbringung in Deutschland ableiten. N2 - Germany regularly lands in the lower midfield of European public administration digitalization rankings. Despite increased efforts at all levels of government, particularly in implementing the so-called Online Access Act (OZG), the digitalization record of the German administration continues to be rather sobering. Against this background, the following article analyses the practice, hurdles and selected effects of digitalization at the local level of government. It draws on data obtained from an empirical study carried out by the authors in 2019. The study investigated the digital transformation in local one-stop shops, a key area of citizen-related service provision which deliver the local public services most frequently requested by citizens. Based on our analysis, we draw some important conclusions regarding the future developments of the digital transformation in German public service provision. Y1 - 2021 U6 - https://doi.org/10.3790/verw.54.1.105 SN - 0042-4498 SN - 1865-5211 VL - 54 IS - 1 SP - 105 EP - 132 PB - Duncker & Humblot CY - Berlin ER - TY - CHAP A1 - Bogumil, Jörg A1 - Kuhlmann, Sabine ED - Tanguy, Gildas ED - Eymeri-Douzans, Jean-Michel T1 - Territorial administration in Germany BT - institutional variants, reforms, and actors at the meso-level of government T2 - Prefects, governors and commissioners : territorial representatives of the state in Europe N2 - This chapter outlines the organization and allocation of functions at the meso-level of government in Germany (states/Länder 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 (Regierungspräsidenten) on the one hand, elected heads of county administrations (Landräte) 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. KW - Germany KW - territorial administration KW - meso-level of government KW - institutional change Y1 - 2020 SN - 978-3-030-59395-7 SN - 978-3-030-59396-4 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-59396-4_15 SP - 327 EP - 352 PB - Palgrave Macmillan CY - Cham ER - TY - BOOK A1 - Bogumil, Jörg A1 - Kuhlmann, Sabine A1 - Heuberger, Moritz A1 - Marienfeldt, Justine T1 - Bürgernahe Verwaltung digital? I-Kfz und digitaler Kombiantrag BT - Elternleistung im Praxistest T3 - FES Diskurs Y1 - 2022 UR - https://library.fes.de/pdf-files/a-p-b/19351.pdf SN - 978-3-98628-187-8 PB - Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung CY - Bonn ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Bouckaert, Geert A1 - Galli, Davide A1 - Kuhlmann, Sabine A1 - Reiter, Renate A1 - van Hecke, Steven T1 - European coronationalism? BT - a hot spot governing a pandemic crisis JF - Public administration review N2 - 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. Y1 - 2020 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13242 SN - 0033-3352 SN - 1540-6210 VL - 80 IS - 5 SP - 765 EP - 773 PB - Wiley-Blackwell CY - Oxford ER - TY - GEN A1 - Bouckaert, Geert A1 - Kuhlmann, Sabine T1 - Foreword T2 - Sub-Municipal Governance in Europe: Decentralization Beyond the Municipal Tier Y1 - 2018 SN - 978-3-319-64725-8 SN - 978-3-319-64724-1 SP - V EP - VI PB - Palgrave CY - Basingstoke ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Ebinger, Falk A1 - Kuhlmann, Sabine A1 - Bogumil, Jörg T1 - Territorial reforms in Europe BT - effects on administrative performance and democratic participation JF - Local government studies N2 - 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 overview 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. KW - Municipal amalgamation effects KW - territorial reform KW - municipal mergers KW - local government performance KW - administrative reforms Y1 - 2018 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1080/03003930.2018.1530660 SN - 0300-3930 SN - 1743-9388 VL - 45 IS - 1 SP - 1 EP - 23 PB - Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group CY - Abingdon ER -