TY - BOOK A1 - Holthusen, Imeke T1 - Die Anwendung des Standardkosten-Modells auf den Bereich Bürger : Agenda Setting in Deutschland und Großbritannien T1 - Applying the Standard Cost Model at the citizen level : agenda setting in Germany and the UK N2 - Seit 2002 wird das Standardkosten-Modell (SKM) als Ansatz zur Messung von Bürokratiekosten in einer Vielzahl von OECD-Ländern, darunter Deutschland und Großbritannien, angewendet. Im Zentrum dieser Arbeit steht die Frage, warum im Regulierungsreform-Nachzüglerland Deutschland die Ausweitung des Ansatzes auf den Bereich Bürger seit Jahren auf der politischen Agenda steht und bereits erste Schritte zur Umsetzung unternommen wurden, während SKM Bürger im Regulierungsreform-Vorreiterland Großbritannien scheinbar nie auf der Agenda stand. In Anlehnung an einen von Kingdon entwickelten Agenda-Setting-Ansatz werden Unterschiede im Bereich der Problemwahrnehmung, in der Bewertung der Policy SKM sowie im politischen Entstehungsprozess untersucht. Hierbei zeigt sich, dass hinsichtlich der Wahrnehmung des Problems der Bürokratiebelastung signifikante Unterschiede zwischen Deutschland und Großbritannien bestehen, die sich vor allem auf die in Deutschland höhere Intensität der Problemwahrnehmung beziehen. Weitere Unterschiede bestehen bezüglich der Bewertung der Policy SKM, die in Deutschland eine höhere Medienaufmerksamkeit erhält und allgemein positiver bewertet wird. Auch der Entstehungsprozess des SKM, der in Deutschland wesentlich stärker politisiert war als in Großbritannien, trägt zur Erklärung der beobachteten Unterschiede im Agenda-Setting bei. N2 - Since 2002 the Standard Cost Model (SCM) has been used for the measurement of administrative burdens in several OECD countries, among them Germany and the UK. The central question explored in this article is why in the regulatory reform “laggard country” Germany the application of the SCM at the citizen level has been on the political agenda for several years, with the first steps already taken towards implementation, while in the regulatory reform “leader country” UK, the use of the SCM for the measurement of citizens’ administrative burdens has apparently never been on the agenda. Using an agenda setting model developed by Kingdon, differences in the areas of problem perception, assessment of the SCM as a policy, and the political introduction process of the policy are investigated. It is shown that regarding the perception of the problem of bureaucracy significant differences between Germany and the UK exist, in particular relating to the higher intensity of problem perception in Germany. Additional differences are identified regarding the assessment of the SCM policy which has received more media coverage in Germany and is also generally more positively received there. Differences identified in the introduction process, which in Germany has been much more politicised than in the UK, constitute additional explanatory factors. T3 - Potsdamer Diskussionspapiere zur Verwaltungswissenschaft - 5 KW - Standardkosten-Modell KW - SKM Bürger KW - Agenda Setting KW - Großbritannien KW - Bürokratie KW - Standard Cost Model KW - citizens KW - agenda setting KW - UK KW - bureaucracy Y1 - 2009 U6 - http://nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-36430 ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Fuertes, Vanesa A1 - Jantz, Bastian A1 - Klenk, Tanja A1 - McQuaid, Ronald T1 - Between cooperation and competition: The organisation of employment service delivery in the UK and Germany JF - International journal of social welfare N2 - The increased emphasis on labour market activation in many European countries has led to new forms of governance in recent decades. Primarily through qualitative data and document analysis, this article compares the restructuring of labour market service delivery in the UK and Germany. The comparison suggests the emergence of complex governance arrangements that seek to balance public regulation and accountability with the creation of room for market competition. As a result, we can observe in both countries a greater use of markets, but also of rules. While in both countries the relationships between different providers of labour market services can best be described as a mixture of cooperation and competition, differences exist in terms of instruments and the comprehensiveness of coordination initiatives. The findings suggest that the distinctions between governance models may be more important in theory than in practice, although the combinations of theoretical forms vary in different circumstances. KW - activation KW - coordination KW - employment services KW - Germany KW - governance KW - UK Y1 - 2014 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1111/ijsw.12100 SN - 1369-6866 SN - 1468-2397 VL - 23 SP - S71 EP - S86 PB - Wiley-Blackwell CY - Hoboken ER - TY - GEN A1 - Sunyer, M. A. A1 - Hundecha, Y. A1 - Lawrence, D. A1 - Madsen, H. A1 - Willems, Patrick A1 - Martinkova, M. A1 - Vormoor, Klaus Josef A1 - Bürger, Gerd A1 - Hanel, Martin A1 - Kriaučiūnienė, J. A1 - Loukas, A. A1 - Osuch, M. A1 - Yücel, I. T1 - Inter-comparison of statistical downscaling methods for projection of extreme precipitation in Europe T2 - Postprints der Universität Potsdam : Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Reihe N2 - Information on extreme precipitation for future climate is needed to assess the changes in the frequency and intensity of flooding. The primary source of information in climate change impact studies is climate model projections. However, due to the coarse resolution and biases of these models, they cannot be directly used in hydrological models. Hence, statistical downscaling is necessary to address climate change impacts at the catchment scale. This study compares eight statistical downscaling methods (SDMs) often used in climate change impact studies. Four methods are based on change factors (CFs), three are bias correction (BC) methods, and one is a perfect prognosis method. The eight methods are used to downscale precipitation output from 15 regional climate models (RCMs) from the ENSEMBLES project for 11 catchments in Europe. The overall results point to an increase in extreme precipitation in most catchments in both winter and summer. For individual catchments, the downscaled time series tend to agree on the direction of the change but differ in the magnitude. Differences between the SDMs vary between the catchments and depend on the season analysed. Similarly, general conclusions cannot be drawn regarding the differences between CFs and BC methods. The performance of the BC methods during the control period also depends on the catchment, but in most cases they represent an improvement compared to RCM outputs. Analysis of the variance in the ensemble of RCMs and SDMs indicates that at least 30% and up to approximately half of the total variance is derived from the SDMs. This study illustrates the large variability in the expected changes in extreme precipitation and highlights the need for considering an ensemble of both SDMs and climate models. Recommendations are provided for the selection of the most suitable SDMs to include in the analysis. T3 - Zweitveröffentlichungen der Universität Potsdam : Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Reihe - 512 KW - climate-change impacts KW - model output KW - assessing uncertainties KW - multimodel ensemble KW - bias correction KW - simulations KW - scenarios KW - variability KW - basin KW - UK Y1 - 2019 U6 - http://nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-408920 SN - 1866-8372 IS - 512 ER -