TY - JOUR A1 - Chan, Sander A1 - Boran, Idil A1 - van Asselt, Harro A1 - Iacobuta, Gabriela A1 - Niles, Navam A1 - Rietig, Katharine A1 - Scobie, Michelle A1 - Bansard, Jennifer S. A1 - Delgado Pugley, Deborah A1 - Delina, Laurence L. A1 - Eichhorn, Friederike A1 - Ellinger, Paula A1 - Enechi, Okechukwu A1 - Hale, Thomas A1 - Hermwille, Lukas A1 - Hickmann, Thomas A1 - Honegger, Matthias A1 - Hurtado Epstein, Andrea A1 - Theuer, Stephanie La Hoz A1 - Mizo, Robert A1 - Sun, Yixian A1 - Toussaint, Patrick A1 - Wambugu, Geoffrey T1 - Promises and risks of nonstate action in climate and sustainability governance JF - Wiley interdisciplinary reviews : Climate change KW - climate change KW - governance KW - nonstate actions KW - SDGs KW - sustainable development Y1 - 2019 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.572 SN - 1757-7780 SN - 1757-7799 VL - 10 IS - 3 PB - Wiley CY - Hoboken ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Daviter, Falk T1 - Coping, taming or solving BT - alternative approaches to the governance of wicked problems JF - Policy studies N2 - One of the truisms of policy analysis is that policy problems are rarely solved. As an ever-increasing number of policy issues are identified as an inherently ill-structured and intractable type of wicked problem, the question of what policy analysis sets out to accomplish has emerged as more central than ever. If solving wicked problems is beyond reach, research on wicked problems needs to provide a clearer understanding of the alternatives. The article identifies and explicates three distinguishable strategies of problem governance: coping, taming and solving. It shows that their intellectual premises and practical implications clearly contrast in core respects. The article argues that none of the identified strategies of problem governance is invariably more suitable for dealing with wicked problems. Rather than advocate for some universally applicable approach to the governance of wicked problems, the article asks under what conditions different ways of governing wicked problems are analytically reasonable and normatively justified. It concludes that a more systematic assessment of alternative approaches of problem governance requires a reorientation of the debate away from the conception of wicked problems as a singular type toward the more focused analysis of different dimensions of problem wickedness. KW - Wicked problems KW - complex problems KW - governance KW - problem-solving KW - policy analysis Y1 - 2017 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1080/01442872.2017.1384543 SN - 0144-2872 SN - 1470-1006 VL - 38 IS - 6 SP - 571 EP - 588 PB - Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group CY - Abingdon ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Eichhorn, Sebastian A1 - Rusche, Karsten A1 - Weith, Thomas T1 - Integrative governance processes towards sustainable spatial development BT - solving conflicts between urban infill development and climate change adaptation JF - Journal of environmental planning and management N2 - Due to the high concentration of people and infrastructures in European cities, the possible impacts of climate change are particularly high (cities' social, economic and technical vulnerabilities). Adaptation measures to reduce the sensitivity of a city to climate risks are therefore of particular importance. Nevertheless, it is also common to develop compact and dense urban areas to reduce urban sprawl. Urban infill development and sustainable spatial climate policies are thus in apparent conflict with each other. This article examines how German cities deal with the tensions between these two policy fields. Using six case studies, a new heuristic analysis method is applied. This study identifies three key governance aspects that are essential for promoting the joint implementation: instruments, organisation and interaction. Based on our case studies, we conclude that successful implementation can only be achieved through integrative governance including all three domains. KW - urban infill development KW - climate change adaptation KW - governance KW - social KW - innovation KW - heuristic analysis Y1 - 2021 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2020.1866509 SN - 0964-0568 SN - 1360-0559 VL - 64 IS - 12 SP - 2233 EP - 2256 PB - Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group CY - Abingdon 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 - JOUR A1 - Heinzel, Mirko Noa A1 - Liese, Andrea T1 - Expert authority and support for COVID-19 measures in Germany and the UK BT - a survey experiment JF - West European politics N2 - During COVID-19, various public institutions tried to shape citizens’ behaviour to slow the spread of the pandemic. How did their authority affect citizens’ support of public measures taken to combat the spread of COVID-19? The article makes two contributions. First, it presents a novel conceptualisation of authority as a source heuristic. Second, it analyses the authority of four types of public institutions (health ministries, universities, public health agencies, the WHO) in two countries (Germany and the UK), drawing on novel data from a survey experiment conducted in May 2020. On average, institutional endorsements seem to have mattered little. However, there is an observable polarisation effect where citizens who ascribe much expertise to public institutions support COVID-19 measures more than the control group. Furthermore, those who ascribe little expertise support them less than the control group. Finally, neither perception of biases nor exposure to institutions in public debates seems consistently to affect their authority. KW - COVID-19 KW - expertise KW - authority KW - survey experiment KW - institutions KW - crises KW - governance Y1 - 2021 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2021.1873630 SN - 0140-2382 SN - 1743-9655 SP - 1258 EP - 1282 PB - Taylor & Francis CY - Abingdon ER - TY - THES A1 - Herold, Jana T1 - International Bureaucracies as Governance Actors BT - an assessment of national stakeholders' perspectives N2 - This study assesses and explains international bureaucracies’ performance and role as policy advisors and as expert authorities from the perspective of domestic stakeholders. International bureaucracies are the secretariats of international organizations that carry out their work including generating knowledge, providing policy advice and implementing policy programs and projects. Scholars increasingly regard them as governance actors that are able to influence global and domestic policy making. In order to explain this influence, research has mainly focused on international bureaucracies’ formal features and/or staff characteristics. The way in which they are actually perceived by their domestic stakeholders, in particular by national bureaucrats, has not been systematically studied. Yet, this is equally important, given that they represent international bureaucracies’ addressees and are actors that (potentially) make use of international bureaucracies’ policy advice, which can be seen as an indicator for international bureaucracies’ influence. Accordingly, I argue that domestic stakeholders’ assessments can likewise contribute to explaining international bureaucracies’ influence. The overarching research questions the study addresses are what are national stakeholders’ perspectives on international bureaucracies and under which conditions do they consider international bureaucracies’ policy advice? In answering these questions, I focus on three specific organizational features that the literature has considered important for international bureaucracies’ independent influence, namely international bureaucracies’ performance and their role as policy advisors and as expert authorities. These three features are studied separately in three independent articles, which are presented in Part II of this article-based dissertation. To answer the research questions, I draw on novel data from a global survey among ministry officials of 121 countries. The survey captures ministry officials’ assessments of international bureaucracies’ features and their behavior with respect to international bureaucracies’ policy advice. The overall sample comprises the bureaucracies of nine global and nine regional international organizations in eight thematic areas in the policy fields of agriculture and finance. The overall finding of this study is that international bureaucracies’ performance and their role as policy advisors and expert authorities as perceived by ministry officials are highly context-specific and relational. These features vary not only across international bureaucracies but much more intra-organizationally across the different thematic areas that an international bureaucracy addresses, i.e. across different thematic contexts. As far as to the relational nature of international bureaucracies’ features, the study generally finds strong variation across the assessments by ministry officials from different countries and across thematic areas. Hence, the findings highlight that it is likewise important to study international bureaucracies via the perspective of their stakeholders and to take account of the different thematic areas and contexts in which international bureaucracies operate. The study contributes to current research on international bureaucracies in various ways. First, it directly surveys one important type of domestic stakeholders, namely national ministry officials, as to how they evaluate certain aspects of international bureaucracies instead of deriving them from their structural features, policy documents or assessments by their staff. Furthermore, the study empirically tests a range of theoretical hypotheses derived from the literature on international bureaucracies’ influence, as well as related literature. Second, the study advances methods of assessing international bureaucracies through a large-N, cross-national expert survey among ministry officials. A survey of this type of stakeholder and of this scope is – to my knowledge – unprecedented. Yet, as argued above, their perspectives are equally important for assessing and explaining international bureaucracies’ influence. Third, the study adapts common theories of international bureaucracies’ policy influence and expert authority to the assessments by ministry officials. In so doing, it tests hypotheses that are rooted in both rationalist and constructivist accounts and combines perspectives on international bureaucracies from both International Relations and Public Administration. Empirically supporting and challenging these hypotheses further complements the theoretical understanding of the determinants of international bureaucracies’ influence among national bureaucracies from both rationalist and constructivist perspectives. Overall, this study advances our understanding of international bureaucracies by systematically taking into account ministry officials’ perspectives in order to determine under which conditions international bureaucracies are perceived to perform well and are able to have an effect as policy advisors and expert authorities among national bureaucracies. Thereby, the study helps to specify to what extent international bureaucracies – as global governance actors – are able to permeate domestic governance via ministry officials and, thus, contribute to the question of why some international bureaucracies play a greater role and are ultimately able to have more influence than others. KW - international bureaucracies KW - international organizations KW - governance KW - expert authority KW - policy advice KW - national ministries KW - internationale Verwaltungen KW - internationale Organisationen KW - Governance KW - Expertenautorität KW - Politikempfehlungen KW - nationale Ministerien Y1 - 2019 ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Kuhlmann, Sabine A1 - Bouckaert, Geert A1 - Galli, Davide A1 - Reiter, Renate A1 - van Hecke, Steven T1 - Opportunity management of the COVID-19 pandemic BT - testing the crisis from a global perspective JF - International review of administrative sciences N2 - This article provides a conceptual framework for the analysis of COVID-19 crisis governance in the first half of 2020 from a cross-country comparative perspective. It focuses on the issue of opportunity management, that is, how the crisis was used by relevant actors of distinctly different administrative cultures as a window of opportunity. We started from an overall interest in the factors that have influenced the national politics of crisis management to answer the question of whether and how political and administrative actors in various countries have used the crisis as an opportunity to facilitate, accelerate or prevent changes in institutional settings. The objective is to study the institutional settings and governance structures, (alleged) solutions and remedies, and constellations of actors and preferences that have influenced the mode of crisis and opportunity management. Finally, the article summarizes some major comparative findings drawn from the country studies of this Special Issue, focusing on similarities and differences in crisis responses and patterns of opportunity management. KW - administrative culture KW - comparison KW - COVID-19 KW - crisis management KW - governance KW - opportunity management KW - pandemic KW - window of opportunity Y1 - 2021 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852321992102 SN - 0020-8523 SN - 1461-7226 VL - 87 IS - 3 SP - 497 EP - 517 PB - Sage CY - Los Angeles, California ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Kuhlmann, Sabine A1 - Hellstrom, Mikael A1 - Ramberg, Ulf A1 - Reiter, Renate T1 - Tracing divergence in crisis governance BT - responses to the COVID-19 pandemic in France, Germany and Sweden compared JF - International review of administrative sciences : an international journal of comparative public administration N2 - 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. KW - administrative culture KW - containment KW - crisis KW - governance KW - multi-level system KW - policy advice KW - public health KW - window of opportunity Y1 - 2021 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852320979359 SN - 0020-8523 SN - 1461-7226 VL - 87 IS - 3 SP - 556 EP - 575 PB - Sage Publ. CY - London ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Kuhlmann, Sabine A1 - Hellström, Mikael A1 - Ramberg, Ulf A1 - Reiter, Renate T1 - Tracing divergence in crisis governance BT - responses to the COVID-19 pandemic in France, Germany and Sweden compared JF - International review of administrative sciences N2 - 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. KW - administrative culture KW - containment KW - crisis KW - governance KW - multi-level system KW - policy advice KW - public health KW - window of opportunity Y1 - 2021 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852320979359 SN - 0020-8523 SN - 1461-7226 VL - 87 IS - 3 SP - 556 EP - 575 PB - Sage CY - Los Angeles, California ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Schmeiss, Jessica A1 - Hölzle, Katharina A1 - Tech, Robin P. G. T1 - Designing Governance Mechanisms in Platform Ecosystems: Addressing the Paradox of Openness through Blockchain Technology JF - California Management Review N2 - The paradox of openness is inherent to all platform ecosystems-the tension in enabling maximum openness to create joint innovation while guaranteeing value capturing for all actors. Governance mechanisms to solve this paradox are embedded into the technical architecture of the platform, addressing the dimensions of access, control, and incentives. Blockchain technology offers unique ways to design novel governance mechanisms through the standardization of interactions. However, the design of such an architecture requires careful consideration of the cost associated with it. KW - ecosystems KW - governance KW - value creation KW - platforms KW - technology management Y1 - 2019 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1177/0008125619883618 SN - 0008-1256 SN - 2162-8564 VL - 62 IS - 1 SP - 121 EP - 143 PB - Sage Publ. CY - Thousand Oaks ER -