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 - BOOK A1 - Kuhlmann, Sabine A1 - Franzke, Jochen A1 - Dumas, Benoît Paul A1 - Heuberger, Moritz T1 - Regierungs- und Verwaltungshandeln in der Coronakrise BT - Fallstudie Deutschland N2 - Die Coronapandemie hat die zentrale Rolle von Staat und Verwaltung für die Krisenbewältigung deutlich gemacht sowie ins Zentrum wissenschaftlicher und öffentlicher Aufmerksamkeit gerückt. Das intergouvernementale Pandemiemanagement, das Zusammenwirken verschiedener Politik- und Verwaltungsebenen im föderalen Staat und die Einbringung wissenschaftlicher Expertise haben sich in der Pandemie als entscheidende institutionelle Stellschrauben erwiesen. Zugleich sind erhebliche Schwachstellen und Engpässe zu Tage getreten, die teilweise zu institutioneller Überforderung, Reibungsverlusten, Koordinationsschwächen oder gar Institutionenversagen geführt haben. Beklagt wurden zudem Maßnahmenpakete und Entscheidungsoutputs, die hinsichtlich ihrer Evidenz- und Wissensbasis teils umstritten waren und in ihrem Zustandekommen hinreichende Legitimation, Zurechenbarkeit, Nachvollziehbarkeit und Transparenz vermissen ließen. Der seit März 2020 andauernde Krisenzustand hat einen neuartigen, vom bisherigen Normalzustand stark abweichenden Modus des Regierens und des Verwaltungsmanagements in Deutschland geschaffen. In diesem Bereich herrscht weiterhin ein erheblicher politik- und verwaltungswissenschaftlicher Forschungsbedarf, zu dessen Befriedigung diese Studie beitragen soll. KW - Coronakrise KW - Deutschland KW - Pandemiemanagement KW - Krisen-Preparedness KW - Politikberatung KW - COVID-19 crisis KW - Germany KW - pandemic management KW - crisis-preparedness KW - policy advice Y1 - 2023 U6 - http://nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-566469 SN - 978-3-86956-553-8 PB - Universitätsverlag Potsdam CY - Potsdam ER - TY - RPRT A1 - Kuhlmann, Sabine A1 - Franzke, Jochen A1 - Dumas, Benoît Paul A1 - Heine, Moreen T1 - Daten als Grundlage für wissenschaftliche Politikberatung N2 - Die vorliegende Studie zeigt, dass Daten in der Krise eine herausragende Bedeutung für die wissenschaftliche Politikberatung, administrative Entscheidungsvorbereitung und politische Entscheidungsfindung haben. In der Krise gab es jedoch gravierende Kommunikationsprobleme und Unsicherheiten in der wechselseitigen Erwartungshaltung von wissenschaftlichen Datengebern und politisch-administrativen Datennutzern. Die Wissensakkumulation und Entscheidungsabwägung wurde außerdem durch eine unsichere und volatile Datenlage zum Pandemiegeschehen, verbunden mit einer dynamischen Lageentwicklung, erschwert. Nach wie vor sind das Bewusstsein und wechselseitige Verständnis für die spezifischen Rollenprofile der am wissenschaftlichen Politikberatungsprozess beteiligten Akteure sowie insbesondere deren Abgrenzung als unzureichend einzuschätzen. Die Studie hat darüber hinaus vielfältige Defizite hinsichtlich der Verfügbarkeit, Qualität, Zugänglichkeit, Teilbarkeit und Nutzbarkeit von Daten identifiziert, die Datenproduzenten und -verwender vor erhebliche Herausforderungen stellen und einen umfangreichen Reformbedarf aufzeigen, da zum einen wichtige Datenbestände für eine krisenbezogene Politikberatung fehlen. Zum anderen sind die Tiefenschärfe und Differenziertheit des verfügbaren Datenbestandes teilweise unzureichend. Dies gilt z.B. für sozialstrukturelle Daten zur Schwere der Pandemiebetroffenheit verschiedener Gruppen oder für kleinräumige Daten über Belastungs- und Kapazitätsparameter, etwa zur Personalabdeckung auf Intensivstationen, in Gesundheitsämtern und Pflegeeinrichtungen. Datendefizite sind ferner im Hinblick auf eine ganzheitliche Pandemiebeurteilung festzustellen, zum Beispiel bezüglich der Gesundheitseffekte im weiteren Sinne, die aufgrund der ergriffenen Maßnahmen entstanden sind (Verschiebung oder Wegfall von Operationen, Behandlungen und Prävention, aber auch häusliche Gewalt und psychische Belastungen). Mangels systematischer Begleitstudien und evaluativer Untersuchungen, u.a. auch zu lokalen Pilotprojekten und Experimenten, bestehen außerdem Datendefizite im Hinblick auf die Wirkungen von Eindämmungsmaßnahmen oder deren Aufhebung auf der gebietskörperschaftlichen Ebene. Insgesamt belegt die Studie, dass es zur Optimierung der datenbasierten Politikberatung und politischen Entscheidungsfindung in und außerhalb von Krisen nicht nur darum gehen kann, ein „Mehr“ an Daten zu produzieren sowie deren Qualität, Verknüpfung und Teilung zu verbessern. Vielmehr müssen auch die Anreizstrukturen und Interessenlagen in Politik, Verwaltung und Wissenschaft sowie die Kompetenzen, Handlungsorientierungen und kognitiv-kulturellen Prägungen der verschiedenen Akteure in den Blick genommen werden. Es müssten also Anreize gesetzt und Strukturen geschaffen werden, um das Interesse, den Willen und das Können (will and skill) zur Datennutzung auf Seiten politisch-administrativer Entscheider und zur Dateneinspeisung auf Seiten von Wissenschaftlern zu stärken. Neben adressatengerechter Informationsaufbereitung geht es dabei auch um die Gestaltung eines normativen und institutionellen Rahmens, innerhalb dessen die Nutzung von Daten für Entscheidungen effektiver, qualifizierter, aber auch transparenter, nachvollziehbarer und damit demokratisch legitimer erfolgen kann. Vor dem Hintergrund dieser empirischen Befunde werden acht Cluster von Optimierungsmaßnahmen vorgeschlagen: (1) Etablierung von Datenstrecken und Datenteams, (2) Schaffung regionaler Datenkompetenzzentren, (3) Stärkung von Data Literacy und Beschleunigung des Kulturwandels in der öffentlichen Verwaltung, (4) Datenstandardisierung, Interoperabilität und Registermodernisierung, (5) Ausbau von Public Data Pools und Open Data Nutzung, (6) Effektivere Verbindung von Datenschutz und Datennutzung, (7) Entwicklung eines hochfrequenten, repräsentativen Datensatzes, (8) Förderung der europäischen Daten-Zusammenarbeit. N2 - This study shows that data is of outstanding importance for scientific policy advice, administrative decision preparation and political decision-making in the crisis. During the crisis, however, there were serious communication problems and uncertainties in the mutual expectations of scientific data providers and political-administrative data users. Knowledge accumulation and decision-making were also hampered by uncertain and volatile data on the pandemic, combined with a dynamic development of the situation. Awareness and mutual understanding of the specific role profiles of the actors involved in the scientific policy advisory process, as well as their demarcation in particular, are still to be assessed as insufficient. The study has also identified a variety of deficits with regard to the availability, quality, accessibility, shareability and usability of data, which represent considerable challenges to data producers and users and reveal a need for extensive reform, since, on the one hand, important data sets for crisis-related policy advice are lacking. On the other hand, the depth of focus and differentiation of the available data stocks are partly insufficient. This applies, for example, to socio-structural data on the severity of the pandemic impact of different groups or to small-scale data on burden and capacity parameters, such as staffing levels in intensive care units, health offices and care facilities. There are also data deficits with regard to a holistic pandemic assessment, for example with regard to the health effects in a broader sense that have arisen as a result of the measures taken (postponement or discontinuation of operations, treatments and prevention, but also domestic violence and psychological stress). In the absence of systematic accompanying studies and evaluative research, there are also data deficits with regard to the effects of containment measures or their removal at the territorial level. Overall, the study shows that optimising data-based policy advice and political decision-making in times of crisis as well as between crises is not just a matter of producing "more" data and improving its quality, linkage and sharing. Rather, the incentive structures and interests in politics, administration and science as well as the competences, action orientations and cognitive-cultural imprints of the various actors must also be taken into account. Incentives must be set and structures have to be created in order to strengthen the interest, the will and the skill to use data. This does not only apply for political and administrative decision-makers, but also for academics who are needed to feed data into the system. In addition to preparing information in a way that is appropriate for the target group, this also involves designing a normative and institutional framework within which the use of data for decision-making can be more effective, more qualified, but also more transparent, more comprehensible and thus more democratically legitimate. Against the background of these empirical findings, eight clusters of optimisation measures are proposed: (1) Establishment of data routes and data teams, (2) Creation of regional data competence centres, (3) Strengthening data literacy and accelerating cultural transformation in public administration, (4) Data standardisation, interoperability and register modernisation, (5) Expanding public data pools and open data use, (6) Linking data protection and data use more effectively, (7) Development of a high-frequency, representative data set, (8) Promoting European data cooperation. KW - Politikberatung KW - Daten KW - Wissenschaft KW - COVID-19 KW - Krise KW - Pandemie KW - Digitalisierung KW - policy advice KW - data KW - science KW - COVID-19 KW - crisis KW - pandemic KW - digitalization Y1 - 2021 U6 - http://nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-519683 PB - Universitätsverlag Potsdam CY - Potsdam 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 -