@book{Ehrke2007,
  author    = {Ehrke, J{\"u}rgen},
  title     = {Zentralisieren durch Dezentralisierung? : Die Reform der Kommunalfinanzen in Georgien},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-18515},
  publisher      = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam},
  year      = {2007},
  abstract  = {Under the influence of orientation towards European integration, Georgia has introduced a variety of new laws with the apparent aim to decentralize legislative and executive powers. This paper shows that the Georgian efforts of decentralization remain superficial, mainly because they are not backed by additional fiscal competences at the municipality level. Following an initial description of the pre-reform situation as of 2006 and based upon a detailed account of the structural changes since 2007, the author gives insight into the conflicts which arise from the lack of institutional congruency. Neither the extraordinary status of the capital Tbilisi nor the seeming autonomy of the Rebublic of Adjara are likely to sway the renegade territories of Abchasia and Ossetia towards a reintegration under Georgian centralized rule as it continues to exist today. Likewise, the success of the proposed and discussed fiscal equalization scheme depends on whether the President and his ruling party are willing to delegate powers to the subodinate jurisdictions.},
  language  = {de}
}
@book{KirnKhokrishvili2008,
  author    = {Kirn, Tanja and Khokrishvili, Elguja},
  title     = {Will an asymmetrical system of fiscal decentralisation resolve the conflicts in the republic of Georgia?},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-18795},
  publisher      = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam},
  year      = {2008},
  abstract  = {This paper discusses the problems regarding the decentralisation of a formerly communist country. In Georgia, the first steps towards decentralisation failed, since the transition process led to a power vacuum that escalated in bloody conflicts and secessionist movements. The status of Abkhazia and South Ossetia is still unclear and the intra-state tensions remain unsolved. This may be one of the reasons why the most recent attempts of decentralisation are rather hesitant. It is far from clear whether decentralisation in response to regional tensions would increase instability or political stability. We identify the limited autonomy at the local and regional levels as a major obstacle and challenge for the further reform process.},
  language  = {de}
}
@article{KuhlmannWayenberg2016,
  author    = {Kuhlmann, Sabine and Wayenberg, Ellen},
  title     = {Institutional impact assessment in multi-level systems: conceptualizing decentralization effects from a comparative perspective},
  series = {International review of administrative sciences : an international journal of comparative public administration},
  volume    = {82},
  journal   = {International review of administrative sciences : an international journal of comparative public administration},
  number    = {2},
  publisher = {Sage},
  address   = {London},
  issn      = {0020-8523},
  doi       = {10.1177/0020852315583194},
  pages     = {233 -- 272},
  year      = {2016},
  abstract  = {Comparative literature on institutional reforms in multi-level systems proceeds from a global trend towards the decentralization of state functions. However, there is only scarce knowledge about the impact that decentralization has had, in particular, upon the sub-central governments involved. How does it affect regional and local governments? Do these reforms also have unintended outcomes on the sub-central level and how can this be explained? This article aims to develop a conceptual framework to assess the impacts of decentralization on the sub-central level from a comparative and policy-oriented perspective. This framework is intended to outline the major patterns and models of decentralization and the theoretical assumptions regarding de-/re-centralization impacts, as well as pertinent cross-country approaches meant to evaluate and compare institutional reforms. It will also serve as an analytical guideline and a structural basis for all the country-related articles in this Special Issue. Points for practitioners Decentralization reforms are approved as having a key role to play in the attainment of 'good governance'. Yet, there is also the enticement on the part of state governments to offload an ever-increasing amount of responsibilities to, and overtask, local levels of government, which can lead to increasing performance disparities within local sub-state jurisdictions. Against this background, the article provides a conceptual framework to assess reform impacts from a comparative perspective. The analytical framework can be used by practitioners to support their decisions about new decentralization strategies or necessary adjustments regarding ongoing reform measures.},
  language  = {en}
}
@phdthesis{Heuberger2022,
  author    = {Heuberger, Moritz},
  title     = {Coordinating digital government},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-56269},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-562691},
  school      = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam},
  pages     = {xiii, 136},
  year      = {2022},
  abstract  = {This thesis is analyzing multiple coordination challenges which arise with the digital transformation of public administration in federal systems, illustrated by four case studies in Germany. I make various observations within a multi-level system and provide an in-depth analysis. Theoretical explanations from both federalism research and neo-institutionalism are utilized to explain the findings of the empirical driven work. The four articles evince a holistic picture of the German case and elucidate its role as a digital government laggard. Their foci range from macro, over meso to micro level of public administration, differentiating between the governance and the tool dimension of digital government. The first article shows how multi-level negotiations lead to expensive but eventually satisfying solutions for the involved actors, creating a subtle balance between centralization and decentralization. The second article identifies legal, technical, and organizational barriers for cross-organizational service provision, highlighting the importance of inter-organizational and inter-disciplinary exchange and both a common language and trust. Institutional change and its effects on the micro level, on citizens and the employees in local one-stop shops, mark the focus of the third article, bridging the gap between reforms and the administrative reality on the local level. The fourth article looks at the citizens' perspective on digital government reforms, their expectations, use and satisfaction. In this vein, this thesis provides a detailed account of the importance of understanding the digital divide and therefore the necessity of reaching out to different recipients of digital government reforms. I draw conclusions from the factors identified as causes for Germany's shortcomings for other federal systems where feasible and derive reform potential therefrom. This allows to gain a new perspective on digital government and its coordination challenges in federal contexts.},
  language  = {en}
}