@article{BergstroemKuhlmannLaffinetal.2022,
  author    = {Bergstr{\"o}m, Tomas and Kuhlmann, Sabine and Laffin, Martin and Wayenberg, Ellen},
  title     = {Special issue on comparative intergovernmental relations and the pandemic},
  series = {Local government studies},
  volume    = {48},
  journal   = {Local government studies},
  number    = {2},
  publisher = {Taylor \& Francis},
  address   = {London},
  issn      = {0300-3930},
  doi       = {10.1080/03003930.2022.2039636},
  pages     = {179 -- 190},
  year      = {2022},
  abstract  = {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.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{HickmannWiderbergLedereretal.2021,
  author    = {Hickmann, Thomas and Widerberg, Oscar and Lederer, Markus and Pattberg, Philipp H.},
  title     = {The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Secretariat as an orchestrator in global climate policymaking},
  series = {International review of administrative sciences : an international journal of comparative public administration},
  volume    = {87},
  journal   = {International review of administrative sciences : an international journal of comparative public administration},
  number    = {1},
  publisher = {Sage},
  address   = {Los Angeles, Calif. [u.a.]},
  issn      = {0020-8523},
  doi       = {10.1177/0020852319840425},
  pages     = {21 -- 38},
  year      = {2021},
  abstract  = {Scholars have recently devoted increasing attention to the role and function of international bureaucracies in global policymaking. Some of them contend that international public officials have gained significant political influence in various policy fields. Compared to other international bureaucracies, the political leeway of the Secretariat of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change has been considered rather limited. Due to the specific problem structure of the policy domain of climate change, national governments endowed this intergovernmental treaty secretariat with a relatively narrow mandate. However, this article argues that in the past few years, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Secretariat has gradually loosened its straitjacket and expanded its original spectrum of activity by engaging different sub-national and non-state actors into a policy dialogue using facilitative orchestration as a mode of governance. The present article explores the recent evolution of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Secretariat and investigates the way in which it initiates, guides, broadens and strengthens sub-national and non-state climate actions to achieve progress in the international climate negotiations. <br /> Points for practitioners <br /> The Secretariat of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change has lately adopted new roles and functions in global climate policymaking. While previously seen as a rather technocratic body that, first and foremost, serves national governments, the Climate Secretariat increasingly interacts with sub-national governments, civil society organizations and private companies to push the global response to climate change forward. We contend that the Climate Secretariat can contribute to global climate policymaking by coordinating and steering the initiatives of non-nation-state actors towards coherence and good practice.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{KuhlmannFranzke2022,
  author    = {Kuhlmann, Sabine and Franzke, Jochen},
  title     = {Multi-level responses to COVID-19},
  series = {Local government studies},
  volume    = {48},
  journal   = {Local government studies},
  number    = {2},
  publisher = {Taylor \& Francis},
  address   = {London},
  issn      = {0300-3930},
  doi       = {10.1080/03003930.2021.1904398},
  pages     = {312 -- 334},
  year      = {2022},
  abstract  = {This article is aimed at analysing local and intergovernmental responses to the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany during the 'first wave' of the pandemic. It will answer the question of how the intergovernmental system in Germany responded to the crisis and to what extent the pandemic has changed patterns of multi-level governance (MLG). The article argues that the coordination of pandemic management in Germany shifted between two ideal types of multi-level governance. While in the first phase of the pandemic the territorially defined multi-level system with the sub-national and local authorities as key actors of crisis management was predominant, in the second phase a more functional orientation with increased vertical coordination gained in importance. Later on, more reliance was given again on local decision-making. Based on this analysis, we will draw some preliminary conclusions on how effective MLG in Germany has been for coordinating pandemic management and point out the shortcomings.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{KuhlmannFranzkePetersetal.2024,
  author    = {Kuhlmann, Sabine and Franzke, Jochen and Peters, Niklas and Dumas, Beno{\^i}t Paul},
  title     = {Institutional designs and dynamics of crisis governance at the local level},
  series = {Policy design and practice},
  journal   = {Policy design and practice},
  publisher = {Taylor \& Francis},
  address   = {London},
  issn      = {2574-1292},
  doi       = {10.1080/25741292.2024.2344784},
  pages     = {1 -- 21},
  year      = {2024},
  abstract  = {This article analyses the institutional design variants of local crisis governance responses to the COVID-19 pandemic and their entanglement with other locally impactful crises from a cross-country comparative perspective (France, Germany, Poland, Sweden, and the UK/England). The pandemic offers an excellent empirical lens for scrutinizing the phenomenon of polycrises governance because it occurred while European countries were struggling with the impacts of several prior, ongoing, or newly arrived crises. Our major focus is on institutional design variants of crisis governance (dependent variable) and the influence of different administrative cultures on it (independent variable). Furthermore, we analyze the entanglement and interaction of institutional responses to other (previous or parallel) crises (polycrisis dynamics). Our findings reveal a huge variance of institutional designs, largely evoked by country-specific administrative cultures and profiles. The degree of de-/centralization and the intensity of coordination or decoupling across levels of government differs significantly by country. Simultaneously, all countries were affected by interrelated and entangled crises, resulting in various patterns of polycrisis dynamics. While policy failures and "fatal remedies" from previous crises have partially impaired the resilience and crisis preparedness of local governments, we have also found some learning effects from previous crises.},
  language  = {en}
}
@techreport{Lkhagvadorj2007,
  type      = {Working Paper},
  author    = {Lkhagvadorj, Ariunaa},
  title     = {Status quo on fiscal decentralisation in Mongolia},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-16159},
  year      = {2007},
  abstract  = {This paper gives a review on the theoretical foundation for fiscal decentralisation and a status quo analysis of the intergovernmental relations in Mongolia. It consists of two parts. Part I briefly reviews the theories of fiscal decentralisation and its impact on the nations' welfare considering the major challenges for a transition economy. Part II of the paper describes the general structure and scope of the government and examines the current fiscal autonomy in Mongolia focusing on the four main areas of intergovernmental relations. This paper concludes that local governments in Mongolia are still far away from having the political, administrative and fiscal autonomy. New approaches for the assignments of expenditures and revenues in Mongolia are urgently needed.},
  language  = {en}
}
@incollection{VellaniOehlertWalkenhorst2024,
  author    = {Vellani, Tom{\´a}s and Oehlert, Franziska and Walkenhorst, Janina},
  title     = {Intergovernmental relations in urban climate policy},
  series = {New perspectives on intergovernmental relations},
  booktitle = {New perspectives on intergovernmental relations},
  editor    = {Kuhlmann, Sabine and Laffin, Martin and Wayenberg, Ellen and Bergstr{\"o}m, Tomas},
  publisher = {Palgrave Macmillan},
  address   = {Cham},
  isbn      = {978-3-031-61789-8},
  doi       = {10.1007/978-3-031-61790-4_8},
  pages     = {143 -- 162},
  year      = {2024},
  abstract  = {Urban climate strategies have become central tools for steering climate policy in cities. Local policymakers must coordinate a wide range of actors, among them sub-municipal administrative units and neighbouring administrations, in order to ensure legitimate, socially accepted and effective policy. The study examines, from a comparative perspective, how intergovernmental relations (IGR) play out in the formulation and implementation of climate strategies in the metropolitan areas of Berlin and Paris. Embedded in different institutional contexts, both cities followed a trajectory initiated by relatively centralized strategy formulation with an ongoing shift towards more decentralized and coordinated intergovernmental approaches with their respective district administrations. In terms of horizontal IGR, Berlin took a decoupled approach with limited coordination with the state of Brandenburg, whereas Paris was much more closely integrated with its surrounding areas through the inter-municipal metropolis of Greater Paris. Institutional capacity, multilevel coordination and participation demands are identified as three challenges for the existing IGR structures. Addressing these challenges places significant strains on local administrative capacity. The findings highlight the limitations of centralized approaches to IGR at the local level and the importance of aligning the distribution of functional responsibilities with the rights of consultation and participation in climate policy formulation processes.},
  language  = {en}
}
@incollection{Wehmeier2024,
  author    = {Wehmeier, Liz Marla},
  title     = {Intergovernmental relations in digitalization policy},
  series = {New perspectives on intergovernmental relations},
  booktitle = {New perspectives on intergovernmental relations},
  editor    = {Kuhlmann, Sabine and Laffin, Martin and Wayenberg, Ellen and Bergstr{\"o}m, Tomas},
  publisher = {Palgrave Macmillan},
  address   = {Cham},
  isbn      = {978-3-031-61789-8},
  doi       = {10.1007/978-3-031-61790-4_9},
  pages     = {163 -- 185},
  year      = {2024},
  abstract  = {Despite the high hopes associated with public sector digitalization, especially in times of crisis, it does not yet hold up to its potential. Both the negotiation and implementation of digitalization policy presents a challenge for all levels of government, requiring extensive coordination efforts. In general, there are conflicting views if more centralized or decentralized policy processes are more effective for coordination—a tension further exacerbated in the context of digitalization policy within multilevel systems, where the imperative of standardization collides with decentralization forces inherent in federalism. Based on the analysis of expert interviews (n = 29), this chapter examines how digitalization policy in the context of the German federal intergovernmental relations context is located and negotiated, and how this relates to local policy implementation. Focusing on the decentralized German tax administration as a case study, the analysis reveals a shift from a conflicted to a multi-layered policy process, underpinned by a mechanism of "concentration without centralization." Strategic and operational competencies are bundled in an institutionalized and legally regulated network for digitalization to achieve necessary standardization of digital infrastructure. Furthermore, the research emphasizes the influence of intergovernmental relations on local implementation and the associated challenges and opportunities.},
  language  = {en}
}
@book{OPUS4-65096,
  title     = {New perspectives on intergovernmental relations},
  series = {Palgrave studies in sub-national governance},
  journal   = {Palgrave studies in sub-national governance},
  editor    = {Kuhlmann, Sabine and Laffin, Martin and Wayenberg, Ellen and Bergstr{\"o}m, Tomas},
  publisher = {Palgrave Macmillan},
  address   = {Cham},
  isbn      = {978-3-031-61789-8},
  doi       = {10.1007/978-3-031-61790-4},
  pages     = {xvii, 216},
  year      = {2024},
  abstract  = {This open access book assesses the consequences of contemporary economic and political crises for intergovernmental relations in Europe. Focusing on the crises arising from the Covid-19 pandemic, climate change, surges in migration, and the resurgence of regional nationalist movements, it explores the shifting power balances within intergovernmental relations' systems. The book takes a comparative analytical perspective on how intergovernmental relations are changing across Europe, and how central governments have responded to coordination challenges as recent crises have disrupted established service delivery chains and their underpinning political and bureaucratic arrangements. It also examines the relationship between recent crises and the sub-national resurgence of territorial politics in many European countries. The book will appeal to those with interests in public administration, sub-national governance and European politics.},
  language  = {en}
}