@article{FleischerReiners2021, author = {Fleischer, Julia and Reiners, Nina}, title = {Connecting international relations and public administration}, series = {International studies review}, volume = {23}, journal = {International studies review}, number = {4}, publisher = {Oxford Univ. Press}, address = {Oxford}, issn = {1521-9488}, doi = {10.1093/isr/viaa097}, pages = {1230 -- 1247}, year = {2021}, abstract = {The recent debate on administrative bodies in international organizations has brought forward multiple theoretical perspectives, analytical frameworks, and methodological approaches. Despite these efforts to advance knowledge on these actors, the research program on international public administrations (IPAs) has missed out on two important opportunities: reflection on scholarship in international relations (IR) and public administration and synergies between these disciplinary perspectives. Against this backdrop, the essay is a discussion of the literature on IPAs in IR and public administration. We found influence, authority, and autonomy of international bureaucracies have been widely addressed and helped to better understand the agency of such non-state actors in global policy-making. Less attention has been given to the crucial macro-level context of politics for administrative bodies, despite the importance in IR and public administration scholarship. We propose a focus on agency and politics as future avenues for a comprehensive, joint research agenda for international bureaucracies.}, language = {en} } @phdthesis{Fleischer2012, author = {Fleischer, Julia}, title = {Policy advice and institutional politics : a comparative analysis of Germany and Britain}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-61873}, school = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam}, year = {2012}, abstract = {Die Studie schließt an die Debatte in der vergleichenden politikwissenschaftlichen Verwaltungsforschung an, die sich mit der Rolle interner Beratungsakteure in Regierungsorganisationen besch{\"a}ftigt. Ziel dieser Studie ist es, die Mechanismen zu erkl{\"a}ren, durch die interne Beratungsakteure die ihnen zugeschriebene Bedeutung im exekutiven Entscheidungsprozess erlangen. Dabei werden jene Organisationseinheiten untersucht, die proaktiv an exekutiven Entscheidungsprozessen mitwirken und mit ihrer Beratung politischer Akteure in Konkurrenz zur Ministerialverwaltung stehen k{\"o}nnen. Die Einflussmechanismen dieser Akteure in der exekutiven Entscheidungsfindung werden als Formen einer "Institutionenpolitik" aufgefasst, bei der Akteure die institutionellen Bedingungen von Politikformulierungsprozessen bzw. die "Spielregeln exekutiver Entscheidungsfindung" ver{\"a}ndern, um ihre eigene Position bzw. die ihres "Klienten" zu st{\"a}rken. Das theoretische Argument dieser Arbeit folgt der neo-institutionalistischen Wende in der Organisationstheorie und definiert Institutionenpolitik als graduelle Institutionalisierungsprozesse zwischen Institutionen und organisationalen Akteuren, wobei einem weiten Institutionenbegriff folgend die Objekte solcher Ver{\"a}nderungsprozesse durch regulative, normative und kognitive S{\"a}ulen gekennzeichnet sind. In Anwendung des "power-distributional approach" lassen sich graduelle Institutionalisierungsprozesse durch institutionenbezogene Charakteristika erkl{\"a}ren, d.h. die Beschaffenheit der Objekte von Institutionenpolitik, insbesondere die Interpretationsfreiheit ihrer Anwendung, sowie die Restriktionen des institutionellen Kontexts. Zudem l{\"a}sst sich Institutionenpolitik durch akteursbezogene Charakteristika erkl{\"a}ren, d.h. den Ambitionen der Akteure sich als "potentielle institutionelle Agenten" zu engagieren. Diese beiden Erkl{\"a}rungsdimensionen dr{\"u}cken sich in vier idealtypischen Mechanismen von Institutionenpolitik aus: Sedimentation, Ersetzung, Drift, und Konversion, die mit vier Agententypen korrespondieren. Die Studie untersucht die institutionenpolitischen Ambitionen der Akteure explorativ, die Relevanz des institutionellen Kontexts wird mithilfe von Erwartungshypothesen zu den Effekten von vier Merkmalen analysiert, die in der bestehenden Debatte als relevant gelten: (1) die Parteienzusammensetzung der Regierung, (2) die Strukturprinzipien von Kabinettsentscheidungen, (3) die Verwaltungstradition sowie (4) die formale Politisierung der Ministerialverwaltung. Die Studie folgt einem "most similar systems design" und f{\"u}hrt qualitative Fallstudien zur Rolle interner Beratungseinheiten im Zentrum deutscher und britischer Regierungsorganisationen, d.h. der Regierungszentrale und dem Finanzministerium, {\"u}ber einen l{\"a}ngeren Zeitraum durch (1969/1970-2005). Es werden jeweils drei Zeitperioden pro Untersuchungsland betrachtet, die britischen Fallstudien analysieren die Beratungsakteure im Cabinet Office, Prime Minister's Office und dem Finanzministerium unter den Premierministern Heath (1970-74), Thatcher (1979-87) und Blair (1997-2005). Die deutschen Fallstudien untersuchen die Beratungsakteure im Bundeskanzleramt und dem Bundesfinanzministerium unter den Bundeskanzlern Brandt (1969-74), Kohl (1982-1987) und Schr{\"o}der (1998-2005). F{\"u}r die empirische Untersuchung wurden die Ergebnisse einer Dokumentenanalyse mit den Erkenntnissen aus 75 semi-strukturierten Experteninterviews trianguliert. Die vergleichende Analyse zeigt unterschiedliche Muster von Institutionenpolitik. Die deutschen Beratungsakteure agieren anf{\"a}nglich in Ersetzung, sp{\"a}ter vornehmlich in Sedimentation sowie Drift, d.h. ihre institutionenpolitischen Aktivit{\"a}ten widmen sich nach anf{\"a}nglicher Ersetzung bestehender institutioneller Grundlagen zunehmend der Addition neuer Elemente sowie der deliberativen Nicht-Entscheidung zur Anpassung existierender institutioneller Grundlagen an Umweltver{\"a}nderungen. Die britischen Beratungsakteure sind zumeist in Ersetzung sowie Konversion engagiert, trotz gelegentlicher Sedimentation, d.h. einer direkten Ersetzung bestehender institutioneller Grundlagen durch neue Spielregeln exekutiver Entscheidungsfindung sowie einer bewussten Umwandlung und Neuausrichtung existierender institutionellen Grundlagen, gelegentlich auch eine Addition neuer Elemente zu bestehenden Regeln. Die institutionen- und akteursspezifischen Charakteristika sind f{\"u}r diese Muster von Institutionenpolitik erkl{\"a}rungsrelevant. Erstens weist die Studie nach, dass der institutionelle Kontext die institutionenpolitischen Aktivit{\"a}ten in Deutschland beschr{\"a}nkt und in Großbritannien beg{\"u}nstigt. Zweitens ist die Interpretationsfreiheit der Anwendung institutionenpolitischer Objekte bedeutsam, wie sich anhand der institutionenpolitischen Ambitionen der Akteure im Zeitverlauf und im L{\"a}ndervergleich zeigt und somit drittens best{\"a}tigt, dass diese Interessen der Akteure an Institutionenwandel die Mechanismen von Institutionenpolitik beeinflussen. Die Arbeit schließt mit der Erkenntnis, dass die Rolle interner Beratungseinheiten in der exekutiven Politikformulierung nicht nur aus ihren inhaltlichen, parteistrategischen oder medial-beratenden Funktionen f{\"u}r politische Akteure in Regierungs{\"a}mtern folgt, sondern insbesondere aus ihren institutionenpolitischen Aktivit{\"a}ten, deren Resultate die institutionellen Restriktionen aller Akteure in exekutiven Entscheidungsprozessen beeinflussen - und somit auch ihre eigene Rolle in diesen Prozessen.}, language = {en} } @book{JannDoehlerFleischeretal.2005, author = {Jann, Werner and D{\"o}hler, Marian and Fleischer, Julia and Hustedt, Thurid and Tiessen, Jan}, title = {Regierungsorganisation als Institutionenpolitik: ein westeurop{\"a}ischer Vergleich : Antrag auf F{\"o}rderung eines Forschungsprojektes im Normalverfahren der DFG}, publisher = {Universit{\"a}tsverlag Potsdam}, address = {Potsdam}, isbn = {978-3-937786-30-8}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-8283}, publisher = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam}, pages = {46}, year = {2005}, abstract = {Gegenstand ist die Regierungsorganisation in f{\"u}nf westeurop{\"a}ischen L{\"a}ndern, die seit den fr{\"u}hen 1990er Jahren durch Europ{\"a}isierung, Globalisierung und die Krise des Wohlfahrtsstaates unter erh{\"o}htem Anpassungsdruck stehen. W{\"a}hrend sich das politikwissenschaftliche Interesse meist auf den allgemeinen Wandel der "Staatlichkeit" oder die konkreten Ver{\"a}nderungen von Politikinhalten konzentriert, wird hier in vergleichender Perspektive nach dem Wandel von politischen Strukturen und Prozessen der Regierungsorganisation, insbesondere der Ministerialverwaltung, gefragt. Ausgangshypothese ist, dass die westeurop{\"a}ischen Regierungssysteme auf die externen Herausforderungen mit {\"A}nderungen ihrer "Produktionsstruktur" von Gesetzen und Programmen reagiert haben. Daraus ergeben sich folgende Kernfragen: Welche Ver{\"a}nderungen der Regierungsorganisationen sind zu identifizieren? Handelt es sich dabei um Ergebnisse einer reflexiven Institutionenpolitik? {\"A}ndert sich die strategische Handlungsf{\"a}higkeit der Regierungsorganisation? Ersten empirischen Beobachtungen folgend l{\"a}sst sich ein Wandel auf drei Dimensionen vermuten: dem wachsenden horizontalen regierungsinternen Koordinationsbedarf, der vertikalen Reorganisation und Funktionsver{\"a}nderung zentralstaatlicher Exekutiven sowie Ver{\"a}nderungen der Beziehungen mit externen Akteuren bspw. organisierten Interessen, Politikberatern und Konsensbildungskommissionen. Neben der Bundesrepublik, Großbritannien und Frankreich sollen die beiden skandinavischen L{\"a}nder D{\"a}nemark und Schweden in die Untersuchung einbezogen werden.}, language = {de} } @article{FleischerSeyfried2015, author = {Fleischer, Julia and Seyfried, Markus}, title = {Drawing from the bargaining pool: Determinants of ministerial selection in Germany}, series = {Party politics : an international journal for the study of political parties and political organizations}, volume = {21}, journal = {Party politics : an international journal for the study of political parties and political organizations}, number = {4}, publisher = {Sage Publ.}, address = {London}, issn = {1354-0688}, doi = {10.1177/1354068813487108}, pages = {503 -- 514}, year = {2015}, abstract = {This article expands our current knowledge about ministerial selection in coalition governments and analyses why ministerial candidates succeed in acquiring a cabinet position after general elections. It argues that political parties bargain over potential office-holders during government-formation processes, selecting future cabinet ministers from an emerging bargaining pool'. The article draws upon a new dataset comprising all ministrable candidates discussed by political parties during eight government-formation processes in Germany between 1983 and 2009. The conditional logit regression analysis reveals that temporal dynamics, such as the day she enters the pool, have a significant effect on her success in achieving a cabinet position. Other determinants of ministerial selection discussed in the existing literature, such as party and parliamentary expertise, are less relevant for achieving ministerial office. The article concludes that scholarship on ministerial selection requires a stronger emphasis for its endogenous nature in government-formation as well as the relevance of temporal dynamics in such processes.}, language = {en} } @article{RadtkeFleischer2018, author = {Radtke, Ina and Fleischer, Julia}, title = {The Refugee Crisis in Germany}, series = {Societal Security and Crisis Management}, journal = {Societal Security and Crisis Management}, publisher = {Palgrave Macmillan}, address = {Cham}, isbn = {978-3-319-92303-1}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-319-92303-1_14}, pages = {265 -- 283}, year = {2018}, abstract = {This chapter analyses the creation of novel cross-sectoral and multi-level coordination arrangements inside the German federal bureaucracy during the recent refugee crisis. We argue that the refugee crisis can be considered as an administrative crisis that challenged organisational legitimacy. Various novel coordination actors and arenas were set up in order to enhance governance capacity. Yet, all of them have been selected from a well-known pool of administrative arrangements. As a consequence, those novel coordination arrangements did not replace but rather complement pre-existing patterns of executive coordination. Hence, the recent refugee crisis exemplifies how bureaucracies effectively adapt to changes in their surroundings via limited and temporary adjustments that coexist with existing organisational arrangements. Thus, the observed changes in coordination structures contribute to repairing organisational legitimacy by increasing governance capacity.}, language = {en} } @article{Fleischer2021, author = {Fleischer, Julia}, title = {Federal Administration}, series = {Public Administration in Germany}, journal = {Public Administration in Germany}, publisher = {Palgrave Macmillan}, address = {Cham}, isbn = {978-3-030-53696-1}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-030-53697-8_5}, pages = {61 -- 79}, year = {2021}, abstract = {The federal administration is significantly small (around 10 percent of all public employees). This speciality of the German administrative system is based on the division of responsibilities: the central (federal) level drafts and adopts most of the laws and public programmes, and the state level (together with the municipal level) implements them. The administration of the federal level comprises the ministries, subordinated agencies for special and selected operational tasks (e.g. the authorisation of drugs, information security and registration of refugees) in distinct administrative sectors (e.g. foreign service, armed forces and federal police). The capacity for preparing and monitoring government bills and statutory instruments is well developed. Moreover, the instruments and tools of coordination are exemplary compared with other countries, although the recent digital turn has been adopted less advanced than elsewhere.}, language = {en} } @book{FleischerBertelsSchulzeGabrechten2018, author = {Fleischer, Julia and Bertels, Jana and Schulze-Gabrechten, Lena}, title = {Stabilit{\"a}t und Flexibilit{\"a}t}, publisher = {Nomos}, address = {Baden-Baden}, isbn = {978-3-8487-5258-4}, pages = {83}, year = {2018}, abstract = {Wie und warum {\"a}ndern sich die formalen Strukturen von Ministerien? Dieser Band pr{\"a}sentiert die Ergebnisse der ersten umfassenden formalen Organisationsstrukturanalyse der Bundesverwaltung zwischen 1980 und 2015. Neben einer Beschreibung der internen Dynamiken im Zeitverlauf, u.a. zur Anzahl und Verbreitung von Organisationseinheiten, zur Ver{\"a}nderungsintensit{\"a}t und zu den Arten der Ver{\"a}nderungsereignisse, werden zentrale politik- und verwaltungswissenschaftliche Erkl{\"a}rungsperspektiven er{\"o}rtert. Die empirische Analyse zeigt, dass sich die Bundesministerien in den letzten Jahrzehnten ausdifferenziert haben und dabei (partei-)politische aber auch politikfeldspezifische Motive relevant sind. Daneben wird in zahlreichen Beispielen illustriert, welche externen und internen Faktoren die strukturelle Entwicklung der Bundesverwaltung beeinflussen.}, language = {de} } @book{JannBachFleischeretal.2008, author = {Jann, Werner and Bach, Tobias and Fleischer, Julia and Jantz, Bastian and Hustedt, Thurid}, title = {Opportunity and feasibility of establishing common support services for EU agencies}, publisher = {Europ{\"a}isches Parlament}, address = {Br{\"u}ssel}, pages = {21 S.}, year = {2008}, language = {en} } @article{JannFleischer2011, author = {Jann, Werner and Fleischer, Julia}, title = {Shefting discourses, steady learning and sedimentation : the German reform trajectory in the long run}, isbn = {978-0-415-55721-4}, year = {2011}, language = {en} } @article{Fleischer2009, author = {Fleischer, Julia}, title = {Power resources of parliamentary executives : policy advice in the UK and Germany}, issn = {0140-2382}, doi = {10.1080/01402380802509941}, year = {2009}, language = {en} } @book{JannBachFleischeretal.2008, author = {Jann, Werner and Bach, Tobias and Fleischer, Julia and Hustedt, Thurid}, title = {Best practice in governance of agencies : a comparative study in view of identifying best practice for governing agencies carrying out activities on behalf of the European Union}, publisher = {Europ{\"a}isches Parlament}, address = {Br{\"u}ssel}, pages = {210 S., XLIX : graph. Darst.}, year = {2008}, language = {en} } @article{FleischerCarstens2021, author = {Fleischer, Julia and Carstens, Nora}, title = {Policy labs as arenas for boundary spanning}, series = {Public Management Review}, volume = {24}, journal = {Public Management Review}, number = {8}, publisher = {Routledge}, address = {London}, issn = {1470-1065}, doi = {10.1080/14719037.2021.1893803}, pages = {1208 -- 1225}, year = {2021}, abstract = {The recently adopted German Online Access Act triggered the creation of digitalization labs for designing digital services, bringing together federal, state, and local authorities; end-users; and private-sector actors. These labs provide opportunities for boundary spanning due to organizational field and lab features. Our comparative case studies on three digitalization labs show variations in boundary spanning and reveal lab members de-coupling from their parent organizations to a varying extent. We have concluded labs offer boundary spanning that supports safeguarding the legitimacy of innovative policy designs but also raise concerns over public accountability.}, language = {en} } @article{DanielsenFleischer2022, author = {Danielsen, Ole Andreas and Fleischer, Julia}, title = {The effects of political design and organizational dynamics on structural disaggregation and integration in Norway 1947-2019}, series = {Governance : an international journal of policy and administration}, volume = {36}, journal = {Governance : an international journal of policy and administration}, number = {1}, publisher = {Wiley-Blackwell}, address = {Oxford}, issn = {1468-0491}, doi = {10.1111/gove.12669}, pages = {299 -- 320}, year = {2022}, abstract = {In countries with long-standing agency traditions, the creation of new agencies rarely comes as a large-scale reform but rather as one structural choice of many possible, most notably a ministerial division. In order to make sense of these choices, the article discusses the role of political design-focusing on the role of political motivations, such as ideological turnover, replacement risks and ideological stands toward administrative efficiency-and organizational dynamics-focusing on the role of administrative legacies and existing organizational palettes. The article utilizes data on organizational creations in the Norwegian central state between 1947 and 2019, in order to explore how political design and organizational dynamics help us understand the creation of agencies relative to ministry divisions over time. We find that political motives matter a great deal for the structural choices made by consecutive Norwegian governments, but that structural path dependencies may also be at play.}, language = {en} } @misc{FleischerSeyfried2013, author = {Fleischer, Julia and Seyfried, Markus}, title = {Drawing from the bargaining pool}, series = {Party politics}, journal = {Party politics}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-404479}, pages = {12}, year = {2013}, abstract = {This article expands our current knowledge about ministerial selection in coalition governments and analyses why ministerial candidates succeed in acquiring a cabinet position after general elections. It argues that political parties bargain over potential office-holders during government-formation processes, selecting future cabinet ministers from an emerging bargaining pool'. The article draws upon a new dataset comprising all ministrable candidates discussed by political parties during eight government-formation processes in Germany between 1983 and 2009. The conditional logit regression analysis reveals that temporal dynamics, such as the day she enters the pool, have a significant effect on her success in achieving a cabinet position. Other determinants of ministerial selection discussed in the existing literature, such as party and parliamentary expertise, are less relevant for achieving ministerial office. The article concludes that scholarship on ministerial selection requires a stronger emphasis for its endogenous nature in government-formation as well as the relevance of temporal dynamics in such processes.}, language = {en} } @article{FleischerBuzogany2023, author = {Fleischer, Julia and Buzog{\´a}ny, Aron}, title = {Unboxing international public administrations}, series = {The American review of public administration}, volume = {53}, journal = {The American review of public administration}, number = {1}, publisher = {Sage}, address = {Thousand Oaks, Calif.}, issn = {0275-0740}, doi = {10.1177/02750740221136488}, pages = {23 -- 35}, year = {2023}, abstract = {Recent debates in international relations increasingly focus on bureaucratic apparatuses of international organizations and highlight their role, influence, and autonomy in global public policy. In this contribution we follow the recent call made by Moloney and Rosenbloom in this journal to make use of "public administrative theory and empirically based knowledge in analyzing the behavior of international and regional organizations" and offer a systematic analysis of the inner structures of these administrative bodies. Changes in these structures can reflect both the (re-)assignment of responsibilities, competencies, and expertise, but also the (re)allocation of resources, staff, and corresponding signalling of priorities. Based on organizational charts, we study structural changes within 46 international bureaucracies in the UN system. Tracing formal changes to all internal units over two decades, this contribution provides the first longitudinal assessment of structural change at the international level. We demonstrate that the inner structures of international bureaucracies in the UN system became more fragmented over time but also experienced considerable volatility with periods of structural growth and retrenchment. The analysis also suggests that IO's political features yield stronger explanatory power for explaining these structural changes than bureaucratic determinants. We conclude that the politics of structural change in international bureaucracies is a missing piece in the current debate on international public administrations that complements existing research perspectives by reiterating the importance of the political context of international bureaucracies as actors in global governance.}, language = {en} } @article{FleischerPruin2023, author = {Fleischer, Julia and Pruin, Andree}, title = {Organizational reputation in executive politics}, series = {International review of administrative sciences}, journal = {International review of administrative sciences}, publisher = {Sage}, address = {Los Angeles, Calif.}, issn = {0020-8523}, doi = {10.1177/00208523221132228}, pages = {16}, year = {2023}, abstract = {In recent years, governments have increased their efforts to strengthen the citizen-orientation in policy design. They have established temporary arenas as well as permanent units inside the machinery of government to integrate citizens into policy formulation, leading to a "laboratorization" of central government organizations. We argue that the evolution and role of these units herald new dynamics in the importance of organizational reputation for executive politics. These actors deviate from the classic palette of organizational units inside the machinery of government and thus require their own reputation vis-{\`a}-vis various audiences within and outside their parent organization. Based on a comparative case study of two of these units inside the German federal bureaucracy, we show how ambiguous expectations of their audiences challenge their organizational reputation. Both units resolve these tensions by balancing their weaker professional and procedural reputation with a stronger performative and moral reputation. We conclude that government units aiming to improve citizen orientation in policy design may benefit from engaging with citizens as their external audience to compensate for a weaker reputation in the eyes of their audiences inside the government organization. Points for practitioners: many governments have introduced novel means to strengthen citizen-centered policy design, which has led to an emergence of novel units inside central government that differ from traditional bureaucratic structures and procedures ; this study analyzes how these new units may build their organizational reputation vis-{\`a}-vis internal and external actors in government policymaking. ; we show that such units assert themselves primarily based on their performative and moral reputation.}, language = {en} } @article{FleischerWanckel2023, author = {Fleischer, Julia and Wanckel, Camilla}, title = {Job satisfaction and the digital transformation of the public sector}, series = {Review of Public Personnel Administration}, journal = {Review of Public Personnel Administration}, publisher = {Sage}, address = {London}, issn = {0734-371X}, doi = {10.1177/0734371X221148403}, year = {2023}, abstract = {Worldwide, governments have introduced novel information and communication technologies (ICTs) for policy formulation and service delivery, radically changing the working environment of government employees. Following the debate on work stress and particularly on technostress, we argue that the use of ICTs triggers "digital overload" that decreases government employees' job satisfaction via inhibiting their job autonomy. Contrary to prior research, we consider job autonomy as a consequence rather than a determinant of digital overload, because ICT-use accelerates work routines and interruptions and eventually diminishes employees' freedom to decide how to work. Based on novel survey data from government employees in Germany, Italy, and Norway, our structural equation modeling (SEM) confirms a significant negative effect of digital overload on job autonomy. More importantly, job autonomy partially mediates the negative relationship between digital overload and job satisfaction, pointing to the importance of studying the micro-foundations of ICT-use in the public sector.}, language = {en} } @article{FleischerWanckel2023, author = {Fleischer, Julia and Wanckel, Camilla}, title = {Creativity in policy capacity}, series = {Public administration review}, journal = {Public administration review}, publisher = {Wiley-Blackwell}, address = {Oxford}, issn = {0033-3352}, doi = {10.1111/puar.13676}, pages = {15}, year = {2023}, abstract = {Creativity is a crucial part of policy capacity in governments. Existing studies on creative behavior in the public sector assess employees' openness to new ideas and creative solutions, and they confirm the relevance of organizational and individual determinants for pro-creativity attitudes. Yet we lack systemic evidence on the explicit level of work-related creativity among policy officials in government organizations. At the same time, novel technologies and particularly social networking services change the working environment of policy officials radically, alter organizational features, and may also yield crucial individual effects. Our study analyses "policy creativity" of policy officials in three European governments. We demonstrate the importance of organizational and individual features, including the stress triggered by using social networking services. Our study captures officials' creativity explicitly and adds to debates on creativity and innovation in the public sector as well as the micro-level foundations of the digital transformation in the public sector.}, language = {en} } @article{FleischerBezesJamesetal.2022, author = {Fleischer, Julia and Bezes, Philippe and James, Oliver and Yesilkagit, Kutsal}, title = {The politics of government reorganization in Western Europe}, series = {Governance : an international journal of policy and administration and institutions}, volume = {36}, journal = {Governance : an international journal of policy and administration and institutions}, number = {1}, publisher = {Wiley}, address = {Hoboken}, issn = {0952-1895}, doi = {10.1111/gove.12670}, pages = {255 -- 274}, year = {2022}, abstract = {The reorganization of governments is crucial for parties to express their policy preferences once they reach office. Yet these activities are not confined to the direct aftermath of general elections or to wide-ranging structural reforms. Instead, governments reorganize and adjust their machinery of government all the time. This paper aims to assess these structural choices with a particular focus at the core of the state, comparing four Western European democracies (Germany, France, the Netherlands, and United Kingdom) from 1980 to 2013. Our empirical analysis shows that stronger shifts in cabinets' ideological profiles in the short- and long-term as well as the units' proximity to political executives yield significant effects. In contrast, Conservative governments, commonly regarded as key promoters of reorganizing governments, are not significant for the likelihood of structural change. We discuss the effects of this politics of government reorganization for different research debates assessing the inner workings of governments.}, language = {en} } @article{YesilkagitBezesFleischer2022, author = {Yesilkagit, Kutsal and Bezes, Philippe and Fleischer, Julia}, title = {What's in a name? The politics of name changes inside bureaucracy}, series = {Public administration}, volume = {100}, journal = {Public administration}, number = {4}, publisher = {Wiley-Blackwell}, address = {Oxford}, issn = {0033-3298}, doi = {10.1111/padm.12827}, pages = {1091 -- 1106}, year = {2022}, abstract = {In this article, we examine the effects of political change on name changes of units within central government ministries. We expect that changes regarding the policy position of a government will cause changes in the names of ministerial units. To this end we formulate hypotheses combining the politics of structural choice and theories of portfolio allocation to examine the effects of political changes at the cabinet level on the names of intra-ministerial units. We constructed a dataset containing more than 17,000 observations on name changes of ministerial units between 1980 and 2013 from the central governments of Germany, the Netherlands, and France. We regress a series of generalized estimating equations (GEE) with population averaging models for binary outcomes. Finding variations across the three political-bureaucratic systems, we overall report positive effects of governmental change and ideological positions on name changes within ministries.}, language = {en} }