@article{JannReichard2001,
  author    = {Jann, Werner and Reichard, Christoph},
  title     = {Best Practice in Central Government Modernization},
  issn      = {1516-5973},
  year      = {2001},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{JannSeyfried2009,
  author    = {Jann, Werner and Seyfried, Markus},
  title     = {Does executive governance matter? executives an policy performance},
  isbn      = {978-3-86793-013-0},
  year      = {2009},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{JannVeit2021,
  author    = {Jann, Werner and Veit, Sylvia},
  title     = {Politics and Administration in Germany},
  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_10},
  pages     = {145 -- 161},
  year      = {2021},
  abstract  = {Although German bureaucracy is typically categorised as Weberian, a clear distinction between politics and administration has never been a defining characteristic of the German political-administrative system. Many close interrelations and interactions between elected politicians and appointed civil servants can be observed at all levels of administration. Higher-ranking civil servants in Germany are used to and generally appreciate the functional politicisation of their jobs, that is their close involvement in all stages of the policy process, from policy formation, goal definition, negotiation within and outside government to the implementation and evaluation of policies. For top positions, therefore, a class of 'political civil servants' is a special feature of the German system, and obtaining 'political craft' has become an important part of the learning and job experience of higher-ranking civil servants.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{JannWegrich2019,
  author    = {Jann, Werner and Wegrich, Kai},
  title     = {Generalists and specialists in executive politics: Why ambitious meta-policies so often fail},
  series = {Public administration},
  volume    = {97},
  journal   = {Public administration},
  number    = {4},
  publisher = {Wiley},
  address   = {Hoboken},
  issn      = {0033-3298},
  doi       = {10.1111/padm.12614},
  pages     = {845 -- 860},
  year      = {2019},
  abstract  = {This article contributes to the politics of policy-making in executive government. It introduces the analytical distinction between generalists and specialists as antagonistic players in executive politics and develops the claim that policy specialists are in a structurally advantaged position to succeed in executive politics and to fend off attempts by generalists to influence policy choices through cross-cutting reform measures. Contrary to traditional textbook public administration, we explain the views of generalists and specialists not through their training but their positions within an organization. We combine established approaches from public policy and organization theory to substantiate this claim and to define the dilemma that generalists face when developing government-wide reform policies ('meta-policies') as well as strategies to address this problem. The article suggests that the conceptual distinction between generalists and specialists allows for a more precise analysis of the challenges for policy-making across government organizations than established approaches.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{JantzJann2013,
  author    = {Jantz, Bastian and Jann, Werner},
  title     = {Mapping accountability changes in labour market administrations from concentrated to shared accountability?},
  series = {International review of administrative sciences : an international journal of comparative public administration},
  volume    = {79},
  journal   = {International review of administrative sciences : an international journal of comparative public administration},
  number    = {2},
  publisher = {Sage Publ.},
  address   = {London},
  issn      = {0020-8523},
  doi       = {10.1177/0020852313477764},
  pages     = {227 -- 248},
  year      = {2013},
  abstract  = {The article explores how recent changes in the governance of employment services in three European countries (Denmark, Germany and Norway) have influenced accountability relationships. The overall assumption in the growing literature about accountability is that the number of actors involved in accountability arrangements is rising, that accountability relationships are becoming more numerous and complex, and that these changes may lead to contradictory accountability relationships, and finally to multi accountability disorder'. The article tries to explore these assumptions by analysing the different actors involved and the information requested in the new governance arrangements in all three countries. It concludes that the considerable changes in organizational arrangements and more managerial information demanded and provided have led to more shared forms of accountability. Nevertheless, a clear development towards less political or administrative accountability could not be observed.},
  language  = {en}
}