@article{Jann1997,
  author    = {Jann, Werner},
  title     = {12 Thesen zu den "Perspektiven der Modernisierung bei Bund, L{\"a}ndern und Gemeinden"},
  year      = {1997},
  language  = {de}
}
@article{JannJantz2008,
  author    = {Jann, Werner and Jantz, Bastian},
  title     = {A better performance and performance management?},
  year      = {2008},
  language  = {en}
}
@incollection{Jann2016,
  author    = {Jann, Werner},
  title     = {Accountability, performance and legitimacy in the welfare state},
  series = {The Routledge Handbook to Accountability and Welfare State Reforms in Europe},
  booktitle = {The Routledge Handbook to Accountability and Welfare State Reforms in Europe},
  editor    = {L{\ae}greid, Per and Cristensen, Tom},
  publisher = {Routledge},
  address   = {London},
  isbn      = {978-1-4724-7059-1 (print)},
  publisher      = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam},
  pages     = {31 -- 44},
  year      = {2016},
  abstract  = {Accountability is one of the most widely discussed concepts of public administration research and teaching in the last decade. But why is this case? Obviously accountability is, like its counterpart transparency, a "magic concept", and an indispensable part of the prominent and omnipresent discourse on "good governance" as well as a significant element in debates about public sector reform. The same holds true for performance, which has been a magic and contested concept ever since New Public Management (NPM) entered the discourse about "modern" processes and structures of the public sector. But the third term in the title of this paper, legitimacy, even though it is one of the basic concepts of political science and democracy and is at the heart of Max Weber's theory of bureaucracy, has been surprisingly absent from current debates about the challenges of modern public administration, and for that sake also about the future of the welfare state. This chapter argues that different concepts of legitimacy lie at the heart of most debates about accountability and performance (input, output and throughput legitimacy), and that a better understanding of the relationships between accountability, performance and legitimacy can clarify some of the puzzles of contemporary research.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{Jann1995,
  author    = {Jann, Werner},
  title     = {Al Gore und die Neuerfindung von Regierung und Verwaltung : Lehren f{\"u}r Kontinentaleuropa?},
  isbn      = {3-7685-1595-8},
  year      = {1995},
  language  = {de}
}
@article{BachJann2010,
  author    = {Bach, Tobias and Jann, Werner},
  title     = {Animals in the administrative zoo : organizational change and agency autonomy in Germany},
  issn      = {0020-8523},
  doi       = {10.1177/0020852310372448},
  year      = {2010},
  abstract  = {Although Germany does not figure among the 'forerunners' of managerial reforms of the public sector, it has a long tradition of agencies and non-departmental bodies at the federal level. Over time, the federal administration has developed into a highly differentiated 'administrative zoo' with a large number of species, questioning the image of a well-ordered German bureaucracy. The article addresses organizational changes among non-ministerial agencies during the past 20 years and ministry-agency relations, drawing on data from a comprehensive survey of the federal administration. The structural changes we observe are neither comprehensive nor planned; they are much more evolutionary than revolutionary, driven by sectoral policies and not by any overall agency policy, supported more by regulatory than by managerial reforms, and most of the changes are horizontal mergers or successions of existing organizations, while we find almost no evidence for hiving-off from ministries to agencies. At the same time, federal agencies report a lot of bureaucratic discretion, whereas they perceive substantial levels of 'red tape' due to administrative regulations. We also find that traditional, hierarchical modes of ministerial oversight are still dominating; only few agencies have performance agreements with measurable goals.},
  language  = {en}
}
@misc{Jann1995,
  author    = {Jann, Werner},
  title     = {Art. Politische Planung},
  year      = {1995},
  language  = {de}
}
@misc{Jann2002,
  author    = {Jann, Werner},
  title     = {Art. Politische Planung ; Politikfeldanalyse},
  year      = {2002},
  language  = {de}
}
@article{JannRoeberWollmann2006,
  author    = {Jann, Werner and R{\"o}ber, Manfred and Wollmann, Hellmut},
  title     = {Beharrlichkeit und Innovation : Christoph Reichard und das {\"o}ffentliche Management},
  isbn      = {3-89404-776-3},
  year      = {2006},
  language  = {de}
}
@article{JannReichard2001,
  author    = {Jann, Werner and Reichard, Christoph},
  title     = {Best practice in central government modernization},
  series = {RIEP : Revista internacional de estudos politicos},
  volume    = {2001},
  journal   = {RIEP : Revista internacional de estudos politicos},
  number    = {Special 9},
  editor    = {Wollmann, Hellmut},
  publisher = {NUSEG},
  address   = {Rio de Janeiro},
  issn      = {1516-5973},
  pages     = {93 -- 111},
  year      = {2001},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{JannReichard2001,
  author    = {Jann, Werner and Reichard, Christoph},
  title     = {Best Practice in Central Government Modernization},
  issn      = {1516-5973},
  year      = {2001},
  language  = {en}
}