@book{OPUS4-43950, title = {Handbuch zur Verwaltungsreform}, editor = {Veit, Sylvia and Reichard, Christoph and Wewer, G{\"o}ttrik}, edition = {5., vollst{\"a}ndig {\"u}berarb. Aufl.}, publisher = {Springer}, address = {Wiesbaden}, isbn = {978-3-658-21562-0}, pages = {747}, year = {2019}, abstract = {Das Thema Verwaltungsreform besch{\"a}ftigt nach wie vor Bund, L{\"a}nder und Gemeinden gleichermaßen. Konzeptionell sind die diskutierten Ans{\"a}tze und Instrumente einem st{\"a}ndigen Wandel unterworfen und bei der Umsetzung von Maßnahmen besteht in großem Maße Unsicherheit und Orientierungsbedarf. Das Handbuch liefert einen Beitrag zur Einordnung unterschiedlicher Konzepte und Orientierung f{\"u}r die Umsetzung der Verwaltungsreform. In 66 Beitr{\"a}gen werden vielf{\"a}ltige Ans{\"a}tze der Verwaltungsreform vorgestellt, ihr Entstehungszusammenhang erl{\"a}utert, praktische Anwendungsfelder beschrieben und Entwicklungsperspektiven untersucht. Die Beitr{\"a}ge stammen von renommierten WissenschaftlerInnen und erfahrenen PraktikerInnen. Themenbl{\"o}cke: Staat und Verwaltung, Reform- und Managementkonzepte, Steuerung und Organisation, Personal, Finanzen, Ergebnisse und Wirkungen, Erfahrungen und Perspektiven. Die H{\"a}lfte der Beitr{\"a}ge dieser Auflage wurde komplett neu geschrieben und die restlichen Beitr{\"a}ge wurden gr{\"u}ndlich {\"u}berarbeitet.}, language = {de} } @article{FischerKraus2020, author = {Fischer, Caroline and Kraus, Sascha}, title = {Digitale Transparenz}, series = {Handbuch Digitalisierung in Staat und Verwaltung}, journal = {Handbuch Digitalisierung in Staat und Verwaltung}, publisher = {Springer}, address = {Wiesbaden}, isbn = {978-3-658-23667-0}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-658-23668-7}, pages = {159 -- 170}, year = {2020}, abstract = {Transparenz ist kein neuer Begriff, sondern im Zusammenhang mit Rechtsstaatlichkeit, Gewaltenteilung oder Demokratie schon lange Gegenstand politischer Theorie und Praxis. Transparenz bedeutet, dass Akteure, wie etwa Verwaltungsorganisationen, relevante Informationen {\"u}ber ihre Entscheidungsprozesse, Funktionsweisen und Performanz gegen{\"u}ber externen Akteuren offenlegen. F{\"u}r politische und Verwaltungsakteure gewinnt Transparenz im Zuge der Digitalisierung an zus{\"a}tzlicher Bedeutung. Moderne Informations- und Kommunikationstechnologien vereinfachen Transparenzschaffung, sowohl in der Geschwindigkeit als auch im Ressourceneinsatz. Sie k{\"o}nnen so zu neuen Formen und einer neuen Qualit{\"a}t von Transparenz in Politik und Verwaltung beitragen. Transparenz- und Datenportale oder B{\"u}rgerhaushalte sind digitale Instrumente, die diesem Zweck dienen sollen. Ob digitale Transparenz politische und administrative Prozesse tats{\"a}chlich effizienter, effektiver und durchsichtiger macht und B{\"u}rger*innen diese dadurch besser verstehen, ist jedoch eine offene Frage.}, language = {de} } @phdthesis{Schumacher2016, author = {Schumacher, Reinhard}, title = {Adam Smith, foreign trade and economic development}, school = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam}, pages = {143}, year = {2016}, language = {en} } @phdthesis{Niroomand2021, author = {Niroomand, Kian}, title = {Wandlungsf{\"a}hige Verwaltungen}, publisher = {gito}, address = {Berlin}, isbn = {978-3-95545-400-5}, school = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam}, pages = {660}, year = {2021}, language = {de} } @phdthesis{Radtke2020, author = {Radtke, Ina}, title = {Organizing immigration}, school = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam}, pages = {174}, year = {2020}, abstract = {Immigration constitutes a dynamic policy field with - often quite unpredictable - dynamics. This is based on immigration constituting a 'wicked problem' meaning that it is characterized by uncertainty, ambiguity and complexity. Due to the dynamics in the policy field, expectations towards public administrations often change. Following neo-institutionalist theory, public administrations depend on meeting the expectations in the organizational field in order to maintain legitimacy as the basis for, e.g., resources and compliance of stakeholders. With the dynamics in the policy field, expectations might change and public administrations consequently need to adapt in order to maintain or repair the then threatened legitimacy. If their organizational legitimacy is threatened by a perception of structures and processes being inadequate for changed expectations, an 'institutional crisis' unfolds. However, we know little about ministerial bureaucracies' structural reactions to such crucial momentums and how this effects the quest for coordination within policy-making. Overall, the dissertation thus links to both policy analysis and public administration research and consists of five publications. It asks: How do structures in ministerial bureaucracies change in the context of institutional crises? And what effect do these changes have on ministerial coordination? The dissertation hereby focusses on the above described dynamic policy field of immigration in Germany in the period from 2005 to 2017 and pursues three objectives: 1) to identify the context and impulse for changes in the structures of ministerial bureaucracies, 2) to describe respective changes with regard to their organizational structures, and 3) to identify their effect on coordination. It hereby compares and contrasts institutional crises by incremental change and shock as well as changes and effects at federal and L{\"a}nder level which allows a comprehensive answer to both of the research questions. Theoretically, the dissertation follows neo-institutionalist theory with a particular focus on changes in organizational structures, coordination and crisis management. Methodologically, it follows a comparative design. Each article (except for the literature review), focusses on ministerial bureaucracies at one governmental level (federal or L{\"a}nder) and on an institutional crisis induced by either an incremental process or a shock. Thus, responses and effects can be compared and contrasted across impulses for institutional crises and governmental levels. Overall, the dissertation follows a mixed methods approach with a majority of qualitative single and small-n case studies based on document analysis and semi-structured interviews. Additionally, two articles use quantitative methods as they best suited the respective research question. The rather explorative nature of these two articles however fits to the overall interpretivist approach of the dissertation. Overall, the dissertation's core argument is: Within the investigation period, varying dynamics and thus impulses for institutional crises took place in the German policy field of immigration. Respectively, expectations by stakeholders on how the politico-administrative system should address the policy problem changed. Ministerial administrations at both the federal and L{\"a}nder level adapted to these expectations in order to maintain, or regain respectively, organizational legitimacy. The administration hereby referred to well-known recipes of structural changes. Institutional crises do not constitute fields of experimentation. The new structures had an immediate effect on ministerial coordination, with respect to both the horizontal and vertical dimension. Yet, they did not mean a comprehensive change of the system in place. The dissertation thus challenges the idea of the toppling effect of crises and rather shows that adaptability and persistence of public administrations constitute two sides of the same coin.}, language = {en} } @incollection{Kuhlmann2016, author = {Kuhlmann, Sabine}, title = {Benchmarking in der {\"o}ffentlichen Verwaltung}, series = {Praxishandbuch Public Management}, booktitle = {Praxishandbuch Public Management}, publisher = {WEKA}, address = {Z{\"u}rich}, isbn = {978-3-297-00936-9}, publisher = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam}, pages = {321 -- 339}, year = {2016}, language = {de} } @incollection{KuhlmannSeyfried2020, author = {Kuhlmann, Sabine and Seyfried, Markus}, title = {Comparative methods B}, series = {Handbook of research methods in public administration, management and policy}, booktitle = {Handbook of research methods in public administration, management and policy}, editor = {Vigoda-Gadot, Eran and Vashdi, Dana R.}, publisher = {Edward Elgar Publishing}, address = {Cheltenham, UK}, isbn = {978-1-78990-347-8}, doi = {10.4337/9781789903485.00017}, pages = {181 -- 196}, year = {2020}, abstract = {This chapter outlines the relevance and value of comparative approaches and methods in studying Public Administration (PA). It discusses the roots and current developments of comparative research in PA and discusses various methodological venues for cross-country comparisons, such as most similar/dissimilar systems designs, the method of concomitant variation and the difference-in-difference method. Besides the description of these approaches, we highlight their conceptual value for theory-driven empirical comparative research. Drawing on selected pieces of comparative research, the chapter furthermore provides examples for the application of comparative methods in practice presenting empirical findings and highlighting strengths and weaknesses. The chapter finally emphasizes that the methodological development in comparative PA research has by far not yet reached its end, and that some future challenges need to be addressed, such as the issues of causality, generalizability, and mixed-methods approaches.}, language = {en} } @incollection{KuhlmannVeit2023, author = {Kuhlmann, Sabine and Veit, Sylvia}, title = {Evaluation of and in public administration}, series = {Handbook of public policy evaluation}, booktitle = {Handbook of public policy evaluation}, editor = {Varone, Fr{\´e}d{\´e}ric and Jacob, Steve and Bundi, Pirmin}, publisher = {Edward Elgar Publishing}, address = {Cheltenham, UK}, isbn = {9781800884892}, doi = {10.4337/9781800884892.00023}, pages = {220 -- 237}, year = {2023}, abstract = {This chapter addresses the role of evaluation of and in public administration. We focus on two analytical key dimensions: a) the provider of the evaluation and b) the subject of the evaluation. Four major types of evaluation are distinguished: (1) external institutional evaluation, (2) internal institutional evaluation, (3) external evaluation of administrative action/results, (4) internal evaluation of administrative action/results. Type 1 and 2 refer to evaluation of administrative structures and processes as the subject of administrative reform. Type 3 and 4 represent different versions of evaluation in public administration, because the subject is administrative action and its outputs. The chapter highlights salient approaches and organizational settings of evaluation and provides insights into the institutionalization of an evaluation function in public administration. Finally, the chapter draws lessons regarding strengths and potentials but also remaining weaknesses and challenges of evaluation of and in public administration.}, language = {en} } @incollection{JannBouckaert2017, author = {Jann, Werner and Bouckaert, Geert}, title = {Current and Future Trends in European Public Sector Research}, series = {Starke Kommunen - wirksame Verwaltung : Fortschritte und Fallstricke der internationalen Verwaltungs- und Kommunalforschung}, booktitle = {Starke Kommunen - wirksame Verwaltung : Fortschritte und Fallstricke der internationalen Verwaltungs- und Kommunalforschung}, editor = {Kuhlmann, Sabine and Schwab, Oliver}, publisher = {Springer VS}, address = {Wiesbaden}, isbn = {978-3-658-17134-6}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-658-17135-3_4}, publisher = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam}, pages = {43 -- 61}, year = {2017}, abstract = {Emmanuel Kant asked three important questions which will always be with us: What can we know? What should we do? What may we hope for? These three key existentialist questions are, of course, also relevant for a reflection on the future of Public Administration: What can we know, as researchers in the field of Public Administration, about our object of public administration? What should we do as researchers and teachers to make sure we remain part of a solution and to guarantee that we are ahead of reality and its future problems? What kind of improvement (or not) may we hope for a public sector in an increasingly complex society? This chapter tries to explore some possible answers to these three important questions for our field of Public Administration. The background is our common project about 'European Perspectives for Public Administration' (EPPA), which we hope to establish as a continuous dialogue and discourse in the context of European Public Administration and the 'European Group for Public Administration' (EGPA).}, language = {en} } @misc{KuhlmannRadtke2015, author = {Kuhlmann, Sabine and Radtke, Ina}, title = {Die Bundesverwaltung als moderner Betrieb II : Teil 4}, publisher = {Hochschule des Bundes f{\"u}r {\"o}ffentliche Verwaltung}, address = {Br{\"u}hl}, pages = {67}, year = {2015}, language = {de} }