@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{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{SchwabBogumilKuhlmannetal.2020, author = {Schwab, Christian and Bogumil, J{\"o}rg and Kuhlmann, Sabine and Gerber, Sascha}, title = {Digitalisierung von Verwaltungsleistungen in B{\"u}rger{\"a}mtern}, series = {Handbuch Digitalisierung in Staat und Verwaltung}, booktitle = {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 = {437 -- 448}, year = {2020}, abstract = {Die Digitalisierung der {\"o}ffentlichen Leistungserbringung f{\"u}r die B{\"u}rger bildet gegenw{\"a}rtig einen Schwerpunkt der Modernisierungsaktivit{\"a}ten in Staat und Verwaltung. Hinsichtlich der digitalen Informationsbereitstellung hat es zwar deutliche Fortschritte gegeben, insgesamt zeigt sich jedoch eine allenfalls moderate „E-Government-Performanz" bei der digitalen Kommunikation zwischen Verwaltung und B{\"u}rgern sowie bei Transaktionen, d. h. der medienbruchfreien Abschließbarkeit von Verwaltungsvorg{\"a}ngen. Als wesentliche Gr{\"u}nde f{\"u}r die ern{\"u}chternde Bilanz der lokalen Verwaltungsdigitalisierung sind neben technischen, rechtlichen, finanziellen und personellen Barrieren insbesondere politische und institutionelle H{\"u}rden zu nennen. Viele Probleme sind zudem auch bei E-Government-Funktionen (z. B. der Online-Formulare oder elektronischen Bezahlm{\"o}glichkeiten) zu verzeichnen. Positiv schneidet dagegen die elektronische Terminvergabe ab, die in den B{\"u}rger{\"a}mtern zu wesentlichen Prozess- und Serviceverbesserungen gef{\"u}hrt hat. Allerdings sind neben positiven Effekten, wie beispielsweise schnelleren Bearbeitungszeiten und k{\"u}rzeren Wartezeiten, auch dysfunktionale Digitalisierungseffekte zu verzeichnen, wie erh{\"o}hter Arbeitsstress aufgrund eines gestiegenen Kommunikationsaufkommens (v. a. durch Email) und der damit einhergehenden Verlagerung des Arbeitsaufkommens vom Frontoffice ins Backoffice.}, 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{Heuberger2020, author = {Heuberger, Moritz}, title = {Digitaler Organisationswandel}, series = {Handbuch Digitalisierung in Staat und Verwaltung}, booktitle = {Handbuch Digitalisierung in Staat und Verwaltung}, editor = {Klenk, Tanja and Nullmeier, Frank and Wewer, G{\"o}ttrik}, publisher = {Springer}, address = {Wiesbaden}, isbn = {978-3-658-23667-0}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-658-23668-7_54}, pages = {587 -- 598}, year = {2020}, abstract = {In diesem Artikel werden die Voraussetzungen f{\"u}r eine erfolgreiche Digitalisierung der {\"o}ffentlichen Verwaltung diskutiert. Dabei liegt der Fokus auf den internen Verwaltungsprozessen sowie auf der Kommunikation und Koordination innerhalb und zwischen Beh{\"o}rden. Zur richtigen Anlage eines digitalen Organisationswandels sind vor allem das Personalmanagement, die Organisationsform des Ver{\"a}nderungsprozesses sowie der Technologieeinsatz von zentraler Bedeutung.}, language = {de} }