@misc{OPUS4-40766,
  title     = {The future of local government in Europe},
  series = {Modernisierung des {\"o}ffentlichen Sektors},
  journal   = {Modernisierung des {\"o}ffentlichen Sektors},
  editor    = {Schwab, Christian and Bouckaert, Geert and Kuhlmann, Sabine},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-407661},
  pages     = {129},
  year      = {2017},
  abstract  = {kein abstract vorhanden},
  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}
}
@phdthesis{Danken2017,
  author    = {Danken, Thomas},
  title     = {Coordination of wicked problems},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-396766},
  school      = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam},
  pages     = {VI, 237},
  year      = {2017},
  abstract  = {The thesis focuses on the inter-departmental coordination of adaptation and mitigation of demographic change in East Germany. All Eastern German States (L{\"a}nder) have set up inter-departmental committees (IDCs) that are expected to deliver joint strategies to tackle demographic change. IDCs provide an organizational setting for potential positive coordination, i.e. a joint approach to problem solving that pools and utilizes the expertise of many departments in a constructive manner from the very beginning. Whether they actually achieve positive coordination is contested within the academic debate. This motivates the first research question of this thesis: Do IDCs achieve positive coordination? Interdepartmental committees and their role in horizontal coordination within the core executive triggered interest among scholars already more than fifty years ago. However, we don't know much about their actual importance for the inter-departmental preparation of cross-cutting policies. Until now, few studies can be found that analyzes inter-departmental committees in a comparative way trying to identify whether they achieve positive coordination and what factors shape the coordination process and output of IDCs. Each IDC has a chair organization that is responsible for managing the interactions within the IDCs. The chair organization is important, because it organizes and structures the overall process of coordination in the IDC. Consequently, the chair of an IDC serves as the main boundary-spanner and therefore has remarkable influence by arranging meetings and the work schedule or by distributing internal roles. Interestingly, in the German context we find two organizational approaches: while some states decided to put a line department (e.g. Department of Infrastructure) in charge of managing the IDC, others rely on the State Chancelleries, i.e. the center of government. This situation allows for comparative research design that can address the role of the State Chancellery in inter-departmental coordination of cross-cutting policies. This is relevant, because the role of the center is crucial when studying coordination within central government. The academic debate on the center of government in the German politico-administrative system is essentially divided into two camps. One camp claims that the center can improve horizontal coordination and steer cross-cutting policy-making more effectively, while the other camp points to limits to central coordination due to departmental autonomy. This debate motivates the second research question of this thesis: Does the State Chancellery as chair organization achieve positive coordination in IDCs? The center of government and its role in the German politic-administrative system has attracted academic attention already in the 1960s and 1970s. There is a research desiderate regarding the center's role during the inter-departmental coordination process. There are only few studies that explicitly analyze centers of government and their role in coordination of cross-cutting policies, although some single case studies have been published. This gap in the academic debate will be addressed by the answer to the second research question. The dependent variable of this study is the chair organization of IDCs. The value of this variable is dichotomous: either an IDC is chaired by a Line department or by a State Chancellery. We are interested whether this variable has an effect on two dependent variables. First, we will analyze the coordination process, i.e. interaction among bureaucrats within the IDC. Second, the focus of this thesis will be on the coordination result, i.e. the demography strategies that are produced by the respective IDCs. In terms of the methodological approach, this thesis applies a comparative case study design based on a most-similar-systems logic. The German Federalism is quite suitable for such designs. Since the institutional framework largely is the same across all states, individual variables and their effect can be isolated and plausibly analyzed. To further control for potential intervening variables, we will limit our case selection to states located in East Germany, because the demographic situation is most problematic in the Eastern part of Germany, i.e. there is a equal problem pressure. Consequently, we will analyze five cases: Thuringia, Saxony-Anhalt (line department) and Brandenburg, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern and Saxony (State Chancellery). There is no grand coordination theory that is ready to be applied to our case studies. Therefore, we need to tailor our own approach. Our assumption is that the individual chair organization has an effect on the coordination process and output of IDCs, although all cases are embedded in the same institutional setting, i.e. the German politico-administrative system. Therefore, we need an analytical approach than incorporates institutionalist and agency-based arguments. Therefore, this thesis will utilize Actor-Centered Institutionalism (ACI). Broadly speaking, ACI conceptualizes actors' behavior as influenced - but not fully determined - by institutions. Since ACI is rather abstract we need to adapt it for the purpose of this thesis. Line Departments and State Chancelleries will be modeled as distinct actors with different action orientations and capabilities to steer the coordination process. However, their action is embedded within the institutional context of governments, which we will conceptualize as being comprised of regulative (formal rules) and normative (social norms) elements.},
  language  = {en}
}
@phdthesis{Muriu2017,
  author    = {Muriu, Abraham Rugo},
  title     = {Performance management in Kenya's public service},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-403281},
  school      = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam},
  pages     = {x, 150},
  year      = {2017},
  abstract  = {This study was inspired by the desire to contribute to literature on performance management from the context of a developing country. The guiding research questions were: How do managers use performance information in decision making? Why do managers use performance information the way they do? The study was based on theoretical strands of neo-patrimonialism and new institutionalism. The nature of the inquiry informed the choice of a qualitative case study research design. Data was assembled through face-to-face interviews, some observations, and collection of documents from managers at the levels of the directorate, division, and section/units. The managers who were the focus of this study are current or former staff members of the state departments in Kenya's national Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, and Fisheries as well as from departments responsible for coordination of performance related reforms. The findings of this study show that performance information is regularly produced but its use by managers varies. Examples of use include preparing reports to external bodies, making decisions for resource re-allocation, making recommendations for rewards and sanctions, and policy advisory. On categorizing the forms of use as passive, purposeful, political or perverse, evidence shows that they overlap and that some of the forms are so closely related that it is difficult to separate them empirically. On what can explain the forms of use established, four factors namely; political will and leadership; organizational capacity; administrative culture; and managers' interests and attitudes, were investigated. While acknowledging the interrelatedness and even overlapping of the factors, the study demonstrates that there is explanatory power to each though with varying depth and scope. The study thus concludes that: Inconsistent political will and leadership for performance management reforms explain forms of use that are passive, political and perverse. Low organizational capacity could best explain passive and some limited aspects of purposeful use. Informal, personal and competitive administrative culture is associated with purposeful use and mostly with political and perverse use. Limited interest and apprehensive attitude are best associated with passive use. The study contributes to the literature particularly in how institutions in a context of neo-patrimonialism shape performance information use. It recommends that further research is necessary to establish how neo-patrimonialism positively affects performance oriented reforms. This is interesting in particular given the emerging thinking on pockets of effectiveness and developmental patrimonialism. This is important since it is expected that performance related reforms will continue to be advocated in developing countries in the foreseeable future.},
  language  = {en}
}