@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{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}
}
@article{KuhlmannWayenberg2016,
  author    = {Kuhlmann, Sabine and Wayenberg, Ellen},
  title     = {Institutional impact assessment in multi-level systems: conceptualizing decentralization effects from a comparative perspective},
  series = {International review of administrative sciences : an international journal of comparative public administration},
  volume    = {82},
  journal   = {International review of administrative sciences : an international journal of comparative public administration},
  number    = {2},
  publisher = {Sage},
  address   = {London},
  issn      = {0020-8523},
  doi       = {10.1177/0020852315583194},
  pages     = {233 -- 272},
  year      = {2016},
  abstract  = {Comparative literature on institutional reforms in multi-level systems proceeds from a global trend towards the decentralization of state functions. However, there is only scarce knowledge about the impact that decentralization has had, in particular, upon the sub-central governments involved. How does it affect regional and local governments? Do these reforms also have unintended outcomes on the sub-central level and how can this be explained? This article aims to develop a conceptual framework to assess the impacts of decentralization on the sub-central level from a comparative and policy-oriented perspective. This framework is intended to outline the major patterns and models of decentralization and the theoretical assumptions regarding de-/re-centralization impacts, as well as pertinent cross-country approaches meant to evaluate and compare institutional reforms. It will also serve as an analytical guideline and a structural basis for all the country-related articles in this Special Issue. Points for practitioners Decentralization reforms are approved as having a key role to play in the attainment of 'good governance'. Yet, there is also the enticement on the part of state governments to offload an ever-increasing amount of responsibilities to, and overtask, local levels of government, which can lead to increasing performance disparities within local sub-state jurisdictions. Against this background, the article provides a conceptual framework to assess reform impacts from a comparative perspective. The analytical framework can be used by practitioners to support their decisions about new decentralization strategies or necessary adjustments regarding ongoing reform measures.},
  language  = {en}
}
@book{SchedlerProeller2011,
  author    = {Schedler, Kuno and Proeller, Isabella},
  title     = {New Public Management},
  series = {UTB ; 2132},
  journal   = {UTB ; 2132},
  edition   = {5., korrigierte Aufl.},
  publisher = {Haupt Verlag},
  address   = {Bern},
  isbn      = {978-3-8252-3638-0},
  pages     = {XXIV, 353},
  year      = {2011},
  abstract  = {New Public Management hat in den vergangenen Jahren die Ans{\"a}tze und das Verst{\"a}ndnis moderner Verwaltungsf{\"u}hrung maßgebend beeinflusst. Stossrichtungen und Grundanliegen dieses Modells wurden zum Teil in die F{\"u}hrungspraxis {\"u}bernommen und stellen in vielerlei Hinsicht nach wie vor Entwicklungsziele und Leitlinien f{\"u}r die Steuerung und F{\"u}hrung der {\"o}ffentlichen Verwaltung dar. NPM soll die {\"o}ffentliche Verwaltung an geforderte Neuausrichtungen anpassen und effizienter gestalten. Ziele und Gestaltung der {\"o}ffentlichen Verwaltung unter NPM und die dazu notwendigen Instrumente werden in diesem Lehrbuch umfassend und strukturiert erl{\"a}utert. Besonderes Augenmerk wird dabei auf die Ver{\"a}nderungslinien und -ans{\"a}tze f{\"u}r die Verwaltungsf{\"u}hrung gelegt.},
  language  = {en}
}