TY - JOUR A1 - Fischer, Caroline A1 - Kraus, Sascha T1 - Digitale Transparenz JF - Handbuch Digitalisierung in Staat und Verwaltung N2 - 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 über ihre Entscheidungsprozesse, Funktionsweisen und Performanz gegenüber externen Akteuren offenlegen. Für politische und Verwaltungsakteure gewinnt Transparenz im Zuge der Digitalisierung an zusätzlicher Bedeutung. Moderne Informations- und Kommunikationstechnologien vereinfachen Transparenzschaffung, sowohl in der Geschwindigkeit als auch im Ressourceneinsatz. Sie können so zu neuen Formen und einer neuen Qualität von Transparenz in Politik und Verwaltung beitragen. Transparenz- und Datenportale oder Bürgerhaushalte sind digitale Instrumente, die diesem Zweck dienen sollen. Ob digitale Transparenz politische und administrative Prozesse tatsächlich effizienter, effektiver und durchsichtiger macht und Bürger*innen diese dadurch besser verstehen, ist jedoch eine offene Frage. Y1 - 2020 SN - 978-3-658-23667-0 SN - 978-3-658-23668-7 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-23668-7 SP - 159 EP - 170 PB - Springer CY - Wiesbaden ER - TY - THES A1 - Schumacher, Reinhard T1 - Adam Smith, foreign trade and economic development BT - essays in historiographic revision Y1 - 2016 ER - TY - THES A1 - Niroomand, Kian T1 - Wandlungsfähige Verwaltungen BT - Können öffentliche Verwaltungen im Angesicht unerwarteter Umweltveränderungen schnell, effizient und selbst agieren? Y1 - 2021 SN - 978-3-95545-400-5 PB - gito CY - Berlin ER - TY - THES A1 - Radtke, Ina T1 - Organizing immigration BT - German ministerial bureaucracies in a dynamic policy field N2 - 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 Länder 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 Länder) 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 Länder 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. KW - Ministerial bureaucracy KW - coordination KW - institutional crisis KW - immigration KW - migration KW - refugee crisis KW - Ministerialbürokratie KW - Koordination KW - institutionelle Krise KW - Immigration KW - Migration KW - Flüchtlingskrise Y1 - 2020 ER - TY - CHAP A1 - Kuhlmann, Sabine T1 - Benchmarking in der öffentlichen Verwaltung T2 - Praxishandbuch Public Management KW - Verwaltung KW - Öffentlicher Dienst KW - Verwaltungslehre Y1 - 2016 SN - 978-3-297-00936-9 SP - 321 EP - 339 PB - WEKA CY - Zürich ER - TY - CHAP A1 - Kuhlmann, Sabine A1 - Veit, Sylvia ED - Varone, Frédéric ED - Jacob, Steve ED - Bundi, Pirmin T1 - Evaluation of and in public administration T2 - Handbook of public policy evaluation N2 - 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. KW - administrative reform KW - new public management KW - public administration KW - institutionalization of evaluation KW - typology of evaluation KW - better regulation Y1 - 2023 SN - 9781800884892 U6 - https://doi.org/10.4337/9781800884892.00023 SP - 220 EP - 237 PB - Edward Elgar Publishing CY - Cheltenham, UK ER - TY - CHAP A1 - Jann, Werner A1 - Bouckaert, Geert ED - Kuhlmann, Sabine ED - Schwab, Oliver T1 - Current and Future Trends in European Public Sector Research T2 - Starke Kommunen - wirksame Verwaltung : Fortschritte und Fallstricke der internationalen Verwaltungs- und Kommunalforschung N2 - 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). Y1 - 2017 SN - 978-3-658-17134-6 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-17135-3_4 SP - 43 EP - 61 PB - Springer VS CY - Wiesbaden ER - TY - GEN A1 - Kuhlmann, Sabine A1 - Radtke, Ina T1 - Die Bundesverwaltung als moderner Betrieb II : Teil 4 BT - Verwaltungsreformen im internationalen Vergleich Y1 - 2015 PB - Hochschule des Bundes für öffentliche Verwaltung CY - Brühl ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Kuhlmann, Sabine A1 - Wayenberg, Ellen T1 - Institutional impact assessment in multi-level systems: conceptualizing decentralization effects from a comparative perspective JF - International review of administrative sciences : an international journal of comparative public administration N2 - 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. KW - administrative reform KW - comparison KW - coordination KW - effectiveness KW - efficiency KW - impact assessment KW - institutional reform KW - local government Y1 - 2016 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852315583194 SN - 0020-8523 SN - 1461-7226 VL - 82 IS - 2 SP - 233 EP - 272 PB - Sage CY - London ER - TY - CHAP A1 - Schwab, Christian A1 - Bogumil, Jörg A1 - Kuhlmann, Sabine A1 - Gerber, Sascha T1 - Digitalisierung von Verwaltungsleistungen in Bürgerämtern T2 - Handbuch Digitalisierung in Staat und Verwaltung N2 - Die Digitalisierung der öffentlichen Leistungserbringung für die Bürger bildet gegenwärtig einen Schwerpunkt der Modernisierungsaktivitäten 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 Bürgern sowie bei Transaktionen, d. h. der medienbruchfreien Abschließbarkeit von Verwaltungsvorgängen. Als wesentliche Gründe für die ernüchternde Bilanz der lokalen Verwaltungsdigitalisierung sind neben technischen, rechtlichen, finanziellen und personellen Barrieren insbesondere politische und institutionelle Hürden zu nennen. Viele Probleme sind zudem auch bei E-Government-Funktionen (z. B. der Online-Formulare oder elektronischen Bezahlmöglichkeiten) zu verzeichnen. Positiv schneidet dagegen die elektronische Terminvergabe ab, die in den Bürgerämtern zu wesentlichen Prozess- und Serviceverbesserungen geführt hat. Allerdings sind neben positiven Effekten, wie beispielsweise schnelleren Bearbeitungszeiten und kürzeren Wartezeiten, auch dysfunktionale Digitalisierungseffekte zu verzeichnen, wie erhöhter Arbeitsstress aufgrund eines gestiegenen Kommunikationsaufkommens (v. a. durch Email) und der damit einhergehenden Verlagerung des Arbeitsaufkommens vom Frontoffice ins Backoffice. Y1 - 2020 SN - 978-3-658-23667-0 SN - 978-3-658-23668-7 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-23668-7 SP - 437 EP - 448 PB - Springer CY - Wiesbaden ER -