Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (46) (remove)
Keywords
- local government (3)
- Benchmarking (2)
- Local self-government (2)
- Public administration (2)
- administrative culture (2)
- administrative reforms (2)
- comparison (2)
- coordination (2)
- crisis (2)
- decentralization (2)
- governance (2)
- intergovernmental relations (2)
- window of opportunity (2)
- Administration (1)
- Administrative reform (1)
- Amalgamations (1)
- Autonomy (1)
- COVID-19 (1)
- COVID-19 crisis (1)
- Data culture (1)
- Data literacy; (1)
- Data utilization (1)
- Dependence (1)
- Digitalisation (1)
- E-government (1)
- E-services (1)
- Financial problems (1)
- France (1)
- Germany (1)
- Governance (1)
- Intergovernmental relations (1)
- Local Autonomy Index (1)
- Local administrative systems (1)
- Local government reform (1)
- Municipal amalgamation effects (1)
- New public management (1)
- One-stop shop (1)
- Organisational reform (1)
- Public-private partnerships (1)
- Scientific policy advice (1)
- Transformation (1)
- Typologies of local government systems (1)
- administrative reform (1)
- containment (1)
- covid-19 (1)
- crisis management (1)
- cross-country comparison (1)
- digital transformation (1)
- e-government (1)
- effectiveness (1)
- efficiency (1)
- federalism (1)
- government comparative (1)
- impact assessment (1)
- incremental reform (1)
- institutional reform (1)
- institutional reforms (1)
- intergovernmental setting (1)
- local government performance (1)
- local governments (1)
- multi-level governance (1)
- multi-level system (1)
- municipal mergers (1)
- opportunity management (1)
- pandemic (1)
- pandemic comparative (1)
- performance assessment (1)
- policy advice (1)
- public health (1)
- public policy (1)
- public sector reform (1)
- territorial reform (1)
- types of municipal administration (1)
- welfare state (1)
This cross-country comparison of administrative responses to the COVID-19 pandemic in France, Germany and Sweden is aimed at exploring how institutional contexts and administrative cultures have shaped strategies of problem-solving and governance modes during the pandemic, and to what extent the crisis has been used for opportunity management. The article shows that in France, the central government reacted determinedly and hierarchically, with tough containment measures. By contrast, the response in Germany was characterized by an initial bottom-up approach that gave way to remarkable federal unity in the further course of the crisis, followed again by a return to regional variance and local discretion. In Sweden, there was a continuation of ‘normal governance’ and a strategy of relying on voluntary compliance largely based on recommendations and less – as in Germany and France – on a strategy of imposing legally binding regulations. The comparative analysis also reveals that relevant stakeholders in all three countries have used the crisis as an opportunity for changes in the institutional settings and administrative procedures.
Digital government constitutes the most important trend of post-NPM reforms at the local level. Based on the results of a research project on local one-stop shops, this article analyses the current state of digitalization in German local authorities. The authors explain the hurdles of implementation as well as the impact on staff members and citizens, providing explanations and revealing general interrelations between institutional changes, impacts, and context factors of digital transformation.
This introduction and the special issue are a contribution to comparative intergovernmental studies and public administration. This introduction provides an analytical overview of the intergovernmental relations policy responses to the Covid-19 pandemic across ten European countries, focussing on the early waves of the disease. These policy responses are analysed in terms of three types of IGR process: (1) a predominantly multi-layered policy process involving limited conflict, (2) a centralised policy process as the central government attempts to suppress conflict and (3) a conflicted policy process where such attempts are contested and tend to contribute to poor policy outcomes. The conclusion, then, reviews the difficulties and trade-offs involved in attaining a balanced multi-layered, intergovernmental process.
This article is aimed at analysing local and intergovernmental responses to the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany during the ‘first wave’ of the pandemic. It will answer the question of how the intergovernmental system in Germany responded to the crisis and to what extent the pandemic has changed patterns of multi-level governance (MLG). The article argues that the coordination of pandemic management in Germany shifted between two ideal types of multi-level governance. While in the first phase of the pandemic the territorially defined multi-level system with the sub-national and local authorities as key actors of crisis management was predominant, in the second phase a more functional orientation with increased vertical coordination gained in importance. Later on, more reliance was given again on local decision-making. Based on this analysis, we will draw some preliminary conclusions on how effective MLG in Germany has been for coordinating pandemic management and point out the shortcomings.
This article provides a conceptual framework for the analysis of COVID-19 crisis governance in the first half of 2020 from a cross-country comparative perspective. It focuses on the issue of opportunity management, that is, how the crisis was used by relevant actors of distinctly different administrative cultures as a window of opportunity. We started from an overall interest in the factors that have influenced the national politics of crisis management to answer the question of whether and how political and administrative actors in various countries have used the crisis as an opportunity to facilitate, accelerate or prevent changes in institutional settings. The objective is to study the institutional settings and governance structures, (alleged) solutions and remedies, and constellations of actors and preferences that have influenced the mode of crisis and opportunity management. Finally, the article summarizes some major comparative findings drawn from the country studies of this Special Issue, focusing on similarities and differences in crisis responses and patterns of opportunity management.
Deutschland landet in europäischen Rankings zur Verwaltungsdigitalisierung regelmäßig im hinteren Mittelfeld. Die bisherige Bilanz der Digitalisierung für die deutsche öffentliche Verwaltung ist trotz verstärkter Anstrengungen aller föderaler Ebenen, wie sie insbesondere in der Umsetzung des Onlinezugangsgesetzes (OZG) zum Ausdruck kommen, nach wie vor als eher ernüchternd einzuschätzen. Vor diesem Hintergrund beschäftigt sich der vorliegende Beitrag mit der Umsetzung, den Hürden und ausgewählten Wirkungsaspekten der Verwaltungsdigitalisierung auf kommunaler Ebene. Die empirische Basis bildet eine 2019 abgeschlossene Studie zur digitalen Transformation in einem Schlüsselbereich bürgerbezogener Leistungserbringung, den städtischen Bürgerämtern, welche die am meisten nachgefragten kommunalen Dienstleistungen bereitstellen. Aus der Analyse lassen sich wichtige Erkenntnisse für die zukünftige Entwicklung der Digitalisierung öffentlicher Leistungserbringung in Deutschland ableiten.
European coronationalism?
(2020)
The COVID-19 crisis has shown that European countries remain poorly prepared for dealing and coping with health crises and for responding in a coordinated way to a severe influenza pandemic. Within the European Union, the response to the COVID-19 pandemic has a striking diversity in its approach. By focusing on Belgium, France, Germany, and Italy—countries that represent different models of administrative systems in Europe—the analysis shows that major similarities and convergences have become apparent from a cross-country perspective. Moreover, coping with the crisis has been first and foremost an issue of the national states, whereas the European voice has been weak. Hence, the countries’ immediate responses appear to be corona-nationalistic, which we label “coronationalism.” This essay shows the extent to which the four countries adopted different crisis management strategies and which factors explain this variance, with a special focus on their institutional settings and administrative systems.
COVID-19 has demonstrated the importance of data for scientific policy advice. Mechanisms by which data is generated, shared, and ultimately lead to policy responses are crucial for enhancing transparency and legitimacy of decisions. At the same time, the volume, complexity and volatility of data are growing. Against this background, mechanisms, actors, and problems of data-driven scientific policy advice are analysed. The study reveals role conflicts, ambiguities, and tensions in the interaction between scientific advisors and policy-makers. The assumption of a technocratic model, promoted by well-established structures and functioning processes of data-driven government, cannot be confirmed. Reality largely corresponds to the pragmatic model, in parts also the decisionist model, albeit with dysfunctional characteristics.