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.
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to discuss different approaches of performance measurement and benchmarking as reflexive institutions for local governments in England, Germany and Sweden from a comparative perspective.
Design/methodology/approach
These three countries have been selected because they represent typical (most different) cases of European local government systems and reforms. The existing theories on institutional reflexivity point to the potential contribution of benchmarking to public sector innovation and organizational learning. Based on survey findings, in-depth case studies, interviews and document analyses in these three countries, the paper addresses the major research question as to what extent and why benchmarking regimes vary across countries. It derives hypotheses about the impacts of benchmarking on institutional learning and innovation.
Findings
The outcomes suggest that the combination of three key features of benchmarking, namely - obligation, sanctions and benchmarking authority - in conjunction with country-specific administrative context conditions and local actor constellations - influences the impact of benchmarking as a reflexive institution.
Originality/value
It is shown in the paper that compulsory benchmarking on its own does not lead to reflexivity and learning, but that there is a need for autonomy and leeway for local actors to cope with benchmarking results. These findings are relevant because policy makers must decide upon the specific governance mix of benchmarking exercises taking their national and local contexts into account if they want them to promote institutional learning and innovation.
Sub-municipal units (SMUs) in Germany differ in German Länder. In Berlin, Hamburg and München Metropole Districts fulfill a number of quasi-municipal self-government rights and functions. They have their own budget and strong councils, as well as mayors. In all other Länder, most sub-municipal councils were subordinated under the municipal council and directly elected mayor heading the administration. SMUs were introduced as a kind of compensation with different territorial reforms in the 1970s. Although directly elected, sub-municipal councilors are weak, and their advisory role competes with other newly established advisory boards. Here the focus remains on traffic and town planning. Some sub-municipal councils fulfill smaller administrative functions and become more relevant and important in recent decentralization strategies of neighborhood development.
In recent decades, a wave of administrative reforms has changed local governance in many European countries. However, our knowledge about differences as well as similarities between the countries, driving forces, impacts, perceptions, and evaluation of these reforms is still limited. In the chapter, the authors give an overview about mayors’ perceptions and evaluations of two major reform trajectories: (a) re-organisation of local service delivery and (b) internal administrative/managerial reforms. Furthermore, differences between (groups of) countries as well as similarities among them are shown in these two fields of administrative reform. Finally, the authors tried to identify explanatory factors for specific perceptions of administrative reforms at the local level.
Local Government Systems
(2017)
This chapter looks for main differences among local government systems as well as similarities among them. This has been done by the authors with the aim to grasp the institutional setting in which mayors have to act. The authors did it by updating and extending existing typologies and indices of local government systems. Nevertheless, an extension was first of all necessary with respect to vertical power relations because previous typologies considering them took neither the local government systems in Eastern and Central Europe nor the changes in the Western part of the continent into account. Furthermore, reflections about typologies are extended to the present one on public administration at the municipal level. All this have been underpinned by statistical data, the recent work on a ‘Local Autonomy Index’ (LAI; see Ladner et al. Measuring Autonomy in 39 Countries (1990–2014), Regional and Federal Studies, 26, 321–357, 2016) and information collected by the partners involved in the survey.
Comparatice methods B
(2020)
Territorial reform is the most radical and contested reorganisation of local government. A sound evaluation of the outcome of such reforms is hence an important step to ensure the legitimation of any decision on the subject. However, in our view the discourse on the subject appears to be one sided, focusing primarily on overall fiscal effects scrutinised by economists. The contribution of this paper is hence threefold: Firstly, we provide an overview off territorial reforms in Europe, with a special focus on Eastern Germany as a promising case for cross-country comparisons. Secondly, we provide an overview of the analytical classifications of these reforms and context factors to be considered in their evaluation. And thirdly, we analyse the literature on qualitative performance effects of these reforms. The results show that territorial reforms have a significant positive impact on functional performance, while the effects on participation and integration are indeed ambivalent. In doing so, we provide substantial arguments for a broader, more inclusive discussion on the success of territorial reforms.
Over the last decades, Better Regulation has become a major reform topic at the federal and—in some cases—also at the Länder level. Although the debate about improving regulatory quality and reducing unnecessary burdens created by bureaucracy and red tape date back to the 1960s and 1970s, the introduction by law in 2006 of a new independent institutionalised body for regulatory control at the federal level of government has brought a new quality to the discourse and practice of Better Regulation in Germany. This chapter introduces the basic features of the legislative process at the federal level in Germany, addresses the issue of Better Regulation and outlines the role of the National Regulatory Control Council (Nationaler Normenkontrollrat—NKR) as a ‘watchdog’ for compliance costs, red tape and regulatory impacts.
German Public Administration
(2021)
The international community of public administration and administrative sciences shows a great interest in the basic features of the German administrative system. The German public administration with its formative decentralisation (called: administrative federalism) is regarded as a prime example of multilevel governance and strong local self-government. Furthermore, over the past decades, the traditional profile of the German administrative system has significantly been reshaped and remoulded through reforms, processes of modernisation and the transformation process in East Germany. Studies on the German administrative system should focus especially on
key institutional features of public administration;
changing relationships between public administration, society and the private sector;
administrative reforms at different levels of the federal system; and
new challenges and modernisation approaches, such as digitalisation, open government and better regulation.
The chapter analyses recent reforms in the multilevel system of the Länder, specifically territorial, functional and structural reforms, which represent three of the most crucial and closely interconnected reform trajectories at the subnational level. It sheds light on the variety of reform approaches pursued in the different Länder and also highlights some factors that account for these differences. The transfer of state functions to local governments is addressed as well as the restructuring of Länder administrations (e.g. abolishment of the meso level of the Länder administration and of single-purpose state agencies) and the rescaling of territorial boundaries at county and municipal levels, including a brief review of the recently failed (territorial) reforms in Eastern Germany.
Future Outlook and Scenarios
(2021)
Where is local self-government heading in the future? Among trends identified is firstly an intensification of multilevel, intermunicipal, and cross-border governance. In the future even more of cooperation and coordination among different political and administrative levels will be required. Territorial boundaries have become increasingly incongruent with functional public activities. Secondly, the innovative potential of introducing markets as templates for organisational reform has reached its end. Future reforms will most likely try to adapt market reforms to local public contexts, or even reverse the development. Finally, a tightening of state steering and an increased dependence on state funding to uphold local services is expected. Waves of amalgamations might slow down this process but they will not make financial problems disappear completely.