Refine
Document Type
- Article (17)
- Part of a Book (9)
- Monograph/Edited Volume (4)
- Other (1)
- Report (1)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (32)
Keywords
- Germany (4)
- administrative reforms (3)
- crisis (3)
- digitalization (3)
- new public management (3)
- policy advice (3)
- territorial reforms (3)
- COVID-19 (2)
- Local self-government (2)
- Politikberatung (2)
Institute
- Fachgruppe Politik- & Verwaltungswissenschaft (32) (remove)
All over Europe, cities and municipalities face new and numerous challenges to uphold their unique self-governing role in society. This intriguing reality underscores this volume’s ambition of brightening the future of local self-government. After further elaborating on this relevant background and the approach taken, the first chapter introduces three main dimensions of analysis. They are key to the volume’s subsequent parts on the essence of local government’s autonomy, its transformations in the light of digitalisation, marketisation and amalgamation and, finally, its changing intergovernmental relations concerning supervision and subnational policy-making. This volume covers eight countries, spread over Europe. And so, this introductory chapter ends with highlighting main features of the different local government systems involved.
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.
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.
Comparatice methods B
(2020)
Comparative methods B
(2020)
This chapter outlines the relevance and value of comparative approaches and methods in studying Public Administration (PA). It discusses the roots and current developments of comparative research in PA and discusses various methodological venues for cross-country comparisons, such as most similar/dissimilar systems designs, the method of concomitant variation and the difference-in-difference method. Besides the description of these approaches, we highlight their conceptual value for theory-driven empirical comparative research. Drawing on selected pieces of comparative research, the chapter furthermore provides examples for the application of comparative methods in practice presenting empirical findings and highlighting strengths and weaknesses. The chapter finally emphasizes that the methodological development in comparative PA research has by far not yet reached its end, and that some future challenges need to be addressed, such as the issues of causality, generalizability, and mixed-methods approaches.
The study of subnational and local government systems and reforms has become an increasingly salient topic in comparative public administration. In many European countries, policy implementation, the execution of public tasks and the delivery of services to citizens are largely carried out by local governments, which, at the same time, have been subjected to multiple reforms and sometimes comprehensive institutional re-organizations. This chapter discusses analytical key concepts and outcomes of the comparative study of local governments and local government reforms. It outlines frameworks and analytical tools to capture the variety of institutional settings and developments at the local level of government. It provides an introduction into crucial comparative dimensions, such as functional, territorial and political profiles of local governments, and analyses current reform approaches and outcomes based on recent empirical findings. Finally, the chapter addresses salient issues to be taken up in future comparative studies about local government.
Angesichts neuer globaler Herausforderungen gehört eine starke kommunale Ebene zu den Grundvoraussetzungen gesellschaftlicher Problemlösungsfähigkeit. Die Stärkung kommunaler Selbstverwaltung ist daher ein wichtiges institutionen- und verwaltungspolitisches Zukunftsthema, zu welchem die vorliegende Studie einen Beitrag leisten möchte.
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 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.
Die Coronapandemie hat die zentrale Rolle von Staat und Verwaltung für die Krisenbewältigung deutlich gemacht sowie ins Zentrum wissenschaftlicher und öffentlicher Aufmerksamkeit gerückt. Das intergouvernementale Pandemiemanagement, das Zusammenwirken verschiedener Politik- und Verwaltungsebenen im föderalen Staat und die Einbringung wissenschaftlicher Expertise haben sich in der Pandemie als entscheidende institutionelle Stellschrauben erwiesen. Zugleich sind erhebliche Schwachstellen und Engpässe zu Tage getreten, die teilweise zu institutioneller Überforderung, Reibungsverlusten, Koordinationsschwächen oder gar Institutionenversagen geführt haben. Beklagt wurden zudem Maßnahmenpakete und Entscheidungsoutputs, die hinsichtlich ihrer Evidenz- und Wissensbasis teils umstritten waren und in ihrem Zustandekommen hinreichende Legitimation, Zurechenbarkeit, Nachvollziehbarkeit und Transparenz vermissen ließen.
Der seit März 2020 andauernde Krisenzustand hat einen neuartigen, vom bisherigen Normalzustand stark abweichenden Modus des Regierens und des Verwaltungsmanagements in Deutschland geschaffen. In diesem Bereich herrscht weiterhin ein erheblicher politik- und verwaltungswissenschaftlicher Forschungsbedarf, zu dessen Befriedigung diese Studie beitragen soll.