351 Öffentliche Verwaltung
Refine
Document Type
- Doctoral Thesis (4)
- Monograph/Edited Volume (2)
- Part of a Book (2)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (8)
Keywords
- new public management (2)
- Afrika südlich der Sahara (1)
- Ambivalenz (1)
- Arbeitgeberattraktivität (1)
- Arbeitskampf (1)
- Beschäftigung im öffentlichen Sektor (1)
- COVID-19 crisis (1)
- Coronakrise (1)
- Deutschland (1)
- Digitalisierung (1)
- Europe (1)
- Flüchtlingskrise (1)
- Germany (1)
- Immigration (1)
- Koordination (1)
- Krisen-Preparedness (1)
- Migration (1)
- Ministerial bureaucracy (1)
- Ministerialbürokratie (1)
- Mitarbeiterstreiks (1)
- Organisationen (1)
- Pandemiemanagement (1)
- Politikberatung (1)
- Potenziale (1)
- Probleme (1)
- Public Management (1)
- Soziologie (1)
- Systemtheorie (1)
- administrative reform (1)
- ambivalence (1)
- better regulation (1)
- coordination (1)
- crisis-preparedness (1)
- digital transformations (1)
- digitale Transformation (1)
- digitalization (1)
- employee strikes (1)
- employer attractiveness (1)
- immigration (1)
- industrial action (1)
- institutional crisis (1)
- institutionalization of evaluation (1)
- institutionelle Krise (1)
- local autonomy (1)
- local government (1)
- migration (1)
- organizations (1)
- pandemic management (1)
- policy advice (1)
- potentials (1)
- problems (1)
- public administration (1)
- public management (1)
- public sector reform (1)
- refugee crisis (1)
- self-governance (1)
- sociology (1)
- sub-saharan Africa (1)
- systems theory (1)
- typology of evaluation (1)
Institute
- Fachgruppe Politik- & Verwaltungswissenschaft (8) (remove)
Ausgehend von der Beobachtung, dass die aktuelle Digitalisierungsforschung die Ambivalenz der Digitalisierung zwar erkennt, aber nicht zum Gegenstand ihrer Analysen macht, fokussiert die vorliegende kumulative Dissertation auf die ambivalente Dichotomie aus Potenzialen und Problemen, die mit digitalen Transformationen von Organisationen einhergeht. Entlang von sechs Publikationen wird mit einem systemtheoretischen Blick auf Organisationen die spannungsvolle Dichotomie hinsichtlich dreier ambivalenter Verhältnisse aufgezeigt: Erstens wird in Bezug auf das Verhältnis von Digitalisierung und Postbürokratie deutlich, dass digitale Transformationen das Potenzial aufweisen, postbürokratische Arbeitsweisen zu erleichtern. Parallel ergibt sich das Problem, dass auf Konsens basierende postbürokratische Strukturen Digitalisierungsinitiativen erschweren, da diese auf eine Vielzahl von Entscheidungen angewiesen sind. Zweitens zeigt sich mit Blick auf das ambivalente Verhältnis von Digitalisierung und Vernetzung, dass einerseits organisationsweite Kooperation ermöglicht wird, während sich andererseits die Gefahr digitaler Widerspruchskommunikation auftut. Beim dritten Verhältnis zwischen Digitalisierung und Gender deutet sich das mit neuen digitalen Technologien einhergehende Potenzial für Gender Inklusion an, während zugleich das Problem einprogrammierter Gender Biases auftritt, die Diskriminierungen oftmals verschärfen. Durch die Gegenüberstellung der Potenziale und Probleme wird nicht nur die Ambivalenz organisationaler Digitalisierung analysierbar und verständlich, es stellt sich auch heraus, dass mit digitalen Transformationen einen doppelte Formalisierung einhergeht: Organisationen werden nicht nur mit den für Reformen üblichen Anpassungen der formalen Strukturen konfrontiert, sondern müssen zusätzlich formale Entscheidungen zu Technikeinführung und -beibehaltung treffen sowie formale Lösungen etablieren, um auf unvorhergesehene Potenziale und Probleme reagieren. Das Ziel der Dissertation ist es, eine analytisch generalisierte Heuristik an die Hand zu geben, mit deren Hilfe die Errungenschaften und Chancen digitaler Transformationen identifiziert werden können, während sich parallel ihr Verhältnis zu den gleichzeitig entstehenden Herausforderungen und Folgeproblemen erklären lässt.
This research investigated the relationship between frequent engagement in industrial action (also known as ‘employee strikes’) and the internal attractiveness of government employment. It focused on a special group of public employees: public university lecturers and public-school teachers in Uganda who frequently engaged in industrial action. At the very basic level, the research explored whether public employees frequently engaged in industrial action because they considered public service employment to be unattractive or whether frequent engagement in industrial action was in fact part of the attractiveness of government employment. Beyond exploring these relationships, it also explained why (or why not) such relationships existed.
Methodologically, the research was conducted using an exploratory sequential design – a mixed methods study design that starts with a qualitative followed by a quantitative phase. It is the results of the initial qualitative phase that determined the direction of the subsequent quantitative phase. The qualitative phase started with an exploration of the relationship between industrial action and internal public service attractiveness, resulting into two specific research questions:
1) Why do public employees engage in industrial action and what role does frequent engagement in industrial action play in their perception of public service attractiveness?
2) Why and how is organizational justice related to public employees’ perception of public service attractiveness?
The above questions were answered both qualitatively and quantitatively. The theoretical postulations of the Social Movements Theories, Social Exchange Theory, and the Signaling Theory were used to structure the research assumptions and hypotheses.
The results showed that public employees engaged in industrial action mostly because of relative, rather than absolute deprivation. An established culture of workplace militancy was also found to be key in actualizing industrial action as was the (perceived) absence of alternatives to achieve workplace justice. Importantly, there was a clear dichotomy between absolute working conditions and frequent engagement in industrial action. Frequent engagement in industrial action was itself found to have both positive and negative effects on internal public service attractiveness. It was also found that public service attractiveness from the perspective of current public employees might be different from what it is from the perspective of prospective employees. This is because current public employees do not assume what it feels like to work for government, but mostly use their day-to-day lived experiences to judge the attractiveness of their employer. The existing literature is particularly deficient on analyzing public service attractiveness from an internal perspective, which is surprising given the public sector’s high reliance on internal recruitment.
The research results underlined key implications for theory, practice, and research. At theory level, the results suggested that public employee ratings of internal public service attractiveness were heavily affected by halo effects and should therefore not be taken at face value. The complex workplace social exchanges which are deeply rooted in organizational justice and the ‘personification metaphor’ were also emphasized. From an empirical perspective, the results underlined the need to prioritize internal public service attractiveness as recent research has confirmed the value of family socialization and internal recommendations in making public sector employment attractive, even to external applicants. This research argues that the centrality of organizational justice in public sector employee relations requires public sector organizations to be intentional in their bid to create fair, just, and attractive workplaces. Beyond assessing the fairness of personnel policies, procedures, and interactional relationships, it is also important to prepare and equip public managers with the right skills to promote and practice justice in their day-to-day interactions with public employees, and to encourage, improve, and facilitate alternative public employee feedback mechanisms.
This book compares local self-government in Europe. It examines local institutional structures, autonomy, and capacities in six selected countries - France, Italy, Sweden, Hungary, Poland, and the United Kingdom - each of which represents a typical model of European local government. Within Europe, an overall trend towards more local government capacities and autonomy can be identified, but there are also some counter tendencies to this trend and major differences regarding local politico-administrative settings, functional responsibilities, and resources. The book demonstrates that a certain degree of local financial autonomy and fiscal discretion is necessary for effective service provision. Furthermore, a robust local organization, viable territorial structures, a professional public service, strong local leadership, and well-functioning tools of democratic participation are key aspects for local governments to effectively fulfill their tasks and ensure political accountability. The book will appeal to students and scholars of Public Administration and Public Management, as well as practitioners and policy-makers at different levels of government, in public enterprises, and in NGOs.
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.
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.
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.
Wandlungsfähige Verwaltungen
(2021)
Organizing immigration
(2020)
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.