Refine
Has Fulltext
- no (68) (remove)
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (45)
- Part of a Book (15)
- Monograph/Edited Volume (5)
- Other (2)
- Course Material (1)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (68)
Keywords
- Germany (4)
- local government (4)
- administrative reform (3)
- administrative reforms (3)
- decentralization (3)
- new public management (3)
- territorial reforms (3)
- Benchmarking (2)
- Local self-government (2)
- Public administration (2)
Over the past decades, the traditional profile of the German administrative system has significantly been reshaped and remoulded through reforms and transformations. Manifold modernization efforts have been undertaken to adjust administrative structures and procedures to increasing challenges and pressures. In this chapter, the attempt is made to outline major institutional reform paths in Germany from Weberian bureaucracy to most recent reforms towards a digital transformation of public administration. We will show to what extent the German administrative system has moved away from the classical Weberian bureaucracy to a hybrid system where elements of the ‘old’ model and new reform paradigms such as the NPM and digital government are hybridized, labelled the Neo Weberian State. The question will be addressed as to what extent this shift has taken shape and which hurdles and path-dependencies can be identified to explain partial persistence and continuity over time.
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.
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.
Administrative reforms refer to conscious decisions about institution building and institutional change that are taken at the end of political processes and can be conceived as the attempt by politico-administrative actors to change the institutional order (polity) within which they make and implement decisions. In this paper we proceed from the assumption that the role of politics, the constellation of political actors and arenas vary according to the scope and objectives of administrative reforms. Depending on whether they refer to changes between organizational units/levels/sectors ('external institutional policy') or to an internal reorganization ('internal institutional policy'), different actor strategies, patterns of conflict and power constellations can be expected. As external administrative reforms are aimed at changing functional and/or territorial jurisdictions and thus always involve external actors, larger resistance, heavier political conflicts and generally more politicization are likely to occur than in the case of internal administrative reforms. Yet, for internal reforms, too, actor coalitions which support or block institutional changes, promotors, leaders, and moderators have revealed to shape processes and outcomes. Against this background, this chapter examines the influence of politics on various types of administrative reforms making a distinction between external and internal institutional policies. We analyse the role of politico-administrative actors, their strategies and influence on the formulation, trajectories and outcomes of administrative reforms. Our major focus will be on reforms in the multi-level system on the one hand and on (Post-) NPM reforms on the other as two major international trends. Drawing on reform experiences in different European countries, the chapter will reveal to what extent actors' interests and influences have triggered and shaped administrative reforms and which difference these have made for the reform outcome.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.