Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (16)
- Doctoral Thesis (7)
- Postprint (6)
- Master's Thesis (2)
- Monograph/Edited Volume (1)
- Review (1)
Keywords
- governance (33) (remove)
Institute
- Fachgruppe Politik- & Verwaltungswissenschaft (7)
- Sozialwissenschaften (7)
- Institut für Geowissenschaften (6)
- Wirtschaftswissenschaften (5)
- Kommunalwissenschaftliches Institut (3)
- Extern (2)
- Department Erziehungswissenschaft (1)
- Fachgruppe Betriebswirtschaftslehre (1)
- Institut für Umweltwissenschaften und Geographie (1)
- WeltTrends e.V. Potsdam (1)
Widespread flooding in June 2013 caused damage costs of €6 to 8 billion in Germany, and awoke many memories of the floods in August 2002, which resulted in total damage of €11.6 billion and hence was the most expensive natural hazard event in Germany up to now. The event of 2002 does, however, also mark a reorientation toward an integrated flood risk management system in Germany. Therefore, the flood of 2013 offered the opportunity to review how the measures that politics, administration, and civil society have implemented since 2002 helped to cope with the flood and what still needs to be done to achieve effective and more integrated flood risk management. The review highlights considerable improvements on many levels, in particular (1) an increased consideration of flood hazards in spatial planning and urban development, (2) comprehensive property-level mitigation and preparedness measures, (3) more effective flood warnings and improved coordination of disaster response, and (4) a more targeted maintenance of flood defense systems. In 2013, this led to more effective flood management and to a reduction of damage. Nevertheless, important aspects remain unclear and need to be clarified. This particularly holds for balanced and coordinated strategies for reducing and overcoming the impacts of flooding in large catchments, cross-border and interdisciplinary cooperation, the role of the general public in the different phases of flood risk management, as well as a transparent risk transfer system. Recurring flood events reveal that flood risk management is a continuous task. Hence, risk drivers, such as climate change, land-use changes, economic developments, or demographic change and the resultant risks must be investigated at regular intervals, and risk reduction strategies and processes must be reassessed as well as adapted and implemented in a dialogue with all stakeholders.
Widespread flooding in June 2013 caused damage costs of €6 to 8 billion in Germany, and awoke many memories of the floods in August 2002, which resulted in total damage of €11.6 billion and hence was the most expensive natural hazard event in Germany up to now. The event of 2002 does, however, also mark a reorientation toward an integrated flood risk management system in Germany. Therefore, the flood of 2013 offered the opportunity to review how the measures that politics, administration, and civil society have implemented since 2002 helped to cope with the flood and what still needs to be done to achieve effective and more integrated flood risk management. The review highlights considerable improvements on many levels, in particular (1) an increased consideration of flood hazards in spatial planning and urban development, (2) comprehensive property-level mitigation and preparedness measures, (3) more effective flood warnings and improved coordination of disaster response, and (4) a more targeted maintenance of flood defense systems. In 2013, this led to more effective flood management and to a reduction of damage. Nevertheless, important aspects remain unclear and need to be clarified. This particularly holds for balanced and coordinated strategies for reducing and overcoming the impacts of flooding in large catchments, cross-border and interdisciplinary cooperation, the role of the general public in the different phases of flood risk management, as well as a transparent risk transfer system. Recurring flood events reveal that flood risk management is a continuous task. Hence, risk drivers, such as climate change, land-use changes, economic developments, or demographic change and the resultant risks must be investigated at regular intervals, and risk reduction strategies and processes must be reassessed as well as adapted and implemented in a dialogue with all stakeholders.
Widespread flooding in June 2013 caused damage costs of (sic)6 to 8 billion in Germany, and awoke many memories of the floods in August 2002, which resulted in total damage of (sic)11.6 billion and hence was the most expensive natural hazard event in Germany up to now. The event of 2002 does, however, also mark a reorientation toward an integrated flood risk management system in Germany. Therefore, the flood of 2013 offered the opportunity to review how the measures that politics, administration, and civil society have implemented since 2002 helped to cope with the flood and what still needs to be done to achieve effective and more integrated flood risk management. The review highlights considerable improvements on many levels, in particular (1) an increased consideration of flood hazards in spatial planning and urban development, (2) comprehensive property-level mitigation and preparedness measures, (3) more effective flood warnings and improved coordination of disaster response, and (4) a more targeted maintenance of flood defense systems. In 2013, this led to more effective flood management and to a reduction of damage. Nevertheless, important aspects remain unclear and need to be clarified. This particularly holds for balanced and coordinated strategies for reducing and overcoming the impacts of flooding in large catchments, cross-border and interdisciplinary cooperation, the role of the general public in the different phases of flood risk management, as well as a transparent risk transfer system. Recurring flood events reveal that flood risk management is a continuous task. Hence, risk drivers, such as climate change, land-use changes, economic developments, or demographic change and the resultant risks must be investigated at regular intervals, and risk reduction strategies and processes must be reassessed as well as adapted and implemented in a dialogue with all stakeholders.
This open access book presents a topical, comprehensive and differentiated analysis of Germany’s public administration and reforms. It provides an overview on key elements of German public administration at the federal, Länder and local levels of government as well as on current reform activities of the public sector. It examines the key institutional features of German public administration; the changing relationships between public administration, society and the private sector; the administrative reforms at different levels of the federal system and numerous sectors; and new challenges and modernization approaches like digitalization, Open Government and Better Regulation. Each chapter offers a combination of descriptive information and problem-oriented analysis, presenting key topical issues in Germany which are relevant to an international readership.
Improving society's ability to prepare for, respond to and recover from flooding requires integrated, anticipatory flood risk management (FRM). However, most countries still focus their efforts on responding to flooding events if and when they occur rather than addressing their current and future vulnerability to flooding. Flood insurance is one mechanism that could promote a more ex ante approach to risk by supporting risk reduction activities. This paper uses an adapted version of Easton's System Theory to investigate the role of insurance for FRM in Germany and England. We introduce an anticipatory FRM framework, which allows flood insurance to be considered as part of a broader policy field. We analyze if and how flood insurance can catalyze a change toward a more anticipatory approach to FRM. In particular we consider insurance's role in influencing five key components of anticipatory FRM: risk knowledge, prevention through better planning, property‐level protection measures, structural protection and preparedness (for response). We find that in both countries FRM is still a reactive, event‐driven process, while anticipatory FRM remains underdeveloped. Collaboration between insurers and FRM decision‐makers has already been successful, for example in improving risk knowledge and awareness, while in other areas insurance acts as a disincentive for more risk reduction action. In both countries there is evidence that insurance can play a significant role in encouraging anticipatory FRM, but this remains underutilized. Effective collaboration between insurers and government should not be seen as a cost, but as an investment to secure future insurability through flood resilience.
Lokale Politiknetzwerke werden sowohl in der öffentlichen Sozialstaatsdebatte als auch in der sozialwissenschaftlichen Forschung als vielversprechende Instrumente zur Optimierung von Wohlfahrtsmärkten propagiert. So auch in der Diskussion um den deutschen Pflegemarkt und seine Steuerungsdefizite. Im Gegensatz zu den mit dem Steuerungsinstrument Pflegekonferenz verknüpften Erwartungen, sind dessen genaues Steuerungspotential und mögliche Erklärungsfaktoren bisher jedoch nicht systematisch untersucht worden. Den methodologischen Kern dieser Arbeit bilden eine strukturelle Politikfeldanalyse des deutschen Pflegemarktes in Kombination mit einer empirischen Einzelfallstudie zu den Steuerungsleistungen einer Pflegekonferenz. Grundlage ist ein spezifisches Analyseraster auf Basis des akteurzentrierten Institutionalismus, welches die Aufmerksamkeit in der Analyse der Erklärungsfaktoren auf die Kombination der Koordinationsinstrumente Markt und Netzwerk sowie die Ausgestaltung des institutionellen Rahmens durch Gesetzgebung und Selbstverwaltung lenken soll. Im Rahmen der empirischen Erhebung konnten kaum direkte und nur wenige indirekte Steuerungsleistungen nachgewiesen werden. Als Ergebnis der Analyse lässt sich festhalten, dass lokale Politiknetzwerke im Umfeld des deutschen Pflegemarktes grundsätzlich mit erheblichen Herausforderungen hinsichtlich ihrer Steuerungsfunktion zu kämpfen haben. Dies lässt sich zum einen darauf zurückführen, dass ein gemeinsames Steuerungsinteresse der Akteure nur in wenigen Bereichen vorhanden ist, da die Grundbedingung der Interdependenz selten gegeben ist und auch nur sehr eingeschränkt innerhalb von Pflegekonferenzen entwickelt werden kann. Zum anderen sind die steuerungsrelevanten Handlungsressourcen oftmals lokal nicht verfügbar, wodurch erschwerend die Steuerungsmöglichkeiten eingeschränkt werden. Je nach Steuerungsbereich sind diese Faktoren jedoch verschieden ausgeprägt, sodass sich unterschiedliche Steuerungspotentiale ergeben.
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.
Die Kernfrage der vorliegenden Arbeit lautet: Sichert die Schuldenbremse die fiskalische Nachhaltigkeit in Deutschland? Zur Beantwortung dieser Frage wird zunächst untersucht, welche Vor-Wirkungen die Einführung der Schuldenbremse im Zeitraum 2010-16 auf die deutschen Bundesländer zeitigte. Dafür wurden die beobachtete Konsolidierungsleistung und der 2009 bestehende Konsolidierungsanreiz bzw. –druck der Bundesländer mit Hilfe einer eigens zu diesem Zweck entwickelten Scorecard evaluiert. Mittels multipler Regressionsanalyse wurde dann analysiert, wie die Faktoren der Scorecard die Konsolidierungsleistung der Bun- desländer beeinflussen. Dabei wurde festgestellt, dass beinahe 90% der Variation, durch die unabhängigen Variablen Haushaltslage, Schuldenlast, Einnahmenwachstum und Pensionslast erklärt werden und der Schuldenbremse bei der Konsolidierungsepisode 2009-2016 eher eine untergeordnete Rolle zugefallen sein dürfte. Anschließend wurde mithilfe der in 65 Expertinneninterviews gesammelten Daten analysiert, welche Grenzen der neuen Fiskalregel in ihrem Wirken gesetzt sind, bzw. welche Risiken zukünftig die Einhaltung der Schuldenbremse erschweren oder verhindern könnten: Kommunalverschuldung, FEUs, Eventualverpflichtungen in Form von Bürgschaften für Finanzinstitute und Pensionsverpflichtungen. Die häufig geäußerten Kritikpunkte, die Schuldenbremse sei eine Konjunktur- und Investitionsbremse werden ebenfalls überprüft und zurückgewiesen. Schließlich werden potentielle zukünftige Entwicklungen hinsichtlich der Schuldenbremse und der öffentlichen Verwaltung in Deutschland sowie der Konsolidierungsbemühungen der Länder erörtert.