Refine
Has Fulltext
- no (4)
Document Type
- Article (4) (remove)
Language
- English (4) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (4)
Keywords
- COVID-19 (1)
- Local government (1)
- administrative culture (1)
- comparison (1)
- crisis management (1)
- governance (1)
- opportunity management (1)
- pandemic (1)
- performance budgeting (1)
- performance information (1)
Institute
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.
This article contributes to the debate on the incorporation of performance information in European local government budgets. At the core is the development of an analytical model for comparing efforts of performance budgeting (PB). Evidence in ten cases indicates that performance structures and the span of performance differ, that performance indicators are far from always measuring outcomes or outputs, and that future and past performance figures are often absent. Nevertheless similar learning trajectories do exist. Possible explanations for the variation involve the varying degrees of reform implementation, experience with PB and prevailing institutional arrangements.
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.
This chapter outlines the strategy of the European Group for Public Administration (EGPA) and reflects on some of its key strengths, and how these may equip the European community of scholars and practitioners of public administration (PA) to contribute to the development of the field. The chapter reviews the key trait of the EGPA organisational model: the Permanent Study Groups, which are communities of scholars centred on the key areas of the administrative sciences in Europe. It also discusses the partnerships that EGPA has developed with key institutions in Europe and beyond, and highlights the significance of the EGPA policy papers on European governance. Finally, it discusses the strategic, forward-looking project European Perspectives on Public Administration, which aims to reflect on the future of the research and teaching of public administration.