Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (45)
- Part of a Book (17)
- Monograph/Edited Volume (9)
- Postprint (3)
- Other (2)
- Course Material (1)
- Report (1)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (78) (remove)
Keywords
- Germany (5)
- local government (5)
- administrative reform (4)
- administrative reforms (4)
- crisis (4)
- governance (4)
- policy advice (4)
- administrative culture (3)
- comparison (3)
- coordination (3)
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.
Die Digitalisierung der öffentlichen Leistungserbringung für die Bürger bildet gegenwärtig einen Schwerpunkt der Modernisierungsaktivitäten in Staat und Verwaltung. Hinsichtlich der digitalen Informationsbereitstellung hat es zwar deutliche Fortschritte gegeben, insgesamt zeigt sich jedoch eine allenfalls moderate „E-Government-Performanz“ bei der digitalen Kommunikation zwischen Verwaltung und Bürgern sowie bei Transaktionen, d. h. der medienbruchfreien Abschließbarkeit von Verwaltungsvorgängen. Als wesentliche Gründe für die ernüchternde Bilanz der lokalen Verwaltungsdigitalisierung sind neben technischen, rechtlichen, finanziellen und personellen Barrieren insbesondere politische und institutionelle Hürden zu nennen. Viele Probleme sind zudem auch bei E-Government-Funktionen (z. B. der Online-Formulare oder elektronischen Bezahlmöglichkeiten) zu verzeichnen. Positiv schneidet dagegen die elektronische Terminvergabe ab, die in den Bürgerämtern zu wesentlichen Prozess- und Serviceverbesserungen geführt hat. Allerdings sind neben positiven Effekten, wie beispielsweise schnelleren Bearbeitungszeiten und kürzeren Wartezeiten, auch dysfunktionale Digitalisierungseffekte zu verzeichnen, wie erhöhter Arbeitsstress aufgrund eines gestiegenen Kommunikationsaufkommens (v. a. durch Email) und der damit einhergehenden Verlagerung des Arbeitsaufkommens vom Frontoffice ins Backoffice.
Diese eher ungewöhnliche, aber sehr persönlich gehaltene Festschrift ist dem langjährigen Wirken von Dr. Christiane Büchner als „Geschäftsführerin“ am Kommunalwissenschaftlichen Institut (KWI) der Universität Potsdam gewidmet. Die von Prof. Jochen Franzke zusammengestellte und herausgegebene Publikation enthält im ersten Teil neben dem Grußwort des Geschäftsführenden Direktors des KWI Herrn Prof. Thorsten Ingo Schmidt eine Reihe persönlicher Würdigungen von Kolleginnen und Kollegen, Gastwissenschaftlern und Mitarbeitenden, die seit 1994 in verschiedenen Phasen der Entwicklung des KWIs mit Dr. Christiane Büchner eng zusammengearbeitet haben. Der abschließende Dokumentationsteil der Publikation enthält neben Auszügen aus dem Schriftenverzeichnis von Dr. Christiane Büchner auch zwei Nachdrucke aus deren Feder zum Thema der Kreisgebietsreform in Brandenburg (von 2001) sowie über den Landkreis Barnim (von 2019).
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.
Comparative literature on institutional reforms in multi-level systems proceeds from a global trend towards the decentralization of state functions. However, there is only scarce knowledge about the impact that decentralization has had, in particular, upon the sub-central governments involved. How does it affect regional and local governments? Do these reforms also have unintended outcomes on the sub-central level and how can this be explained? This article aims to develop a conceptual framework to assess the impacts of decentralization on the sub-central level from a comparative and policyoriented perspective. This framework is intended to outline the major patterns and models of decentralization and the theoretical assumptions regarding de-/re-centralization impacts, as well as pertinent cross-country approaches meant to evaluate and compare institutional reforms. It will also serve as an analytical guideline and a structural basis for all the country-related articles in this Special Issue.
Comparative literature on institutional reforms in multi-level systems proceeds from a global trend towards the decentralization of state functions. However, there is only scarce knowledge about the impact that decentralization has had, in particular, upon the sub-central governments involved. How does it affect regional and local governments? Do these reforms also have unintended outcomes on the sub-central level and how can this be explained? This article aims to develop a conceptual framework to assess the impacts of decentralization on the sub-central level from a comparative and policy-oriented perspective. This framework is intended to outline the major patterns and models of decentralization and the theoretical assumptions regarding de-/re-centralization impacts, as well as pertinent cross-country approaches meant to evaluate and compare institutional reforms. It will also serve as an analytical guideline and a structural basis for all the country-related articles in this Special Issue.
Points for practitioners
Decentralization reforms are approved as having a key role to play in the attainment of ‘good governance’. Yet, there is also the enticement on the part of state governments to offload an ever-increasing amount of responsibilities to, and overtask, local levels of government, which can lead to increasing performance disparities within local sub-state jurisdictions. Against this background, the article provides a conceptual framework to assess reform impacts from a comparative perspective. The analytical framework can be used by practitioners to support their decisions about new decentralization strategies or necessary adjustments regarding ongoing reform measures.
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.
Over the last decades, Better Regulation has become a major reform topic at the federal and—in some cases—also at the Länder level. Although the debate about improving regulatory quality and reducing unnecessary burdens created by bureaucracy and red tape date back to the 1960s and 1970s, the introduction by law in 2006 of a new independent institutionalised body for regulatory control at the federal level of government has brought a new quality to the discourse and practice of Better Regulation in Germany. This chapter introduces the basic features of the legislative process at the federal level in Germany, addresses the issue of Better Regulation and outlines the role of the National Regulatory Control Council (Nationaler Normenkontrollrat—NKR) as a ‘watchdog’ for compliance costs, red tape and regulatory impacts.
Der vorliegende Beitrag fasst die bisherige Forschung über die Wirkungen von Gebietsreformen zusammen und analysiert diese aus inhaltlicher und methodischer Perspektive. Basierend auf einer Auswertung von ausgewählten nationalen und europäischen Studien werden Wirkungsbefunde in drei zentralen Dimensionen dargestellt: (1) Leistungsfähigkeit, Verwaltungs- und Veranstaltungskraft, (2) Einsparungen, Skalenerträge und Wirtschaftlichkeit und (3) Partizipation und demokratische Kontrolle. Im Ergebnis kann festgestellt werden, dass die Leistungs- und Handlungsfähigkeit kommunaler Verwaltungen durch Gebietsreformen überwiegend positiv beeinflusst wird. Dagegen sind die empirischen Befunde bezüglich Wirtschaftlichkeit, Einsparungen und Skalenerträge sowie zur Partizipation und demokratischen Kontrolle nicht eindeutig.
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.
This article analyses the decentralization of the French welfare state focusing on the transfer of the Revenu minimum d’insertion (RMI) welfare benefit to the departments in 2003 and 2004. We map and explain the effects of the reform on the system and performance of the subnational provision of welfare tasks. To evaluate the impact of decentralization on the RMI-related action of the departments, we carry out a qualitative document analysis and use data from two case studies. The RMI decentralization offers an exemplary insight into the incremental implementation of French decentralization. We find many unintended effects in terms of the performance and outcome of the subnational welfare provision. This is traced back to the combining of institutional and policy reforms and the inadequate translation of high political expectations into an inadequate action programme both resulting in excessive demands on the local actors.
Points for practitioners
The decentralization of public tasks is associated with high expectations in terms of the effects on the performance of public services and public governance on the subnational levels. For an in-depth measure the range of administrative performance and political systems effects should be taken into account. We propose a five-dimensional scheme allowing for the determination of decentralization effects on the resource input to and the operative output of subnational public services, on the horizontal coordination between subnational task holders and the affected non-public stakeholders, on the vertical intergovernmental coordination, and on the democratic accountability of subnational authorities.
German Public Administration
(2021)
The international community of public administration and administrative sciences shows a great interest in the basic features of the German administrative system. The German public administration with its formative decentralisation (called: administrative federalism) is regarded as a prime example of multilevel governance and strong local self-government. Furthermore, over the past decades, the traditional profile of the German administrative system has significantly been reshaped and remoulded through reforms, processes of modernisation and the transformation process in East Germany. Studies on the German administrative system should focus especially on
key institutional features of public administration;
changing relationships between public administration, society and the private sector;
administrative reforms at different levels of the federal system; and
new challenges and modernisation approaches, such as digitalisation, open government and better regulation.
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.
Kuhlmann, Laffin and Wayenberg point out three main strands of subnational changes that have significantly dominated the research field and focus of Permanent Study Group 5. Elaborating upon the Study Group’s contributions, the chapter overviews relevant research questions, approaches and findings that have been touched upon concerning local and regional government systems, subnational reforms and their evaluation in a multi-level governance setting. The chapter concludes with zooming in on austerity as a main driver of future developments upon and amongst all levels of government.
Competing, collaborating or controlling? - Comparing benchmarking in European local government
(2013)
The way that local authorities in OECD countries compare and benchmark their performance varies widely. This paper explains some of the reasons behind the variations. The current local government benchmarking schemes in Europe their governance, coverage and impactlargely depend on the institutional characteristics of the respective administrative and local government systems (in other words, the starting conditions). There are signs that, as a result of the fiscal crisis in Europe and need to cut public sector costs, many countries (but not England and Wales) are leaning towards compulsory large-scale benchmarking projects.
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.
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.
Points for practitioners
COVID-19 has shown that national political and administrative standard operating procedures in preparation for crises are, at best, partially helpful. Notwithstanding the fact that dealing with the unpredictable is a necessary part of crisis management, a need to further improve the institutional preparedness for pandemic crises in all three countries examined here has also become clear. This should be done particularly by way of shifting resources to the health and care sectors, strengthening the decentralized management of health emergencies, stocking and/or self-producing protection material, assessing the effects of crisis measures, and opening the scientific discourse to broader arenas of experts.
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.
Die vorliegende Studie zeigt, dass Daten in der Krise eine herausragende Bedeutung für die wissenschaftliche Politikberatung, administrative Entscheidungsvorbereitung und politische Entscheidungsfindung haben. In der Krise gab es jedoch gravierende Kommunikationsprobleme und Unsicherheiten in der wechselseitigen Erwartungshaltung von wissenschaftlichen Datengebern und politisch-administrativen Datennutzern. Die Wissensakkumulation und Entscheidungsabwägung wurde außerdem durch eine unsichere und volatile Datenlage zum Pandemiegeschehen, verbunden mit einer dynamischen Lageentwicklung, erschwert. Nach wie vor sind das Bewusstsein und wechselseitige Verständnis für die spezifischen Rollenprofile der am wissenschaftlichen Politikberatungsprozess beteiligten Akteure sowie insbesondere deren Abgrenzung als unzureichend einzuschätzen.
Die Studie hat darüber hinaus vielfältige Defizite hinsichtlich der Verfügbarkeit, Qualität, Zugänglichkeit, Teilbarkeit und Nutzbarkeit von Daten identifiziert, die Datenproduzenten und -verwender vor erhebliche Herausforderungen stellen und einen umfangreichen Reformbedarf aufzeigen, da zum einen wichtige Datenbestände für eine krisenbezogene Politikberatung fehlen. Zum anderen sind die Tiefenschärfe und Differenziertheit des verfügbaren Datenbestandes teilweise unzureichend. Dies gilt z.B. für sozialstrukturelle Daten zur Schwere der Pandemiebetroffenheit verschiedener Gruppen oder für kleinräumige Daten über Belastungs- und Kapazitätsparameter, etwa zur Personalabdeckung auf Intensivstationen, in Gesundheitsämtern und Pflegeeinrichtungen. Datendefizite sind ferner im Hinblick auf eine ganzheitliche Pandemiebeurteilung festzustellen, zum Beispiel bezüglich der Gesundheitseffekte im weiteren Sinne, die aufgrund der ergriffenen Maßnahmen entstanden sind (Verschiebung oder Wegfall von Operationen, Behandlungen und Prävention, aber auch häusliche Gewalt und psychische Belastungen). Mangels systematischer Begleitstudien und evaluativer Untersuchungen, u.a. auch zu lokalen Pilotprojekten und Experimenten, bestehen außerdem Datendefizite im Hinblick auf die Wirkungen von Eindämmungsmaßnahmen oder deren Aufhebung auf der gebietskörperschaftlichen Ebene.
Insgesamt belegt die Studie, dass es zur Optimierung der datenbasierten Politikberatung und politischen Entscheidungsfindung in und außerhalb von Krisen nicht nur darum gehen kann, ein „Mehr“ an Daten zu produzieren sowie deren Qualität, Verknüpfung und Teilung zu verbessern. Vielmehr müssen auch die Anreizstrukturen und Interessenlagen in Politik, Verwaltung und Wissenschaft sowie die Kompetenzen, Handlungsorientierungen und kognitiv-kulturellen Prägungen der verschiedenen Akteure in den Blick genommen werden. Es müssten also Anreize gesetzt und Strukturen geschaffen werden, um das Interesse, den Willen und das Können (will and skill) zur Datennutzung auf Seiten politisch-administrativer Entscheider und zur Dateneinspeisung auf Seiten von Wissenschaftlern zu stärken. Neben adressatengerechter Informationsaufbereitung geht es dabei auch um die Gestaltung eines normativen und institutionellen Rahmens, innerhalb dessen die Nutzung von Daten für Entscheidungen effektiver, qualifizierter, aber auch transparenter, nachvollziehbarer und damit demokratisch legitimer erfolgen kann.
Vor dem Hintergrund dieser empirischen Befunde werden acht Cluster von Optimierungsmaßnahmen vorgeschlagen:
(1) Etablierung von Datenstrecken und Datenteams,
(2) Schaffung regionaler Datenkompetenzzentren,
(3) Stärkung von Data Literacy und Beschleunigung des Kulturwandels in der öffentlichen Verwaltung,
(4) Datenstandardisierung, Interoperabilität und Registermodernisierung,
(5) Ausbau von Public Data Pools und Open Data Nutzung,
(6) Effektivere Verbindung von Datenschutz und Datennutzung,
(7) Entwicklung eines hochfrequenten, repräsentativen Datensatzes,
(8) Förderung der europäischen Daten-Zusammenarbeit.
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 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.
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.
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.
Conclusion : Tensions, Challenges, and Future "Flags" of Local Public Sector Reforms and Comparative
(2016)
In dem Beitrag werden das Verwaltungshandeln in der Flüchtlingskrise und mögliche Ursachen der aufgetretenen Vollzugsprobleme untersucht. Im Fokus stehen vor allem die Vollzugsrealität und die Verwaltungsvarianz im Bereich der Erstaufnahme von Flüchtlingen auf der Länderebene sowie die durch das BAMF als auch die Bundes länder mittlerweile begonnenen Reformen im Verwaltungsvollzugssystem. Leitfrage des Aufsatzes ist, ob das bestehende Verwaltungsvollzugssystem nicht nur in den jeweiligen Zuständigkeiten reformbedürftig ist, sondern ob es auch zu einer neuen Zuständigkeitsverteilung im Bundesstaat kommen sollte.
The chapter analyses recent reforms in the multilevel system of the Länder, specifically territorial, functional and structural reforms, which represent three of the most crucial and closely interconnected reform trajectories at the subnational level. It sheds light on the variety of reform approaches pursued in the different Länder and also highlights some factors that account for these differences. The transfer of state functions to local governments is addressed as well as the restructuring of Länder administrations (e.g. abolishment of the meso level of the Länder administration and of single-purpose state agencies) and the rescaling of territorial boundaries at county and municipal levels, including a brief review of the recently failed (territorial) reforms in Eastern Germany.
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to discuss different approaches of performance measurement and benchmarking as reflexive institutions for local governments in England, Germany and Sweden from a comparative perspective.
Design/methodology/approach
These three countries have been selected because they represent typical (most different) cases of European local government systems and reforms. The existing theories on institutional reflexivity point to the potential contribution of benchmarking to public sector innovation and organizational learning. Based on survey findings, in-depth case studies, interviews and document analyses in these three countries, the paper addresses the major research question as to what extent and why benchmarking regimes vary across countries. It derives hypotheses about the impacts of benchmarking on institutional learning and innovation.
Findings
The outcomes suggest that the combination of three key features of benchmarking, namely - obligation, sanctions and benchmarking authority - in conjunction with country-specific administrative context conditions and local actor constellations - influences the impact of benchmarking as a reflexive institution.
Originality/value
It is shown in the paper that compulsory benchmarking on its own does not lead to reflexivity and learning, but that there is a need for autonomy and leeway for local actors to cope with benchmarking results. These findings are relevant because policy makers must decide upon the specific governance mix of benchmarking exercises taking their national and local contexts into account if they want them to promote institutional learning and innovation.
Der Beitrag untersucht das Wechsel- und Zusammenspiel von öffentlichem Verwaltungshandeln und Legitimität. Ausgegangen wird davon, dass in den letzten Jahren sowohl die Input- als auch die Outputdimension staatlicher Legitimationsbeschaffung signifikante Veränderungen durchlaufen haben, die die öffentliche Verwaltung intensiv berühren. Mit Rückgriff auf die anderen Beiträge des Schwerpunktheftes und unter Hinzuziehung weiterer Erkenntnisse wird überblicksartig untersucht, ob sich die Legitimationsproduktion durch Verwaltungshandeln verändert hat und wenn ja, inwiefern. Im Ergebnis ergibt sich ein partieller Wandel hinsichtlich der Legitimationsquellen von Verwaltungshandeln. Sowohl im Input-Bereich (Transparenzgesetze, vorgezogene Bürgerbeteiligung) als auch im Output-Bereich (z.B. Normenkontrollrat) gibt es neue bzw. einen stärkeren Einsatz schon bekannter Instrumente (Expertenkommissionen). Ob dieser Wandel der Instrumente und der potenziellen Quellen von Legitimation allerdings tatsächlich die Legitimität des Verwaltungshandelns verändert, also zu einer Legitimitätssteigerung führt, wird teils skeptisch beurteilt und bedarf daher weiterer empirischer Untersuchung.
Neo-Weberianischer Staat
(2019)
The digital transformation of the local public sector is an important step towards making local service delivery more citizen-centred and user-oriented. The state of digitalisation in public administration in Germany is, however, well behind the far-reaching hopes associated with this modernisation theme. This chapter will explore the question as to what extent digital tools have been introduced in German local governments, more specifically in local one-stop shops (Bürgerämter), which hurdles local actors face when coping with the digital transformation, and which tools impact on citizens and local employees as well as have unintended effects and dysfunctionalities so far. A comprehensive and standardised survey amongst mayors and heads of staff councils in German municipalities as well as citizens and employees’ surveys and case studies will form the empirical basis of this chapter.
This chapter analyses managerial reforms at the subnational level of government from a comparative perspective and outlines possible routes for future comparative research. It examines reforms of the external relationships between local governments and private service providers, which were aimed at transforming the organizational macro-setting of local service provision, the task portfolio and functional profile of local governments. The chapter then moves to scrutinizing internal managerial reforms concerned with the modernization of organization and processes and the improvement of management capacities inside local administrations meant to strengthen performance, output- and consumer-orientation in local service delivery. The country sample includes the United Kingdom (England), Sweden, and Germany that represent three distinct types of administrative culture and local government in Europe.
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 article attempts to analyse institutional reforms in the multi-level system of the French capital city. The key questions are the developments in central-local relations and what factors influenced these changes over the last century. The author seeks to identify 'critical junctures' in institutional development and explore their impact on the relationships between state and municipality on the one hand and between upper and lower tiers of city- government on the other. Looking at institution building in Paris as the dependent variable the article takes a primarily institutionalist approach in identifying the relevant factors which explain local government reform in the capital city ('what shapes institutions?')
Purpose
This chapter is aimed at contributing to the question of how institutional reforms affect multi-level governance (MLG) capacities and thus the performance of public task fulfillment with a particular focus on the local level of government in England, France, and Germany.
Methodology/approach
Drawing on concepts of institutional evaluation, we analytically distinguish six dimensions of impact assessment: vertical coordination; horizontal coordination; efficiency/savings; effectiveness/quality; political accountability/democratic control; equity of service standards. Methodologically, we rely on document analysis and expert judgments that could be gleaned from case studies in the three countries and a comprehensive evaluation of the available secondary data in the respective national and local contexts.
Findings
Institutional reforms in the intergovernmental setting have exerted a significant influence on task fulfillment and the performance of service delivery. Irrespective of whether MLG practice corresponds to type I or type II, task devolution (decentralization/de-concentration) furthers the interlocal variation and makes the equity of service delivery shrink. There is a general tendency of improved horizontal/MLG type I coordination capacities, especially after political decentralization, less in the case of administrative decentralization. However, decentralization often entails considerable additional costs which sometimes overload local governments.
Research implications
The distinction between multi-purpose territorial organization/MLG I and single-purpose functional organization/MLG II provides a suitable analytical frame for institutional evaluation and impact assessment of reforms in the intergovernmental setting. Furthermore, comparative research into the relationship between MLG and institutional reforms is needed to reveal the explanatory power of intervening factors, such as the local budgetary and staff situation, local policy preferences, and political interests in conjunction with the salience of the transferred tasks.
Practical implications
The findings provide evidence on the causal relationship between specific types of (vertical) institutional reforms, performance, and task-related characteristics. Policy-makers and government actors may use this information when drafting institutional reform programs and determining the allocation of public tasks in the intergovernmental setting.
Social implications
In general, the euphoric expectations placed upon decentralization strategies in modern societies cannot straightforwardly be justified. Our findings show that any type of task transfer to lower levels of government exacerbates existing disparities or creates new ones. However, the integration of tasks within multi-functional, politically accountable local governments may help to improve MLG type I coordination in favor of local communities and territorially based societal actors, while the opposite may be said with regard to de-concentration and the strengthening of MLG type II coordination.
Originality/value
The chapter addresses a missing linkage in the existing MLG literature which has hitherto predominantly been focused on the political decision-making and on the implementation of reforms in the intergovernmental settings of European countries, whereas the impact of such reforms and of their consequences for MLG has remained largely ignored.