Refine
Has Fulltext
- no (4) (remove)
Document Type
- Article (2)
- Part of a Book (2)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (4)
Keywords
- administrative reform (4) (remove)
Organization not found
(2023)
Der Beitrag in der Zeitschrift GIO beschäftigt sich mit der Frage nach den Schwierigkeiten von Digitalisierungsreformen in öffentlichen Verwaltungen. Der Blick wird dafür auf Verwaltungen als Organisationen gerichtet, deren formale Strukturen die Digitalisierungsreform erschweren, da steile Hierarchien und Dienstwegeregelungen mit netzwerkartigen Projektstrukturen konfligieren, agile Arbeitsweisen der Orientierung an rechtlich legitimierten Verfahren zuwiderlaufen und das Personal nicht mit den nötigen Kompetenzen ausgestattet wird. Der organisationssensible Fokus erlaubt es, nicht nur die Probleme der Strukturen zu betrachten, sondern auch deren Funktionen für den Systembestand von Verwaltungen zu berücksichtigen. So wird gezeigt, dass etwa Dienstwegeregelungen demokratische Prozesse gewährleisten und Verantwortungsdiffusion verhindern, ihre Rechtsorientierung den Verwaltungen Legitimation und Autonomie verschafft und das Personal durch seine Regeleinhaltung funktionierende Verfahren und Objektivität gewährleistet. Diese Spannungsfelder berücksichtigend, wird daher der Vorschlag gemacht, in Reformen nicht nur ihre Optimierungsfunktion zu sehen, sondern sie als Werkzeug für ein besseres Verständnis der vorherrschenden Strukturen zu nutzen. Der Beitrag gibt abschließend Fragen an die Hand, wie man sich diesem Verständnis nähern kann.
Local Government in Germany
(2016)
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.
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.