Refine
Has Fulltext
- no (76) (remove)
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (48)
- Part of a Book (19)
- Monograph/Edited Volume (6)
- Other (2)
- Course Material (1)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (76)
Keywords
- Germany (6)
- local government (6)
- administrative reform (4)
- administrative culture (3)
- administrative reforms (3)
- coordination (3)
- crisis (3)
- decentralization (3)
- digitalization (3)
- governance (3)
- intergovernmental relations (3)
- new public management (3)
- territorial reforms (3)
- window of opportunity (3)
- Benchmarking (2)
- France (2)
- Integration (2)
- Local self-government (2)
- Mehrebenensystem (2)
- Public administration (2)
- Verwaltung (2)
- Verwaltungsreform (2)
- comparison (2)
- containment (2)
- crisis management (2)
- digital transformation (2)
- institutional change (2)
- multi-level system (2)
- pandemic (2)
- policy advice (2)
- public administration (2)
- public health (2)
- public sector reform (2)
- Öffentlicher Dienst (2)
- (post) new public management (1)
- Administration (1)
- Administrative reform (1)
- Amalgamations (1)
- Arbeitsmarkt (1)
- Ausländerbehörde (1)
- Autonomy (1)
- COVID-19 (1)
- COVID-19 crisis (1)
- China (1)
- Comparative Public Administration (1)
- DACH countries (1)
- DACH-Länder (1)
- Data culture (1)
- Data literacy; (1)
- Data utilization (1)
- Dependence (1)
- Deutschland (1)
- Dezentralisierung (1)
- Digitalisation (1)
- Digitalisierung (1)
- E-government (1)
- E-services (1)
- Europe (1)
- Financial problems (1)
- Flüchtlingskrise (1)
- Governance (1)
- Intergovernmental relations (1)
- Kommunale Selbstverwaltung (1)
- Kommune (1)
- Kommunen (1)
- Koordination (1)
- Local Autonomy Index (1)
- Local administrative systems (1)
- Local government reform (1)
- Migration (1)
- Municipal amalgamation effects (1)
- Neo-Institutionalismus (1)
- New public management (1)
- One-stop shop (1)
- Organisation (1)
- Organisational reform (1)
- Poland (1)
- Public-private partnerships (1)
- Scientific policy advice (1)
- Sweden (1)
- Transformation (1)
- Typologies of local government systems (1)
- United Kingdom (1)
- Verflechtung (1)
- Vergleich (1)
- Verwaltungslehre (1)
- Verwaltungsverflechtung (1)
- Verwaltungswissenschaft (1)
- actor constellations (1)
- better regulation (1)
- bottom-up (1)
- comparative case study (1)
- comparative public administration (1)
- covid-19 (1)
- cross-country comparison (1)
- e-government (1)
- effectiveness (1)
- efficiency (1)
- electronic tax returns (1)
- federalism (1)
- government comparative (1)
- impact assessment (1)
- incremental reform (1)
- institutional policy (1)
- institutional reform (1)
- institutional reforms (1)
- institutionalization of evaluation (1)
- inter-administrative relations (1)
- intergovernmental reforms (1)
- intergovernmental setting (1)
- local autonomy (1)
- local government performance (1)
- local government systems (1)
- local governments (1)
- managerial reforms (1)
- meso-level of government (1)
- micro-politics (1)
- migrant integration (1)
- multi-level governance (1)
- municipal mergers (1)
- neo weberian state (1)
- neo-institutionalism (1)
- opportunity management (1)
- pandemic comparative (1)
- performance (1)
- performance assessment (1)
- polycrisis (1)
- public policy (1)
- self-governance (1)
- territorial administration (1)
- territorial reform (1)
- top-down (1)
- types of municipal administration (1)
- typology of evaluation (1)
- vehicle registration (1)
- welfare state (1)
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.
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.
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 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 article analyses the institutional design variants of local crisis governance responses to the COVID-19 pandemic and their entanglement with other locally impactful crises from a cross-country comparative perspective (France, Germany, Poland, Sweden, and the UK/England). The pandemic offers an excellent empirical lens for scrutinizing the phenomenon of polycrises governance because it occurred while European countries were struggling with the impacts of several prior, ongoing, or newly arrived crises. Our major focus is on institutional design variants of crisis governance (dependent variable) and the influence of different administrative cultures on it (independent variable). Furthermore, we analyze the entanglement and interaction of institutional responses to other (previous or parallel) crises (polycrisis dynamics). Our findings reveal a huge variance of institutional designs, largely evoked by country-specific administrative cultures and profiles. The degree of de-/centralization and the intensity of coordination or decoupling across levels of government differs significantly by country. Simultaneously, all countries were affected by interrelated and entangled crises, resulting in various patterns of polycrisis dynamics. While policy failures and “fatal remedies” from previous crises have partially impaired the resilience and crisis preparedness of local governments, we have also found some learning effects from previous crises.
Dieser Beitrag vergleicht die kommunale Verwaltungsdigitalisierung in Deutschland, Österreich und der Schweiz (DACH-Länder) als Vertreter der kontinentaleuropäisch-föderalen Verwaltungstradition bei zugleich unterschiedlichen Digitalisierungsansätzen und -fortschritten. Basierend auf Interviews mit 22 Expert*innen und Beobachtungen in je einer Kommune pro Land sowie Dokumenten-, Literatur- und Sekundärdatenanalysen untersucht die Studie, wie Verwaltungsdigitalisierung im Mehrebenensystem organisiert ist und welche Rolle dabei das Verwaltungsprofil spielt sowie welche Innovationsschwerpunkte die Kommunen im Hinblick auf die Leistungserbringung und die internen Prozesse setzen. Die Ergebnisse zeigen, dass der hohe Grad lokaler Autonomie den Kommunen ermöglicht, eigene Akzente in der Verwaltungsdigitalisierung zu setzen. Zugleich wirken die stark verflochtenen komplexen Entscheidungsstrukturen und hohen Koordinationsbedarfe in verwaltungsföderalen Systemen, die in Deutschland am stärksten, in Österreich etwas schwächer und in der Schweiz am geringsten ausgeprägt sind, als Digitalisierungshemmnisse. Ferner weisen die Befunde auf eine unitarisierende Wirkung der Verwaltungsdigitalisierung als Reformbereich hin. Insgesamt trägt die Studie zu einem besseren Verständnis dafür bei, welche Problematik die Verwaltungsdigitalisierung für föderal-dezentrale Verwaltungsmodelle mit sich bringt.
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.
Am Beispiel von Flüchtlingsintegration werden institutionelle Entwicklungen im Mehrebenensystem aus einer länderübergreifenden Perspektive analysiert. Insgesamt hat der Grad der Verwaltungsverflechtung und vertikalen Koordination in diesem Bereich zugenommen und die Rolle der Kommunen wurde – ungeachtet unterschiedlicher Ausprägungen der (De-)Zentralisierung – gestärkt. Während die starke fluchtbedingte Zuwanderung als äußerer Faktor dieser Entwicklung Vorschub geleistet hat, nehmen historische Pfadabhängigkeiten und die jeweiligen Verwaltungskulturen nach wie vor erheblichen Einfluss auf die genannten Entwicklungen.
This article analyses incremental institutional change and subsequent organizational and performance outcomes of the digital transformation from a comparative perspective. Through 31 expert interviews, the authors compare two digitalized public services in Germany. Two digitalization approaches are identified. The voluntary, decentralized bottom-up approach involves layering of new rules, limited organizational restructuring, and performance deficits. Conversely, the compulsory, top-down approach with centralized control facilitates displacement of existing rules and far-reaching organizational change; in this study, it is also associated with improved performance.
Migrant integration is a prime example of intergovernmental coordination and multilevel governance; first because no level of government can carry out this task alone, and second because its cross-cutting nature often leads to fragmented institutional structures that must be overcome. Within the research strand of intergovernmental relations (IGR), the focus has been on executive actors and governmental decision-makers, resulting in an underexposure of the role of public administration, known as inter-administrative relations (IAR). Against this backdrop, we aim to remedy some of the deficits in IGR research by (1) adopting an explicit IAR perspective which systematically addresses the role of local governments; (2) including a comparative dimension in IAR research that accounts for different administrative ‘starting conditions’ in European countries; and (3) using the policy area of migrant integration as a case in point to empirically investigate developments of institutional convergence and divergence in IAR patterns. It is argued that the coordination of migrant integration in the three countries examined has moved towards more intergovernmental coordination, on the one hand, and that the role of municipalities in this context has been enhanced—varying degrees of (de-)centralization notwithstanding. While certain convergent patterns of inter-governmental coordination have become apparent during the migration crisis, historical path dependencies and administrative cultures still appear to be factors that influence institutional development.