Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (51)
- Part of a Book (19)
- Monograph/Edited Volume (10)
- Postprint (4)
- Other (2)
- Course Material (1)
- Report (1)
Keywords
- Germany (7)
- local government (7)
- administrative reform (5)
- administrative reforms (4)
- coordination (4)
- crisis (4)
- digitalization (4)
- governance (4)
- policy advice (4)
- administrative culture (3)
- comparison (3)
- decentralization (3)
- intergovernmental relations (3)
- new public management (3)
- pandemic (3)
- public administration (3)
- territorial reforms (3)
- window of opportunity (3)
- Benchmarking (2)
- COVID-19 (2)
- COVID-19 crisis (2)
- Deutschland (2)
- Digitalisierung (2)
- France (2)
- Governance (2)
- Integration (2)
- Kommunale Selbstverwaltung (2)
- Kommune (2)
- Kommunen (2)
- Krise (2)
- Local self-government (2)
- Mehrebenensystem (2)
- Politikberatung (2)
- Public administration (2)
- Verwaltung (2)
- Verwaltungsreform (2)
- containment (2)
- crisis management (2)
- digital transformation (2)
- effectiveness (2)
- efficiency (2)
- impact assessment (2)
- institutional change (2)
- local government performance (2)
- multi-level system (2)
- municipal mergers (2)
- public health (2)
- public sector reform (2)
- territorial reform (2)
- Öffentlicher Dienst (2)
- (post) new public management (1)
- Administration (1)
- Administrative federalism (1)
- Administrative reform (1)
- Amalgamations (1)
- Arbeitsmarkt (1)
- Ausländerbehörde (1)
- Autonomy (1)
- Bibliografie (1)
- Brandenburg (1)
- China (1)
- Comparative Public Administration (1)
- Corona (1)
- Coronakrise (1)
- DACH countries (1)
- DACH-Länder (1)
- Data culture (1)
- Data literacy; (1)
- Data utilization (1)
- Daten (1)
- Dependence (1)
- Dezentralisierung (1)
- Digitalisation (1)
- E-government (1)
- E-services (1)
- Effizienz und Effektivität (1)
- Europe (1)
- European Union (EU) (1)
- Federal Constitutional Court (1)
- Festschrift (1)
- Financial problems (1)
- Flüchtlingskrise (1)
- Funktionalreform (1)
- Gebietsreform (1)
- German administrative system (1)
- German public administration (1)
- Institut (1)
- Intergovernmental relations (1)
- Kommunalwissenschaft (1)
- Koordination (1)
- Kreisgebietsreform (1)
- Krisen-Preparedness (1)
- Landkreise (1)
- Local Autonomy Index (1)
- Local administrative systems (1)
- Local government reform (1)
- Mehrebensystem (1)
- Migration (1)
- Municipal amalgamation effects (1)
- Neo-Institutionalismus (1)
- New public management (1)
- One-stop shop (1)
- Open Access (1)
- Organisation (1)
- Organisational reform (1)
- Pandemie (1)
- Pandemiemanagement (1)
- Poland (1)
- Potsdam (1)
- Public-private partnerships (1)
- Rolle der Kommunen im Staat (1)
- Scientific policy advice (1)
- Sweden (1)
- Transformation (1)
- Typologies of local government systems (1)
- United Kingdom (1)
- Universität (1)
- Verflechtung (1)
- Vergleich (1)
- Verwaltungslehre (1)
- Verwaltungsmodernisierung (1)
- Verwaltungsverflechtung (1)
- Verwaltungswissenschaft (1)
- Wissenschaft (1)
- actor constellations (1)
- better regulation (1)
- bottom-up (1)
- comparative case study (1)
- comparative public administration (1)
- covid-19 (1)
- crisis-preparedness (1)
- cross-country comparison (1)
- data (1)
- decentralisation (1)
- e-government (1)
- electronic tax returns (1)
- federal administration (1)
- federalism (1)
- government comparative (1)
- incremental reform (1)
- institutional policy (1)
- institutional reform (1)
- institutional reform, (1)
- institutional reforms (1)
- institutionalization of evaluation (1)
- institutions (1)
- inter-administrative relations (1)
- intergovernmental reforms (1)
- intergovernmental setting (1)
- local autonomy (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)
- multilevel governance (1)
- municipal amalgamation effects (1)
- neo weberian state (1)
- neo-institutionalism (1)
- opportunity management (1)
- pandemic comparative (1)
- pandemic management (1)
- performance (1)
- performance assessment (1)
- polycrisis (1)
- public policy (1)
- reforms (1)
- science (1)
- self-governance (1)
- self-government (1)
- social security (1)
- territorial administration (1)
- the Basic Law (1)
- the Federal Ministry of the Interior (BMI) (1)
- the German Constitution (1)
- the German federal architecture (1)
- the Länder (1)
- top-down (1)
- types of municipal administration (1)
- typology of evaluation (1)
- vehicle registration (1)
- welfare state (1)
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.
Reproducibility is a defining feature of science, but the extent to which it characterizes current research is unknown. We conducted replications of 100 experimental and correlational studies published in three psychology journals using high-powered designs and original materials when available. Replication effects were half the magnitude of original effects, representing a substantial decline. Ninety-seven percent of original studies had statistically significant results. Thirty-six percent of replications had statistically significant results; 47% of original effect sizes were in the 95% confidence interval of the replication effect size; 39% of effects were subjectively rated to have replicated the original result; and if no bias in original results is assumed, combining original and replication results left 68% with statistically significant effects. Correlational tests suggest that replication success was better predicted by the strength of original evidence than by characteristics of the original and replication teams.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Local Government Systems
(2017)
This chapter looks for main differences among local government systems as well as similarities among them. This has been done by the authors with the aim to grasp the institutional setting in which mayors have to act. The authors did it by updating and extending existing typologies and indices of local government systems. Nevertheless, an extension was first of all necessary with respect to vertical power relations because previous typologies considering them took neither the local government systems in Eastern and Central Europe nor the changes in the Western part of the continent into account. Furthermore, reflections about typologies are extended to the present one on public administration at the municipal level. All this have been underpinned by statistical data, the recent work on a ‘Local Autonomy Index’ (LAI; see Ladner et al. Measuring Autonomy in 39 Countries (1990–2014), Regional and Federal Studies, 26, 321–357, 2016) and information collected by the partners involved in the survey.