320 Politikwissenschaft
Refine
Has Fulltext
- yes (24) (remove)
Year of publication
Document Type
- Doctoral Thesis (24) (remove)
Keywords
- Föderalismus (2)
- Governance (2)
- Korruption (2)
- Partizipation (2)
- Rechenschaftspflicht (2)
- federalism (2)
- governance (2)
- public management (2)
- 3C (1)
- Accountability (1)
Institute
Within the context of United Nations (UN) environmental institutions, it has become apparent that intergovernmental responses alone have been insufficient for dealing with pressing transboundary environmental problems. Diverging economic and political interests, as well as broader changes in power dynamics and norms within global (environmental) governance, have resulted in negotiation and implementation efforts by UN member states becoming stuck in institutional gridlock and inertia. These developments have sparked a renewed debate among scholars and practitioners about an imminent crisis of multilateralism, accompanied by calls for reforming UN environmental institutions. However, with the rise of transnational actors and institutions, states are not the only relevant actors in global environmental governance. In fact, the fragmented architectures of different policy domains are populated by a hybrid mix of state and non-state actors, as well as intergovernmental and transnational institutions. Therefore, coping with the complex challenges posed by severe and ecologically interdependent transboundary environmental problems requires global cooperation and careful management from actors beyond national governments.
This thesis investigates the interactions of three intergovernmental UN treaty secretariats in global environmental governance. These are the secretariats of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Convention on Biological Diversity, and the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification. While previous research has acknowledged the increasing autonomy and influence of treaty secretariats in global policy-making, little attention has been paid to their strategic interactions with non-state actors, such as non-governmental organizations, civil society actors, businesses, and transnational institutions and networks, or their coordination with other UN agencies. Through qualitative case-study research, this thesis explores the means and mechanisms of these interactions and investigates their consequences for enhancing the effectiveness and coherence of institutional responses to underlying and interdependent environmental issues.
Following a new institutionalist ontology, the conceptual and theoretical framework of this study draws on global governance research, regime theory, and scholarship on international bureaucracies. From an actor-centered perspective on institutional interplay, the thesis employs concepts such as orchestration and interplay management to assess the interactions of and among treaty secretariats. The research methodology involves structured, focused comparison, and process-tracing techniques to analyze empirical data from diverse sources, including official documents, various secondary materials, semi-structured interviews with secretariat staff and policymakers, and observations at intergovernmental conferences.
The main findings of this research demonstrate that secretariats employ tailored orchestration styles to manage or bypass national governments, thereby raising global ambition levels for addressing transboundary environmental problems. Additionally, they engage in joint interplay management to facilitate information sharing, strategize activities, and mobilize relevant actors, thereby improving coherence across UN environmental institutions. Treaty secretariats play a substantial role in influencing discourses and knowledge exchange with a wide range of actors. However, they face barriers, such as limited resources, mandates, varying leadership priorities, and degrees of politicization within institutional processes, which may hinder their impact. Nevertheless, the secretariats, together with non-state actors, have made progress in advancing norm-building processes, integrated policy-making, capacity building, and implementation efforts within and across framework conventions. Moreover, they utilize innovative means of coordination with actors beyond national governments, such as data-driven governance, to provide policy-relevant information for achieving overarching governance targets.
Importantly, this research highlights the growing interactions between treaty secretariats and non-state actors, which not only shape policy outcomes but also have broader implications for the polity and politics of international institutions. The findings offer opportunities for rethinking collective agency and actor dynamics within UN entities, addressing gaps in institutionalist theory concerning the interaction of actors in inter-institutional spaces. Furthermore, the study addresses emerging challenges and trends in global environmental governance that are pertinent to future policy-making. These include reflections for the debate on reforming international institutions, the role of emerging powers in a changing international world order, and the convergence of public and private authority through new alliance-building and a division of labor between international bureaucracies and non-state actors in global environmental governance.
Enacted in 2009, the National Policy on Climate Change (PNMC) is a milestone in the institutionalisation of climate action in Brazil. It sets greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction targets and a set of principles and directives that are intended to lay the foundations for a cross-sectoral and multilevel climate policy in the country. However, after more than a decade since its establishment, the PNMC has experienced several obstacles related to its governance, such as coordination, planning and implementation issues. All of these issues pose threats to the effectiveness of GHG mitigation actions in the country.
By looking at the intragovernmental and intergovernmental relationships that have taken place during the lifetime of the PNMC and its sectoral plans on agriculture (the Sectoral Plan for Mitigation and Adaptation to Climate Change for the Consolidation of a Low-Carbon Economy in Agriculture [ABC Plan]), transport and urban mobility (the Sectoral Plan for Transportation and Urban Mobility for Mitigation and Adaption of Climate Change [PSTM]), this exploratory qualitative research investigates the Brazilian climate change governance guided by the following relevant questions: how are climate policy arrangements organised and coordinated among governmental actors to mitigate GHG emissions in Brazil? What might be the reasons behind how such arrangements are established? What are the predominant governance gaps of the different GHG mitigation actions examined? Why do these governance gaps occur?
Theoretically grounded in the literature on multilevel governance and coordination of public policies, this study employs a novel analytical framework that aims to identify and discuss the occurrence of four types of governance gaps (i.e. politics, institutions and processes, resources and information) in the three GHG mitigation actions (cases) examined (i.e. the PNMC, ABC Plan and PSTM). The research results are twofold. First, they reveal that Brazil has struggled to organise and coordinate governmental actors from different policy constituencies and different levels of government in the implementation of the GHG mitigation actions examined. Moreover, climate policymaking has mostly been influenced by the Ministry of Environment (MMA) overlooking the multilevel and cross-sectoral approaches required for a country’s climate policy to mitigate and adapt to climate change, especially if it is considered an economy-wide Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC), as the Brazilian one is.
Second, the study identifies a greater manifestation of gaps in politics (e.g. lack of political will in supporting climate action), institutions and processes (e.g. failures in the design of institutions and policy instruments, coordination and monitoring flaws, and difficulties in building climate federalism) in all cases studied. It also identifies that there have been important advances in the production of data and information for decision-making and, to a lesser extent, in the allocation of technical and financial resources in the cases studied; however, it is necessary to highlight the limitation of these improvements due to turf wars, a low willingness to share information among federal government players, a reduced volume of financial resources and an unequal distribution of capacities among the federal ministries and among the three levels of government.
A relevant finding is that these gaps tend to be explained by a combination of general and sectoral set aspects. Regarding the general aspects, which are common to all cases examined, the following can be mentioned: i) unbalanced policy capabilities existing among the different levels of government, ii) a limited (bureaucratic) practice to produce a positive coordination mode within cross-sectoral policies, iii) the socioeconomic inequalities that affect the way different governments and economic sectors perceive the climate issue (selective perception) and iv) the reduced dialogue between national and subnational governments on the climate agenda (poor climate federalism). The following sectoral aspects can be mentioned: i) the presence of path dependencies that make the adoption of transformative actions harder and ii) the absence of perceived co-benefits that the climate agenda can bring to each economic sector (e.g. reputational gains, climate protection and access to climate financial markets).
By addressing the theoretical and practical implications of the results, this research provides key insights to tackle the governance gaps identified and to help Brazil pave the way to achieving its NDCs and net-zero targets. At the theoretical level, this research and the current country’s GHG emissions profile suggest that the Brazilian climate policy is embedded in a cross-sectoral and multilevel arena, which requires the effective involvement of different levels of political and bureaucratic powers and the consideration of the country’s socioeconomic differences. Thus, the research argues that future improvements of the Brazilian climate policy and its governance setting must frame climate policy as an economic development agenda, the ramifications of which go beyond the environmental sector. An initial consequence of this new perspective may be a shift in the political and technical leadership from the MMA to the institutions of the centre of government (Executive Office of the President of Brazil) and those in charge of the country’s economic policy (Ministry of Economy). This change could provide greater capacity for coordination, integration and enforcement as well as for addressing certain expected gaps (e.g. financial and technical resources). It could also lead to greater political prioritisation of the agenda at the highest levels of government. Moreover, this shift of the institutional locus could contribute to greater harmonisation between domestic development priorities and international climate politics. Finally, the research also suggests that this approach would reduce bureaucratic elitism currently in place due to climate policy being managed by Brazilian governmental institutions, which is still a theme of a few ministries and a reason for the occurrence of turf wars.
Why do exercises in collaborative governance often witness more impasse than advantage? This cumulative dissertation undertakes a micro-level analysis of collaborative governance to tackle this research puzzle. It situates micropolitics at the very center of analysis: a wide range of activities, interventions, and tactics used by actors – be they conveners, facilitators, or participants – to shape the collaborative exercise. It is by focusing on these daily minutiae, and on the consequences that they bring along, the study argues, that we can better understand why and how collaboration can become stuck or unproductive. To do so, the foundational part of this dissertation (Article 1) uses power as a sensitizing concept to investigate the micro-dynamics that shape collaboration. It develops an analytical approach to advance the study of collaborative governance at the empirical level under a power-sensitive and process-oriented perspective. The subsequent articles follow the dissertation's red thread of investigating the micropolitics of collaborative governance by showing facilitation artefacts' interrelatedness and contribution to the potential success or failure of collaborative arrangements (Article 2); and by examining the specialized knowledge, skills and practices mobilized when designing a collaborative process (Article 3). The work is based on an abductive research approach, tacking back and forth between empirical data and theory, and offers a repertoire of concepts – from analytical terms (designed and emerging interaction orders, flows of power, arenas for power), to facilitation practices (scripting, situating, and supervising) and types of knowledge (process expertise) – to illustrate and study the detailed and constant work (and rework) that surrounds collaborative arrangements. These concepts sharpen the way researchers can look at, observe, and understand collaborative processes at a micro level. The thesis thereby elucidates the subtleties of power, which may be overlooked if we focus only on outcomes rather than the processes that engender them, and supports efforts to identify potential sources of impasse.
This thesis is analyzing multiple coordination challenges which arise with the digital transformation of public administration in federal systems, illustrated by four case studies in Germany. I make various observations within a multi-level system and provide an in-depth analysis. Theoretical explanations from both federalism research and neo-institutionalism are utilized to explain the findings of the empirical driven work. The four articles evince a holistic picture of the German case and elucidate its role as a digital government laggard. Their foci range from macro, over meso to micro level of public administration, differentiating between the governance and the tool dimension of digital government.
The first article shows how multi-level negotiations lead to expensive but eventually satisfying solutions for the involved actors, creating a subtle balance between centralization and decentralization. The second article identifies legal, technical, and organizational barriers for cross-organizational service provision, highlighting the importance of inter-organizational and inter-disciplinary exchange and both a common language and trust. Institutional change and its effects on the micro level, on citizens and the employees in local one-stop shops, mark the focus of the third article, bridging the gap between reforms and the administrative reality on the local level. The fourth article looks at the citizens’ perspective on digital government reforms, their expectations, use and satisfaction. In this vein, this thesis provides a detailed account of the importance of understanding the digital divide and therefore the necessity of reaching out to different recipients of digital government reforms. I draw conclusions from the factors identified as causes for Germany’s shortcomings for other federal systems where feasible and derive reform potential therefrom. This allows to gain a new perspective on digital government and its coordination challenges in federal contexts.
This paper examines the function that cross-cultural competence (3C) has for NATO in a military context while focusing on two member states and their armed forces: the United States and Germany. Three dimensions were established to analyze 3C internally and externally: dimension A, dealing with 3C within the military organization; dimension B, focusing on 3C in a coalition environment/multicultural NATO contingent, for example while on a mission/training exercise abroad; and dimension C, covering 3C and NATO missions abroad with regard to interaction with the local population.
When developing the research design, the cultural studies-based theory of hegemony constructed by Antonio Gramsci was applied to a comprehensive document analysis of 3C coursework and regulations as well as official documents in order to establish a typification for cross-cultural competence.
As the result, 3C could be categorized as Type I – Ethical 3C, Type II – Hegemonic 3C, and Type III – Dominant 3C. Attributes were assigned according to each type. To validate the established typification, qualitative surveys were conducted with NATO (ACT), the U.S. Armed Forces (USCENTCOM), and the German Armed Forces (BMVg). These interviews validated the typification and revealed a varied approach to 3C in the established dimensions. It became evident that dimensions A and B indicated a prevalence of Type III, which greatly impacts the work atmosphere and effectiveness for NATO (ACT). In contrast, dimension C revealed the use of postcolonial mechanisms by NATO forces, such as applying one’s value systems to other cultures and having the appearance of an occupying force when 3C is not applied (Type I-II). In general, the function of each 3C type in the various dimensions could be determined.
In addition, a comparative study of the document analysis and the qualitative surveys resulted in a canon for culture-general skills. Regarding the determined lack of coherence in 3C correlating with a demonstrably negative impact on effectiveness and efficiency as well as interoperability, a NATO standard in the form of a standardization agreement (STANAG) was suggested based on the aforementioned findings, with a focus on: empathy, cross-cultural awareness, communication skills (including active listening), flexibility and adaptability, and interest. Moreover, tolerance of ambiguity and teachability, patience, observation skills, and perspective-taking could be considered significant. Suspending judgment and respect are also relevant skills here.
At the same time, the document analysis also revealed a lack of coherency and consistency in 3C education and interorganizational alignment. In particular, the documents examined for the U.S. Forces indicated divergent approaches. Furthermore, the interview analysis disclosed a large discrepancy in part between doctrine and actual implementation with regard to the NATO Forces.
Fördermittelfinanzierte Gründungsunterstützungsangebote waren in den EU-Förderperioden 2007-2013 und 2014-2020 ein wichtiges Element der Hochschulgründungsförderung im Land Brandenburg. Aufgrund der positiven wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung des Landes, reduzierte sich das Fördervolumen in der gleichen Zeit jedoch stetig. Für die EU-Förderperiode 2021-2027 steht eine weitere Reduzierung der Fördermittel bereits fest. In der Folge wird es, ohne Anpassungen der etablierten Förderstrukturen, zur weiteren Reduzierung oder Erosion der Gründungsunterstützungsangebote an Brandenburger Hochschulen kommen. Die vorliegende Arbeit befasst sich daher u.a. mit der Frage, wie ein theoretisches Referenzmodell zur fördermittelfinanzierten Hochschulgründungsberatung gestaltet sein kann, um den reduzierten Fördersätzen bei gleichzeitiger Aufrechterhaltung der Angebotsvielfalt gerecht zu werden.
Zur Beantwortung dieser Frage wird als Untersuchungsobjekt das Förderprojekt BIEM Startup Navigator herangezogen. Das Gründungsberatungsprojekt BIEM Startup Navigator wurde von 2010 bis 2014 an sechs Brandenburger Hochschulen durchgeführt. Mit Hilfe der Modelle und Prämissen der Prinzipal-Agent-Theorie wird zunächst ein theoretischer Rahmen aufgespannt, auf dessen Grundlage die empirische Untersuchung erfolgt. Anhand der Prinzipal-Agent-Theorie werden die beteiligten Organisationen, Individuen und Institutionen aufgezeigt. Weiterhin werden die wesentlichen Problemfelder und Lösungsansätze der Prinzipal-Agent-Theorie für die Untersuchung des BIEM Startup Navigators diskutiert.
Im Untersuchungsverlauf werden u.a. die Konzepte zur Durchführung des Förderprojekts an sechs Hochschulstandorten, die Daten von 610 Teilnehmenden und 288 Gründungen analysiert, um so sachlogische Zusammenhänge und Wechselwirkungen identifizieren und beschreiben zu können. Es werden unterschiedliche theoretische Annahmen zu den Bereichen Projekteffektivität bzw. Projekteffizienz, Kostenverteilung und zur konzeptionellen Ausgestaltung in Form von 24 Arbeitshypothesen formuliert und auf die Untersuchung übertragen. Die Verifizierung bzw. Falsifizierung der Hypothesen erfolgt auf Grundlage der kombinierten Erkenntnisse aus Literaturrecherchen und den Ergebnissen der empirischen Untersuchung.
Im Verlauf der Arbeit gelingt es, die in der Prinzipal-Agent-Theorie auftretenden Agencykosten auch am Beispiel des BIEM Startup Navigators zu beschreiben und ex post Ineffizienzen in den durchgeführten Screening- und Signalingprozessen aufzuzeigen.
Mit Hilfe des im Verlauf der Arbeit entwickelten theoretischen Referenzmodells zur fördermittelfinanzierten Gründungsberatung an Brandenburger Hochschulen soll es gelingen, den sinkenden EU-Fördermitteln, ohne eine gleichzeitige Reduzierung der Gründungsunterstützungsangebote an den Hochschulen, gerecht zu werden. Hierfür zeigt das theoretische Referenzmodell wie die Ergebnisse der empirischen Untersuchung genutzt werden können, um die Agencykosten der fördermittelfinanzierten Gründungsberatung zu reduzieren.
The Government will create a motivated, merit-based, performance-driven, and professional civil service that is resistant to temptations of corruption and which provides efficient, effective and transparent public services that do not force customers to pay bribes.
— (GoIRA, 2006, p. 106)
We were in a black hole! We had an empty glass and had nothing from our side to fill it with! Thus, we accepted anything anybody offered; that is how our glass was filled; that is how we reformed our civil service.
— (Former Advisor to IARCSC, personal communication, August 2015)
How and under what conditions were the post-Taleban Civil Service Reforms of Afghanistan initiated? What were the main components of the reforms? What were their objectives and to which extent were they achieved? Who were the leading domestic and foreign actors involved in the process? Finally, what specific factors influenced the success and failure Afghanistan’s Civil Service Reforms since 2002? Guided by such fundamental questions, this research studies the wicked process of reforming the Afghan civil service in an environment where a variety of contextual, programmatic, and external factors affected the design and implementation of reforms that were entirely funded and technically assisted by the international community.
Focusing on the core components of reforms—recruitment, remuneration, and appraisal of civil servants—the qualitative study provides a detailed picture of the pre-reform civil service and its major human resources developments in the past. Following discussions on the content and purposes of the main reform programs, it will then analyze the extent of changes in policies and practices by examining the outputs and effects of these reforms.
Moreover, the study defines the specific factors that led the reforms toward a situation where most of the intended objectives remain unachieved. Doing so, it explores and explains how an overwhelming influence of international actors with conflicting interests, large-scale corruption, political interference, networks of patronage, institutionalized nepotism, culturally accepted cronyism and widespread ethnic favoritism created a very complex environment and prevented the reforms from transforming Afghanistan’s patrimonial civil service into a professional civil service, which is driven by performance and merit.
In light of the debate on the consequences of competitive contracting out of traditionally public services, this research compares two mechanisms used to allocate funds in development cooperation—direct awarding and competitive contracting out—aiming to identify their potential advantages and disadvantages.
The agency theory is applied within the framework of rational-choice institutionalism to study the institutional arrangements that surround two different money allocation mechanisms, identify the incentives they create for the behavior of individual actors in the field, and examine how these then transfer into measurable differences in managerial quality of development aid projects. In this work, project management quality is seen as an important determinant of the overall project success.
For data-gathering purposes, the German development agency, the Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ), is used due to its unique way of work. Whereas the majority of projects receive funds via direct-award mechanism, there is a commercial department, GIZ International Services (GIZ IS) that has to compete for project funds.
The data concerning project management practices on the GIZ and GIZ IS projects was gathered via a web-based, self-administered survey of project team leaders. Principal component analysis was applied to reduce the dimensionality of the independent variable to total of five components of project management. Furthermore, multiple regression analysis identified the differences between the separate components on these two project types. Enriched by qualitative data gathered via interviews, this thesis offers insights into everyday managerial practices in development cooperation and identifies the advantages and disadvantages of the two allocation mechanisms.
The thesis first reiterates the responsibility of donors and implementers for overall aid effectiveness. It shows that the mechanism of competitive contracting out leads to better oversight and control of implementers, fosters deeper cooperation between the implementers and beneficiaries, and has a potential to strengthen ownership of recipient countries. On the other hand, it shows that the evaluation quality does not tremendously benefit from the competitive allocation mechanism and that the quality of the component knowledge management and learning is better when direct-award mechanisms are used. This raises questions about the lacking possibilities of actors in the field to learn about past mistakes and incorporate the finings into the future interventions, which is one of the fundamental issues of aid effectiveness. Finally, the findings show immense deficiencies in regard to oversight and control of individual projects in German development cooperation.
Gesetzgebungsmehrheiten in parlamentarischen Systemen mit ihrem Dualismus aus Regierungslager und Oppositionsparteien bilden sich nicht frei. Vielmehr findet ihre Koordination in einem Spannungsfeld aus den programmatischen Positionen der Akteure und ihrem opportunistischen Wettbewerb untereinander statt. Diese Problematik bricht die Arbeit auf drei konkrete Fragestellungen herunter, im Rahmen derer sie die Konfliktmuster zwischen Akteuren bei der legislativen Mehrheitskoordination unter Mehrheitsregierungen in den deutschen Landesparlamenten untersucht: 1) Inwieweit hängt es von programmatischen Positionen oder vom opportunistischen Wettbewerb des Neuen Dualismus zwischen Regierungslager und Oppositionsparteien ab, ob Oppositionsparteien und Regierungslager bei der Bildung von Gesetzgebungsmehrheiten kooperieren oder konfligieren? 2) Inwieweit kommt es vor dem Hintergrund unterschiedlicher programmatischer Positionen und opportunistischer Überlegungen zu Konflikt statt Kooperation zwischen Koalitionsakteuren bei der Bildung gemeinsamer Gesetzgebungsmehrheiten? Letztere Fragestellung wird sodann auch in den Kontext des bundesrepublikanischen Kooperativföderalismus eingebettet: 3) Inwieweit geht die Bildung von Gesetzgebungsmehrheiten bei der Ausführung von Bundesgesetzen in Mischkoalitionen (bestehend aus Parteien, die sich auf Bundesebene in konkurrierenden Lagern gegenüberstehen) mit mehr Konflikt einher als in ebenenübergreifend kongruenten Regierungskoalitionen?
Theoretisch wird ein rationalistisches Modell der grundlegenden Handlungsanreize bei der Bildung von Gesetzgebungsmehrheiten in den deutschen Landesparlamenten erarbeitet. Auf dieser Basis beschäftigt sich die Arbeit damit, wie die Akteure strategisch programmatische und opportunistische Anreize zu Konflikt und Kooperation abwägen. Die Arbeit leitet dann konkrete Determinanten ab, die vorwiegend – aber nicht nur – mittels quantitativer Methoden getestet werden. Die Arbeit stützt sich dabei auf eine größtenteils neu zusammengestellte Gesetzgebungsdatenbank aus 3.359 Gesetzgebungsvorgängen aus 23 Legislaturperioden zwischen 1990 und 2013 in den Ländern Hamburg, Hessen, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Nordrhein-Westfalen und Sachsen-Anhalt.
Die Analyse der Konfliktmuster zwischen Oppositionsparteien und Regierungslager zeigt, dass programmatische Distanz einer Oppositionspartei zum Regierungslager für Oppositionsverhalten eine Rolle spielt; dies gilt jedoch auch für opportunistische Aspekte (so lässt sich beispielsweise ein kompetitiveres Oppositionsverhalten beobachten, wenn nach der letzten Wahl ein vollständiger Regierungswechsel erfolgte). Oppositionsverhalten erscheint dabei recht kleinteilig ausgeprägt. Neben Unterschieden zwischen Legislaturperioden treten solche auch innerhalb von Legislaturperioden zwischen Akteuren sowie zwischen Gesetzentwürfen auf. Die Analyse generellen Koalitionskonflikts weist darauf hin, dass ein nicht unerheblicher Teil von Koalitionskonflikt strukturell bedingt ist. Handelt es sich bei einer gebildeten Regierungskoalition um die Wunschkoalition der beteiligten Parteien, so ist dies Koalitionskonflikt abträglich. Selbiges gilt für eine größere Mehrheitsmarge des Regierungslagers. Darüber hinaus ergeben sich Hinweise, dass die Ausführung von Bundesgesetzen unter Mischkoalitionen bei bundespolitischer Abgrenzung der Koalitionspartner mit mehr Koalitionskonflikt einhergeht als eine Ausführung unter kongruenten Koalitionen.
Der Beitrag der Arbeit ist polymorph angelegt. Sie hilft zunächst, die Strategien von Akteuren im Gesetzgebungsprozess besser zu verstehen. Als normativer Beitrag tritt auf einer zweiten Ebene die bessere Erforschung etwaiger nachteiliger Effekte des Neuen Dualismus unter Mehrheitsregierungen hinzu. Gleichzeitig soll die Arbeit drittens in der Zusammenschau helfen, die Mechanik der parlamentarischen Systeme in den Ländern selbst zu erhellen und besser normativ bewerten zu können. Hintergrund sind hier die jahrzehntealten Debatten um das beste Regierungssystem und -format der deutschen Länder als subnationale Entitäten. Die dritte Fragestellung dieser Arbeit konnte diese Debatte zudem mit einem neuen Aspekt bereichern. Wissen darüber, inwieweit die Ausführung von Bundesgesetzen in den Ländern je nach ebenenübergreifendem Koalitionsmuster in unterschiedlichem Ausmaß mit einem ‚coalition governance‘-Problem verbunden ist, fügt der Forschung zum föderalen Entscheiden in der Bundesrepublik eine neue und beachtenswerte Facette hinzu. Denn dabei handelt es sich um eine föderal bedingte mechanische Beeinträchtigung der Mehrheitskoordination in den Landesparlamenten selbst, die die potenziell gegebene föderale Flexibilität bei der Ausführung von Bundesgesetzen hemmt. Dies ebnet den Weg zu neuen Debatten darüber, wie in den deutschen Ländern mehr legislative Abstimmungsflexibilität ermöglicht werden kann als unter den bisher üblichen Mehrheits-Koalitionsregierungen.
In the past decades, development cooperation (DC) led by conventional bi- and multilateral donors has been joined by a large number of small, private or public-private donors. This pluralism of actors raises questions as to whether or not these new donors are able to implement projects more or less effectively than their conventional counterparts. In contrast to their predecessors, the new donors have committed themselves to be more pragmatic, innovative and flexible in their development cooperation measures. However, they are also criticized for weakening the function of local civil society and have the reputation of being an intransparent and often controversial alternative to public services. With additional financial resources and their new approach to development, the new donors have been described in the literature as playing a controversial role in transforming development cooperation. This dissertation compares the effectiveness of initiatives by new and conventional donors with regard to the provision of public goods and services to the poor in the water and sanitation sector in India.
India is an emerging country but it is experiencing high poverty rates and poor water supply in predominantly rural areas. It lends itself for analyzing this research theme as it is currently being confronted by a large number of actors and approaches that aim to find solutions for these challenges .
In the theoretical framework of this dissertation, four governance configurations are derived from the interaction of varying actor types with regard to hierarchical and non-hierarchical steering of their interactions. These four governance configurations differ in decision-making responsibilities, accountability and delegation of tasks or direction of information flow. The assumption on actor relationships and steering is supplemented by possible alternative explanations in the empirical investigation, such as resource availability, the inheritance of structures and institutions from previous projects in a project context, gaining acceptance through beneficiaries (local legitimacy) as a door opener, and asymmetries of power in the project context.
Case study evidence from seven projects reveals that the actors' relationship is important for successful project delivery. Additionally, the results show that there is a systematic difference between conventional and new donors. Projects led by conventional donors were consistently more successful, due to an actor relationship that placed the responsibility in the hands of the recipient actors and benefited from the trust and reputation of a long-term cooperation. The trust and reputation of conventional donors always went along with a back-up from federal level and trickled down as reputation also at local level implementation. Furthermore, charismatic leaders, as well as the acquired structures and institutions of predecessor projects, also proved to be a positive influencing factor for successful project implementation.
Despite the mixed results of the seven case studies, central recommendations for action can be derived for the various actors involved in development cooperation. For example, new donors could fulfill a supplementary function with conventional donors by developing innovative project approaches through pilot studies and then implementing them as a supplement to the projects of conventional donors on the ground. In return, conventional donors would have to make room the new donors by integrating their approaches into already programs in order to promote donor harmonization. It is also important to identify and occupy niches for activities and to promote harmonization among donors on state and federal sides.
The empirical results demonstrate the need for a harmonization strategy of different donor types in order to prevent duplication, over-experimentation and the failure of development programs. A transformation to successful and sustainable development cooperation can only be achieved through more coordination processes and national self-responsibility.