320 Politikwissenschaft
Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Doctoral Thesis (61) (remove)
Keywords
- Governance (3)
- Partizipation (3)
- governance (3)
- Demokratietheorie (2)
- Deutschland (2)
- European integration (2)
- Europäische Integration (2)
- Föderalismus (2)
- GIZ (2)
- Korruption (2)
Ghana ist ein Musterbeispiel dafür, dass ein Entwicklungsland den Weg zu Good Governance schaffen kann. In vielen Studien wird dem Land im afrikanischen Vergleich heute bescheinigt, hier ein Vorreiter zu sein. Dies ist Ausgangslage der vorliegenden Studie, die der Frage nachgeht „Welche Gründe, Muster und Bedingungen führen zur Entstehung von Good Governance?“. Im Zentrum der vorliegenden Studie steht, wie aus der erkenntnisleitenden Fragestellung hervorgeht, eine empirische Untersuchung zur Entstehung von Good Governance und damit ein Transformationsprozess. Dieser wird bewusst über einen sehr langen Zeitraum (über ein halbes Jahrhundert) untersucht, um auch langfristige Entwicklungen einbeziehen zu können. Die Studie wird mit Hilfe eines „Mixed-Methods-Ansatzes“ sowohl unter Rückgriff auf quantitative als auch auf qualitative Methoden durchgeführt, was sich im Rückblick als sehr ertragreich erwiesen hat. Zunächst wird die Qualität der Governance über den gesamten Zeitraum anhand von sechs Indikatoren gemessen. Danach werden qualitativ die Gründe für die Fort- und Rückschritte analysiert. Dabei lassen sich immer wieder Systematiken herausarbeiten, wie zum Beispiel zirkuläre Entwicklungen, die über viele Jahre den Weg hin zu Good Governance verhinderten, bis jeweils Ausbrüche aus den Kreisläufen geschafft werden konnten. Sowohl in der demokratischen und rechtsstaatlichen Entwicklung als auch bezogen auf die Versorgung der Bevölkerung mit öffentlichen Gütern und die wirtschaftliche Entwicklung. Auch wenn die verschiedenen Bereiche von Good Governance zunächst einzeln untersucht werden, so zeigen sich gleichzeitig deutlich die Wechselwirkungen der Komponenten. Zum Beispiel kristallisiert sich klar heraus, dass Rechtsstaatlichkeit sowohl auf die Stabilität politischer Systeme wirkt, als auch auf die wirtschaftliche Entwicklung. Ebenso beeinflussen diese wiederum die Korruption. Ähnliche Verknüpfungen lassen sich auch bei allen anderen Bereichen nachvollziehen. Die Entwicklung eines Landes kann also nur unter Berücksichtigung eines komplexen Governance-Systems verstanden und erklärt werden. Dabei können die Wechselwirkungen entweder konstruktiv oder destruktiv sein. Die Verflechtungen der einzelnen Bereiche werden in einem Negativ- und dann in einem Positiv-Szenario festgehalten. Diese Idealtypen-Bildung spitzt die Erkenntnisse der vorliegenden Arbeit zu und dient dem analytischen Verständnis der untersuchten Prozesse. Die Untersuchung zeigt, wie Good Governance über das Zusammenspiel verschiedener Faktoren entstehen kann und dass es wissenschaftlich sehr ertragreich ist, Transformationsforschung auf ein komplexes Governance-System auszuweiten. Hierbei werden die vielen empirisch erarbeiteten Ergebnisse zu den einzelnen Transformationen zu komplexen, in sich greifenden Gesamtszenarien zusammengeführt. Da es bisher keine explizite Good Governance-Transformationsforschung gab, wurde hiermit ein erster Schritt in diese Richtung getan. Es wird darüber hinaus deutlich, dass eine Transformation zu Good Governance nicht durch eine kurzfristige Veränderung der Rahmenbedingungen zu erreichen ist. Es geht um kulturelle Veränderungen, um Lernprozesse, um langfristige Entwicklungen, die in der Studie am Beispiel Ghana analysiert werden. In vielen vorangegangenen Transformationsstudien wurde diese zeitliche Komponente vernachlässigt. Ghana hat bereits viele Schritte getan, um einen Weg in die Zukunft und zu Good Governance zu finden. Die Untersuchung dieser Schritte ist Kern der vorliegenden Arbeit. Der Weg Ghanas ist jedoch noch nicht abgeschlossen.
Der Untersuchungsgegenstand der vorliegenden Arbeit ist die Praxis der Europäischen Bürgerinitiative (EBI) nach Art. 11 Abs. 4 EUV, dem weltweit ersten und einzigen Instrument transnationaler, partizipativer und digitaler Demokratie. Im Mittelpunkt der Untersuchung steht die Frage, welchen Beitrag die EBI zur weiteren Demokratisierung der EU leisten kann und auf welche Art und Weise insoweit noch weitere Verbesserungen erzielt werden können. Nach zehnjähriger Anwendungspraxis von 2012 bis 2022 liegen inzwischen ausreichend empirische Daten vor, um den Forschungsgegenstand umfassend zu erforschen und das Instrument mit Blick auf seinen von den EU-Institutionen versprochenen Legitimations- und Demokratisierungsbeitrag bewerten zu können. Insbesondere wird das EBI-Verfahren in dieser Arbeit auf seine empirisch nachweisbare Nutzung, auf seine prozedurale Nutzerfreundlichkeit sowie auf seine politische wie rechtliche Wirkmächtigkeit untersucht. Zum Zwecke der korrekten Kategorisierung, Bewertung sowie der nutzerfreundlichen Ausgestaltung des EBI-Verfahrens werden Vergleiche mit Bürger- und Volksinitiativverfahren in den EU-Mitgliedstaaten sowie mit Bürgerbeteiligungsverfahren auf EU-Ebene vorgenommen. Den empirischen und komparativen Analysen werden eine historische Analyse über die Genese der EBI seit dem EU-Verfassungskonvent sowie theoretisch-normative Überlegungen und praktische Untersuchungen zu unterschiedlichen beteiligungszentrierten Demokratiemodellen vorangestellt, um die EBI einzuordnen und die Steigerungsmöglichkeiten ihres Demokratisierungsbeitrags zu erschließen. Letzteres zielt schließlich auf die Frage nach der prozeduralen Kombination und Kompatibilität der EBI mit demokratischen Innovationen aus dem Bereich der deliberativen und direkten Demokratie ab. Die Arbeit schließt mit einem Ausblick und unterbreitet umfassende EBI-Reformoptionen sowohl auf der primär- und sekundärrechtlichen als auch auf der informellen Ebene.
In the debate on how to govern sustainable development, a central question concerns the interaction between knowledge about sustainability and policy developments. The discourse on what constitutes sustainable development conflict on some of the most basic issues, including the proper definitions, instruments and indicators of what should be ‘developed’ or ‘sustained’. Whereas earlier research on the role of (scientific) knowledge in policy adopted a rationalist-positivist view of knowledge as the basis for ‘evidence-based policy making’, recent literature on knowledge creation and transfer processes has instead pointed towards aspects of knowledge-policy ‘co-production’ (Jasanoff 2004). It is highlighted that knowledge utilisation is not just a matter of the quality of the knowledge as such, but a question of which knowledge fits with the institutional context and dominant power structures. Just as knowledge supports and justifies certain policy, policy can produce and stabilise certain knowledge. Moreover, rather than viewing knowledge-policy interaction as a linear and uni-directional model, this conceptualization is based on an assumption of the policy process as being more anarchic and unpredictable, something Cohen, March and Olsen (1972) has famously termed the ‘garbage-can model’.
The present dissertation focuses on the interplay between knowledge and policy in sustainability governance. It takes stock with the practice of ‘Management by Objectives and Results’ (MBOR: Lundqvist 2004) whereby policy actors define sustainable development goals (based on certain knowledge) and are expected to let these definitions guide policy developments as well as evaluate whether sustainability improves or not. As such a knowledge-policy instrument, Sustainability Indicators (SI:s) help both (subjectively) construct ‘social meaning’ about sustainability and (objectively) influence policy and measure its success. The different articles in this cumulative dissertation analyse the development, implementation and policy support (personal and institutional) of Sustainability Indicators as an instrument for MBOR in a variety of settings. More specifically, the articles centre on the question of how sustainability definitions and measurement tools on the one hand (knowledge) and policy instruments and political power structures on the other, are co-produced.
A first article examines the normative foundations of popular international SI:s and country rankings. Combining theoretical (constructivist) analysis with factor analysis, it analyses how the input variable structure of SI:s are related to different sustainability paradigms, producing a different output in terms of which countries (developed versus developing) are most highly ranked. Such a theoretical input-output analysis points towards a potential problem of SI:s becoming a sort of ‘circular argumentation constructs’. The article thus, highlights on a quantitative basis what others have noted qualitatively – that different definitions and interpretations of sustainability influence indicator output to the point of contradiction. The normative aspects of SI:s does thereby not merely concern the question of which indicators to use for what purposes, but also the more fundamental question of how normative and political bias are intrinsically a part of the measurement instrument as such. The study argues that, although no indicator can be expected to tell the sustainability ‘truth-out-there’, a theoretical localization of indicators – and of the input variable structure – may help facilitate interpretation of SI output and the choice of which indicators to use for what (policy or academic) purpose.
A second article examines the co-production of knowledge and policy in German sustainability governance. It focuses on the German sustainability strategy ‘Perspektiven für Deutschland’ (2002), a strategy that stands out both in an international comparison of national sustainability strategies as well as among German government policy strategies because of its relative stability over five consecutive government constellations, its rather high status and increasingly coercive nature. The study analyses what impact the sustainability strategy has had on the policy process between 2002 and 2015, in terms of defining problems and shaping policy processes. Contrasting rationalist and constructivist perspectives on the role of knowledge in policy, two factors, namely the level of (scientific and political) consensus about policy goals and the ‘contextual fit’ of problem definitions, are found to be main factors explaining how different aspects of the strategy is used. Moreover, the study argues that SI:s are part of a continuous process of ‘structuring’ in which indicator, user and context factors together help structure the sustainability challenge in such a way that it becomes more manageable for government policy.
A third article examines how 31 European countries have built supportive institutions of MBOR between 1992 and 2012. In particular during the 1990s and early 2000s much hope was put into the institutionalisation of Environmental Policy Integration (EPI) as a way to overcome sectoral thinking in sustainability policy making and integrate issues of environmental sustainability into all government policy. However, despite high political backing (FN, EU, OECD), implementation of EPI seems to differ widely among countries. The study is a quantitative longitudinal cross-country comparison of how countries’ ‘EPI architectures’ have developed over time. Moreover, it asks which ‘EPI architectures’ seem to be more effective in producing more ‘stringent’ sustainability policy.
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.
The thesis focuses on the inter-departmental coordination of adaptation and mitigation of demographic change in East Germany. All Eastern German States (Länder) have set up inter-departmental committees (IDCs) that are expected to deliver joint strategies to tackle demographic change. IDCs provide an organizational setting for potential positive coordination, i.e. a joint approach to problem solving that pools and utilizes the expertise of many departments in a constructive manner from the very beginning. Whether they actually achieve positive coordination is contested within the academic debate. This motivates the first research question of this thesis: Do IDCs achieve positive coordination?
Interdepartmental committees and their role in horizontal coordination within the core executive triggered interest among scholars already more than fifty years ago. However, we don’t know much about their actual importance for the inter-departmental preparation of cross-cutting policies. Until now, few studies can be found that analyzes inter-departmental committees in a comparative way trying to identify whether they achieve positive coordination and what factors shape the coordination process and output of IDCs.
Each IDC has a chair organization that is responsible for managing the interactions within the IDCs. The chair organization is important, because it organizes and structures the overall process of coordination in the IDC. Consequently, the chair of an IDC serves as the main boundary-spanner and therefore has remarkable influence by arranging meetings and the work schedule or by distributing internal roles. Interestingly, in the German context we find two organizational approaches: while some states decided to put a line department (e.g. Department of Infrastructure) in charge of managing the IDC, others rely on the State Chancelleries, i.e. the center of government.
This situation allows for comparative research design that can address the role of the State Chancellery in inter-departmental coordination of cross-cutting policies. This is relevant, because the role of the center is crucial when studying coordination within central government. The academic debate on the center of government in the German politico-administrative system is essentially divided into two camps. One camp claims that the center can improve horizontal coordination and steer cross-cutting policy-making more effectively, while the other camp points to limits to central coordination due to departmental autonomy. This debate motivates the second research question of this thesis: Does the State Chancellery as chair organization achieve positive coordination in IDCs?
The center of government and its role in the German politic-administrative system has attracted academic attention already in the 1960s and 1970s. There is a research desiderate regarding the center’s role during the inter-departmental coordination process. There are only few studies that explicitly analyze centers of government and their role in coordination of cross-cutting policies, although some single case studies have been published. This gap in the academic debate will be addressed by the answer to the second research question.
The dependent variable of this study is the chair organization of IDCs. The value of this variable is dichotomous: either an IDC is chaired by a Line department or by a State Chancellery. We are interested whether this variable has an effect on two dependent variables. First, we will analyze the coordination process, i.e. interaction among bureaucrats within the IDC. Second, the focus of this thesis will be on the coordination result, i.e. the demography strategies that are produced by the respective IDCs.
In terms of the methodological approach, this thesis applies a comparative case study design based on a most-similar-systems logic. The German Federalism is quite suitable for such designs. Since the institutional framework largely is the same across all states, individual variables and their effect can be isolated and plausibly analyzed. To further control for potential intervening variables, we will limit our case selection to states located in East Germany, because the demographic situation is most problematic in the Eastern part of Germany, i.e. there is a equal problem pressure. Consequently, we will analyze five cases: Thuringia, Saxony-Anhalt (line department) and Brandenburg, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern and Saxony (State Chancellery).
There is no grand coordination theory that is ready to be applied to our case studies. Therefore, we need to tailor our own approach. Our assumption is that the individual chair organization has an effect on the coordination process and output of IDCs, although all cases are embedded in the same institutional setting, i.e. the German politico-administrative system. Therefore, we need an analytical approach than incorporates institutionalist and agency-based arguments. Therefore, this thesis will utilize Actor-Centered Institutionalism (ACI). Broadly speaking, ACI conceptualizes actors’ behavior as influenced - but not fully determined - by institutions. Since ACI is rather abstract we need to adapt it for the purpose of this thesis. Line Departments and State Chancelleries will be modeled as distinct actors with different action orientations and capabilities to steer the coordination process. However, their action is embedded within the institutional context of governments, which we will conceptualize as being comprised of regulative (formal rules) and normative (social norms) elements.
Translating innovation
(2017)
This doctoral thesis studies the process of innovation adoption in public administrations, addressing the research question of how an innovation is translated to a local context. The study empirically explores Design Thinking as a new problem-solving approach introduced by a federal government organisation in Singapore. With a focus on user-centeredness, collaboration and iteration Design Thinking seems to offer a new way to engage recipients and other stakeholders of public services as well as to re-think the policy design process from a user’s point of view. Pioneered in the private sector, early adopters of the methodology include civil services in Australia, Denmark, the United Kingdom, the United States as well as Singapore. Hitherto, there is not much evidence on how and for which purposes Design Thinking is used in the public sector.
For the purpose of this study, innovation adoption is framed in an institutionalist perspective addressing how concepts are translated to local contexts. The study rejects simplistic views of the innovation adoption process, in which an idea diffuses to another setting without adaptation. The translation perspective is fruitful because it captures the multidimensionality and ‘messiness’ of innovation adoption. More specifically, the overall research question addressed in this study is: How has Design Thinking been translated to the local context of the public sector organisation under investigation? And from a theoretical point of view: What can we learn from translation theory about innovation adoption processes?
Moreover, there are only few empirical studies of organisations adopting Design Thinking and most of them focus on private organisations. We know very little about how Design Thinking is embedded in public sector organisations. This study therefore provides further empirical evidence of how Design Thinking is used in a public sector organisation, especially with regards to its application to policy work which has so far been under-researched.
An exploratory single case study approach was chosen to provide an in-depth analysis of the innovation adoption process. Based on a purposive, theory-driven sampling approach, a Singaporean Ministry was selected because it represented an organisational setting in which Design Thinking had been embedded for several years, making it a relevant case with regard to the research question. Following a qualitative research design, 28 semi-structured interviews (45-100 minutes) with employees and managers were conducted. The interview data was triangulated with observations and documents, collected during a field research research stay in Singapore.
The empirical study of innovation adoption in a single organisation focused on the intra-organisational perspective, with the aim to capture the variations of translation that occur during the adoption process. In so doing, this study opened the black box often assumed in implementation studies. Second, this research advances translation studies not only by showing variance, but also by deriving explanatory factors. The main differences in the translation of Design Thinking occurred between service delivery and policy divisions, as well as between the first adopter and the rest of the organisation. For the intra-organisational translation of Design Thinking in the Singaporean Ministry the following five factors played a role: task type, mode of adoption, type of expertise, sequence of adoption, and the adoption of similar practices.