@article{HammerschmidAnheierWegrich, author = {Hammerschmid, Gerhard and Anheier, Helmut K. and Wegrich, Kai}, title = {Planung und Management {\"o}ffentlicher Infrastruktur: auf dem Weg zu einer besseren Governance}, series = {Public Governance - Zeitschrift f{\"u}r {\"o}ffentliches Management}, journal = {Public Governance - Zeitschrift f{\"u}r {\"o}ffentliches Management}, number = {Sommer 2016}, issn = {1866-4431}, pages = {15 -- 18}, language = {de} } @article{EbrahimBattilanaMair, author = {Ebrahim, Alnoor and Battilana, Julie and Mair, Johanna}, title = {The Governance of Social Enterprises: Mission drift and accountability challenges in hybrid organizations}, series = {Research in Organizational Behavior}, volume = {34}, journal = {Research in Organizational Behavior}, doi = {10.1016/j.riob.2014.09.001}, pages = {81 -- 100}, abstract = {We examine the challenges of governance facing organizations that pursue a social mission through the use of market mechanisms. These hybrid organizations, often referred to as social enterprises, combine aspects of both charity and business at their core. In this paper we distinguish between two ideal types of such hybrids, differentiated and integrated, and we conceptualize two key challenges of governance they face: accountability for dual performance objectives and accountability to multiple principal stakeholders. We revisit the potential and limitations of recently introduced legal forms to address these challenges. We then theorize about the importance of organizational governance and the role of governing boards in particular, in prioritizing and aligning potentially conflicting objectives and interests in order to avoid mission drift and to maintain organizational hybridity in social enterprises. Finally, we discuss future research directions and the implications of this work for rethinking traditional categories of organizations, namely business and charity.}, language = {en} } @article{MungiuPippidi, author = {Mungiu-Pippidi, Alina}, title = {The Legacies of 1989: The Transformative Power of Europe}, series = {Journal of Democracy}, volume = {25}, journal = {Journal of Democracy}, number = {1}, editor = {Diamond, Larry and Plattner, Marc F.}, publisher = {Johns Hopkins University Press}, address = {Baltimore}, issn = {1045-5736}, pages = {20 -- 32}, abstract = {Why has the EU succeeded in promoting democracy in the new member states but failed in promoting good governance? This essay seeks to answer this question first by distinguishing governance from political regimes, and second by exploring to what extent national governance—which is defined as the set of formal and informal institutions that determine who gets what in a given country—is susceptible to being improved by external pressure or intervention. It concludes that improving governance remains a challenge even for the democratic character of the European project.}, language = {en} } @article{MungiuPippidiAnagnostou, author = {Mungiu-Pippidi, Alina and Anagnostou, Dia}, title = {Domestic Implementation of Human Rights Judgments in Europe: Legal Infrastructure and Government Effectiveness Matter}, series = {The European Journal of International Law}, volume = {25}, journal = {The European Journal of International Law}, number = {1}, editor = {Weiler, Joseph}, publisher = {Oxford University Press}, address = {Oxford}, issn = {0938-5428}, doi = {10.1093/ejil/chu001}, pages = {205 -- 227}, abstract = {Over the past couple of years, international law and international relations scholarship has shifted its focus from the question of whether human rights treaties bring any state-level improvements at all to investigations in the domestic context of the factors and dynamics influencing state compliance. In this direction, and focusing on the European Court of Human Rights, this study inquires into the factors that account for variable patterns of state compliance with its judgments. Why do national authorities in some states adopt a more prompt and responsive attitude in implementing these judgments, in contrast to other states that procrastinate or respond reluctantly? On the basis of a large-N study of the Strasbourg Court's judgments and a comparison across nine states, this article argues that variation in state implementation performance is closely linked to the overall legal infrastructure capacity and government effectiveness of a state. When such capacity and effectiveness are high and diffused, the adverse judgments of the Strasbourg Court are unlikely to be obstructed or ignored, even when the government, political elites, or other actors are reluctant and not in favour of substantive remedies.}, language = {en} } @article{RoemmeleFalkRehfeldetal., author = {R{\"o}mmele, Andrea and Falk, Svenja and Rehfeld, Dieter and Thunert, Martin}, title = {Kooperative Politikberatung: Ein neues Beziehungsgeflecht zwischen Politik und Politikberatung?}, series = {Politische Vierteljahresschrift (PVS)}, volume = {48}, journal = {Politische Vierteljahresschrift (PVS)}, number = {2}, publisher = {VS Verlag f{\"u}r Sozialwissenschaften}, issn = {1862-2860}, doi = {10.1007/s11615-007-0049-y}, pages = {322 -- 337}, abstract = {Der Beitrag untersucht den Einfluss ver{\"a}nderter Governance-Strukturen auf die Politikberatung. Zun{\"a}chst res{\"u}miert der Beitrag die bisherigen Positionen zum Verh{\"a}ltnis von Wissenschaft und Politik, welche allesamt aus der Sicht der Wissenschaft argumentieren. Danach erfolgt ein Perspektivwechsel. Der Beitrag betrachtet das Ph{\"a}nomen Politikberatung nicht aus der Perspektive der Wissenschaft, sondern aus der Sicht der Politik und versteht Politikberatung als eine outgesourcte Leistung, die von der Politik bei Bedarf einzuholen ist, aber kaum noch von ihr selbst erbracht wird. Die anschließend entwickelten Fragestellungen verfolgen das Ziel, der wissenschaftlichen Diskussion {\"u}ber Politikberatung neue Impulse zu geben.}, language = {de} } @article{Dawson, author = {Dawson, Mark}, title = {EU Law 'Transformed'? Evaluating Accountability and Subsidiarity in the 'Streamlined' OMC for Social Inclusion and Social Protection}, series = {European Integration Online Papers}, volume = {13}, journal = {European Integration Online Papers}, number = {Special Issue 1}, publisher = {ECSA Austria}, address = {Wien}, issn = {1027-5193}, doi = {10.1695/2009008}, pages = {1 -- 15}, abstract = {From initially defining new governance processes as external to "traditional" forms of EU law, a number of academic scholars have begun to argue that methods like the OMC can be seen as indicative of a broader "transformation" of European law-making. The transformation thesis relies on seeing the OM C as an evolving legal mechanism, in which features such as peer review, and the participation of 'new' constitutional actors, can take the place of traditional forms of legal accountability and participation. At the same time, the transformation thesis remains empirically under-developed. Taking the new streamlined OMC process in social inclusion and social protection as its starting point, this paper will seek to remedy that gap. The paper evaluates the transformation thesis using interview data gained from the recent Commission evaluation of the OMC SPSI (conducted from 2005-2006). While the OMC SPSI displays evidence for a number of its features - it also displays some of the limits of the 'transformation' idea. While the OMC as it stands indicates elements of a more 'dynamic' form of accountability and subsidiarity in the EU order, its lack of critic al review and transparency, and failure to include local or regional actors casts doubt on its suit ability as a replacement for traditional legal accountability mechanisms. As much as 'transformation' may offer an attractive future for EU law, its dynamic vision for open coordination remains largely unrealised}, language = {en} } @article{WegrichLodge2010, author = {Wegrich, Kai and Lodge, Martin}, title = {Governance as contested logics of control: Europeanized meat inspection regimes in Denmark and Germany}, series = {Journal of European Public Policy}, volume = {18}, journal = {Journal of European Public Policy}, number = {1}, publisher = {Taylor \& Francis}, address = {London [u.a.]}, issn = {1350-1763}, doi = {10.1080/13501763.2011.520880}, pages = {90 -- 105}, year = {2010}, abstract = {The term governance has been used in many contexts and meanings. This paper assesses three logics of control widely associated with governance, namely multi-level governance, the regulatory state and performance management. It questions to what extent these logics are present, are reinforcing or are mutually self-destructive in their effects. This paper explores the field of meat inspection as a critical aspect of the Europeanized food safety regime and concentrates on the cases of Denmark and Germany. The paper concludes that the three logics of control's effects are interactive and that, far from being mutually reinforcing, the various logics are mutually self-destructive and destabilizing.}, language = {en} }