@techreport{HammerschmidWegrich, type = {Working Paper}, author = {Hammerschmid, Gerhard and Wegrich, Kai}, title = {Public administration characteristics in EU28: Germany, report prepared for the European Commission, DGEmployment, Social Affairs and Inclusion under the Contract VC/2016/0492 "Support for developing better country knowledge on public administration and institutional capacity building"}, pages = {358 -- 386}, language = {en} } @misc{HammerschmidWegrichKostka, author = {Hammerschmid, Gerhard and Wegrich, Kai and Kostka, Genia}, title = {The Governance of Infrastructure.}, publisher = {Oxford University Press}, address = {Oxford ; New York, NY}, isbn = {9780198787310}, pages = {304}, abstract = {If infrastructure is a fundamental driver of economic growth and social development, why is it so difficult to get right? This volume makes the case for a governance perspective on infrastructure. This implies moving beyond rational economic analysis of what should be done towards an analysis of the political, institutional and societal mechanisms that shape decision-making about infrastructure investment, planning and implementation. The expert contributions dissect the logics of infrastructure governance in a novel way, providing timely analyses that will enrich debates about how to get infrastructure governance right.}, language = {en} } @incollection{HammerschmidWegrichKostka, author = {Hammerschmid, Gerhard and Wegrich, Kai and Kostka, Genia}, title = {The Challenges of Infrastructure: Complexity, (Ir)Rationalities, and the Search for Better Governance}, series = {The Governance of Infrastructure}, booktitle = {The Governance of Infrastructure}, publisher = {Oxford University Press}, isbn = {978-0198757436}, pages = {1 -- 20}, language = {en} } @incollection{HammerschmidWegrich, author = {Hammerschmid, Gerhard and Wegrich, Kai}, title = {Infrastructure Governance as Political Choice}, series = {The Governance of Infrastructure}, booktitle = {The Governance of Infrastructure}, editor = {Wegrich, Kai and Kostka, Genia and Hammerschmid, Gerhard}, publisher = {Oxford University Press}, address = {Oxford}, doi = {10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198787310.001.0001}, pages = {21 -- 42}, abstract = {This chapter explores political decision-making relating to infrastructure investments in light of the recent trends towards establishing independent expert bodies to guide this process. The chapter argues that the complexity of infrastructure governance leads to patterns of decision-making shaped by mechanisms of bounded rationality and selective perception. Drawing on the concept of 'political choice', it also shows that current debates about such independent expert bodies too often seek to replace the political logic with a technocratic one, instead of exploring ways to increase the intelligence of inherently political processes. Institutional design debates suffer from 'naive institutionalism' overestimating the effects of formal institutional changes and ignoring the role of informal political dynamics. Overall, the institutional design debate in infrastructure governance should be more reflective and consider experiences with institutional reforms and attempts to depoliticise the policy process with tools of rational analysis.}, language = {en} } @incollection{HammerschmidWegrich, author = {Hammerschmid, Gerhard and Wegrich, Kai}, title = {Infrastructure Governance and Government Decision-Making}, series = {Governance Report - Governance of Infrastructure}, booktitle = {Governance Report - Governance of Infrastructure}, editor = {Wegrich, Kai and Kostka, Genia and Hammerschmid, Gerhard}, address = {Oxford University Press}, isbn = {978-0198757436}, pages = {31 -- 54}, language = {en} } @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{Wegrich, author = {Wegrich, Kai}, title = {The blind spots of collaborative innovation}, series = {Public Management Review}, volume = {21}, journal = {Public Management Review}, number = {1}, doi = {10.1080/14719037.2018.1433311}, pages = {12 -- 20}, abstract = {In discussing some of the core claims of collaborative innovation, this article uses the notion of 'blind spots' in a double meaning. On the one hand, it points at some blind spots in the debate on collaborative innovation, i.e. potential weaknesses, risks, and unintended effects of public sector innovation strategies resting on principles of collaborative innovation. Second, the paper considers collaborative innovation as a counter-strategy against blind spots and attention biases of public organizations. Drawing on this perspective helps to critically discuss some of the key assumptions supporting the promise of collaborative innovation to deliver benefits critical for public governance.}, language = {en} } @article{KayserWegrich, author = {Kayser, Mark A. and Wegrich, Kai}, title = {Von Unis Gnaden: Ein Deutsches Status Symbol}, series = {The European Magazine}, journal = {The European Magazine}, publisher = {Weimer Media Group}, address = {M{\"u}nchen}, language = {de} } @article{Wegrich, author = {Wegrich, Kai}, title = {Ironie des Schicksals. Verwaltungswissenschaft im Zeitalter von Governance}, series = {der moderne staat}, volume = {10}, journal = {der moderne staat}, number = {1}, doi = {10.3224/dms.v10i1.01}, pages = {3 -- 30}, abstract = {Die sich seit den sp{\"a}ten 60er-Jahren etablierende politikwissenschaftliche Verwaltungswissenschaft hat eine wichtige Rolle in der Entwicklung der Governance- Perspektive und -Debatte gespielt, vor allem durch das Entmystifizieren {\"u}berkommender Vorstellungen hierarchischer Steuerung und in der Durchsetzung eines Verst{\"a}ndnisses von politischer Steuerung als tendenziell horizontale Interaktion von institutionellen Akteuren („kooperativer Staat", „kooperative Verwaltung"). Die zentrale These dieses Beitrages ist, dass die Verwaltungswissenschaft, und insbesondere die policy-orientierte Verwaltungsforschung, im Ergebnis der Durchsetzung der Governance- Perspektive, zu der sie wesentlich beitrug, an Bedeutung verloren hat - sowohl in anwendungsorientierten Debatten im Kontext von Governance, als auch in Bezug auf die Erforschung von Kernthemen der Teildisziplin. Basierend auf Literatur- und Dokumentenanalysen sowie Interviews zeichnet der Beitrag diese Entwicklung als Zusammenspiel von wissenschaftsinternen Konzeptentwicklungen und reformpolitischen Debatten nach und zeigt, dass der analytische Kern der policy-orientierten Verwaltungsforschung geschw{\"a}cht aus dieser Entwicklung hervorgegangen ist.}, language = {de} } @article{PaschoalWegrich, author = {Paschoal, Bruno and Wegrich, Kai}, title = {Urban governance innovations in Rio de Janeiro: The political management of digital innovations}, series = {Journal of Urban Affairs}, volume = {41}, journal = {Journal of Urban Affairs}, number = {1}, doi = {10.1080/07352166.2017.1310561}, pages = {117 -- 134}, abstract = {This article analyzes urban governance innovations in the city of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, focusing on the role of these innovations within the wider political management strategy of the executive leader. These innovations, all of which utilize digital information and communication technologies, are important elements within a leadership and management strategy. The article explores the role of digital innovations within the broader strategy of the mayor's use of managerial tools as means to strengthen control of the city's governance. Though presented as an apolitical management style of "what works," this form of management is also deployed to enforce contentious political decisions with substantial implications for the social fabric of the city. This article offers an analysis of the political role and implications of urban governance and public service innovations that are often presented and analyzed in purely instrumental and apolitical ways.}, language = {en} } @article{LodgeWegrich, author = {Lodge, Martin and Wegrich, Kai}, title = {The Rationality Paradox of Nudge: Rational Tools of Government in a World of Bounded Rationality}, series = {Law \& Policy}, volume = {38}, journal = {Law \& Policy}, number = {3}, doi = {10.1111/lapo.12056}, pages = {250 -- 267}, abstract = {Nudge and the wider behavioral economics approach has become increasingly dominant in contemporary political and policy discourse. While much attention has been paid to the attractions and criticisms of nudge (such as liberal paternalism), this article argues that nudge is based on a rationality paradox in that it represents an approach that despite its emphasis on bounded rationality, does not reflect on its own limits to rationality. The article considers the implications of this paradox by considering mechanisms that influence government decision making and mechanisms that lead to unintended consequences in the context of policy interventions.}, language = {en} } @book{BachWegrich, author = {Bach, Tobias and Wegrich, Kai}, title = {The Blind Spots of Public Bureaucracy and the Politics of Non-Coordination}, editor = {Bach, Tobias and Wegrich, Kai}, publisher = {Palgrave Macmillan}, isbn = {978-3319766713}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-319-76672-0}, publisher = {Hertie School}, pages = {269}, language = {en} } @article{BachWegrich, author = {Bach, Tobias and Wegrich, Kai}, title = {The politics of blame avoidance in complex delegation structures: the public transport crisis in Berlin}, series = {European Political Science Review}, volume = {11}, journal = {European Political Science Review}, number = {4}, doi = {10.1017/S1755773919000213}, pages = {415 -- 431}, abstract = {The article analyses the public attribution of blame and the use of presentational strategies of blame avoidance in complex delegation structures. We theorize and empirically demonstrate that complex delegation structures result in the diffusion of blame to multiple actors so that a clear allocation of responsibility becomes more difficult. The article shows that public attribution of blame follows a distinct temporal pattern in which politicians only gradually move into the centre of the blame storm. We also find that blame-takers deploy sequential patterns of presentational management and use blame shifting to other actors as a dominant strategy. However, the analysis suggests that complex delegation structures impose limitations on blame-takers' use of blame avoidance strategies, and that sequential presentational management becomes less useful over time. The article uses media content analysis to study blame games during a major crisis of the public transport system in Berlin, Germany.}, language = {en} } @article{JannWegrich, author = {Jann, Werner and Wegrich, Kai}, title = {Generalists and specialists in executive politics: Why ambitious meta-policies so often fail}, series = {Public Administration}, volume = {97}, journal = {Public Administration}, number = {4}, doi = {10.1111/padm.12614}, pages = {845 -- 860}, abstract = {This article contributes to the politics of policy-making in executive government. It introduces the analytical distinction between generalists and specialists as antagonistic players in executive politics and develops the claim that policy specialists are in a structurally advantaged position to succeed in executive politics and to fend off attempts by generalists to influence policy choices through cross-cutting reform measures. Contrary to traditional textbook public administration, we explain the views of generalists and specialists not through their training but their positions within an organization. We combine established approaches from public policy and organization theory to substantiate this claim and to define the dilemma that generalists face when developing government-wide reform policies ('meta-policies') as well as strategies to address this problem. The article suggests that the conceptual distinction between generalists and specialists allows for a more precise analysis of the challenges for policy-making across government organizations than established approaches.}, language = {en} } @incollection{BachWegrich, author = {Bach, Tobias and Wegrich, Kai}, title = {Regulatory Reform, Accountability and Blame in Public Service Delivery: The Public Transport Crisis in Berlin}, series = {The Routledge Handbook to Accountability and Welfare State Reforms in Europe}, booktitle = {The Routledge Handbook to Accountability and Welfare State Reforms in Europe}, editor = {Christensen, Tom and L{\ae}greid, Per}, publisher = {Routledge}, address = {London}, isbn = {9781315612713}, doi = {10.4324/9781315612713}, publisher = {Hertie School}, pages = {14}, abstract = {Introduction Among the many promises of reforms of the 'regulatory state' type, the clarification of account - ability relations features prominently. While not always using the language of accountability, a major argument against the state as direct provider of a range of public services was that accountability relations were unclear: state providers of services such as telecommunications and transport were hybrids between commercial enterprises and public service providers that were largely self-regulatory in terms of service provision and technical safety (Lodge and Wegrich 2012). The governance of such enterprises allowed political logics to trump economic rationales, and it was unclear in how far the management of these companies should follow either a political or a managerial logic, as they had to provide 'essential public services' in an economically efficient way.}, language = {en} } @incollection{JannWegrich, author = {Jann, Werner and Wegrich, Kai}, title = {Governance und Verwaltungspolitik: Leitbilder und Reformkonzepte}, series = {Governance. Regieren in komplexen Regelsystemen}, booktitle = {Governance. Regieren in komplexen Regelsystemen}, editor = {Benz, Arthur and Dose, Nicolai}, publisher = {VS Verlag f{\"u}r Sozialwissenschaften}, address = {Wiesbaden}, isbn = {9783531173320}, publisher = {Hertie School}, pages = {175 -- 200}, language = {de} } @book{WegrichLodge2012, author = {Wegrich, Kai and Lodge, Martin}, title = {Managing regulation: regulatory analysis, politics and policy}, publisher = {Palgrave Macmillan}, address = {Basingstoke, Hampshire [u.a.]}, isbn = {9780230298804}, pages = {288}, year = {2012}, abstract = {This major new text assesses the main theoretical approaches and applies them to understanding real-world regulatory problems, encouraging students and practitioners in public management to think critically and creatively about the different tools available to them.}, 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} } @article{Wegrich, author = {Wegrich, Kai}, title = {Is the turtle still plodding along? Public management reform in Germany}, series = {Public Management Review}, volume = {23}, journal = {Public Management Review}, number = {8}, doi = {10.1080/14719037.2020.1771011}, pages = {1107 -- 1116}, abstract = {Public management reforms in Germany have long been characterized by slow-moving incrementalism and maintenance of its administrative system's central characteristics. This article reviews recent developments in administrative reforms against the background of the traditional German reform style. More ambitious reform efforts in the field of digitalization raise conceptual puzzles related to the conditions under which incrementalism can generate substantive change - and at what point incremental reforms give way to more rapid patterns of change. The article also discusses the implications of the ongoing COVID-19 crisis on public management reforms.}, language = {en} } @techreport{HammerschmidPalaricRackwitzetal., type = {Working Paper}, author = {Hammerschmid, Gerhard and Palaric, Enora and Rackwitz, Maike and Wegrich, Kai}, title = {Meta-analysis of digitalisation strategies in eight European countries}, pages = {130}, abstract = {EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A large body of literature claims that ICT and digitalisation have triggered broad organisational and cultural changes in public organisations. These changes have led many to conclude that a new era has begun that is characterised by collaboration within intra-and intersectoral networks and this has become a key paradigm for public sector governance and innovation. Yet, empirical evidence of a shift towards "Networked Governance" remains limited, and few have explored further the linkages between digitalisation and collaboration in the public sector. Work Package 6 of the TROPICO project addresses this void by providing a meta-analysis of the design, coordination, and implementation of national digitalisation strategies in eight European countries with different administrative traditions (Estonia, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Spain, and UK). By coding the countries' first significant and most recent strategies, we examine whether there is evidence supporting the argument of a paradigmatic shift with respect to public sector governance and collaboration. The final analysis is based on 8496 codes and on an additional questionnaire filled out by the relevant TROPICO partners' country teams. Based on our results we cannot conclude that a Networked Governance is emerging in the era of digital government, but rather find confirmation that all reform paradigms are present in governments' digitalisation efforts. In fact, the way in which digital transformation of the public sector is put forward in the strategies may strengthen hierarchical patterns of command and control. Findings further indicate that over time collaboration has changed regarding scope and motives, while its intensity has remained relatively weak. Moreover, administrative traditions do not serve as explanatory approach for country variations in the context of digitalisation strategies. Rather, divergences are explained by the different geneses and purposes of the documents. However, we observe similarities in the perceived success factors: a common vision, cultural change, accessibility, leadership and trust are main recurring themes. Furthermore, we find no conclusive evidence that governance paradigms and collaborative arrangements in the digitalisation strategies influencethe performance of digital government. Lastly, in the conclusion of the report, we address some recommendations to practitioners for designing and implementing digitalisation strategies}, language = {en} } @techreport{HammerschmidPalaricRackwitzetal., type = {Working Paper}, author = {Hammerschmid, Gerhard and Palaric, Enora and Rackwitz, Maike and Wegrich, Kai}, title = {Internal collaboration as a cornerstone of national digitalisation strategies Empirical findings and recommendations}, pages = {4}, language = {en} } @incollection{BachJuglKoehleretal., author = {Bach, Tobias and Jugl, Marlene and K{\"o}hler, Dustin and Wegrich, Kai}, title = {Reputational threats and democratic responsiveness of regulatory agencies}, series = {The Accountability of Expertise}, booktitle = {The Accountability of Expertise}, publisher = {Routledge}, address = {London, New York}, isbn = {9781003175490}, publisher = {Hertie School}, pages = {81 -- 98}, abstract = {This chapter studies decision-making behaviour of independent regulatory agencies. Theoretical accounts of delegation to regulatory agencies emphasise that losses of political accountability of regulators are traded off against potential gains in regulatory efficiency. The theory of credible commitment suggests that independent (non-majoritarian) regulatory agencies are more effective in regulating markets than organisations under direct political control. However, independent regulatory agencies operate in a political context and need to demonstrate their benefit to a diverse set of stakeholders, including elected politicians. We are hence confronted with a 'paradox of autonomisation' according to which more autonomous public organisations have to take into consideration external demands to a greater degree than less autonomous organisations. Independent regulatory agencies will thus be subjected to high …}, language = {en} }