@article{BachJuglKoehleretal., author = {Bach, Tobias and Jugl, Marlene and K{\"o}hler, Dustin and Wegrich, Kai}, title = {Regulatory agencies, reputational threats, and communicative responses}, series = {Regulation \& Governance}, journal = {Regulation \& Governance}, doi = {10.1111/rego.12421}, pages = {1 -- 16}, abstract = {A key claim in bureaucratic reputation literature is that reputation has several dimensions. This presents agencies with a difficult choice concerning which dimension(s) they should emphasize in the management of their reputation. This paper analyzes how regulatory agencies manage their reputation through communicative responses to public judgments, based on a singlecase study of the German financial regulator BaFin. Our theoretical argument underscores the importance of different reputational dimensions for regulatory agencies that simultaneously considers their distinct reputation reserves. Our main finding was that BaFin prioritizes responses to public judgments targeting reputational dimensions that are central to its mission and for which the agency has a weak reputation, as opposed to judgments targeting dimensions that are central to its mission and for which it has a strong reputation, or judgments targeting peripheral dimensions. The paper demonstrates the importance of agency missions for reputation management and suggests directions for further research.}, language = {en} } @article{HammerschmidPalaricRackwitzetal., author = {Hammerschmid, Gerhard and Palaric, Enora and Rackwitz, Maike and Wegrich, Kai}, title = {A shift in paradigm? Collaborative public administration in the context of national digitalization strategies}, series = {Governance}, volume = {37}, journal = {Governance}, number = {2}, doi = {10.1111/gove.12778}, pages = {411 -- 430}, abstract = {Despite claims of a paradigmatic shift toward the increased role of networks and partnerships as a form of governance—driven and enabled by digital technologies—the relation of "Networked Governance" with the pre-existing paradigms of "Traditional Weberian Public Administration" and "New Public Management" remains relatively unexplored. This research aims at collecting systematic evidence on the dominant paradigms in digitalization reforms in Europe by comparing the doctrines employed in the initial and most recent digitalization strategies across eight European countries: Estonia, France, Germany, Italy, The Netherlands, Norway, Spain, and the United Kingdom. We challenge the claim that Networked Governance is emerging as the dominant paradigm in the context of the digitalization of the public sector. The findings confirm earlier studies indicating that information and communication technologies tend to reinforce some traditional features of administration and the recentralization of power. Furthermore, we find evidence of the continued importance of key features of "New Public Management" in the digital era.}, language = {en} } @techreport{TraxlerWegrich, type = {Working Paper}, author = {Traxler, Christian and Wegrich, Kai}, title = {Attitudes on Urban Mobility Policies. Results from a Survey in Berlin}, publisher = {Hertie School}, address = {Berlin}, pages = {19}, abstract = {Urban mobility policies and the discussion around them have gained traction in many European cities, including Berlin. This policy brief presents survey evidence examining the preferences of citizens of Berlin city on mobility policy changes. The survey covers the expansion of bike infrastructure, the creation of traffic-calmed neighborhoods (Kiezblocks akin to Barcelona's superblocks), the implementation of a 30km/h speed limit on main roads, increased parking fees, and introduction of congestion charges. The results indicate majority support for more cycle paths and a further roll out of Kiezblocks. In contrast, only a third of respondents support an increase in parking fees and the introduction of a congestion charge. Support and opposition is strongly correlated with education, political attitudes and car (vs bike) ownership.}, language = {en} } @article{DrapalovaWegrichLeeOcampo, author = {Dr{\´a}palov{\´a}, Eliška and Wegrich, Kai and Lee Ocampo, Mar{\´i}a Jos{\´e}}, title = {Digitale Nomaden. Neue Mobilit{\"a}t schafft neue Konflikte}, series = {WZB-Mitteilungen}, journal = {WZB-Mitteilungen}, number = {Nr. 188: Migration}, publisher = {WZB}, address = {Berlin}, pages = {31 -- 34}, abstract = {Sie sind eine neue Klasse von Migrant*innen: Die digitalen Nomaden und Nomadinnen, die von irgendwo in der Welt aus {\"u}ber digitale Plattformen ihre Arbeit finden und verrichten. Sie genießen verschiedene Privilegien, doch die Zunahme dieses Ph{\"a}nomens ruft in vielen St{\"a}dten Unmut und Widerstand hervor. Neue Konzepte von Arbeit, von Mobilit{\"a}t und von Staatsb{\"u}rgerschaft sind gefragt.}, language = {de} } @incollection{Wegrich, author = {Wegrich, Kai}, title = {Public sector innovation: which season of public sector reform?}, series = {Handbook of Public Administration Reform}, booktitle = {Handbook of Public Administration Reform}, editor = {Goldfinch, Shaun Francis}, publisher = {Edward Elgar}, isbn = {978 1 80037 673 1}, publisher = {Hertie School}, pages = {131 -- 145}, language = {en} } @techreport{RevillardCornoFernandezetal., type = {Working Paper}, author = {Revillard, Anne and Corno, Lucia and Fernandez, Jos{\´e} Luis and Mason, Danielle and Umbach, Gaby and Bodenstein, Thilo and Cartwright, Andrew and Melenciuc, Ioana-Roxana and Wegrich, Kai and Stone, Diane}, title = {Developing policy evaluation in an academic setting: assets and challenges}, series = {D{\´e}bat du LIEPP}, journal = {D{\´e}bat du LIEPP}, number = {n°7}, pages = {24}, abstract = {Based on a seminar organized by LIEPP and CIVICA which took place at Sciences Po in June 2022, this publication brings together ten academic researchers from seven different CIVICA universities (Bocconi, CEU, EUI, Hertie School, LSE, Sciences Po, SNSPA), who are involved in various forms of policy evaluation. These contributions from Austria, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Romania, and the United Kingdom, reflect on the assets and challenges of developing policy evaluation in an academic setting. The seminar was organized as part of CIVICA's research focus on "Democracy in the 21st century", but through the crosscutting nature of program evaluation, it is also of interest to CIVICA's three others research streams (on societies in transition, data, and Europe revisited). The aim of this debate is thus to better understand the specificities, assets and challenges of developing evaluation from within an academic setting, in view of eventually reflecting on possible ways to collectively reinforce this practice within CIVICA, and use CIVICA as a leverage to reinforce this practice. This debate is organized around two topics, developing academic evaluative research, and the role of academic institutions in outreach and training in evaluation. Contributions are based on presentations of the experiences of each CIVICA partner.}, language = {en} } @article{DrapalovaWegrich, author = {Drapalova, Eliska and Wegrich, Kai}, title = {Platforms´ regulatory disruptiveness and local regulatory outcomes in Europe}, series = {Internet Policy Review}, volume = {13}, journal = {Internet Policy Review}, number = {2}, doi = {10.14763/2024.2.1745}, abstract = {One of the manifestations of platform power is the ability of platforms to successfully ignore existing rules and disrupt established patterns of regulation, thereby challenging the pillars of the regulatory state. But while the disruptive nature of the platform economy has often been invoked, it has rarely been empirically researched. We aim to fill this gap by putting the 'disruption' thesis to the test. We investigated whether platform companies disrupt local regulations. The findings show that sectoral platform companies are less disruptive to local regulations than widely believed. Platforms face a variety of regulatory responses, including the enforcement of regulations and the banning of platforms that fail to respect local rules. We operationalise disruption as the implementation of new regulation, exploring where and whether regulatory disruption takes place. This article combines a comparative analysis of 99 city regulations in the transport (ride-hailing) and housing (apartment-sharing) sectors in which platform companies are active, with examples from qualitative case studies.}, language = {en} } @article{DraplovaWegrich, author = {Draplova, Eliska and Wegrich, Kai}, title = {Tightening the Regulatory Grip: Local Regulatory Stringency and Sectoral Platform Regulation in EU Cities}, series = {Regulation \& Governance}, journal = {Regulation \& Governance}, doi = {10.1111/rego.70077}, pages = {1 -- 18}, abstract = {Platform companies like Uber and Airbnb are depicted as agile policy entrepreneurs who can navigate the boundaries of regulatory frameworks and manipulate regulations to their advantage; however, recent empirical studies suggest that their capacity to influence policy depends on the particular political and institutional context. This study investigates the evolving responses of local regulators to platform companies across 108 European cities between 2012 and 2022. Utilizing a regulatory stringency index, we assess how city governments have adjusted their regulations to counteract the growing influence of these platforms. Our research indicates a notable trend toward stricter regulatory measures, reflecting an increased determination among local authorities to enforce rules on platforms. We identify various patterns of regulatory change, which are shaped by sector-specific dynamics and differing national and local contexts. By examining the regulatory dynamics over time, this paper contributes to the understanding of the relationship between platform power and local governance.}, language = {en} } @book{HasselWegrich, author = {Hassel, Anke and Wegrich, Kai}, title = {How to do Public Policy}, publisher = {Oxford University Press}, address = {Oxford}, isbn = {9780198747000}, publisher = {Hertie School}, pages = {400}, abstract = {How to Do Public Policy offers a guide to students and practitioners on how to improve problem-solving with policies in a political world. It integrates insights from applied policy analysis and studies of the policy process to develop a framework that conceives policy-making as structured by two spheres of action - the 'engine room' of specialists and experts in government agencies, NGOs, research organizations etc., on the one hand, and the political 'superstructure' of politicians, key public stakeholders and the public, on the other hand. Understanding the different logics of the engine room and the superstructure is key for successful policy-making. The dual structure of policy-making provides a perspective on policy-analysis (interactive policy analysis) and policy-making (actor-centred policy-making) that moves from the focus on individual and specific measures, towards understanding and shaping the relation and interaction between policy interventions, the institutional context and the stakeholders involved or affected. Part I of the book presents the basic analytical concepts needed to understand the policy process and the structures and dynamics involved in it, as well as to understand how and why actors behave the way they do-and how to engage with different types of actors. Part II moves further into the nuts and bolts of policy-making, including policy design, implementation, and evaluation. Part III introduces and explores three key aspects of the capacity to make good policies: engagement with stakeholders, the process of policy coordination in a context of interdependence, and the role of institutions.}, language = {en} }