@misc{Gilroy, type = {Master Thesis}, author = {Gilroy, Patrick}, title = {Have think tanks in Washington D.C. become politicized?}, publisher = {Hertie School of Governance}, address = {Berlin}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:b1570-opus4-10641}, school = {Hertie School}, pages = {53}, abstract = {The paper addresses the following research question: Have think tanks in Washington D.C. become politicized from 1910 to 2010, and if so why? "Politicization" is made empirically tangible with a new primary database of all D.C. think tanks existent over the last century. Public policy-oriented research and advocacy organizations are studied from an explicitly evolutionary approach for the first time. It is found that while think tanks steadily accumulated until the early 1970s, their numbers increased fivefold from the late 1970s onwards. D.C. think tanks have, in fact, become significantly politicized over time: ideological advocacy think tanks (embracing broadly "conservative" or "liberal" worldviews) came to outnumber organizationally objective ("centrist or not identifiably ideological") academic or contract research think tanks. Most of today's advocacy think tanks embrace identifiably conservative ideologies. Based on chronological process tracing, it is shown that changes in the non-profit resource and tax environment, a relatively weak party system and frequent partisan polarization are important explanatory factors behind the politicization phenomenon. Far from living up to their constructive potential, it is argued, the capital city's think tanks now frequently hysterize rather than scrutinize policymaking, applying politico-ideological principles of economic interventionism and social justice or, far more often, free markets, limited government and individual liberties to all things public policy. Main scholarly and practical implications of think tanks' politicization are sounded out. (Hertie Student Paper Series is an online publication series of Hertie School of Governance)}, language = {en} } @misc{BirkJoasRinnertetal., author = {Birk, Florian and Joas, Amani and Rinnert, David and Schilling, John}, title = {Framing Service Quality : A Comprehensive Indicator for Measuring Service Quality in Public Administration : Case Study ofB{\"u}rger{\"a}mter in Berlin}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:b1570-opus4-20506}, pages = {48}, abstract = {This paper introduces an indicator framework, which allows for a valid and reliable assessment of the service quality of customer-focused government services. While defining service quality is a difficult task, also operationalising and measuring such an elusive concept can never be done perfectly due to a number of problems. Given the 'soft' nature of service quality, most prior research has focused on survey-based methods, which while being essential have serious flaws owed to this method's inherent lack of reliability. Following suggestions by prior research in the field, this paper develops an assessment framework combining a 'soft' indicator based on a SERVQUAL survey with a set of 'hard' variables adding the reliability, which previous approaches lack. The indicator was initially developed, tested and re-adjusted for measuring service quality in Berlin's 40 B{\"u}rger{\"a}mter. However, it can be adapted in a way that it is applicable to most customer-based government services. The 'soft' part of this indicator was developed on the lines of five dimensions, scoring services according to their tangibles, reliability, responsiveness, assurance and empathy. On the 'hard' dimension, we have picked a set of eleven variables, which unequivocally add/subtract from service quality, while having the advantage of being measured in a straightforward manner. While the operationalisation and weighting of these variables is open to academic and professional debate, we are confident to have followed a transparent and clearly comprehensible process. We acknowledge, however, that these variables will have to be adjusted when other services are being measured. All in all, the developed Service Quality Indicator for Customer-Based Public Services (SQI) should be regarded as a starting point for a comprehensive and easily constructible framework to assess service quality in the good governance arena. We hope that this indicator framework will be perfected to the point that it can contribute to a better overall measurement and therefore improvement of government services.}, language = {en} } @phdthesis{MejiaLopez, author = {Mej{\´i}a L{\´o}pez, Luis Everdy}, title = {Guarding the Guardians of the Regulatory State: Understanding the Role of Judicial Accountability in the Governance of Regulatory Agencies}, doi = {10.48462/opus4-3710}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:b1570-opus4-37103}, school = {Hertie School}, pages = {115}, abstract = {This doctoral dissertation contributes to the debate on the accountability of the regulatory state by studying the role of judicial controls in the governance of regulatory agencies. The investigation consists of three individual research projects motivated by an overarching research question, which enquires how does judicial review of administrative decisions shapes the democratic accountability of the regulatory state. The research conducted here bridges frameworks and research methods from political science and administrative law to better understand how different governments have addressed the need for judicial controls to supervise regulatory agencies. The empirical evidence used for this research consists of unique information compiled by the author in three original and comprehensive datasets, which allowed to conduct diverse research methods for the examination of the evidence. The theoretical frameworks adapted for this study are designed to contribute with empirical knowledge about the varieties of judicial accountability adopted globally to supervise regulation authorities of two of the most representative industries operating under the 'independent agency' oversight governance paradigm: the energy and telecommunications public utilities, which are also supervised by competition regulators. The analysis starts with a global perspective of judicial accountability provisions implemented around the globe to supervise regulatory agencies. I conducted a comparative assessment of the intensity of judicial review that courts of appeal can exercise to supervise the legality of regulatory decisions of 100 authorities. The second investigation performs a closer examination of judicial supervision over regulatory agencies from two countries representative of opposite legal traditions: Spain and the United Kingdom. Finally, a third study enquires about the causes that prevent young regulatory agencies to comply with lawful administrative procedures throughout the enforcement of regulation. This last investigation studies the case of the Mexican Agency for Safety, Energy and Environment (ASEA). The overall outcomes of this study advance our understanding of the challenges to improve democratic mechanisms to hold regulatory agencies accountable, which is not only fundamental for a successful performance of regulatory institutions, but also a necessary condition to legitimize the activity of the state, enhance the trust on our governments and the consolidation of democratic values.}, language = {en} } @phdthesis{Jugl, author = {Jugl, Marlene}, title = {Country Size and State Performance: How Size Affects Politics, Administration and Governance}, doi = {10.48462/opus4-3680}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:b1570-opus4-36808}, school = {Hertie School}, pages = {139}, abstract = {This dissertation addresses the question how the size of a country affects the performance of ist political and administrative system. It advances the literature on small states by explicitly theorizing large states and empirically comparing countries of different sizes. Country size, operationalized as population size, is expected to be related to three clusters of country characteristics: First, a perception of vulnerability in small states vs. a lack of awareness for external threats in large states; second, social homogeneity and proximity in small states vs. heterogeneity and distance in large states; third, institutional centralization and concentration of power in small states vs. specialization and de-centralization in large states. The effect of country size and these three characteristic features on different aspects of procedural state performance is analyzed in three empirical chapters. Chapter 2 develops the argument that small country size favors the stability of political regimes, namely authoritarian monarchies. It iterates between theoretical reflections and the empirical analysis of different data: statistical data on population size and monarchic regime durability between 1946 and 2008; two most similar comparative cases of monarchic regimes, Egypt and Jordan; and supposedly deviant cases. Chapter 3 investigates the effect of population size on the effectiveness of national bureaucracies and expects a trade-off between economies and diseconomies of scale. It estimates multivariate OLS regression models and within-between random effects models for more than 150 countries. The analysis supports the hypothesized inverse U-shaped relation and finds that administrative effectiveness is highest, ceteris paribus, at medium levels of population size. Chapter 4 consists of a comparative case study of Germany and Luxembourg and investigates whether country size affected how the two states prepared for and reacted to the 2015 migration crisis. The analysis builds on newspaper articles and 20 expert interviews. It shows that Luxembourg's small size favored identities and structures that allowed early crisis recognition and preparation as well as swift communication and coordination, whereas Germany's large size led to attention biases that inhibited a quick reaction. In sum, the findings show that country size affects several aspects of state performance, which has important normative and practical implications.}, language = {en} }