Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Part of a Book (34)
- Article (25)
- Book (9)
- Working Paper (5)
- Editorship book (3)
- Contribution to a Periodical (1)
Keywords
- Governance (2)
- Multi-level governance (2)
- Performance management (2)
- Consultation (1)
- Control (1)
- Coordination (1)
- Cross-country (1)
- Crowdsourcing (1)
- Federalism (1)
- Food safety (1)
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.
What capacities do states need to deal with the challenges of the contemporary age? How can the capacity of public administration be enhanced to meaningfully contribute to public problem-solving? The Governance Report 2014 develops a framework to explore the administrative capacities of the public sector in OECD countries, analyses how these capacities have been used to develop innovative policy approaches to key governance challenges , and explores governance innovations to enhance governance capacities. In addition, the Report presents a dashboard of indicators that assess administrative capacities from multiple perspectives. The Governance Report 2014 advances the debate on the problem-solving capacity of the modern state in the light of ongoing and future challenges.
Unter „Regulierung“ versteht man primär staatliche Eingriffe, die im öffentlichen Interesse sowohl Marktversagen korrigieren wie auch zivilisatorische Risiken mindern sollen. Der Begriff ist ein Import aus dem angelsächsischen Sprachraum und hat sich vor allem durch die EU auch in der bundesdeutschen Politik ausgebreitet. Gleichwohl gibt es hierzulande noch kein einheitliches Begriffsverständnis. Regulierung wird nicht nur in verschiedenen Wissenschaftsdisziplinen mit unterschiedlichem Bedeutungsgehalt gefüllt, sondern ist auch in der politischen Praxis ein ausdeutungsfähiges Konzept. Der Aufsatz nimmt die so entstandenen Unklarheiten zum Anlass, um die verschiedenen Teildiskurse über Regulierung sowie die spezifisch deutsche Rezeption des Begriffes nachzuzeichnen. Die zentrale These lautet, dass Unterschiede nicht einfach „wegdefiniert“ werden können, sondern eine verwirrungsfreie Verwendung des Regulierungsbegriffs nur dann möglich ist, wenn der jeweilige analytische oder auch praktische Verwendungskontext reflektiert und transparent gemacht wird.
In the study of risk regulation, grid-group cultural theory has attracted considerable interest. There has, however, been a lack of a systematic interest in its claims and in methodological issues. In this article, we present five claims that are drawn from cultural theory and assess them in the light of failure in meat inspections in Germany. These claims are assessed through the analysis of argumentation as recorded in newspapers. In the light of its empirical findings, this article argues that the claims and methodology employed offer a promising avenue for further work to investigate the usefulness of this particular theoretical approach.
Conclusion
(2014)
Setting the Scene: Challenges to the State, Governance Readiness, and Administrative Capacities
(2014)
Coordination Capacity
(2014)
Administrative Capacities
(2014)
Crowdsourcing and Regulatory Reviews: A New Way of Challenging Red Tape in British Government?
(2014)
Much has been said about the appeal of digital government devices to enhance consultation on rulemaking. This paper explores the most ambitious attempt by the UK central government so far to draw on “crowdsourcing” to consult and act on regulatory reform, the “Red Tape Challenge.” We find that the results of this exercise do not represent any major change to traditional challenges to consultation processes. Instead, we suggest that the extensive institutional arrangements for crowdsourcing were hardly significant in informing actual policy responses: neither the tone of the crowdsourced comments, the direction of the majority views, nor specific comments were seen to matter. Instead, it was processes within the executive that shaped the overall governmental responses to this initiative. The findings, therefore, provoke wider debates about the use of social media in rulemaking and consultation exercises.
The fields of political science and public administration are said to be drifting apart. This article argues that a focus on executive politics – the politics of the executive and of the execution of policies – offers a key avenue to maintain a useful conversation that focuses on perennial questions that are shared across research traditions. This conversation should concentrate on the ‘administrative factor’ in political life and the ‘political factor’ in administrative life. This article develops this argument in three steps. First, it defines the field of executive politics. Second, it considers the rationale why a focus on executive politics is pertinent at this particular time. Third, it discusses the challenges that a turn towards executive politics faces. This article concludes by considering the position of British public administration in the field of executive politics.