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.
The United States and European Union have focused on improving the practices used to develop and implement legal requirements as a way to improve the quality of regulations themselves. Transparency in the regulatory process, from determining regulatory goals, to evaluating alternative means to achieve those goals, to enforcing regulatory requirements, features high on the agenda of cross-cutting government reform programs that address the issue of ‘regulatory quality.’ This article examines the transparency of procedures in the US and the EU related to impact analysis and public comment. It examines the importance of transparency for ensuring the effectiveness of these two regulatory practices, summarizes regulatory procedures in the US and the EU, compares the different approaches, and highlights the relative merits of each.
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.
Despite the growing significance of fiscal rules, there is little research about tools and practices of enforcement at the local level. Addressing this knowledge gap, this chapter makes three contributions: first, we review the literature on regulatory enforcement in the ‘public-to-private’ context and discuss six key insights. Second, we provide an empirical overview of enforcement instruments across 21 European countries and discuss them in light of those key insights. Third, we present findings from an in-depth over-time analysis of enforcement practices in Germany’s largest state, North Rhine-Westphalia. We find that European supervisory bodies have a range of instruments that broadly follow the logic of the ‘enforcement pyramid’ at their disposal, but there is substantial cross-national variation in the instruments used. The case study reveals a ‘back and forth’ enforcement style alternating between strengthening and loosening rules and enforcement measures. We find political logics, regulators’ capacities and economic contexts as key drivers. Finally, we conclude that the idea of enforcement as a rational application of legal norms is unrealistic. In order to increase compliance, regulators should make more of an effort to understand the underlying rationale for compliance and violations; they need to secure political support and a credible strategy for escalating sanctions in case of non-compliance.
Administrative capacities are required to give effect to policy instruments. While seemingly obvious, policy research has, as yet, not systematically linked these two perspectives. The policy instrument perspective emerged in the context of implementation research and the wider debate about changing modes of governance. Administrative capacities and resources always played a role in this research, but cumulative empirical exploration or theory building has remained underdeveloped. A stronger integration of administrative capacity perspectives into research on policy instruments is essential so as to progress our understanding regarding the choice, design, and operation of policy instruments. A stronger policy orientation in research on administrative capacities can help to address limitations of indicator-based studies of capacity, which currently dominate empirical research on administrative capacities. The design and choice of policy instruments has an effect on administrative capacities: Capacity-reinforcing policies can be distinguished from capacity-undermining ones. A challenge for future research is under which conditions will politicians invest in administrative capacities, an investment that will only yield (uncertain) positive outcomes in the medium term.
This chapter situates ‘executive styles’ within the wider ‘family of styles’ approaches and discusses some of the challenges for advancing comparative research in this field. To this end, it introduces two key institutional dimensions of executive politics that shape executive styles. Subsequently, it reviews and discusses empirical research on executive styles and elaborates on two analytical dimensions for the comparison of national and sectoral executive styles. In a next step, the chapter moves to comparisons over time and reviews studies that analyse the change of executive styles in individual country cases. While a range of (country) examples are used, the chapter draws in particular on European examples and quite specifically on Germany and the UK. The chapter concludes that exploring the varieties of executive styles requires combining national accounts that engage with the institutional and political complexities of single countries, or families of nations, in detail with focussed comparisons zooming in on specific dimensions.
This chapter discusses how a classic perspective of public policy and public administration, incrementalism, contributes to questions of the politics of time. It argues that the contribution of incrementalism is not limited to emphasizing the advantages of small-scale and stepwise policy or institutional changes compared to comprehensive reform strategies. Beyond this, the chapter shows how contributions from diverse fields, ranging from comparative politics and behavioral insights to urban planning, develop the concept of incrementalism, and how these approaches can enrich debates on policy and institutional change. In particular, the common image of incrementalism as subservient to existing power structures is challenged. Linking the varieties of incrementalism to questions of politics of time helps to develop these insights.
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 …
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.
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.
How to do Public Policy
(2022)
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.
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.
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.
Governance Innovations
(2014)
Post-New Public Management
(2010)
Arguing about Financial Regulation: Comparing National Discourses on the Global Financial Crisis
(2011)
As we write, the world is still in the grips of a financial crisis. Germany was one of the first countries to bail out a bank in July 2007. Then, in September 2007, the United Kingdom (UK) witnessed a run on a building society, Northern Rock, and the subsequent widespread nationalization of its banking sector. In the United States, the crisis led to a number of collapses among financial institutions, most famously Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers, and the bail out of the insurance group, AIG, all in 2008.