Refine
Year of publication
- 2018 (76) (remove)
Document Type
- Public lecture (30)
- Article (17)
- Conference Proceeding (11)
- Part of a Book (10)
- Book (3)
- Other (1)
- Periodical (1)
- Report (1)
- Review (1)
- Working Paper (1)
Language
- English (76) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (76)
Keywords
- GfHf-Jahrestagung 2018 (4)
- Europäische Union (3)
- Public Administration (3)
- EU (2)
- Empfehlung (2)
- EuGH (2)
- Verwaltungsrecht (2)
- delegated acts (2)
- differentiation (2)
- implementing acts (2)
- Öffentlicher Dienst (2)
- 2030 Agenda (1)
- Ausbildung (1)
- Beitritt (1)
- Bildung (1)
- Bureaucracy (1)
- Citizens' participation (1)
- Civil Service (1)
- Conseil d'Etat (1)
- CuriaTerm (1)
- Datenbanken (1)
- Datenschutz (1)
- Democracy (1)
- Deutschland (1)
- ECHR (1)
- EMRK (1)
- EU Law (1)
- EU-Accession (1)
- EU-Beitritt (1)
- Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention (1)
- Experiment (1)
- Extraterritorialität (1)
- Gamification (1)
- Geheimdienst (1)
- Germany (1)
- GfHf-Jahrestagung2018 (1)
- Globalization (1)
- Glücksspiel (1)
- IATE (1)
- Informationsfreihei (1)
- Internationalization (1)
- Law and Economics (1)
- Leitlinie (1)
- Lustration (1)
- Mehrsprachigkeit (1)
- OMK (1)
- Policymaking (1)
- Professional Training (1)
- Public Private Partnerships (1)
- Staatsgeheimnis (1)
- Sustainable Development Goals (1)
- Terminologie (1)
- Umsetzung (1)
- Vergessenwerden (1)
- Verwaltungsdienst (1)
- Vocational Education (1)
- Wortlaut (1)
- horizontal coordination (1)
- vertical coordination (1)
Institute
- Lehrstuhl für Hochschul- und Wissenschaftsmanagement (Univ.-Prof. Dr. Michael Hölscher) (6)
- Lehrstuhl für Öffentliches Recht, insbesondere Europarecht und Völkerrecht (Univ.-Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Weiß) (6)
- Lehrstuhl für Öffentliches Recht, insbesondere deutsches und europäisches Verwaltungsrecht (Univ.-Prof. Dr. Ulrich Stelkens) (6)
- Lehrstuhl für Politikwissenschaft (Univ.-Prof. Dr. Stephan Grohs) (5)
- Lehrstuhl für Volkswirtschaftslehre, insbesondere Wirtschafts- und Verkehrspolitik (Univ.-Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Andreas Knorr) (5)
- Lehrstuhl für öffentliches Recht, insbesondere allgemeines und besonderes Verwaltungsrecht (Univ.-Prof. Dr. Jan Ziekow) (5)
- Lehrstuhl für Sozialrecht und Verwaltungswissenschaft (Univ.-Prof. Dr. Constanze Janda) (1)
- Lehrstuhl für Wirtschaftliche Staatswissenschaften, insbesondere Allgemeine Volkswirtschaftslehre und Finanzwissenschaft (Univ.-Prof. Dr. Gisela Färber) (1)
- Lehrstuhl für Öffentliches Recht, Staatslehre und Rechtsvergleichung (Univ.-Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Karl-Peter Sommermann) (1)
- Seniorprofessur für Verwaltungswissenschaft, Politik und Recht im Bereich von Umwelt und Energie (Univ.-Prof. Dr. Eberhard Bohne) (1)
Introduction
(2018)
EU administrative law scholarship and practice remain confused about the reach and interrelation of arts 290 and 291 TFEU, which created the categories of delegated and implementing Commission acts. The introduction of these two different instruments of executive rule-making by the Lisbon Treaty has prompted attempts in delineating them, based on constitutional theories of separation of powers or functional differentiation. These attempts have failed to a large extent, all the more since the CJEU’s relevant case law has not been helpful in constructing a proper distinction. Today, recourse to arts 290 and 291 TFEU by the legislator takes place in the tension created between the fact that the Treaties, informed by an abstract constitutional distinction between legislation and execution, appear to have created categorically different acts, and the fact that delegated and implementing rule-making procedures in practice have become increasingly similar to each other. In simplified terms, the problem is that delegated and implementing acts appear – in terms of their foundation in primary law – as fundamentally different acts that are, however, adopted in practice through similar procedures, at the same time as their content and legal effects are indistinguishable in many or even in most cases. Yet, if we accept that the creation of two forms of Commission acts was prompted by some form of legal necessity or legitimate political will, then understanding the difference between delegating and implementing acts remains paramount.
Arts. 290 and 291 TFEU are notoriously hard to differentiate. However, there is some evidence that a separation on the basis of substantive regulation through delegated acts and procedural specifications by implementing acts is forthcoming. The substantive – procedural differentiation is not very clear cut, but it affords the institutions flexibility in answering new challenges while at the same time exerting some guiding force. This Conclusion describes the separation of delegated and implementing acts along the substantive – procedural differentiation but also points to problems ahead. Thus, constitutional ambiguity, an inappropriate reliance on pre-Lisbon doctrine and the lack of a common vision continue to plague the law on EU administrative rule-making. To find a way to fulfil the promise of simplification that is part of the Lisbon reform, the EU institutions will all need to take the procedural safeguards around delegated and implementing acts more seriously.
Student Space Control
(2018)
The role of the city changed within the knowledge economy. Knowledge has become the most important resource of urban prosperity and universities are considered the hope of city development (Van Winden 2009). Previous research has elaborated various dimensions in which universities interact with their home cities (or regions). They refer to economic impacts (e.g. Behr 2004; Florida 2006; Van Winden 2007; Gabe 2012), differ between forms of the spatial and structural integration of the university into the area (e.g. Larkham 2000; Kunzmann 2004; Gerhard 2012) or focus on social impacts of universities in the urban environment (e.g. Chatterton 1999; Sage et al. 2011; Smith 2004; Smith/Hubbard 2014; Gerhard, Hoelscher & Wilson 2017). All of these rely on a specific concept of space. However, they are lacking the neutral consideration of a fundamental factor of city development in university towns: students as urban agents (Russo/Tatjer 2007). Students constitute a considerable part of the population in university cities. As such, they need to play a key role in the analysis of the urban space. Drawing on a systematic literature review (Machi & McEvoy 2016), it is shown within this presentation that whenever students are subject to urban studies, either their role is conceptualized with a negative connotation (‘Studentification’: most important Smith 2004, 2008) or mainly depicted as leading to urban devaluation. As a counter draft to the prevailing approaches, the concept of ‘Student Urbanity’ (Steinmueller 2015) is introduced as an unbiased approach to the analysis of students as a source of urban processes of change. Using official (urban) statistics as well as observations and maps, the presentation highlights the results of a comparative case study, which exploratively tested this model in the cities of Heidelberg (Germany) and Montpellier (France) (Steinmüller 2015). Starting with the identification of distribution patterns of students’ residences, urban areas with a significantly high share of them are analysed with regard to the following research questions: - Which (social-)structural and spatial characteristics can be observed in these areas? - How do the students shape the urban space and infrastructure within the detected areas? - Which tendencies of revaluation respectively devaluation emerge from this influence? The presentation makes an empirical case for ‘Student Urbanity’ showing the relations between urban space and university with regard to students as agents of the development. It concludes with the discussion of this new student role as potential sources of reurbanisation as well as urban inequalities.
While traditionally the provision of public services was monopolized by the gov-ernment, lately service delivery has been challenged, resulting in more coopera-tions between private enterprises and the public sector. We discuss theoretically and based on empirical evidence the role of trust in these arrangements and under which conditions information can help to overcome a “trust gap”, contributing to the success of these cooperation. Additionally, we develop and test an experimental design that allows us to show which factors influence the public opinion in favor of these service arrangements and public-private cooperations. Therewith our paper does not only contribute to the investigation of information and trust in PA, but provides some implication for policy makers and the public administration.
Freedom of information acts (FOIA) aim to improve the public’s opportunities to access official information from public authorities and hence to increase the level of transparency. Thus, it is important to know whether and to what degree the effects intended by establishing FOIAs are achieved and how their implementation could be improved. Hence, this article presents the evaluation of the Hamburg Transparency Law (HmbTG)– Germany’s first FOIA that binds authorities to disclose government information proactively. The purpose of the paper is to provide a valuable example of how evaluating FOIA might produce useful information for policymakers and public authorities. The analysis results, based on a mixed set of methods (i.e. standardised surveys, statistical secondary data, qualitative expert interviews, and criteria-driven document analysis), lead to the conclusion that the HmbTG was very effective in providing the direct access. On the other hand, it was found that strategies for implementing the law varied considerably between authorities, yet proactive disclosure was overall implemented effectively. Moreover, this law shows some weaknesses to be improved in the future. Besides providing practitioners with valuable insights into how a transparency law may be implemented, the evaluation of the HmbTG also provides researchers with ideas how FOIA evaluation might be conducted comprehensively.