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)
The study of the processes and effects of internationalization has become a major field of inquiry in the social sciences. This article takes stock of corresponding research efforts in the field of public administration (PA) to understand the internationalization phenomenon by analyzing studies that were systematically sampled from major PA journals over recent decades. After 10 delineating, sampling, categorizing, and subsequently examining the scholarly production of PA regarding what can be understood as the internationalization of domestic PA, three major themes of PA-related debates are identified: diffusion, resistance, and the transformation of bureaucratic power. The article concludes that PA has developed neither genuine research questions nor a coherent theoretical framework able to come to grips with the internationalization challenge. It 15 ends with an appeal for PA to become aware of this deficit and recommends PA scholars liaise Q3 more intensively with other social sciences to overcome the current state of affairs.
After 25 years of transformations of higher education systems in Post-Soviet countries, the single Soviet model of higher education has evolved into fifteen unique national systems, shaped by economic, cultural, and political forces, both national and global (Johnstone and Bain 2002). International agencies such as the World Bank and the OECD have lobbied for certain policies, while the Bologna Process has created isomorphic pressures, many post-soviet countries have yielded to albeit with different motivations and unclear outcomes (Tomusk, 2011). Comparative research on these developments, however, is scarce and has primarily discussed them in terms of decentralization, marketization and institutional autonomy (Heyneman 2010; Silova, 2011). My PhD thesis conducted between 2014 and 2017 at the University of Leipzig and the Higher School of Economics (Moscow), has reconstructed the developments in terms of driving forces and path dependencies at national, regional and global level have promoted convergence and divergence in the governance of higher education in post-Soviet higher education space, studying in detail the three Post-Soviet, non-EU Bologna signatory states Russia, Moldova and Kazakhstan. Drawing on work by Becher & Kogan (1992), Clark (1983), Jongbloed (2003), Paradeise (2009); Hood (2004); Dill (2010) and Dobbins et al. (2011), the research has conceptualized and analyzed the governance of higher education systems by analyzing change actor roles, power, structures and processes in four areas: 1. Educational Standards, quality assessment, and information provision; 2. Regulation of admissions to higher education; 3. Institutional structures, decision-making and autonomy; 4. Higher education financing and incentive structures. Explanatory approaches draw upon perspectives of path dependence and models of institutional change drawing on work by North (1990), Steinmo (1992), Weick (1976), Pierson (2000) and Witte (2006). The study rests on the one hand on extensive literature analysis of previous academic publications, reports by international organizations such as the World Bank, OECD, and the EU, national strategy papers. Furthermore, over 60 semi-structured expert interviews were conducted with representatives of State organizations, HEIs and other stakeholder groups engaged in the governance of higher education. The outcomes of interviews were used to situate developments in the particular social-political and societal contexts and to triangulate policy documents with various stakeholder perspectives, in order to reconstruct how and why certain policy changes came about, were implemented or abandoned. The results show a differentiated picture: Powerful ministerial control over HEIs remains everywhere, but the means are changing. While in Moldova the political volatility and underfunding have all but made substantial reforms impossible, Russia and Kazakhstan have adopted governance and management practices from New Public Management in idiosyncratic ways. While Kazakhstan has embarked on an authoritarian-driven decentralization program, Russia has created a two-tier system of state steering through financial incentivization and evaluation on the one hand, and tight oversight, control and intervention on the other.
Article 6(2) TEU provides that the EU shall accede to the European Convention on Human Rights. However, the EU accession project has been significantly delayed by Opinion 2/13 of the ECJ. At the same time, there appears to be some harmony in the case law of the two European Courts, which could lead to the status quo being considered as a valid alternative to EU accession. It might therefore be tempting to remove Article 6(2) altogether from the TEU at the next revision of the Treaties. This paper argues that Article 6(2) should stay in the TEU, because a closer look reveals that the current status quo is not satisfactory: it does not allow an adequate representation of the EU in the procedure before the European Court of Human Rights, nor is it capable of ensuring in the long-term comprehensive and stable consistency between EU law and the Convention. Moreover, removing Article 6(2) TEU would undermine the very idea of a collective understanding and enforcement of fundamental rights. This could initiate a process leading to the current European architecture of fundamental rights protection being unravelled altogether. Hence, there is no return from Article 6(2) TEU. Neither is there from actually implementing it.