Refine
Year of publication
- 2019 (39) (remove)
Document Type
- Public lecture (18)
- Article (13)
- Part of a Book (3)
- Part of a commentary (1)
- Contribution to a Periodical (1)
- Lecture (1)
- Review (1)
- Working Paper (1)
Language
- English (39) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- no (39) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (39)
Keywords
- Appeal (1)
- Cultural Dimensions (1)
- GFA (1)
- German Administrative Court Proceedings (1)
- Good Administration (1)
- Interessengruppen (1)
- Internationalization (1)
- National Innovation Systems (1)
- Recruitment University Europe (1)
- Regulatory Impact Analysis (1)
- Regulierung (1)
- administrative law (1)
- good administration (1)
- higher education (1)
- pan-european (1)
Institute
- Lehrstuhl für Politikwissenschaft (Univ.-Prof. Dr. Stephan Grohs) (13)
- Lehrstuhl für Öffentliches Recht, Staatslehre und Rechtsvergleichung (Univ.-Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Karl-Peter Sommermann) (4)
- Lehrstuhl für Öffentliches Recht, insbesondere deutsches und europäisches Verwaltungsrecht (Univ.-Prof. Dr. Ulrich Stelkens) (4)
- Lehrstuhl für Hochschul- und Wissenschaftsmanagement (Univ.-Prof. Dr. Michael Hölscher) (1)
- Lehrstuhl für Verwaltungswissenschaft, Staatsrecht, Verwaltungsrecht und Europarecht (Univ.-Prof. Dr. Mario Martini) (1)
- Lehrstuhl für Öffentliches Recht, insbesondere Europarecht und Völkerrecht (Univ.-Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Weiß) (1)
The analysis of forms and effects of what is usually conceived of as globalization or internationalization has become a major topic of political speeches and academic research, especially in the social sciences. While the consequences of globalization for Western economies and societies are often at the forefront of debates, their effects on public administrations are focused on relatively sparsely yet.
This entry aims at identifying the different manifestations and effects of internationalization in the context of bureaucracies. The subsequent sections provide an introduction and delineate the main mechanisms of internationalization. The next section identifies the topics discussed in the context of globalization, internationalization and transnationalization, and distils the main characteristics of international public administrations, as well as the effects and ramifications of internationalization on domestic public administration.
The insight that politics and administration should be treated as separated spheres is not new, as already Wilson portrayed administration as the apolitical execution of law. Consequently, even if the spheres are distinct, there is no politics thinkable without administration to execute. However, as argued by Peters (2018: 164), “this presumed separation of administration and politics allows them [bureaucrats] to engage in politics.”
While the consequences and causes of revolutions for political systems and the economy are at the forefront of debates in the respective disciplines, scholars have paid scant attention to the role of bureaucracies in revolutions. Against this background, this entry maps the efforts of public administration theory to come to grips with what is understood as revolution. As public administration is of utmost relevance in the context of revolutions, and the scope of the role of administrations in revolutions can be manifold: they may be the passive recipient of change, may influence developments actively, or be more or less unaffected by a change of the political system.
This entry conceptualizes which potential positions in revolutions can be taken by the public administration and which consequences revolutions have for the bureaucracy from a theoretical viewpoint, and provides humble empirical evidence of administrative behavior in revolutions worldwide.
National innovativeness is one key driver of economic development. The relation of national innovativeness and national culture has been firmly established by research. Cultural factors, however, influence national innovativeness via different mechanisms on the macro-, meso-, and micro-level of a country. In our paper, we build on existing research on the link between cultural dimensions and national innovativeness to develop a new model that classifies different cultural dimensions in groups according to their mechanism: political, social, or individual (PSI-model). Using a newly-established data set composed of world data, we test and find support for this model using a variety of regression models. The PSI-model provides a more structured theoretical background of the impact of different cultural dimensions on national innovativeness, especially with regard to social practices and social values. It can be used to generate policy recommendations on national innovativeness and offers further applications in fields related to the various impacts of national culture.
The regulation of interest mediation in democratic, economic relevant countries has not been systematically analyzed in a big N-study so far (smaller exceptions are (Chari et al., 2010; Holman and Luneburg, 2012)). This is surprising since interest mediation itself, the integration of societal actors into the decision-making processes, has been studied from many different perspectives using varying methodological approaches (Reutter, 2012; Willems and von Winter, 2007; Beyers et al., 2008; Eising et al., 2017).
This paper starts with the assumption that each country has a distinct way of dealing with the interests in its society, ranging from social, environmental, religious to economic ones, just to name a few. Each democratic country has to decide, how and in which ways societal interests are integrated into decision-making and which rules apply for these processes.
Existing research in interest mediation in general has in common that the concept of institutions helps us to map similarities as well as differences in the system of interest mediation. Institutions are understood as man-made, formalized (written) or non-formalized (unwritten) common conceptions or understandings of how power and other resources are distributed and exerted, how competences and responsibilities are defined, shaped and shared, as well as how interdependencies are structured (Morisse-Schilbach, 2012; March and Olsen, 1989; Mayntz and Scharpf, 1995).
The paper offers a conceptual framework to map the existing institutions relevant for regulating interest mediation in OECD countries to help understand the qualitative similarities and differences. To do so, it looks at formalized (written) or non-formalized (unwritten) rules, in terms of laws and by-laws, administrative procedures, and patterns of practices. The aim is to measure a) the openness of the interest mediation system in terms of equal access for all societal interests, and b) the level of formalized and non-formalized regulation to arrive at a typology of either open or closed as well as regulated or unregulated interest mediation systems.