Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Book (79) (remove)
Language
- English (79) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (79)
Keywords
- Academic Freedom, New Challenges (1)
- Citizens' participation (1)
- Democracy (1)
- EMRK (1)
- EU Law (1)
- EU-Beitritt (1)
- Gamification (1)
- Germany (1)
- Good Administration (1)
- Migration (1)
Institute
- Lehrstuhl für vergleichende Verwaltungswissenschaft und Policy-Analyse (Univ.-Prof. Dr. Michael Bauer) (7)
- Lehrstuhl für Hochschul- und Wissenschaftsmanagement (Univ.-Prof. Dr. Michael Hölscher) (6)
- Lehrstuhl für Öffentliches Recht, Staatslehre und Rechtsvergleichung (Univ.-Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Karl-Peter Sommermann) (6)
- Seniorprofessur für Verwaltungswissenschaft, Politik und Recht im Bereich von Umwelt und Energie (Univ.-Prof. Dr. Eberhard Bohne) (6)
- Lehrstuhl für Wirtschaftliche Staatswissenschaften, insbesondere Allgemeine Volkswirtschaftslehre und Finanzwissenschaft (Univ.-Prof. Dr. Gisela Färber) (4)
- Lehrstuhl für Öffentliches Recht, insbesondere Europarecht und Völkerrecht (Univ.-Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Weiß) (4)
- Lehrstuhl für Öffentliches Recht, insbesondere deutsches und europäisches Verwaltungsrecht (Univ.-Prof. Dr. Ulrich Stelkens) (3)
- Lehrstuhl für Volkswirtschaftslehre, insbesondere Wirtschafts- und Verkehrspolitik (Univ.-Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Andreas Knorr) (2)
- Lehrstuhl für öffentliches Recht, insbesondere allgemeines und besonderes Verwaltungsrecht (Univ.-Prof. Dr. Jan Ziekow) (1)
The use of social science knowledge in the policy of administrative reforms results in a remarkably reflexive connection between science and practice. In the case of the Federal Republic of Germany, too, which is being dealt with here, the state administrations have become significant promoters of the policy of science. Within the scope of social sciences not only the administrative science, but also diciplines such as the political science increasingly serve as an advisory science for public agencies. In this way part of the problems of science and practice is reflected in the use of social science knowledge in the policy fo administrative reforms.
The study is focused on accounting and financial reporting of central and - where applicalbe - of state or provincial government. More or less as a by-product, some information has been gathered on budgeting procedures, on auditing practises, and on management accounting. Accounting and financial reporting of local authorities had to be excluded - mainly for the reason of limited financial resources to conduct this investigation.
Law Reform and Law Drafting
(1993)
The papers collected in this volume were submitted in a dialogue seminar which took place in Bangkok form the 17th to the 21st of August 1992. The seminar was organized by the Office of the Juridical Council of Thailand and the Post-Graduate School of Administrative Sciences in Speyer, under the direction of Professor Dr. Dr. h.c. Heinricht Siedentopf.
Here, it will be argued that administrative modernization in the sense of the NPM is a global process but local in implementation. This amounts to the hypothesis that administrative modernization is 'culture and institution bound'. Tue institutional contingency approach taken in this study reflects the need to examine the nature of the multiple environmental conditions that structure how public organizations implement 'administrative modernization '. An environmental contingency model of administrative modernization strategies allows to reason on the NPM from "outside to inside" (Koiman and van Vliet, 1993:59) and to link two rather isolated concepts to each other: the governance concept with an interactive perspective on governing and the NPM concept with an orientation on the internal functioning of public organzations.
he third biennial workshop in Comparative International Governmental Accounting Research was held in Speyer, Germany, on 1st and 2nd April 1996. It was, as the prior workshops in Bergen (1992) and Valencia (1994) devoted to presentations and indepth discussions of finalized, ongoing and planned research in governmental budgeting, accounting, financial reporting and auditing. Financial contributions of Arthur Anderson & Co, Stuttgart, BASF AG, Ludwigshafen/Rhein and SAP AG, Walldorf made the workshop possible.
Main objectives of the CIGAR workshops are
to provide a forum for discussions of new, innovative, unfinished research;
to interest young researchers in the field;
to provide incentives and opportunities for international collaborative research and thus
contribute to the theoretical foundations of international governmental accounting.</li>
The focus this time clearly was on contextual analysis of governmental accounting systems with the exception of the papers of James L.Chan (its subject is budgeting), Ulrich Cordes (its subject is a content analysis and comparison of national accounting and governmental accounting) and at least partly the one of Norvald Monsen (it emphasizes the historical perspective).
Assessing the generalizable results, the workshop reached a consensus that we needed a better balance in future between quantitative and qualitative research, but that more descriptive studies and more data were needed before statistical studies would be possible; analyses of pronouncements of standard-setting bodies, especially international ones, seemed important; and significant work was needed on the processes of innovation, within-country standard-setting (even when there was no overt standard-setter), transition (in the emerging democracies and developing countries) and reform-implementation.
I myself and I am sure, all the delegates, acknowledge the willingness of the presenters to provide papers although this was not a requirement. The discussions were extremely interesting and beneficial and I would like to thank all workshop participants for their contributions. Thanks are also due to the staff of the Postgraduate School of Administrative Sciences Speyer and the Research Institute for Public Administration, in particular to Siegrid Piork and Christine Ahlgrimm, for their assistance in planning and organizing the workshop and in preparing this volume.
This research report presents the results of an international mail survey on the implementation strategies of innovative and modernizing public organizations in Germany, Great Britain and the U.S. The aim of the survey was to discover country-specific differences in the implementation of administrative modernization in various areas of modernization.
The survey was undertaken in 1996 among former quality award participants of German, British and American national quality awards. The data collected include organizational level responses from 400 different well-performing public organizations. A first data analysis shows that British public organizations are the most managerialist ones, American public organizations take a medium position and German public organizations are behind in most modernization areas. For most modernization strategies, the Anglo-American hypothesis proved to be a valid assumption, which means that British and American implementation strategies are more similiar than German and American strategies of administrative modernization.
The study starts with an extensive discussion various theoretical and methodological issues in the context of comparative 'New Public Management'. The following chapter is devoted to empirical issues involved with the use of quality awards as a source of empirical data. In accordance with the structure of this study, a two-level comparative analysis, the study proceeds to analysize contextual macro-level variables before it jumps into the empirical subgroup analysis of the survey data on modernization strategies. Last, but not least, the study concludes with hypothesis testing and by producing some tentative qualitative and quantitative country-specific profiles of administrative modernization.
The research report is written in English. A modified German version of this research report will be published in early 1998 in the series 'die innovative Verwaltung' by Raabe-Verlag, Stuttgart et al.