Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Part of a Book (168) (remove)
Language
- English (168) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- no (168) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (168)
Keywords
- Good Administration (4)
- Pan-European Principles (3)
- Deutschland (2)
- EU (2)
- EuGH (2)
- Europäische Union (2)
- Verwaltungsrecht (2)
- delegated acts (2)
- differentiation (2)
- implementing acts (2)
Institute
- Lehrstuhl für Öffentliches Recht, insbesondere Europarecht und Völkerrecht (Univ.-Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Weiß) (24)
- Lehrstuhl für Hochschul- und Wissenschaftsmanagement (Univ.-Prof. Dr. Michael Hölscher) (22)
- Lehrstuhl für vergleichende Verwaltungswissenschaft und Policy-Analyse (Univ.-Prof. Dr. Michael Bauer) (21)
- Lehrstuhl für Öffentliches Recht, Staatslehre und Rechtsvergleichung (Univ.-Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Karl-Peter Sommermann) (20)
- Lehrstuhl für Öffentliches Recht, insbesondere deutsches und europäisches Verwaltungsrecht (Univ.-Prof. Dr. Ulrich Stelkens) (15)
- Seniorprofessur für Verwaltungswissenschaft, Politik und Recht im Bereich von Umwelt und Energie (Univ.-Prof. Dr. Eberhard Bohne) (7)
- Lehrstuhl für Politikwissenschaft (Univ.-Prof. Dr. Stephan Grohs) (6)
- Lehrstuhl für Volkswirtschaftslehre, insbesondere Wirtschafts- und Verkehrspolitik (Univ.-Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Andreas Knorr) (6)
- Lehrstuhl für Wirtschaftliche Staatswissenschaften, insbesondere Allgemeine Volkswirtschaftslehre und Finanzwissenschaft (Univ.-Prof. Dr. Gisela Färber) (5)
- Lehrstuhl für öffentliches Recht, insbesondere allgemeines und besonderes Verwaltungsrecht (Univ.-Prof. Dr. Jan Ziekow) (4)
68 Generation
(2012)
Article 9 (Social Aims)
(2021)
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.
Each crisis is dreadful in its own special way, and so is the COVID-19 pandemic. Beyond its lethal nature and truly global spread, one of its characteristics lies within the detachment of cause and effect. The cause, i.e. SARS-CoV-2, can clearly be attributed to health issues, though the COVID-19 pandemic challenges entire public administration (PA) systems well beyond the health sector. Both the lockdown as executed and the first careful exit-steps in their entire complexity increase scope and scale of PA’s tasks and responsibilities, challenging not only health authorities, but all parts of the administrative system, from security administration to public service delivery, with the entire world remaining in very turbulent water. Thus, the question arises how the PA should react to ensure high performance in times of crisis. Our findings underpin the relevance of trust in public administration (or “the government” in general), notably in times of crisis: the higher trust levels are, the more likely compliance of citizens and successful networking with non-state actors is. Even in the absence of many trust generating factors, trust levels are increasing in the current COVID-19 pandemic.
Wolfgang Weiss’ contribution on “Constitutional Challenges to EU Administrative Soft Law During the Covid-19 Pandemic and Some Proposed Remedies” Studies how during the Covid-19 pandemic, as EU member states struggled to deal with the pandemic, EU officials increasingly resorted to so-called “soft law” to provide guidance to member states. He concludes that, while there are benefits to using EU soft law for crisis management and domestic implementation of EU, he raises concerns regarding their challenges for democratic legitimacy and the rule of law. He contends that these challenges should be addressed by a legislative enactment that sets forth a general framework for the adoption of EU soft law, core elements of which should be stipulations of subsidiarity vis-a-vis executive rulemaking and minimum procedural, transparency and justification requirements for the adoption of Commission soft law. Their domestic effects and reviewability should be clarified as well.
Defining the EC Borders
(2003)
Democratization of good global governance: The EU's role in the Parliamentarization of trade policy
(2022)
The quest for good governance in trade relations occurs against the backdrop of an increa-sing politicization of trade policy. In the new reality of global value chains and servitisation, regulating trade goes far beyond technical issues of reducing entrance barriers, border measures and tariffs, but becomes a comprehensive endeavour of scrutinizing and policing behind-the-border political issues. Therefore, a call for raising the legitimacy of trade policy formulation and implementation rises. Hence, parliamentarisation of trade policy is ever more necessary. The EU's constitutional development and its practice in trade policy is a good example for more parliamentary involvement, which strengthens trade policy's legi-timacy, transparency, and public awareness. Thus, the EU indeed is, despite all weaknesses,
a pacemaker and hence good global actor to the benefit of democratisation of global trade governance, being an essential factor of good governance.
E-Participation in Germany
(2015)
Establisment
(2002)
The purpose of this chapter is to delineate and analyse current adjustments of Public Private Partnerships (PPP) in Germany in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Based on current data and official material, road infrastructure PPP was analysed, as demand for transporta-tion services is highly sensitive to fluctuations of overall economic activity. Accordingly, they do not only offer a good illustration of the challenges encountered by PPP operators in gene-ral but also – as road infrastructure PPP in Germany exist in different designs – important lessons may be learned with respect to their respective resilience in extraordinarily adverse economic conditions. One finding from the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany is that the case for public–private partnerships (PPP) become more compelling, also as an integral element of a large-scale reform package to massively improve the resilience of public service delivery to citizens and companies alike. Another important insight from the pandemic and the politico-administrative countermeasures is that massive pressure – both financial and in terms of the workload on the human resources employed – has been placed upon existing PPP, especially in critical infrastructures. The principal reasons are unforeseen or unexpected changes in user behaviour, affecting demand, and more difficult access to funding. These new insights demonstrate the relevance of anticipation of such events in the PPP contract, and the role of preparation for practitioners on both the private as well as the public side. Moreover, the findings provide leeway for further research on how the public administration, in particular in a federal multilevel system, can strengthen knowledge management and information exchange between single entities and stakeholders, and the role of PPP units as potential gatekeeper within this system.
Foreword
(2012)
Freedom of Information
(2000)
General Comparative Report
(2012)
The constitutions of the Lander contain similar provisions for the issue of Rechtsverordnun-gen based on Land legal acts. There are only a few rules on the procedure of the adoption of Rechtsverordnungen in the Grundgesetz and the land constitutions. The aim is to enable social groups to settle, under their own responsibility, the matters that concern them. The power to enact Satzungen is, thus, directly linked to the idea of self-government, which ex-plains the importance of Satzungen at local level. The principle of subsidiarity of the constitu-tional complaint as a criterion which may lead to the inadmissibility of a constitutional com-plaint directly challenging a legislative act also has an impact on the interpretation of proce-dural law applicable to regular courts. It has already been said that the BVerfG gives a clear priority to constitutional complaints challenging a judicial decision which leads to an indirect constitutional review of a legal act on which the decision is based via Article 100(1) GG.
This chapter focuses on the impact of specific “administrative styles,” understood as the everyday routines of the organization, on the reform patterns in international organizations. Consolidators are hence primarily driven by positional rather than policy interests. Entre-preneurs combine the latter two types; they develop administrative routines that entail intensive bureaucratic advocacy in policy-making and a strong orientation toward institu-tional consolidation to strengthen the administration’s position. In contrast, the picture should be completely different for consolidators. Given consolidators’ dominant motivation to secure their institutional status and legitimacy, organizational reforms will to a far greater degree reveal patterns of emulation of dominant reform paradigms and reform ideas in their organizational environment. Public sector organizations adopted these reports from the private sector as a form of communication with external and internal stakeholders. Most reforms have been identified within the area of organizational reforms, for example, institutional adjustments of the directorates.
Indicator Suites
(2012)
Innovation and Creativity
(2012)
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.
Introduction
(2012)
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.
Introduction
(2014)
The introduction will describe the constant evolving global political context correlated to the events occurring, specifically, in the trade environment and the unprecedented challenges they pose for the EU Trade Policy. These identified and introduced challenges will be addressed in detail in the following book chapters. It will also introduce the reader to the individual contributions of the book and briefly present and anticipate the results attained.
Academic freedom is currently under pressure. The most obvious cases in Europe are those of Hungary and Poland, where the state interferes directly in core academic issues by chan-ging the laws. More generally, research and teaching are at risk in European democracies. Except in Hungary and Poland, this is not only due to political constraints: society itself seems to have lost its trust in science. Scientific results are declared “fake news” and students and lecturers are not allowed to discuss social, gender or integration issues (keyword: “trigger warning”). Such threats to research and teaching curb scientific autonomy directly and indirectly.
Education plays a key role in knowledge society, since, from a meritocratic perspective, it opens up fair opportunities for well-paid jobs, thereby increasing social mobility and well-being more generally. In order to foster their economic competitiveness, cities are therefore encouraged to engage in knowledge-based urban development by trying to provide good schools and world-class universities to attract the “creative class.” However, meritocracy is a “myth,” as access to educational opportunities is itself socially biased. With the example of Heidelberg, a so-called “knowledge pearl,” we show how knowledge-institutions, such as the university, may shape socioenvironmental contexts in ways conducive to spatially selective access to—and use of—educational opportunities. Instead of reducing social polarization, knowledge-institutions may instead (re-)produce inequalities.