Search results

The local government auditing (LGA) landscape in Austria can be characterised as fragmented terrain, due to different regulations in the nine regions and a plethora of involved actors. The contours of the landscape have changed significantly during the past decades, with three major interrelated developments taking place: (1) administrative decentralisation led to an increase in the number of auditee organisations; (2) with the establishment of regional audit institutions (RAIs), new auditor organisations appeared as actors; and (3) auditing practices evolved, for example, with respect to an expansion of performance audits and the use of technology. In this chapter, the authors put a focus on RAIs that play a major role in LGA. The authors portray the historical roots of the LGA landscape and give a descriptive overview of the current structures and practices.

Digitalisation, big data and data analytics are hot topics for today's economic sectors. Given these trends, developing information technology capabilities of those who wish to join the public sector workforce has been emphasised in public administration teaching curricula. In this chapter, focusing on the public sector, we ask: What kind of data is published by governments and how can these data be used in teaching data analytics?

Against the backdrop of the growing importance of data analytics in public sector management curricula, this chapter uses the IMPACT cycle model to demonstrate how datasets from open government data portals can be used for teaching.

Several examples are shown to illustrate the different steps of the IMPACT cycle model. Concluding remarks include a reflection where potential caveats, dysfunctions and limits of data analytics are outlined.

The chapter explicitly focuses on ‘real world’ open government data published on open data portals. A holistic approach to data analytics ‘from start to finish’ is shown, including preparing datasets for the analysis and presenting results to line managers, whereas some of the previous work solely shows parts (e.g. testing the data).

Despite an abundance of studies on hybridization and hybrid forms of organizing, scholarly work has failed to distinguish consistently between specific types of hybridity. As a consequence, the analytical category has become blurred and lacks conceptual clarity. Our paper discusses hybridity as the simultaneous appearance of institutional logics in organizational contexts, and differentiates the parallel co-existence of logics from transitional combinations (eventually leading to the replacement of a logic) and more robust combinations in the form of layering and blending. While blending refers to hybridity as an “amalgamate” with original components that are no longer discernible, the notion of layering conceptualizes hybridity in a way that the various elements, or clusters thereof, are added on top of, or alongside, each other, similar to sediment layers in geology. We illustrate and substantiate such conceptual differentiation with an empirical study of the dynamics of public sector reform. In more detail, we examine the parliamentary discourse around two major reforms of the Austrian Federal Budget Law in 1986 and in 2007/2009 in order to trace administrative (reform) paradigms. Each of the three identified paradigms manifests a specific field-level logic with implications for the state and its administration: bureaucracy in Weberian-style Public Administration, market-capitalism in New Public Management, and democracy in New Public Governance. We find no indication of a parallel co-existence or transitional combination of logics, but hybridity in the form of robust combinations. We explore how new ideas fundamentally build on – and are made resonant with – the central bureaucratic logic in a way that suggests layering rather than blending. The conceptual findings presented in our paper have implications for the literature on institutional analysis and institutional hybridity.

To set the context for this edited collection by situating the discussion within both a global setting as well as examining the development and framing of processes, initiatives, policy paradigms and theoretical models which have shaped contemporary discourse and practice.

To draw on extant and current academic literature, contemporary thinking derived from policy organisations, think tanks and governmental institutions but also draw on the experience and insights provided by the contributors.

There are three core findings drawn prior to March 2022. Firstly, that the overall impact of the Global Financial Crash of 2008 and COVID-19 marks a new paradigm shift that will, more likely, shape thinking over the next decade; secondly, global attention to the climate emergency and sustainability agendas suggest that new forms of locally led responses will be necessary; and thirdly, the perceived political uncertainty of the institutions of the European Union and the USA make the stability of the policy making process and its responses to COVID-19 or the Climate Emergency much less predictable over the next 5–10 years.

This series of essays reflects the work undertaken by each of those contributing to the collection. Each author was invited to start with their primary research focus and to take their ideas and thinking for a ‘walk’ in order to stimulate discussion, novel thinking and different approaches to policy dilemmas.

This study sets out to shed light on those infrastructures underlying the ubiquitous, yet contested nature of governing by numbers. Investigating the 30-year long emergence of Germany’s “external quality assurance system” for hospitals, the authors show how methods for quantifying quality align with broader institutional and ideational shifts to form a calculative infrastructure for governance. Our study focuses on three phases of infrastructural development wherein methods for calculating quality, institutions for coordinating data and reform ideals converge with one another. The authors argue that the succession of these phases represents a gradual layering process, whereby old ways of enacting quality governance are not replaced, but augmented by new sets of calculative practices, institutions and ideas. Thinking about infrastructures as multi-layered complexes allows us to explore how they construct possibilities for control, remain stable over time and transform the fields in which they are embedded. Rather than governance being enacted according to a singular goal or value, we see an infrastructure that is flexible enough to support multiple modalities of control, including selective intervention, quality-based competition and automatized budgeting. Infrastructural change, instead of revolving around crises in measurement, is shaped by incubation periods – times of relative calm when political actors, medical practitioners, mathematicians, and many others explore and reflect past experiences, rather than follow erratic reforms fads. Finally, analysing infrastructures as multi-layered constructs underlines how they produce multiple images of care quality, which not only shift existing power relations, but also change the ways we understand and make sense of public services.