Modernization continues to be an ongoing and challenging task for every level of German public administration. In light of four popular models of public management reform, which include maintaining, modernizing, marketing, and
minimizing, Germany may be described as a mixture of maintaining and mod- ernizing.43 However, because of the traditional German administrative culture, bureaucratic change remains largely path dependent. Administrative reform in Germany has taken the well-known form of incremental self-adaptation by the bureaucracy. Incremental reforms have been driven by changing environmental demands and have been defined by the socioeconomic crisis, the fragmentation of the party system, and the crises of the public budgets and the welfare state.
Two very different perspectives may best describe the present nature of German public administration. On one hand, it remains basically Weberian. The concept of a legal-rational polity with a bureaucratic staff is still dominant. None of the changes described in this chapter can be regarded as fundamental or comprehen- sive. Hence, administrative continuity in Germany refers not only to the pattern of ongoing adaptation but also to the persistence of long-established structures, principles, and procedures. On the other hand, however, German public admin- istration has definitely changed since 1990. It has become more decentralized, outsourced, cost conscious, and customer friendly. Administrative reforms have increased to some degree the efficiency, effectiveness, legitimacy, and accountability of the political–administrative regime. Thus, one may conclude that German pub- lic administration is not as old fashioned as is sometimes assumed. Indeed, in some aspects, German public administration may actually represent one of the more modern administrative systems within the EU.
References
1. See Benz, A., Interadministrative relations in the federal system, in Public Admin- istration in Germany, König, K. and Siedentopf, H., Eds., Nomos, Baden-Baden, 2000, chap. II; see also Lehmbruch, G., The institutional framework: Federalism and decentralisation in Germany, in Comparing Public Sector Reform in Britain and Germany: Key Traditions and Trends of Modernisation, Wollmann, H. and Schröter, E., Eds., Aldershot, Ashgate, 2000, 85–106.
2. Lehmbruch, G., The institutional framework: Federalism and decentralisation in Germany, in Comparing Public Sector Reform in Britain and Germany: Key Traditions and Trends of Modernisation, Wollmann, H. and Schröter, E., Eds., Aldershot, Ash- gate, 2000, 85–106.
3. Scharpf, F., Reissert, B., and Schnabel, F., Politikverflechtung. Theorie und Empirie des Kooperativen Förderalismus in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Athenäum, Kron- berg, 1976.
4. Abromeit, H., Der Verkappte Einheitsstaat, Leske und Budrich, Opladen, 1992.
5. Derlien, H. U., Public administration in Germany: Political and societal relations, in Bureaucracy in the Modern State, Pierre, J., Ed., Cheltenham, 1997, 64ff.
6.Knill, C., Explaining cross-national variance in administrative reform: Autonomous versus instrumental bureaucracies, Journal of Public Policy, 19, 113, 1999.
7. Ibid.
8. Jann, W., State, administration and governance in Germany: Competing traditions and dominant narratives, Public Administration, 81, 101, 2003.
9.Ibid.
10. Olsen, J. P., Many faces of Europeanization, Journal of Common Market Studies, 40, 921, 2002.
11. Olsen, J. P., Towards a European administrative space? Journal of European Pub- lic Policy, 10, 4, 506, 2003; see also Siedentopf, H. and Speer, B., The European administrative space from a German administrative science perspective, International Review of Administrative Sciences, 69, 9, 2003.
12. Goetz, K. H., Between autonomy and subordination: Bureaucratic legitimacy and administrative change in Germany, in Citizens and the New Governance: Beyond New Public Management, Rouban, L., Ed., Amsterdam, IOS Press, 1996, 157–174.
13. Wurzel, R. K. W., The Europeanization of German environmental policy, in Ger- many and Europe: A Europeanized Germany? Goetz, K. and Dyson, K., Eds., London, British Academy in Association with Oxford University Press, 2003, 289–308.
14. Derlien, H. U. (Hrsg.), Zehn Jahre Verwaltungsaufbau Ost-eine Evaluation, Schrift- enreihe der Deutschen Sektion des Internationalen Instituts für Verwaltungswissen- schaften, Band 27, Baden-Baden, 2001.
15. Rose, R., et al., Germans in comparative perspective, Studies in Public Policy, 218, 1, 1993.
16. Lehmbruch, G., The process of regime change in East Germany: An institutional- ist scenario for German unification, Journal of European Public Policy, 1, 115, 1994;
see also Lehmbruch, G., Die ostdeutsche transformation als strategie des institutio- nentransfers: Überprüfung und Antikritik, in Institutionenbildung in Ostdeutschland:
Zwischen Externer Steuerung und Eigendynamik, Eisen, A. and Wollmann, H., Eds., Leske+Budrich, Opladen, 1996, 63–78.
17. Ibid.
18. Ibid.
19. Goetz, K. H., Between autonomy and subordination: Bureaucratic legitimacy and administrative change in Germany, in Citizens and the New Governance: Beyond New Public Management, Rouban, L., Ed., Amsterdam, IOS Press, 1996, 165.
20.Benz, A., Kooperative Verwaltung: Funktionen, Voraussetzungen und Folgen Baden- Baden, Nomos-Verl.-Ges., 1994.
21. Goetz, K. H., Between autonomy and subordination: Bureaucratic legitimacy and administrative change in Germany, in Citizens and the New Governance: Beyond New Public Management, Rouban, L., Ed., Amsterdam, IOS Press, 1996, 165.
22. Knill, C., Explaining cross-national variance in administrative reform: Autonomous versus instrumental bureaucracies, Journal of Public Policy, 19, 113, 1999.
23. Seibel, W., 1996, Administrative science as reform: German public administration, Public Administration Review, 56, 1, 74, 1996.
24. Knill, C., Explaining cross-national variance in administrative reform: Autonomous versus instrumental bureaucracies, Journal of Public Policy, 19, 113, 1999.
25.. Reichard, C., Verwaltungsmodernisierung in den Bundesländern, in Status Report Verwaltungsreform: Eine Zwischenbilanz Nach Zehn Jahren, Jann, W., et al., Eds., Ber- lin, 2004, 87–99.
26. Reichard, C., Verwaltung als öffentliches management, in Deutsche Verwaltung an der Wende Zum 21. Jahrhundert, König, K., Ed., Baden-Baden, 2002, 255–277.
27. Mastronardi, Ph. and Schedler, K., New Public Management in Staat und Recht, 2nd ed., Ein Diskurs, Bern, 2004; see also Schuppert, G. F., Verwaltungswissenschaft, Baden-Baden, 2000, 933ff.
28. Schuppert, G. F., Verwaltungswissenschaft, Baden-Baden, 2000, 400ff.
29. Reichard, C., New approaches to public management, in Public Administration in Germany, König, K. and Siedentopf, H., Eds., Baden-Baden, 2001, 552.
30. Federal government, Progress Report 2005 of the Government Programme “Modern State–Modern Administration” in the Field of Modern Administrative Management, Berlin, 2005, 4, http://www.bmi.bund.de/Internet/Content/Common/Anlagen/
Broschueren/2005/Fortschrittsbericht_2005_en.templateId=raw, property=publication File.pdf/Fortschrittsbericht_2005_en.pdf.
31. Ibid.
32. Knipp, R., Verwaltungsmodernisierung in Deutschen Kommunalverwaltungen—eine Bestandsaufnahme, DIFU, Berlin, 2005; see also Reichard, C., Local public man- agement reforms in Germany, Public Administration, 81, 2, 345; Banner, G., Kom- munale Verwaltungsmodernisierung: Wie erfolgreich waren die letzten zehn jahre?
in Empirische Policy-und Verwaltungsforschung, Schröter, E., Ed., Festschrift für Hellmut Wollmann, Opladen, 2001, 279–303.
33. Federal government, Progress Report 2005 of the Government Programme “Modern State–Modern Administration” in the Field of Modern Administrative Management, Berlin, 2005, 4, http://www.bmi.bund.de/Internet/Content/Common/Anlagen/
Broschueren/2005/Fortschrittsbericht_2005_en.templateId=raw,property=publication File.pdf/Fortschrittsbericht_2005_en.pdf.
34. Ibid.
35. Franzke, J., Actor Strategies and Institutional Arrangements in New Unitary Municipal- ities: Cases From the German Federal State Brandenburg, presented at the study group Local Governance and Democracy, EGPA Annual Conference, Milan, 31 August–3 September 2006.
36.Jann, W. and Reichard, C., Evaluating best practice in central government modern- ization, in Evaluation in Public Sector Reform: Concepts and Practice in International Perspective, Wollmann, H., Ed., Elgar, Cheltenham-Northampton, 2003, 36–55.
37. Federal government, E-government 2.0, Berlin, 2006, http://www.verwaltung-innovativ.
de/E-Government/-,13073/E-Government-2.0.htm.
38. Deutsche Bank Research, E-government in Germany: Much Achieved—Still Much To Do, Frankfurt am Main, 2005, http://www.dbresearch.de/ PROD/DBR_INTER- NET_DEPROD/ PROD0000000000188264.pdf.
39. See Budäus, D., Neue kooperationsformen zur erfüllung öffentlicher Aufgaben: Cha- rakterisierung, funktionsweise und systematisierung von public-private partnership, in Die Ökonomisierung des Öffentlichen Sektors: Instrumente und Trends, Harms, J.
and Reichard, C., Eds., Baden-Baden, 2003, 213–233.
40. Derlien, H., et al., The German Public Service: Structure and Statistics, Bamberg, Ver- waltungswissenschaftliche Beiträge 35 Universität Bamberg, 2005; see also Federal Ministry of the Interior, Der öffentliche Dienst in Deutschland, Berlin, 2006, http://
www.bmi.bund.de/Internet/Content/Common/Anlagen/Broschueren/2006/Der_
oeffentliche_Dienst_in_Deutschland_Id_21754_de,templateId=raw,property=publi cationFile.pdf/Der_oeffentliche_Dienst_in_Deutschland_Id_21754_de.pdf.
41. Federal government, Progress Report 2005 of the Government Programme “Modern State–Modern Administration” in the Field of Modern Administrative Management, Berlin, 2005, 22.
42. Derlien, H., et al., The German Public Service: Structure and Statistics, Bamberg, Ver- waltungswissenschaftliche Beiträge 35 Universität Bamberg, 2005, 12.
43. Pollitt, C. and Bouckaert, G., Public Management Reform: A Comparative Analysis, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2000.
95