Hertie School Research Repository
Not a member yet
2650 research outputs found
Sort by
Redispatch Markets in Zonal Electricity Markets: Inc-Dec Gaming as a Consequence of Inconsistent Power Market Design (not Market Power)
No full textPhilanthropic Foundations in Cross-National Perspective: A Comparative Approach
No full textComparative studies on philanthropic foundations are still in their infancy. To advance the comparative understanding, the article proposes to use two countries—the United States and Germany—as comparative cases against which to assess the main contours of foundations in other countries. Both countries have large foundations communities; yet both are rather distinct in terms of their historical development as well as in terms of their institutional characteristics, patterns, and activities. Looking at the positioning, roles, advantages, and disadvantages of foundations, the article offers a framework for their comparative study using the varieties of capitalism, welfare regimes, and the social origins classifications
Towards the New Laswell School of Public Policy
No full textWhat model is best to drive societies forward, and with Ira Katznelson we ask: what are the best conditions for affecting the sustained contributions of schools of public policy to problem‐solving?
Rejoinder on Commentaries by Lisa Anderson, Ira Katznelson, Jack H. Knott, Mark Moore, Claus Offe, Erika J. Techera, and Lan Xue to ‘On the Future of the Public Policy School’, Helmut K. Anheie
Philanthropic Foundations in Higher Education – Comparative Perspectives from the United States and Germany
No full textTo what extent do regime classifications help us understand higher education funding by foundations vis-à-vis the state? This dissertation investigates the explanatory value of three prominent regime classifications – Varieties of Capitalism, Three Worlds of Welfare, and Social Origins theory – for understanding higher education foundations in two regime types: the liberal
United States as well as corporatist Germany. The analysis shows that the classifications do indeed provide a good starting point since they enable us to draw conclusions about the country and activity field level. However, the analysis also shows that they meet their limits when philanthropic foundations are added to the picture since the classifications are not specific enough to correctly predict foundation behavior. The typology proposed in this study suggests that foundations can be placed on a continuum between funding through higher education to reach other aims and funding of higher education for its own sake. The place of foundations on the continuum is different in the sense that the rather market-oriented, liberal US foundations are more likely to support other aims through higher education, while the rather stateoriented,
corporatist-conservative German foundations more often want to support higher education for its own sake.
This study draws upon a range of both quantitative and qualitative data: German and American data sets including university funding statistics, 40 qualitative foundation vignettes, a representative survey of 1,004 German foundations, one focus group, and 49 semi-structured expert interviews conducted on-site.
One of the study’s major contributions is that it refines the regime classifications by considering the understudied role of independent, philanthropic foundations supporting the advancement of higher education. Furthermore, it establishes the first link between regime types and higher education literature by way of philanthropic foundations. As there is growing discussion in Germany and the US about private engagement versus public funding in higher education, the results ultimately have contemporary relevance for understanding the topic in a comparative manner
Institutions or Contingencies? A Cross-Country Analysis of Management Tool Use by Public Sector Executives
No full textManagement tools are often argued to ameliorate public service performance. Indeed, evidence has emerged to support positive outcomes related to the use of management tools in a variety of public sector settings. Despite these positive outcomes, there is wide variation in the extent to which public organizations use management tools. Drawing on normative isomorphism and contingency theory, this article investigates the determinants of both organization‐oriented and client‐oriented management tool use by top public sector executives. The hypotheses are tested using data from a large‐N survey of 4,533 central government executives in 18 European countries. Country and sector fixed‐effects ordinary least squares regression models indicate that contingency theory matters more than normative isomorphism. Public executives working in organizations that are bigger and have goal clarity and executive status are more likely to use management tools. The only normative pressure that has a positive impact on management tool use is whether public sector executives have a top hierarchical position
Deliberative Negotiation
No full textDeliberative democracy has been the main game in contemporary political theory for two decades and has grown enormously in size and importance in political science and many other disciplines, and in political practice. The Oxford Handbook of Deliberative Democracy takes stock of deliberative democracy as a research field, as well as exploring and creating links with multiple disciplines and policy practice around the globe. It provides a concise history of deliberative ideals in political thought while also discussing their philosophical origins. It locates deliberation in a political system with different spaces, publics, and venues, including parliament and courts but also governance networks, protests, mini-publics, old and new media, and everyday talk. It documents the intersections of deliberative ideals with contemporary political theory, involving epistemology, representation, constitutionalism, justice, and multiculturalism. It explores the intersections of deliberative democracy with major research fields in the social sciences and law, including social and rational choice theory, communications, psychology, sociology, international relations, framing approaches, policy analysis, planning, democratization, and methodology. It engages with practical applications, mapping deliberation as a reform movement and as a device for conflict resolution. It documents the practice and study of deliberative democracy around the world, in Asia, Latin America, Africa, Europe, and global governance. And it provides reflections on the field by pioneering thinkers
Towards Area-Smart Data Science: Critical Questions for Working with Big Data from China
No full textWhile the Internet was created without much governmental oversight, states have gradually drawn territorial borders via Internet governance. China stands out as a promoter of such a territorial‐based approach. China's separate Web infrastructure shapes data when information technologies capture traces of human behavior. As a result, area expertise can contribute to the substantive, methodological, and ethical debates surrounding big data. This article discusses how a number of critical questions that have been raised about big data more generally apply to the Chinese context: How does big data change our understanding of China? What are the limitations of big data from China? What is the context in which big data is generated in China? Who has access to big data and who knows the tools? How can big data from China be used in an ethical way? These questions are intended to spark conversations about best practices for collaboration between data scientists and China experts
