Administrative reorganization has become widespread practice in modern democracies. Various case studies highlight the relevance of political ideology for bureaucratic contraction, others the role of socioeconomic pressure and institutional constraints. We examine these explanations in a study of the German Länder, which have substantially contracted their bureaucracies since the 1990s. Quantitative analysis of a novel data set of 479 ministerial departments in 13 Länder over two decades suggests that the ideological complexion of governments is a stronger predictor of administrative reform than socioeconomic pressure or institutional constraints. Moreover, interaction models show how socioeconomic and institutional variables condition the effect of ideology.
AdamC.BauerM. W.KnillC. (2008). Ausmaß und Ursachen von Organisationsabbau in der deutschen Verwaltung: Eine empirische Analyse der unmittelbaren Bundesverwaltung [Extent and causes of organizational contraction in the German administration. An empirical analysis of the direct federal administration]. Verwaltungs-Archiv, 99, 153-173.
2.
AdamC.BauerM. W.KnillC.StudingerP. (2007). The termination of public organizations: Theoretical perspectives to revitalize a promising research area. Public Organization Review, 7, 221-236.
3.
BauerM.BogumilJ.KnillC.EbingerF.KrapfS.ReißigK. (2007). Modernisierung der Umweltverwaltung. Reformstrategien und Effekte in den Bundesländern [Modernization of the environmental administration. Reform strategies and effects in the German states]. Berlin, Germany: Sigma.
4.
BeckerB. (1989). Öffentliche Verwaltung. Lehrbuch für Wissenschaft und Praxis [Public administration. Textbook for academics and practitioners]. Percha, Germany: R.S. Schulz.
5.
BerryC. R.BurdenB. C.HowellW. G. (2010). After enactment: The lives and deaths of federal programs. American Journal of Political Science, 54, 1-17.
6.
BerryF. C.BerryW. D. (1999). Innovation and diffusion models in policy research. In SabatierP. A. (Ed.), Theories of the policy process (pp. 169-200). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
7.
BogumilJ.EbingerF. (2005). Die große Verwaltungsstrukturreform in Baden-Württemberg [The great reform of administrative structures in Baden-Württemberg]. Ibbenbüren, Germany: Ibbenbürener Vereinsdruckerei.
8.
BogumilJ.EbingerF. (2008). Verwaltungspolitik in den Bundesländern: Vom Stiefkind zum Darling der Politik [Administrative policy in the German states: from the stepchild to the darling of politics]. In HildebrandA.WolfF. (Eds.), Die Politik der Bundesländer. Staatstätigkeit im Vergleich [The policies of the German states. State activity in comparison] (pp. 275-288). Wiesbaden, Germany: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
9.
BogumilJ.EbingerF. (2011). Verwaltungsstrukturreformen in der Bundesländern [Administrative structural reforms in the German states]. In BlankeB.NullmeierF.ReichhardC.WewerG. (Eds.), Handbuch zur Verwaltungsreform [Handbook of administrative reform] (4th ed., pp. 45-52). Wiesbaden, Germany: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
10.
BoinA.KuipersS.SteenbergenM. (2010). The life and death of public organizations: A question of institutional design?Governance, 23, 385-410.
11.
CarpenterD.LewisD. E. (2004). Political learning from rare events: Poisson inference, fiscal constraints, and the lifetime of bureaus. Political Analysis, 12, 201-232.
12.
EllweinT. (1994). Das Dilemma der Verwaltung. Verwaltungsstruktur und Verwaltungsreformen in Deutschland [The dilemma of the administration. Administrative structure and administrative reforms in Germany]. Mannheim, Germany: BI-Taschenbuchverlag.
13.
FranzeseR. J.HaysJ. C. (2007). Spatial econometric models of cross-sectional interdependence in political science panel and time-series-cross-section data. Political Analysis, 15, 140-164.
14.
Geva-MayI. (2004). Riding the wave of opportunity windows: Termination in public policy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 14, 309-333.
15.
GilmourJ. B.LewisD. E. (2006). Does performance budgeting work? An examination of the Office of Management and Budget’s PART scores. Public Administration Review, 66, 742-752.
16.
GötzA. (2012). Verwaltungspolitik der Länder im Vergleich. Empirische Untersuchung zu Strukturreformen und ihren Ressourceneffekten [Administrative policy in comparison. Empirical investigation of structural reforms and their effects on resources]. (Doctoral dissertation). Leuphana University, Lüneburg, Germany.
17.
HammerschmidG.MeyerR. E. (2005). New public management in Austria: Local variation on a global theme?Public Administration, 83, 709-733.
18.
HesseJ. J. (2007). Was soll und kann Verwaltungsreform? Der Fall Niedersachsen [What are the aims and means of administrative reform? The case of Lower Saxony]. Niedersächsische Verwaltungsblätter, 14(6), 145-160.
19.
HesseJ. J.GötzA. (2003). Staatsreform in Deutschland: Das Beispiel der Länder (I) [State reform in Germany. The case of the Länder (I)]. Zeitschrift für Staats- und Europawissenschaften, 1, 579-612.
20.
HesseJ. J.GötzA. (2004). Staatsreform in Deutschland: Das Beispiel der Länder (II) [State reform in Germany. The case of the Länder (II)]. Zeitschrift für Staats- und Europawissenschaften, 2, 106-143.
21.
HesseJ. J.GötzA. (2008). Gesetz zur Weiterentwicklung der Verwaltungsstrukturreform (VRWG) in Baden-Württemberg. Gutachterliche Stellungnahme [Law on the advancement of the administrative structural reform (VRWG) in Baden-Württemberg. Evaluative report]. Stuttgart, Germany: Landkreistag Baden-Württemberg.
22.
HesseJ. J.GötzA.SchubertS. (2007). Reform der Hoheitsverwaltung. Das Beispiel der Finanzverwaltung in Baden-Württemberg [Reform of the sovereignty administration. The case of the financial administration in Baden-Württemberg]. Baden-Baden, Germany: Nomos.
23.
HibbsD. A.Jr. (1977). Political parties and macroeconomic policy. American Political Science Review, 71, 1467-1487.
24.
HildebrandtA.WolfF. (2008). Die Politik der Bundesländer. Staatstätigkeit im Vergleich [The policies of the German states. State activity in comparison]. Wiesbaden, Germany: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
25.
JockC. (2008). Aktivitäten auf dem Gebiet der Staats- und Verwaltungsmodernisierung in den Ländern und beim Bund 2006/2007 [Activities in the field of administrative modernization at the state and federal levels 2006/2007]. Speyer, Germany: Deutsches Forschungsinstitut für öffentliche Verwaltung.
26.
KaufmanH. (1976). Are government organizations immortal?Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
27.
KoopC. (2011). Explaining the accountability of independent agencies: The importance of political salience. Journal of Public Policy, 31, 209-234.
28.
LavertuS.LewisD.MoynihanD. (2013). Government reform, political ideology, and administrative burden: The case of performance management in the bush administration. Public Administration Review, 73, 845-857.
29.
LewisD. E. (2002). The politics of agency termination: Confronting the myth of agency immortality. Journal of Politics, 64, 89-107.
30.
LewisD. E. (2004). The adverse consequences of the politics of agency design for presidential management in the United States: The relative durability of insulated agencies. British Journal of Political Science, 34, 377-404.
31.
LijphartA. (1971). Comparative politics and the comparative method. American Political Science Review, 65, 682-693.
32.
MacCarthaighM.RonessP. (2012). Analyzing longitudinal continuity and change in public sector organizations. International Journal of Public Administration, 35, 773-782.
33.
MacCarthaighM.RonessP.SarapuuK. (2012). Mapping public sector organizations: An agenda for future research. International Journal of Public Administration, 35, 844-851.
34.
MüllerM. M. (2006). Lernen im Föderalismus – Renaissance des Wettbewerbs [Learning in federalism - renaissance of competition?]? In SchimankeD.FischerA.BucksteegM. (Eds.), Wie lernt Politik? [How does politics learn?] (pp. 58-66). Münster, Germany: Waxmann.
35.
ReinersM. (2008). Verwaltungsstrukturreformen in den deutschen Bundesländern. Radikale Reformen auf der Ebene der staatlichen Mittelinstanz [Administrative structural reforms in the German states. Radical reforms on the level of the state intermediary authority]. Wiesbaden, Germany: VS Verlag.
36.
RollandV. W.RonessP. G. (2010). Mapping organizational units in the state: Challenges and classifications. International Journal of Public Administration, 33, 463-473.
37.
RollandV. W.RonessP. G. (2011). Mapping organizational change in the state: Challenges and Classifications. International Journal of Public Administration, 34, 399-409.
38.
SchmidtM. G. (1982). Wohlfahrtstaatliche Politik unter bürgerlichen und sozialdemokratischen Regierungen [Welfare policies under conservative and social-democratic governments]. Frankfurt, Germany: Campus.
39.
SchmidtM. G. (1996). When parties matter: A review of the possibilities and limits of partisan influence on public policy. European Journal of Political Research, 30, 155-183.
40.
SchniewindA.FreitagM.VatterA. (2009). Big cabinets, big governments? Grand coalitions and public policy in the German Laender. Journal of Public Policy, 29, 327-345.
41.
Van ThielS. (2012). Comparing agencies across countries. In VerhoestK.Van ThielS.BouckaertG.LaegreidP. (Eds.), Government agencies: Practices and lessons from 30 countries (pp. 18-26). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave.
42.
ZohlnhöferR.ObingerH. (2006). Selling off the “family silver”: The politics of privatization. World Political Science Review, 2, 30-52.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
