Isomorphism of national policies? The 'Europeanisation' of German competition and public procurement law
In: West European politics, Band 23, Heft 1, S. 89-107
ISSN: 1743-9655
198 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
In: West European politics, Band 23, Heft 1, S. 89-107
ISSN: 1743-9655
In: West European politics, Band 23, Heft 3, S. 235-236
ISSN: 0140-2382
In: The Journal of New Zealand Studies, Band 5, Heft 3
ISSN: 2324-3740
Research into the music and life of Anthony Watson.
In: Handbook of Public Administration, S. 451-464
In: Agencies in Westeuropa, S. 48-78
In: The SAGE Handbook of Public Administration, S. 545-560
In: Handbook of Public Administration: Concise Paperback Edition, S. 285-298
In: Journal of European public policy, Band 26, Heft 5, S. 772-789
ISSN: 1466-4429
In: Government & opposition: an international journal of comparative politics, Band 46, Heft 2, S. 192-222
ISSN: 1477-7053
AbstractMega-events present a special venue for the practice of risk management. This article analyses the management of security risks in the case of two sporting mega-events, the London 2012 Olympic Games and the FIFA 2006 World Cup in Germany. To what extent do strategies and practices of risk management resemble each other across events? And what explains similarities or differences in the tools of risk management observed in each of these cases? First, this article explores three theoretical explanations for the choice of particular policy tools or instruments. Second, it introduces the tools of government approach as a means of conducting a direct comparative analysis of risk management across political and organizational settings and over time. The tools used for security risk management at the two mega-events are then compared and the different logics of tool choice are evaluated. This analytical approach offers a basis for future comparative inquiry into tools of risk management used in public and private organizations. The empirical findings highlight the particular importance of national political systems in influencing tool choice.
In: Government & opposition: an international journal of comparative politics, Band 46, Heft 2, S. 192-223
ISSN: 0017-257X
In: Journal of common market studies: JCMS, Band 38, Heft 3, S. 539
ISSN: 0021-9886
In: Government and Opposition, Band 46, Heft 2, S. 192-222
Mega-events present a special venue for the practice of risk management. This article analyses the management of security risks in the case of two sporting mega-events, the London 2012 Olympic Games and the FIFA 2006 World Cup in Germany. To what extent do strategies and practices of risk management resemble each other across events? And what explains similarities or differences in the tools of risk management observed in each of these cases? First, this article explores three theoretical explanations for the choice of particular policy tools or instruments. Second, it introduces the tools of government approach as a means of conducting a direct comparative analysis of risk management across political and organizational settings and over time. The tools used for security risk management at the two mega-events are then compared and the different logics of tool choice are evaluated. This analytical approach offers a basis for future comparative inquiry into tools of risk management used in public and private organizations. The empirical findings highlight the particular importance of national political systems in influencing tool choice.
"As the power and sophistication of of 'big data' and predictive analytics has continued to expand, so too has policy and public concern about the use of algorithms in contemporary life. This is hardly surprising given our increasing reliance on algorithms in daily life, touching policy sectors from healthcare, transport, finance, consumer retail, manufacturing education, and employment through to public service provision and the operation of the criminal justice system. This has prompted concerns about the need and importance of holding algorithmic power to account, yet it is far from clear that existing legal and other oversight mechanisms are up to the task. This collection of essays, edited by two leading regulatory governance scholars, offers a critical exploration of 'algorithmic regulation', understood both as a means for co-ordinating and regulating social action and decision-making, as well as the need for institutional mechanisms through which the power of algorithms and algorithmic systems might themselves be regulated. It offers a unique perspective that is likely to become a significant reference point for the ever-growing debates about the power of algorithms in daily life in the worlds of research, policy and practice. The range of contributors are drawn from a broad range of disciplinary perspectives including law, public administration, applied philosophy, data science and artificial intelligence"--
In: Hertie Governance Report
Governance Challenges and Innovations examines the capacity of contemporary governments to act upon and address the pressing problems of our time. It highlights four basic administrative capacities that matter for governance and considers the way in which states have addressed particular governance challenges.
In: ECPR research methods series
In: MyiLibrary
Through accounts from innovative research projects by world-leading political scientists, this volume offers a unique perspective on research methodology. It discusses the practical and intellectual dilemmas researchers face throughout the research process in a wide range of fields from implicit attitude testing to media analysis and interviews. Jessica Bain, University of Leicester, UK Michael Bruter, London School of Economics and Political Science, UK Nathalia Chaban, University of Canterbury, Christchuch, New Zealand Robert Erikson, Columbia University, USA Mark Franklin, European University Institute Julie Gervais, University Paris I - Panthéon-Sorbonne, France Sarah Harrison, LSE, USA Will Jennings, University of Southampton, UK Martin Lodge, London School of Economics and Political Science, UK Milton Lodge, SUNY at Stony Brook, USA Maya Renko, European University Institute Aaron Strauss, Princeton University, USA Brad Verhulst, Virgina Commonwealth University, USA Ben Wellings, Australian National University ?