Advertisement

Einzelbeitrag Nr. 3: Cui bono? Depicting the benefits of the new municipal budgeting and accounting regime in Germany

  • Andreas BurthEmail author
Chapter

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literatur

  1. Adam B, Mussari R, Jones R (2011) The Diversity of Accrual Policies in Local Government Financial Reporting: An Examination of Infrastructure, Art and Heritage Assets in Germany, Italy and the UK. Financial Accountability and Management 27(2): 107–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arnaboldi M, Lapsley I (2009) On the Implementation of Accrual Accounting: A Study of Conflict and Ambiguity. European Accounting Review 18(4): 809–836CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bagozzi R P (1994) Structural equation models in marketing research. In Bagozzi R P (Ed) principles of marketing research. Blackwell, Oxford: 317–385Google Scholar
  4. Bagozzi R P, Yi Y (1988) On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 16(1): 74–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Banner G (2008) Logik des Scheiterns oder Scheitern an der Logik – Kommen-tar zu Lars Holtkamp „Das Scheitern des Neuen Steuerungsmodells“. DMS – Der Moderne Staat 1(2): 447–455Google Scholar
  6. Barclay D W, Higgins C A, Thompson R (1995) The partial least squares ap-proach to causal modeling: personal computer adoption and the use as illus-tration. Technology Studies 2(2): 285–309Google Scholar
  7. Benito B, Busca I, Montesinos V (2007) The harmonization of government fi-nancial information systems: the role of the IPSASs. International Review of Administrative Sciences 73(2): 293–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Berens W, Budäus D, Buschor E, Fischer E, Lüder K, Mundhenke E, Streim H (2007), Hamburger Thesen – Kamerales Haushalts- und Rechnungswesen in einem demokratischen Gemeinwesen nicht mehr vertretbar – 20 Thesen zum notwendigen Wechsel von der Kameralistik zu einer integrierten Verbund-rechnung mit outputorientierter BudgetierungGoogle Scholar
  9. Blöndal J R (2004) Issues in Accrual Budgeting. OECD Journal on Budgeting 4(1): 103–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bogumil J, Ebinger F, Holtkamp L (2011) Vom Versuch, das Neue Steuerungs-modell verpflichtend einzuführen – Wirkungen des Neuen Kommunalen Fi-nanzmanagements in NRW. Verwaltung & Management 17(4): 171–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bogumil J, Ebinger F, Holtkamp L (2012) Vom Versuch, unerfreuliche Ergeb-nisse als normative Wissenschaft abzutun – Eine Replik auf die Replik von Christoph Reichard. Verwaltung & Management 18(1): 3–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bogumil J, Grohs S, Kuhlmann S, Ohms A (2007) Zehn Jahre Neues Steue-rungsmodell – Eine Bilanz kommunaler Verwaltungsmodernisierung. Edition Sigma, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  13. Bouckaert G, Halligan J (2008) Managing Performance – International comparisons. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. Boxall P (1998) The Revolution in Government Accounting. Australian CPA 68(3): 18–20Google Scholar
  15. Bräunig D, Meier J (2009) Zielvereinbarungen und Doppik an der Schnittstelle von Politik und Verwaltung – Tagungsband zum Schmalenbach-Symposium. Schmalenbach-Gesellschaft für Betriebswirtschaft e.V., KölnGoogle Scholar
  16. Broström B (1998) Accrual Accounting, Politics and Politicians. Financial Accountability and Management 14(4): 319–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Budäus D, Buchholtz K (1997) Konzeptionelle Grundlagen des Controlling in öffentlichen Verwaltungen. DBW – Die Betriebswirtschaft 57(3): 322–337Google Scholar
  18. Budäus D, Hilgers D (2009) Reform des öffentlichen Haushalts- und Rech-nungswesens in Deutschland. Konzepte, Umsetzungsstand und Entwick-lungsperspektiven. Zeitschrift für Planung und Unternehmenssteuerung (ZP) 19(4): 377–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Burth A, Hilgers D (2012) Kommunale Risikoberichterstattung – Eine verglei-chende Analyse doppischer Lageberichte. Verwaltung & Management 18(1): 7–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Carlin T M (2005) Debating The Impact Of Accrual Accounting And Reporting In The Public Sector. Financial Accountability and Management 21(3): 309–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Carlin T M (2006) Victoria’s Accrual Output Based Budgeting System – Deliv-ering As Promised? Some Empirical Evidence. Financial Accountability and Management 22(1): 1–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Cave M, Kogan M, Smith R (1990) Output and Performance Measurement in Government: The State of the Art. Jessica Kingsley, LondonGoogle Scholar
  23. Chin W W (1998) The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. In Marcoulides G A (Ed) Modern methods for business research. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah: 295–336Google Scholar
  24. Christensen M, Parker L (2010) Using Ideas To Advance Professions: Public Sector Accrual Accounting. Financial Accountability and Management 26(3): 246–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Christiaens J, Reyniers B (2009) Impact of IPSAS on Reforming Governmental Financial Information Systems: A Comparative Study. In Universiteit Gent Working Paper 2009/600: 1–17Google Scholar
  26. Christiaens J, Rommel J (2008) Accrual Accounting Reforms: Only for Busi-nesslike (Parts of) Governments. Financial Accountability and Management 24(1): 59–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Cohen J (1988) Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, HillsdaleGoogle Scholar
  28. Cohen S, Kaimenaki E, Zorgios Y (2007) Assessing IT as a Key Success Factor for Accrual Accounting Implementation in Greek Municipalities. Financial Accountability and Management 23(1): 91–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Cortès J L (2004) The Meaning of Intergenerational Equity in Governmental Financial management. Public Fund Digest 4(1): 58–76Google Scholar
  30. Cronbach L J (1970) Essentials of psychological testing. 3. Auflage, Harper & Row, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  31. Deutscher Städtetag, PWC (2011), Evaluierung der Reform des kommunalen Haushalts- und Rechnungswesens. Deutscher Städtetag/PWC, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  32. Efron B (1981) Nonparametric estimates of standard error: the jackknife, the bootstrap and other methods. Biometrika 68(3): 589–599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ellwood S (2003) Bridging the GAAP across the UK Public Sector. Accounting and Business Research 33(2): 105–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Fornell C G, Larcker D F (1981), Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Re-search 18(1): 39–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Franke D (2011) Aus Erfahrung klug – Zur Umstellung des kommunalen Fi-nanzwesens. Kommunalwirtschaft 102(10–11): 652–654Google Scholar
  36. Freedman D (1997) From association to causation via regression. Advances in Applied Mathematics 18(1): 59–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Glöckner A (2007) Die Anwendung internationaler Rechnungslegungsstandards (IPSAS/IFRS) auf ausgewählte Bilanzierungsprobleme der doppischen kom-munalen Rechnungslegung. Universität Mannheim, MannheimGoogle Scholar
  38. Gnädinger M (2009) Modernisierung der Haushaltswirtschaft in Bund und Län-dern – Eine ökonomische Bilanz Haushaltswirtschaftsmodernisierung in Bund und Bundesländern nach 10 Jahren Haushaltsrechts-Fortentwicklungsgesetz. Driesen, TaunussteinGoogle Scholar
  39. Gnädinger M, Grieger T (2008) Gerechte Regelung. Kommune21 8(10): 60–61Google Scholar
  40. Grégoire Y, Fisher R J (2006) The effects of relationship quality on customer retaliation. Marketing Letters 17(1): 31–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Guthrie J (1998) Application of Accrual Accounting in the Australian Public Sector – Rhetoric or Reality. Financial Accountability and Management 14(1): 1–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Hair J F, Ringle C M, Sarstedt M (2011) PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice 19(2): 139–151Google Scholar
  43. Hair J F, Sarstedt M, Ringle C M, Mena J A (2012) An assessment of the use of partial least squares structural equation modeling in marketing research. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science (forthcoming)Google Scholar
  44. Harns J (2004) Public-Sector Accounting Reforms in Germany – Developments and Demands. Public Fund Digest 4(1): 52–57Google Scholar
  45. Henseler J (2010) On the convergence of the partial least squares path modeling algorithm. Computational Statistics 25(1): 107–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Henseler J, Ringle C M, Sinkovics R R (2009) The use of partial least square path modeling in international marketing. Advances in International Marketing 20: 277–319Google Scholar
  47. Hilgers D (2010) Die Reform des öffentlichen Haushalts- und Rechnungswe-sens. WISU – Das Wirtschaftsstudium 39(8–9): 1101–1107Google Scholar
  48. Hilgers D (2011) Last Developments in German Public Sector Accounting and Budgeting. In Greiling D, Halachmi A, Schauer R (Eds) Accounting, Accountability and Governance in the Public Sector. Trauner, Linz: 51–66Google Scholar
  49. Holtkamp L (2008) Das Scheitern des Neuen Steuerungsmodells. DMS – Der Moderne Staat 1(2): 423–446Google Scholar
  50. Hughes J, Minovski Z (2004) A Plan for Implementation of International Public Sector Accounting Standards in Developing Countries and Economies in Transition. Public Fund Digest 4(1): 32–51Google Scholar
  51. Hulland J (1999) Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic management re-search: a review of four recent studies. Strategic Management Journals 20(2): 195–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. IFAC (2003) Transition to the Accrual Basis of Accounting: Guidance for Gov-ernments and Government Entities. 2. Auflage, IFAC, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  53. IMK (2000) Eckpunkte für ein kommunales Haushaltsrecht zu einem doppi-schen Haushalts- und Rechnungssystem – Beschluss vom 9./10.10.2000. o.O.Google Scholar
  54. IMK (2003) Beschlussniederschrift über die 173. Sitzung der Ständigen Konfe-renz der Innenminister und -senatoren der Länder am 21. November 2003 in Jena. JenaGoogle Scholar
  55. Institut für den öffentlichen Sektor (2010) Verwaltungsführung heute – Ergeb-nisse einer Führungskräftebefragung in der deutschen Ministerialverwaltung. Institut für den öffentlichen Sektor/Hertie School of Governance/Universität Potsdam/Universität Leipzig, Berlin/Potsdam/LeipzigGoogle Scholar
  56. Jagalla T, Becker S D, Weber J (2011) A Taxonomy Of The Perceived Benefits Of Accrual Accounting And Budgeting: Evidence From German States. Financial Accountability and Management 27(2): 134–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Jagalla T, Weber J (2009) Best Practices für die Doppik-Einführung in Bundes-ländern. WHU/ISPRAT, Vallendar/HamburgGoogle Scholar
  58. Jansen E P (2008) New Public Management: Perspectives On Performance And The Use Of Performance Information. Financial Accountability and Management 24(4): 169–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Jarvis C B, MacKenzie S B, Podsakoff P M (2003). A Critical Review of Con-struct Indicators and Measurement Model Misspecification in Marketing and Consumer Research. Journal of Consumer Research 30 (2): 199–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Jones R, Lüder K (2011) The Federal Government of Germany’s circumspection concerning accrual budgeting and accounting. Public Money and Management 31(4): 265–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Jorge S M, Carvalho J B da Costa, Fernandes M J (2007) Governmental Ac-counting in Portugal: Why Accrual Basis Is A Problem. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting and Financial Management 19(4): 411–446Google Scholar
  62. Kettl D F (2000) The Global Public Management Revolution. Brookings Institution Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  63. KGSt (1993) Das Neue Steuerungsmodell: Begründung, Konturen, Umsetzung (Bericht 5/1993). KGSt, KölnGoogle Scholar
  64. KGSt (2008) Stand der Einführung des neuen Haushalts- und Rechnungswesens – Ergebnisse einer bundesweiten Umfrage (Bericht 4/2008). KGSt, KölnGoogle Scholar
  65. KGSt, Bertelsmann Stiftung (2009) Manifest zum öffentlichen Haushalts- und Rechnungswesen in Deutschland – Mehr Transparenz, Effektivität und Effizi-enz in Politik und Verwaltungen durch ein einheitliches doppisches Haus-halts- und Rechnungswesen. Bertelsmann Stiftung, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  66. Kiamann O (2010) Der kommunale Gesamtabschluss: Ist die Konzernrech-nungslegung nach HGB eine sinnvolle Referenz? DMS – Der Moderne Staat 3(1): 187–207Google Scholar
  67. Kiamann O, Wielenberg S (2010) Sind die Regeln der externen Unternehmens-rechnung auf die kommunale Rechnungslegung übertragbar? ZfB – Zeitschrift für Betriebswirtschaft 80(3): 237–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Kober R, Lee J, Ng J (2010) Mind Your Accruals: Perceived Usefulness Of Fi-nancial Information In The Australian Public Sector Under Different Ac-counting Systems. Financial Accountability and Management 26(3): 267–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Kouzmin A, Löffler E, Klages H, Korac-Kakabadse N (1999) Benchmarking and performance measurement in public sectors: Towards learning for agency effectiveness. International Journal of Public Sector Management 12(2): 121–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Küpper H-U (2000) Hochschulrechnung auf der Basis von doppelter Buchfüh-rung und HGB? zfbf – Zeitschrift für betriebswirtschaftliche Forschung 52(6): 348–369Google Scholar
  71. Lapsley I, Mussari R, Paulsson G (2009) On the Adoption of Accrual Accounting in the Public Sector: A Self-Evident and Problematic Reform. European Accounting Review 18(4): 719–723CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Lasar A (2010) Keine Harmonisierung im öffentlichen Haushalts- und Rech-nungswesen. Verwaltung & Management 16(1): 3–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Lüder K (1993) Governmental Accounting in Germany: State and Need for Re-form. Financial Accountability and Management 9(4): 225–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Lüder K (2001) Neues öffentliches Haushalts- und Rechnungswesen – Anforde-rungen, Konzept, Perspektiven. Edition Sigma, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  75. Lüder K, Jones R (2003) Reforming governmental accounting and budgeting in Europe. Moderne Wirtschaft, Frankfurt/MainGoogle Scholar
  76. Martí C (2006) Accrual Budgeting: Accounting Treatment of Key Public Sector Items and Implications for Fiscal Policy. Public Budgeting & Finance 26(2): 45–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Mellett H (1997) The Role of Resource Accounting in the U.K. Government's Quest for Better Accounting. Accounting and Business Research 27(2): 157–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Micallef F (1994) A New Era in Reporting by Government Departments. Australian Accountant 64(2): 33–34Google Scholar
  79. Monsen N (2002) The Case for Cameral Accounting. Financial Accountability and Management 18(1): 39–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Mühlenkamp H (2011) Zu den Steuerungswirkungen des Neuen öffentlichen Haushalts- und Rechnungswesens und seiner Akzeptanz (Speyerer Arbeits-heft Nr. 203). DHV Speyer, SpeyerGoogle Scholar
  81. Mühlenkamp H, Glöckner A (2009) Rechtsvergleich kommunale Doppik – Eine Synopse und Analyse ausgewählter Themenfelder des neuen, doppischen kommunalen Haushaltsrechts der Bundesländer (Speyerer Forschungsberichte 260). DHV Speyer, SpeyerGoogle Scholar
  82. Müller-Marqués Berger T (2008) Internationale Rechnungslegung für den öf-fentlichen Sektor (IPSAS): Grundlagen und Einzeldarstellungen. Schäffer-Poeschel, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  83. Müller-Marqués Berger T, Krebs U (2010) Der kommunale Gesamtabschluss. Schäffer-Poeschel, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  84. Nunnally J C (1978) Psychometric theory. 2. Auflage, McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  85. Olson O, Guthrie J, Humphrey C (1998) Global Warning: Debating International Developments in New Public Management. Cappelen Akademisk Forlag, OsloGoogle Scholar
  86. Ouda H A G (2004) Basic Requirements Model for Successful Implementation of Accrual Accounting in the Public Sector. Public Fund Digest 4(1): 78–99Google Scholar
  87. Pallot J (1998) The New Zealand Revolution. In Olson O, Guthrie J, Humphrey C (Eds) Global Warning! Debating International Developments in New Pub-lic Financial Management. Cappelen Akademisk Forlag, Oslo: 156–181Google Scholar
  88. Pallot J (2001) A Decade in Review: New Zealand’s Experience with Resource Accounting and Budgeting. Financial Accountability and Management 17(4): 383–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Paulsson G (2006) Accrual Accounting In The Public Sector: Experiences From The Central Government In Sweden. Financial Accountability and Management 22(1): 47–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Petter S, Straub D, Rai A (2007) Specifying Formative Constructs in IS Re-search. MIS Quarterly 31 (4): 623–656Google Scholar
  91. Pina V, Torres L, Yetano A (2009) Accrual Accounting in EU Local Govern-ments: One Method, Several Approaches. European Accounting Review 18(4): 765–807CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Pollitt C, Bouckaert G (2011) Public Management Reform: A Comparative Analysis – New Public Management, Governance, and the Neo-Weberian State. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  93. Reichard C (1998) The Impact of Performance Management on Transparency and Accountability in the Public Sector. In Hondeghem A (Ed) Ethics and Accountability in a Context of Governance and New Public Management. IOS Press, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  94. Reichard C (2001) New Approaches to New Public Management. In König K, Siedentopf H (Eds) Public Administration in Germany. Nomos, Baden-Baden: 541–556Google Scholar
  95. Reichard C (2011) Vom Versuch, NSM und NKF in einen Topf zu werden – Eine Replik. Verwaltung & Management 17(6): 283–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Reinartz W, Haenlein M, Henseler J (2009) An empirical comparison of the efficacy of covariance-based and variance-based SEM. International Journal of Research in Marketing 26(4): 332–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Ridder H-G, Bruns H-J, Spier F (2006) Management implementation processes – The role of public managers in the implementation of accrual accounting – evidence from six case studies in Germany. Public Management Review 8(1): 87–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Ringle C M, Boysen N, Wende S, Will A (2006) Messung von Kausalmodellen mit dem Partial-Least-Squares-Verfahren. WISU – Das Wirtschaftsstudium 35(1): 81–88Google Scholar
  99. Ringle C M, Spreen F (2007) Beurteilung der Ergebnisse von PLS-Pfadanalysen. WISU – Das Wirtschaftsstudium 36(2): 211–216Google Scholar
  100. Ringle C M, Wende S, Will A (2005) SmartPLS 2.0 (Beta) – www.smartpls.de. Universität Hamburg, Hamburg
  101. Ringle C M, Wende S, Will A (2010) Finite Mixture Partial Least Squares Analysis: Methodology and Numerical Examples. In Esposito Vinzi V, Chin W W, Henseler J, Wang H (Ed) Handbook of Partial Least Squares. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg: 195–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Robinson M (1998a) Measuring compliance with the golden rule. Fiscal Studies 19(4): 447–62.Google Scholar
  103. Robinson M (1998b) Accrual Accounting and the Efficiency of the Core Public Sector. Financial Accountability and Management 14(1): 21–37Google Scholar
  104. Sarstedt M, Becker J-M, Ringle C M, Schwaiger M (2011) Uncovering and Treating Unobserved Heterogeneity with FIMIX-PLS: Which Model Selec-tion Criterion Provides an Appropriate Number of Segments? Schmalenbach Business Review 63(1): 34–62Google Scholar
  105. Sarstedt M, Ringle C M (2010) Treating unobserved heterogeneity in PLS path modeling: a comparison of FIMIX-PLS with different data analysis strategies. Journal of Applied Statistics 37(8): 1299–1318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Schedler K, Proeller I (2006) New Public Management. 2. Auflage, UTB, Bern/Stuttgart/WienGoogle Scholar
  107. Schwarting G (2009) Haushaltsausgleich im Sinne der intergenerativen Gerech-tigkeit – Doppik zwischen Nachhaltigkeit und Generationengerechtigkeit. In-novative Verwaltung Sonderausgabe 2/2009: 5–6Google Scholar
  108. Spraul K, Scheefer A, Helmig B, Eckstein B (2012) Doppik und Produkthaus-halte als Instrument strategischen Managements in Kommunen – Eine verglei-chende Fallstudie. Zeitschrift für Betriebswirtschaft (forthcoming)Google Scholar
  109. ter Bogt H J (2008) Management Accounting Chance And New Public Man-agement In Local Government: A Reassessment Of Ambitions And Results – An Institutionalist Approach To Accounting Change In The Dutch Public Sector. Financial Accountability and Management 24(3): 209–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. The Congressional Budget Office (2007) Comparing Budget and Accounting Measures of the Federal Government’s Fiscal Condition. OECD Journal on Budgeting 7(1): 7–27Google Scholar
  111. Thieme W (2008) Kaufmännische Buchführung in der öffentlichen Verwaltung? DÖV 61(11): 433–441Google Scholar
  112. Torres L (2004) Accounting and Accountability: Recent Developments in Government Financial Information Systems. Public Administration and Development 24(5): 447–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. van der Hoek M P (2005) From Cash to Accrual Budgeting and Accounting in the Public Sector: The Dutch Experience. Public Budgeting and Finance 25(1): 32–45Google Scholar
  114. Van Dooren W, Van de Walle S (2008) Performance Information in the Public Sector – How it is Used. Palgrave Macmillan, HampshireGoogle Scholar
  115. Vinnari E M, Näsi S (2008) Creative Accrual Accounting in the Public Sector: Milking Water Utilities To Balance Municipal Budgets and Accounts. Finan-cial Accountability and Management 24(2): 97–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Werts C E, Linn R L, Jöreskog K G (1974) Interclass reliability estimates: Testing structural assumptions. Educational and Psychological Measurement 34: 25–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Wold H (1982) Soft modeling: The basic design and some extensions. In Jöreskog K G, Wold H (Eds) Systems under indirect observations: Part II. North-Holland, Amsterdam: 1–54Google Scholar
  118. Wynne A (2004) Is the move to accrual based accounting a real priority for pub-lic sector accounting? In ACCA (Ed) A century of innovation and responsibil-ity in accounting 1904-2004. ACCA, London: 1–30Google Scholar
  119. Zaltsman A (2009) The Effects of Performance Information on Public Resource Allocations: A Study of Chile’s Performance Based Budgeting System. International Public Management Journal 12(4): 450–483CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.HamburgDeutschland

Personalised recommendations