Bundeskompetenzen im Bevölkerungsschutz

Pohlmann, Kristine

doi:10.1007/978-3-658-02200-6_13

Cited by 5 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Despite the increasing awareness of infrastructure vulnerabilities and national policy developments, the incumbent institutional set-up in crisis management has, however, mostly remained intact. In the German federal system, the responsibilities in the socalled Bevo¨lkerungsschutz (equivalent to 'civil protection') are distributed between various levels of government (Pohlmann, 2015). While the national government holds key responsibilities for civil defense against military actions (Zivilschutz), a total of 16 La¨nder (federal states) share the responsibilities for security in peacetime as part of the so-called Katastrophenschutz (best translated as 'crisis management').…”

Section: Institutional Arrangements In the Governance Of Critical Infrastructures In Germanymentioning

confidence: 99%

Urban resilience in the making? The governance of critical infrastructures in German cities

Monstadt

Schmidt

2019

Urban Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over the last decade, the protection of urban infrastructures has become a focus in German security policies. These point not solely to the multiple external infrastructural threats (e.g. natural disasters, terrorist and cyber-attacks), but also to the endogenous risks of cascading failures across geographical and functional borders that arise from interlocking and often mutually dependent infrastructures. As geographical nodes in infrastructurally mediated flows, cities are considered to be particularly vulnerable to infrastructure breakdowns. Their capability to prevent and to prepare for infrastructural failures, and thus to manage infrastructural interdependencies, is seen as a major prerequisite for resilient societies. However, as our article demonstrates, the institutional capacity of the local authorities and utility companies for risk mitigation and preparedness is limited. Drawing on qualitative research in selected German cities, we argue that the governance of critical infrastructures involves considerable challenges: it overarches different, often fragmented, policy domains and territories and institutionally unbundled utility (sub-) domains. Moreover, risk mitigation and preparedness are usually not based on experience from past events, but on destructive scenarios. They involve considerable uncertainty and contestations among local decision-makers. Interviews with local experts indicate that effective governance of critical infrastructures requires more regulatory efforts by national policies. At the same time, they point to the need for identifying and assessing place-based vulnerabilities, for defining locally differentiated mitigation and preparedness strategies and for the training of local utility companies as well as crisis management.

show abstract

Section: Institutional Arrangements In the Governance Of Critical Infrastructures In Germanymentioning

confidence: 99%

Urban resilience in the making? The governance of critical infrastructures in German cities

Monstadt

Schmidt

2019

Urban Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The German Basic Law does not provide for the centralisation of authority in the case of an emergency. In contrast, emergency management is a competency of the Länder (Pohlmann, 2013: 252). Pandemic management as part of health policy is part of concurrent legislation under Article 74 para 1 no 19 of the German Basic Law.…”

Section: Germanymentioning

confidence: 99%

Decentralisation in Times of Crisis: Asset Or Liability? The Case of Germany and Italy During Covid‐19

Kuhn

Morlino

2021

Swiss Political Sci Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How did the legal and political‐administrative relationship between central and local governments of two decentralised states shape their response to COVID‐19? Literature and theories on decentralisation argue that federal and decentralised states are less able to respond to crises in a coordinated manner due to their perceived greater susceptibility to political conflict. Situated within this theoretical debate and based on the analysis of legal acts, political decisions, and relevant national news media articles between March and August 2020 in Germany and Italy, this research note shows that, counterintuitively, more decentralisation does not necessarily translate into more legal and political stress during pandemic management. In responding to the COVID‐19 pandemic, Germany, a highly decentralised state, experienced less legal and political tensions than the less decentralised Italy. The key to understanding this variation lies in different institutional arrangements, complemented by the specific political cultures of both states.

show abstract

Künstliche Intelligenz im Bevölkerungsschutz: Potenziale und Risiken

Kessler¹

2022

Politisches Krisenmanagement

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bundeskompetenzen im Bevölkerungsschutz

Cited by 5 publications

References 8 publications

Urban resilience in the making? The governance of critical infrastructures in German cities

Urban resilience in the making? The governance of critical infrastructures in German cities

Decentralisation in Times of Crisis: Asset Or Liability? The Case of Germany and Italy During Covid‐19

Künstliche Intelligenz im Bevölkerungsschutz: Potenziale und Risiken

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About