Introduction: Organizational change, management reform and EU policy-making

Bauer, Michael W.

doi:10.1080/13501760802133138

Cited by 23 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 50 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Grantham 2001;Erakovic and Powell 2006;Kavanagh and Ashkanasy 2006) or to EU reforms in particular (e.g. Bauer 2008;Schout 2009). In most cases, these changes are described in terms of the content of the reform or policy change.…”

Section: Contentmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Management of Change in Public Organizations: A Literature Review

Kuipers

Higgs

Kickert

et al. 2013

Public Administration

363

367

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article presents a review of the recent literature on change management in public organizations and sets out to explore the extent to which this literature has responded to earlier critiques regarding the lack of (public) contextual factors. The review includes 133 articles published on this topic in the period from 2000 to 2010. The articles are analysed based on the themes of the context, content, process, outcome, and leadership of change. We identified whether the articles referred to different orders of change, as well as their methods and theory employed. Our findings concentrate on the lack of detail on change processes and outcomes and the gap between the common theories used to study change. We propose an agenda for the study of change management in public organizations that focuses on its complex nature by building theoretical bridges and performing more in‐depth empirical and comparative studies on change processes.

show abstract

Section: Contentmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Management of Change in Public Organizations: A Literature Review

Kuipers

Higgs

Kickert

et al. 2013

Public Administration

363

367

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Similarly, Christiansen and Vanhoonacker (2008) have outlined from a historical institutionalist perspective how the Council Secretariat has been split between 'old' sections that fulfil secretarial tasks and 'new' sections that constitute the EU's foreign policy machinery. But when it comes to analysing the day-to-day administrative performance of EU institutions and related management reforms scholars focus almost exclusively on the European Commission (Bauer 2008).…”

Section: Researching Administrative Infrastructures For Civilian Crismentioning

confidence: 99%

The Case for a Public Administration Turn in the Study of the Eu's Civilian Crisis Management

Bossong¹,

Benner²

2010

Journal of European Public Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This contribution argues for extending the public administration turn in EU studies to the civilian Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP). First it delineates the research gap with regard to governance networks and sections of the Council Secretariat that fulfil executive and operational management responsibilities for civilian crisis management. Then it highlights the need to look at cognitive factors, such as bounded rationality and learning, in explaining organizational behaviour and change in civilian CSDP. Such a research agenda on the everyday working of the bureaucratic level in EU civilian crisis management would also allow more comparative analyses on administrative processes and reforms in international organizations in the context of multidimensional peace operations.

show abstract

“…In this stance, ECP was initially launched as a 'socio-economic cohesion' vehicle, and not as a 'growth and investment' funding policy. Notwithstanding, since then, ECP went through significant changes, in its strategic, management, control and audit approaches (Bauer, 2008;Davies & Polverari, 2011;Kassim, 2008).…”

Section: Growth or Cohesion? A Reflection On The True Purpose(s) Of Ecpmentioning

confidence: 99%

From smart growth to European spatial planning: a new paradigm for EU cohesion policy post-2020

Medeiros

2017

European Planning Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Formally initiated in 1989, European Union (EU) cohesion policy (ECP) has since passed through a series of metamorphoses, along its five programming periods, while becoming the most financed EU policy. As its name indicates, its initial goals were earmarked for promoting economic and social cohesion, following the intentions expressed in the Single European Act. Since then, from a policy strategy intervention point of view, ECP has shifted into a financial tool to promote investment for growth and jobs. In the meantime, European spatial planning (ESP), which had its debating pinnacle with the release of the European Spatial Development Perspective, by 1999, has declined in interest and narrowed into a novel notion of Territorial Cohesion. In this challenging context, this article analyses the implementation and main impacts of ECP and proposes a new strategic paradigm, built around a novel 'ESP' vision, backed by the main pillars and dimensions of territorial development and cohesion. More particularly, we suggest that the current rationale for a smart, sustainable and inclusive growth could instead fuel an alternative strategic design based on a cohesive and sustainable development vision: green economy, balanced territory, good governance and social cohesion. ARTICLE HISTORY

show abstract

Introduction: Organizational change, management reform and EU policy-making

Cited by 23 publications

References 50 publications

The Management of Change in Public Organizations: A Literature Review

The Management of Change in Public Organizations: A Literature Review

The Case for a Public Administration Turn in the Study of the Eu's Civilian Crisis Management

From smart growth to European spatial planning: a new paradigm for EU cohesion policy post-2020

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About