HOW TO SUBMIT A PAPER PROPOSAL TO ONE OF THE SOG PANELS AT IPSA CONGRESS 2014

1) Step 1 – Submit a paper proposal to the SOG panel organizers – Deadline: September 29

If you want to make a paper proposal in one of these panels, please send directly a paper proposal to the panel organizers (the covener, chair and co-chair of these panels) before September, 29 2013 with the mention ‘SOG Paper proposal’. The emails of the panel organizers are attached document.

Paper abstracts must not exceed 1500 characters (approximately 250 words). Please do not include references or bibliographical notes in the abstract text.

Between September 29 and October 1, SOG Panel organisers will make the selection of papers for their own panels and will send you an acceptation/rejection message.

Panels require a minimum of four (4) accepted papers to be accepted in the Program. Panels cannot exceed six (6) accepted papers.

Please note that participants to the IPSA Congress and the SOG panels will have to be SOG and IPSA members

2) Step 2: After acceptance by panel organisers, individual submission of paper proposals online – Deadline: 0ctober, 7, 2013

If your paper proposal is accepted by the SOG panel organizers, you will be asked to submit online by the convener.

Each abstract/paper presented in the panel needs to be submitted individually by the paper author. The panel convener will be able to send an invitation to paper submitters to submit their paper directly to the panel.

The deadline for the panel submission (by convener) and the individual paper submission is October, 7 2013.

SOG (RC27) Panels IPSA World Congress – Montreal, Québec, Canada July 19-24, 2014

1 - Panel 1 - Organizing for internal security and crisis management Covener/Chair Professor Per Lægreid, University of Bergen (per.lagreid@aorg.uib.no) Co-Chair: Professor Arjen Boin, Utrecht University (a.boin@uu.nl) Discussant: Professor Chris Ansell, University of California at Berkeley Issues of internal security and crisis management present policymakers and politicians with ‘wicked’ challenges. The contemporary crisis crosses geographical borders and policy areas with ease, requiring administrative levels to cooperate in real time. There are no obvious or easy solutions, as the “transboundary crisis” defies existing patterns of organization and management. These crises expose the mismatch between problem characteristics and organizational structures. The long-standing specializations of the public sector apparatus are rarely fit to handle complex societal challenges that transboundary crises bring to crisis managers. These crises require increased emphasis on inter- organizational coordination, whole-of-government and joint-up-government solutions involving transboundary collaboration in a multi-level governance context. This panel will examine both the required and available governance capacity to respond to large-scale, complex and increasingly transboundary crises. We invite papers that study and compare existing, emerging and innovative organizational arrangements to handle issues of internal security and crisis management. Papers on policy development, organizational principles, coordination practices, and administrative reforms in this area are welcomed as well as case studies of effective crisis management. Other relevant topics might include crisis communication, societal resilience, and the politics of crisis management, accountability and learning. Relevant questions are: What kind of coordinating practices exists or have emerged in different countries? What constraining and enabling factors influence the functioning of the organizational arrangements? What are the perceived effects and implications of the different arrangements? How can we understand the emergence, practice and effects of different arrangements?  We are also interested in papers that discuss the legitimacy of emerging crisis management arrangements. Individual rights, such as freedom of expression, religion, mobility, assembly and privacy are among the most important political values in a democratic society. However, these rights may well conflict situational imperatives of security, especially during times of national threat and crisis. How responsive are public authorities to citizen demands in this area? Do citizens trust government in general, and crisis management authorities in particular, when it comes to preventing and handling crisis? Does it matter if one starts from a high trust or a low trust context when a crisis happens? Papers can be descriptive or explanatory, but they should have a clear conceptual and theoretical basis and meet the normal methodological standards for academic research. Comparative papers (across time, countries, government levels or policy sectors) are particularly welcomed.

2 – Panel 2: The reciprocal influence of policies and administrative networks Panel proposal for a Joint Panel of RC 27 and RC 30 Convener/Chair Dr. Eva Ruffing, University of Hannover (e.ruffing@ipw.uni‐hannover.de) Co‐Chair: Jun.‐Prof. Dr. Eva Heidbreder, University of Düsseldorf (eva.heidbreder@hhu.de) Discussant: Prof. Dr. Per Lægreid, University of Bergen (per.lagreid@aorg.uib.no) Policy coordination is widely described as a form of network governance. Accordingly, the deepening of European integration in specific policy domains goes hand in hand with the creation or strengthening of networks, staffed with national administrative actors. Network governance takes various forms and spans from the invention of Comitology in the agricultural sector in the 1960s to the so‐called third wave of agencification in more recent years. These networks become important players in their respective policy domains, influencing decision‐making and implementation and even their own institutional development. Empirically, networks show a great deal of variance with regard to their specific design, their degree of institutionalization and the amount of influence they can exert on policy‐making. However, we lack profound knowledge on the determining factors of this variance. The aim of this panel is twofold. On the one hand, we ask why networks take a specific design. On the other hand, we want to know how specific network features produce particular policies and why some networks are more influential than others. To investigate into the design and effect of different types of EU network governance, we welcome papers which conceptualize networks as dependent as well as as independent variable.

3 - Panel 3 – Administrators at the Top:Recruitment Patterns, Career Paths, and Role Perceptions of Senior Bureaucrats Convener: Eckhard Schroeter (Zeppelin University, Germany): eckhard.schroeter@zu.de Chair: Sylvia Veit (University of Bamberg, Germany): sylvia.veit@uni-bamberg.de Co-Chair: John Halligan (ANZOGS Institute for Governance, University of Canberra, Australia), john.halligan@canberra.edu.au Discussant: Bert Rockman (Purdue University, USA): barockma@purdue.edu The proposed panel is designed to shed light on top administrators in central government departments and how they respond to current challenges. In doing so, the panel shifts attention to a core theme in the field of comparative public administration. It acknowledges, first, the pivotal role of the core executive in political and administrative decision-making, and, second, the subjective dimension of professional socialization, individual job-related value patterns and role understandings of higher civil servants as a crucial factor in shaping these decision-making processes. While much research effort has been invested in analyzing the changing organizational architecture of government, this panel seeks to explore how members of the administrative elite respond to these changes at the individual level. Senior officials in central government departments find themselves – in times of fiscal austerity – under considerable pressure to adapt to a series of far-reaching challenges including managerialist reform trends; increased demands on expert knowledge for public policy making; challenges of the digital era leading to new demands, including calls for transparency and ‘open government’. The socio- political habitat of central government bureaucracies also serves as a constant source of new challenges, calling, for example, for greater diversity of the administrative elite. In particular, political pressures on the senior civil service have grown in many countries in recent year. Finally, trends of regional integration (most notably in the case of the European Union) and challenges of global governance may also trigger substantial change in the way how leading national administrators are selected, recruited, and trained, and how they perceive of their jobs and policy-making roles. Against this background, the panel is geared to explore the extent to which the patterns of professional socialization of top administrators, their competencies, and role perceptions have or have not been affected by those current trends and challenges and, in turn, how senior civil service identities and competencies impact on public policy making.

 4 - Panel 4 - Analyzing international transfers from the inside. Public administration reforms in post-communist Europe Covener/Chair : Magdaléna Hadjiisky (magdalena.hadjiisky@misha.fr) Co-chair: Valérie Lozac’h (valerie.lozach@misha.fr) Senior Lecturers in Political Science, University of Strasbourg, Institute of Political Studies - Members of the UMR CNRS SAGE (Sociétés, Acteurs et Gouvernement en Europe), France Discussant: Leslie A. Pal, Professor of Public Policy and Administration, Carleton University, Canada Abstract: How should we analyze the reception of international transfers at the domestic level? The dissemination of public administration standards has expanded considerably since the 1990s. Instead of describing international transfers as mere reproductions of ‘one-size-fits-all’ models, recent scholarly literature has focused on the contextualization of these processes. In this respect, our panel aims at analyzing the international transfer of public administration standards from the domestic point of view. This issue raises both empirical and theoretical questions. What is the role played by international actors in the reform processes of state public administrations? Do they try to adapt their methods to the context of the countries concerned? How do the domestic actors (civil servants, politicians, citizens, firms) react and act? What kinds of interconnections develop between international and domestic actors, and what effects do they yield? Our panel proposes a comparative analysis, focused on post-communist European countries, which have experienced radical changes in the perimeters of state intervention as well as reforms of their centrally planned bureaucracies. The whole region has seen intense activity from diverse international experts and organisations (IMF, WB, OECD, EU, INGOs, etc.), whose modalities and effects haven’t been sufficiently studied yet. The papers will aim at exploring one or both of the two faces of the same process: how do international actors produce and promote (and possibly adapt) international standards in the post- communist context?; how do domestic actors include these standards in their reform strategies (“translation”, “interpretation”, rejection, oversight)? What are the different strategies and instrumentations triggered by external pressure at the local level?

5 - Panel 5 – Greasy poles towards queasy roles? The politics of selection at the top of ministerial bureaucracies Convenor/Chair : Julia Fleischer (University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands) (J.Fleischer@uva.nl) Co-Chair: Matthew Kerby (University of Ottawa, Canada) Matthew.Kerby@uottawa.ca Discussant: Laurenz Ennser-Jedenastik (University of Vienna) l.ennser-jedenastik@fsw.leidenuniv.nl One of the truisms in public administration research is the key role of senior civil servants in governmental policy-making due to their 'bottleneck function' between political requirements and bureaucratic expertise. An increasing scholarly interest in the politics of bureaucratic elite selection suggests that not only their individual characteristics and previous expertise is relevant for their capabilities in managing the politics-administration nexus, but also their partisan backgrounds, i.e. cabinet ministers influence increasingly the recruitment of top officials, also in order to enhance their (party-)political control over a seemingly less obedient bureaucracy. This panel aims to uncover these crucial dynamics between political and administrative elites with a special emphasis on the career patterns of these key officeholders at the top of ministerial bureaucracies. It seeks to move the traditional public administration debate on their interactions and mutual role perceptions one step further towards a closer assessment of the interactions and dynamics in their career patterns in order to study their arguably changing capabilities and consequently changing roles in executive politics across countries, state levels, and time. It invites papers studying the interactions and repercussions of career patterns of political elites (i.e. ministers) and non- political elites (senior officials, agency heads etc.), e.g. with regard to their selection, de-selection, tenure or turnover, also from a comparative perspective. In addition, it highly welcomes papers exploring new theoretical avenues for studying (repercussions of) political and administrative careers, e.g. from political sociology or personnel economics, and/or new methods such as QCA or sequence analysis. 

6 - Panel 6 - The Moral and Ethical Implications of Transformed Accountability Relationships in Contemporary Administrative Welfare Reforms Convener/Chair: Therese Feiler (therese.feiler@exeter.ox.ac.uk) Co-chair: Mahima Mitra (mahima.mitra@exeter.ox.ac.uk) Discussant: Paola Mattei (paola.mattei@sant.ox.ac.uk) Reforms consist of social movements that represent a vision of what ought to be. Hence, this interdisciplinary panel investigates the moral and ethical implications of contemporary welfare state reforms. We are interested in New Public Management reforms in sectors such as the healthcare system, labour administration and public education. Some routes of enquiry may include: 1.) The intellectual history, norms, and systematic dissemination of NPM. Papers may touch upon questions such as: what are the convictions, principles and normative roots of NPM reforms? How do they play out in concrete cases? What are alternatives they exclude? To whom and why have NPM ideas been attractive? How do NPM reforms impinge upon relationships and conceptions of well-being? 2.) Normative presuppositions of theoretical analysis. Papers may investigate the normative implications of analytical frameworks applied to NPM, e.g. concepts of democracy, accountability or political representation. What do these frameworks imply? Are there alternative frameworks that may enhance the understanding and analysis of reforms? Authors may critically investigate the practical tasks or political responsibilities of social scientists, or the theoretical relationship between the normative and the factual, using illustrative case studies from their areas of expertise. 3.) The ethics of inter-personal relationships in administrative welfare state reforms. Authors may look at questions such as: How do welfare state reforms relate to what may be perceived as intrinsically moral relationships, e.g. between doctor/patient; student/teacher? How do organisational structures embody these relationships? Are these relationships transformed, and if yes, how?

7 - Panel 7 - The effects of delegation on bureaucratic influence over policy making Convenor/Chair: Tobias Bach, Leibniz Universität Hannover (bach@ipw.uni-hannover.de) Co-chair: Kutsal Yesilkagit, Utrecht University (A.K.Yesilkagit@uu.nl) Discussant: Martin Lodge, London School of Economic and Political Science, (m.lodge@lse.ac.uk) There is little doubt that delegation to agencies has changed the ways in which modern governments operate. The panel addresses how agencification has changed the influence of bureaucrats over policy making. There is now a growing body of literature which suggests that agencies have an increasingly important role in policy-making due to increasing information asymmetries among ministries and agencies, a loss of policy-making competencies among ministerial bureaucrats, and poor feedback about the actual implementation of policies. In technically complex policy areas, boundaries between policy and implementation are becoming increasingly blurred. Independent regulatory agencies are faced with the task of an impartial treatment of their regulatees, which usually implies substantive rule-making. Another explanation is that politicians and ministerial bureaucrats lose their interest in agency task after delegation and leave these bodies to their own devices. Many agencies also participate in transnational bureaucratic networks in which national agency representatives develop common standards and “best practices” which guide policy implementation in the national context. The panel welcomes empirical and theoretical papers which address the policy making role of agencies. This includes comparative studies on agency policy autonomy (over time, across sectors, across countries), the role of policy experts within agencies, and the blurring line between policy and execution. 

8 – Panel 8 - The Study of the Structure of Government: A Field in Search of a New Agenda? Convenor: Philippe Bezes, CNRS, CERSA (bezes@hotmail.com) Chair: Martin Lodge, London School of Economic and Political Science, (m.lodge@lse.ac.uk) Co-chair: Philippe Bezes, National Center for Scientific Research, CERSA Discussant: Kutsal Yesilkagit, Utrecht University (A.K.Yesilkagit@uu.nl) The study of the structure of government is characterised by three key approaches: one focuses on arguments about changing paradigms that shape the organisation of executives; a second is the generation of case studies of reforms ; and a third centres around particular broad processes or outcomes, such as agencification, co-ordination or politicisation. The result has been a disconnected dispersion of knowledge about the state and its transformations. This panel addresses this state of affairs and invites contributions that seek to develop mid-range approaches to the study of the structure of government. Papers should seek to develop perspectives that connect these separate developments so as to provide for a more comprehensive understanding of the changing nature of the state. This panel invites papers that offer theoretically informed comparative perspectives on, for example: - the link between executive politics and changes in the organisation and instruments of government ; - the contrasts between long-term trajectories and short-term changes; - the differential impact of reforms on different levels of government and types of organisation and the effects of these reforms on interdependent relationships; - the interaction between reform dynamics, such as between agencification and co-ordination. - the link between changes in public policies, state capacities and organizational reforms.