Interest groups in multiple streams:specifying their involvement in the framework

Although interests inhabit a central place in the multiple streams framework (MSF), interest groups have played only a minor role in theoretical and empirical studies until now. In Kingdon’s original conception, organized interests are a key variable in the politics stream. Revisiting Kingdon’s concept with a particular focus on interest groups and their activities—in different streams and at various levels—in the policy process, we take this argument further. In particular, we argue that specifying groups’ roles in other streams adds value to the explanatory power of the framework. To do this, we look at how interest groups affect problems, policies, and politics. The influence of interest groups within the streams is explained by linking the MSF with literature on interest intermediation. We show that depending on the number of conditions and their activity level, interest groups can be involved in all three streams. We illustrate this in case studies reviewing labor market policies in Germany and chemicals regulation at the European level

Organisationskultur. Eine Konkretisierung aus systemtheoretischer Perspektive

Kühl S. Organisationskultur. Eine Konkretisierung aus systemtheoretischer Perspektive. Managementforschung. 2018;28(1):7-35.Die Bestimmung des Verhältnisses von Informalität und Organisationskultur bereitet in der Organisationstheorie Schwierigkeiten. Das liegt daran, dass der Begriff Informalität häufig stillschweigend durch den Begriff der Organisationskultur ersetzt wurde, ohne dass dafür eine präzise, abgrenzungsscharfe Definition vorgenommen worden wäre. Unter Rückgriff auf Überlegungen von Dario Rodríguez argumentiert dieser Artikel, dass die beiden Begriffe Organisationskultur und Informalität das gleiche Phänomen bezeichnen: die nichtentschiedenen Entscheidungsprämissen einer Organisation. Dabei wird systematisch zwischen „unentscheidbaren Entscheidungsprämissen“ und „prinzipiell entscheidbaren, aber nicht entschiedenen Entscheidungsprämissen“ unterschieden. Es wird gezeigt, wie sich mit einer präzisen Bestimmung über das Konzept der Entscheidungsprämissen Ordnung in die „wilden Merkmallisten“ der Literatur sowohl über Informalität als auch Organisationskultur bringen lässt und empirische Phänomene genauer erfasst werden können

Germany : the public-private dichotomy in the Bismarckian welfare regime

The German welfare state has undergone fundamental reforms over the past three decades. Since the early 1980s, various governments changed the programmatic contours of German social policies. Beyond the question of how various national governments could push through these reforms under the conditions of federalism, divided government ( jointdecision trap ; Scharpf 1988, 2006), corporatism and increasing party competition, this chapter focuses on the changing contours of the public-private mix in health and pension policies. The argument of this chapter is that privatization, understood as a risk shift (Hacker 2004, 2006), has taken place in the German welfare state. However, because this welfare state was, and largely remains, a highly interwoven social insurance state in which the state and social partners (for example, labor and business organizations) coincidentally finance and regulate important welfare programs, these reforms do not imply that the federal government lost its prominent role in social policy. Rather, the national government still strongly regulates benefits, contributions, and other programmatic features of public and private social policies