1. ZHAW digitalcollection
  2. School of Management and Law
  3. Publikationen
  4. Publikationen School of Management and Law
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorBach, Tobias-
dc.contributor.authorvan Thiel, Sandra-
dc.contributor.authorHammerschmid, Gerhard-
dc.contributor.authorSteiner, Reto-
dc.date.accessioned2018-11-09T16:31:11Z-
dc.date.available2018-11-09T16:31:11Z-
dc.date.issued2017-
dc.identifier.issn1471-9037de_CH
dc.identifier.issn1471-9045de_CH
dc.identifier.urihttps://digitalcollection.zhaw.ch/handle/11475/12741-
dc.description.abstractThis article investigates perceived accountability patterns of national agencies’chief executives in four countries with a Rechtsstaat tradition and tests theoretical expectations about potential tensions between managerial reforms and administrative values using survey data (N=453). All countries combine old and new forms of accountability requirements, while legal and financial accountability have not been replaced with results accountability. Switzerland and the Netherlands score highest on results accountability, though in combination with legal and financial accountability, which are dominant in Germany and Austria. Nation-specific characteristics seem more important for core values of public administration than generic characteristics of the Rechtsstaat model.de_CH
dc.language.isoende_CH
dc.publisherTaylor & Francisde_CH
dc.relation.ispartofPublic Management Reviewde_CH
dc.rightsLicence according to publishing contractde_CH
dc.subject.ddc350: Öffentliche Verwaltungde_CH
dc.titleAdministrative tradition and management reforms : a comparison of agency chief executive accountability in four continental Rechtsstaat countriesde_CH
dc.typeBeitrag in wissenschaftlicher Zeitschriftde_CH
dcterms.typeTextde_CH
zhaw.departementSchool of Management and Lawde_CH
dc.identifier.doi10.1080/14719037.2016.1210205de_CH
zhaw.funding.euNode_CH
zhaw.issue6de_CH
zhaw.originated.zhawNode_CH
zhaw.pages.end784de_CH
zhaw.pages.start765de_CH
zhaw.publication.statuspublishedVersionde_CH
zhaw.volume19de_CH
zhaw.publication.reviewPeer review (Publikation)de_CH
Appears in collections:Publikationen School of Management and Law

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
Show simple item record
Bach, T., van Thiel, S., Hammerschmid, G., & Steiner, R. (2017). Administrative tradition and management reforms : a comparison of agency chief executive accountability in four continental Rechtsstaat countries. Public Management Review, 19(6), 765–784. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2016.1210205
Bach, T. et al. (2017) ‘Administrative tradition and management reforms : a comparison of agency chief executive accountability in four continental Rechtsstaat countries’, Public Management Review, 19(6), pp. 765–784. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2016.1210205.
T. Bach, S. van Thiel, G. Hammerschmid, and R. Steiner, “Administrative tradition and management reforms : a comparison of agency chief executive accountability in four continental Rechtsstaat countries,” Public Management Review, vol. 19, no. 6, pp. 765–784, 2017, doi: 10.1080/14719037.2016.1210205.
BACH, Tobias, Sandra VAN THIEL, Gerhard HAMMERSCHMID und Reto STEINER, 2017. Administrative tradition and management reforms : a comparison of agency chief executive accountability in four continental Rechtsstaat countries. Public Management Review. 2017. Bd. 19, Nr. 6, S. 765–784. DOI 10.1080/14719037.2016.1210205
Bach, Tobias, Sandra van Thiel, Gerhard Hammerschmid, and Reto Steiner. 2017. “Administrative Tradition and Management Reforms : A Comparison of Agency Chief Executive Accountability in Four Continental Rechtsstaat Countries.” Public Management Review 19 (6): 765–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2016.1210205.
Bach, Tobias, et al. “Administrative Tradition and Management Reforms : A Comparison of Agency Chief Executive Accountability in Four Continental Rechtsstaat Countries.” Public Management Review, vol. 19, no. 6, 2017, pp. 765–84, https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2016.1210205.


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.