Fink, Simon

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","2"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","Der moderne Staat"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","15"],["dc.contributor.author","Fink, Simon"],["dc.contributor.author","Ruffing, Eva"],["dc.contributor.author","Lüken genannt Klaßen, Hermann"],["dc.contributor.author","Maschlanka, Luisa"],["dc.date.accessioned","2022-12-19T08:08:08Z"],["dc.date.available","2022-12-19T08:08:08Z"],["dc.date.issued","2022"],["dc.identifier.doi","10.3224/dms.v15i2.10"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/118876"],["dc.relation.issn","2196-1395"],["dc.title","Konflikte und Handlungsspielraum von Akteuren in der Implementation europäischer Energiemarktrichtlinien–Das Beispiel Sicherheit der Stromnetze"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.firstpage","587"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","4"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","Journal of Public Policy"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.lastpage","608"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","39"],["dc.contributor.author","Fink, Simon"],["dc.contributor.author","Ruffing, Eva"],["dc.date.accessioned","2020-12-10T15:22:18Z"],["dc.date.available","2020-12-10T15:22:18Z"],["dc.date.issued","2018"],["dc.description.abstract","For decades, political scientists have observed the diffusion of complex governance arrangements including public participation procedures to ameliorate the democratic deficit inherent in these often-opaque structures. This article asks how the information provided in consultation statements is used by the consulting actors. To account for the multi-step character, the article combines exchange theory with a principal-agent approach, acknowledging that several actors in a delegation chain might be interested in the provided information. We use a typical case of a multi-step procedure – participation in German grid development – to test both theories. Neither the private firms nor the regulator use information provided in their own consultations, contradicting exchange theory. But the regulator considers ecological submissions made in the firms’ consultation, as the principal-agent approach suggests. Thus, a principal-agent approach allows us to find influence of consultation statements that exchange theory cannot detect."],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1017/S0143814X1800020X"],["dc.identifier.eissn","1469-7815"],["dc.identifier.issn","0143-814X"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/73345"],["dc.language.iso","en"],["dc.notes.intern","DOI Import GROB-354"],["dc.relatedmaterial.data","https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=doi:10.7910/DVN/ELYTJ3"],["dc.relation.orgunit","Sozialwissenschaftliche Fakultät"],["dc.relation.orgunit","Institut für Politikwissenschaft"],["dc.relation.orgunit","Arbeitsbereich Politisches System der BRD"],["dc.title","Going beyond dyadic consultation relationships: information exchange in multi-step participation procedures"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dc.type.subtype","original_ja"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.firstpage","101065"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","Utilities Policy"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","65"],["dc.contributor.author","Fink, Simon"],["dc.contributor.author","Ruffing, Eva"],["dc.date.accessioned","2021-04-14T08:24:34Z"],["dc.date.available","2021-04-14T08:24:34Z"],["dc.date.issued","2020"],["dc.description.abstract","Public participation has become a conditio sine qua non when planning infrastructure projects. However, current research is concerned with one-time experiments and can not elucidate long-term effects of iterated consultations. Our argument is that consultations have learning effects over time. We test our argument using the German procedure for electricity grid demand planning as a case. Using dictionary coding and a quantitative analysis, supplemented by a qualitative text analysis, we show that participants get better in framing their contributions by using the “right” keywords. Hence, consultations evolve over time and improve in terms of the output legitimacy they generate."],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1016/j.jup.2020.101065"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/81339"],["dc.language.iso","en"],["dc.notes.intern","DOI Import GROB-399"],["dc.relation.issn","0957-1787"],["dc.relation.orgunit","Sozialwissenschaftliche Fakultät"],["dc.relation.orgunit","Institut für Politikwissenschaft"],["dc.relation.orgunit","Arbeitsbereich Politisches System der BRD"],["dc.title","Learning in iterated consultation procedures – The example of the German electricity grid demand planning"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dc.type.subtype","original_ja"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.firstpage","199"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","3"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","Interest Groups & Advocacy"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.lastpage","220"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","10"],["dc.contributor.author","Fink, Simon"],["dc.contributor.author","Ruffing, Eva"],["dc.contributor.author","Burst, Tobias"],["dc.contributor.author","Chinnow, Sara Katharina"],["dc.date.accessioned","2021-10-13T05:48:50Z"],["dc.date.available","2021-10-13T05:48:50Z"],["dc.date.issued","2021"],["dc.description.abstract","Consultations are thought to increase the legitimacy of policies. However, this reasoning only holds if stakeholders really participate in the consultations. Current scholarship offers three explanations for participation patterns: Institutional rules, policy characteristics, and interest group resources determine participation. This article argues that additionally the linguistic complexity of consultation documents influences participation. Complex language deters potential participants, because it raises the costs of participation. A quantitative analysis of the German consultation of electricity grids lends credibility to the argument: If the description of a power line is simplified between two consultation rounds, the number of contributions mentioning that power line increases. This result contributes to our understanding of unequal participation patterns, and the institutional design of participatory procedures. If we think that legitimacy is enhanced by broad participation, then language of the documents matters."],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1057/s41309-021-00123-2"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/90825"],["dc.language.iso","en"],["dc.relation.issn","2047-7414"],["dc.relation.issn","2047-7422"],["dc.relation.orgunit","Sozialwissenschaftliche Fakultät"],["dc.relation.orgunit","Institut für Politikwissenschaft"],["dc.relation.orgunit","Arbeitsbereich Politisches System der BRD"],["dc.rights","CC BY 4.0"],["dc.title","Less complex language, more participation: how consultation documents shape participatory patterns"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dc.type.subtype","original_ja"],["dc.type.version","published_version"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.firstpage","274"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","2"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","European policy analysis"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.lastpage","294"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","3"],["dc.contributor.author","Fink, Simon"],["dc.contributor.author","Ruffing, Eva"],["dc.date.accessioned","2021-10-21T07:21:12Z"],["dc.date.available","2021-10-21T07:21:12Z"],["dc.date.issued","2017"],["dc.description.abstract","The building of electricity grids is a major challenge of infrastructure planning. According to Directive 2009/72/EU, “ten-year network development plans” outline which grids are to be built. Regulatory agencies have to consult “actual or potential system users” on these plans. However, Germany exceeds these requirements and conducts three rounds of full-fledged public participation. Using rational choice and sociological institutionalism, this article argues that the over-implementation of Directive 2009/72/EU is due to two causes: First, the old German corporatist system of grid planning was dysfunctional. Second, there was a major discourse on public participation following the contentious railway project “Stuttgart 21.” The domestic implementation of Directive 2009/72/EU then opened a window of opportunity for advocates of public participation to implement their preferences. A comparison with France corroborates the argument that both conditions must be fulfilled to cause a major reform."],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1002/epa2.1026"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/91108"],["dc.relation.issn","2380-6567"],["dc.relation.orgunit","Sozialwissenschaftliche Fakultät"],["dc.relation.orgunit","Institut für Politikwissenschaft"],["dc.relation.orgunit","Arbeitsbereich Politisches System der BRD"],["dc.title","The Differentiated Implementation of European Participation Rules in Energy Infrastructure Planning"],["dc.title.subtitle","Why Does the German Participation Regime Exceed European Requirements?"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dc.type.subtype","original_ja"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.firstpage","253"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","2"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","Der moderne Staat"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.lastpage","271"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","8"],["dc.contributor.author","Fink, Simon"],["dc.contributor.author","Ruffing, Eva"],["dc.date.accessioned","2021-10-21T07:28:25Z"],["dc.date.available","2021-10-21T07:28:25Z"],["dc.date.issued","2015"],["dc.description.abstract","Die Energiepolitik erlebt zurzeit einen enormen institutionellen Wandel: Schon bei der Bedarfsplanung für den Netzausbau wird die Öffentlichkeit in Form von Konsultationen durch die Übertragungsnetzbetreiber und die Bundesnetzagentur einbezogen. Der Artikel untersucht, was die Entscheidungsträger dazu bewegte, Konsultationsverfahren verpflichtend einzuführen. Aus der Literatur zum Thema Öffentlichkeitsbeteiligung lassen sich dabei fünf mögliche Ziele ableiten: Eine demokratietheoretische Perspektive sieht Konsultationen als Mittel, um die Input-Legitimität von Policies zu steigern. Eine tauschtheoretische Perspektive dagegen betont, dass durch Konsultationen Expertenwissen in den politischen Prozess einfließt und Output- Legitimität erzeugt. Der soziologische Institutionalismus sieht Konsultationen als Resultat von institutionellem Isomorphismus an. Eine Prinzipal-Agenten- Perspektive sieht Konsultationen vor allem als Mittel, um Agenten zu kontrollieren, da die Prinzipale durch die Konsultationen mehr Informationen erhalten. In der politischen Praxis schließlich wird vor allem die Hoffnung geäußert, dass Konsultationen nicht nur Entscheidungen besser legitimieren, sondern letztlich auch mehr Akzeptanz für Policies erzeugen. Im Lichte dieser Perspektiven untersucht der Artikel die Einführung der Konsultationsverfahren und zeigt, dass die politischen Akteure sich vor allem die Steigerung der Inputlegitimität und der Akzeptanz des Netzausbaus durch die Öffentlichkeitsbeteiligung erhoffen. Allerdings finden sich auch viele Belege für institutionellen Isomorphismus, also dafür, dass Beteiligungsverfahren eingeführt wurden, „weil man das so macht“. Dieses Faktum führt zu pessimistischen Prognosen über die Fähigkeit der Konsultationen, die erhoffte Wirkung auch zu erreichen."],["dc.description.abstract","The German energy transformation (“Energiewende”) is a major political experiment. This experiment does not only comprise new policies, but also establishes new governance structures. The planning of electricity grids had once been a prerogative of the executive and state-owned enterprises. Now, this planning process involves extensive public participation, which marks a substantial procedural innovation for Germany. This article aims to discern the underlying motives and expectations legislators and stakeholders had when establishing these participation procedures. The academic discussion offers five perspectives on public participation: The first perspective stems from democratic theory and argues that consultation procedures improve the input legitimacy of policies. Second, the political exchange approach argues that consultation procedures enhance the output legitimacy of policies by adding technical expertise to the policy process. Third, for the principal- agent approach, consultations establish fire alarms that allow political principals to govern their administrative agents. Fourth, the most skeptical perspective stems from sociological institutionalism and sees consultations as symbolic actions, designed to conform to widely held notions of legitimacy. Fifth, in political practice a prevalent argument is that participation procedures induce high levels of acceptance for decisions. Applying these five perspectives, the article finds that decision-makers hoped to increase input legitimacy and acceptance by establishing participation procedures. In addition, mechanisms of institutional isomorphism were drivers, too.This result suggests a pessimistic prognosis regarding the effects of the procedure."],["dc.identifier.doi","10.3224/dms.v8i1.21190"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/91109"],["dc.relation.issn","1865-7192"],["dc.relation.issn","2196-1395"],["dc.relation.orgunit","Sozialwissenschaftliche Fakultät"],["dc.relation.orgunit","Institut für Politikwissenschaft"],["dc.relation.orgunit","Arbeitsbereich Politisches System der BRD"],["dc.title","Legitimation durch Verwaltungsverfahren? Was sich die Politik von Konsultationen beim Stromnetzausbau verspricht"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dc.type.subtype","original_ja"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.firstpage","1657"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","11"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","Journal of European Public Policy"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.lastpage","1676"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","27"],["dc.contributor.author","Fink, Simon"],["dc.contributor.author","Ruffing, Eva"],["dc.date.accessioned","2021-04-14T08:31:40Z"],["dc.date.available","2021-04-14T08:31:40Z"],["dc.date.issued","2020"],["dc.description.abstract","Stakeholder engagement is thought to increase the legitimacy of independent regulatory agencies (IRAs). However, there is little research on how IRAs use the information that stakeholders contribute. We argue that the organizational reputation approach can explain different reactions to stakeholder engagement. IRAs usually rely on a reputation based on technical expertise. However, if IRAs have little capacities, they fall back on procedural or moral reputation. We analyze the consultations of the German Federal Network Agency (FNA) and the European Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER) on planning electricity networks. Both have complex audience situations and an incentive to cultivate a technical reputation. However, their capacities differ. The FNA has capacities to cultivate a technical reputation, and selectively discusses technical contributions. ACER has less capacities. It selectively reacts to comments that criticize procedural aspects of network planning. Hence, we show how reputational concerns and capacities shape consultation procedures."],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1080/13501763.2020.1817129"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/83675"],["dc.language.iso","en"],["dc.notes.intern","DOI Import GROB-399"],["dc.relation.eissn","1466-4429"],["dc.relation.issn","1350-1763"],["dc.relation.orgunit","Sozialwissenschaftliche Fakultät"],["dc.relation.orgunit","Institut für Politikwissenschaft"],["dc.relation.orgunit","Arbeitsbereich Politisches System der BRD"],["dc.title","Stakeholder consultations as reputation-building: a comparison of ACER and the German Federal Network Agency"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dc.type.subtype","original_ja"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]