Tobias Bach

• Bach, Tobias; Jugl, Marlene; Wegrich, Kai & Köhler, Dustin (2021). Reputational threats and democratic responsiveness of regulatory agencies. I Eriksen, Erik Oddvar (Red.), The Accountability of Expertise: Making the Un-Elected Safe for Democracy. Routledge. ISSN 9781003175490. s. 81–98. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Askim, Jostein & Bach, Tobias (2021). Mellom meritokrati og politisering? En kompetansestudie av etatsledere med og uten politikerbakgrunn, 1980–2020. Norsk Statsvitenskapelig Tidsskrift. ISSN 0801-1745. 37(4), s. 171–190. doi: 10.18261/issn.1504-2936-2021-04-02. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv Vis sammendrag

  Artikkelen studerer tilsetting av norske toppbyråkrater i et politiseringsperspektiv og ser på sammenhengen mellom politisk bakgrunn og kompetanse. Forskningsspørsmålene er (1) om toppbyråkrater med politisk bakgrunn er bedre eller dårligere kvalifisert enn andre toppbyråkrater når det gjelder fagkunnskap og ledererfaring og (2) om de som er tilknyttet regjeringspartiene, er bedre eller dårligere kvalifisert enn de som er tilknyttet opposisjonen. Artikkelen studerer 120 etatsledertilsettinger i 48 virksomheter på fire departementsområder fra 1980 til 2020. I 14 % av tilfellene ble det tilsatt en etatsleder som hadde erfaring fra toppolitikken. Resultatene viser at etatsledere med politisk erfaring har lavere fagkunnskap enn etatsledere uten politisk erfaring, men at denne forskjellen drives av de som er regjeringstilknyttet. De opposisjonstilknyttede har ikke statistisk signifikant dårligere fagkunnskap enn de upolitiske etatsledere. Tre teoretiske perspektiver brukes til å tolke funnene. At det er få regjeringstilknyttede blant etatslederne støtter meritokratiperspektivet, men at de som er regjeringstilknyttet er relativt dårlig kvalifisert, støtter politiseringsperspektivet. At de de opposisjonstilknyttede scorer noe lavere, dog ikke statistisk signifikant lavere enn de upolitiske, når det gjelder fagkunnskap, lar seg best forklare med politikkforståelsesperspektivet.

• Bach, Tobias; Jugl, Marlene; Köhler, Dustin & Wegrich, Kai (2021). Regulatory agencies, reputational threats, and communicative responses. Regulation & Governance. ISSN 1748-5983. doi: 10.1111/rego.12421. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv Vis sammendrag

  A key claim in bureaucratic reputation literature is that reputation has several dimensions. This presents agencies with a difficult choice concerning which dimension(s) they should emphasize in the management of their reputation. This paper analyzes how regulatory agencies manage their reputation through communicative responses to public judgments, based on a single-case study of the German financial regulator BaFin. Our theoretical argument underscores the importance of different reputational dimensions for regulatory agencies that simultaneously considers their distinct reputation reserves. Our main finding was that BaFin prioritizes responses to public judgments targeting reputational dimensions that are central to its mission and for which the agency has a weak reputation, as opposed to judgments targeting dimensions that are central to its mission and for which it has a strong reputation, or judgments targeting peripheral dimensions. The paper demonstrates the importance of agency missions for reputation management and suggests directions for further research.

• Bach, Tobias (2021). Bureaucracies and Policy Ideas. I Thompson, William R. (Red.), Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics. Oxford University Press. ISSN 9780190228637. doi: https%3A/doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.1421. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Bach, Tobias (2020). Top Officials’ Careers and the Relationship between Politics and Administration. NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy. ISSN 1337-9038. 13(2), s. 35–48. doi: 10.2478/nispa-2020-0013.
• Bach, Tobias & Wegrich, Kai (2020). Politicians and Bureaucrats in Executive Government. I Andeweg, Rudy B.; Elgie, Robert; Helms, Ludger; Kaarbo, Juliet & Müller-Rommel, Ferdinand (Red.), The Oxford Handbook of Political Executives. Oxford University Press. ISSN 9780198809296. s. 525–546. doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198809296.013.21.
• Lichtmannegger, Christina & Bach, Tobias (2020). The interaction of multiple drivers of intra-organizational change in ministerial administrations: A study of three decades of structural reforms in the Austrian Ministry of Agriculture. Public Policy and Administration. ISSN 0952-0767. s. 1–22. doi: 10.1177/0952076720904439. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv Vis sammendrag

  Administrative reform policies cutting across several sectors are commonplace in the public sector. However, reform policies do not necessarily result in organizational change. This article examines intra-organizational change within the Austrian Ministry of Agriculture in a longitudinal case study covering a period of three decades, which allows us to study short-term and long term-effects of administrative reforms. Whereas existing research mainly uses single-factor explanations for inter- and intra-organizational change, this article emphasizes the interplay of various drivers of organizational change within government organizations. In analytical terms, we draw on the multiple streams framework to study intra-organizational decision-making which is embedded in government-wide administrative reform policies. We find that reform leads to intra-organizational change when a political entrepreneur is able to couple solutions and problems in a decision window, which may happen decades after the initial reform attempts, underscoring that short-term reform failure may turn into success in a long-term perspective.

• Bach, Tobias; Verhoest, Koen & Wynen, Jan (2020). The interaction of administrative tradition and organisational characteristics: the case of agency personnel management autonomy. International Review of Administrative Sciences. ISSN 0020-8523. 88(1), s. 95–113. doi: 10.1177/0020852319889674. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv Vis sammendrag

  Comparative scholars emphasise that public administration should be understood in terms of context-bound patterns of organising and decision-making. Agencies in the same context will display more commonalities than those in another. At the same time, there is good empirical evidence for organisational-level variation in decision-making. For instance, not all agencies in one country are delegated similar levels of personnel management autonomy. This article develops a theoretical argument about how administrative tradition moderates the effect of organisational drivers of personnel management autonomy. We identify the degree of uniformity embedded in administrative tradition as a key explanatory factor for this relationship. In empirical terms, the article compares the perceived personnel management autonomy of agencies in 10 European countries nested in three country clusters (Scandinavian, Latin-Napoleonic and Continental). The analysis confirms theoretical expectations about the context-specific effects of organisational characteristics on personnel management autonomy in agencies.

• Bach, Tobias & Wegrich, Kai (2019). The politics of blame avoidance in complex delegation structures: the public transport crisis in Berlin. European Political Science Review. ISSN 1755-7739. 11(4), s. 415–431. doi: 10.1017/S1755773919000213. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Bach, Tobias; Boon, Jan; Boye, Stefan; Salomonsen, Heidi Houlberg; Verhoest, Koen & Wegrich, Kai (2019). In the Line of Fire: European Financial Regulators before, during, and after the Crisis. Der moderne Staat. ISSN 1865-7192. 12(1), s. 5–29. doi: 10.3224/dms.v12i1.03. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv Vis sammendrag

  A key argument in recent theorizing on the drivers of bureaucratic behaviour is that agencies seek to establish and maintain a unique reputation. While recent years have witnessed substantial empirical support for this claim, the field lacks comparative examinations of the dynamics of reputation and its management throughout crisis periods. This article draws on a systematic media content analysis to explore the exposure and communication responses of the German, Belgian and Danish financial regulators to reputational threats before, during, and after the financial crisis. Our results point at the dynamic and context-sensitive nature of reputation management.

• Bach, Tobias & Wegrich, Kai (2019). Das Verhältnis von Regierung und Verwaltung aus internationaler Perspektive. I Ritz, Adrian; Haldemann, Theo & Sager, Fritz (Red.), Blackbox Exekutive. NZZ Libro. ISSN 978-3-03810-401-8. s. 65–87.
• Bach, Tobias & Wegrich, Kai (2019). How to Deal with the Blind Spots of Public Bureaucracies. I Bach, Tobias & Wegrich, Kai (Red.), The Blind Spots of Public Bureaucracy and the Politics of Non‐Coordination. Palgrave Macmillan. ISSN 978-3-319-76671-3. s. 241–261. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-76672-0_12.
• Bach, Tobias & Wegrich, Kai (2019). Blind Spots, Biased Attention, and the Politics of Non-coordination. I Bach, Tobias & Wegrich, Kai (Red.), The Blind Spots of Public Bureaucracy and the Politics of Non‐Coordination. Palgrave Macmillan. ISSN 978-3-319-76671-3. s. 3–28. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-76672-0_1.
• Bach, Tobias; Hammerschmid, Gerhard & Löffler, Lorenz (2018). More delegation, more political control? Politicization of senior-level appointments in 18 European countries. Public Policy and Administration. ISSN 0952-0767. 35(1), s. 3–23. doi: 10.1177/0952076718776356. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv Vis sammendrag

  This article contributes to the literature on the politicization of appointments to increase political control over public bureaucracies with often substantial managerial and policy autonomy. Using data from a large-scale executive survey from central government ministries and agencies in 18 European countries, the article provides a comprehensive cross-national and cross-organizational analysis of the autonomy-politicization conundrum and the drivers of the politicization of senior-level appointments. We find that national patterns of politicization correspond fairly well to country families as defined by administrative traditions, with some traditions being more coherent than others. At the organizational level, we find no evidence of efforts by politicians to compensate for extended autonomy by politicizing senior-level appointments, yet we provide evidence of differential effects of both formal and informal organizational characteristics on patterns of politicization. Our analyses show that politicization of senior appointments is lower in organizations with agency status, higher organizational social capital, higher financial autonomy and more extensive use of management tools. The article thereby not only offers comprehensive evidence of cross-country differences in politicization; it also adds to the literature on sub-national variation, by fleshing out an organizational perspective to the study of politicized appointments in the European context.

• Bach, Tobias & Veit, Sylvia (2018). The determinants of promotion to high public office in Germany: Partisan loyalty, political craft, or managerial competencies? Journal of public administration research and theory. ISSN 1053-1858. 28(2), s. 254–269. doi: 10.1093/jopart/mux041. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv Vis sammendrag

  The politicization of bureaucracy is a widespread strategy to increase the political control of ministerial departments in parliamentary democracies. It is, however, largely unknown why executive politicians promote some officials rather than others to high public office. Based on a unique dataset of all senior officials in German federal ministries and agencies that held office in the period 1997–2015, this article investigates whether partisan loyalty, political craft, and managerial competencies influence the chance of promotion to the highest civil service position in Germany (state secretary). We apply event history modeling to draw inferences on the relative importance of different selection criteria used by ministers when recruiting state secretaries from a candidate pool of senior officials. A key finding is that ministers consistently prefer politically loyal to nonloyal candidates. Although ministers also consider candidates’ political craft and selected managerial competencies, they are likely to trade-off partisan loyalty against those qualifications. The article contributes to the literature on politicization in the public sector by comparing potential and actual office holders and by including a broad set of selection criteria, moving beyond the literature’s dominating focus on partisan loyalty. The methodological approach developed in this article may well be transferred to other institutional contexts and used for comparative studies in this area.

• Bach, Tobias & Ruffing, Eva (2017). The Transformative Effects of Transnational Administrative Coordination in the European Multi-level System. I Ongaro, Edoardo & van Thiel, Sandra (Red.), The Palgrave Handbook of Public Administration and Management in Europe. Palgrave Macmillan. ISSN 978-1-137-55268-6. s. 747–763. doi: https%3A/doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-55269-3_39.
• Veit, Sylvia; Hustedt, Thurid & Bach, Tobias (2017). Dynamics of Change in Internal Policy Advisory Systems: The Hybridization of Advisory Capacities in Germany . Policy sciences. ISSN 0032-2687. 50(1), s. 85–103. doi: 10.1007/s11077-016-9266-9. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv Vis sammendrag

  Recent scholarship on advisory systems has focussed on the externalization of advisory capacities and sectoral dynamics of change, whereas changes of internal policy advisory systems have not yet been approached systematically. This article proposes an analytical concept for exploring change dynamics in internal policy advisory systems by means of three logics for assessing policy advice (political salience, credibility and representativeness). The approach is illustrated by analysing changes within the internal policy advisory system of the German federal government (1990–2015). The analysis relies on three original datasets on ministerial departments, research agencies and governmental advisory bodies. We find that the internal advisory system of the German federal government is characterized by a differentiated hybridization of advisory logics, which has changed the nature of policy advice.

• Bach, Tobias; van Thiel, Sandra; Hammerschmid, Gerhard & Steiner, Reto (2017). Administrative Tradition and Management Reforms: A Comparison of Agency Chief Executive Accountability in Four Continental Rechtsstaat Countries. Public Management Review. ISSN 1471-9037. 19(6), s. 765–784. doi: 10.1080/14719037.2016.1210205. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Bach, Tobias & Wegrich, Kai (2016). Regulatory Reform, Accountability and Blame in Public Service Delivery: The Public Transport Crisis in Berlin. I Christensen, Tom & Lægreid, Per (Red.), The Routledge Handbook to Accountability and Welfare State Reforms in Europe. Routledge. ISSN 978-1-472-47059-1. s. 223–235.
• Bach, Tobias (2016). Administrative Autonomy of Public Organizations. I Farazmand, Ali (Red.), Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance 2016. Springer. ISSN 978-3-319-31816-5. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-31816-5_143-1.
• Bach, Tobias; de Francesco, Fabrizio; Maggetti, Martino & Ruffing, Eva (2016). Transnational Bureaucratic Politics: An Institutional Rivalry Perspective on EU Network Governance. Public Administration. ISSN 0033-3298. 94(1), s. 9–24. doi: 10.1111/padm.12252.
• Bach, Tobias (2015). Brunsson, Nils/Olsen, Johan P. (1993): The Reforming Organization. I Kühl, Stefan (Red.), Schlüsselwerke der Organisationsforschung. Springer VS. ISSN 978-3658090678. s. 133–136.
• Bach, Tobias (2015). Wie "tickt" die öffentliche Verwaltung? Autonomie, Reputation und Responsivität von Regulierungsbehörden am Beispiel des Bundesinstituts für Risikobewertung. I Dohler, Marian; Franzke, Jochen & Wegrich, Kai (Red.), Der gut organisierte Staat. Nomos. ISSN 9783848720620. s. 161–179. doi: 10.5771/9783845262703-162.
• Bach, Tobias; Ruffing, Eva & Yesilkagit, Kutsal (2015). The Differential Empowering Effects of Europeanization on the Autonomy of National Agencies. Governance. An International Journal of Policy, Administration and Institutions. ISSN 0952-1895. 28(3), s. 285–304. doi: 10.1111/gove.12087.
• Bach, Tobias & Ruffing, Eva (2014). The transformative effects of Europeanization on national administrations. Public. ESADE's Institute of Public Governance & Management (IGDP) e-bulletin. ISSN 2013-2530.
• Wegrich, Kai & Bach, Tobias (2014). Unter Stress: Regierung und Verwaltung in stürmischen Zeiten. I Anheier, Helmut & Hurrelmann, Klaus (Red.), Die Hauptstädter - Berlin 25 Jahre nach dem Mauerfall: Die Hertie Berlin Studie 2014. HOFFMANN UND CAMPE VERLAG. ISSN 978-3455503395. s. 203–253.
• Bach, Tobias & Ruffing, Eva (2014). Bürokratische Koordination im europäischen Mehrebenensystem: Die Einbindung nationaler Regulierungsbehörden in europäische Verwaltungsnetzwerke. Der moderne Staat. ISSN 1865-7192. 7(1), s. 75–94. doi: 10.3224/dms.v7i1.16237.
• Bach, Tobias (2014). The autonomy of government agencies in Germany and Norway: explaining variation in management autonomy across countries and agencies. International Review of Administrative Sciences. ISSN 0020-8523. 80(2), s. 341–361. doi: 10.1177/0020852313514527.
• Bach, Tobias & Ruffing, Eva (2013). Networking for autonomy? National agencies in European networks. Public Administration. ISSN 0033-3298. 91(3), s. 712–726. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9299.2012.02093.x.
• Bach, Tobias & Fleischer, Julia (2012). The parliamentary accountability of European Union and national agencies. I Trondal, Jarle (Red.), The agency phenomenon in the European Union. Manchester University Press. ISSN 978-0-7190-8554-3. s. 152–171.
• Bach, Tobias & Verhoest, Koen (2012). The Influence of Agencies on Policy-Making. NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy. ISSN 1337-9038. 5(2), s. 143–151.
• Bach, Tobias & Verschuere, Bram (2012). Executive agencies, ministers and departments: Can policy and management ever be separated? Administration & Society. ISSN 0095-3997. 44(2), s. 183–206. doi: 10.1177/0095399711412918.
• Bach, Tobias (2012). Autonomie und Steuerung verselbständigter Behörden: Management, Regulierung und die Bedeutung formaler Strukturen. Politische Vierteljahresschrift. ISSN 0032-3470. 53(1), s. 79–97. doi: 10.5771/0032-3470-2012-1-79.
• Bach, Tobias; Niklasson, Birgitta & Painter, Martin (2012). The role of agencies in policy-making. Policy and Society: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Policy Research. ISSN 1449-4035. 31(3), s. 183–193. doi: 10.1016/j.polsoc.2012.07.001.
• Bach, Tobias (2012). The involvement of agencies in policy formulation: explaining variation in policy autonomy of federal agencies in Germany. Policy and Society: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Policy Research. ISSN 1449-4035. 31(3), s. 211–222. doi: 10.1016/j.polsoc.2012.07.003.
• Bach, Tobias (2010). Policy and Management Autonomy of Federal Agencies in Germany. I Lægreid, Per & Verhoest, Koen (Red.), Governance of public sector organizations : proliferation, autonomy and performance. Palgrave Macmillan. ISSN 978-0230-23820-6. s. 89–110.
• Bach, Tobias & Jann, Werner (2010). Animals in the administrative zoo: organizational change and agency autonomy in Germany. International Review of Administrative Sciences. ISSN 0020-8523. 76(3), s. 443–468. doi: 10.1177/0020852310372448.

Se alle arbeider i Cristin

• Bach, Tobias & Wegrich, Kai (2019). The Blind Spots of Public Bureaucracy and the Politics of Non‐Coordination. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 978-3-319-76671-3. 269 s.
• Bach, Tobias (2014). Autonomie und Steuerung verselbständigter Behörden. Eine empirische Analyse am Beispiel Deutschlands und Norwegens. Springer VS. ISBN 978-3-658-04298-1. 338 s.
• Bach, Tobias; Fleischer, Julia & Hustedt, Thurid (2010). Organisation und Steuerung zentralstaatlicher Behörden. Agenturen im westeuropäischen Vergleich. Edition Sigma. ISBN 978-3836072342. 95 s.

Se alle arbeider i Cristin

• Bach, Tobias; Trondal, Jarle & Aars, Jacob (2022). Hele livet i staten. Stat og styring. ISSN 0803-0103. 32(1), s. 46–48. doi: 10.18261/stat.32.1.15.
• Askim, Jostein Rosfjord & Bach, Tobias (2022). Hvem er tjent med at Stoltenberg blir sentralbanksjef? Aftenposten (morgenutg. : trykt utg.). ISSN 0804-3116. 163(14), s. 30–31.
• Askim, Jostein Rosfjord; Bach, Tobias & Kolltveit, Kristoffer (2021). Politisering av embetsverket: Introduksjon til et temanummer. Norsk Statsvitenskapelig Tidsskrift. ISSN 0801-1745. 37(4), s. 165–170. doi: 10.18261/issn.1504-2936-2021-04-01.
• Bach, Tobias (2021). Hvordan kan blindsoner i forvaltningen forebygges? Stat og styring. ISSN 0803-0103.
• Bach, Tobias (2021). Hvordan oppstår blindsoner i forvaltningen? Stat og styring. ISSN 0803-0103.
• Bach, Tobias; Trondal, Jarle & Aars, Jacob (2021). Tilfreds med jobben. Stat og styring. ISSN 0803-0103.
• Bach, Tobias; Meyer-Sahling, Jan-Hinrik & Staroňová, Katarína (2020). Top officials in Turbulent Times: Converging Research Agendas in Europe East and West. NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy. ISSN 1337-9038. 13(2), s. 25–34. doi: 10.2478/nispa-2020-0012.
• Bach, Tobias; Trondal, Jarle & Aars, Jacob (2020). Kampen mot surveymonsteret begynner. Stat og styring. ISSN 0803-0103. s. 56–59.
• Bach, Tobias (2019). Siefken, Sven (2018). Parlamentarische Kontrolle im Wandel. Theorie und Praxis des Deutschen Bundestages. Baden-Baden: Nomos. 461 Seiten. ISBN: 978-3-8487-4966-9. Der moderne Staat. ISSN 1865-7192. 12(1), s. 232–235.
• Bach, Tobias; Wegrich, Kai & Lodge, Martin (2018). De-biasing administrative behaviour? Risk and Regulation. ISSN 1473-6004. s. 31–32.
• Bach, Tobias & Veit, Sylvia (2018). Verwaltungspolitik und Verwaltungsreform. I Veit, Sylvia; Reichard, Christoph & Wewer, Göttrik (Red.), Handbuch zur Verwaltungsreform. Springer VS, Wiesbaden. ISSN 978-3-658-21571-2. doi: 10.1007/978-3-658-21571-2_8-1.
• Bach, Tobias (2018). Agencies. I Veit, Sylvia; Reichard, Christoph & Wewer, Göttrik (Red.), Handbuch zur Verwaltungsreform. Springer VS, Wiesbaden. ISSN 978-3-658-21571-2. doi: 10.1007/978-3-658-21571-2_26-1.
• Bach, Tobias (2018). Organizing Leviathan: Politicians, bureaucrats, and the making of good government (Carl Dahlström, Victor Lapuente. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2017, 270 pp., £22.99 (hb), ISBN: 9781316630655). Public Administration. ISSN 0033-3298. 96(3), s. 626–627. doi: 10.1111/padm.12519.
• Bach, Tobias; Philipps, Axel; Barlösius, Eva & Dohler, Marian (2013). Governance von Ressortforschungseinrichtungen. I Grande, Edgar; Jarren, Otfried; Rip, Arie; Schimank, Uwe & Weingart, Peter (Red.), Neue Governance der Wissenschaft. Reorganisation – externe Anforderungen – Medialisierung. Transcript Verlag. ISSN 978-3837622720. s. 139–162.
• Bach, Tobias & Huber, Etienne (2012). Comparing agencification in continental countries. I Verhoest, Koen; van Thiel, Sandra; Bouckaert, Geert & Lægreid, Per (Red.), Government agencies: Practices and Lessons from 30 Countries. Palgrave Macmillan. ISSN 9780230354364. s. 203–210.
• Bach, Tobias (2012). Germany. I Verhoest, Koen; van Thiel, Sandra; Bouckaert, Geert & Lægreid, Per (Red.), Government agencies: Practices and Lessons from 30 Countries. Palgrave Macmillan. ISSN 9780230354364. s. 166–178.
• Bach, Tobias; Jantz, Bastian & Veit, Sylvia (2011). Verwaltungspolitik als Politikfeld. I Blanke, Bernhard; Nullmeier, Frank; Reichard, Christoph & Wewer, Göttrik (Red.), Handbuch zur Verwaltungsreform. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. ISSN 978-3-531-17546-1. s. 527–536.
• Bach, Tobias; Jantz, Bastian & Veit, Sylvia (2010). Verwaltungspolitik auf Bundesebene: Eine Bilanz der großen Koalition. I Egle, Christoph & Zohlnhöfer, Reimut (Red.), Die zweite Große Koalition. Bilanz der Regierung Merkel. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. ISSN 978-3-531-16796-1. s. 463–486.
• Bach, Tobias & Jann, Werner (2009). Structure and governance of agencies in Germany: A lot of continuity and little change. I Roness, Paul G. & Sætren, Harald (Red.), Change and Continuity in Public Sector Organizations. Essays in Honour of Per Lægreid. Fagbokforlaget. ISSN 978-82-450-0754-1. s. 127–147.
• Bach, Tobias (2007). Agencies in Norwegen. Steuerung und Organisation zentralstaatlicher Behörden. I Jann, Werner & Dohler, Marian (Red.), Agencies in Westeuropa. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. ISSN 978-3-531-15422-0. s. 172–211.
• Bach, Tobias (2021). Methodological report on the TiGRE project expert survey. ARENA Senter for Europastudier. ISSN 0807-3139. 4(21). Fulltekst i vitenarkiv Vis sammendrag

  This report outlines the steps taken to design and implement a stakeholder survey on trust and distrust in European regulatory governance and ultimately create a large, multi-actor, multi-level, multi-sector, and cross-country dataset. Specifically, the report provides information about the mapping, ethical considerations, survey question and scale design, the questionnaire structure, translation and piloting, fielding and reminders, the creation of the dataset, response rates, and the sample. A list of important actors and the questionnaire itself are included in the annexes. This report should be of interest to everyone working with the survey data, readers of project publications who would like to know more about the survey methodology, and everyone seeking to implement similar large-scale surveys

• Bach, Tobias (2021). Bureaucratic Politics. ARENA Senter for Europaforskning. ISSN 1890-7741. Vis sammendrag

  The bureaucratic politics approach seeks to understand public policy as the result of decision-making processes, characterized by conflict, bargaining, and compromise, inside and between government organizations. A core assumption is that government organizations pursue distinct interests, including the preservation of their unique sphere of authority (“turf”) as well as the pursuit of distinct views on policy problems and solutions. Hence, while appearing as unitary actors with consistent preferences from the outside, the bureaucratic politics approach suggests that decisions of national governments, supranational organizations, such as the European Commission, and other bodies, such as regulatory and executive agencies, should be better understood as the result of political processes involving multiple organizations and organizational units. The bureaucratic politics perspective therefore partly overlaps with the literature on coordination inside and between government organizations, which for instance highlights the importance of “organizational silos” as impediments to successful coordination. The paper introduces classic contributions to this literature (as well as more recent theorizing), focusing on the political nature of public organizations, including reputation management and blame avoidance. The paper also elaborates on different types of decisions – reforms/institutional choice vs. regular policy-making – and the relevance of the bureaucratic politics approach for analyzing such decisions. The paper reviews selected empirical contributions to this literature, specially focusing on the European Commission as well as EU agencies and their interactions with national level agencies.

• Bach, Tobias & Ruffing, Eva (2016). The Multi-Level Administration of the EU: Transnational Coordination Through National and Supranational Bureaucracies . ARENA Centre for European Studies. ISSN 2464-3270.

Se alle arbeider i Cristin