Tobias Polzer

Open Data: European Ambitions and Local Efforts. Experiences from Austria

The member states of the European Union are faced with the challenges of handling “big data” as well as with a growing impact of the supranational level. Given that the success of efforts at European level strongly depends on corresponding national and local activities, i.e., the quality of implementation and the degree of consistency, this chapter centers upon the coherence of European strategies and national implementations concerning the reuse of public sector information. Taking the City of Vienna’s open data activities as an illustrative example, we seek an answer to the question whether and to what extent developments at European level and other factors have an effect on local efforts towards open data. We find that the European Commission’s ambitions are driven by a strong economic argumentation, while the efforts of the City of Vienna have only very little to do with the European orientation and are rather dominated by lifestyle and administrative reform arguments. Hence, we observe a decoupling of supranational strategies and national implementation activities. The very reluctant attitude at Austrian federal level might be one reason for this, nationally induced barriers—such as the administrative culture—might be another. In order to enhance the correspondence between the strategies of the supranational level and those of the implementers at national and regional levels, the strengthening of soft law measures could be promising.

Legitimating change in the public sector: the introduction of (rational?) accounting practices in the United Kingdom, Italy and Austria

ABSTRACT This paper explores the deployment of rhetorical legitimation strategies during public-sector accounting reforms by investigating how organizational actors justify related changes in the central governments of the United Kingdom (UK), Italy and Austria. The study shows that changes are largely legitimated (and rarely delegitimated) by key actors, with authorization strategies dominating. Country differences and actors’ professional backgrounds also impact upon the use of legitimation strategies, with those from an accounting background and working in the UK being more likely to justify change in terms of rationalization and normalization. Italian and Austrian actors more frequently resort to authorization strategies to explain accounting change.

Support of the internal market policy for growth: Feasibility study concerning the actual implementation of a joint cross-border procurement procedure by public buyers from different Member States

Joint procurement refers to a situation in which two or more contracting authorities conduct a procurement procedure together. The key characteristic of this specific procedure is that only one tender is published on behalf of all participating contracting authorities. The notion of joint procurement does not automatically imply any cross-border element as such. Joint cross-border procurement refers to the particular procurement procedure which involves contracting authorities from different Member States conducting a common tender by bundling their demands and acting jointly in the award of the contract. There have already been some attempts to conduct JCBPP procedures in the European Union, despite the fact that until the implementation of Directive 2014/24/EU there were no explicit legal provisions to facilitate such forms of cooperation. Therefore contracting authorities faced both legal and practical difficulties, mostly due to conflicts between national public procurement rules and barriers preventing recourse to other Member States’ central purchasing body or the joint cross-border award of public contracts. Currently existing literature still offers only a few contributions describing the use and impact of JCBPP and the limited practical experience there is in conducting such procedures has not been presented in an aggregated form so far. This analysis is intended to help identify the best solutions for implementing JCBPP projects and offers concrete recommendations which should serve as a guideline for all interested stakeholders. The aim of the study is not to assess theoretical scenarios of JCBPP between contracting authorities in different Member States or to offer a legal analysis of factors that can influence the implementation of such projects. Its scope is to practically analyse projects that have been implemented in the past months or years and to highlight how they have been conducted, the obstacles or difficulties experienced by the participating contracting authorities and how they managed to overcome them. Centralised – and therefore “joint” – purchasing techniques are successfully used in most Member States and the idea of exploring a cross-border dimension is generating more and more interest as it facilitates cooperation between contracting authorities across Europe and at the same time enhances the benefits of the Internal Market by creating better business opportunities for economic operators. Thus, this feasibility study on the possible implementation of a JCBPP procedure consists of an analysis of relevant JCPPP projects, including a cost benefit analysis, and draws conclusions based on the main issues which need to be considered when conducting a JCBPP. The results of the feasibility study have allowed the drafting of recommendations for the implementation of JCBPP procedures. The feasibility study focuses on the legal, administrative and procedural aspects encountered in four selected JCBPP projects, taking into consideration country and sector-specific characteristics relevant to the implementation of such procedures.