Advertisement

Coordination Quality in Central Government – the Case of Norway

  • Tom Christensen
  • Per LægreidEmail author
Article
  • 130 Downloads

Abstract

This article focuses on perceived coordination quality among Norwegian civil servants. It explains how they assess the quality of coordination in their own field of work along different dimensions. To what degree have such perceptions changed over the past 10 years and what can explain the variations in perceived coordination quality from a structural and a cultural perspective? The data base is a comprehensive survey in ministries and central agencies. The civil servants perceive coordination as better within their own policy area than across administrative levels and policy areas. The perceptions are rather stable over time. The most important factors for understanding variations in coordination quality are coordination capacity, mutual trust and administrative level.

Keywords

Coordination capacity Coordination quality Central government Norway Instrumental perspective Cultural perspective 

Notes

References

  1. Aberbach, J. D., & Christensen, T. (2014). Why reforms so often disappoint. American Review of Public Administration, 44(1), 3–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), 543–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aspøy, A. (2016). Tillitsreform i Skandinavia (trust reform in Scandinavia). Stat og Styring, 26(3), 14–16.Google Scholar
  4. Bardach, E. (1998). Getting Agencies to Work Together. The Art and Practice of Managerial Craftsmanship. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
  5. Bogdanor, V. (Ed.). (2005). Joined-up government. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bouckaert, G., Peters, B. G., & Verhoest, K. (2010a). The coordination of public sector organizations. London: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bouckaert, G., Peters, B. G., & Verhoest, K. (2010b). The Coordination of Public Sector Organizations. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bringselius, L., ed. (2018). Styra och leda med tillit. Forskning oh praktik. (govern and manage with trust. Research and practice). SOU 2018:38.Google Scholar
  9. Brunsson, N. (1989). The organization of hypocracy. Talk, decisions and actions in government. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  10. Christensen, T. (2018). Blind spots: Organizational and institutional biases in intra- and inter-organizational contexts. In T. Bach & K. Wegrich (Eds.), The blind spots of public bureaucracy and the politics of non-coordination. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  11. Christensen, T., & Lægreid, P. (2005). Trust in Government: The relative importance of service satisfaction, political factors, and Demography. Public Performance & Management Review, 28(4), 487–511.Google Scholar
  12. Christensen, T., & Lægreid, P. (2007). The whole-of-government approach to public sector reform. Public Administration Review, 67(6), 1059–1066.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Christensen, T., & Lægreid, P. (2008). The challenge of coordination in central government organizations: The Norwegian case. Public Organization Review. A Global Journal, 8(2), 97–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Christensen, T., & Lægreid, P. (2009). Complexity and hybrid public organizations. Theoretical and Empirical Challenges. Public Organization Review, 11(4), 407–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Christensen, T., Lægreid, P., Roness, P. G., & Røvik, K. A. (2007). Organization theory and the public sector. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Christensen, D. A., Lægreid, P., & Midtbø, T. (2012). Cross-border coordination activities in central government administration - combining organizational conditions and individual features. Public Organization Review, 12(4), 367–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Christensen, T., Lægreid, P., & Rykkja, L. H. (2016). Organizing for crisis management: Building governance capacity and legitimacy. Public Administration Review, 76(6), 887–897.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Christensen, T., M. Egeberg, P. Lægreid and J. Trondal (2018). Norsk sentralforvaltning gjennom 40 år. Stabilitet og endring (Central Civil Service in Norway over 40 years. Stability and Change). Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
  19. Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. (1992). A behavioral theory of the firm (Second ed.). New York: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  20. Dahl, R. A., & Lindblom, C. E. (1953). Politics, economics, and welfare. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  21. Egeberg, M. (2012). How bureaucratic structure matters: An organizational perspective. In B. G. Peters & J. Pierre (Eds.), Handbook of public administration. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  22. Egeberg, M., & Trondal, J. (2016). Why strong coordination at one level of government is incompatible with strong coordination across levels. Public Administration, 94(3), 579–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Genschel, P. (1997). How fragmentation can improve coordination: Setting standards in international telecommunication. Organizational Studies, 18(4), 603–622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gregory, R. (2003). All the Kings’s horses and all the King’s men: Putting New Zealand’s public sector Back together again. International Public Management Review, 4(2), 41–58.Google Scholar
  25. Gulick, L. (1937). Notes on the theory of organization. In L. Gulick & L. F. Urwick (Eds.), Papers on the science of administration (pp. 1–46). New York: Institute of Public Administration.Google Scholar
  26. Halligan, J. (2007). Reform design and performance in Australia and New Zealand. In T. Christensen & P. Lægreid (Eds.), Transcending new public management. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  27. Head, B. W., & Alford, J. (2015). Wicked problems: Implications for public policy and management. Administration & Society., 47(6), 711–739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hood, C. (2005). The idea of joined-up government: A historical perspective. In V. Bogdanor (Ed.), Joined-up government. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Kaufman, H. (1967). The Forest ranger: A study in administrative behavior. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University.Google Scholar
  30. Kettl, D. F. (2003). Contingent coordination: Practical and theoretical puzzles of homeland security. The American Review of Public Administration, 33(3), 253–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kingdon, J.W. (1984). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
  32. Koop, C., & Lodge, M. (2014). Exploring the co-ordination of economic regulation. Journal of European Public Policy, 21(9), 1311–1329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Krasner, S. D. (1988). Sovereignty. An Institutional Perspective. Comparative Political Studies, 21(1), 66–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lægreid, P., Ramnda-Liiv, T., Rykkja, L. H., & Sarapuu, K. (Eds.). (2014). Organizing for coordination in the public sector. Practices and lessons from 12 European countries. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  35. Lægreid, P., Sarapuu, K., Rykkja, L. H., & Randma-Liiv, T. (2015). Emerging coordination practices of European central governments. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 81(2), 346–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lægreid, P., Ramnda-Liiv, T., Rykkja, L. H., & Sarapuu, K. (2016a). Coordination challenges and administrative reform. In G. Hammerschmid, S. Van de Walle, R. Andrew, & P. Bezes (Eds.), Public administration reforms in Europe. The view from the top. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  37. Lægreid, P., Sarapuu, K., Rykkja, L. H., & Ramnda-Liiv, T. (2016b). New coordination challenges in the welfare state. Public Management Review, 17(7), 927–939.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lindblom, C. (1965). The intelligence of democracy. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  39. Lodge, M., & Wegrich, K. (2014). The Problem-solving Capacity of the Modern State. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lodge, M., & Wegrich, K. (2016). The rationality paradox of nudge: Rational tools of government in a world of bounded rationality. Law and Policy, 38(3), 250–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1983). Organizing political life. What administrative reorganization tells us about government. American Political Science Review, 77(02), 281–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Moe, T. M. (2005). Power and political institutions. Perspectives on Politics, 3(2), 215–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Osborne, S. P. (2016). The new public governance? Public Management Review, 8(3), 377–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Page, E. C. (2005). Joined-up government and the civil service. In V. Bogdanor (Ed.), Joined-up government. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Patashnik, E. M. (2008). Reforms at risk. What happens after major policy changes are enacted. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Peters, B. G. (1998). Managing horizontal government. The politics of coordination. Public Administration, 76(2), 295–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Peters, B. G. (2004). Back to the Centre? Rebuilding the state. The Political Quarterly, 75(1), 130–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Peters, B. G. (2006). Concepts and theories of horizontal policy management. In P. G. Peters & J. Pierre (Eds.), Handbook of Public policy. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  49. Peters, B. G. (2015). Pursuing Horizontal Management. The Politics of Public Sector Coordination. Kansas: University Press of Kansas.Google Scholar
  50. Pollitt, C. (2003). Joined-up government. A survey. Political Studies Review, 1(1), 34–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Radke, I., Hustedt, T., & Klinnert, A. (2016). Inter-ministerial working groups as a panacea for coordination problems. Der Moderne Staat, 9(1), 65–81.Google Scholar
  52. Reiter, R. and T. Klenk (2018). The Manifold Meanings of ‘post-New Public Management’ – a Systematic Review. International Review of Administrative Sciences.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852318759736.
  53. Rommetvedt, H. (2017). Politikkens allmenngjøring. Stortinget, regjeringen og de organiserte interessene i et nypluralistisk demokrati (The Generalization of Politics. The Parliament, the Government and Organized Interests in a New-Pluralistic Democracy). Bergen: Fagbokforlaget.Google Scholar
  54. Scharpf, F. W. (1999). Governing in Europe: Effective and democratic? Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Selznick, P. (1957). Leadership in administration. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  56. Simon, H. A. (1957). Administrative behaviour. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  57. Verhoest, K., B.G. Peters, E. Beuselinck and F. Myers. (2005). How Coordination and Control of Public Organizations by Government Interrelate: an Analytical and Empirical Exploration. Paper presented at the Scancor/SOG Workshop on ‘Autonomization of the State’, April 1–2., 2005.Google Scholar
  58. Voorn, B., M. Van Genugten and S. Van Thiel (forthcoming). Multiple principals, multiple problems: A review and implications for effective governance.Google Scholar
  59. Wegrich, K., & Stimac, V. (2014). Coordinating capacity. In M. Lodge & K. Wegrich (Eds.), The problem-solving capacity of the modern state. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Wildavsky, A. (1987). Choosing preferences by constructing institutions. A cultural theory of preference formation. American Political Science Review, 81(1), 3–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Wolbers, J., K. Boersma and P. Groenewegen (2017). Introducing a fragmentation perspective on coordination in crisis management. Organization Studies, 39(11), 1521–1546.  https://doi.org/10.1177/01708406177177095.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of OsloOsloNorway
  2. 2.Department of Administration and Organization TheoryUniversity of BergenBergenNorway

Personalised recommendations