Abstract
National cultures often reflect a preference for one of the ideal-types hierarchical, network or market governance. A comparison of four similar policy cases in the UK, the Netherlands, Germany and the European Commission reveals that successful public managers under certain conditions are able to construct and design productive mixtures of the three styles. They applied metagovernance, a process of designing and managing situationally optimal combinations of the three competing, and to an extent mutually undermining, governance styles. Their national cultures and politico-administrative traditions co-determined the governance mixture which would work in a given situation. The research reinforces the case already made by others, that governance doctrines cannot be transferred as ‘best practices’ from one nation to another without adaptation. The article suggests that the future does not lie in inventing new management and governance doctrines, but in investing in post-dogmatic public management.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Schein defines culture as “a pattern of basic assumptions—invented, discovered, or developed by a given group as it learns to cope with its problems of external adaptation and internal integration—that has worked well enough to be considered valid and, therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think and feel in relation to those problems”.
Networks, communities, clans or egalitarism are terms used for the ‘third’ form of coordination, besides hierarchies and markets (Entwistle et al. 2007: 65).
Power distance, the degree of individualism, gender roles, uncertainty avoidance, and long term orientation.
Retrieved from http://www.geert-hofstede.com/hofstede_germany.shtml on 1 August 2007.
Source: http://www.geert-hofstede.com/hofstede_united_kingdom.shtml , retrieved on 13 August 2007.
According to German Commissioner Günther Verheugen in an interview in the Süddeutsche Zeitung on 4 October 2006.
Interview held on 28 November 2007 (translated from German by the author).
Interview held on 29 March 2007.
Interview held on 29 March 2007.
Interview held on 30 March 2007.
Interview held on 8 May 2007.
See also Bissessar (2006) for illustrating this with the introduction of a competency system for senior civil service in Trinidad and Tobago.
References
Bell, S., & Park, A. (2006). The problematic metagovernance of networks: Water reform in New South Wales. Journal of Public Policy, 26(0101), 63–83.
Bevir, M., & Rhodes, R. A. W. (2001). A decentered theory of governance: Rational choice, institutionalism, and interpretation. Working Paper 2001-10, Institute for Governmental Studies. Berkely: University of California.
Bissessar, A. M. (2006). Transforming the personnel of the higher civil service: The case of deputy permanent secretaries in Trinidad and Tobago. The challenges of competency testing in a plural society. Paper presented at the EFMD conference “Post-Bureaucratic management: a new age for public services?” Aix-en-Provence, 14–16 June 2006.
Bovens, M., ‘t Hart, P., & Peters, B. G. (2001). Success and failure in public governance. A comparative analysis. Aldershot: Elgar.
Brogden, M. (2005). “Horses for courses” and “thin blue lines”: community policing in transitional society. Police Quarterly, 8(1), 64–98.
Christiansen, T. (1996). A maturing bureaucracy? The role of the Commission in the policy process. In J. Richardson (Ed.), European union. Power and policy-making (pp. 77–95). London: Routledge.
Collier, P. M. (2004). Policing in South Africa. Replication and resistance to new Public Management reforms. Public Management Review, 6(1), 1–20.
Davis, G., & Rhodes, R. A. W. (2000). From hierarchy to contracts and back again: Reforming the Australian public service. Paper for the Political Studies Association-UK 50th Annual Conference 10–13 April 2000, London.
Demil, B., & Lecocq, X. (2006). Neither market nor hierarchy nor network: the emergence of bazaar governance. Organization Studies, 27(10), 1447–1466.
Dimitriakopoulos, D., & Page, E. C. (2003). Paradoxes in EU Administration. In Hesse et al. (Eds.), Paradoxes in public sector reform. An international comparison (pp. 317–334).
Dixon, J., & Dogan, R. (2002). Hierarchies, networks and markets: responses to societal governance failure. Administrative Theory and Praxis, 24(1), 175–196.
Douglas, M., & Wildavsky, A. (1982). Risk and culture. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Economic Commission for Africa. (2003). Public Sector Management reforms in Africa: Lessons learned. Addis Abbeba: Development Policy Management Division of ECA/UN.
Eggers, W., & Goldsmith, S. (2004). Government by network. The new public management imperative. Deloitte and Harvard University.
Entwistle, T., Bristow, G., Hines, F., Donaldson, S., & Martin, S. (2007). The dysfunction of markets, hierarchies and networks in the meta-governance of partnerships. Urban Studies, 44(1), 63–79.
Farazmand, A. (2002). Globalisation, privatization and the future of modern governance: a critical assessment. Public Finances and Management, 2(1), 151–185.
Farazmand, A. (2004). Sound governance in the age of globalization: a conceptual framework. In A. Farazmand (Ed.), Sound governance. Policy and administrative innovations (pp. 1–23). Westport: Praeger.
Geva-May, I. (2002). From theory to practice. Policy analysis, cultural bias and organizational arrangements. Public Management Review, 4(4), 581–591.
Haque, M. S. (2001). The diminishing publicness of public service under the current mode of governance. Public Administration Review, 61(1), 65–82.
Hedetoft, U. (2003). Cultures of states and informal governance in the EU: an exploratory study of elites, power and identity. In Christiansen and Piattoni: Informal Governance in the European Union (pp. 36–56).
Hesse, J. J., Hood, C., & Peters, B. G. (eds). (2003). Paradoxes in public sector reform. An international comparison. Berlin: Duncker & Humboldt.
Hill, C. J., & Lynn, L. E., Jr. (2005). Is Hierarchical governance in decline? Evidence from empirical research. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15(2), 173–195.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Motivation, leadership and organization: do American theories apply abroad? Organizational Dynamics, Summer 1980, pp. 42–63.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, Behaviours, Institutions and Organisations across Nations. Newbury Park: Sage.
Hofstede, G., & Hofstede, G. J. (2005). Cultures and organizations. Software of the mind. Revised and expanded (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Hood, C. (2003). From Public Bureaucracy State to re-regulated public service: The Paradox of British Public Sector Reform. In Hesse et al. (Eds.), Paradoxes in public sector reform. An international comparison (pp. 127–148).
Hooghe, L. (1999). Consociationalists or Weberians? Top Commission officials on nationality. Governance, 12(4), 397–424.
Huntington, S. P. (2000). Cultures count. In L. E. Harrison & S. P. Huntington (Eds.), Culture matters. How values shape human progress (pp. xiii–xxxiv). New York: Basic Books.
Ingehart, R. (2000). Culture and democracy. In L. E. Harrison & S. P. Huntington (Eds.), Culture matters. How values shape human progress (pp. 80–97). New York: Basic Books.
Ismayr, W. (ed). (2003). Die politischen systeme Westeuropas (The political systems of Western Europe). Opladen: Leske & Budrich.
Jachtenfuchs, M. (1994). Theoretical reflections on the efficiency and democracy of European governance structures. Conference Paper, European Community Studies Association , 2nd World conference, 5–6 May 1994, Brussels.
Jann, W. (2003). State, administration and governance in Germany: competing traditions and dominant narratives. Public Administration, 81(1), 95–118.
Jann, W., & Wegrich, K. (2008). Wie bürokratisch ist Deutschland? Und warum? (How democratic is Germany—And why?). DMS—Zeitschrift für Public Policy, Recht und Management, 1, 49–72.
Jayasuriya, K. (2003). ‘Workfare for the global poor’: Anti politics and the New Governance. Working paper No. 98, September 2003. Perth: Asia Research Centre, Murdoch University. 18.
Jessop, B. (1997). Capitalism and its future: remarks on regulation, government and governance. Review of International Political Economy, 4, 561–581.
Jones, L. R., & Kettl, D. F. (2003). Assessing public management reform in international context. International Public Management Review, 4(1).
Kelly, J. (2006). Central regulation of English local authorities: an example of metagovernance? Public Administration, 84(3), 603–621.
Kettl, D. F. (2006). Managing boundaries in American administration: The collaboration imperative. Public Administration Review December 2006, special issue, pp. 10–19.
Kickert, W. J. M. (2002). Public governance in small continental European states. International Journal of Public Administration, 25, 1471–1492.
Kickert, W. J. M. (2003). Beneath consensual corporatism: traditions of governance in the Netherlands. Public Administration, 81(1), 119–140.
Kickert, W. J. M. (2004). History of governance in the Netherlands. The Hague: Elsevier.
Kleinfeldt, R. (2001). Verbände und Verbandssysteme in Westeuropa: Niederlande. (Alliances and confederations in Western Europe: The Netherlands). In W. Reutter & P. Rütters (Eds.), Verbände und Verbandssysteme in Westeuropa (pp. 287–312). Opladen: Leske & Budrich.
Klijn, E.-H., & Edelenbos, J. (2007). Meta-governance as network management. In E. Sørensen & J. Torfing (Eds.), Theories of democratic network governance (pp. 199–214). Basingstoke: Basingstoke.
Kooiman, J. (2003). Governing as governance. London: Sage.
Kümpers, S., van Raak, A., Hardy, B., & Mur, I. (2002). The influence of institutions and culture on health policies: different approaches to integrated care in England and the Netherlands. Public Administration, 80(2), 339–358.
Lijphart, A. (1999). Patterns of democracy: Government forms and performance in thirty-six countries. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Lodge, M., & Wegrich, K. (2005). Control over government: institutional isomorphism and governance dynamics in German public administration. The Policy Studies Journal, 33(2), 213–233.
Mayntz, R. (1997). Soziologie der öffentlichen Verwaltung (Sociology of the public administration). 4. Durchgesehene Auflage. Heidelberg: C.F. Müller Verlag.
McSweeny, B. (2002). Hofstede’s model of national cultural differences and their consequences: a triumph of faith—a failure of analysis. Human Relations, 55(1), 89–118.
Meuleman, L. (2008a). Public management and the metagovernance of hierarchies, networks and markets.The feasibility of designing and managing governance style combinations. Dissertation. Springer/Physica Verlag: Heidelberg.
Meuleman, L. (2008b). Reflections on metagovernance and community policing: The Utrecht case in the Netherlands and questions about the cultural transferability of governance approaches and metagovernance. In A. M. Bissessar (Ed.), Governance and institutional reengineering (pp. 151–183). Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars.
Murphy, C. (2005). Police studies go global: In Eastern Kentucky? Police Quarterly, 8, 137–145. 141.
Olsen, J. P. (2006). Maybe it is time to rediscover bureaucracy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16(1), 1–24.
Peters, B. G. (1998). Comparative politics: Theory and methods. New York: New York University Press.
Pollit, C., & Bouckaert, G. (2000). Public management reform. A comparative analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Raadschelders, J. C. N., & Rutgers, M. R. (1996). The evolution of civil service systems. In H. A. G. Bekke et al (Eds.), Civil service systems in comparative perspective (pp. 67–99). Bloominton: Indiana University Press.
Sagewan-Alli, I. (2006) ‘Donkey’ governance. In: The Daily Express of Monday 30th October 2006, p. 11. Port of Spain, Trinidad.
Schein, E. (1987). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schick, A. (1998): Why most developing countries should not try New Zealand reforms. The World Bank Research Observer, February 1998, pp. 123–131.
Smeddinck, U., & Tils, R. (2002). Normgenese und Handlungslogiken in der Ministerialverwaltung. Die Entstehung des Bundes-Bodenschutzgesetzes: eine politik- und rechtswissenschaftliche Analyse. (The evolution of norms and logics of action in a Ministry. The development of the Federal Soil Protection Act: a political and jurisprudential analysis). Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlag.
Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (eds). (2007). Theories of democratic network governance. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Thompson, M., Ellis, R., & Wildavsky, A. (1990). Cultural theory. Boulder: Westview.
Tidwell, C. H. Jr. (2001). Trinidad and Tobago: Customs and issues affecting international business. Paper presented at Reaching The World: International, Intercultural, and Ethical issues: A Conference for SDA Business Teachers, Andrews University, USA, June 28, 2001.
Wessels, W. (2003). Das politische System der Europäischen Union (The political system of the European Union). In Ismayr (Ed.), Die politische Systeme Westeuropas (pp. 779–818).
Whitehead, M. (2003). ‘In the shadow of hierarchy’: meta-governance, policy reform and urban generation in the West Midlands. Area, 35.1, 6–14.
Wildavsky, A. (1987). Choosing preferences by constructing institutions: a cultural theory of preference formation. The American Political Science Review, 81(1), 3–22.
Wollmann, H. (2000). Comparing institutional development in Britain and Germany: (Persistent) divergence or (progressing) convergence? In Wollmann, H., & Schröter, E. (Eds.), Comparing public sector reform in Britain and Germany (pp. 1–26).
Wollmann, H. (2004). Policy change in public sector reforms in cross-country perspective: Between convergence and divergence. In B. P. Abraham & S. Munshi (Eds.), Good governance in democratic societies in cross-cultural perspective (pp. 171–192). New Delhi: Sage.
World Bank. (2006). Global Monitoring Report 2006. 127.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Meuleman, L. The Cultural Dimension of Metagovernance: Why Governance Doctrines May Fail. Public Organ Rev 10, 49–70 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11115-009-0088-5
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11115-009-0088-5