Advertisement

Strategic Governance

  • Jan-Erik JohansonEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

Johanson introduces three roles for government agencies in dealing with their external constituencies. As a benevolent mediator, public agencies serve for their clientele on providing services for the citizens. As a business partner, public agency takes part in economic exchange with private enterprise. As a antitrust agent, public agency supervises and disciplines other organisations in its environment. The role of the agency is dependent upon the duties of public agency.

Keywords

Inter-organisational networks Stakeholder management Public agencies 

References

  1. Alford, J. (2002). Defining the client in the public sector: A social-exchange perspective. Public Administration Review, 62(3), 337–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Becker, J., Niehaves, B., & Krause, A. (2009). Shared service center vs. shared service network: A multiple case study analysis of factors impacting on shared service configurations. Electronic government. Lecture notes in computer Science, pp. 115–126.Google Scholar
  3. Bergvall, D. (2005). Intergovernmental transfers and decentralised public spending. OECD Journal on Budgeting, 5(4), 111–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bó, E. D. (2006). Regulatory capture: A review. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 22(2), 203–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burt, R. (1992). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Caplow, T. (1956). A theory of coalitions in the triad. American Sociological Review, 21(4), 489–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Caplow, T. (1968). Two against one: Coalitions in triads. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  8. Cerny, P. G. (1997). Paradoxes of the competition state: The dynamics of political globalization. Government and Opposition, 32(2), 251–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clifton, J., Comín, F., & Díaz Fuentes, D., 2006. Privatizing public enterprises in the European Union 1960–2002: Ideological, pragmatic, inevitable? Journal of European Public Policy, 13(5), 736–756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dunleavy, P. (1989). The architecture of the British central state, part I: Framework for analysis. Public Administration, 67(3), 249–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dunleavy, P., Margetts, H., Bastow, S., & Tinkler, J. (2006). Digital era governance: IT corporations, the state, and e-government (1st ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dyer, J., & Singh, H. (1998). The relational view: Cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage. The Academy of Management Review, 23(4), 660–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ellison, B. (2006). Bureaucratic politics as agency competition: A comparative perspective. International Journal of Public Administration, 29(13), 1259–1283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. European Comission. (2011, August). State aid reform. Available: http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/reform/reform.html.
  15. Everson, M., Majone, G., Metcalfe, L., & Schout, A. (1999). The role of specialised agencies in decentralising EU governance. Report Presented to the Commission. Florence and Maastricht: European Comission.Google Scholar
  16. Fernandez, R., & Gould, R. (1994). A dilemma of state power: Brokerage and influence in the national health policy domain. American Journal of Sociology, 99(6), 1455–1491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gallagher, M. (2005). Benchmarking tax systems. Public Administration and Development, 25(2), 125–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gamson, W. A. (1961). A theory of coalition formation. American Sociological Review, 26(3), 373–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gilardi, F., Jordana, J., & Levi-Faur, D. (2006). Regulation in the age of globalization: The diffusion of regulatory agencies across Europe and Latin America. Barcelona: IBEI Working Papers.Google Scholar
  20. Gortner, H., Mahler, J., & Nicholson, J. B. (1997). Organization theory: A public perspective. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace College.Google Scholar
  21. Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. The American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–1380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91(3), 481–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hardiman, N., & Scott, C. (2010). Governance as polity: An institutional approach to the evolution of state functions in Ireland. Public Administration, 88(1), 170–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Harlow, C. (2006, February). Global administrative law: The Quest for principles and values. European Journal of International Law, 17(1), 187–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Heider, F. (1946). Attitudes and cognitive organization. The Journal of Psychology, 21, 107–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hjern, B., & Porter, D. (1981). Implementation structures: A new unit of administrative analysis. Organization Studies, 2(3), 211–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hodge, G. A., Greve, C., & Boardman, A. E. (2010). International handbook on public private partnerships. Cheltenham and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Johanson, J. E. (2014). Strategic governance in public agencies. In Developments in strategic and public management, 268–282. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  29. Kersbergen, K., & Van Waarden, F. (2004). ‘Governance’ as a Bridge between disciplines. Cross-disciplinary inspiration regarding shifts in governance and problems of governability, accountability, and legitimacy. European Journal of Political Research, 43, 143–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kickert, W. J., Klijn, E., & Koppenjan, J. F. (1997). Managing complex networks: Strategies for the public sector. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  31. Koppenjan, J. F. M., & Enserink, B. (2009). Public-private partnerships in urban infrastructures: Reconciling private sector participation and sustainability. Public Administration Review, 69(2), 284–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Krackhardt, D. (1999). The ties that torture. Simmelian tie analysis in Organizations. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 16, 183–210.Google Scholar
  33. Lecy, J. D., Mergel, I. A., & Schmitz, H. P. (2014). Networks in public administration: Current scholarship in review. Public Management Review, 16(5), 643–665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Majone, G., & Baake, P. (1996). Regulating Europe. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mesterton-Gibbons, M., Gavrilets, S., Gravner, J., & Akçay, E. (2011). Models of coalition or alliance formation. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 274(1), 187–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Milward, H., Provan, K. (2003). Managing the hollow state collaboration and contracting. Public Management Review, 5(1), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Moran, M. (2002). Understanding the regulatory state. British Journal of Political Science, 32(2), 391–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Nutt, P., & Backoff, R. (1992). Strategic management of public and third sector organizations: A handbook for leaders. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  39. Oates, W. (2005). Toward a second-generation theory of fiscal federalism. International Tax and Public Finance, 12(4), 349–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. OECD. (2002). Distributed public governance. Organisation for economic co-operation and development. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  41. OECD. (2009). OECD efficiency study. Working party of senior budget officials. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  42. Putnam, R. D., Leonardi, R., & Nanetti, R. Y. (1993). Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Puustinen, A., & Lehtimäki, H. (2016). Success and failure? A complexity perspective on an organizational innovation blockage. Emergence: Complexity and Organization, 18(3–4), 1–9.Google Scholar
  44. Rhodes, R. A. W. (1997). Understanding governance: Policy networks, governance, reflexivity and accountability. Philadelphia, US: Open University.Google Scholar
  45. Ring, P. S., & Perry, J. L. (1985). Strategic management in public and private organizations: Implications of distinctive contexts and constraints. Academy of Management Review, 10(2), 276–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Ryu, J., Bowling, C., Cho, C., & Wright, D. (2008). Exploring explanations of state agency budgets: Institutional budget actors or exogenous environment? Public Budgeting & Finance, 28(3), 23–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Shah, A. (2007). A framework for evaluating alternate institutional arrangements for fiscal equalization transfers. In J. Martinez-Vazquez (Ed.), Fiscal Equalization (pp. 141–162). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  48. Shaw, M. (1954). Some effects of problem complexity upon problem solution efficiency in different communication nets. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48(3), 211–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Simmel, J. (1950). The sociology of Georg Simmel: Translated by Wolff, Kurt H. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  50. Simon, H. (1971). Designing organizations for an information-rich world. In M. Greenberger (Ed.), Computers, communications, and the public interest (pp. 37–72). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.Google Scholar
  51. United Nations. (1999). Classification of the functions of the government. New York: United Nations, Statistical Division.Google Scholar
  52. Van De Kaa, G., & Greeven, M. (2017). Mobile telecommunication standardization in Japan, China, the United States, and Europe: A comparison of regulatory and industrial regimes. Telecommunication Systems, 65(1), 181–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Van Kerckhove, M. (1991). Cocom rules. Computer Law & Security Review, 6(5), 9–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Van Slyke, D. (2009). The collaborative public manager: New ideas for the twenty-first century (R. O’leary, Ed.) (pp. 137–156). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Walsh, P., McGregor-Lowndes, M., & Newton, C. J. (2008). Shared services: Lessons from the public and private sectors for the nonprofit sector. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 67(2), 200–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Wilson, J. Q. (1989). Bureaucracy: What government agencies do and why they do it. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of TampereTampereFinland

Personalised recommendations