Advertisement

Possibilities and limitations of metagovernance as public management

Part of the Contributions to Management Science book series (MANAGEMENT SC.)

Abstract

In this chapter the analysis of the case studies from Chapters 4 and 5, together with the literature review of Chapter 2, and the research framework of Chapter 3, are used to reach conclusions on the feasibility of metagovernance, with a focus on the role of public management834. What were the constraints, the possibilities and the limitations of applying metagovernance, and which were essential qualifications that determined the metagovernance capacity of public managers in their role as metagovernors?

Keywords

Ideal Type Public Management Soil Protection Network Governance Governance Approach 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 835.
    Van Thijn (2003: 211): B M. (Memories of the then Major of Amsterdam, Ed van Thijn).Google Scholar
  2. 837.
    Thompson et al. (1991): Markets, hierarchies and networks: the co-ordination of social life.Google Scholar
  3. 838.
    Kickert (2003: 127): Beneath consensual corporatism: Traditions of governance in the Netherlands.Google Scholar
  4. 839.
    Davis and Rhodes (2000): From hierarchy to contracts and back again: Reforming the Australian public service.Google Scholar
  5. 840.
    E.g. Jessop (2002): Governance, governance failure and meta-governance.Google Scholar
  6. 841.
    Toonen (2003: 246): Substance came with little hype. Public sector reform in the Netherlands.Google Scholar
  7. 844.
    Hood (2003: 145): From public bureaucracy state to re-regulated public service: The paradox of British public sector reform.Google Scholar
  8. 846.
    Hesse (2003: 211): Stability turned rigidity. Paradoxes in German public sector development.Google Scholar
  9. 847.
    Hooghe (1999: 415, Consociationalists or Weberians) investigated how elite officials in the Commission perceive the role of nationality in their organisation. She concluded that, although the Weberian ideal type of hierarchy predicts that nationality plays only a modest role (officers should reflect the general European interest), most top officials represented a consociational model, in which officials should represent the diversity of the European polity.Google Scholar
  10. 848.
    Robert (2001: 10): The European Commission and its relationship to politics. How and why doing politics and pretending not to?Google Scholar
  11. 849.
    Dimitriakopoulos and Page (2003: 331): Paradoxes in EU administration.Google Scholar
  12. 850.
    Kümpers et al. (2002: 354–356): The influence of institutions and culture on health policies.Google Scholar
  13. 851.
    Jones and Kettl (2003: 10): Assessing public management reform in international context.Google Scholar
  14. 852.
    Wollmann (2004): Policy change in public sector reforms in cross-country perspective: Between convergence and divergence.Google Scholar
  15. 853.
    Pollit and Bouckaert (2000: 190): Public management reform. A comparative analysis.Google Scholar
  16. 854.
    Haque (2001: 67): The diminishing publicness of public service under the current mode of governance.Google Scholar
  17. 855.
    Economic Commission for Africa (2003): Public Sector Management reforms in Africa: Lessons learned.Google Scholar
  18. 856.
    E.g. Collier (2004): Policing in South Africa. Replication and resistance to New Public Management reforms.Google Scholar
  19. 857.
    Sagewan-Alli (2006): ‘Donkey’ governance.Google Scholar
  20. 858.
    Schuppert (2007: 9): Was ist und wozu governance?Google Scholar
  21. 859.
    Risse (2007: 18): Regieren in Räumen begrenzter Staatlichkeit. Zur ”Reisefähigkeit“ des Governance-Konzeptes.Google Scholar
  22. 860.
    Schuppert (2007: 14): Was ist und wozu governance?Google Scholar
  23. 862.
    Brogden (2005): “Horses for Courses” and “Thin Blue Lines”: Community Policing in Transitional Society.Google Scholar
  24. 863.
    Murphy (2005: 141): Police studies go global: In Eastern Kentucky?Google Scholar
  25. 864.
    Hofstede and Hofstede (2005: 275): Cultures and organizations. Software of the mind.Google Scholar
  26. 865.
    Hofstede (1980: 50): Motivation, leadership and organisation: Do American theories apply abroad?Google Scholar
  27. 866.
    (ibid.: 55).Google Scholar
  28. 867.
    Farazmand (2002: 176): Globalization, privatization and the future of modern governance.Google Scholar
  29. 868.
    World Bank (2006: 127): Global Monitoring Report 2006. See also Bissessar (2006: Transforming the personnel of the higher civil service: The case of deputy permanent secretaries in Trinidad and Tobago) for illustrating this with the introduction of a competency system for senior civil service.Google Scholar
  30. 869.
    Jayasuriya (2003: 18)): ‘Workfare for the global poor’: Anti politics and the New Governance.Google Scholar
  31. 871.
    Olsen (2006: 15): Maybe it is time to rediscover bureaucracy.Google Scholar
  32. 872.
    Schick (1998): Why most developing countries should not try New Zealand reforms.Google Scholar
  33. 873.
    Osborne and Plastrik (2000): 2): The reinventor’s fieldbook. Other titles mentioned here: Osborne (1997: Banishing bureaucracy) and Osborne and Gaebler (1990: Reinventing government).Google Scholar
  34. 874.
    Kaplan and Norton (1996): The balanced scorecard.Google Scholar
  35. 875.
    Weick (1995): Sensemaking in organizations.Google Scholar
  36. 876.
    E.g. Lindblom (1959): The science of muddling through.Google Scholar
  37. 877.
    E.g. Van Gunsteren (1976): The Quest for Control.Google Scholar
  38. 878.
    Senge (1990): The fifth discipline: The art and science of the learning organization.Google Scholar
  39. 879.
    E.g. De Bruijn and Ten Heuvelhof (2004: Management in netwerken), Koppenjan and Klijn (2004: Managing uncertainties in networks).Google Scholar
  40. 880.
    E.g. Roobeek (2007): The networking landscape. Navigation for the route to networking organisations.Google Scholar
  41. 881.
    O’Toole et al. (2005: 48): Managing upward, downward and outward. Networks, hierarchical relationships and performance.Google Scholar
  42. 882.
    McGuire (2003): Is it really so strange? A critical look at the “network is different from hierarchical management” perspective.Google Scholar
  43. 883.
    Stacey and Shaw (2000): Complexity and management: Fad or Radical Challenge?Google Scholar
  44. 884.
    Van der Heijden (ed.) (2005: 63): Recombinatie van overheid en samenleving.Google Scholar
  45. 885.
    “The decison as to the structure of meta-decisionmaking is a matter for metametadecision-making. Designing the process of organising decision-making is a meta-level activity from a control-systems viewpoint, namely the activity of a meta-metacontroller.” Kickert (1979: 185): Organisation of decisionmaking. A systems-theoretical approach.Google Scholar
  46. 886.
    Teisman (2000): Models for research into decision-making processes: On phases, streams and decision-making rounds.Google Scholar
  47. 887.
    The phases of divergence and convergence were even observed in a case in which the public manager acting as metagovernor was not able to directly influence the societal debate on, in this example, land policy in the Netherlands. Nevertheless, during the first half year, stakeholders gathered in working groups and conferences, the media started to write about the issue, and many ideas were born (including stories about who profited from the change from farm land to building land). Gradually, some stories became exposed as myths, and a broad consensus emerged on some of the topics. (Meuleman, 2003: 86, The Pegasus Principle).Google Scholar
  48. 890.
    Hirschman (1958): The strategy of economic development.Google Scholar
  49. 891.
    Aveni (1978): Organizational Linkages and Resource Mobilization: The Significance of Linkage Strength and Breadth.Google Scholar
  50. 892.
    Schaap (2007: 116): Closure and governance.Google Scholar
  51. 893.
    Selin and VanDeveer (2003): Mapping Institutional Linkages in European Air Pollution Politics.Google Scholar
  52. 894.
    Pollit and Bouckaert (2000: 152–153): Public management reform. A comparative analysis.Google Scholar
  53. 895.
    Kettl (2002:15; 50): The transformation of governance.Google Scholar
  54. 896.
    Hesse et al. (2000: 19): Paradoxes in public sector reform.Google Scholar
  55. 897.
    E.g. Dirven et al.(1998: Stuur of overstuur).Google Scholar
  56. 898.
    E.g. Hesse et al. (2000: Paradoxes in public sector reform), De Wit et al. (2000: Strategisch management van publieke organisaties.), De Wit and Meyer (1999: Strategy synthesis.).Google Scholar
  57. 899.
    Jessop (2002): Governance, governance failure and meta-governance.Google Scholar
  58. 900.
    Dixon and Dogan (2002: 191): Hierarchies, networks and markets.Google Scholar
  59. 901.
    Harvey (1996: 15): The Abilene Paradox and other meditations on management.Google Scholar
  60. 902.
    Eppink (2007): European mandarins.Google Scholar
  61. 903.
    Robert (2001: 8): The European Commission and its relationship to politics.Google Scholar
  62. 904.
    Molleman (2004: 50): Het minderhedenbeleid in historisch perspectief: leren van gemaakte fouten.Google Scholar
  63. 905.
    Davis and Rhodes (2000: 25): From hierarchy to contracts and back again.Google Scholar
  64. 906.
    Behrends (2001): Organisationskultur und Innovativität. Eine kulturtheoretische Analyse des Zusammenhangs zwischen sozialer Handlungsgrammatik und innovativem Organisationsverhalten.Google Scholar
  65. 907.
    Noordegraaf and Abma (2003): Management by Measurement? Public Management Practices Amidst Ambiguity.Google Scholar
  66. 908.
    ’t Hart and Wille (2006): Ministers and top officials in the Dutch core executive: living together, growing apart?Google Scholar
  67. 910.
    Lipsky (1980): Street-Level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services.Google Scholar
  68. 911.
    In ’t Veld (ed.) (2000): Willingly and knowingly. The roles of knowledge about nature and the environment in policy processes.Google Scholar
  69. 912.
    Cox (2004: 41): Accountability and responsibility in organisations: the ethics of discretion.Google Scholar
  70. 913.
    Ponsaers (2001: 491): Reading about “community (oriented) policing” and police models.Google Scholar
  71. 914.
    Hunold and Peters (2004): Bureaucratic discretion and deliberative democracy.Google Scholar
  72. 915.
    Hupe and Hill (2007: 294): Street-level bureaucracy and public accountability.Google Scholar
  73. 916.
    Kelly (2006: 631): Professionals, discretion and public sector reform in the UK: re-visiting Lipsky.Google Scholar
  74. 917.
    Lipsky (1980: 47): Street-Level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services.Google Scholar
  75. 918.
    Laske (2006): On leadership as something we are rather than have.Google Scholar
  76. 919.
    Jessop (2003): Governance and metagovernance: On reflexivity, requisite variety, and requisite irony.Google Scholar
  77. 920.
    In ’t Veld (1999: 30): Ordelijke chaos noodzaak voor innovatie.Google Scholar
  78. 921.
    Jessop (2003: 7): Governance and metagovernance: On reflexivity, requisite variety, and requisite irony.Google Scholar
  79. 922.
    Starkey et al. (1991): Flexibility, hierarchy, markets.Google Scholar
  80. 923.
    Dunshire (1996: 319–320): Tipping the balance: Autopoiesis and governance.Google Scholar
  81. 924.
    An autopoietic system is one that is continuously producing its internal structure, without reference to any outside source, in the interest of maintaining, through perturbation, its essential identity (Dunshire, 1996: 301). See also Dunshire (1993: 252, Manipulating Social Tensions: Collibration as an Alternative Mode of Government Intervention) and In’ t Veld et al. (1991: Autopoiesis and configuration theory: new approaches to societal steering).Google Scholar
  82. 925.
    Jessop (1998: 44): The rise of governance and the risks of failure.Google Scholar
  83. 927.
    Weggeman (2003): Controversiële besluitvorming; opkomst en functioneren van het groen polderoverleg. Dissertation.Google Scholar
  84. 928.
    Landsbergen and Orosz (1996: 252): Why public managers should not be afraid to enter the “gray zone”.Google Scholar
  85. 929.
    Landsbergen and Orosz (1996: 254): Why public managers should not be afraid to enter the “gray zone”.Google Scholar
  86. 930.
    Lowndes and Skelcher (1998): The dynamics of Multi-Organisational Partnerships: an Analysis of Changing Modes of Governance.Google Scholar
  87. 931.
    Vrakking et al. (1998): Evaluatie project Milieu & Ruimte.Google Scholar
  88. 933.
    This cultural gap had been widened by the enthusiastic introduction in the Ministry of the market-governance idea of integral management: managers from both sides were responsible for their own policy and resource management, not for the interlinkage of policies (In ’t Veld (ed.), 1996: III).Google Scholar
  89. 934.
    In ’t Veld (ed.) (1996: IV): Rapportage onderzoek Besturingsconcepten VROM.Google Scholar
  90. 935.
    “If anything characterises environmental policy (in VROM), it is the use of ‘command and control’.” Ringeling (1997: 4): Sturing van het milieubeleid.Google Scholar
  91. 936.
    Entwistle et al. (2007: 66): The dysfunction of markets, hierarchies and networks in the meta-governance of partnerships.Google Scholar
  92. 937.
    Entwistle et al. (2007: 76): The dysfunction of markets, hierarchies and networks in the meta-governance of partnerships.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Physica-Verlag Heidelberg 2008

Personalised recommendations