Machinery of Government and Policy Capacity: The Effects of Specialization and Coordination

  • Koen Verhoest
  • Geert Bouckaert

Abstract

The machinery of government and its organization stems from the division of labour and specialization between its units and the coordination between them. Based on a multiple-country study on specialization and coordination in the public sector, this chapter develops three arguments on the effect of specialization and coordination on the policy capacity of governments. First, a comparative static analysis based on empirical observations of three countries shows that the new public management-based specialization and fragmentation of the governmental apparatus during the 1980s and early 1990s was followed and complemented by the introduction of new or revised coordination instruments. These coordination mechanisms may be classified as hierarchy-type mechanisms, market-type mechanisms or network-type mechanisms.

Keywords

Coherence Lution Nism Conglomerate Decen 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Algemene Rekenkamer (1995) ‘Verslag 1994. Deel 3. Zelfstandige Bestuursorganen en Ministeriele Verantwoordelijkheid’, second chamber, 1994–95 Assembly, 24 130, no. 3.Google Scholar
  2. Boston, J. (1992) ‘The Problems of Policy Coordination: the New Zealand Experience’, Governance, vol. 5, no. 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bouckaert, G. (1997) ‘Overview and Synthesis’, in OECD, In Search of Results: Performance Management Practices in Ten OECD Countries (Paris: Public Management Committee, OECD).Google Scholar
  4. Bouckaert, G. (2003) ‘La Réforme De La Gestion Publique Change-t-Elle Les Systèmes Administratifs?’, Revue Française D’Administration Publique, vols 105–6, pp. 39–54.Google Scholar
  5. Bouckaert, G., K. Verhoest and A. Wauters (2000) Van Effectiviteit van Coördinatie naar Coördinatie van Effectiviteit (From Effectiveness of Coordination to Coordination of Effectiveness) (Bruges: Instituut voor de Overheid and Die Keure).Google Scholar
  6. Commissie Sint (1994) ‘Verantwoord Verzelfstandigen. Rapportage van de Commissie Sint’, in Opdracht van het Beraad van de Secretarissen-Generaal, 14 September.Google Scholar
  7. Greve, C., M. Flinders and S. van Thiel (1999) ‘Quangos — What’s in a Name? Defining Quangos From a Comparative Perspective’, Governance: An International Journal of Policy and Administration, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 129–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hood, C. C. (1991) ‘A Public Management for All Seasons?’, Public Administration, vol. 69 (Spring), pp. 3–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hood, C. C. and A. Dunsire (1981) Bureaumetrics (Farnborough: Gower).Google Scholar
  10. Hoogerwerf, A. (1982) Overheidsbeleid (Governmental policy) (Alphen aan den Rijn: Samsom).Google Scholar
  11. Kaufmann, F. X., G. Majone and V. Ostrom (eds) (1986) Guidance, Control and Evaluation in the Public Sector (Berlin: de Gruyter).Google Scholar
  12. Lægreid, P., V. W. Rolland, P. G. Roness and J.-E. Ågotnes (2003) ‘The structural anatomy of the Norwegian state 1947–2003’, paper presented at the seminar on Organizational Forms, Autonomy and Control in the Public Sector, Bergen, 1–2 December.Google Scholar
  13. Luhmann, N. (1982) The Differentiation of Society (New York: Colombia University Press).Google Scholar
  14. Massey, A. (1997) ‘In Search of the State: Markets, Myths and Paradigms’, in Andrew Massey (ed.), Globalization and Marketization of Govemement Services (Basingstoke: Macmillan), pp. 1–16.Google Scholar
  15. OECD (1993) Managing With Market-Type-Mechanisms (Paris: OECD).Google Scholar
  16. OECD (1997) In Search of Results: Performance Management Practices in Ten OECD Countries (Paris: Public Management Committee, OECD).Google Scholar
  17. O’Toole, L. (1997) ‘Treating Networks Seriously: Pratical and Research-Based Agendas’, Public Administration Review, vol. 57, no. 1, pp. 45–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Painter, M. and J. Pierre (2003) ‘What Is Policy Capacity?’, paper presented at the workshop on Policy Capacity, Hong Kong, October, p. 4.Google Scholar
  19. Peters, B. G. (1998) ‘Managing Horizontal Government: the Politics of Co-Ordination’, Public Administration, vol. 76, no. 4, pp. 291–305.Google Scholar
  20. Peters, B. G. (2003) ‘The Capacity to Coordinate’, paper presented at the workshop on Policy Capacity, City University of Hong Kong, October, p. 39.Google Scholar
  21. Peters, B. G. and D. J. Savoie (1996) ‘Managing Incoherence: the Coordination and Empowerment Conundrum’, Public Administration Review, vol. 56, no. 3.Google Scholar
  22. Pollitt, C. (1984) Manipulating the Machine: Changing the Pattern of Ministerial Departments 1960–83 (London: Allen and Erwin).Google Scholar
  23. Pollitt, C., K. Bathgate, J. Caulfield, A. Smullen and C. Talbot (2001) ‘Agency Fever? Analysis of an International Policy Fashion’, Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 271–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pollitt, C. and G. Bouckaert (2000) Public Management Reform: a Comparative Analysis (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
  25. Steering Group (1991) Review of State Sector Reforms (Wellington, New Zealand: State Services Commission), pp. 46–8.Google Scholar
  26. Thompson, G., J. Frances, R. Levavic and J. Mitchell (eds) (1991) Markets, Hierarchies & Networks, The Coordination of Social Life (London: Sage).Google Scholar
  27. Verhoest, K., A. Legrain and G. Bouckaert (2003) Over Samenwerking en Afstemming. Instrumenten voor een Optimale Beieidsen Beheerscoördinatie in de Publieke Sector (About Cooperation and Adjustment: Instruments for the Optimal Coordination of Management and Policy in the Public Sector) (Brussels: Academia Press).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Koen Verhoest
  • Geert Bouckaert

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations