Skip to main content

Abstract

In this chapter, one of the oldest challenges faced by governments is explored. Beginning with an examination of why coordination has remained such a dominant theme in public administration and management, the chapter surveys classical and more recent scholarship on the topic, and unpacks its multiple and increasingly diverse meanings and conceptualizations. As part of this study, coordination is considered in relation to process, management practice, and policy. The dominant basis mechanisms for coordination measures chosen by governments are then presented, followed by the obstacles and challenges to successful coordination within and across all levels of government. The chapter concludes with coordination considered in a multi-level EU context.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • 6, P. (2004). Joined-up government in the western world in comparative perspective: A preliminary literature review and exploration. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 14, 103–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 6, P. et al. (2002). Towards holistic governance: The new reform agenda. Houndmills: Palgrave.

    Google Scholar 

  • Agranoff, R. (2006). Inside collaborative networks: Ten lessons for public managers. Public Administration Review, 66, 56–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alexander, E. R. (1995). How organizations act together, interorganization coordination in theory and practice. Luxembourg: Gordon and Breach Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alexander, E. R. (1993). Interorganizational coordination: Theory and practice. Journal of Planning Literature, 7, 328–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Askim, J., et al. (2009). How to carry out joined-up government reforms: Lessons from the 2001–2006 Norwegian welfare reform. International Journal of Public Administration, 32, 1006–1025.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Askim, J., et al. (2011). One-stop shops for social welfare: The adaptation of an organizational form in three countries. Public Administration, 89, 1451–1468.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bemelmans-Videc, M.-L., Rist, R. C., & Vedung, E. O. (Eds.). (2011). Carrots, sticks, and sermons: Policy instruments and their evaluation. New Brunswick: Transaction.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bogdanor, V. (2005). Joined-up government. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bouckaert, G., Peters, G. B., & Verhoest, K. (2010). The coordination of public sector organizations: Shifting patterns of public management. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, T., & Laegreid, P. (2007). The whole-of-government approach to public sector reform. Public Administration Review, 67, 1059–1066.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dietz, T. (2003). Struggle to govern the commons. Science, 302(5652), 1907–1912.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunleavy, P. (1985). Bureaucrats, budgets and the growth of the state: Reconstructing an instrumental model. British Journal of Political Science, 15, 299–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunleavy, P. (1991). Democracy, bureaucracy and public choice: Economic explanations in political science. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Durant, R. (1992). Beyond markets, hierarchies, or clans. Administration & Society, 24, 346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elmore, R. (1979). Backward mapping: Implementation research and policy decisions. Political science quarterly, 94, 601–616.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galbraith, J. R. (1977). Organization design: An information processing view. Organizational Effectiveness Center and School, 21, 21–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gulick‚ L. (1937). Notes on the theory of organizations. In Gulick, L. and Urwick, L. F. (Eds.)‚ Papers on the science of administration (pp. 183–187). New York: Institute of Public Administration.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, R. H., et al. (1977). Patterns of interorganizational relationships. Administrative Science Quarterly, 457–474.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Head, B. W., & Alford, J. (2013). Wicked problems: Implications for public policy and management. Administration & Society, 3, 1–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heidenreich, M., & Bischoff, G. (2008). The open method of coordination: A way to the Europeanization of social and employment policies? JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 46, 497–532.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hood, C. (2005). The idea of joined-up government: A historical perspective. In V. Bogdanor (Ed.), Joined-up government; British Academy occasional paper 5 (pp. 19–42). Oxford: Oxford university press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Jennings, E. T., Jr., & Krane, D. (1994). Coordination and welfare reform: The quest for the philosopher’s stone. Public Administration Review, 341–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jessop, B. (2009). From governance via governance failure and from multilevel governance to multi-scalar meta-governance. In B. Arts, A. Lagendijk, & H. van Houtum (Eds.), The disoriented state: Shifts in governmentality, territoriality and governance (pp. 79–98), Environment & Policy. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jordan, A., & Schout, A. (2006). Coordination of the European Union: Exploring the capacities of networked governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Keast, R., Brown, K., & Mandell, M. (2007). Getting the right mix: Unpacking integration meanings and strategies. International Public Management Journal, 10, 9–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klijn, E.-H. (2007). Managing complexity: Achieving the impossible? Critical Policy Studies, 1, 252–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koppenjan, J. F. M., & Klijn, E.-H. (2004). Managing uncertainties in networks: A network approach to problem solving and decision making. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lance, K. T., Georgiadou, Y., & Bregt, A. K. (2009). Cross‐agency coordination in the shadow of hierarchy: ‘joining up’ government geospatial information systems. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 23, 249–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawson, H. (2002). Improving conceptual clarity, accuracy and precision and facilitating more coherent institutional designs. In M. Brabeck & M. Walsh (Eds.)‚ The contribution of interprofessional collaboration and comprehensive services to teaching and learning (pp. 30–45). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindblom, C. E. (1965). The intelligence of democracy. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindblom, C. E. (2001). The market system. What it is, how it works, and what to make of it. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindblom, C. E. (1959). The science of ‘Muddling Through’. Public Administration Review, 19, 79–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lipsky, M. (1993). Street-level bureaucracy: An introduction. In The policy process: A reader. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lowndes, V., & Skelcher, C. (1998). The dynamics of multi-organizational partnerships: An analysis of changing modes of governance. Public Administration, 76, 313–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malone, T. W., & Crowston, K. (1994). The interdisciplinary study of coordination. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 26, 87–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (2010). Rediscovering institutions. New York: Simon and Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCormick, J. (2014). Understanding the European Union: A concise introduction. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Metcalfe, L. (1994). International policy co-ordination and public management reform. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 60, 271–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mintzberg, H. (1989). Mintzberg on management: Inside our strange world of organizations. New York: Simon and Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mintzberg, H. (1979). The structuring of organizations: A synthesis of research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25, 547–552.

    Google Scholar 

  • Molenveld, A. (2016). Organizational adaptation to cross-cutting policy objectives. Dissertation, KU Leuven/University of Antwerp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niskanen, W. A. (1971). Bureaucracy and representative government. Piscataway: Transaction.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ongaro, E. (2004). Process management in the public sector: The experience of one-stop shops in Italy. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 17, 81–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, S. P. (2010). The new public governance? Emerging perspectives on the theory and practice of public governance. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Page, E. (2005). Joined-up government and the civil service. In n. V. Bogdanor (Ed.), Joined-up government (pp. 139–155). Oxford: British Academy/Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Painter, M. (1987). Steering the modern state. Sydney: Sydney University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Painter, M., & Peters, B. G. (2010). Administrative traditions in comparative perspective: Families, groups and hybrids. In Tradition and public administration (pp. 19–30). Basingstoke: Palgrave.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Peters, B. G., & Wright, V. (2001). The national co-ordination of European policy-making: Negotiating the quagmire. In J. Richardson (Ed.), European Union: Power and policy-making (pp. 156–178). London, UK: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peters, G. B. (2015). Pursuing horizontal management: The politics of public sector coordination. Kansas: University Press of Kansas.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peters, G. B. (1998). Managing horizontal government: The politics of co-ordination. Montreal: Canadian Centre for Management Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollitt, C. (2003). Joined-up government: A survey. Political Studies Review, 1, 34–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Radaelli, C. M. (2003). The open method of coordination: A new governance architecture for the European Union.

    Google Scholar 

  • Regens, J. L. (1988). Institutional coordination of program action: A conceptual analysis. International Journal of Public Administration, 11, 135–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rhodes, R. A. W. (1997). Understanding governance: Policy networks, governance, reflexivity and accountability. Buckingham: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scharpf, F. W. (1994). Games real actors could play: Positive and negative coordination in embedded negotiations. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 6, 27–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scharpf, F. W. (1997). Games real actors play. Actor-centered institutionalism in policy research. Oxford: Westview Press Boulder.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schillemans, T. (2012). Moving beyond the clash of interests. Public Management Review, 15, 1–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, W. R. (1995). Institutions and organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, W. R. (1992). Organizations, natural, and open systems. Bergen, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skelcher, C., & Sullivan, H. (2008). Theory-driven approaches to analysing collaborative performance. Public Management Review, 10, 751–771.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, G., et al. (1991). Markets, hierarchies and networks: The coordination of social life. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, J. (1967). Organizations in action. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Slyke, D. M. (2007). Agents or stewards: Using theory to understand the government-nonprofit social service contracting relationship. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 17, 157–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verhoest, K., & Bouckaert, G. (2005). Machinery of government and policy capacity: The effects of specialisation and coordination. In M. Painter & J. Pierre (Eds.), Challenges to state policy capacity (pp. 92–111). Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Verhoest, K., Bouckaert, G., & Peters, G. B. (2007). Janus-faced reorganisation: Specialisation and coordination in four OECD countries in the period 1980–2005. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 73, 325–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wollmann, H. (2003). Coordination in the intergovernmental setting. In G. B. Peters & J. Pierre (Eds.), Handbook of Public Administration, 47, 594–606.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeitlin, J. (2005). Conclusion. The open method of coordination in action. In J. Zeitlin & P. Pochet (Eds.), The European employment and social inclusion strategies (pp. 447–503). Brussels: Peter Lang.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Muiris MacCarthaigh .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Copyright information

© 2018 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

MacCarthaigh, M., Molenveld, A. (2018). Coordination in Europe. In: Ongaro, E., Van Thiel, S. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Public Administration and Management in Europe. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-55269-3_34

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics