The Challenge of Coordination in Central Government Organizations: The Norwegian Case

Article

Abstract

This paper addresses coordination problems in central government by focusing on the Norwegian case. The main research questions are: What are the experiences of civil servants concerning horizontal and vertical coordination, and internal and external coordination? What is the relative importance of structural, demographic and cultural variables for explaining variations in civil servants’ perception of coordination? The data base is a questionnaire to civil servants in ministries and central agencies in 2006. The main findings are that there are more problems with horizontal coordination than with vertical coordination; that coordination problems are bigger in central agencies than in ministries; and that a low level of mutual trust tends to aggravate coordination problems.

Keywords

Coordination Central government Norway Administrative reform New Public Management 

References

  1. Bardach, E. 1998. Getting agencies to work together. The art and practice of managerial craftsmanship. Washington, DC: The Brooking Institution.Google Scholar
  2. Bogdanor, V. 2005. Joined -up government. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Boston, J., Martin, J., Pallot, J., & Walsh, P. 1996. Public management: The New Zealand model. Auckland: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Brunsson, N. 1989. The organization of hypocrisy. Talk, decisions and actions in organizations. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  5. Christensen, T. 2003. Narrative of Norwegian Governance: Elaborating the strong state. Public Administration, 81(1): 163–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Christensen, T., & Lægreid, P. 1998. Den moderne forvaltning (The modern civil service). Oslo: Tano Aschehoug.Google Scholar
  7. Christensen, T., & Lægreid, P. 1999. New public management: Design, resistance or transformation? Public Productivity and Management Review, 23(2): 169–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Christensen, T., & Lægreid, P. 2001. New public management. The transformation of ideas and practice. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  9. Christensen, T., & Lægreid, P. 2002. Reform og lederskap (Reform and Leadership). Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
  10. Christensen, T., & Lægreid, P. 2003. Coping with complex leadership roles: The problematic redefinition of Government-owned enterprises. Public Administration, 81(4): 803–831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Christensen, T., & Painter, M. 2004. The politics of SARS—rational responses or ambiguity, symbols and chaos? Policy and Society, 23(2): 18–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Christensen, T., & Lægreid, P. (eds.) 2006a. Autonomy and regulation. Coping with agencies in the modern state. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  13. Christensen, T., & Lægreid, P. 2006b. Whole-of-government approach to public sector reform. Public Administration Review, 67(6): 1059–1066.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Christensen, T., & Lægreid, P. 2007a. Transcending new public management. The transformation of public sector reforms. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  15. Christensen, T., & Lægreid, P. 2007. Living in the past?—Tenure, roles and attitudes in the central civil service. Paper presented at the Governing by looking back conference, Canberra, December 14–14 2007.Google Scholar
  16. Christensen, T., & Lægreid, P. 2008. NPM and beyond—leadership, demography and culture. International Journal of Administrative Sciences, 74(1): 5–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Christensen, T., Fimreite, A. L., & Lægreid, P. 2007. Reform of employment and welfare administration—the challenge of coordinating diverge public organizations. International Journal of Administrative Sciences, 73(3): 389–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dahl, R. A., & Lindblom, C. E. 1953. Politics, economics, and welfare. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  19. Egeberg, M. 2003. How bureaucratic structure matters: An organizational perspective. In Peters, B. G., & Pierre, J. (Eds.). Handbook of public administration. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  20. Fimreite, A. L., & Lægreid, P. 2005. The regulatory state and the executing municipality - Consequences of public sector reform in Norway. Working Paper 7/2005. Bergen: Rokkan Centre.Google Scholar
  21. Fimreite, A. L., Flo, Y., & Selle, P. 2007. Når sektorbåndene slites. Utfordringer for den norske velferdskodellen. (When sector ties are broken. Challenges for the Norwegian welfare model).Tidsskrift for samfunnsforskning, 48(2): 165–196.Google Scholar
  22. Gregory, R. 2003. All the King’s horses and all the King’s men: Putting New Zealand’s public sector back together again. International Public Management Review, 4(2): 41–58.Google Scholar
  23. Gulick, L. 1937. Notes on the theory of organizations. With special reference to government. In Gulick, L., & Urwin, L. (Eds.). Papers on the science of administration. New York: A. M. Kelley.Google Scholar
  24. Halligan, J. 2007. Reform design and performance in Australia and New Zealand. In Christensen, T., & Lægreid, P. (Eds.). Transcending new public management. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  25. Hammond, T. H. 1990. In defence of Luther Gulick’s notes on the theory of organization. Public Administration, 68: 143–173(Summer).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hanf, K. 1976. Introduction. In Hanf, K., & Scharpf, F. W. (Eds.). Interorganizational policy making: limits to coordination. Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
  27. Hood, C. 2005. The idea of joined-up government: A historical perspective. In Bogdanor, V. (Ed.). Joined-up government. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Jennings, E. T. K. D. 1994. Coordination and welfare reform: the quest for the Philosopher’s stone. Public Administration Review, 54(5): 341–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kettl, D. F. 2003. Contingent coordination: Practical and theoretical puzzles for homeland security American Review of Public Administration, 33: 253–277, (September).Google Scholar
  30. Krasner, S. D. 1988. Sovereignty. An institutional perspective. Comparative Political Studies, 21(1): 66–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kvavik, R. B. 1976. Interest groups in Norwegian politics. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Lægreid, P., & Olsen, J. P. 1978. Byråkrati og beslutninger (Bureaucracy and decisions). Bergen: Scandinavian University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Lægreid, P., Rolland, V. W., Roness, P. G., & Ågotnes, J. E. 2007. The structural anatomy of the Norwegian State 1985–2007: Increased specialization or pendulum shift? Working paper 21/2003. Bergen: Rokkan Centre.Google Scholar
  34. March, J. G. 1994. A primer of decision making. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  35. March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. 1983. Organizing political life. What administrative reorganization tells us about government. American Political Science Review, 77: 281–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. 1989. Rediscovering institutions. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  37. Olsen, J. P. 1983. Organized democracy. Bergen: Scandinavian University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Perry, 6. 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(1): 103–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Peters, B. G. 1998. Managing horizontal government: The politics of coordination. Public Administration, 76: 295–311(Summer).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Peters, B. G. 2004. The capacity to coordinate. Unpublished paper. Department of Political Science, University of Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
  41. Peters, B. G. 2005. The search for coordination and coherence in public policy: Return to the centre? Unpublished paper. Department of Political Science. University of Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
  42. Pollitt, C. 2003. Joined-up-government: A survey. Political Studies Review, 1: 34–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pollitt, C., & Bouckaert, G. 2004. Public management reform: A comparative analysis. 2Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Pollitt, C., Girre, X., Lonsdale, J., Mul, R., Summa, H., & Waerness, M. 1999. Performance or compliance? Performance audit and public management in five countries. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Roness, P. G. 2001. Transforming state employees’ unions. In Christensen, T., & Lægreid, P. (Eds.). New public management. The transformation of ideas and practice. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  46. Selznick, P. 1957. Leadership in administration. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  47. Simon, H. A. 1946. The proverbs of administration. Public Administration Review, 5(1): 53–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Simon, H. A. 1957. Administrative behaviour. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  49. Stephens, R. 1996. Social services. In Silverstone, B., Bollard, A., & Lattimore, R. (Eds.). A study of economic reform: The case of New Zealand. Elsvier.Google Scholar
  50. Thompson, J. 1967. Organizations in action. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  51. Verhoest, K., & Bouckaert, G. 2005. Machinery of government and policy capacity: The effects of specialization and coordination. In Painter, M., & Pierre, J. (Eds.), Challenges to state policy capacity. Global trends and comparative perspectives. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  52. Verhoest, K., Bouckaert, G., & Peters, B. G. 2007. Janus-faced reorganization: specialization and coordination in four OECD countries in the period 1980–2005. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 73(3): 325–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wise, C. 2002. Organizing for homeland security. Public Administration Review, 62: 44–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of OsloOsloNorway
  2. 2.University of BergenBergenNorway

Personalised recommendations