Public Organization Review

, Volume 14, Issue 4, pp 439–456 | Cite as

Joined-Up Government for Welfare Administration Reform in Norway

  • Tom Christensen
  • Anne Lise Fimreite
  • Per LægreidEmail author


One of the largest public sector reforms in Norway is the welfare administrative reform of 2005. The aims are to get passive beneficiaries back into work and to make the administration more user-friendly, holistic and efficient. The aims are to be achieved by increasing the administration’s capacity to address “wicked issues” by cutting across existing policy fields and administrative levels. This joined-up-government approach poses three main challenges: 1) to get a merged central government agency to work, 2) to establish constructive cooperation between the central and local authorities and 3) to coordinate front-line services with user-oriented employment and welfare offices. The article shows that increasing the capacity of government to cut across existing policy fields and handle transboundary wicked issues are still struggling to be implemented. Cooperation between sectors is however easier to achieve than cooperation between levels. The joined-up-government-approach also tends to make accountability relations more ambiguous.


Joined-up government Accountability Administrative reform Wicked issues 



This paper is part of the Evaluation Program of the NAV Reform and the research paper “Reforming the Welfare State. Democracy, Accountability and Management”, funded by the Norwegian Research Council and managed by Stein Rokkan Centre for Social Studies. The research leading to these results has also received funding from the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme under grant agreement No. 266887 (Project COCOPS), Socioeconomic Sciences & Humanities. The Norwegian part of this project is managed by the Department of Administration and Organization Theory, University of Bergen.


  1. 6, P., Leat, D., Seltzer, K., & Stoker, G. (2002). Towards holistic govenance: The new reform agenda. New York: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  2. Alm Andreassen, T. (2011a). Bredspektret og brukerrettet bistand—endrer NAV-reformen arbeidsformen? (Holistic and user-oriented assistance—will the NAV-reform change the working methods). In T. Alm Andreassen & K. Fossestøl (Eds.), NAV ved et veiskille (NAV at a crossroads). Oslo: Gyldendal.Google Scholar
  3. Alm Andreassen, T. (2011b). Samordnet bistand og flere i arbeid: Politiske integreringsambisjoner og lokal virkelighet (Coordinated assistance and getting more people into work: Political integration ambitions and local reality). Paper presented at the conference “5 years with NAV,” Oslo, 26.10.2011.Google Scholar
  4. Alm Andreassen, T., & Fossestøl, K. (2011). NAV ved et veiskille (NAV at a crossroads). Oslo: Gyldendal.Google Scholar
  5. Askim, J., Christensen, T., Fimreite, A. L., & Lægreid, P. (2009). How to carry out joined-up government reforms: lessons from the 2001–2006 Norwegian Welfare Reform. International Journal of Public Administration, 32(12), 1006–1025.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Askim, J., Christensen, T., Fimreite, A. L., & Lægreid, P. (2010). How to assess administrative reform? Investigating the adoption and preliminary impact of the Norwegian welfare administration reform. Public Administration, 88(1), 232–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Askim, J., Fimreite, A. L., Mosley, A., & Pedersen, L. H. (2011). One-stop-shops for social welfare: the adaptation of an organisational form in three countries. Public Administration, 89(4), 1451–1468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bogdanor, V. (2010). On forms of accountability. Working Paper 03. London: 2020 Public Service Trust at the RSA.Google Scholar
  9. Boston, J., & Eichbaum, C. (2005). State Sector Reform and Renewal in New Zealand: Lessons for Governance. Paper presented at the Conference on “Repositioning of Public Governance: Global Experiences and Challenges”, Taipei, 18–19.11.2005.Google Scholar
  10. Boston, J., & Gill, D. (2011). Working across organizational boundaries: The challenge of accountability. In B. Ryan & D. Gill (Eds.), Future state: Directions for public management in New Zealand. Wellington: Victoria University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Bovens, M. (2007). Analyzing and assessing public accountability. A conceptual framework. European Law Journal, 13(4), 837–868.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Byrkjeflot, H., Christensen, T., Lægreid, P. (2012). The Many Faces of Accountability Comparing Reforms in Welfare, Hospitals and Migration. Paper presented at the ASPA Annual Conference, Las Vegas, March 2–6, 2012.Google Scholar
  13. Christensen, T., & Lægreid, P. (2007). The whole-of-government approach to public sector reform. Public Administration Review, 67(6), 1059–1066.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Christensen, T., & Lægreid, P. (2010). Increased complexity in public organizations—the challenges of combining NPM and post-NPM. In P. Lægreid & K. Verhoest (Eds.), Governance of public sector organizations. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  15. Christensen, T., & Lægreid, P. (2011). Complexity and hybrid public administration—theoretical and empirical challenges. Public Organization Review, 1(4), 407–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Christensen, T., & Lægreid, P. (2012a). Welfare Reform and ‘Wicked Issues’—from Coupling to De-coupling?. Paper presented at the ‘Public Policy and Public Management: Exploring the Changing Linkages’, 2012 SOG Conference, Melbourne, Jan 27–29, 2012.Google Scholar
  17. Christensen, T., & Lægreid, P. (2012b). Competing principles of agency organization—the reorganization of a reform. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 78(4), 579–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Christensen, T., Fimreite, A. L., & Lægreid, P. (2007). Reform of the employment and welfare administrations—the challenges of co-coordinating diverse public organizations. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 73(3), 389–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Christensen, T., Knuth, M., Lægreid, P., & Wiggan, J. (2009). Reforms of welfare administration and policy—a comparison of complexity and hybridization: an introduction. International Journal of Public Administration, 32, 1001–1005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Christensen, D. A., Hansen, H. T., & Aars, J. (2011). Har utformingen av lokale NAV-avtaler betyding for brukerens tilfredshet(Has the design of local NAV agreements had an impact on user satisfaction?). Nordiske Organisasjonsstudier, 13(3), 55–80.Google Scholar
  21. Davies, J. S. (2009). The limits of joined-up government: towards a political analysis. Public Administration, 87(1), 80–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Difi-report (2010) Citizens survey: The impression of living in the municipality and in Norway Oslo: Difi ISSN 1890–6583Google Scholar
  23. Dowling, B., Powell, M., & Glendinning, C. (2004). Conceptualizing successful partnerships. Health & Social Care in the Community, 12(4), 309–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fimreite, A. L. (2011). Partnerskapet i Nav—innovasjon eller “same procedure”? (Partnership in NAV—Innovation or ‘Same Procedure?) Memo 4–2011. Bergen: Uni Rokkan Centre.Google Scholar
  25. Fimreite, A. L., & Lægreid, P. (2009). Reorganization of the Welfare State Administration: partnerships, networks and accountability. Public Management Review, 11(3), 281–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Flinders, M. (2012). The Liquid State and Accountable Governance: Insights from the Coalition Government’s ‘Public Bodies Reform Agenda’ in the United Kingdom. Paper presented at the ASPA Conference, Las Vegas March 2–6.Google Scholar
  27. Goetz, A. M., & Jenkins, R. (2001). Hybrid forms of accountability. Citizens engagement in institutions of public sector oversight in India. Public Management Review, 3(3), 363–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gregory, R. (2006). Theoretical faith and practical works: De-autonomizing and joining-up in the New Zealand state sector. In T. Christensen & P. Lægreid (Eds.), Autonomy and regulation: Coping with agencies in the modern state. London: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  29. Gulick, L. (1937). Notes on the theory of organizations. With a special reference to government. In L. Gulick & L. Urwick (Eds.), Paper on the science of administration. New York: A.M. Kelly.Google Scholar
  30. Halligan, J. (2008). The Centrelink experiment. Innovation in service delivery. Canberra: ANU Press.Google Scholar
  31. Helgøy, I., Kildal, N., Nilssen, E. (2011). Arbeidsretting og spesialisering—mot en ny yrkesrolle i NAV? (Work related and specialization—towards a new professional role in NAV?). Paper presented at the workshop on NAV evaluation, 24–25.10.2011, Oslo.Google Scholar
  32. Hodges, R. (2012). Joined-up government and the challenges to accounting and accountability researchers. Financial Accountability & Management, 28(1), 26–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hoggett, P. (2006). Conflict, ambivalence, and the contested purpose of public organizations. Human Relations, 59(2), 175–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kavanagh, D., & Richards, D. (2001). Departemenalism and joined-up government: back to the future? Parliamentary Affairs, 54, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Klijn, E.-H., & Skelcher, C. (2007). Democracy and governance networks: compatible or not? Public Administration, 85(3), 587–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lægreid, P. (2013). New public management and public accountability. In M. Bovens, R. E. Goodin, & T. Schillemans (Eds.), Oxford handbook of public accountability. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Ling, T. (2002). Delivering joined-up government in the UK: dimensions, issues and problems. Public Administration, 80(4), 615–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lundberg, K. (2011).Uforutsigbare relasjoner. Brukererfaringer, NAV-reformen og levd liv.» (Unpredictable relations. User experiences, the NAV-reform and lives lived) Doctoral Thesis, Departement of Sociology, University of Bergen.Google Scholar
  39. Martin, S. (2010). From new public management to networked community governance? Strategic local public service networks in England. In S. P. Osborne (Ed.), The new public governance? London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  40. March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1995). Democratic Governance. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  41. Michels, A., & Meijer, A. (2008). Safeguarding public accountability in horizontal government. Public Management Review, 10(2), 165–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. National Audit Office. (2001). Joining up to improve public services. Report by the controller and auditor general. London: The Stationary Office.Google Scholar
  43. NAV. (2012). Yrkesstatistikk (profession statistics), May 2012. Oslo: NAV.Google Scholar
  44. Norris, P. (Ed.). (1999). Critical citizens: Global support for democratic governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Olsen, J. P. (2007). Europe in search of political order. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Ostrom,V., Tiebout, C. M., & Warren, C. (1961). The organization of government in metropolitan areas: a theoretical inquiry. The American Political Science Review, 55(4), 831–842.Google Scholar
  47. Page, E. C. (2005). Joined-up government and the civcil service. In V. Bogdanor (Ed.), Joined-up government. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Pollitt, C. (2003). Joined-up government. A survey. Political Studies Review, 1(1), 34–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Richards, S. (2001). Four types of joining up government and the problem of accountability. Appendix 2. In joining up to improve public services. Report by the Controller and Auditor General. London: The Stationary Office.Google Scholar
  50. Romzek, B. (2000). Dynamics of public sector accountability in an era of reform. International Review of Administrative Science, 66(1), 21–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Romzek, B., & Dubnick, M. (1987). Accountability in the public sector: lessons from the challenger tragedy. Public Administration Review, 47(May/June), 227–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Ryan, C., & Walsh, P. (2004). Collaboration of public sector agencies: reporting and accountability challenges. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 17(7), 621–631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Schillemans, T. (2008). Accountability in the shadow of hierarchy: the horizontal accountability of agencies. Public Organization Review, 8(2), 175–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Scott, C. (2000). Accountability in the regulatory State. Journal of Law and Society, 27(1), 38–60.Google Scholar
  55. Skelcher, C. (2005). Jurisdicional integrety, polycentrism, and the design of democratic governance. Govenance, 18(1), 89–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Skelcher, C., Mathur, N., & Smith, M. (2005). The public governance of collaborative spaces: discourse, design and democracy. Public Administration, 83(3), 573–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Streeck, W., & Thelen, K. (Eds.). (2005). Beyond continuity. Institutional change in advanced political economies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Sullivan, H., & Skelcher, C. (2002). Working across boundaries. Collaboration in public services. London: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  59. Tranvik, T., & Fimreite, A. L. (2006). Reform failure. The processes of devolution and centralization in Norway. Local Government Studies, 32(1), 89–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wiggan, J. (2007). Reforming the United Kingdom’s public employment and social security agencies. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 73(3), 409–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Willems, T., & Van Dooren, W. (2011). Lost in diffusion? How collaborative arrangements lead to an accountability paradox. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 77(3), 505–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tom Christensen
    • 1
    • 3
  • Anne Lise Fimreite
    • 2
    • 3
  • Per Lægreid
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of OsloOsloNorway
  2. 2.Department of Administration and Organization TheoryUniversity of BergenBergenNorway
  3. 3.Stein Rokkan Centre for Social StudiesUniversity of BergenBergenNorway

Personalised recommendations