Advertisement

Public Organization Review

, Volume 17, Issue 4, pp 525–544 | Cite as

The Role of Organizational Identities for Policy Integration Processes – Managing Sustainable Transport Development

  • Linnea Eriksson
Article
  • 239 Downloads

Abstract

Sustainable transport development is a complex, but necessary issue to manage if the use of fossil energy will decrease and transportation become more energy-efficient and environmental friendly. The contemporary public organization is organized into policy sectors and tiers of government, but the issue of sustainability is not confined to one single sector or level, it transcends all these traditional boundaries. To address this complexity policy integration has been suggested as a way for public organizations to open up the sectoral and vertical boundaries in policymaking. This paper discusses a case study of a political committee on the regional level in Sweden, which has been formed for integrated policymaking between sectors and local and regional authorities to manage sustainable transport development. The analysis of the case shows that vertical and sectoral integration are dependent processes and that the relation between different organizational identities either strengthens or undermine them. Vertical integration is not resulting in sectoral integration, rather it works prohibiting against sectoral integration.

Keywords

Organizational identity Policy integration Sustainable transport policy Regional governance Sweden 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The work which this article is based on was funded by the Swedish Energy Agency. An earlier draft of the article was presented at the Study Group on Governance of Public Sector Organizations at the EGPA Conference in Toulouse 26-28 August 2015 and the author wish to thank all participants for their comments. The author also would like to thank Lisa Hansson, Jenny Palm and Dick Magnusson for their careful reading of the text.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Funding

This study was funded by the Swedish Energy Agency

Conflict of Interests

The author declares that I have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Andersson, F., Ek, R., & Molina, I. (2008). Regionalpolitikens geografi : regional tillväxt i teori och praktik. Lund: Studentlitteratur.Google Scholar
  2. Banister, D. (2005). Unsustainable transport : city transport in the new century. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Banister, D. (2008). The sustainable mobility paradigm. Transport Policy, 15(2), 73–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Flyvbjerg, B. (2001). Making social science matter: why social inquiry fails and how it can succeed again. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Geerlings, H., Stead, D., (2003). The integration of land use planning, transport and environment in European policy and research. Transport Policy, 10, 187–196.Google Scholar
  7. Gioia, D. A., Patvardhan, S. D., Hamilton, A. L., & Corley, K. G. (2013). Organizational identity formation and change. Academy of Management Annals, 7(1), 123–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Glynn, M. A. (2008). Beyond constraint: how institutions enable identities. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, K. Sahlin, & R. Suddaby (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 413–430). London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hendriks, F. (1999). Public policy and political institutions: the role of culture in traffic policy. Cheltenham: Elgar.Google Scholar
  10. Hjalmarsson, L. (2013). Regional transport policy: Progress towards environmental adaption? The 13th World Conference on Transport Research, WCTR 2013, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, July 15–18, 2013.Google Scholar
  11. Hjalmarsson, L. (2015). Biogas as a boundary object for policy integration—the case of Stockholm. Journal of Cleaner Production, 98, 185–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hull, A. (2008). Policy integration: what will it take to achieve more sustainable transport solutions in cities? Transport Policy, 15(2), 94–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hull, A. (2011). Transport matters: integrated approaches to planning city-regions. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Humphreys, M., & Brown, A. D. (2002). Narratives of organizational identity and identification: a case study of hegemony and resistance. Organization Studies, 23(3), 421–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. IEA (International Energy Agency) (2014). Key World Energy Statistics. Paris.Google Scholar
  16. IEA (2014). World Energy Outlook 2013. Paris.Google Scholar
  17. Johansson, J., & Niklasson, L. (2013). Kommunernas region – kommunernas inflytande i regionen. Stockholm: Sveriges kommuner och landsting.Google Scholar
  18. Koppenjan, J. (2007). Consensus and conflict in policy networks: too much or too little. In E. Sørensen & J. Torfing (Eds.), Theories of democratic network governance (pp. 133–152). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kroezen, J. J., & Heugens, P. (2012). Organizational identity formation: processes of identity imprinting and enactment in the Dutch microbrewing landscape. In M. Schultz (Ed.), Constructing identity in and around organizations (pp. 89–127). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2009). InterViews: learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing (2nd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
  21. March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (2008). The logic of appropriateness. In M. Moran, M. Rein, & R. F. Goodin (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of public policy (pp. 689–708). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Nyström, J. (2003). Planeringens grunder: en översikt. Lund: Studentlitteratur.Google Scholar
  23. Olsson, L., Hjalmarsson, L., Wikström, M., & Larsson, M. (2015). Bridging the implementation gap: combining backcasting and policy analysis to study renewable energy in urban road transport. Transport Policy, 37, 72–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rose, L. E., & Ståhlberg, K. (2005). The Nordic countries: still the promised land. In B. Denters & L. E. Rose (Eds.), Comparing local governance: trends and developments (pp. 83–99). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. SEA (Swedish Energy Agency) (2015) Transportsektorns energianvändning 2014 (Energy use in the transport system). ER 2015:01. EskilstunaGoogle Scholar
  26. Scott, W. R. (2014). Institutions and organizations: ideas, interests and identities. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  27. Selznick, P. (1984). Leadership in administration: a sociological interpretation. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  28. Selznick, P. (1992). The moral commonwealth: social theory and the promise of community. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  29. Selznick, P. (1996). Institutionalism “old” and “new.”. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(2), 270–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2007). Theories of democratic network governance. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Stead, D. (2008). Institutional aspects of integrating transport, environment and health policies. Transport Policy, 15(3), 139–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Stead, D., & Meijers, E. (2009). Spatial planning and policy integration: concepts, facilitators and inhibitors. Planning Theory and Practice, 10(3), 317–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Stead, D., Geerlings, H., & Meijers, E. (2004). Policy integration in practice: the integration of land use planning, transport and environmental policy-making in Denmark, England and Germany. Delft: DUP Science.Google Scholar
  34. Tesch, R. (1990). Qualitative research: analysis types and software tools. London: Palmer.Google Scholar
  35. Ugland, T., & Veggeland, F. (2006). Experiments in food safety policy integration in the European Union. Journal of Common Market Studies, 44(3), 607–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Underdal, A. (1980). Integrated marine policy. What? Why? How? Marine Policy, 4(3), 159–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development). (1987). Our common future. United nations world commission on environment and development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Thematic Studies - Technology and Social ChangeLinköping UniversityLinköpingSweden

Personalised recommendations