Skip to main content

Coordination Quality in Central Government – the Case of Norway

Abstract

This article focuses on perceived coordination quality among Norwegian civil servants. It explains how they assess the quality of coordination in their own field of work along different dimensions. To what degree have such perceptions changed over the past 10 years and what can explain the variations in perceived coordination quality from a structural and a cultural perspective? The data base is a comprehensive survey in ministries and central agencies. The civil servants perceive coordination as better within their own policy area than across administrative levels and policy areas. The perceptions are rather stable over time. The most important factors for understanding variations in coordination quality are coordination capacity, mutual trust and administrative level.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. 1.

    Excluded from the analyses are civil servants who do not see coordination on the different dimensions as relevant for their own daily work or who did not answer the questions on coordination quality. In 2016, this varies between 39% of the respondents for coordination within own policy area to 66% for coordination with local and regional bodies. In 2006, it varied between 24% for coordination within own policy area to 55% for coordination with local and regional bodies.

  2. 2.

    It has been controlled for demographic characteristics, such as age, gender, tenure and education but they have no significant effect.

References

  1. Aberbach, J. D., & Christensen, T. (2014). Why reforms so often disappoint. American Review of Public Administration, 44(1), 3–16.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), 543–571.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Aspøy, A. (2016). Tillitsreform i Skandinavia (trust reform in Scandinavia). Stat og Styring, 26(3), 14–16.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bardach, E. (1998). Getting Agencies to Work Together. The Art and Practice of Managerial Craftsmanship. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  6. Bouckaert, G., Peters, B. G., & Verhoest, K. (2010a). The coordination of public sector organizations. London: Palgrave.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Bouckaert, G., Peters, B. G., & Verhoest, K. (2010b). The Coordination of Public Sector Organizations. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Bringselius, L., ed. (2018). Styra och leda med tillit. Forskning oh praktik. (govern and manage with trust. Research and practice). SOU 2018:38.

  9. Brunsson, N. (1989). The organization of hypocracy. Talk, decisions and actions in government. Chichester: Wiley.

  10. Christensen, T. (2018). Blind spots: Organizational and institutional biases in intra- and inter-organizational contexts. In T. Bach & K. Wegrich (Eds.), The blind spots of public bureaucracy and the politics of non-coordination. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Christensen, T., & Lægreid, P. (2005). Trust in Government: The relative importance of service satisfaction, political factors, and Demography. Public Performance & Management Review, 28(4), 487–511.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Christensen, T., & Lægreid, P. (2007). The whole-of-government approach to public sector reform. Public Administration Review, 67(6), 1059–1066.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Christensen, T., & Lægreid, P. (2008). The challenge of coordination in central government organizations: The Norwegian case. Public Organization Review. A Global Journal, 8(2), 97–116.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Christensen, T., & Lægreid, P. (2009). Complexity and hybrid public organizations. Theoretical and Empirical Challenges. Public Organization Review, 11(4), 407–423.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Christensen, T., Lægreid, P., Roness, P. G., & Røvik, K. A. (2007). Organization theory and the public sector. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Christensen, D. A., Lægreid, P., & Midtbø, T. (2012). Cross-border coordination activities in central government administration - combining organizational conditions and individual features. Public Organization Review, 12(4), 367–382.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Christensen, T., Lægreid, P., & Rykkja, L. H. (2016). Organizing for crisis management: Building governance capacity and legitimacy. Public Administration Review, 76(6), 887–897.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Christensen, T., M. Egeberg, P. Lægreid and J. Trondal (2018). Norsk sentralforvaltning gjennom 40 år. Stabilitet og endring (Central Civil Service in Norway over 40 years. Stability and Change). Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.

  19. Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. (1992). A behavioral theory of the firm (Second ed.). New York: Blackwell.

  20. Dahl, R. A., & Lindblom, C. E. (1953). Politics, economics, and welfare. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Egeberg, M. (2012). How bureaucratic structure matters: An organizational perspective. In B. G. Peters & J. Pierre (Eds.), Handbook of public administration. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Egeberg, M., & Trondal, J. (2016). Why strong coordination at one level of government is incompatible with strong coordination across levels. Public Administration, 94(3), 579–592.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Genschel, P. (1997). How fragmentation can improve coordination: Setting standards in international telecommunication. Organizational Studies, 18(4), 603–622.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Gregory, R. (2003). All the Kings’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 

  25. Gulick, L. (1937). Notes on the theory of organization. In L. Gulick & L. F. Urwick (Eds.), Papers on the science of administration (pp. 1–46). New York: Institute of Public Administration.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Halligan, J. (2007). Reform design and performance in Australia and New Zealand. In T. Christensen & P. Lægreid (Eds.), Transcending new public management. Aldershot: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Head, B. W., & Alford, J. (2015). Wicked problems: Implications for public policy and management. Administration & Society., 47(6), 711–739.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Hood, C. (2005). The idea of joined-up government: A historical perspective. In V. Bogdanor (Ed.), Joined-up government. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Kaufman, H. (1967). The Forest ranger: A study in administrative behavior. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Kettl, D. F. (2003). Contingent coordination: Practical and theoretical puzzles of homeland security. The American Review of Public Administration, 33(3), 253–277.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Kingdon, J.W. (1984). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. Boston: Little, Brown.

  32. Koop, C., & Lodge, M. (2014). Exploring the co-ordination of economic regulation. Journal of European Public Policy, 21(9), 1311–1329.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Krasner, S. D. (1988). Sovereignty. An Institutional Perspective. Comparative Political Studies, 21(1), 66–94.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Lægreid, P., Ramnda-Liiv, T., Rykkja, L. H., & Sarapuu, K. (Eds.). (2014). Organizing for coordination in the public sector. Practices and lessons from 12 European countries. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Lægreid, P., Sarapuu, K., Rykkja, L. H., & Randma-Liiv, T. (2015). Emerging coordination practices of European central governments. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 81(2), 346–351.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Lægreid, P., Ramnda-Liiv, T., Rykkja, L. H., & Sarapuu, K. (2016a). Coordination challenges and administrative reform. In G. Hammerschmid, S. Van de Walle, R. Andrew, & P. Bezes (Eds.), Public administration reforms in Europe. The view from the top. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Lægreid, P., Sarapuu, K., Rykkja, L. H., & Ramnda-Liiv, T. (2016b). New coordination challenges in the welfare state. Public Management Review, 17(7), 927–939.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  39. Lodge, M., & Wegrich, K. (2014). The Problem-solving Capacity of the Modern State. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Lodge, M., & Wegrich, K. (2016). The rationality paradox of nudge: Rational tools of government in a world of bounded rationality. Law and Policy, 38(3), 250–267.

    Google Scholar 

  41. March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1983). Organizing political life. What administrative reorganization tells us about government. American Political Science Review, 77(02), 281–297.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Moe, T. M. (2005). Power and political institutions. Perspectives on Politics, 3(2), 215–233.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Osborne, S. P. (2016). The new public governance? Public Management Review, 8(3), 377–387.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Page, E. C. (2005). Joined-up government and the civil service. In V. Bogdanor (Ed.), Joined-up government. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Patashnik, E. M. (2008). Reforms at risk. What happens after major policy changes are enacted. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Peters, B. G. (1998). Managing horizontal government. The politics of coordination. Public Administration, 76(2), 295–311.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Peters, B. G. (2004). Back to the Centre? Rebuilding the state. The Political Quarterly, 75(1), 130–140.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Peters, B. G. (2006). Concepts and theories of horizontal policy management. In P. G. Peters & J. Pierre (Eds.), Handbook of Public policy. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Peters, B. G. (2015). Pursuing Horizontal Management. The Politics of Public Sector Coordination. Kansas: University Press of Kansas.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  51. Radke, I., Hustedt, T., & Klinnert, A. (2016). Inter-ministerial working groups as a panacea for coordination problems. Der Moderne Staat, 9(1), 65–81.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Reiter, R. and T. Klenk (2018). The Manifold Meanings of ‘post-New Public Management’ – a Systematic Review. International Review of Administrative Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852318759736.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Rommetvedt, H. (2017). Politikkens allmenngjøring. Stortinget, regjeringen og de organiserte interessene i et nypluralistisk demokrati (The Generalization of Politics. The Parliament, the Government and Organized Interests in a New-Pluralistic Democracy). Bergen: Fagbokforlaget.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Scharpf, F. W. (1999). Governing in Europe: Effective and democratic? Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Selznick, P. (1957). Leadership in administration. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Simon, H. A. (1957). Administrative behaviour. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Verhoest, K., B.G. Peters, E. Beuselinck and F. Myers. (2005). How Coordination and Control of Public Organizations by Government Interrelate: an Analytical and Empirical Exploration. Paper presented at the Scancor/SOG Workshop on ‘Autonomization of the State’, April 1–2., 2005.

  58. Voorn, B., M. Van Genugten and S. Van Thiel (forthcoming). Multiple principals, multiple problems: A review and implications for effective governance.

  59. Wegrich, K., & Stimac, V. (2014). Coordinating capacity. In M. Lodge & K. Wegrich (Eds.), The problem-solving capacity of the modern state. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Wildavsky, A. (1987). Choosing preferences by constructing institutions. A cultural theory of preference formation. American Political Science Review, 81(1), 3–22.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Wolbers, J., K. Boersma and P. Groenewegen (2017). Introducing a fragmentation perspective on coordination in crisis management. Organization Studies, 39(11), 1521–1546. https://doi.org/10.1177/01708406177177095.

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Per Lægreid.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Christensen, T., Lægreid, P. Coordination Quality in Central Government – the Case of Norway. Public Organiz Rev 20, 145–162 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11115-018-00434-0

Download citation

Keywords

  • Coordination capacity
  • Coordination quality
  • Central government
  • Norway
  • Instrumental perspective
  • Cultural perspective