Abstract
Bach and Wegrich introduce the key theme of the volume, which revolves around understanding how routine processes of decision-making in public sector organizations potentially lead to problematic outcomes in terms of coordination and problem solving. Instead of viewing those outcomes as the result of organizational or individual pathologies, the chapter traces the origins of non-coordination within and between organizations to intentionally rational organizational behaviour. Conceptualizing blind spots as part of a larger universe of biases in organizational attention, based on established theoretical notions of bounded rationality and institutionalized organizations, the authors show how different types of attention biases provide novel insights into seemingly irrational or uncoordinated administrative behaviour.
Keywords
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
- 2.
Hood (1998) uses both ‘blind spots’ (p. 18) and ‘Achilles’ Heel or characteristic path of collapse’ (p. 27) when referring to those inherent weaknesses of different models of organization in public management .
- 3.
Another mechanism discussed by Fligstein et al. (2017) is organizational conditions that promote ‘positive asymmetries ’, or the idea that actors in specific social settings bias information towards best-case scenarios.
References
Adolph, C. (2013). Bankers, bureaucrats, and central bank politics: The myth of neutrality. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Allison, G. T. (1997). Public and private management: Are they fundamentally alike in all unimportant respects? (1980). In J. M. Shafritz & A. C. Hyde (Eds.), Classics of public administration (4th ed., pp. 383–400). Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.
Allison, G. T., & Halperin, M. H. (1972). Bureaucratic politics: A paradigm and some policy implications. World Politics, 24, 40–79.
Bach, T., De Francesco, F., Maggetti, M., & Ruffing, E. (2016). Transnational bureaucratic politics: An institutional rivalry perspective on EU network governance. Public Administration, 94(1), 9–24.
Bach, T., & Wegrich, K. (2016). Regulatory reform, accountability and blame in public service delivery: The public transport crisis in Berlin. In T. Christensen & P. Lægreid (Eds.), The Routledge handbook to accountability and welfare state reforms in Europe (pp. 223–235). London: Routledge.
Barnett, M. N., & Finnemore, M. (1999). The politics, power, and pathologies of international organizations. International Organization, 53(4), 699–732.
Boin, A., & Christensen, T. (2008). The development of public institutions: Reconsidering the role of leadership. Administration & Society, 40(3), 271–297.
Bouckaert, G., Peters, B. G., & Verhoest, K. (2010). The coordination of public sector organizations: Shifting patterns of public management. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Bovens, M., & ’t Hart, P. (2016). Revisiting the study of policy failures. Journal of European Public Policy, 23(5), 653–666.
Brunsson, N., & Olsen, J. P. (1993). The reforming organization. London: Routledge.
Busuioc, E. M. (2016). Friend or fore? Inter-agency cooperation, organizational reputation, and turf. Public Administration, 94(1), 40–56.
Carpenter, D. P. (2010). Reputation and power: Organizational image and pharmaceutical regulation at the FDA. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Carpenter, D. P., & Krause, G. A. (2012). Reputation and public administration. Public Administration Review, 72(1), 26–32.
Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. (1963). A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Dearborn, D. C., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Selective perception: A note on the departmental identifications of executives. Sociometry, 21(2), 140–144.
Dunleavy, P. (1991). Democracy, bureaucracy and public choice: Economic explanations in political science. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Egeberg, M. (2012). How bureaucratic structure matters: An organizational perspective. In J. Pierre & B. G. Peters (Eds.), The Sage handbook of public administration (2nd ed., pp. 157–167). Los Angeles: Sage.
Fligstein, N., Stuart Brundage, J., & Schultz, M. (2017). Seeing like the Fed: Culture, cognition, and framing in the failure to anticipate the financial crisis of 2008. American Sociological Review, 82(5), 879–909.
Gieve, J., & Provost, C. (2012). Ideas and coordination in policymaking: The financial crisis of 2007–2009. Governance, 25(1), 61–77.
Gilad, S. (2012). Attention and reputation: Linking regulators’ internal and external worlds. In M. Lodge & K. Wegrich (Eds.), Executive politics in times of crisis (pp. 157–175). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Gilad, S. (2015). Political pressures, organizational identity, and attention to tasks: Illustrations from pre-crisis financial regulation. Public Administration, 93(3), 593–608.
Goodsell, C. T. (1985). The case for bureaucracy: A public administration polemic (2nd ed.). Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.
Gulick, L. (1937). Notes on the theory of organization. In L. Gulick & L. Urwick (Eds.), Papers on the science of administration (pp. 2–45). New York: Institute of Public Administration.
Hammond, T. H. (1990). In defence of Luther Gulick’s notes on the theory of organization. Public Administration, 68(2), 143–173.
Hammond, T. H. (2007). Why is the intelligence community so difficult to redesign? Smart practices, conflicting goals, and the creation of purpose-based organizations. Governance, 20(3), 401–422.
’t Hart, P., & Wille, A. (2012). Bureaucratic politics: Opening the black box of executive government. In B. G. Peters & J. Pierre (Eds.), The Sage handbook of public administration (pp. 369–378). Los Angeles: Sage.
Hartlapp, M., Metz, J., & Rauh, C. (2013). Linking agenda setting to coordination structures: Bureaucratic politics inside the European Commission. Journal of European Integration, 35(4), 425–441.
Heims, E. M. (2017). Regulatory co-ordination in the EU: A cross-sector comparison. Journal of European Public Policy, 24(8), 1116–1134.
Hinterleitner, M., & Sager, F. (2016). Anticipatory and reactive forms of blame avoidance: Of foxes and lions. European Political Science Review, 9, 1–20.
Hood, C. (1974). Administrative diseases: Some types of dysfunctionality in administration. Public Administration, 52(4), 439–454.
Hood, C. (1998). The art of the state: Culture, rhetoric, and public management. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hood, C. (2011). The blame game: Spin, bureaucracy, and self-preservation in government. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Janis, I. L. (1989). Crucial decisions: Leadership in policymaking and crisis management. New York: Free Press.
Jones, B. D. (2017). Behavioral rationality as a foundation for public policy studies. Cognitive Systems Research, 43, 63–75.
Koop, C., & Lodge, M. (2014). Exploring the co-ordination of economic regulation. Journal of European Public Policy, 21(9), 1311–1329.
Lodge, M., & Wegrich, K. (2014). Fiscal consolidation in Germany: Drifting away from the politics of the switching yard? In C. Hood, D. Heald, & R. Himaz (Eds.), When the party’s over: The politics of fiscal squeeze in perspective (pp. 161–183). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Maor, M. (2015). Theorizing bureaucratic reputation. In A. Wæraas & M. Maor (Eds.), Organizational reputation in the public sector (pp. 17–36). New York: Routledge.
Maor, M., Gilad, S., & Ben-Nun Bloom, P. (2013). Organizational reputation, regulatory talk, and strategic silence. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 23(3), 581–608.
Mayntz, R. (2003). New challenges to governance theory. In H. Bang (Ed.), Governance as social and political communication (pp. 27–40). Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Meier, K. J. (2010). Governance, structure, and democracy: Luther Gulick and the future of public administration. Public Administration Review, 70, S284–S291.
Merton, R. K. (1940). Bureaucratic structure and personality. Social Forces, 18(4), 560–568.
Metcalfe, L. (1994). International policy co-ordination and public management reform. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 60(2), 271–290.
National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States. (2004). The 9/11 commission report: Final report. New York: Norton.
Parker, C. F., & Stern, E. K. (2002). Blindsided? September 11 and the origins of strategic surprise. Political Psychology, 23(3), 601–630.
Pidgeon, N., & O’Leary, M. (2000). Man-made disasters: Why technology and organizations (sometimes) fail. Safety Science, 34(1), 15–30.
Roberts, A. (2010). The logic of discipline: Global capitalism and the architecture of government. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Scharpf, F. W. (1994). Games real actors could play: Positive and negative coordination in embedded negotiations. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 6(1), 27–53.
Seibel, W. (2014). Kausale Mechanismen des Behördenversagens: Eine Prozessanalyse des Fahndungsfehlschlags bei der Aufklärung der NSU-Morde. der moderne staat, (2014/02), 375–413.
Selznick, P. (1957). Leadership in administration: A sociological interpretation. New York: Harper & Row.
Simon, H. A. (1947). Administrative behavior: A study of decision-making processes in administrative organizations. New York: Macmillan.
Simon, H. A. (1964). On the concept of organizational goal. Administrative Science Quarterly, 9(1), 1–22.
Vestlund, N. M. (2015). Changing policy focus through organizational reform? The case of the pharmaceutical unit in the European Commission. Public Policy and Administration, 30(1), 92–112.
Weaver, R. K. (1986). The politics of blame avoidance. Journal of Public Policy, 6(4), 371–398.
Wegrich, K., & Štimac, V. (2014). Coordination capacity. In M. Lodge & K. Wegrich (Eds.), The problem-solving capacity of the modern state (pp. 41–62). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wilensky, H. L. (1967). Organizational intelligence: Knowledge and policy in government and industry. New York: Basic Books.
Wilson, J. Q. (1989). Bureaucracy: What government agencies do and why they do it. New York: Basic Books.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Bach, T., Wegrich, K. (2019). Blind Spots, Biased Attention, and the Politics of Non-coordination. In: Bach, T., Wegrich, K. (eds) The Blind Spots of Public Bureaucracy and the Politics of Non-Coordination. Executive Politics and Governance. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-76672-0_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-76672-0_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-76671-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-76672-0
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)