Understanding Organizational Reforms in the Modern State: Specialization and Integration in Norway and France

This article examines the challenge Norway and France face in coordinating specialized government activities after 10 years of comprehensive reforms. The focus is on the tension between territorial and sectoral specialization and between vertical and horizontal specialization. We describe both sector-specific administrative reforms and more overarching general reforms, looking at similarities and differences in the reorganization choices made by the two countries and also at what drives change. We argue that a combination of factors is required to explain outcomes. These factors include not only home-grown reforms but also sectoral challenges, diffusion and learning from abroad, adaptation to the financial crisis and budget deficit, and choices made by powerful political executives. Sometimes these factors work together and reinforce each other, producing radical reforms; at other times they have a mutually constraining influence, resulting in only minor changes

Understanding Organizational Reforms in the Modern State: Specialization and Integration in Norway and France

This article examines the challenge Norway and France face in coordinating specialized government activities after 10 years of comprehensive reforms. The focus is on the tension between territorial and sectoral specialization and between vertical and horizontal specialization. We describe both sector-specific administrative reforms and more overarching general reforms, looking at similarities and differences in the reorganization choices made by the two countries and also at what drives change. We argue that a combination of factors is required to explain outcomes. These factors include not only home-grown reforms but also sectoral challenges, diffusion and learning from abroad, adaptation to the financial crisis and budget deficit, and choices made by powerful political executives. Sometimes these factors work together and reinforce each other, producing radical reforms; at other times they have a mutually constraining influence, resulting in only minor changes

22. juli kommisjonen. Organisering, styring og ansvar [The 22. July Commission. Organization, steering and accountability].

INNLEIING 22. juli 2011 vart Norge ramma av to sjokkerande terroristangrep. Ei bilbombe øydela fleire sentrale regjeringsbygningar i Oslo og 8 personar vart drepne i angrepet. Nokre få timar seinare vart 69 politisk aktive ungdomar frå Arbeiderpartiet si ungdomsorganisasjon massakrert på ein leir på Utøya – like nordvest for Oslo. Dei fleste av dei 69 offera var mellom 15 og 18 år. Terroristen vart arrestert på Utøya same kvelden og vedgjekk straks ugjerningane. Rettsaka vist at han var ein ‘einsam ulv’ som opererte åleine utan å vera tilknytt nokon organisasjon. 24. august 2012 vart han dømt til 21 års forvaring

The governance of social cohesion: innovative coordination practices in public management

Introduction This report presents the main findings and policy implications of the COCOPS Work Package 5 (WP5) “The Governance of Social Cohesion: Innovative Coordination Practices in Public Management” (April 2012-May 2013). WP5 focused on searching and identifying innovative coordination practices and related steering instruments in public management in European public sectors, analysing their functioning and assessing their contribution to countering public-sector fragmentation and delivering public value. The WP was led by the University of Bergen (Professor Per Lægreid and Dr. Lise H. Rykkja) in close cooperation with Tallinn University of Technology (Professor Tiina Randma-Liiv and Dr. Külli Sarapuu). In total eleven COCOPS partners were engaged in WP5 (see Table 1). In addition, four non-COCOPS researchers working on the public sector coordination contributed to the study of emerging coordination practices

Public sector accountability styles in Europe comparing accountability and control of agencies in the Netherlands, Norway, Switzerland and the UK

This paper develops and applies the concept of accountability styles for analyzing and comparing accountability practices in different countries. This is relevant as there is considerable scholarship on public sector accountability but only very few comparative studies. Extant studies have shown that national styles of accountability are both marked by convergence as well as the resilience of national differences. The concept of accountability style is adopted to describe and interpret how and why accountability practices differ between administrative systems. It does so by analyzing practices of accountability of public sector agencies in four European democracies with different state traditions: the Netherlands, Norway, Switzerland and the UK. These countries vary with regards to state strength (interventionist propensity) and administrative concentration (high or low centralization). The analysis focuses on the accountability of arms’ length agencies which lends itself for comparisons across counties. The paper shows that the national political-administrative context crucially shapes practices of accountability and accountability regimes of agencies. The Norwegian accountability style is characterized as ‘centralized and convenient’. The UK-style is equally centralized yet not so convenient as it incurs high accountability-process costs on agencies. Switzerland is marked by limited hierarchical accountability. And the Dutch accountability style is comparatively ‘broad and informal’. State strength and administrative concentration explain some of the variance while historical legacies explain additional national variations.publishedVersio

Public Sector Accountability Styles in Europe: Comparing accountability and control of agencies in the Netherlands, Norway, Switzerland and the UK

This paper develops and applies the concept of accountability styles for analyzing and comparing accountability practices in different countries. This is relevant as there is considerable scholarship on public sector accountability but only very few comparative studies. Extant studies have shown that national styles of accountability are both marked by convergence as well as the resilience of national differences. The concept of accountability style is adopted to describe and interpret how and why accountability practices differ between administrative systems. It does so by analyzing practices of accountability of public sector agencies in four European democracies with different state traditions: the Netherlands, Norway, Switzerland and the UK. These countries vary with regards to state strength (interventionist propensity) and administrative concentration (high or low centralization). The analysis focuses on the accountability of arms’ length agencies which lends itself for comparisons across counties. The paper shows that the national political-administrative context crucially shapes practices of accountability and accountability regimes of agencies. The Norwegian accountability style is characterized as ‘centralized and convenient’. The UK-style is equally centralized yet not so convenient as it incurs high accountability-process costs on agencies. Switzerland is marked by limited hierarchical accountability. And the Dutch accountability style is comparatively ‘broad and informal’. State strength and administrative concentration explain some of the variance while historical legacies explain additional national variations

Conflictual accountability: behavioral responses to conflictual accountability of agencies

In contemporary public governance, leaders of public organizations are faced with multiple, and oftentimes conflictual, accountability claims. Drawing upon a survey of CEO’s of agencies in seven countries, we explore whether and how conflictual accountability regimes relate to strategic behaviors by agency-CEO’s and their political principals. The presence of conflictual accountability is experienced as a major challenge and is associated with important behavioral responses by those CEO’s. This article demonstrates empirically how conflictual accountability is related to (a) controlling behaviors by principals, (b) constituency building behaviors by agencies, and (c) a general pattern of intensified contacts and information processing by both parties

Reformas post nueva gestión pública Tendencias empíricas y retos académicos

Este trabajo tiene por tema central la idea de la Totalidad del Gobierno, concepto que hace referencia a uno de los enfoques seguidos en la segunda generación de reformas al sector público tras dos décadas de transformaciones con la Nueva Gestión Pública. En el artículo, se expone en que consiste este nuevo enfoque y las razones por las que surge; se estudia, desde una perspectiva estructural, cultural y basada en un mito, cómo se ha desarrollado este esquema al interior de la reflexión teórica. También se analiza la dinámica y los potenciales efectos de las medidas adoptadas y se ponen de relieve algunas de las asignaturas pendientes de este enfoque, como es el caso de la rendición de cuentas y el manejo de riesgos, así como la división de trabajo y su especialización. El artículo es básicamente explorativo conceptual, pero también echa mano de estudios y observaciones empíricas reunidas en Australia, Nueva Zelanda, el Reino Unido y Canadá