Suchergebnisse

AbstractThis article describes and analyzes the decision‐making process related to the establishment of Norway's National Police Emergency Response Center (NPERC). Following the July 22, 2011 terrorist attacks, Norway's Inquiry Commission recommended the establishment of a NPERC at one physical site. The goal was to enhance governance capacity and contribute to crisis mitigation, prevention, preparedness, and operational crisis management. Although the main actors claimed that such a center was urgently needed, it took several years for the government to reach a final decision. The main puzzle is, why did it take so long? To answer this question, we use a structural‐instrumental perspective and a garbage‐can approach, while also focusing on the issues of shifting attention and agenda‐setting. We conclude that the decision‐making process was marked by a lack of rational calculation but also influenced by external shocks, focusing events, and windows of opportunities. This led to changing expectations, shifts in attention and opportunities for new agenda‐setting. Hence, the choices made throughout the decision‐making process can be seen as the linkage of a specific policy stream, a political stream, and a problem stream. Our main conclusion is that the sense of urgency created by the terrorist attacks led to a delay in the decision‐making process.

This article examines the reform of the police in Norway between 2012 to 2015 drawing upon central public reports and official documents leading up to the reform. These include the report from the official Inquiry Commission into the police response to the terrorist attacks in Oslo and at Utøya in July 2011, a report issued by a public commission in 2013 – established to analyze challenges within the police – and the resulting government proposal and parliamentary discussion that culminated in a decision to create a new police structure in 2015. While governance capacity and the need for a stronger emergency police were a main concern throughout the process, the importance of governance legitimacy and of maintaining a community police force became more important towards the end. The organizational thinking behind the reform is explained in terms of a structural and an institutional perspective. The analysis shows that both cultural and structural change was seen as prominent instruments for improving the police force, but they were emphasized differently at different points during the process. The analysis demonstrates that political context, agenda settings, attention shifting and situational factors as well as path dependency were important drivers of the reform.

AbstractWhat makes a well‐functioning governmental crisis management system, and how can this be studied using an organization theory–based approach? A core argument is that such a system needs both governance capacity and governance legitimacy. Organizational arrangements as well as the legitimacy of government authorities will affect crisis management performance. A central argument is that both structural features and cultural context matter, as does the nature of the crisis. Is it a transboundary crisis? How unique is it, and how much uncertainty is associated with it? The arguments are substantiated with empirical examples and supported by a literature synthesis, focusing on public administration research. A main conclusion is that there is no optimal formula for harmonizing competing interests and tensions or for overcoming uncertainty and ambiguous government structures. Flexibility and adaptation are key assets, which are constrained by the political, administrative, and situational context. Furthermore, a future research agenda is indicated.

The article examines the failed implementation of a Security Project initiated by the Norwegian government prior to the terrorist attacks in 2011. It analyzes interviews with central government actors and uses two perspectives from organization theory to explain why the project failed. From an instrumental perspective, the failure might be explained by a conscious lack of attention or commitment. From a 'garbage can' perspective, the failure might be explained by a lack of collective instrumental rationality. Taking both perspectives into account, inherent ambiguities in horizontal and vertical accountability and a lack of attention influenced both by formal rules and informal practices are the main explanations. The prevalence of local democratic values, a lack of central political involvement and a generally slow administrative process contributed considerably to this.

The article examines the failed implementation of a Security Project initiated by the Norwegian government prior to the terrorist attacks in 2011. It analyzes interviews with central government actors and uses two perspectives from organization theory to explain why the project failed. From an instrumental perspective, the failure might be explained by a conscious lack of attention or commitment. From a 'garbage can' perspective, the failure might be explained by a lack of collective instrumental rationality. Taking both perspectives into account, inherent ambiguities in horizontal and vertical accountability and a lack of attention influenced both by formal rules and informal practices are the main explanations. The prevalence of local democratic values, a lack of central political involvement and a generally slow administrative process contributed considerably to this.

Le présent article s'intéresse à un « problème épineux » : l'organisation de la sécurité intérieure et sociétale. Nous nous intéresserons à la gestion centrale des urgences et des crises dans le cadre de l'attentat terroriste perpétré en Norvège, en juillet 2011, et plus particulièrement à la fonction de coordination du ministère de la Justice. Notre analyse s'appuie sur une analyse qualitative approfondie de documents pertinents et sur des entretiens avec des agents du gouvernement, en nous appuyant sur une perspective structurelle-instrumentale et culturelle-institutionnelle afin de comprendre les résultats. L'identification des problèmes ne fait aucun doute (fragmentation, pulvérisation de l'imputabilité et modalités de coordination inefficaces). Les changements organisationnels ont cependant été appliqués avec prudence et de manière progressive. L'amélioration progressive du ministère de la Justice en vue d'en faire un ministère chargé de la coordination globale ne remet pas en cause les principes actuels de responsabilité ministérielle. Les solutions suggérées sont entourées d'ambiguïté et de conflits, et les solutions disponibles ne correspondent pas aux problèmes. Remarques à l'intention des praticiens Des problèmes de coordination s'observent dans l'administration publique moderne, qui sont liés à la fois à la coordination verticale et horizontale, en particulier dans le domaine de la sécurité nationale et de la gestion des crises. Les réformes liées au NMP ont créé de nouveaux problèmes de coordination, en particulier dans des domaines stratégiques et des services publics qui traversent les frontières sectorielles. De nouveaux dispositifs, appelés « réformes post-NMP », ont été tentés pour remédier à la prétendue fragmentation grandissante. Les problèmes sont relativement évidents en ce qui concerne la gestion des crises, où il est nécessaire de conjuguer organisation de la coordination et flexibilité. Les crises majeures ne conduisent pas toujours à des changements décisifs, cependant. Les changements nécessaires et formels sont souvent produits par la culture existante. Cela se traduit par une administration publique moderne relativement hybride et à niveaux multiples.

The article addresses a 'wicked problem': Organizing for internal security and societal safety. It examines the central emergency and crisis management under the terrorist attack in Norway in July 2011, with a special focus on the coordinating role of the Ministry of Justice (MJ). Our analysis is based on an in-depth qualitative analysis of relevant official documents and interviews with government officials, using a structural-instrumental and a cultural-institutional perspective to understand outcomes. There is a consensus when it comes to diagnosing the problems, identified as fragmentation, pulverization of accountability and weak coordination arrangements. The organizational changes have been cautious and incremental, however. A gradual upgrading of the MJ as an overarching coordinating ministry does not challenge the existing principles of ministerial responsibility. Suggested solutions are beset with ambiguity and conflicts, and there is a mismatch between problems and available solutions. Points for practitioners Challenges of coordination are evident in modern public administration, related to both vertical and horizontal coordination, and particularly so within the field of internal security and crisis management. New Public Management (NPM)-related reforms have created further coordination problems, especially in policy areas and public services that cross sector boundaries. New arrangements, labeled post-NPM reforms, have tried to counter the alleged increasing fragmentation. The challenges are quite evident when it comes to crisis management, where a combination of organizing for coordination and flexibility is necessary. Major crises do not always lead to radical changes, however. Instrumental and formal changes are often mediated by the existing culture. The result is a rather hybrid and multi-layered modern public administration.

Central policymakers, governments, climate researchers, and research funders emphasize the necessity to develop, design, and implement climate change policies. This article investigates how this is dealt with in current social science research by analyzing relevant articles published in international academic journals. The search covers both interdisciplinary and more discipline-specific journals, focusing on publications within international relations, political science, public administration, and sociology. The results show that although climate change is a major contemporary research topic, there seems to be a lack of research focusing on existing government actions, multilevel governance, and implementation. The existing research is largely empirical and case-oriented. Cross-country comparisons are rare, and relatively few studies explicitly focus on theory development. A major proportion of the research is published in interdisciplinary journals, where vital insights from political science and public administration research might be lacking. This paper, through an analysis of extant research, will add to the body of literature on climate change policy from a public policy implementation perspective.

This article examines current reform experiences in Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden, focusing on the assumed Nordic administrative model. The research questions is: How do Nordic public sector executives perceive reform processes, trends, contents and management instruments? To answer these questions we apply a theory of gradual institutional change. The database is a survey of top civil servants in ministries and central agencies in 19 European countries conducted in 2012–2015 within the COCOPS project funded by the EC 7 th Framework Program. We show that the Nordic countries are pragmatic and motivated reformers. There is a high level of reform activity and public involvement. The reforms aim to improve services more than cut costs. The Nordic model emerges as one that is agile and adaptive. New reform elements have been incorporated into the existing welfare state model, which accounts for differences between the five countries.

This is an open access title available under the terms of a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 License. It is free to read, download and share on Elgaronline.com. As worldwide institutions acknowledge the necessity of digital, open, and collaborative governments, this timely book offers a comprehensive exploration of digital transformation, intergovernmental collaboration, collaborative governance, and public sector innovation