"This book studiesgovernance capacityandgovernance legitimacyfor societal security and crisis management. It highlights the importance of building organizational capacity by focusing on the coordination of public resources and underscores the relevance of legitimacy by emphasizing the importance of public perceptions, attitudes, and trust vis-à-vis government arrangements for crisis management. The authors explore several cases and identify relevant dimensions concerning performance, capacity and legitimacy across different countries. It is an ideal volume for audiences interested in public administration, public policy, crisis management and security studies."--
This article discusses collaborative arrangements within the state and looks at their consequences for democratic accountability in networked governance involving public actors at different levels and in different policy areas. Applying an institutional perspective, it examines two such collaborations in Norway: work-related organized crime and vulnerable youths. It finds that horizontal collaborations incorporate local differentiation and expertise resulting in a 'collaborative culture' facilitating broader involvement and more deliberative processes. However, top-down mechanisms, organizational commitment, resource allocation, and monitoring are also important. The cases demonstrate a shift towards more informal, voluntary, and horizontal accountability existing in the shadow of hierarchy, constraining the collaborative arrangements' effectiveness and making them more complex and multi-layered.
This article examines whether Nordic administrative collaboration is still 'alive and kicking,' or whether it has been marginalized by increased integration into Europe and strong international reform trajectories. We analyse the scope and intensity of Nordic administrative collaboration from a structural perspective based on the perceptions of civil servants in the Norwegian central government. We also address the implications of Nordic collaboration for policy design and reform measures. The main conclusion is that Nordic administrative collaboration can best be described as differentiated integration. The scope of Nordic administrative collaboration is rather broad, and its internal structural features vary significantly. Nordic collaboration is perceived to have more of an effect on policy design than on specific administrative reform means and measures. However, structural features also matter.
This article examines whether Nordic administrative collaboration is still 'alive and kicking,' or whether it has been marginalized by increased integration into Europe and strong international reform trajectories. We analyse the scope and intensity of Nordic administrative collaboration from a structural perspective based on the perceptions of civil servants in the Norwegian central government. We also address the implications of Nordic collaboration for policy design and reform measures. The main conclusion is that Nordic administrative collaboration can best be described as differentiated integration. The scope of Nordic administrative collaboration is rather broad, and its internal structural features vary significantly. Nordic collaboration is perceived to have more of an effect on policy design than on specific administrative reform means and measures. However, structural features also matter.
Purpose– The purpose of this paper is to address the question of coordination by comparing two recent reforms schemes in Norway: internal security and the welfare administration. Both concern typically transboundary "wicked" policy problems where horizontal and vertical coordination is difficult. What kind of coordination problems did the reforms address, what kind of coordination solutions were provided, and what can explain the observed pattern?Design/methodology/approach– The paper draws on organizational theory, distinguishing between a structural-instrumental and a cultural-institutional perspective. A comparative case study design is applied. The analysis combines insights from four large research projects.Findings– Both cases represent broad government efforts to tackle "wicked" coordination problems when there is a mismatch between the problem structure and the organizational structure. In both cases, reorganization and structural changes resulted in hybrid and complex organizational arrangements. The welfare administration reform tried to solve a tension between ministerial responsibility and local self-government by introducing One-stop-shops. Within the area of internal security, coordination problems related to lacking ministerial capacity was tackled by introducing a formal principle of collaboration, a lead agency approach and network arrangements.Practical implications– Effective coordination might ease wicked problems by enhancing the understanding of the problem and its underlying causes, increasing the probability of finding agreed-upon solutions and help implementation. Enhanced communication and strengthened mutual trust and commitment among actors might be a positive outcome. However, coordination implies dilemmas and trade-offs, and reformers often have to balance different interests.Originality/value– The paper shows that different instruments of coordination are central for handling "wicked problems".
This article studies inter-agency coordination in a "wicked" policy area by examining the Norwegian model against work-related crime. The main research questions are: How does the Norwegian government work to ensure coordination in the field of work-related crime? What enables and constrains horizontal and vertical coordination in this field? We find that the case represents a push towards joint intelligence efforts at the national level to create more analytical capacity and more effective use of punitive sanctions. By analysing data in the period from 2014 to 2019 we show that coordination has intensified over time, but that sector-based priorities, regulations and performance targets remain important obstacles for coordination. The article shows how a secondary organizational structure, ensuring a more coordinated, cross-sectoral strategy for combating work-related crime has been established at the national (strategic) and regional (tactical/operational) level. This supplements the primary organizational structure which is based on the more "traditional" division between ministerial areas and policy sectors and allows for both change and organizational stability. The result is a field that is more coordinated, but still complex and constrained by the existing sector-divisions, organizational and management structures. ; publishedVersion
This title is based on a unique data set and assesses in comparative terms the public management reforms in the five Nordic countries: Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden. Based on the assessments of administrative executives, it compares the Nordic countries with the Anglo-Saxon, the Germanic, the Napoleonic and the East European group of countries.
This title is based on a unique data set and assesses in comparative terms the public management reforms in the five Nordic countries: Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden. Based on the assessments of administrative executives, it compares the Nordic countries with the Anglo-Saxon, the Germanic, the Napoleonic and the East European group of countries.
