Skip to main content
Log in

Coordination Quality in Central Government – the Case of Norway

  • Published:
Public Organization Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

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

References

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

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

  • 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 

  • 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

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

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

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

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

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

  • 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

Authors and 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

Check for updates. 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

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11115-018-00434-0

Keywords

Navigation