Per Lægreid

This article aims at addressing the relationship between expertise and politics by examining a reorganization process of Statistics Norway. The puzzle is why a minor reorganization with low political salience, in a consensus-oriented political administrative setting with high level of trust between ministries and agencies, and high autonomy for agencies ended up as a major conflict resulting in the resignation of the agency director. Based on an instrumental, a cultural and a symbolic perspective the article examines the internal and external dynamics ensuing from conflicting views regarding the balance between political control and professional autonomy, and from reorganization proposals that represented a break with the cultural path the organization had followed. It adds insights into the tensions between different types of institutional logics, resulting in institutional hybridity.

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.

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”.

(2015). New Coordination Challenges in the Welfare State. Public Management Review: Vol. 17, New Coordination Challenges in the Welfare State, pp. 927-939.

This paper uses a survey to analyse how administrative executives perceive coordination following the reform of the Norwegian Labour and Welfare Administration. Applying a structural and cultural perspective, it examines the relationship between coordination mechanisms, cultural features and perceived coordination quality. The executives identify strongly with finding joint solutions and getting public organizations to work together. Coordination by hierarchy and networks co-exist, but the hierarchical dimension dominates. Vertical coordination is regarded as quite good, while horizontal coordination is seen as rather poor. The relationship between coordination mechanisms, cultural features and coordination quality are rather ambiguous and loose, however.