IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/porgrv/v20y2020i1d10.1007_s11115-018-00434-0.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Coordination Quality in Central Government – the Case of Norway

Author

Listed:
  • Tom Christensen

    (University of Oslo)

  • Per Lægreid

    (University of Bergen)

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Tom Christensen & Per Lægreid, 2020. "Coordination Quality in Central Government – the Case of Norway," Public Organization Review, Springer, vol. 20(1), pages 145-162, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:porgrv:v:20:y:2020:i:1:d:10.1007_s11115-018-00434-0
    DOI: 10.1007/s11115-018-00434-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11115-018-00434-0
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11115-018-00434-0?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Christopher Pollitt, 2003. "Joined‐up Government: a Survey," Political Studies Review, Political Studies Association, vol. 1(1), pages 34-49, January.
    2. Tom Christensen & Per Lægreid, 2008. "The Challenge of Coordination in Central Government Organizations: The Norwegian Case," Public Organization Review, Springer, vol. 8(2), pages 97-116, June.
    3. March, James G. & Olson, Johan P., 1983. "Organizing Political Life: What Administrative Reorganization Tells Us about Government," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 77(2), pages 281-296, June.
    4. Dag Christensen & Tom Christensen & Per Lægreid & Tor Midtbø, 2012. "Cross-Border Coordination Activities in Central Government Administration—Combining Organizational Conditions and Individual Features," Public Organization Review, Springer, vol. 12(4), pages 367-382, December.
    5. Wildavsky, Aaron, 1987. "Choosing Preferences by Constructing Institutions: A Cultural Theory of Preference Formation," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 81(1), pages 3-21, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Michael Odei Erdiaw‐Kwasie & Matthew Abunyewah, 2024. "Determinants of social innovation in hybrid organisations: The moderating role of technology readiness," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(2), pages 1099-1112, February.
    2. Paolo Esposito & Valerio Brescia & Chiara Fantauzzi & Rocco Frondizi, 2021. "Understanding Social Impact and Value Creation in Hybrid Organizations: The Case of Italian Civil Service," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-26, April.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jarle Trondal & Stefan Gänzle & Benjamin Leruth, 2022. "Differentiation in the European Union in Post‐Brexit and ‐Pandemic Times: Macro‐Level Developments with Meso‐Level Consequences," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(S1), pages 26-37, September.
    2. Guillermo M. Cejudo & Cynthia L. Michel, 2017. "Addressing fragmented government action: coordination, coherence, and integration," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 50(4), pages 745-767, December.
    3. Dag Christensen & Tom Christensen & Per Lægreid & Tor Midtbø, 2012. "Cross-Border Coordination Activities in Central Government Administration—Combining Organizational Conditions and Individual Features," Public Organization Review, Springer, vol. 12(4), pages 367-382, December.
    4. Astrid Molenveld & Koen Verhoest & Jan Wynen, 2021. "Why public organizations contribute to crosscutting policy programs: the role of structure, culture, and ministerial control," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 54(1), pages 123-154, March.
    5. Sun-Ki Chai & Dolgorsuren Dorj & Katerina Sherstyuk, 2018. "Cultural Values and Behavior in Dictator, Ultimatum, and Trust Games: An Experimental Study," Research in Experimental Economics, in: Experimental Economics and Culture, volume 20, pages 89-166, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
    6. Emre Toros, 2010. "The Relationship Between Islam and Democracy in Turkey: Employing Political Culture as an Indicator," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 95(2), pages 253-265, January.
    7. Peters B., 2009. "The Two Futures of Governing: Decentering and Recentering Processes in Governing," NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy, Sciendo, vol. 2(1), pages 7-24, July.
    8. Michael Hechter, 1994. "The Role of Values in Rational Choice Theory," Rationality and Society, , vol. 6(3), pages 318-333, July.
    9. Woll, Cornelia, 2005. "Learning to Act on World Trade: Preference Formation of Large Firms in the United States and the European Union," MPIfG Discussion Paper 05/1, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
    10. Kauder, Björn & Potrafke, Niklas & Ursprung, Heinrich, 2018. "Behavioral determinants of proclaimed support for environment protection policies," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 26-41.
    11. Henry J. Aaron, 1994. "Distinguished Lecture on Economics in Government: Public Policy, Values, and Consciousness," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(2), pages 3-21, Spring.
    12. Jozef Bátora, 2013. "The ‘Mitrailleuse Effect’: The EEAS as an Interstitial Organization and the Dynamics of Innovation in Diplomacy," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(4), pages 598-613, July.
    13. Tjerk Budding & Bram Faber & Raymond (R.H.J.M.) Gradus, 2017. "Assessing Electronic Service Delivery in Municipalities," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 17-087/VIII, Tinbergen Institute.
    14. Tom Christensen & Liang Ma, 2020. "Coordination Structures and Mechanisms for Crisis Management in China: Challenges of Complexity," Public Organization Review, Springer, vol. 20(1), pages 19-36, March.
    15. Metodi Sotirov & Georg Winkel, 2016. "Toward a cognitive theory of shifting coalitions and policy change: linking the advocacy coalition framework and cultural theory," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 49(2), pages 125-154, June.
    16. Tom Christensen & Anne Fimreite & Per Lægreid, 2014. "Joined-Up Government for Welfare Administration Reform in Norway," Public Organization Review, Springer, vol. 14(4), pages 439-456, December.
    17. Marie Nilsen & Trond Kongsvik & Stian Antonsen, 2022. "Taming Proteus: Challenges for Risk Regulation of Powerful Digital Labor Platforms," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(10), pages 1-23, May.
    18. Matthew Polacko & Peter Graefe & Simon Kiss, 2024. "Subjective economic insecurity and attitudes toward immigration and feminists among voters on the Right in Canada," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 105(2), pages 281-295, March.
    19. repec:spo:wpmain:info:hdl:2441/8529 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. J. Travis Bland & Adam M. Williams, 2019. "Collaborative Ties Within: Public Organizations and the Latent Capacity for Advice Network Formation," Public Organization Review, Springer, vol. 19(3), pages 367-386, September.
    21. Eyert, Florian & Irgmaier, Florian & Ulbricht, Lena, 2022. "Extending the framework of algorithmic regulation. The Uber case," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 16(1), pages 23-44.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:porgrv:v:20:y:2020:i:1:d:10.1007_s11115-018-00434-0. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.