This article analyses the changing principles of structural organization of the governmental agencies in the welfare administration in Norway. Through the use of instrumentally oriented organization theory and empirical data based in public documents and interviews, we analyse how welfare administration changes through the implementation process when organizational principles are rebalanced based on changing actor patterns, negotiations and path dependencies. The study illustrates that contradictions and complexities in organizational design are enduring features of public sector organizations.
Points for practitioners
Administrative reforms may change during the implementation process and are often multi-dimensional because interests and organizational principles are rebalanced when bureaucrats implement what politicians have decided. It seems to be difficult to find a stable balance between different principles of specialization, and specialization increases the need for coordination. Administrative reforms are not only about internal administration but are also a political process where political, administrative and professional logics clash and are balanced and rebalanced. Organizational structures are not only about efficiency but also tend to favour some processes, ideas, clients, users and actors over others.
AskimJChristensenTFimreiteALLægreidP (2009) How to carry out joined-up government reforms: Lessons from the 2001–2006 Norwegian welfare reform. International Journal of Public Administration32(12): 1006–1025.
2.
AskimJChristensenTFimreiteALLægreidP (2010) How to assess administrative reform? Investigating the adoption and preliminary impacts of the Norwegian welfare administration reform. Public Administration88(1): 232–246.
3.
AskimJFimreiteALMosleyAPedersenLH (2011) One-stop shops for social welfare: The adaptation of an organizational form in three countries. Public Administration89(4): 1451–1468.
4.
BouckaertGPetersBGVerhoestK (2010) The Coordination of Public Sector Organizations: Shifting Patterns of Public Management, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
5.
BrunssonNOlsenJP(1998) Organization theory: Thirty years of dismantling, and then? In: BrunssonNOlsenJP (eds) Organizing Organizations, Bergen: Fagbokforlaget, pp. 13–46.
6.
ChristensenT (2003) Narrative of Norwegian governance: Elaborating the strong state. Public Administration81(1): 163–190.
7.
ChristensenTLægreidP (2001) New Public Management: The Transformation of Ideas and Practice, Aldershot: Ashgate.
8.
ChristensenTLægreidP(2006) Rebalancing the state: Reregulation and the reassertion of the centre. In: ChristensenTLægreidP (eds) Autonomy and Regulation: Coping with Agencies in the Modern State, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 359–381.
9.
ChristensenTLægreidP (2007) The whole-of-government approach to public sector reform. Public Administration Review67(6): 1057–1064.
10.
ChristensenTFimreiteALLægreidP (2007a) Reform of employment and welfare administration: The challenge of coordinating diverge public organizations. International Review of Administrative Sciences73(3): 389–408.
11.
ChristensenTLægreidPRonessPGRøvikKA (2007b) Organization Theory and the Public Sector: Instrument, Culture Myth, London: Routledge.
12.
ChristensenTKnuthMLægreidPWigganJ (2009) Reforms of welfare administration and policy – a comparison of complexity and hybridization: An introduction. International Journal of Public Administration32(12): 1001–1005.
13.
CyertRMMarchJG (1963) A Behavioral Theory of the Firm, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
14.
DahlRALindblomCE (1953) Politics, Economics, and Welfare, New York: Harper Row.
15.
EgebergM (2001) The organizational dimension of integration in the EU (and elsewhere). Journal of European Public Policy8(5): 728–746.
16.
EgebergM (2004) An organizational approach to European integration: Outline of a complementary approach. European Journal of Political Research43: 199–214.
17.
EgebergM (2005) EU institutions and the transformation of European-level politics: How to understand profound change (if it occurs). Comparative European Politics3: 102–117.
18.
EgebergMTrondalJ (2009) National agencies in the European administrative space: Government driven, Commission driven or networked?Public Administration87(4): 779–790.
19.
Fimreite AL (2011) Kommunalt selvstyre i partnerskapets tidsalder [Local self government in the era of partnership]. Paper presented at the Nordic Political Science Conference (NOPSA), Vasa, 9–12 August.
20.
Fimreite AL and Lægreid P (2005) Specialization and coordination implications for integration and autonomy in a multi-level system. Working Paper 7/2005. Bergen: Uni Rokkan Centre.
21.
FimreiteALLægreidP (2009) Reorganization of the welfare state administration: Partnerships, networks and accountability. Public Management Review11(3): 281–297.
22.
Førde J (2011) På veg mot ei ny forvaltning? [Towards a new administration?] Masters thesis. Department of Administration and Organization Theory, University of Bergen.
23.
GulickLH(1937) Notes on the theory of organizations: With specific reference to government. In: GulickLHUrwickLF (eds) Papers on the Science of Administration, New York: A.M. Kelley, pp. 1–45.
KrasnerSD (1988) Sovereignty: An institutional perspective. Comparative Political Studies21(1): 66–94.
26.
LægreidPRollandVRRonessPGÅgotnesJE(2010) The structural anatomy of the Norwegian state: Increased specialization or pendulum shift? In: LægreidPVerhoestK (eds) Governance of Public Sector Organizations: Proliferation, Autonomy and Performance, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 21–43.
27.
Light P (1997) The Tides of Reform: Making Government Work 1945--1995. New Haven: Yale University Press.
28.
MargettsHPerri6HoodC (2012) Paradoxes of Modernization: Unintended Consequences of Public Policy Reform, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
29.
MarchJGOlsenJP (1983) Organizing political life: What administrative reorganization tells us about governing. American Political Science Review77: 281–296.
30.
MarchJGOlsenJP (1989) Rediscovering Institutions, New York: The Free Press.
31.
MarchJGSimonHA (1958) Organizations, New York: John Wiley & Sons.
32.
MeierKJ (2010) Governance, structure, and democracy: Luther Gulick and the future of public administration. Public Administration Review70(Supplement 1): 284–291.
NeumanJ(2011) Serving the public? Users, consumers and the limits of NPM. In: ChristensenTLægreidP (eds) The Ashgate Research Companion to New Public Management, Aldershot: Ashgate, pp. 349–360.
35.
OlsenJP (2004) Survey article: Unity, diversity and democratic institutions: Lessons from the European Union. Journal of Political Philosophy12(4): 461–495.
36.
OlsenJP (2007) Europe in Search of Political Order, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
37.
OlsenJP (2010) Governing through Institution Building, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
38.
PatashnikEM (2008) Reforms at Risk: What Happens after Major Policy Changes are Enacted, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
39.
PerrowC (1972) Complex Organizations, Glenview, IL: Scott Foreman.
40.
PetersBG(1998) What works? The antiphones of administrative reform. In: PetersBGSavoieDJ (eds) Taking Stock: Assessing Public Sector Reforms, Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, pp. 78–107.
41.
PollittCBouckaertG (2011) Public Management Reform: A Comparative Analysis – NPM, Governance and the Neo-Weberian State, 3rd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
42.
SchattschneiderEE (1960) The Semi-Sovereign People, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
43.
SimonHA (1946) Proverbs of administration. Public Administration Review6(1): 53–67.
44.
SimonHA (1957) Administrative Behaviour, New York: Macmillan.
45.
StreckWThelenK (2005) Beyond Continuity: Institutional Change in Advanced Political Economies, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
46.
TalbotCJohnsonC (2007) Seasonal cycles in public management: Disaggregation and re-aggregation. Public Money & Management27(1): 53–60.
47.
VerhoestKBouckaertG(2005) Machinery of government and policy capacity. In: PainterMPierreJ (eds) Challenges to State Policy Capacity, Basingstoke: Palgrave, pp. 92–111.
