Around the world, there are several governmental attempts, by means of new information — and communication technologies (ICTs) — to regenerate the relationship between citizen/business and governments. This article explores the Swedish electronic government reform attempts of transforming functionally specialized governmental agencies into a more coherent and integrated network administration — the so-called `24/7 Agency'. Based on a theoretical point of departure in the governance network literature, and Kingdon's different streams of problems, solutions and politics, the article investigates the twisting ways of fulfilling the vision of the reform-makers. The conclusion is that the institutional structures, in this case the Swedish model of government organization with independently managed under performance management, in many respects encumber the reform per se. In addition, the article concludes that theoretically there are many reasons to include national institutional settings in the study of governance networks in future research. Methodologically, the article is based on an interpretative policy analysis where data has been derived through interviews with central policy makers and studies of policy documents.
24/7 Delegation (2004) Open All Hours, English version of report from the 24/7 Delegation. Västerås: Statens Information.
2.
Acaud, D. and Lakel, A. (2003) `Electronic Government and the French State: A Negotiated and Gradual Reform', Information Polity3—4(8): 117—32.
3.
Accenture (2006) `Leadership in Customer Service: Building the Trust', http://www.accenture.com/xdoc/en/industries/government/acn_2006_govt_report_FINAL2.pdf
4.
Bellamy, C. (2000) `The Politics of Public Information Systems', in G.D. Garson (ed.) Handbook of Public Information Systems, pp. 85—98. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
5.
Bressers, H.Th.A. and O'Toole, L.J. (1998) `The Selection of Policy Instruments: A Network-based Perspective', Journal of Public Policy18(3): 213—39.
6.
Castells, M. (1996) The Rise of the Network Society: Economy, Society and Culture (I). Oxford: Blackwell .
7.
Cohen, M.D., March, J.G. and Olsen, J.P. (1972) `A Garbage Can Model of Organizational Choice', Administrative Science Quarterly17(1): 1—25.
8.
Exworthy, M. and Powell, M. (2004) `Big Windows and Little Windows: Implementation in the “Congested State”', Public Administration8(2): 263—81.
9.
Gil-Garcia, R.J. and Pardo, T.A. (2005) `E-government Success Factors: Mapping Practical Tools to Theoretical Foundations', Government Information Quarterly22(2): 187—216.
10.
Government, The [Swedish] (2000) An Information Society for All, Gov. Bill1999/2000: 86.
11.
Government, The [Swedish] (2003) Terms of Reference: The 24/7 Agency Delegation, Dir. 2003: 81.
12.
Government, The [Swedish] (2005) From an IT Policy for Society to a Policy for the Information Society, Gov. Bill2004/05: 175.
13.
Grönlund, Å. (2002) `Electronic Government: Efficiency, Service Quality and Democracy', in Å. Grönlund (ed.) Electronic Government: Design, Applications and Management, pp. 23—50. Hershey, PA: IDEA Group.
14.
Hall, P. (2004) `Autonoma Krafter och Anpassade Människor: Diskursiv Makt inom Svensk IT-politik' [Autonomous Forces and Adjusted Humans: Discursive Power within Swedish ICT Policy], Statsvetenskaplig Tidskrift106(1): 97—124.
15.
Hall, P. and Löfgren, K. (2004) `The Rise and Decline of a Visionary Policy: Swedish ICT-policy in Retrospect', Information Polity9(3—4): 149—65.
16.
Heimer, C.A. and Stinchcombe, A.L. (1999) `Remodelling the Garbage Can: Implications of the Origins of Items in Decision Streams', in M. Egeberg and P. Lægreid (eds) Organizing Political Institutions, pp. 25—57. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press.
17.
Hogwood, B.W. and Gunn, L.-A. (1984) Policy Analysis for the Real World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
18.
Janssen, D., Rotthier, S. and Snijkers, K. (2004) `If you measure it they will Score: An Assessment of International eGovernment Benchmarking', Information Polity9(3—4): 121—30.
19.
Jessop, B. (1998) `The Rise of Governance and the Risks of Failure: The Case of Economic Development', International Social Science Journal50(155): 29—45.
20.
Jessop, B. (2003) `Governance and Metagovernance: On Reflexivity, Requisite Variety and Requisite Irony', in H.P. Bang (ed.) Governance as Social and Political Communication , pp. 101—16. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
21.
Kingdon, J.W. (1984/2003) Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. New York: Longman.
22.
McConnell, A. (2003) `Overview: Crisis Management, Influence, Responses and Evaluation', Parliamentary Affairs56(3): 393—409.
23.
Margetts, H. (1998) Information Technology in Government: Britain and America. London: Routledge.
24.
Marsh, D. (1998) `The Development of the Policy Network Approach ', in D. March (ed.) Comparing Policy Networks, pp. 3—17. Buckingham: Open University Press.
25.
Newman, J. (2001) Modernising Governance: New Labour, Policy and Society. London: Sage.
26.
Pierre, J. (ed.) (2000) Debating Governance: Authority, Steering and Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
27.
Pierre, J. and Peters, G. (2005) Governing Complex Societies. London: Palgrave.
28.
Pierson, P. (2000) `Not Just What, but When', Studies in American Political Development14(1): 73—93.
29.
Pollit, C. (2001) `Convergence: The Useful Myth?', Public Administration79(4): 933—47.
30.
Pratchett, L. (1999) `New Technologies and the Modernization of Local Government: An Analysis of Biases and Constraints', Public Administration77(4): 731—51.
31.
Rhodes, R.A.W. (2000) `The Governance Narrative: Key Findings and Lessons from the ESRC's Whitehall Programme', Public Administration78(2): 345—64.
32.
Rhodes, R.R. (1997) Understanding Governance: Policy Networks, Governance, Reflexivity and Accountability. Buckingham: Open University Press.
33.
Sabatier, P.A. (1999) `The Need for Better Theories', in P.A. Sabatier (ed.) Theories of the Policy Process, pp. 3—17. Boulder, CO: Westview .
34.
Swedish Agency for Public Management, The (SAFAD) (2000) The 24/7 Agency: Criteria for 24/7 Agencies in the Networked Public Administration, Report No. 41.
35.
Swedish Agency for Public Management, The (SAFAD) (2002) En Sammanhållen Elektronisk Förvaltning [A Coherent Electronic Government], Report2002: 7.
36.
Swedish Agency for Public Management, The (SAFAD) (2003) Samverkande 24-Timmarsmyndigheter: Sammanhållen Elektronisk Förvaltning [Collaborating 24/7 Agencies: A Coherent Electronic Government], Report2003: 18.
37.
Swedish Agency for Public Management, The (SAFAD) (2004) Public Administration in the E-society, short version, memorandum.
38.
Swedish Hansard, The (2003) Resolution at the Cabinet meeting of 18 June.
39.
Swedish National Audit Office (SNAO) [Riksrevisionen] (2003) Vem Styr den Elektroniska Förvaltningen? [Who Governs the Electronic Government?], Report2003: 19.
40.
United Nations (2004) Global E-government Readiness Report 2004: Towards Access for Opportunity, UNPAN/2004/11 . New York: UN.
41.
Yanow, D. (2000) Conducting Interpretive Policy Analysis. London: Sage.
