Social cohesion and integration is not only a classical problem of sociology but also of government. Governments implement policies and establish public sector organizations to solve this problem. As the number of such organizations increases, the question arises of how to ensure that their activities are geared to one another, i.e. how to attain cohesion between corporate actors in society. In the paper four answers to this question are reviewed; (i) new public management, which centers on market-type mechanisms that devolve greater responsibility to operating managers, and create more autonomy for public sector organizations; (ii) direct supervision by central government through hierarchy, rules, regulations, standard operating procedures and bureaucracy; (iii) investing in auditing with a focus on developing and using performance indicators; and (iv) investing in and managing with social capital. The empirical focus is on the Netherlands.
Barzelay, M.
1992. `Breaking Through Demography, a New Vision for Managing in Government.'Berkeley: University of California Press.
2.
Barzelay, M.
1996. `Performance Auditing and the New Public Management: Changing Roles and Strategies of Central Audit Institutions.' In OECD, Performance Auditing and the Modernization of Government, pp. 15-57. Paris.
3.
Beck Jorgenson, T.
and C.A. Hansen. 1995. `Agencificiation and De-agencificiation in Danish Central Government.'International Review of Administrative Sciences61: 549-563.
4.
Bovens, Mark
and Paul `t Hart. 1996. Understanding Policy Fiascoes. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.
5.
Bromiley, Ph.
and L.L. Cummings. 1995. `Transaction Costs in Organizations with Trust.'Research on Negotiation in Organizations5: 219-247.
6.
Bulder, Bert
, Frans Leeuw and Henk Flap. 1996. `Networks and Evaluating Public Sector Reforms.'Evaluation2: 261-277.
7.
Bulder, Bert
, Frans Leeuw and Henk Flap. 1997. `Rechtsbijstand in Nederland: Verslag van een Evaluatie-onderzoek, Vakgroep Sociologie.'Universiteit Utrecht, 1997.
8.
Burt, R.1987. `Social Contagion and Innovation.'American Journal of Sociology92: 1287-1335.
9.
Burt, R.
and D. Ronchi. 1996. `Contested Control in a Large Manufacturing Plant.' In Social Networks Through Time, eds J. Weesie and H.D. Flap, pp. 121-157. Utrecht: ISOR.
10.
Chelimsky, E.1985. `Comparing and Contrasting Auditing and Evaluation: Some Notes on Their Relationship.'Evaluation Review9: 483-503.
11.
Chelimsky, E.
1996. `Auditing and Evaluation: Whither the Relationship.' In Evaluation and Auditing: Prospects for Convergence, ed. C. Wisler, pp. 61-68. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
12.
Coleman, J.
1982. The Asymmetric Society. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press.
13.
Coleman, J.
1990. Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
14.
Day, P.
and D. Klein. 1987. Accountabilities: Five Public Services. New York: Wiley.
15.
Ghosal, S.
and P. Moran. 1996. `Bad for Practice: A Critique of the Transaction Cost Theory.'Academy of Management Review21: 13-47.
16.
Greve, C.
1996. `Quangos in Denmark and Scandinavia: Trends, Problems, Perspectives.' Paper, presented at the Workshop on The Great British Quango: What do Other Countries Do.Political Economy Research Center, University of Sheffield, London, June 7.
17.
Hoskisson, R.
and M.A. Hitt. 1988. `Strategic Control Systems and Relative R and D Investments in Large Multiproduct Firms.'Strategic Management Journal9: 605-621.
18.
Kerst-toespraak H.M. de Koningin
. 1995. De Staatscourant, No. 250, 27 December, pp. 1 and 7.
19.
Koster, T.H.et al.
1995. Overwegingen bij het Beleidsplan Voor de NV Werk. Utrecht: Moret, Ernst and Young Management Consultants.
20.
Leeuw, Frans L.1991. `Policy Theories, Knowledge Utilization, and Evaluation.'Knowledge and Policy4: 73-92.
21.
Leeuw, Frans L.
1996. `Auditing and Evaluation: Bridging a Gap, Worlds to Meet.' In Evaluation and Auditing: Prospects for Convergence, ed. C. Wisler, pp. 51-61. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
22.
Leeuw, Frans L.
and Piet J. Rozendal. 1994. `Policy Evaluation and the Netherlands Government: Scope, Utilization and Organizational Learning.' In Can Governments Learn?, eds Frans L. Leeuwet al. pp. 67-89. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.
23.
Leeuw, Frans L.
and Alina Van der Wal. 1997. `Investeren in Relaties als Instrument van Ontwikkelingsbeleid: Nieuwe Vragen voor Evaluatie-onderzoek, Ministerie van Ontwikkelingssamenwerking.'Inspectie Ontwikkelingsamenwerking und Beleidsevaluatie, Den Haag.
24.
Le Grand, J.
& W. Bartlett (eds.) 1993. Quasi-market and Social Policy. Houndmills: Macmillan.
25.
Light, Paul C.
1993. Monitoring Government; Inspectors General and the Search for Accountability. Washington DC: The Brookings Institute.
26.
Meyer
. 1993. `Organizational Design and the Performance Paradox.' In Explorations in Economic Sociology, ed. R. Swedberg, pp 249-279. New York: Sage Foundation.
27.
Mitnick, B.M.
1980. The Political Economy of Regulation. New York:
28.
Mitsztal, Barbara A.
1996. Trust in Modern Societies. Cambridge: Polity Press.
29.
Mueller, D.C.
1989. Public Choice II. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
30.
OECD/PUMA
. 1996. Performance Auditing and the Modernization of Government. Paris.
31.
Osborne, D.
and T. Gaebler. 1992. Reinventing Government. New York:
32.
Ouchi, W.G.1980. `Markets, Bureaucracies and Clans.'Administrative Science Quarterly.25: 129-141.
33.
Pollit, C.1995. `Justification by Works or by Faith? Evaluating the New Public Management.'Evaluation1: 133-135.
34.
Pollit, C.
and H. Suma. 1997. `Performance Auditing: Travelers' Tales.' In Evaluation for the 21st Century, A Handbook, eds. E. Chelimsky and W.R. Shadish, pp. 86-109. London: Sage.
35.
Power, Mike
. 1994. The Audit Explosion. London: Demos.
36.
Power, Mike
. 1995. `Audit and the Decline of Inspection.'Paper of the Public Finance Foundation, London.
37.
Putnam, R.D.
1993. Making Democracy Work. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
38.
Regeringsverklaring Kabinet Kok
. 1994. `Keuzen Voor de Toekomst.'Den Haag, SDU.
39.
Rist, Ray C.
1994. `The Preconditions for Learning: Lessons From the Public Sector.' In Can Governments Learn?, eds Frans L. Leeuwet al. pp. 145-189. Rutgers and London: Transaction Books.
40.
Scheepens, J. 1995. `Financial Intermediation and Corporate Finance.' PhD thesis, Tilburg: Tilburg University Press.
41.
Sitkin, S.et al.1994. `Distinguishing Control from Learning in Total Quality Management: a Contingency Perspective.'Academy of Management Review19: 537-564.
42.
Smith, P.1995. `On the Unintended Consequences of Publishing Performance Data in the Public Sector.'International Journal of Public Administration18: 377-410.
43.
Snijders, Chris. 1996. Trust and Commitments. PhD thesis ICS/Department of Sociology, University of Utrecht, Utrecht.
44.
Stephen, F.H.
and D.D. Gillander. 1993. `Ex Post Monitoring Versus Ex Ante Screening in the New Institutional Economics.'Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics149: 725-730.
45.
Taylor, M.1996. `Between Public and Private: Accountability in Voluntarily Organizations.'Policy and Politics24: 57-72.
46.
Thompson, G.J.et al.
(eds). 1994. Markets, Hierarchies and Networks. The Coordination of Social Life. London: Sage.
47.
Ultee, W.C.
, H. Flap and W. Arts. 1992. `Sociologie. Vragen, uitspraken, bevindingen.'Groningen: Wolters Noordhoff.
48.
Williamson, O.E.1991. `Strategizing, economizing and economic organizations.'Strategic Management Journal12: 75-94.
49.
Wilson, J.Q.
1989. Bureaucracy: What Government Agencies Do and Why They Do It?. New York: Basic Books.
50.
Wittman, D.1989. `Why Democracies Produce Efficient Results.'Journal of Political Economy97: 1395-1425.
51.
Wouden, R. van der
. 1993. `Evaluatie Sociale Vernieuwing: een Tussenrapport.'Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau.Rijswijk.
