Public Policies: Coordination, Integration, Coherence, and Collaboration

Author(s):  
B. Guy Peters

Although most public sector governance depends upon specialized organizations, there is also a need to create greater coordination and policy integration. Improving coordination can overcome problems of duplication, waste, and turf-fighting. Producing coordination is not easy, but there are a number of mechanisms available to would-be coordinators to make governments more coherent. Most of these mechanisms depend on hierarchy, but others depend more on ideas or networks. Although coordination is important for governance, it is not a panacea, and coordination may produce problems as well as solving them. Therefore, the choice between higher levels of specialization and coordination depends upon numerous political and administrative variables.

2017 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 355-369 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria-José Canel ◽  
Evandro Samuel Oliveira ◽  
Vilma Luoma-aho

Purpose The purpose of this paper is threefold: to introduce a theoretical frame regarding the meaning of legitimacy as an intangible asset of the public sector; to test a way of operationalizing legitimacy typologies that allows exploring and comparing how citizens from two countries evaluate the legitimacy of public policies; and to suggest implications for governments’ legitimacy-building strategies in shared international crisis, such as the refugees coming from the Syrian region. Design/methodology/approach Building on Suchman’s typology, it was defined and categorized different types of legitimacy into concrete measurable, communication related statements concerning consequential, procedural, structural and personal. For the illustrative example, four focus groups were conducted in two different European societies as a mean to have two poles of comparison. Findings The paper reports current understanding of legitimacy by citizens, discusses how different legitimacy types might demand different communication and public diplomacy approaches. The basis for hypothesis for further research on how governments should build legitimacy during emerging societal issues such as immigration policies is set. Practical implications It proposes a typology and its operationalization, discusses how communication might shape legitimacy and profiles the challenge governments have in building it. Within a public diplomacy context, it brings clues for new strategies to the challenge of explaining policies on international crisis combining the tension of domestic with foreign publics. Originality/value There is little research so far in search for clues for communication strategies for the legitimacy of policies on the 2015 European refugee’s crisis. This contributes to the emerging area of intangible assets in the public sector and tests a focus-group research strategy with both hermeneutical and pragmatic aims. Combine public diplomacy theory with public sector intangible assets theory to respond to the tension of internal and external public demands.


2020 ◽  
Vol 54 (3) ◽  
pp. 433-447
Author(s):  
Lucia de Fatima Nascimento de Queiroz ◽  
Mauro Guilherme Maidana Capelari

Abstract The goals of this analysis are (i) to offer elements of reflection to the actors who design and implement public policies; (ii) to keep the debate on outcomes evaluation alight; (iii) to contribute toward integrating the debate on evaluation to the complexity of actions in the public sector. This theoretical essay researched works published on the subject from 1979 to 2019. The investigation of the approaches offered by the selected authors allowed identifying variables that are relevant to the analysis of public policies. The variables are expressed in the influences of institutional trajectories, actors, and organizational context. The analysis brings the following concluions: (i) the link between institutionality and the capacity to conduct results evaluations in public policies deserves attention in future studies; (ii) the debate on the topic can be strengthened by analyses that consider not only the decisions adopted, but also the rules, norms and strategies that define the political-institutional scene in which public policies are implemented.


ILR Review ◽  
1986 ◽  
Vol 39 (4) ◽  
pp. 539-551 ◽  
Author(s):  
Craig A. Olson

This paper examines the frequency of public sector strikes through 1980 in six states that have different public policies toward such strikes. From the results of cross-sectional and time series analyses, the author concludes that well-enforced penalties against participants in illegal strikes (in New York) and the threat of firings in response to strikes (Wisconsin) appear to have reduced strike frequency, whereas poorly enforced prohibitions against public sector strikes (Ohio) had no effect, and the legalization of public sector strikes (Pennsylvania) increased strike frequency. Policies affecting the rescheduling of school days missed because of teacher strikes significantly affected the probability of teacher strikes. The results also suggest, less strongly, that interest arbitration decreased strike frequency.


2004 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 51-74 ◽  
Author(s):  
Casey B Mulligan ◽  
Ricard Gil ◽  
Xavier Sala-i-Martin

Estimates of democracy's effect on the public sector are obtained from comparisons of 142 countries over the years 1960–90. Based on three tenets of voting theory – that voting mutes policy preference intensity, political power is equally distributed in democracies, and the form of voting processes is important—we expect democracy to affect policies that redistribute, or economically favor the political leadership, or enhance efficiency. We do not find such differences. Instead democracy is correlated with policies that limit competition for public office. Alternative modeling approaches emphasize the degree of competition, and deemphasize the form or even existence of voting processes.


Author(s):  
Christoph Knill ◽  
Christina Steinbacher ◽  
Yves Steinebach

Modern policymaking becomes an ever more complex and fragmented endeavor: Across countries, the pile of public policies is continuously growing. The risk of unintended interactions and ineffective policies increases. New and cross-cutting challenges strain the organizational setup of policymaking systems. Against this background, policy integration is assumed to present an antidote by improving the coherence, consistency, and coordination of public policies as well as of the processes that produce these policy outputs. Although various research attempts focus on policy integration, common concepts and theories are largely missing. The different facets of the phenomenon have only been covered disproportionally and empirical analyses remained fragmented. On these grounds, a more comprehensive and systematic view on policy integration is needed: To cope with complexity, governments are required to streamline and reconcile their products of policymaking (i.e., every single policy). Here, policymakers need to check for interactions with policies already adopted on the same level as well as with policies put in place by other levels of government (e.g., subnational). Moreover, policy integration also implies the creation and development of policymaking processes that systematically link political and administrative actors across various policy arenas, sectors, and levels. By elaborating on these process and product components of policy integration as well as on their horizontal and vertical manifestations, the different perspectives on policy integration are synthesized and embedded into a systematic framework. On the basis of this scheme of identifying four policy integration categories, it becomes clear that there are still loopholes in the literature. As these blind spots culminate in the absence of almost any concept on vertical policy process integration, a way of capturing the phenomenon is introduced through arguing that vertical policy process integration depends on the structural linkages between the policy formulation at the “top” and the implementation level at the “bottom.” More precisely, it is necessary to take account of the extent to which the policy producers have to carry the burden of implementation, and the degree to which the implementers can influence the policy design over the course of formulation. The proposed framework on policy integration is intended to serve as a guide for future research and to help to identify those aspects of policy integration in which further research efforts are required. Only in this way can policy integration as a theoretical and empirical concept be applied systematically across policy contexts—covering different countries, levels, and sectors— and serve as a stimulus for better policymaking.


2021 ◽  
pp. 095207672110232
Author(s):  
Marco Di Giulio ◽  
Giancarlo Vecchi

Technological transformations are currently reshaping the structure and strategies of public administrations and are expected to foster efficiency and policy integration. However, the literature on digital government has demonstrated that the introduction of technology is far from a smooth process, as it is often associated with conflict and negative feedback. This paper departs from James Thompson’s notion of technology, understood as one of the most effective devices for organizational integration to conceptualise the context of digital innovations in the public sphere. ICTs are not all the same; they differ in their impact on intra- and inter-organizational interdependencies that are required for them to work properly in their domain. This paper introduces a typology of ICT-driven governance structures and advances hypotheses regarding the causal mechanisms underpinning successful implementation. Each type of governance structure is exemplified by an original case study of a programme of e-government reform in the Italian public sector. The empirical evidence is used to explore some implications concerning the strategies by which the programmes have been implemented and their transferability to other contexts.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document