Program: Objectives and planning for 2006-2009

Chair:
Prof. dr. Per Laegreid (University of Bergen)
Co-chair:
Prof. dr. Werner Jann (University of Potsdam)
Co-chair:
Assist. Prof. dr. Koen Verhoest (K.U.Leuven)

• Context
• Objectives
• Study object
• Sub themes
  • (1) Autonomy and control of the public sector organization in this multi-actor setting
  • (2) Management, culture and performance of the public sector organization and the implications for stakeholders of different organizational forms
  • (3) Coordination of public sector organizations in an era of joined-up government and marketization
• References
• Pdf

Context

This program for the EGPA permanent Study Group on the ‘governance of public sector organizations’ is inspired by the observation that new trends and evolutions are changing the practice of the organization of the public sector internationally: specialization within large monolithic bureaucracies results in the establishment of single purpose autonomous agencies, which urge for a stricter coordination of policy sectors and also within governmental levels.
Two dimensions of specialization are to be observed:
a) Horizontal specialization (or de-specialization), the trend away from the integrated organizaton model towards "single purpose organizations" and different ways of combining principles of specialization by purpose, by sector/function, by area and by clientele. One implication of this trend towards role-purification is the development of regulatory agencies.
b) Vertical specialization (or de-specialization), or degree of structural devolution, delegation, autonomization, or decentralization. This agencification is driven by several forces, including Europeanization, multi-national organizations (OECD, World Bank, IMF), the NPM movement and new regulatory reforms. These agencies emerge in a governance context in which boundaries are blurring between 1) public and private sectors because of increasing collaboration in the forms of public-private partnerships and 2) between the different levels of government (including the European and international level) leading to forms of multi-level governance. In such a setting, these agencies are mostly not only linked to the governments that have created them, but also interact extensively with other actors from the public and private sector and with other public bodies (including agencies) on other governmental levels. Also resulting from this shift are issues of performance and accountability of these autonomous agencies. Although governments are adapting to these trends at an ever increasing pace, scientific proof of the beneficial effects of these trends for the functioning of the public sector is still lacking.

These issues of agencification, specialization, and coordination are becoming quite popular as the focus of theoretical and empirical research from different angles (see, for example, the traditionally distinct research fields of agencification, regulation and coordination). There is still a dominance of national-oriented, static research, but lately clear-cut international research projects, as well as longitudinal research designs, have become more numerous (Pollitt et al. 2004; Christensen and Yesilkagut 2005; OECD 2002; Organization database by the Norwegian Rokkan Centre). In general, there is too little cross-fertilization, concertation and collaboration and a lack of exchange on research methodologies. A strong need is felt to bring together the increasing number of scholars involved in single-country and cross-country comparative research that focuses on organizational forms, their determinants and their consequences in a more permanent setting.

Until now, a EGPA permanent Study Group studying public sector organizations as such was lacking, although the topic is regaining interest in the context of the growing complexity of organizational forms in the public sector (departmental agencies, public and private law agencies, state-owned companies, government foundations, public private partnerships, etc.). Moreover, although an increasing number of workshops at conferences focus on public organization research (see, for instance, the number of workshops on autonomous agencies lately), there is no permanent forum where researchers can meet regularly to discuss progress and to develop joint efforts over several years. A recent initiative to stimulate joint research on public sector organizations is COBRA. The “Comparative Public Organization Data Base for Research and Analysis – network” is an academic research network which was initiated at the Public Management Institute of the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven by the professors Geert Bouckaert and Guy Peters in 2001. The network consists of research teams from 13 Western countries (6 full partners and 7 associated partners). One of the aims is to develop common databases on a number of crucial aspects of public sector organizations. The EGPA permanent Study Group would provide a major open forum to discuss COBRA and other research.

Objectives

The EGPA Study Group on Governance of Public Sector Organizations examines aspects of public sector organizations. Focus is on public sector organizations of different forms (ranging from core governmental units over different kinds of agencies to state-owned companies and governmental foundations and public private partnerships, as well as agencies at supra-governmental level). Central issues under study are the autonomy and control of such organizations, their management, identities, roles, performance and accountability, and their coordination. The EGPA Study Group aims at bringing together scholars in this field to increase cross-fertilization, promote cumulative and joint research, and stimulate exchange on research methods (e.g. advantages of combining survey and case study research). This will lead to empirical, theoretical and methodological advances in the field. Moreover the permanent Study Group has a clear publication strategy for books, special issues and single articles.

Study object

The central study object is the ‘public sector organization’, by which we refer to the range of organizational forms from core governmental units - close to cabinet - over different kinds of agencies to state-owned companies and governmental foundations on the border between public and private sector.
As shown by figure 1, the public sector organization should be studied in its broader context which encompasses several actors and several governmental levels.
• Parliament
• Minister(s) and cabinet
• parent departments and other core governmental units which regulate the public sector organization (e.g. central departments like Finance, government regulators such as audit offices)
• other public sector organizations at the same level
• other public sector organizations at other governmental levels (supranational, European, national, regional and local)
• public-private partnerships and private sector organizations as co-providers of public services or as users
• professional organizations and codes
• interests groups
• users/consumers
• civil society (mass media, the wider public)

Figure 1: The public organization and its context

All these actors may influence the functioning of the public sector organization or may be affected by it.
On the other hand, public sector organizations could be studied with respect to their own top governance structure, their internal management, their organizational culture, and their performance.

Sub themes

Three main fields of study can be discerned for the permanent Study Group, which may be considered as sub themes which are not necessarily dealt with in the order that they appear here in this proposal.

(1) Autonomy and control of the public sector organization in this multi-actor setting

(2) Management, culture and performance of the public sector organization and the implications for stakeholders of different organizational forms

(3) Coordination of public sector organizations in an era of joined-up government and marketization

(1) Autonomy and control of the public sector organization in this multi-actor setting.

Lately quite a lot of research has focused on the autonomy of public sector organizations in general, and of different kind of ‘agencies’ in particular. More and more, the multi-dimensional character of autonomy is evident, because autonomy or decision making power can be related to issues of management or policy. Autonomy as decision making power is also influenced to some extent by legal position, financial dependence and governance structure (Christensen 2001, Verhoest et al. 2004). There is growing awareness that real autonomy can be quite different from formal-legal autonomy. However, measurement and knowledge of different kinds of autonomy is still relatively underdeveloped. Despite recent important developments (for a clear exception: see Pollitt et al 2004), it remains largely unclear how tasks, political salience, policy field, national politico-administrative culture and history affect the autonomy of public sector organizations in different countries and sectors.
Moreover, although the ‘relational’ nature of autonomy is acknowledged, agency studies focus mainly on autonomy of public sector organizations towards government, ministers and parent departments, neglecting the effect of other government regulators, parliament, interest groups, mass media, bodies on other governmental levels on their autonomy. In addition, the different ways in which public sector organizations themselves can ‘forge’ more autonomy by developing strategies towards all these stakeholders need more systematic study (for an exception see Carpenter 2001).
The dynamic nature of autonomy is not fully researched: autonomy of public sector organizations can change over time, depending on certain factors (administrative, political, and societal factors). What is needed, therefore, are longitudinal or retrospective studies.

Largely the same can be said of the external ‘control’ of public sector organizations by external actors such as ministers and departments. This external control seems to be multidimensional (ex ante versus ex post, through governance structures, financial resources and through contacts), with differences between formal and factual, changing over time, and depending on tasks, policy field and country-specific path-dependent factors. But again little systematic research exists on the exact influence of these factors (e.g. to what extent does the control of regulatory agencies differ from agencies providing general public services?).
International research shows that parent departments lack skills and instruments to control public sector organizations at a strategic level. On the other hand, relations of high trust seem hard to develop, which in turn increases transaction costs. A more systematic study of different strategies, instruments and structural interfaces to manage the relationships between parent departments and public sector organizations in different countries could help to solve this dilemma.
Again, the control exercised by actors other than ministers and parent departments remains largely under-researched. The actions of public sector organizations are often strongly regulated by other governmental actors, such as central departments, ombudsmen, audit offices, public standards commissions, bodies on other governmental levels. Moreover, by a range of (sometimes innovative) means like consumer councils, peer review schemes, certificates, some public sector organizations involve their users, stakeholders and external scrutinizers more strongly and use their inputs to shape their strategies. This refers to the concept of ‘horizontal/downwards accountability and control’. This changes the controlling role of government, which focuses more on controlling the larger system and the accountability and control relationships between the public sector organization and those other actors, instead of on direct control of the public sector organization itself.

Besides promoting research and publications on these abovementioned topics, the Study Group will try to integrate studies on these aspects of different kind of public sector organizations, and not only of the autonomous public ‘agencies’ which are the focus of most organizational studies in public management at this moment. For example, organizational aspects like autonomy of public enterprises and state-owned companies are the focus of a totally separate body of literature. Also, government foundations and other non-profit organisations with strong linkages to the state have been kept largely separated as a study object, as havecore government units like bureaus within departments. However, the study of relative control and autonomy of ‘agencies’ is only possible through benchmarking with these kind of organizations. Therefore, the Study Group also aims to reach the research communities focussing on other organizational forms than agencies.

(2) Management, culture and performance of the public sector organization and the implications for stakeholders of different organizational forms

In a second sub theme the Study Group should focus on the effect of the autonomy and control of public sector organizations on their internal management, their organizational culture and their performance. What are the effects and implications of different organization forms on output and outcome and for different stakeholders, clients, users and the general public?

The results of several studies, comparing organizational performance of public sector organisations with private sector organizations (the so-called ‘relative efficiency’ studies) and examining the performance of agencies, are rather inconclusive. Studying changes in performance of public sector organizations in relation to changes in their organizational form (like agencification) appears to be very difficult, because of the lack of valid and long term performance information. However, other methods to study the issue of performance, such as the perception of different stakeholders (Burger and Treur 1996), have been used more successfully. Moreover, performance information has improved in the recent past. Therefore, the Study Group will stimulate studies which research the effects of autonomy and control on the performance in an innovative way, taking into account the methodological lessons from previous performance research.
Perhaps more importantly, an increasing number of studies has been focusing recently on the internal management of public sector organizations as preconditions for better performance (e.g. Pollitt et al 2004; Ingraham and Donahue 2003). Does a change in organizational form (e.g. agencification) or in the level of autonomy and control of a public sector organization lead to the introduction of new, more flexible management systems and instruments (e.g. financial management, HRM, quality management, performance management) and under which circumstances? Do these changes lead to other management strategies used by the senior management of the organization? Studies on the relations between organizational form, autonomy and control on management techniques and strategies deployed by public sector organizations are most interesting. An important factor in such studies is the organizational culture: to what extent does the organizational culture relate to the organizational form? Is organizational culture affected by changes in autonomy and control of the public sector organization and in what way? Or is organizational culture rather inertial and does it inhibit changes in internal management, even after a change in organizational form?
More general, in line with its multi-actor approach, the Study Group will focus on the effects and implications of different organization forms for different stakeholders, clients, users and the general public. The effects could be studied with respect to performance, quality of service, management of service delivery, but also with respect to other criteria, such as accountability, power and participation.

Again the Study Group aims at expanding its boundaries by inviting researchers from other disciplines like management research, organisation studies, and public enterprise studies to its meetings.

(3) Coordination of public sector organizations in an era of joined-up government and marketization

The proliferation of organizational forms in the public sector in OECD countries is probably one of the reasons why a lot of OECD countries launch initiatives to enhance coordination and the management of ‘cross-cutting’ and ‘whole-of-government’-issues. In such initiatives, such as ‘Joined-up Government’ in the UK, and ‘Review of the Centre’ in New Zealand, strengthening the links between individual public sector organizations with the larger objectives of government as well as with other public sector organizations/private organisations seems crucial. The question is if we can see “beyond NPM trajectories”, in which the pendulum is swinging back by rediscovering bureaucracy and bringing the state back in. Increased focus on Homeland security issues in the aftermath of 9/11 can be an illustration on this trend towards reassertion of the centre. Thus, public sector organizations are subjected to coordinating initiatives. However, in some cases, individual public sector organizations are coordinators themselves: they are created in order to coordinate other public and private organisations in specific sectors (e.g. immigration agencies, food safety agencies).

In the third sub theme of the Study Group we will study these two aspects of coordination of/by public sector organizations. Coordination can be predominantly vertical or horizontal and can be done by using hierarchical mechanisms, market mechanisms, network-like mechanisms and multi-level governance approaches.
We will study how public sector organizations are coordinated in different countries and how their autonomy and control affects the choice of coordination instruments that are deployed (e.g. in Sweden hierarchical coordination of agencies is avoided because of their constitutional autonomy). How are the strategies and actions of public sector organizations mutually adjusted by overarching planning instruments, horizontal objectives in performance contracts, and joint concertation fora? What is the focus of the coordination efforts: uniform management, coordinated policy development or integrated service delivery? How is collaboration and integrated service delivery between public sector organizations enhanced? To what extent does the use of market-type mechanisms foster or inhibit coordination of actions between organizations? How is coordination fostered between public organizations of different levels of government?

Moreover, the role of public sector organizations as coordinators in different sectors and different countries will be studied, as will the influence of their autonomy and control on their ability to coordinate. How do public sector organizations coordinate actions of other actors on different levels of government/society and which instruments do they use? How do they perform as market regulator or as network manager? What skills and capacities do they need to fulfil these tasks? To what extent does the public sector organization ‘forge’ more autonomy and less control by referring to or developing its coordination role?

Theoretical focus
Theoretically, the study of public organizations (incl. agencies) has drawn on different schools, but with a dominance of theories linked to a broad neo-institutional approach. In the Study Group we explicitly advocate a multi-disciplinary theoretical focus and stimulate studies based on economic theory, organization theory, sociological and historical institutionalism, political science, cultural theory, multi-level governance approaches and other theories. The long-term aim is to confront those different theoretical approaches as to their explanatory power with respect to the governance of public organizations.
Publication strategy
Through its link with the COBRA network The permanent Study Group has the possibility to publish books in a book series on public sector organization with Edward Elgar, after approval by the series-editors Guy Peters and Geert Bouckaert. Moreover, we will aim for the publication of high-quality papers in special issues of peer-reviewed journals, as well as the creation of possibilities for the publication of single papers.
The three chairs of the Study Group are selected in such a way that they can promote the Study Group in different parts of Europe through different networks. Moreover, the Study Group will develop a separate web page, linked to the web page of COBRA and hosted by the Public Management Institute in Leuven.

References

• Burger Y.D., Treur .J.H.F (1996). Decentralisation and autonomisation as a strategy for increased effectiveness in the public and the private sector. Society and Economy in Central and Eastern Europe 96(2): 114–127.
• Carpenter, D. (2001). The forging of bureaucratic autonomy. Reputations, Networks and Policy Innovation in Executive Agencies, 1862-1928. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
• Christensen, J. G. (2001). Bureaucratic autonomy as a political asset. In B. Guy Peters & Jon Pierre (Eds.): Politicians, Bureaucrats and Administrative Reform. London: Routledge.
• Christensen, J. G. and Yesilkagit K. Delegation and specialization in regulatory administration: A comparative analysis of Denmark, Sweden and The Netherlands. Paper presented on the SOG and Scancor Workshop on ‘Autonomization of the state: From integrated administrative models to single purpose organizations’ Scancor, Stanford University, April 1-2, 2005.
• Christensen, T., Laegreid, P. (2005) Autonomization and policy capacity: dilemmas and challenges facing political executives. In: Martin Painter, & Jon Pierre, (Eds.) Challenges to state policy capacity: global trends and comparative perspectives. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Ingraham, P., Joyce, P. and Donahue, A. (2003): Government performance; why management matters. U.S.A: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
• OECD (2002). Distributed Public Governance: Agencies, authorities and other government bodies. Paris: OECD
  Pollitt, Christopher, Talbot, Colin, Caulfield, Janice (2004) Agencies : how governments do things through semi-autonomous organizations. Basingstoke : Palgrave Macmillan.
• Verhoest Koen, Peters B. Guy, Bouckaert Geert and Verschuere Bram. (2004) The study of organizational autonomy: a conceptual review. Public Administration and Development. 24(2): 101-118.