Reforms inspired by NPM have raised many challenges to governments, such as time lags between implementation and (any) results, fragmentation due to unbundling monolithic organizations and mediocre support from public sector stakeholders (Christensen/Lægreid 2007, Dunleavy et al. 2006, Hood/Dixon 2015). In addition, singular events like the current financial crisis (Peters 2011) shed a new light on previous reforms.
Today we find that 'Joined-up government' (JUG) modernization programs (as one strand of Post-NPM) are increasingly implemented as a reaction to the dysfunctionalities of NPM measures (6 2004). JUG involves an emphasis on coordinating governmental activities, for example through partnerships and horizontal governing approaches, to eliminate contradictions between different policies, and to deliver integrated and seamless services from a citizen’s perspective (Lægreid et al. forthc. 2015, Lægreid et al. 2014, Pollitt 2003).
A growing body of research analyses JUG initiatives in several countries, but often in the form of single-case studies with central government focus (see e.g. Talbot 2011 or Lægreid et al. 2014). On municipal level, however, there is only a scarce number of such studies and comparative studies are lacking. With this, we ask how can local JUG initiatives be explained and what lessons can be drawn from a comparative perspective?
Drawing on some components from the framework by Pollitt and Bouckaert (2011) for public management reforms, we analyse JUG reforms in six countries from different administrative traditions (Norway, Italy, Ireland, Hungary, Germany and Austria).
First results suggest that in the same way as NPM has claimed to be an “umbrella term for a collection of trends” (Van de Walle/Hammerschmid 2011: 191), also JUG reforms take multiple nuances and foci, for example one-stop-shops, often combined with e-government solutions (Norway, Italy, Hungary and Germany), public sector recentralisation and de-agencification (Ireland) or refined strategies for steering the ‘landscape of corporatized organizations‘ (Hungary and Austria).
References (in abbreviated form):
6, Perri (2004): Joined-Up Government in the western World in Comparative Perspective/JPART
Christensen, Tom/Lægreid, Per (2007): The Whole-of-Government Approach to Public Sector Reform/PAR
Dunleavy, Patrick/Margetts, Helen/Bastow, Simon/Tinkler, Jane (2006): New Public Management is Dead. Long Live Digital-Era Governance/JPART
Hood, Christopher/Dixon, Ruth (2015): What we Have to Show for 30 Years of New Public Management: Higher Costs, more Complaints/Governance
Lægreid, Per/Rykkja, Lise H./Randma-Liiv, Tiina/Sarapuu, Külli (forthc. 2015): Coordination Challenges and Post-NPM Reforms/Public Administration Reforms in Europe: Views from the Top
Lægreid, Per/Sarapuu, Külli/Rykkja, Lise H./Randma-Liiv, Tiina (2014): Introduction: Emerging Coordination Practices in European Public Management/Organizing for Coordination in the Public Sector: Practices and Lessons from 12 European Countries
Peters, B. Guy (2011): Governance Responses to the Fiscal Crisis - Comparative Perspectives/Public Money & Management
Pollitt, C. (2003): The essential Public Manager/Open University Press
Pollitt, Christopher/Bouckaert, Geert (2011): Public Management Reform. A comparative Analysis: New Public Management, Governance, and the Neo-Weberian State
Talbot, Carole (2011): Introduction: Reviewing Experiences from Joined-Up-Government (JUG) Initiatives/IJPA
Van de Walle, Steven/Hammerschmid, Gerhard (2011): The Impact of the New Public Management: Challenges for Coordination and Cohesion in European Public Sectors/Halduskultuur
