Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
MTZ-Fachkongress

Antriebe und Energiesysteme von morgen


Austausch von Automobil- und Energiewirtschaft

Am 14./15. Mai geht es in Chemnitz um die Mobilitätswende durch Elektro- und Wasserstofffahrzeuge.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Policy Sciences
Erschienen in: Policy Sciences 4/2017

02.02.2017 | Research Article

Addressing fragmented government action: coordination, coherence, and integration

verfasst von: Guillermo M. Cejudo, Cynthia L. Michel

Erschienen in: Policy Sciences | Ausgabe 4/2017

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

Solving complex problems is a challenge faced by many governments. Academic and practical discussions on how to solve said problems look at policy integration as a solution to the negative implications that fragmented government actions have on addressing public problems or providing public services. Notwithstanding important recent contributions, we still lack a precise understanding of what policy integration is, an explanation of how it differs from other “solutions” to complex problems, such as coordination or policy coherence, and a practical operationalization. In this paper, we argue that coordination, coherence, and integration are related but substantively different concepts. We offer a new way of understanding and observing policy integration in a manner that is theoretically distinguishable from policy coordination and coherence and empirically observable. We argue that policy integration is the process of making strategic and administrative decisions aimed at solving a complex problem. Solving this complex problem is a goal that encompasses—but exceeds—the programs’ and agencies’ individual goals. In practical terms, it means that, at every moment of the policy process, there is a decision-making body making decisions based on a new logic—that of addressing a complex problem.
Vorheriger Artikel Politics of the precautionary principle: assessing actors’ preferences in water protection policy

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Fußnoten
1
Since there are at least two variables at play when speaking of coordination, it is more accurate to expect different types of coordination rather than a scale of coordination. Indeed, there can be as much types of coordination as possible configurations of these variables. As Candel and Biesbroek (2016) point out, this sort of processes (i.e., coordination, integration) does not advance or diminish in a linear manner; instead, their dimensions “move at different paces” (p. 214). However, for the sake of analytical clarity, we present three levels of coordination. The same consideration was made for the scales presented in the “policy coherence” and “policy integration” Sections.
 
2
We use “policy domain” not to refer to a policy sector, but to a set of policies oriented toward addressing the same complex problem. In this sense, our understanding of this concept is closer to May and Jochim’s policy regimes (2013) or to Bornemann’s integrative political strategies (2016).
 
3
Some governments (see Vince 2015; Vince and Nursey-Bray 2013; Jay et al. 2013) “are steering away from large-scale integrated approaches that were once advocated as solutions to [complex problems]” (Vince 2015).
 
Literatur
6 P. (2004). Joined-up government in the Western World in comparative perspective: A preliminary literature review and exploration. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 14(1), 103–138.CrossRef
6 P. (2005). Joined-up government in the West beyond Britain: A provisional assessment. In V. Bogdanor (Ed.), Joined-up government. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Adelle, C., & Jordan, A. (2014). Policy coherence for development in the European Union: Do new procedures unblock or simply reproduce old disagreements? Journal of European Integration, 36(4), 375–391.CrossRef
Adelle, C., & Russel, D. (2013). Climate policy integration: A case of Déjà Vu? Environmental Policy and Governance, 23(1), 1–12.CrossRef
Agranoff, R. (2003). Leveraging networks: A guide for public managers working across organizations. Washington, DC: IBM Center for the Business of Government.
Agranoff, R., & McGuire, M. (1998). Multi-network management: Collaboration and the hollow state. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 8(1), 67–91.CrossRef
Bogdanor, V. (2005). Introduction. In V. Bogdanor (Ed.), Joined-up government. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef
Bornemann, B. (2016). Integrative political strategies—Conceptualizing and analyzing a new type of policy field. European Policy Analysis., 2(1), 168–195.CrossRef
Bouckaert, G., Peters, G., & Verhoest, K. (2010). The coordination of public sector organizations: Shifting patterns of public management. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRef
Briassoulis, H. (2004). Policy integration for complex policy problems: What, why and how. In Paper presented at the Berlin conference on the human dimensions of global environmental change: Greening of policies—Interlinkages and policy integration.
Candel, J., & Biesbroek, R. (2016). Toward a processual understanding of policy integration. Policy Sciences, 49(3), 211–231.
Careja, R. (2011). Paths to Policy coherence in creating market economies in central and Eastern Europe. International Political Science Review, 32(3), 345–366.CrossRef
Cejudo, G., & Michel, C. (2016). Coherencia y políticas públicas. Metas, instrumentos y poblaciones objetivo. Gestión y política pública, 25(1), 3–31.
Christensen, T., & Lægreid, P. (2007). The whole-of-government approach to public sector reform. Public Organization Review, 67(6), 1059–1066.
Christensen, T., & Lægreid, P. (2008). The challenge of coordination in central government organizations: The Norwegian case. Public Organization Review, 8, 97–116.CrossRef
Coneval [National Council for the Evaluation of Social Development Policy]. (2011). Informe de Evaluación de la Política de Desarrollo Social en México. Mexico City: CONEVAL.
Coneval [National Council for the Evaluation of Social Development Policy]. (2013). Inventario de Programas y Acciones Federales de Desarrollo Social 2004-2013. Mexico City: CONEVAL.
Coneval [National Council for the Evaluation of Social Development Policy]. (2015). Informe de Evaluación de la Política de Desarrollo Social en México 2014. Mexico City: CONEVAL.
Coneval [National Council for the Evaluation of Social Development Policy]. (2016). Evaluación de la Coordinación Interinstitucional y de la Participación Comunitaria en el marco de la Cruzada Nacional contra el Hambre. Mexico City: CONEVAL.
Dawes, S. S. (1996). Interagency information sharing: Expected benefits, manageable risks. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management., 15(3), 377–394.CrossRef
De La O, A. L. (2015). Crafting policies to end poverty in Latin America: The quiet transformation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
Decreto por el que se establece el Sistema Nacional para la Cruzada contra el Hambre [Decree for the establishment of a National System for the Crusade against Hunger]. January 22th, 2013.
Dery, D. (1998). Policy by the way: When policy is incidental to making other policies. Journal of Public Policy, 18(2), 163–176.CrossRef
Forster, J., & Stokke, O. (1999). Coherence of policies towards developing countries: Approaching the problematique. In J. Forster & O. Stokke (Eds.), Policy coherence in development co-operation. London: Frank Cass.
Fukasaku, K., & Hirata, A. (1995). The OECD and ASEAN: Changing economic linkages and the challenge of policy coherence. In K. Fukasaku, M. G. Plummer, & L.-H. Tan (Eds.), OECD and ASEAN economies: The challenge of policy coherence. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
Gerring, J. (1999). What makes a concept good? A criterial framework for understanding. Concept formation in the social sciences. Polity, 31(3), 357–393.CrossRef
Hood, C. (2005). The idea of joined-up government: A historical perspective. In V. Bogdanor (Ed.), Joined-up government. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hood, C., & Dixon, R. (2015). What we have to show for 30 years of new public management: Higher costs, more complaints. Governance, 28(3), 265–267.CrossRef
Howlett, M., & Del Rio, P. (2015). The parameters of policy portfolios: Verticality and horizontality in design spaces and their consequences for policy mix formulation. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 33(5), 1233–1245.CrossRef
Hull, A. (2008). Policy integration: What will it take to achieve more sustainable transport solutions in cities? Transport Policy, 15(2), 94–103.CrossRef
Jay, S., Flannery, W., Vince, J., Liu, W., Xue, J., Matczak, M., et al. (2013). International progress in marine spatial planning. In A. Chircop & S. Coffen-Smout (Eds.), Ocean yearbook 27 (pp. 171–212). Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
Jennings, E. T. (1994). Building bridges in the intergovernmental arena: Coordinating employment and training programs in the American States. Public Administration Review, 54(1), 52–60.CrossRef
Jordan, A., & Lenchow, A. (2010). Environmental policy integration: A state of the art review. Environmental Policy and Governance, 20(3), 147–158.CrossRef
Jordan, G., & Halpin, D. (2006). The political costs of policy coherence? Constructing a rural policy for Scotland. Journal of Public Policy, 26, 21–41.CrossRef
Karre, P., van Twist, M., Alford, J., & van der Steen, M. (2012). Whole of government in theory and practice: An exploratory account of how Australian and Dutch governments deal with wicked problems in an integrated way. In V. Bekkers & M. Fenger (Eds.), Beyond fragmentation and interconnectivity: Public governance and the search for connective capacity (pp. 97–113). Amsterdam: ISO Press.
Kavanagh, D., & Richards, D. (2001). Departmentalism and joined-up government. Parliamentary Affairs, 54(1), 1–18.CrossRef
Koschinsky, J., & Swanstrom, T. (2001). Confronting policy fragmentation: A political approach to the role of housing nonprofits. Policy Studies Review, 18(4), 111–127.CrossRef
Kraemer, K. L., & King, J. L. (1986). Computing and public organizations. Public Administration Review, 46, 488–496.CrossRef
Kumar, P. (2007). Policy implementation in Urban Bangladesh: Role of intra-organizational coordination. Public Organization Review, 7, 237–259.CrossRef
Lafferty, W., & Hovden, E. (2003). Environmental policy integration: Towards an analytical framework. Environmental Politics, 12(3), 1–22.CrossRef
Landsbergen, D., Jr., & Wolken, G., Jr. (2001). Realizing the promise: Government information systems and the fourth generation of information technology. Public Administration Review, 61, 206–220.CrossRef
Lenschow, A. (2002). Greening the European Union: An introduction. In A. Lenschow (Ed.), Environmental policy integration: Greening sectoral policies in Europe (pp. 3–21). London: Earthscan.
"Ley General de Desarrollo Social" [Social Development Law]. Diario Oficial de la Federación. (2004, january 20), Chap.VI, Art.36.
Lie, A. (2011). Coordination processes and outcomes in the public service: The challenge of inter-organizational food safety coordination in Norway. Public Administration, 89(2), 401–417.CrossRef
May, P., Sapotichne, J., & Workman, S. (2006). Policy coherence and policy domains. Policy Studies Journal, 34(3), 381–403.CrossRef
May, P. J., & Jochim, A. E. (2013). Policy regime perspectives: Policies, politics, and governing. Policy Studies Journal, 41(3), 426–452.CrossRef
May, P. J., Jochim, A. E., & Sapotichne, J. (2011). Constructing homeland security: An anemic policy regime. Policy Studies Journal, 39, 285–307.CrossRef
May, P. J., Jones, B. D., Beem, B. E., Neff-Sharum, E. A., & Poague, M. K. (2005). Policy coherence and component-driven policymaking: Arctic Policy in Canada and the United States. The Policy Studies Journal, 33(1), 37–63.CrossRef
Meijers, E., & Stead, D. (2004a). Policy integration in practice: Some experiences of integrating transport, land-use planning and environmental policies in local government. In Paper presented at the Berlin conference on the human dimensions of global environmental change: Greening of policies—Interlinkages and Policy Integration.
Meijers, E., & Stead, D. (2004b). Policy integration: What does it mean and how can it be achieved? A multi-disciplinary review. In Paper presented at the Berlin conference on the human dimensions of global environmental change: greening of policies—Interlinkages and policy integration.
Metcalfe, L. (1994). International policy co-ordination and public management reform. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 60, 271–290.CrossRef
Mickwitz, P., & Kivimaa, P. (2007). Evaluating policy integration: The case of policies for environmentally friendlier technology innovations. Evaluation, 13(1), 68–86.CrossRef
Moynihan, D. P. (2006). Ambiguity in policy lessons: The agencification experience. Public Administration, 84(4), 1029–1050.CrossRef
Mulgan, G. (2005). Joined-up government: Past, present, and future. In V. Bogdanor (Ed.), Joined-up government. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nilsson, M., & Persson, Å. (2003). Framework for analysing environmental policy integration. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 5(4), 333–360.CrossRef
Nollkaemper, A. (2002). Three conceptions of the integration principle in international environmental law. In A. Lenschow (Ed.), Environmental policy integration: Greening sectoral policies in Europe (pp. 22–32). London: Earthscan.
Nordbeck, R., & Steurer, R. (2015). Multi-sectoral strategies as dead ends of policy integration: Lessons to be learned from sustainable development. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy., 20(1), 1–19.
O’Toole, L. J. (1997). Treating networks seriously: Practical and research-based agendas in public administration. Public Administration Review, 57(1), 45–52.CrossRef
OECD [Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development]. (2005). Modernising government: the way forward. Paris: OECD.
Pérez, Y., Maldonado, C., & Faustino, D. G. (2015). El Sistema de seguimiento y evaluación de programas federales en México: Retos para su consolidación. In G. Pérez Yarahuán & C. Maldonado (Eds.), Panorama de los sistemas nacionales de monitoreo y evaluación en América Latina (pp. 273–310). CIDE: Mexico City.
Peters, B. G. (1998). Managing horizontal government: The politics of coordination. Research paper no. 21. Ottawa: Canadian Centre for Management Development
Peters, B. G. (2004). Back to the centre? Rebuilding the state. The Political Quarterly, 75, 130–140.CrossRef
Peters, B. G. (2015). Pursuing horizontal management. The politics of public sector coordination. Kansas: University Press of Kansas.
Peters, G., & Savoie, D. J. (1997). Managing incoherence: the coordination and empowerment conundrum. Public Administration Review, 56(3), 281–290.CrossRef
Pollitt, C. (2003). Joined-up government: A survey. Political Studies Review, 1(1), 34–49.CrossRef
Rayner, J., & Howlett, M. (2009). Introduction: Understanding integrated policy strategies and their evolution. Policy and Society, 28, 99–109.CrossRef
Reschenthaler, G. B., & Thompson, F. (1996). The information revolution and the new public management. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 6(1), 125–143.CrossRef
Russel, D., & Jordan, A. (2009). Joining up or pulling apart? The use of appraisal to coordinate policy making for sustainable development. Environment and Planning, 41(5), 1201–1216.CrossRef
Scharpf, F. (1999). Governing in Europe. Effective and democratic?. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef
Streeter, C., Sherraden, M. W., Gillespie, D. F., & Zakour, M. J. (1986). Curriculum development in interorganizational coordination. Journal of Social Work Education, 22(1), 32–40.
Technical Secretariat for the National Crusade Against Hunger. (2016). Propuesta de Fortalecimiento a la Coordinación Interinstitucional” [Proposals for stthrengthening interinstitutional coordination]. Mexico City: Mexico.
Van Bueren, E., Klijn, E. H., & Koppenjan, J. F. M. (2003). Dealing with wicked problems in networks: Analyzing an environmental debate from a network perspective. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 13(2), 193–212.CrossRef
Verhoest, K., Van Thiel, S., Bouckaert, G., & Lægreid, P. (2012). Government agencies: Practices and lessons from 30 countries. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRef
Vince, J. Z. (2015). Integrated policy approaches and policy failure: The case of Australia’s Oceans policy. Policy Sciences, 48(2), 159–180.CrossRef
Vince, J., & Nursey-Bray, M. (2013). Australia’s ocean commitments from Rio + 20: Moving forward or two steps back? In Australian political studies association (APSA) conference 2013. Perth Western: Murdoch University. 30th September–2nd October, 2013.
Weber, E. P., & Khademian, A. M. (2008). Wicked problems, knowledge challenges, and collaborative capacity builders in network settings. Public Administration Review, 68(2), 334–349.CrossRef
Wheatley, M. J. (2006). Leadership and the new science: Discovering order in a chaotic world. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Yaschine, I. (2015). ¿Oportunidades? Política social y movilidad intergeneracional en México. Mexico City: El Colegio de México-Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.
Metadaten
Titel
Addressing fragmented government action: coordination, coherence, and integration
verfasst von
Guillermo M. Cejudo
Cynthia L. Michel
Publikationsdatum
02.02.2017
Verlag
Springer US
Erschienen in
Policy Sciences / Ausgabe 4/2017
Print ISSN: 0032-2687
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-0891
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-017-9281-5

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 4/2017

Policy Sciences 4/2017 Zur Ausgabe

Research Article

Rescuing the decision process

Research Article

Flexibility in American religious life: an exploration of loyalty and purity

Research Note

The new policy sciences: combining the cognitive science of choice, multiple theories of context, and basic and applied analysis

Research Note

Plus ça Change, Plus C’est La Même Chose? A review of Paul Sabatier’s “An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role of policy-oriented learning therein”

Research Article

On the sustained importance of attitudes toward technological risks and benefits in policy studies

Research Note

A “review” of policy sciences: bibliometric analysis of authors, references, and topics during 1970–2017

Premium Partner

    Bildnachweise