
doi: 10.1111/puar.13136
handle: 10067/1657040151162165141 , 1854/LU-8640400
AbstractA crucial challenge for the coordination of horizontal policy programs—those designed to tackle crosscutting issues—is how to motivate government organizations to contribute to such programs. Hence, it is crucial to study how practitioners in implementing organizations view and appreciate the coordination of such programs. Assisted by Q‐methodology, this inductive study reveals three significantly different “images”: central frame setting, networking via boundary spanners, and coordination beyond window dressing. Most surprisingly, different images show up among respondents within the same organizations and horizontal programs. The authors find that the images reflect elements of the literature: the resistance to hierarchical central control, the need for local differentiation and increased incentives, and a collaboration‐oriented culture. Most importantly, practitioners of implementing organizations perceive top‐down mechanisms as ineffective to achieve coordination and ask for adaptive arrangements, involvement, and deliberative processes when designing coordination arrangements and during the collaboration.
coordination, Public Administration, AGENCY, Social Sciences, Political Science & Public Administration, INTERDEPARTMENTAL COORDINATION, JOINED-UP GOVERNMENT, COLLABORATION, Business and Economics, CRISIS MANAGEMENT, CONSEQUENCES, GOVERNANCE, public administration, NETWORKS, 1606 Political Science, 4407 Policy and administration, governance, 4408 Political science, WHOLE, q-methodology, 1503 Business and Management, HEALTH-CARE, ESSB PA, Law, 1605 Policy and Administration
coordination, Public Administration, AGENCY, Social Sciences, Political Science & Public Administration, INTERDEPARTMENTAL COORDINATION, JOINED-UP GOVERNMENT, COLLABORATION, Business and Economics, CRISIS MANAGEMENT, CONSEQUENCES, GOVERNANCE, public administration, NETWORKS, 1606 Political Science, 4407 Policy and administration, governance, 4408 Political science, WHOLE, q-methodology, 1503 Business and Management, HEALTH-CARE, ESSB PA, Law, 1605 Policy and Administration
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 59 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 1% | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 10% | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% |
