2015 by the University Press of Kansas
All rights reserved
Published by the University Press of Kansas (Lawrence, Kansas 66045), which was organized by the Kansas Board of Regents and is operated and funded by Emporia State University, Fort Hays State University, Kansas State University, Pittsburg State University, the University of Kansas, and Wichita State University
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available.
Peters, B. Guy.
Pursuing horizontal management : the politics of public sector
coordination / B. Guy Peters.
pages cm
ISBN 9780-70062093-7 (hardback) ISBN 9780-70062094-4 (paperback) ISBN 978-0-7006-2323-5 (ebook)
1. Political planningCase studies. 2. Public administrationManagementCase studies. 3. Policy sciencesCase studies. I. Title.
JF1525.P6P47 2015
352.29dc23
2014040570
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data is available.
Printed in the United States of America
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
The paper used in this publication is recycled and contains 30 percent postconsumer waste. It is acid free and meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standard for Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials Z39.481992.
To Sheryn, who keeps trying to keep me coordinated and coherent.
Preface and Acknowledgments
This book examines the issue of policy and administrative coordination. Coordination is a problem in everyday life. The water company digs up the street in front of our house and patches the street, then the gas company comes the next day to dig up the same street. The schedules of trains and planes leave us with connection times of only a few minutes, or many hours. Busy friends struggle to find a time they can all meet because of conflicting schedules. In all these cases individuals or organizations are not taking into account adequately the activities and priorities of others, and as a consequence the outcomes for all the actors are less positive than they might otherwise be. As much as these coordination issues may frustrate us in our daily lives, the coordination problems faced by governments are larger and may affect the lives of thousands or even millions of citizens.
Since their inception governments have to contend with the issues of specialization and coordination. On the one hand governments require specialized organizations and programs to deliver services to the public using expertise. In the extreme of Franz Kafka working in his pension office, public servants would perform one specialized function repetitively, with specialization ensuring that the activity is performed as well as possible. On the other hand, however, those same governments have also attempted to coordinate the numerous specialized functions in order to produce more coherent and integrated services to the public, as well as to save money and irritation for those same citizens by eliminating duplication. The assumption has been, as Aaron Wildavsky once commented, that coordination is a philosophers stone for the public sector, capable of transforming ordinary, flawed patterns of governing into more effective and efficient performance.
Governments have tended to concentrate expertise within specialized organizations. The typical collection of organizations within the public sector contains primarily agencies and departments focusing on particular functions or clienteles. This pattern of organization makes political sense by providing services and a clear target for lobbying for clients. It also fosters policy expertise and therefore can promote high-quality public policies.
Yet these specialized structures can also create problems for government. For example, many clients of social assistance programs also require health, labor market, and educational services. The segmentation of programs in most governments, however, makes it difficult to integrate the full range of services required for those clients. Those social service clients may also suffer from the failure to link eligibility criteria with the tax system, thereby creating poverty traps that make it more difficult for individuals to work their way out of poverty. These problems are rife in social policy but appear in many other areas of public sector activity.
So, too, are businesses affected by the segmentation of public policies. Contradictory regulations can collidefor instance, back-up horns on construction equipment required for safety reasons may violate antinoise regulations. Entrepreneurs may face duplicative requirements for information if they want to start a new business, causing them to trek from office to office providing officials the same information again and again in order to receive the full array of licenses required. Thus, starting a business in some countries may take months, whereas when there is a one-stop shop, with its more coordinated response, the process may take only a day or two.
The common reaction of governments to policy problems has been to specialize, and that tendency has been exacerbated by several tendencies in recent governance. Perhaps the most important of these tendencies has been the popularity of the New Public Management as a foundation for reform. This approach to public administration has emphasized breaking larger public organizations down into smaller, single-purpose organizations. Because they are expected to be more autonomous and entrepreneurial, they also are more difficult to coordinate. While these more autonomous organizationsusually described as agenciesare assumed to enhance efficiency and accountability, they also make putting programs together more difficult.
The emphasis on performance measurement and performance management in the New Public Management also has posed some challenges for coordination. While shifting the basis of public sector accountability to the actual delivery of services is in many ways positive, it also tends to narrow the vision of public officials. If the budget of an organization, or the salary of an official, is dependent on meeting certain performance targets then the actors involved will be less likely to cooperate with other organizations to reach broader public service goals. Thus, somewhat paradoxically, the performance of individual organizations will be improved while the performance of the public sector as a whole may be diminished.
In addition to the impact of the New Public Management, increased segmentation of government also has resulted from the so-called governance reforms in the public sector that have sought to link organizations more directly to networks of social actors. While these interactions with the private sector may help to improve the implementation of policy, and even in the development of policies, they also tend to segment the public sector. The connection with stakeholders means that those social actors will want to maintain what they consider as their programs whereas coordination and policy integration may weaken that attachment.
If coordination is such a problem for the public sector, why hasnt someone done something about it? The answer is that they have, but producing more effective coordination has proven to be difficult. Efforts to integrate policies and create more coherent action within the public sector are likely to produce political opposition from organizations and their clients. Further, the professional training of members of public organizations and their commitments to particular ideas about public policies may limit their willingness to cooperate. Even if they are not committed to particular policy approaches, public organizations and their leaders may want to maintain their independence and power, which would be threatened.