Christensen, Tom & Per Lægreid (2003):
Administrative reform policy: the challanges of turning symbols into practice.
Public Administration Review: A Global Journal Vol. 3, No. 1, 3-27 (2003).
Please note: This page may contain data in Norwegian that is not translated to English.
Type of publication:
Tidsskriftsartikkel
Link to review:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/xqv38wj3633681w3/
Comment:
Finst også som Særtrykk nr 4 (2004) ved Institutt for administrasjon og organisasjonsvitskap.
Number of pages:
24
Language of publication:
Engelsk
Country of publication:
Nederland
NSD-reference:
2520
This page was last updated:
20/8 2007
Affiliations related to this publication:
- Stat
Publikasjonens datagrunnlag:
- Primærdata
- Kvalitativ
- Intervju
Land som er gjenstand for studien:
- Norge
Verkemiddel i den konstituerande styringa:
- 1.6 Pedagogiske verkemiddel
Studieoppdrag:
- Forskning
Studietype:
- Iverksetting/implementeringsstudie
- Effektstudie/implikasjoner/resultater
Type effekt:
- Strukturelle og styringsmessige effektar
- Verdimessige effektar
Sektor (cofog):
- Utøvande og lovgivande myndigheiter K
- Staten generelt
Summary:
Administrative reform policies are often characterized by a large number of reform symbols. While these are generally aimed at furthering the legitimacy of the political leadership, they can have the opposite effect and generate problems in implementing reform practice. This paper starts by discussing the theory of reform symbols and relates it to theories of instrumental, negotiation and cultural features of reforms. We illustrate this discussion by analyzing interview data collected among the central political and administrative elite in Norway. The analysis shows the relevance of reform symbols even in Norway, a country with a reluctant reform tradition and few incentives for reform. The respondents often perceived reform symbols as negative, something that creates problems for the political leadership in reconciling symbols with practice and leads it to engage in double-talk. Political and administrative leaders on different levels have differing attitudes towards administrative reform symbols, reflecting different roles and perspectives. The conclusion is that symbols are a main feature of administrative reform but also that reforms are not only symbols. Symbols matter, but turning symbols into practice is not an easy task to do.