{"title":"政策一体化的边缘化:官僚主义外围的一体化政策制定动态","authors":"Hans Joosse, A. van Buuren","doi":"10.1177/09520767231175917","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Governmental organizations face the challenge to integrate different sectoral policy perspectives and interests to deal effectively with the wicked issues of late-modern societies. This article delves into attempts of governmental organizations to realize such integrated policies and unravels the intra-organizational dynamics of collaborating on policy integration. Based on two in-depth case studies from The Netherlands, one focusing on public transport for specific target groups in the city of Rotterdam and the other focusing on a national policy program for criminal youth groups, we show how attempts at policy integration take place in the periphery of bureaucracies by temporary program teams. After the abolishment of the program team, the integrated policy easily volatilizes because of the lack of foothold and ownership in the line organization. Ironically, policy integration becomes a differentiated activity in the margins of public organizations rather than a joint exercise of sectoral organizational units. We present three explanatory hypotheses of this dynamic of marginalization. First, from a system-psychodynamic perspective, the line organization and the program team maintain distance from each other to reduce the tensions that are inherent in policy integration. Second, from an institutional perspective, the line organization marginalizes policy integration to protect their sectoral and vested interests. Third, from an innovation perspective, however, innovative policy integration does need the margins of organizations to protect itself against conservative reflexes from bureaucracies at risk of becoming marginalized and alienated. To facilitate a productive dynamic of policy integration in governmental organizations, this article concludes with providing the components for such an organizational design.","PeriodicalId":47076,"journal":{"name":"Public Policy and Administration","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The marginalization of policy integration: Dynamics of integrated policymaking in the periphery of bureaucracy\",\"authors\":\"Hans Joosse, A. van Buuren\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/09520767231175917\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Governmental organizations face the challenge to integrate different sectoral policy perspectives and interests to deal effectively with the wicked issues of late-modern societies. This article delves into attempts of governmental organizations to realize such integrated policies and unravels the intra-organizational dynamics of collaborating on policy integration. Based on two in-depth case studies from The Netherlands, one focusing on public transport for specific target groups in the city of Rotterdam and the other focusing on a national policy program for criminal youth groups, we show how attempts at policy integration take place in the periphery of bureaucracies by temporary program teams. After the abolishment of the program team, the integrated policy easily volatilizes because of the lack of foothold and ownership in the line organization. Ironically, policy integration becomes a differentiated activity in the margins of public organizations rather than a joint exercise of sectoral organizational units. We present three explanatory hypotheses of this dynamic of marginalization. First, from a system-psychodynamic perspective, the line organization and the program team maintain distance from each other to reduce the tensions that are inherent in policy integration. Second, from an institutional perspective, the line organization marginalizes policy integration to protect their sectoral and vested interests. Third, from an innovation perspective, however, innovative policy integration does need the margins of organizations to protect itself against conservative reflexes from bureaucracies at risk of becoming marginalized and alienated. To facilitate a productive dynamic of policy integration in governmental organizations, this article concludes with providing the components for such an organizational design.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47076,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Public Policy and Administration\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Public Policy and Administration\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/09520767231175917\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Public Policy and Administration","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09520767231175917","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
The marginalization of policy integration: Dynamics of integrated policymaking in the periphery of bureaucracy
Governmental organizations face the challenge to integrate different sectoral policy perspectives and interests to deal effectively with the wicked issues of late-modern societies. This article delves into attempts of governmental organizations to realize such integrated policies and unravels the intra-organizational dynamics of collaborating on policy integration. Based on two in-depth case studies from The Netherlands, one focusing on public transport for specific target groups in the city of Rotterdam and the other focusing on a national policy program for criminal youth groups, we show how attempts at policy integration take place in the periphery of bureaucracies by temporary program teams. After the abolishment of the program team, the integrated policy easily volatilizes because of the lack of foothold and ownership in the line organization. Ironically, policy integration becomes a differentiated activity in the margins of public organizations rather than a joint exercise of sectoral organizational units. We present three explanatory hypotheses of this dynamic of marginalization. First, from a system-psychodynamic perspective, the line organization and the program team maintain distance from each other to reduce the tensions that are inherent in policy integration. Second, from an institutional perspective, the line organization marginalizes policy integration to protect their sectoral and vested interests. Third, from an innovation perspective, however, innovative policy integration does need the margins of organizations to protect itself against conservative reflexes from bureaucracies at risk of becoming marginalized and alienated. To facilitate a productive dynamic of policy integration in governmental organizations, this article concludes with providing the components for such an organizational design.
期刊介绍:
Public Policy and Administration is the journal of the UK Joint University Council (JUC) Public Administration Committee (PAC). The journal aims to publish original peer-reviewed material within the broad field of public policy and administration. This includes recent developments in research, scholarship and practice within public policy, public administration, government, public management, administrative theory, administrative history, and administrative politics. The journal seeks to foster a pluralistic approach to the study of public policy and administration. International in readership, Public Policy and Administration welcomes submissions for anywhere in the world, from both academic and practitioner communities.