Complex Interactions and Influence Among Political and Administrative Leaders
| DOI | 10.1177/0020852303693006 |
| Author | Tom Christensen,Per Lægreid |
| Published date | 01 September 2003 |
| Date | 01 September 2003 |
| Subject Matter | Journal Article |
Complex interactions and influence among political and
administrative leaders
Tom Christensen and Per Lægreid
Abstract
In this article we describe the influence of Norwegian executive political and
administrative leaders on salient policy issues, based on a structural, a cultural-
institutional and an exposure perspective. The data used are taken from a broad survey
of élites conducted in 2000, focusing on undersecretaries of state, secretary generals
and director generals in the ministries. The analysis reveals that political and
administrative leaders are regarded as the most influential actors on salient policy
issues. They are engaged in extensive and intensive inter- and intra-organizational
contact networks. Their influence varies according to a political–administrative
contact pattern, internal administrative structure and external media exposure.
Introduction
In modern democracies, the Weberian ideal model of political–administrative
systems seems to be modified in various ways, in particular, with respect to exter-
nal contacts, the division between politics and administration, the hierarchical
subordination of civil servants and the use of rules. Political and administrative
leaders all over the world increasingly find themselves in more complex decision-
making environments, resulting in difficulties in understanding, capacity and
authority for political and administrative leaderships (Olsen, 1983). This is partly
a reflection of a gradually more pluralistic and complex society, which, in turn,
produces a more elaborate and multi-structured public apparatus and more com-
plex public policies and issues (Christensen and Lægreid, 2001a).
This article examines the complex pattern of interaction and influence among
political and administrative leaders by focusing on the case of Norway. Norway
has a strong statist democratic tradition and has relatively strong collectivistic and
egalitarian values (Christensen, 2003). It also has one of the most comprehensive
and universal welfare states in the world. The regime’s performance, support for
democracy and the level of trust in public institutions are generally higher than
in most other countries (Norris, 1999). Norway is a homogeneous and consensus-
oriented system, typically characterized by negotiation and compromise in policy
formulation. The policy style can best be described as pragmatic and incremental.
Tom Christensen is Professor at the Department of Political Science, University of Oslo.
Per Lægreid is Professor at the Department of Administration and Organization Theory,
and Research Director at the Rokhan Centre, University of Bergen. CDU: 35.084.3.
International Review of Administrative Sciences [0020–8523(200309)69:3]
Copyright © 2003 IIAS. SAGE Publications (London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New
Delhi), Vol. 69 (2003), 385–400; 036085
02_IRAS69/3 articles 15/8/03 10:37 am Page 386
386
International Review of Administrative Sciences 69(3)
There is a strong tradition of peaceful coexistence and trust between the legislative
and executive powers, leading to informal norms of passive control by the Parlia-
ment (Storting) over the executive, a considerable degree of discretion for admin-
istrative leaders in their relationship with political leaders in the executive and a
lack of insistence on formal rules of control (Olsen et al., 1982; Christensen et al.,
2002).
The mainstay of control of the executive and central government by the legisla-
ture is the principle of ministerial responsibility. This potentially implies strong
vertical coordination, strong sectoral ministries and relatively weak horizontal
coordination between policy areas. In recent decades, Norway has had minority
parliamentarianism with relatively weak, frequently changing governments and a
proactive parliament that often interferes in governmental affairs. The national
economic situation has generally been good and Norway has not experienced
significant economic downturns or cutbacks in public spending. Fiscal stress and,
hence, economic pressure for reform have been weak. Thus, up to the mid 1990s,
the Norwegian government was a reluctant reformer concerning the introduction
of New Public Management (npm) reforms. Since then, more npm-inspired
reforms have been introduced, most typically under the current centre-right
government, dominated by the conservatives. The modern reforms are efficiency-
oriented, emphasizing structural devolution, increased horizontal specialization in
non-overlapping roles, increased use of management principles, contracts and
contracting-out (Christensen and Lægreid, 2001b).
The purpose of this article is to describe the influence of executive political and
administrative leaders on salient policy issues and to explain the variety of ways
in which that influence is exerted. A structural way of explaining this variety is
by looking at contact patterns, i.e. the frequency, complexity and symmetry of
contact. A cultural perspective emphasizes the informal norms by focusing on
decision-making signals and tensions in role relationships with regard to impor-
tant issues. A third perspective stresses the exposure of particular issues and sees
influence as affected by how salient issues are treated in the media.
Theoretical perspectives
A structural perspective argues that public decision-making processes are primar-
ily influenced by the formal structure of the public apparatus (Gulick, 1937;
Simon, 1957). According to this perspective, interaction concerning public deci-
sions and influence on their outcome are based on hierarchy, which assigns
responsibility for important decisions to the political and administrative leader-
ship; specialization, whereby the decision-making structure is broken down
into sub-structures that are mutually exclusive; or collegial principles, where the
decision-making structure is more open and the participants more equal, with both
leaders and specialists as important actors (March and Olsen, 1976; Lægreid and
Roness, 1989). Even if leaders do not participate themselves, they are supposed to
organize and control other decision-makers (Olsen, 1988). Moreover, leaders are
supposed to dominate the definition of problems and solutions by carrying these
02_IRAS69/3 articles 15/8/03 10:37 am Page 387
Christensen and Lægreid: Complex interactions and influence
387
decision-making elements to the choice stage or control them in other ways. Using
a structural-instrumental approach and taking the parliamentary system as a point
of reference, salient policy issues will be decided in close interaction between the
political and administrative leadership in the executive and the Storting. While less
important questions are generally more likely to be resolved on a lower level in the
civil service, we must also expect some variation in the handling of salient issues.
While some issues are handled within one ministry or parliamentary committee,
others will involve several ministries and committees. There may also be some
formal variation regarding contact with external public and private actors. Some
salient policy issues may, for example, involve interest groups, usually in cases
when these are directly affected, have important expertise to contribute or where
the government is particularly dependent on them (Olsen, 1983).
One general expectation from this perspective might be that the influence of
political and administrative leaders will be greater on salient issues where the
pattern of contact is comparatively simple. The argument is that leaders have
capacity and attention problems and that a complex contact pattern makes it more
difficult to exert hierarchical influence. Another general expectation is that sym-
metry in interaction will be important. If external actors initiate contact much more
frequently than the political and administrative leadership, this will potentially
weaken the latter’s influence. The same reasoning could apply to the relationship
between the political and administrative leadership within the executive.
A cultural-institutional perspective mainly stresses the gradual and path-
dependent development of cultural traditions in political–administrative systems
(Selznick, 1957; Krasner, 1988). Interaction between actors will primarily have
informal norms as a basis. According to a cultural perspective, the relationship
between political and administrative leaders in the executive is based less on
formal control and decisions and more on informal interaction (Selznick, 1957).
This accords greater relevance to issues of trust and tensions among leaders con-
cerning their relative influence on decision-making processes. And it also raises
questions about how general levels of trust and tension translate into specific
levels of trust and tension when important issues are at stake. When formal instru-
ments of control and steering are partly replaced by more informal interaction,
political leaders have to use other means of influencing administrative leaders and
other actors. These may take the form of consulting and sounding-out mechanisms
(Olsen, 1972) or else various kinds of decision-making signals. These mechanisms
will give administrative leaders varying amounts of discretion and autonomy.
One expectation concerning trust-based relationship between political and
administrative leaders in the executive is that the less interaction between leaders
over salient issues is marked by tension and conflicts, the more influential they are
likely to be. This...
To continue reading
Request your trial