COORDINATION PROCESSES AND OUTCOMES IN THE PUBLIC SERVICE: THE CHALLENGE OF INTER‐ORGANIZATIONAL FOOD SAFETY COORDINATION IN NORWAY
| Author | AMUND LIE |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2010.01845.x |
| Published date | 01 June 2011 |
| Date | 01 June 2011 |
doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9299.2010.01845.x
COORDINATION PROCESSES AND OUTCOMES
IN THE PUBLIC SERVICE: THE CHALLENGE
OF INTER-ORGANIZATIONAL FOOD SAFETY
COORDINATION IN NORWAY
AMUND LIE
In 2004 Norway implemented a food safety reform programme aimed at enhancing inter-
organizational coordination processes and outcomes. Has this programme affected inter-organiza-
tional coordination processes and outcomes, both vertically and horizontally – and if so how? This
article employs the concept of inter-organizational coordination as an analytical tool, examining it in
the light of two theoretical perspectives and coupling it with the empirical findings. The argument
presented is that the chances of strong coordination outcomes may increase if inter-organizational
processes feature a clear division of labour, arenas for coordination, active leadership, a lack of
major conflicting goals, and shared obligations.
INTRODUCTION
Public sector organizations require inter-organizational coordination to ensure the
achievement of common outcomes; this kind of coordination, however, may prove more
difficult than intra-organizational coordination. In particular, reforms that introduce
more vertical or horizontal inter-organizational specialization, without more inter-
organizational coordination, often result in greater fragmentation (Alexander 1995;
Egeberg 2003; Christensen et al. 2007). The aim of this article is to discuss the effects
of a Norwegian food safety reform programme on inter-organizational coordination
processes and outcomes within central government.
Why study food safety coordination? First, countries organize food safety very differ-
ently. Although many countries have established agencies to handle food safety issues,
these agencies have different ministerial affiliations (Taylor and Millar 2004; Borraz et al.
2006; Rothstein 2006; Elvbakken et al. 2008). Second, a country may organize food safety
differently across time (Ansell and Vogel 2006). Several countries, such as New Zealand
and Norway, have implemented food safety reform programmes (Asdal 2005; NZFSA
2007). Norway’s programme, implemented in 2004, involved the establishment of the
Norwegian Food Safety Authority (NFSA), the introduction of a new Food Law, and the
reallocation of ministerial responsibilities. The NFSA is affiliated with three ministries
concerned with food: the Ministry of Fisheries and Coastal Affairs (MFCA), the Ministry
of Health and Care Services (MHCS), and the Ministry of Agriculture and Food (MAF).
One of these ministries, the MAF, has administrative responsibility.
Third, the production, transportation and consumption of food all present the risk
of disease. Consumers, businesses, public administrators and politicians in many coun-
tries are now focusing on food safety issues perhaps more than ever before. Several
countries have implemented reform programmes to ensure sufficient inter-organizational
coordination to reduce this risk (Ansell 2006). Fourth, this policy field is well suited to
test organizational coordination theory because food safety involves several other policy
fields and therefore often requires inter-organizational coordination. To date there are no
Amund Lie is in the Department for Political Science, University of Oslo.
Public Administration Vol. 89, No. 2, 2011 (401–417)
©2010 The Author. Public Administration ©2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ,
UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.
402 AMUND LIE
studies which have systematically measured the effects of Norway’s food safety reform
programme on inter-organizational coordination. However, in addressing this issue, I
will not evaluate coordination effects within the NFSA, because several studies have
already discussed such effects (Report 2006; Grahm-Haga 2007; Haug 2008). Nor will I
study coordination between national public food safety organizations and international
organizations (Veggeland 2004).
The research questions addressed in this article are as follows:
1. How has the Norwegian food safety reform programme affected horizontal inter-
organizational coordination processes between the three affected ministries?
2. How has the food safety reform programme affected vertical inter-organizational
coordination processes between the three ministries and the NFSA?
3. Do the three ministries have an integrated coordination framework, or do they
operate independently?
4. What are the outcomes of such inter-organizational horizontal and vertical coordi-
nation processes?
The article’s theoretical framework is based on an instrumental-hierarchical perspective
and on an institutional perspective. I have combined key concepts from the cultural
perspective and the myth perspective into a single institutional perspective. Each of the
perspectives takes a different view of the link between reforms and concrete action. The
instrumental-hierarchical perspective asserts that political-administrative leaders design
organizational structures to achieve goals such as more coordination (Egeberg 2003;
Christensen et al. 2007). In contrast, the institutional perspective focuses more on cultural
features,suchasinformalnorms,thanonstructural features. Such cultural features may
generate ‘unanticipated consequences’ (Pierson 2000, p. 483), so that leaders do not always
achieve the results desired (Egeberg 2003; Christensen et al. 2007). In addition, a myth
variant of the institutional perspective focuses on how ideas spread between organizations
(Røvik 2007).
The data were gathered from public documents and from 17 interviews conducted
in 2007, 2008 and 2009 with former and present politicians responsible for food safety
issues, administrative leaders and civil servants in the three ministries concerned, and
with administrative leaders in the NFSA. In terms of methodology, I have combined the
congruence method with active interviewing. The article begins by defining the concept
of coordination. It then outlines the theoretical framework, looking at the expectations
inherent in each perspective, before presenting the methodological challenges. It then
describes the formal structures and key findings. Finally, it discusses the key findings
from each theoretical perspective as well as the possibility for generalization.
WHAT IS COORDINATION?
The concept of coordination may be defined as both a process and an outcome
(Mintzberg 1979; Jacobsen 1993; Alexander 1995). The concept has several dimen-
sions: intra-organizational coordination (coordination within an organization), and
inter-organizational coordination (coordination between several organizations). An inter-
organizational coordination process involves the establishment of decision-making rules,
policy discussions, exchanges of information and decision making. These, in turn, will
also impinge on intra-organizational decisions and actions (Whetten 1982; Jacobsen 1993;
Public Administration Vol. 89, No. 2, 2011 (401–417)
©2010 The Author. Public Administration ©2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
To continue reading
Request your trial