Institutional hybridisation in Swedish public sector development cooperation
| Published date | 01 February 2024 |
| Author | Jenny Iao‐Jörgensen |
| Date | 01 February 2024 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1002/pad.2035 |
Received: 11 April 2023
-
Revised: 20 October 2023
-
Accepted: 28 November 2023
DOI: 10.1002/pad.2035
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Institutional hybridisation in Swedish public sector
development cooperation
Jenny Iao‐Jörgensen
Division of Risk Management and Societal
Safety, Department of Building and
Environmental Technology, Faculty of
Engineering, Lund University, Lund, Sweden
Correspondence
Jenny Iao‐Jörgensen.
Email: jenny.iao-jorgensen@risk.lth.se;
jennync.iao@gmail.com
Funding information
Myndigheten för Samhällsskydd och
Beredskap, Grant/Award Number: D.nr.2017‐
10917; Styrelsen för Internationellt
Utvecklingssamarbete, Grant/Award Number:
12848
Abstract
While the concept of hybridisation (blending of different organisational forms,
logics, or identities) in public administration has gained traction, its interplay with
principal‐agent dynamics, especially within development cooperation, remains
underexplored. Recent shifts towards the “whole‐of‐society” paradigm in Swedish
development cooperation introduce complexities in the inter‐organisational dy-
namics between actors involved. However, our understanding of how these dy-
namics influence the manifestation of hybridisation in everyday practices is limited.
Drawing on the development cooperation experience of Swedish national author-
ities and data collected from interviews, focus group discussions, and archival
documents, this study identifies the interplaying dynamics of three coexisting logics
(managerialist, collaborative, and developmental), and two types of hybridisation
(specialisation‐centric and integration‐centric). These findings shed light on the
challenges and opportunities the inter‐organisational dynamics induce for trans-
lating the “whole‐of‐society” policy paradigm into development practice and out-
comes. The study's theoretical and practical implications for hybridisation in public
administration and development studies are discussed.
KEYWORDS
development cooperation, hybridisation, principal‐agent dynamics, Swedish authorities,
whole‐of‐society paradigm
1
|
INTRODUCTION
Like many contemporary public sectors, the development coopera-
tion landscape is swiftly evolving. Transitioning towards a post‐aid
era (Alonso, 2016), development cooperation underscores broader
engagement, domestic and foreign policy coherence, and develop-
ment effectiveness to address global sustainable development chal-
lenges (Chaturvedi et al., 2021; Gulrajani, 2022; Nilsson, Chisholm, &
Giggs, 2018). This era, mirroring broader public sector trends, is
marked by a shift towards hybrid governance (Denis, Ferlie, & Van
Gestel, 2015), where the “whole‐of‐society” (Develtere et al., 2021,
pp. 187–232) approaches in policy‐making and implementation
become paramount. In the development cooperation context, such a
shift towards the “whole‐of‐society” approach emphasises collabo-
rative, adaptive problem‐solving through the mobilisation of both
traditional and novel resources, actors, and sectors for impactful
global public policy outcomes (Brinkerhoff et al., 2018; Chaturvedi
et al., 2021; Develtere et al., 2021). It underscores the increasing
interconnectedness between development, global challenges, and
global public goods, necessitating robust and adaptable development
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution‐NonCommercial License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any
medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.
© 2023 The Authors. Public Administration and Development published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Public Admin Dev. 2024;44:43–58. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/pad
-
43
effectiveness principles that can bridge national and international
policies (Gulrajani, 2022).
As the development cooperation landscape shifts towards hybrid
governance, organisations often have to navigate the multifaceted
demands of an evolving global development paradigm with new op-
portunities and contestations (Chaturvedi et al., 2021). They must
reconcile their foundational organisational norms, identities, and
logics with the diverse actors and sometimes conflicting demands of a
“whole‐of‐society” approach. This approach presents a unique set of
practical implementation challenges, prompting organisations to seek
innovative solutions, adaptive strategies, and strategic resources.
Amidst these shifts, hybridisation emerges as a promising avenue
of sociological thinking to explore the interconnectedness between
donors (principals) and their policy intentions and the implementa-
tion realities of non‐conventional development cooperation organi-
sations (agents) within the development cooperation system.
Hybridisation entails the combination of different organisational
forms, logics, or identities (Aoyama & Parthasarathy, 2016; Batti-
lana & Lee, 2014; Denis et al., 2015; Skelcher & Smith, 2015). Ac-
cording to Denis et al. (2015), hybridisation offers a way for public
service organisations to reconcile diverse, sometimes incompatible,
conflicting demands, organisational norms, identities, and practices in
response to policy shifts.
The institutional logic and hybridisation lens are prevalent in the
business sector and are gaining traction in development studies (e.g.,
Heeks et al., 2020; Kumi & Saharan, 2022). Institutional logic refers
to the values, beliefs, and norms guiding the actions and decision‐
making of individuals and organisations (Thornton et al., 2012).
Although the concepts are not necessarily new to public adminis-
tration, they are still as theoretically undeveloped as in development
studies (Denis et al., 2015; Fejerskov, 2016; Heeks et al., 2020). The
focus in the existing hybridisation literature has predominantly been
on macro‐level structure, as manifested in shifts of coordination and
corresponding management and governance modes, or conventional
principals or agents.
The sector‐specific intricacies of hybridisation within single or-
ganisations are not fully understood (Denis et al., 2015; Laihonen &
Kokko, 2023). A broader and multi‐level understanding (including
organisational strategies and the role of public managers and pro-
fessionals) is needed as public sectors increasingly rely on inter‐
organisational and inter‐sectoral collaboration and decision‐making
(Denis et al., 2015). Moreover, how agency and social interaction
processes shape hybridisation in various public sectors remains
limited (ibid).
In the contemporary development cooperation context, such
understandings are crucial to unveil the ‘black box’ of how the
principal‐agent dynamics influence global policy outcomes and
development effectiveness despite donors' well‐intended reforms
(Gulrajani, 2011; McCourt & Gulrajani, 2010). The principal‐agent
dynamics are often discussed in development studies in terms of
the relationships between donors (principals) and recipient govern-
ments or implementing organisations (agents) (see, e.g., Martens
et al., 2002; Dietrich, 2011). It is well recognised that the historical
imprints of power imbalances in development cooperation shape its
practices, outcomes, and relationships between actors such as do-
nors, implementers, and beneficiaries (Eyben, 2010; Mosse, 2014).
Understanding principal‐agent dynamics in hybridising multiple
logics, forms and identities is, therefore, vital to unpacking the
intricate interplay of global policy commitments and local imple-
mentation realities in the post‐aid era.
In this evolving context, this article seeks to improve our un-
derstanding of the role of principal‐agent dynamics in the hybrid-
isation of multiple institutional logics by adding new empirical case
material in Swedish central government authorities. The authorities
are underexplored non‐expert development organisations in the
development cooperation context. These authorities, including sec-
tors such as police, employment, crisis management, statistics, land
administration, environmental protection, and tax agencies, have
been deeply embedded in the Swedish development cooperation
system. With over 20 authorities actively involved, they manage a
total of around 600 million SEK (around 57 million USD) of annual
funding allocations from the Swedish government's bilateral devel-
opment cooperation (Allen et al., 2020). Collaborating with a range of
stakeholders, from the Swedish Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) and
Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida) to EU
and international partners, they align with Sweden's global,
geographical and thematic development strategic areas in numerous
low‐and middle‐income countries.
Historically, their involvement in Sweden's development coop-
eration can be traced back to initiatives from the 1990s. Unlike the
NGO sector, some of these authorities operate on the basis of gov-
ernment directives, allowing or mandating their development coop-
eration work. Their significance is further emphasised in the new
five‐year strategy dedicated to realising the Swedish “whole‐of‐so-
ciety” efforts towards global commitments like the Agenda 2030 for
sustainable development (UN, 2015). Despite their expansive role
and reach in development cooperation, comprehensive knowledge
about their operational dynamics remains limited. The recently
established inter‐authority hub (Myndighetsnavet) in 2021 within
Sida underscores the authorities' growing significance in Sweden's
post‐aid era and recent “whole‐of‐society” development cooperation
policy discussions. With Sweden's flexible approach to development
cooperation, hybrid public administration models, and commitment
to policy reforms and sustainable development (Bexell & Jöns-
son, 2016; GOS, 2018; OECD, 2019), the Swedish system offers a
compelling case for studying the authorities' hybridisation.
Given this context, this research poses these two main questions:
What are multiple institutional logics in the authorities' development
cooperation practices? How do the principal‐agent dynamics mani-
fest in their hybridisation of these logics?
The empirical foundation of this research is rooted in interviews
with 34 key informants (including project managers and personnel
from the authorities and Sida aid bureaucrats) and an analysis of
other complementary data (two focus group discussions (FGDs) and
30 archival documents) collected between December 2018 and
December 2019.
44
-
IAO‐JÖRGENSEN
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting