Public Organizations, Multiple Constituencies, And Governance
| Author | Preben Melander,Torben Beck Jørgensen,Marianne Antonsen,Hanne Foss Hansen |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9299.00114 |
| Published date | 01 September 1998 |
| Date | 01 September 1998 |
COMPARATIVE AND INTERNATIONAL
ADMINISTRATION
PUBLIC ORGANIZATIONS, MULTIPLE
CONSTITUENCIES, AND GOVERNANCE
TORBEN BECK J⭋RGENSEN, HANNE FOSS HANSEN, MARIANNE
ANTONSEN AND PREBEN MELANDER
Public organizations vary considerably. Yet little attention has been paid to the sys-
tematic analysis of this diversity. Drawing on case studies of four public organiza-
tions and a survey on all central government organizations in Denmark, variations
in tasks, environments, constituencies, and central governance are conceptualized.
Public organization tasks can be analysed at three levels ranging from user-oriented
outputs, general outputs which can further be divided into policy goals, scope of
profile, standard setting and capital accumulation, to the normative base of the pub-
lic sector. Public organizations vary with regard to the emphasis put on level of
output and on how the different aspects of the tasks are interrelated. Variations in
constituencies and exchange cycles with the environment are further related to dif-
ferent task profiles. Finally it is shown that central oversight organizations compete
with other actors in the public organizations’ environment in the governance of
public organizations. From an organizational point of view ‘the state’ appears to
have a humble and remote position.
INTRODUCTION
The public sector has in this century developed a vast heterogeneity of
functions, organizational forms and modes of governance (Kooiman 1993).
The traditional bureaucratic state relying on hierarchy, rules and univer-
salism has been challenged by the growth of the welfare state expanding
a number of professional fields such as health, education, social services,
public libraries, and environmental protection. These fields typically build
on professional or semi-professional norms and values with particularistic
relations toward the clientele (Audunson 1995). In the last fifteen years we
have further witnessed waves like New Public Management and Rein-
venting Government, prescribing new modes of governance such as mana-
gerialism, competition, pricing and contracting out (Kickert and Beck
Jørgensen 1995).
The likely result is a highly differentiated public sector composed of a
Torben Beck Jørgensen is a Professor and Hanne Foss Hansen is an Associate Professor at the Univer-
sity of Copenhagen; Marianne Antonsen is an Associate Professor at Roskilde University andPreben
Melander is a Professor at the Copenhagen Business School.
Public Administration Vol. 76 Autumn 1998 (499–518)
Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 1998, 108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 IJF, UK and 350 Main Street,
Malden, MA 02148, USA.
500 J⭋RGENSEN, HANSEN, ANTONSEN AND MELANDER
huge number of semi-autonomous public organizations with multiple and
varying constituencies, goals and responsibilities. This development points
to three related areas of interest.
First, an understanding and conceptualization of public sector diversity
is needed. Public sector heterogeneity has been unequivocally acknowl-
edged in public administration research. Downs (1967), Pitt and Smith
(1981), and Viteritti (1990) offer varying depictions of public organizational
constituencies; and Day and Klein (1987), Rainey (1997), and Rosenbloom
(1993) point to the multiplicity of public organizational goals and responsi-
bilities. However, empirically based systematic discussions and concep-
tualizations of agency differencies are scarce, and although the policy litera-
ture conceptualizes policy types and related patterns of influence (Ripley
and Franklin 1986; Meier 1993), the implications for public organizations
are seldom discussed.
Second, development of a public organization theory is called for. Cer-
tainly, the organizational perspective is not novel in the study of public
administration. Especially Anglo-Saxon scholars have attempted to adapt
generic organization theory to public sector organizations (Denhardt 1984;
Harmon and Mayer 1986; Heffron 1989; Gortner et al. 1987; Lawson and
Rose 1994; Rainey 1983, 1997). Typically, these scholars offer fine introduc-
tions to generic organization theory illustrated by public organizations and
elaborate discussions on what parts of generic theory may be useful in the
study of public organizations. However, the confrontation between a ‘pub-
lic reality’ and an organization theory with strong roots in empirical studies
of private firms has not yet resulted in the development of a unique public
organization theory.
Third, it is tempting to reflect on the changed nature of the state. The
changes in the public sector have in most Western countries taken place
within an unaltered constitution. The result is that the constitution has to
encompass a number of diversities. Thus, it may be reifying to speak about
the state as one over-arching entity. Given public sector heterogeneity, the
question ‘what is the state?’ is likely to be answered differently across pol-
icy sectors and public organizations. This article concentrates on the first
two issues and addresses the last one in a more casual manner.
THE ORGANIZATIONAL PERSPECTIVE
If we only study public organizations from a top-down perspective, as part
and parcel of the state, we are inclined to think about them as mainly polit-
ical instruments. To fully understand organizational diversity, especially
with regard to their varying constituencies, we need to adopt a bottom-up
perspective; in this case an organizational perspective. This does not imply
that we employ a generic organizational and managerial perspective; only
that the unit of analysis is a public organization. Nevertheless, there are
implications for: (1) how we conceive relations between a public organiza-
tion and its environments; (2) the importance we ascribe to an organiza-
Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 1998
To continue reading
Request your trial