The impact of department structure on policy-making: How portfolio combinations affect interdepartmental coordination
| DOI | 10.1177/0952076720914361 |
| Published date | 01 October 2021 |
| Date | 01 October 2021 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Article
The impact of
department structure
on policy-making: How
portfolio combinations
affect interdepartmental
coordination
Yvonne Hegele
ZHAW School of Management and Law, Institute of Public
Management, Winterthur, Switzerland
Abstract
Departments are the primary structure of the bureaucratic apparatus of governments.
They can be structured as silo organizations responsible for one policy sector or as
non-silo organizations combining different portfolios under one roof. While several
studies have identified explanations for the structure of government departments
and their portfolio combinations, little is known about the effects portfolio combina-
tions have on public policy. This article theoretically discusses department structure
from a procedural perspective, and, taking an empirical approach, explores its effects on
policy coordination as one aspect of policy-making. Circumventing the problem of
lacking counterfactuals of national governments, the study analyzes the 16 German
substate governments and their joint decision-making processes in the German
Bundesrat. The analysis is based on two original datasets, one on the combination of
portfolios in departments and one network dataset on the policy coordination process.
Applying the tools of social network analysis, the findings show that departments
develop preferences and goals and allocate attention based on their portfolio combi-
nation. Consequently, governments with atypical portfolio combinations are less inte-
grated into the policy coordination process while departments comprised of similar
policy sectors coordinate more closely with each other, which make them more likely
Corresponding author:
Yvonne Hegele, ZHAW School of Management and Law, Institute of Public Management, Bahnhofplatz 12,
8400 Winterthur, Switzerland.
Email: yvonne.hegele@zhaw.ch
Public Policy and Administration
!The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0952076720914361
journals.sagepub.com/home/ppa
2021, Vol. 36(4) 429 –451
430 Public Policy and Administration 36(4)
to influence policy according to their interests. This study thus provides useful insights
not only to researchers but also practitioners. The bureaucratic structure of depart-
ments has consequences for policy-making and, ultimately, for policy itself, which
should be considered when setting up and structuring government departments.
Keywords
Bureaucratic structure, executive coordination, multilevel governance, portfolio
combination, social network analysis
Introduction
One of the most important and earliest decisions newly elected governments in
democratic systems must make is how to design departments. During this process,
decisions are made regarding the allocation and combination of responsibilities
and policy sectors. Policy sectors can be grouped together in various ways. Some
departments only consist of one single, usually important, policy sector, such as a
“department of finance.” In other cases, several policy sectors are integrated into
one department, such as a “department of social affairs, labor and health.” During
the last decade, the number of departments comprising only one policy sector has
decreased and an increased number of combined portfolios
1
is emerging across all
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries
(White and Dunleavy, 2010: 25).
The bureaucratic structure of a department and its portfolio composition are an
important power factor in government politics. According to Moe (1989: 268)
“when they [i.e. political actors] make choices about structure, they are implicitly
making choices about policy.” Decisions about how to design portfolios also have
consequences for the resources, i.e. the budget and personnel, available to a min-
ister and policy sector (Fleischer et al., 2018: 26). In most cabinets, ministers pro-
vide information, formulate policy or even have the right to act with a degree of
autonomy in the policy sectors of their departments (departmental principle,
Bardach, 1996; Kavanagh and Richards, 2001). Through these competences, the
ministers can influence cabinet decisions and shape policy in their sectors of
responsibility (Laver and Shepsle, 1996). Building on this argument, it is not
only the ministerial position, but also the importance and salience associated
with a department (Warwick and Druckman, 2006) and respective portfolio
composition which defines the policy competences of a minister. Therefore, the
portfolio composition of a department is of importance to the minister and his or
her political influence. Moreover, it presumably has consequences for public policy
and programs.
Against this background, it is surprising how little we know about the effects of
the bureaucratic structure of departments and the combination of several policy
2Public Policy and Administration 0(0)
To continue reading
Request your trial