Government Reorganization: A Theoretical Analysis

Abstract

Reorganization is one of the most common activities of government, but it is not adequately understood, either by practitioners or by scholars. This article applies three broad approaches in administrative theory—purpo sive action, environmental determinism, and institutionalism—to the study of reform in industrialized democracies. Each of these three broad approaches is further divided into a number of more specific approaches. The article evaluates all the available approaches, and ends by arguing in favor of the institutional approach.

The political coordination of knowledge and innovation policies in Switzerland

“…In this, Switzerland confirms doubts that are brought forward in the literature about 'sociological institutionalism' (March and Olsen, 1989) and about 'purposive actor models' (Peters, 1992; see also the introduction to this special issue of Science and Public Policy) as well as in the studies made by the 'Technopolis-group' concerning policy coordination capabilities in political systems (Boekholt et al, 2002;Arnold and Boekholt, 2003) and the OECD (2005a,b,c).…”

Reformasi Administrasi Dan Karakter Bangsa : Sebuah Kajian Konseptual

“…Pada pendekatan proses, reformasi administrasi lebih fokus pada perubahan dalam proses, prosedur dan hubungan di antara dan sesama administrasi pemerintahan (Peter, 1994dalam Farazmand, 2002. Farazmand (2002: 3) menyebut pendekatan proses ini sebagai pendekatan Top-Down, dan menjelaskan bahwa model ini mengasumsikan bahwa beberapa aktor-elit, yakni orang-orang yang memiliki kekuasaan atau kewenangan memiliki tujuan tertentu dalam pikiran dalam mengejar reformasi dan reorganisasi.…”

Structural Changes to the Public Sector and Cultural Incompatibility: The Consequences of Inadequate Cultural Integration

“…While claims of efficiency are sometimes made, MoG changes often undermine existing effective work practices and can lead to, or amplify, dysfunction (Peters 1992). This is partly due to the disruptive nature of structural change (see Andrews and Boyne 2012) and insufficient time allocated to planning and implementing the changes (Davis et al 1999;Nethercote 1999;White and Dunleavy 2010).…”