How to Assess Administrative Reform? Investigating the Adoption and Preliminary Impacts of the Norwegian Welfare Administration Reform

Abstract

This article addresses how to assess public‐sector reforms using a reform in the Norwegian welfare administration as a case study. This reform represents a complex hybrid organizational form and a challenging combination of political control and local autonomy. We examine first how the reform has addressed its three main goals. These were to get people off welfare and back into work, to bring about more service‐orientation, and to increase efficiency. We also address the side‐effects of the reform by describing operational effects, process effects and system effects. Second, we examine how effects can be understood from an instrumental, cultural, and environmental perspective. A main finding is that context is significant for effects, and that it has so far proven difficult to discern clear overall effects concerning the main goals of the reforms and their side‐effects.

Complexity and Hybrid Public Administration—Theoretical and Empirical Challenges

“…Preliminary studies of effects of the reforms seem to indicate a varied result so far (Askim et al 2010). Efficiency measures have been very much deemphasized, in accordance with a long-standing tradition in Norway.…”

The Norwegian policy to reduce health inequalities: key challenges

“…Comprehensive policy initiatives such as the Work and Welfare Administration Reform (Askim et al, 2010), the Coordination Reform (Romøren et al, 2011), and the Inclusive Working Life Agreement (Hagelund & Bryngelson, 2013) were never designed to affront social inequalities, and were never evaluated in terms of their potential effects on health inequalities (Dahl & van der Wel, 2015). Furthermore, and although the Public Health Act is an important step forward, there is a long way to go both at the national and the local level before smooth crosssectoral cooperation becomes a reality.…”

Performance and Accountability—A Theoretical Discussion and an Empirical Assessment

“…Six regional pension units and thirty-seven administrative service units were established on the county level, implying moving quite a few resources from the local to the regional level (Askim et al 2010). It was argued that this reorganization would strengthen efficiency, create larger milieus of competence and increase the quality of services and rights for users.…”