Politics and Governance

Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access

The Problem of Mismatch in Successful Cross-Sectoral Collaboration


Affiliations
1 Department of Political Science, Stockholm University, 10691, Stockholm, Sweden
 

When facing the challenge of new global employment dynamics and the demand for the creation of economic growth and new jobs, joint cross-sectoral efforts to pool market and public sector resources promise to make the most of the complementary strengths, competencies and perspectives of different actors. The topic addressed here is the impact that management rationale - bureaucratic and entrepreneurial - has on cross-sectoral collaboration, and in particular how a mismatch in goals and norms between sectoral actors and the overall management rationale may affect joint efforts in terms of the capacity to recruit relevant actors and establish sustainable collaboration. The empirical findings, which are based on two cases of cross-sectoral co-operation - the EU programme EQUAL and the Swedish VINNVAXT programme - suggest that management rationale is an important factor in accounting for success of cross-sectoral ini-tiatives and that a mismatch risks undermining smooth co-operation and thereby policy delivery.

Keywords

Cross-Sectoral Collaboration, Management Rationale, Mismatch.
User
Notifications
Font Size


  • Andrews, R., & Entwistle, T. (2010). Does cross sectoral partnership deliver? An empirical exploration of public service effectiveness, efficiency, and equity. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20, 679-701.

  • Bernard Bruhnes International. (2006). EU-Wide Evaluation of the Community Initiative EQUAL 2000-2006, Final Report. Brussels, Belgium: DG Employment and Social Affairs.

  • Bernard Brunhes International. (2009). Synthesis of the Evaluation Reports of the EQUAL Programme in the EUR-15 Member States 2009 Submitted to the Commission in 2007 and Up to June 2008. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission DG Employment and Social Affairs.

  • Bozeman, B., & Bretschneider, S. (1994). The "publicness puzzle" in organization theory: A test of alternative explanations of differences between public and private organizations. The Journal Public Administration Research and Theory, 4(2), 197-224.

  • Bredgaard, T., & Larsen. F. (2011). Implementing public employment policy: What happens when non-public agencies take over? International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 27(7-8), 287-300.

  • DiMaggio, P. (1988). Interest and Agency in Institutional Theory. In G. Zucker (Ed.), Institutional Patterns and Organizations, Culture and Environment. Cam-bridge: Harper & Row.

  • Economix, Research & Consulting. (2009). Synthesis of the Evaluation Reports of the EQUAL Programmes in the EU10 Member 2009 States Submitted to the Commission within 2006 and 2009. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission DG Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities.

  • European Commission. (2000). Communication from the Commission to the Member States. Establishing the Guidelines for the Community Initiative EQUAL (C2000 853). Brussels, Belgium: European Commission.

  • European Commission. (2009). Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. A Shared Commitment for Employment (COM(2009)257). Brussels, Belgium: European Commission.

  • du Gay, P. (2000). In Praise of Bureaucracy: Weber, Organisation, Ethics. London: SAGE Publications.

  • du Gay, P. (2005). The Values of Bureaucracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Goodsell, C. T. (2005). The Bureau as Unit of Governance. In P. Du Gay (Ed.), The Values of Bureaucracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Haahr, J. H. (2004). Open co-ordination as advanced liberal government. Journal of European Public Policy, 11(2), 209-230.

  • Hall, P., & Montin, S. (2007). Governance Networks and Democracy at Regional and Local Level in Sweden (Working paper no. 9). Denmark: Centrum for Democratic Network Governance, Roskilde University.

  • Hartlapp, M. (2007). On enforcement, management and persuasion: Different logics of implementation policy in the EU and the ILO. Journal of Common Market Studies, 45(3), 653-674.

  • Hendriks, C. M. (2009). The democratic soup: Mixed meanings of political representation in governance networks. Governance, 22, 689-715.

  • Herranz, J. (2007). The multisectoral dilemma of net-work management. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 3(18), 1-31.

  • Herranz, J. (2010). Multi-level performance indicators for multisectoral networks management. The American Review of Public Administration, 40(4), 445-460.

  • Innes, J. E., & Booher, D. E. (2003). Collaborative Policy-making: Governance through Dialogue. In M. A. Hajer & H. Wagenaar (Eds.), Deliberative Policy Analysis. Understanding Governance in the Network Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Koppenjan, J. F. M., & Enserink, B. (2009). Public-private partnerships in urban infrastructures: Reconciling private sector participation and sustainability. Public Administration Review, 69(2), 284-296.

  • March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1984). The new institutionalism: Organisational factors in political life. American Political Science Review, 78(3), 734-749.

  • March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (2006). The Logic of Appropriateness. In M. Moran, M. Rein, & E. R. Goodin (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Public Policy (pp. 289-308). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Mosher, J. S., & Trubek, D. M. (2003). Alternative approaches to governance in the EU: EU social policy and the European employment strategy. Journal of Common Market Studies, 41(1), 63-88.

  • Peters, B. G. (2010). The Politics of Bureaucracy. London and New York: Routledge.

  • Pollit, C., & Bouckaert, G. (2011). Public Management Reform. A Comparative Analysis: New Public Management, Governance, and the Neo-Weberian State. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.

  • Ragin, C. C. (1997). The Comparative Method: Moving beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies. Berkeley: University of California Press.

  • Ramboll, Euréval, & SEOR. (2010). Evaluation of the Contribution of the ESF to EES. Final Report 2010. Brussels, Belgium: DG Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities.

  • Scott, R. (1995). Institutions and Organisations. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.

  • Scott, R. (2003). Organisations. Rational, Natural, and Open Systems. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

  • Selsky, J. W., & Parker, B. (2005). Cross-Sector partnerships to address social issues: Challenges to theory and practice. Journal of Management, 31(849S), 864.

  • Smismans, S. (2008). The European social dialogue in the shadow of hierarchy. Journal of Public Policy, 28(1), 161-180. doi:10.1017/S0143814X08000822.

  • Sorensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2007). Theories of Network Governance. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

  • Westerberg, U. (2008). Politiken, Offentlig Verksamhet: En av tre Parter i Samverkan-En Erfarenhetsstudie Inom VINNOVAs VINNVAXT-program (VINNOVA Rapport VR 2008:08). Stockholm: VINNOVA.

  • Westerberg, U. (2009). The Public Sector-One of Three Collaborating Parties. A Study of Experiences from the VINNVAXT Program (VINNOVA Report VR 2009:19). Stockholm: VINNOVA.

  • Ylinenpaa, H., & Westerberg, M. (2004). Tio fragor och svar om samverkan i Smaforetag (NUTEK No. 2004:10). Stockholm, Sweden: Verket for naringslivsutveckling.


Abstract Views: 214

PDF Views: 96




  • The Problem of Mismatch in Successful Cross-Sectoral Collaboration

Abstract Views: 214  |  PDF Views: 96

Authors

Maritta Soininen
Department of Political Science, Stockholm University, 10691, Stockholm, Sweden

Abstract


When facing the challenge of new global employment dynamics and the demand for the creation of economic growth and new jobs, joint cross-sectoral efforts to pool market and public sector resources promise to make the most of the complementary strengths, competencies and perspectives of different actors. The topic addressed here is the impact that management rationale - bureaucratic and entrepreneurial - has on cross-sectoral collaboration, and in particular how a mismatch in goals and norms between sectoral actors and the overall management rationale may affect joint efforts in terms of the capacity to recruit relevant actors and establish sustainable collaboration. The empirical findings, which are based on two cases of cross-sectoral co-operation - the EU programme EQUAL and the Swedish VINNVAXT programme - suggest that management rationale is an important factor in accounting for success of cross-sectoral ini-tiatives and that a mismatch risks undermining smooth co-operation and thereby policy delivery.

Keywords


Cross-Sectoral Collaboration, Management Rationale, Mismatch.

References