IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/pstrev/v1y2003i1p34-49.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Joined‐up Government: a Survey

Author

Listed:
  • Christopher Pollitt

Abstract

This paper first identifies the varied meanings and objectives of joined‐up government (JUG). Subsequently it explores the costs and risks involved, and briefly reviews some of the relevant academic literature. Having thus clarified the key concepts and situated the current fashion for a ‘holistic approach’ within the broader literature on co‐ordination, the paper also considers a range of approaches to the assessment of progress with JUG.

Suggested Citation

  • Christopher Pollitt, 2003. "Joined‐up Government: a Survey," Political Studies Review, Political Studies Association, vol. 1(1), pages 34-49, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:pstrev:v:1:y:2003:i:1:p:34-49
    DOI: 10.1111/1478-9299.00004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1478-9299.00004
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1478-9299.00004?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Maria Stella Righettini & Renata Lizzi, 2020. "Governance Arrangements for Transboundary Issues: Lessons from the Food Waste Programs of Italian Regions," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 37(1), pages 115-134, January.
    2. Saliterer, Iris & Korac, Sanja, 2013. "Performance information use by politicians and public managers for internal control and external accountability purposes," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 24(7), pages 502-517.
    3. Koen PR Bartels, 2018. "Collaborative dynamics in street level work: Working in and with communities to improve relationships and reduce deprivation," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 36(7), pages 1319-1337, November.
    4. Peters B., 2009. "The Two Futures of Governing: Decentering and Recentering Processes in Governing," NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy, Sciendo, vol. 2(1), pages 7-24, July.
    5. Coyle, Diane & Muhtar, Adam, 2023. "Assessing policy co-ordination in government: Text and network analysis of the UK's economic strategies," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C).
    6. Dogaru, Tatiana-Camelia, 2016. "The Effect of Public Administration Reforms under the Post-New Public Management Paradigm," MPRA Paper 94399, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Paul Roness & Koen Verhoest & Kristin Rubecksen & Muiris MacCarthaigh, 2008. "Autonomy and Regulation of State Agencies: Reinforcement, Indifference or Compensation?," Public Organization Review, Springer, vol. 8(2), pages 155-174, June.
    8. Alice Moseley & Oliver James, 2008. "Central State Steering of Local Collaboration: Assessing the Impact of Tools of Meta-governance in Homelessness Services in England," Public Organization Review, Springer, vol. 8(2), pages 117-136, June.
    9. Tom Christensen & Per Lægreid, 2020. "Coordination Quality in Central Government – the Case of Norway," Public Organization Review, Springer, vol. 20(1), pages 145-162, March.
    10. Tom Christensen & Anne Fimreite & Per Lægreid, 2014. "Joined-Up Government for Welfare Administration Reform in Norway," Public Organization Review, Springer, vol. 14(4), pages 439-456, December.
    11. Jozef Bátora, 2013. "The ‘Mitrailleuse Effect’: The EEAS as an Interstitial Organization and the Dynamics of Innovation in Diplomacy," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(4), pages 598-613, July.
    12. Carvalho, Cláudia & Brito, Carlos, 2009. "Innovative Public Service Delivery: How to assess the new relationship between public agencies and society?," Working Papers 8/2009, Universidade Portucalense, Centro de Investigação em Gestão e Economia (CIGE).
    13. Sanneke Kuipers & Kutsal Yesilkagit & Brendan Carroll, 2018. "Coming to Terms with Termination of Public Organizations," Public Organization Review, Springer, vol. 18(2), pages 263-278, June.
    14. Pascaris, Alexis S., 2021. "Examining existing policy to inform a comprehensive legal framework for agrivoltaics in the U.S," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 159(C).
    15. Tjerk Budding & Bram Faber & Raymond (R.H.J.M.) Gradus, 2017. "Assessing Electronic Service Delivery in Municipalities," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 17-087/VIII, Tinbergen Institute.
    16. Treffgarne, Carew B.W., 2019. "Joined-up government? Insights from education during DFID’s first decade," International Journal of Educational Development, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 45-55.
    17. Dag Christensen & Tom Christensen & Per Lægreid & Tor Midtbø, 2012. "Cross-Border Coordination Activities in Central Government Administration—Combining Organizational Conditions and Individual Features," Public Organization Review, Springer, vol. 12(4), pages 367-382, December.
    18. Guillermo M. Cejudo & Cynthia L. Michel, 2017. "Addressing fragmented government action: coordination, coherence, and integration," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 50(4), pages 745-767, December.
    19. Jane Despatin & Michel Nakhla & Eric Wable & Yves Auroy, 2015. "Public Performance And Simulation: A Case Study In The French Military Health Service," Post-Print hal-01158733, HAL.
    20. Astrid Molenveld & Koen Verhoest & Jan Wynen, 2021. "Why public organizations contribute to crosscutting policy programs: the role of structure, culture, and ministerial control," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 54(1), pages 123-154, March.
    21. Diane Coyle & Adam Muhtar, 2022. "You’re not speaking my language - policy discontinuity and coordination gaps between the UK’s national economic strategies and its place-based policies," Working Papers 019, The Productivity Institute.
    22. Sydelko, Pamela & Espinosa, Angela & Midgley, Gerald, 2024. "Designing interagency responses to wicked problems: A viable system model board game," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 312(2), pages 746-764.
    23. Deborah Ann Blackman & Fiona Buick & Janine O'Flynn, 2016. "From engaging to enabling: Could an asset-based approach transform Indigenous affairs?," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 34(8), pages 1632-1651, December.
    24. Seejeen Park & Seunghoo Lim, 2018. "Are Networks Flat or Vertical?: Developing a Multi-Level Multi-Dimension Network Model," Public Organization Review, Springer, vol. 18(2), pages 223-243, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:pstrev:v:1:y:2003:i:1:p:34-49. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=1478-9299 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.