IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/porgrv/v22y2022i4d10.1007_s11115-021-00551-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Agency Autonomy and Organizational Interaction

Author

Listed:
  • Helena Wockelberg

    (Uppsala University)

  • Shirin Ahlbäck Öberg

    (Uppsala University)

Abstract

This research contributes to the ongoing debate on the relationship between agency autonomy and organizational interaction. A comparative design that includes agency managers in Norway and Sweden describing organizational interaction, the measures used and their perceived quality, is applied. Based on observed significant country-related effects, a main conclusion is that strong formal and organizational safeguards of agency autonomy appear to produce positive views on organizational interaction. The unusually strong and clear boundaries that underpin the autonomy of Swedish central government agencies lowers the risks of interacting with others, protecting both turf and mandate.

Suggested Citation

  • Helena Wockelberg & Shirin Ahlbäck Öberg, 2022. "Agency Autonomy and Organizational Interaction," Public Organization Review, Springer, vol. 22(4), pages 1045-1062, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:porgrv:v:22:y:2022:i:4:d:10.1007_s11115-021-00551-3
    DOI: 10.1007/s11115-021-00551-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11115-021-00551-3
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11115-021-00551-3?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Astrid Molenveld & Koen Verhoest & Jan Wynen, 2021. "Correction to: 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 239-242, March.
    2. Tom Christensen & Per Lægreid, 2008. "The Challenge of Coordination in Central Government Organizations: The Norwegian Case," Public Organization Review, Springer, vol. 8(2), pages 97-116, June.
    3. Christopher Pollitt & Peter Hupe, 2011. "Talking About Government," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(5), pages 641-658, June.
    4. Anonymous, 2015. "Letter from the Editor," Management and Organization Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 11(4), pages 575-578, December.
    5. 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.
    6. Kutsal Yesilkagit & Sandra Thiel, 2008. "Political Influence and Bureaucratic Autonomy," Public Organization Review, Springer, vol. 8(2), pages 137-153, June.
    7. Per Lægreid & Lise H. Rykkja, 2015. "Hybrid Collaborative Arrangements: The welfare administration in Norway - between hierarchy and network," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(7), pages 960-980, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ueli Reber & Karin Ingold & Manuel Fischer, 2023. "The role of actors' issue and sector specialization for policy integration in the parliamentary arena: an analysis of Swiss biodiversity policy using text as data," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 56(1), pages 95-114, March.
    2. Ueli Reber & Manuel Fischer & Karin Ingold & Felix Kienast & Anna M. Hersperger & Rolf Grütter & Robin Benz, 2022. "Integrating biodiversity: a longitudinal and cross-sectoral analysis of Swiss politics," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 55(2), pages 311-335, June.
    3. Roberta Rigo & Thomas Houet, 2023. "Do Land Use and Land Cover Scenarios Support More Integrated Land Use Management?," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-19, July.
    4. Kristin Reichborn-Kjennerud, 2015. "Resistance to Control—Norwegian Ministries’ and Agencies’ Reactions to Performance Audit," Public Organization Review, Springer, vol. 15(1), pages 17-32, March.
    5. Bellò, Benedetta & Spano, Alessandro, 2015. "Governing the purple zone: How politicians influence public managers," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 33(5), pages 354-365.
    6. Rasool Sarihi Asfestani & Mehraban Hadi Peykani & Akbar Eetebaryan, 2017. "Design and Presentation of Professional Ethics Criteria and Indicators for the Promotion of Political Accountability within Iranian’s Government Organizations (Case Study: National Chief Executive Dev," International Review of Management and Marketing, Econjournals, vol. 7(2), pages 226-232.
    7. Chris Hanretty & Christel Koop, 2013. "Shall the law set them free? The formal and actual independence of regulatory agencies," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 7(2), pages 195-214, June.
    8. 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.
    9. Kastberg, Gustaf, 2014. "Framing shared services," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 25(8), pages 743-756.
    10. Tom Christensen, 2021. "The Social Policy Response to COVID-19 – The Failure to Help Vulnerable Children and Elderly People," Public Organization Review, Springer, vol. 21(4), pages 707-722, December.
    11. Claudio Columbano, 2022. "Measuring fiscal guidance transparency," Public Sector Economics, Institute of Public Finance, vol. 46(2), pages 261-296.
    12. Jarle Trondal & Stefan Gänzle & Benjamin Leruth, 2022. "Differentiation in the European Union in Post‐Brexit and ‐Pandemic Times: Macro‐Level Developments with Meso‐Level Consequences," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(S1), pages 26-37, September.
    13. De Silva, Muthu & Gokhberg, Leonid & Meissner, Dirk & Russo, Margherita, 2021. "Addressing societal challenges through the simultaneous generation of social and business values: A conceptual framework for science-based co-creation," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    14. Michael Greenberg & Caron Chess, 2016. "Daniel Wartenberg: Empowering Community Epidemiology and Risk Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(9), pages 1683-1687, September.
    15. Hanson, Helena I. & Wickenberg, Björn & Alkan Olsson, Johanna, 2020. "Working on the boundaries—How do science use and interpret the nature-based solution concept?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    16. repec:thr:techub:10026:y:2021:i:1:p:576-596 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Shenjiang Mo & Chu-Ding Ling & Xiao-Yun Xie, 2019. "The Curvilinear Relationship Between Ethical Leadership and Team Creativity: The Moderating Role of Team Faultlines," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 154(1), pages 229-242, January.
    18. Sonia D. Gatchair, 2020. "Towards a Model for Independent Fiscal Policy Oversight in a Small Island State," Public Organization Review, Springer, vol. 20(4), pages 703-718, December.
    19. Abu Elias Sarker & Syed Awais Ahmad Tipu & Farhana Razzaque, 2022. "An Integrative Dynamic Framework of Social Accountability: Determinants, Initiatives, and Outcomes," Public Organization Review, Springer, vol. 22(1), pages 117-133, March.
    20. 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.
    21. Daniel E. Bromberg, 2016. "Gatekeepers: How Procurement Personnel Guard Against Hybrid Accountability," Public Organization Review, Springer, vol. 16(4), pages 549-560, December.

    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:kap:porgrv:v:22:y:2022:i:4:d:10.1007_s11115-021-00551-3. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.