Countering fragmentation, taking back the state, or partisan agenda‐setting? Explaining policy integration and administrative coordination reforms

Policies to integrate and coordinate across sectors have become important in recent years, but we know little about the drivers of these reforms. This article evaluates three explanations for differences in patterns of policy integration and administrative coordination reforms across countries and p...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Governance (Oxford) 2021-10, Vol.34 (4), p.1143-1166
Main Authors: Trein, Philipp, Ansell, Christopher K.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Coordination
Partisanship
Path dependence
Reforms
Segmentation
Structural equation modeling
Time use
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Policies to integrate and coordinate across sectors have become important in recent years, but we know little about the drivers of these reforms. This article evaluates three explanations for differences in patterns of policy integration and administrative coordination reforms across countries and policy sectors over time. Reform activity could reflect: (a) the fragmenting effects of agencification; (b) a strategy of governments to regain policy control; or (c) partisan agendas. We test these explanatory scenarios using multilevel probit and structural equation models on an original dataset of policy integration and administrative coordination reforms. Our findings support the claim that reforms are a reaction to the institutional fragmentation produced by agencification and that agencies drive these reforms. Furthermore, we find that left parties are particularly likely to pursue policy integration reforms. We also find that policy integration and administrative coordination reform frequencies are linked but have different path dependencies.
ISSN:0952-1895
1468-0491
DOI:10.1111/gove.12550