The Coordination and Integration of Public Policies: A ...€¦ · different policy goals or...

CoordinationandIntegrationofPublicPolicies

1

TheCoordinationandIntegrationofPublic

Policies:ASystematicComparativeReview

PhilippTrein([email protected])

IrisMeyer([email protected])

MartinoMaggetti([email protected])

Contactaddress:

UniversityofCalifornia,Berkeley

InstituteofEuropeanStudies

MosesHall

94720Berkeley,CA

Philipp Trein is a Postdoctoral Researcher at the Institute of Political, Historical, and

International Studies (IEPHI) of the University of Lausanne, Switzerland, and a Visiting

Scholar at the University of California, Berkeley. His research interests cover comparative

public policy, federalism and multilevel governance, and comparative politics. More

informationisavailableat:www.philipptrein.com.


2

IrisMeyer isPhDcandidateat the InstituteofPolitical,Historicaland InternationalStudies

(IEPHI) of the University of Lausanne. She holds degrees in political science and public

administrationfromtheIEPAix-en-ProvenceandtheUniversitiesofFreiburgandSpeyer.Her

current research focuses on the coordination and integration of public policies, with an

empiricalfocusonhousingpolicyinOECDcountries.

Martino Maggetti is associate professor at the Institute of Political, Historical, and

InternationalStudies(IEPHI)oftheUniversityofLausanne,Switzerland.Hisresearchinterests

are mainly oriented towards regulatory governance and comparative public policy. More

informationisavailableat:www.maggetti.org.


3

TheCoordinationandIntegrationofPublic

Policies:ASystematicComparativeReview

May2018

Abstract

Thisarticleundertakesasystematiccomparative reviewof researchonpolicycoordination

andintegration.Specifically,wecomparestudiesfocusingon“policyintegration”withthose

using “joined-up-government” or “whole-of-government” as key analytical concepts. We

discussdifferencesandsimilaritiesbetweenthetwogroupsofarticlesintermsofempirical

and theoretical focus as well as research design. We conclude by suggesting that the

existenceofdifferentstrandsofliteraturemakessensebutmoreexchangesacrossthemare

bothpossibleandwelcome,soas toalignorganizationalandpolicy related factors for the

analysisoftherelationsbetweenpolicysectors.

Keywords: Policy integration, joined-up government, whole-of-government, comparative

review,multiplecorrespondenceanalysis


4

1.Introduction

Thispaperundertakesasystematiccomparativereviewofresearchonthecoordinationand

integration of public policies. Specifically, we compare studies that refer to “policy

integration”(PI)withthoseusing“joined-up-government”(JUG)or“whole-of-government”

(WOG) as key analytical concepts. Thereby, we examine the following research question:

How do PI and JOG/WOG studies differ or resemble one another regarding the building

blocksoftheirresearchapproaches?Inaddition,wealsodiscusshowresearcherscandeal

withthesimilaritiesanddifferencesbetweentheseconcepts.

Thecoordinationandintegrationofpoliciesacrosssectorsisofgrowingimportanceforboth

scholarsandpolicymakers.Newpolicychallengesthatrequiretorearrangetheboundaries

of policy sectors emerge rapidly but public policies are embedded in institutions and

organizational structures that adapt slowly and gradually to policy demands. Researchers

usemanydifferent terms to refer to the issueof coordinationand integration.Tosunand

Lang(2017)pointtoasmuchastendifferentanalyticalconceptsusedintheliterature.For

example, the concept of “policy integration” entails policy measures that bring together

differentpolicygoalsordevelop“encompassingcommonvisionsforthefuture”indifferent

policysectors(Braun2008,231). Intheenvironmentalpolicy literature,scholarsusepolicy

integration typicallywith reference tomeasures that integrate environmental concerns in

existingpolicies,suchasenergypolicy(JordanandLenschow2010).Differentexamplesare

those concerning the integration of social policy or homeland security policy (Cejudo and

Cynthia 2017). Other analytical concepts are applied to examine the institutional and

organizationalrelationsbetweenvariouspolicysectors,namely“joined-up-government”(6,

2004)and“whole-of-government”(ChristensenandLægreid2007)amongothers.

The backdrop of such conceptual variety comes along with some problems, such as the

fragmentationofempiricalfindings,theirredundancy,and,moregenerally,alackofcross-

fertilization between different strands of research. Therefore, it is important and

increasingly common in political science and public policy research to take stock and

synthesizeexistingstudies(e.g.Grahametal.2013).Suchanendeavorenablesresearchers

to assemble and compare findings about the relationshipbetweenpolicy sectors that the

differentliteraturestrandshavegeneratedindependentlyfromoneanother. Inaddition, it


5

promotesadialoguebetweenresearchersandhelpstomovethefieldforwardbyenhancing

theaccumulationofknowledgeovertimeandacrossdifferentgroupsofstudies(Maggetti

2015).

To achieve this goal, our contribution undertakes a systematic review1of two groups of

studies.Forthispurpose,weselectedasampleofpeer-reviewedarticlesbelongingtotwo

sub-strandsoftheliteratureonpolicycoordinationandintegration:articlesadoptingPIasa

conceptualframework,andarticlesthatusetheconceptsofJUG/WOG.Thesetwogroupsof

papers represent important and distinct sub-fieldswithin the broader literature on policy

coordinationandintegration.Inotherwords,weconsiderthatPIandJUG/WOGcanbeseen

asumbrellatermsthatlargelysubsumesimilarconceptsusedinotherstudies.Atthesame

time, theydiffer in twocrucialaspects.On theonehand,PIarticles typically focuson the

policydimensionwhereasJUG/WOGarticlesmostlyemphasizetheorganizationaldimension

oftherelationsbetweenpolicysectors(TosunandLang2017).

Oursystematicreviewexaminesandcomparesthebuildingblocks(cf.MaggettiandGilardi

2016) of research in the two groups, i.e., PI and JUG/WOG articles. For our purposes,

buildingblocksof researchareeachpaper’sepistemology,policy researchdesign, country

researchdesign,methodofanalysis,countryfocus,policyfocus,andtheoretical focus.We

selectedthesebuildingblocksastheycorrespondtobasicdimensionsofcomparativepolicy

analysis(Knoepfeletal.2011;TosunandWorkman2017).Foreachbuildingblock,wecoded

one ormore variables tomeasure the concept. For example, we created one categorical

variableforthemethodbuildingblockandseveralbinaryvariablesforthetheoreticalfocus

buildingblock(cf.Section3ofthepaperandTableA1insupplementarymaterialdocument

formoredetails).Toassess thevariancewithinandbetween the twoarticlegroupsalong

thesevariables,weusemultiplecorrespondenceanalysis(MCA)—aversionoffactoranalysis

designed for categorical variables—to detect similarities and differences, in a statistically

inductivemanner. Exadaktylos and Radaelli (2009) used a similar comparative strategy to

reviewresearchdesignissuesintheliteratureonEuropeanizationascomparedtothelarger

field of European studies. This strategy allows us to explore systematic patterns and

1For the differences betweenmeta-analysis, research synthesis and systematic review, and their respectiveobjectives,readCooper,Hedges,andValentine2009.


6

variationsbetweenthesetwostreamsofliterature,whichareinterestedindistinctivefacets

andmanifestationsofalargerunderlyingfundamental issue,namelytherearrangementof

theboundariesofpolicysectors, fromtheperspectiveofthe integrationand,respectively,

thecoordinationofpoliciesandpublicsectororganizations.

Our results point to some systematic commonalities and differences between the two

groupsofarticles.Thefindingsdisplaysimilaritiesbetweenthearticlegroupsregardingan

overalldominanceofempiricalarticles,aswellasacommontheoreticalcoreacrossgroups,

thatis,asimilartheoreticalfocusthatisprevalentinbothgroups.However,thetwogroups

ofarticlesareoverallverydifferentconcerningthechoiceofpolicyfieldsandcountriesthat

areexamined.Whataretheimplicationsoftheseresultsforresearchonpolicycoordination

and integration? In the conclusion, we point out that there is room for further for

combination,interactionandcross-fertilizationbetweenthesetwosub-strandsofliterature.

Atthesametime,weconcludethatitisalsocrucialtorecognizethedistinctivecontribution

ofeachoftheseapproaches.Furthermore,ourmethodcouldbeusedforsystematicreviews

inothersubjectareasofcomparativepublicpolicyanalysis.

2.Conceptualbackground

Against the background of the fragmentation of political authority and delegation to

subnational and supranational as well as private actors, a new strand of research has

emergedarguingthatthegovernanceofpolicysectorsisbecomingmoreintegratedand/or

coordinated—orthatitneedstobecomeso.Thiscompositeliteraturepointstothegrowing

inter-sectoralizationofpolicy-makingandpublicpolicyinstruments,and,correspondingly,to

the increased integration and coordination across—or even merger of—different policy

instrumentsandpublicsectororganizations.Interestingly,thisresearchbuildsonavarietyof

concepts that can be distinguished broadly in governance- and government-centered

approaches(TosunandLang2017,4).

Amongst thegovernance-centeredapproaches,publicpolicy scholars,who focusonpolicy

processes and implementation, tend to look at thesephenomena through the lensesof a

“policyintegration”perspective(cf.forinstanceLaffertyandHovden2003,Lenschow2002,

Nilsson2005,NilssonandEckerberg2007,PiersonandLeibfried1995).Forinstance,policy


7

integrationisconsideredessentialtoinvolveallactorsinanintegratedapproachtodevelop

and implement appropriate policy solutions to tackle the issue of environmental

sustainability,suchasthoseactorsconcernedwithagriculture,energyortransportpolicies

(JordanandLenschow2010,EckerbergandNilsson2013).Inotherwords,policyintegration

typically aims at creating new instruments to connect existing sectors and create more

effective and/or more legitimate policy solutions (Hou and Brewer 2010; Schaffrin et al.

2015, 263).Other examples for governance-centered approaches to the coordination and

integrationofpoliciesareboundary-spanningpolicyregimes(LaffanandO’Mahoney2007,

JochimandMay2010,May,Jochim,andSapotichne2011)andfunctionalregulatoryspaces

(Varoneetal.2013).

Government-centered approaches to the study of the coordination and integration of

policies have pointed to the institutional and organizational dimension. Organizational

reforms to create or re-create an integrated branch of government were initially labeled

“joined-upgovernment”(62004,Bogdanor2005,CabinetOffice1999)and laterknownas

“whole-of-government”(Chow,Humphrey,andMoll2007,ChristensenandLægreid2007).

Other examples for government-centered approaches are comprehensive planning

(Andrews et al. 2009, Roberts andWargo 1994, Sanchirico et al. 2009), policy coherence

(KeiserandMeier1996,Mayetal.2005,May,Sapotichne,andWorkman2006),andholistic

government(62013,Dunleavyetal.2006,MawsonandHall2013).

In the remainder of this article, we explore how these concepts display systematic

similaritiesanddifferencesinseveraldimensions(i.e.buildingblocks)ofempirically-oriented

analytical research.Therefore,weselected twogroupsofarticles fromthis literature,one

that focuses on policy (or governance-centered) approaches and a second one targeting

organizational (or government-centered) approaches to the analysis of policy integration

and/or coordination. We create two groups of articles from this literature, – policy

integration (PI)on theonehand,and joined-up-governmentandwhole-of-governmenton

theother(JUG/WOG).

Before moving forward, it is worth reminding that we refer to the coordination and

integrationofpublicpoliciesastwodimensionsoftherearrangementoftheboundariesof

policy sectors, which are typically examined by the two above-mentioned streams of


8

literature.Morespecifically, thetwotermsembodyaconceptualdistinctionas integration

referstotheincorporationofsomeelementsintoalargerentityoraunifiedwhole(asitthe

caseforpolicygoalsandinstruments),whereascoordinationisaboutthereorganizationof

previously separate processes or units to make them work together properly (it refers

typically to administrative units).2 Coordination entails ‘ideas about joint and holistic

working’ between sectors. Integration contains, in addition, ‘integrated structures [and

policies]tocreatecommonorganizationalelementsandtomergeprofessionalpracticesand

interventions’(6etal.2002,33–34;Trein2017,747).Thus, integrationcapturestheactual

integrationofpolicies,notablypolicygoalsandpolicyinstruments,whicharetheessenceof

thePI literature.Conversely, the relationbetweenpublic sectororganizations tends tobe

one of coordination. Indeed, mergers of organizations are expected to be rarer as

substantialintegrationmightcomealongwithareductionofpersonnelandotherelements

that are contestedpolitically. Thus, the concept of coordination conveyswhat scholars of

theJUG/WOGliteraturetypicallyfocuson.

3.Reviewprotocolandanalyticalstrategy

3.1Samplingprocedure

To determine the two groups of articles forming the basis of this systematic review, we

followedanempiricalaswellasa theoreticalapproach.Firstly,weperformedasearch3in

the online databaseWeb of Science, for all the concepts mentioned by Tosun and Lang

(2017)4in the topic or title of the articles, limited to articles in peer-reviewed journals

publishedsince1985.Secondly,wedecidedtokeeppapersreferringto“policyintegration”

ontheonehandand“whole-of-government”,or“joined-upgovernment”ontheother,as

thearticles in thesegroupsappearmostly in thecategories“political science”and“public

administration”intheWebofSciencedatabase.Articlesreferringtootherconcepts,suchas

comprehensive planning and policy coherence, are distributed more evenly amongst the

2ThisdistinctionbetweencoordinationandintegrationdiffersfromtheonerecentlyputforwardbyCejudoandMichel(2017),butitiscompatiblewithit.Indeed,coordinationissimilarlylocatedatorganizationallevel,whileintegrationreferstopoliciesorientedtowardsa“broadergoal”.3WecarriedoutthesearchforarticlesonMarch7,2016.4Theseare:comprehensiveplanning,policycoherence,holisticgovernment, joined-upgovernment,wholeofgovernment, horizontal governance, holistic governance, policy integration, policy mainstreaming, andboundary-spanningpolicyregimes(TosunandLang2017).


9

various article categories, such as “environmental studies” or “planning development.” In

doingso,wemakesurethatthejournalsfromwhichweselectedthearticlesoperateagainst

apublicpolicyandpoliticalsciencebackground,andcanplausiblyassumethattheselected

papersarepotentiallysimilarregardingtheirempiricalfocus,researchdesign,andtheory.In

contrast, had we compared papers from very different categories in theWeb of Science

databasewewouldhave run the riskof self-selectingarticles thatareverydifferent from

one another, and thus would bias our analysis towards an overemphasis of differences

between thegroupsofpapers. Thirdly,we took into consideration theoretical reasons for

article selection. Notably, we made sure that the article groups corresponded to

governance-centered approaches on the one hand (PI) and to government-centered

approachesontheother(JUG/WOG)(TosunandLang2017).

INSERTFIGURE1HERE

Our search yielded 592 results (360 on “policy integration” vs. 151 on “whole-of-

government” and 81 on “joined-up government”). Over time, the number of articles

published has increased continuously, in both groups. Our analysis does not identify any

publishedjournalarticlesreferringtothesekeywordspriorto1990.Then,theintroduction

of joined-upgovernmentby theBritishgovernment in1997promptedpublicationsonthe

matter. In the followingdecade,both strandsof literaturehavegrownevenly. From2009

onwards, the “policy integration” literature has gainedmomentum, while the number of

publicationsperyearon“joined-upgovernment”and“whole-of-government”hasrelatively

stagnated(Figure1).

For the typeof comparative analysis performed in this paper,wehad to further limit the

number of articles. We restricted the sample to a maximum of 120 articles, which we

selected according to their thematic relevance5and impact.We set this limit to keep the

amountofpapersmanageablewhilefocusingonthemostrelevantpieces.Similartoother

reviewarticles (e.g. Exadaktylos andRadaelli 2009),we includedespecially themost-cited

articles. However, to reduce the sample bias towards older papers, we also took into

5Weexcludedarticlesthatdrawonrelatedyetdifferentliteraturestrands,suchasscience-policyintegration,vertical policy integration (i.e., papers that only focus on the integration of policies between levels but notbetweensectors),orliteratureondonorcoordinationininternationaldevelopmentcooperation.


10

accountthatarticlespublishedlaterintheobservedtimespanwerenaturallylessfrequently

citedthanarticlesthatcameoutearlier.Therefore,weincludedthesamenumberofmost-

frequently-citedarticlespublishedbefore2010andafterthatyear.Ourfinalsamplecontains

76PIarticlesand44JUG/WOGpapers.

3.2Datasetandmethod

Inorder toanalyzeoursampleofarticles,wecodedaselectionofvariables thatmeasure

thedifferentbuildingblocksofeachpieceof research (cf.MaggettiandGilardi2016).For

thepurposesofthisarticle,wedefinethefollowingresearchbuildingblocks:epistemology,

policy research design, country research design,method of analysis, country focus, policy

focus, and theoretical focus (Knoepfel et al. 2011; Tosun andWorkman 2017).We coded

eitherseveralbinaryoronecategoricalvariablestooperationalizeeachbuildingblock(Table

1;thedecisionbetweenabinaryorcategoricalvariableisbasedonpracticalreasons;cf.our

supplementary material concerning the details regarding the coding procedure and the

summarystatisticsforeachvariable(TableA1)).6

Thebinaryvariablesmeasuringthetheoreticalfocusofthearticlesreflectwhetherapaper

employsatheoryrelevanttothepoliticalscienceorthepublicadministrationliterature.We

determinedthetheoreticalelementsbymeansofathematiccodingprocedure(Thomasand

Harden2008,Krippendorff2013).First,wedevelopedthemes–thatarerelatedtotheories

ofthepolicyprocessandpolicychange(WeibleandSabatier2017)–inductivelytoformthe

analyticalcategoriesforthetheoreticalfocus,whichwethenusedtocodetheotherpapers.

Throughiterativerefinement(Wilson2009),wecodedtheotherarticlesaccordingtothese

categories–andrefinedthecategories,which impliedrecoding the firstarticlegroup.We

retained the following variables for the theoretical focus building block: socio-economic

factors,negativeeffectsofdomesticinstitutionalandorganizationalfactors,positiveeffects

of domestic institutional andorganizational factors, policy diffusion, learning, policy ideas,

6Primarily,oneoftheauthorscodedthearticles.Asecondauthorrecodedasubsampleofthepaperstoverifyinter-coderreliability.Consequently,weadaptedourcodingproceduretomakeitmorecoherentandrecodedtheentiresampleofarticlesforthevariablesaffectedbyanychange.Weimplementedthetestforinter-coderreliabilityusingStata.Asecondauthorrecoded39randomlyselectedarticles(37,5%ofthesample).Averageagreementbetweencodersacrossthevariableswas88.45%(Min.72.5%;Max.98.08%),whichisanacceptablelevel of agreement. Although this strategy does not necessarily help to increase validity, it improves thetransparenceandcongruenceofthecodedvariables(ExadaktylosandRadaelli2009,517,Krippendorff2013).


11

actors/networks, politics, implementation, policy instruments and policy capacity. Two

caveats are important to keep in mind. The variables do not measure the relationship

betweenthevarioustheoreticalperspectivesandthebinarycodingofthevariablesdoesnot

imply that the absence of a category measures its negation; that is, for example, policy

capacity being “0” implies only that the article does not refer to policy capacity as an

importanttheoreticalfocus,andnotthatthearticlediscussesthenegativeeffectofalackof

policycapacityforPIorJUG/WOG.Theinstitutionalvariablesareanexceptionbecausethis

istheonlyinstancewherewewereabletocodethedirectionaleffectofinstitutionsonPIor

JUG/WOG(cf.oursupplementarymaterialformoreinformation).

Toanalyzeourdataset,weusedescriptivestatisticsandperformamultiplecorrespondence

analysis (MCA). This is a technique similar to factor analysis for nominal categorical data,

whose aim is to find groups according to a number of attributes (Greenacre and Blasius

2006).PierreBourdieunotablypopularizedthismethodinthebookTheDistinction:ASocial

Critique of the Judgements of Taste (Bourdieu 1984). The main goal is to detect (and

represent)theunderlyingpatternsandstructuresinadataset(LeRouxandRouanet2010).

The result is a symmetricmatrix of all two-way cross tabulationsbetween the categorical

variables,whichcanberepresentedgraphicallyasamapofamulti-dimensionalspace.This

map offers the representation of general patterns of relationships among the categorical

variables, allowing the researcher to identify those categories that cluster together (van

Schendelen 2002).We implement anMCAusing the statistical software Stata, notably its

command“mca.”Thismethodsuitsparticularlytotheanalysisinthisarticleasitallowsto

detectregularitiesamongstthedifferentbuildingblocksoftheresearchinPIandJUG/WOG

articlesthatweareinterestedin.

4.Results

A first look at the descriptive statistics regarding the distribution of the variables for the

various research building blocks across both groups of articles (PI vs. JUG/WOG) in our

samplerevealsbothdistinctivepatternsandrelevantoverlaps(Table1).Notably,thereare

disparitiesregardingthecountryfocus,researchdesignand,tosomeextent,thetheoretical

focus of the articles. To the contrary, the two groups display similar patterns regarding


12

methodologicalchoicesand,aboveall,theirtheoreticalcore(thatis,keycommonelements

oftheirtheoreticalfocus).

INSERTTABLE1HERE

In the following subsections, we discuss in detail our main findings based on descriptive

statisticsandtheresultsofthemultiplecorrespondenceanalysis.Acommentonthemodel

fit, tableswith theprecise resultsof theMCA,andadiscussionof thespecificationof the

multiplecorrespondenceanalysiscanbefoundinthesupplementarymaterialtothisarticle.

Table1showshowthevariablesarelinkedtoeachbuildingblock.

4.1Conceptualstudiesvs.differenttypesofempiricalarticles

Our findingsshowthat there isnodifferencebetweenPIand JUG/WOGarticles regarding

theprevalenceofconceptualarticlesversusmoreempirically-orientedones(Table2,Figure

2).On theonehand, our sample comprises conceptual articles that haveno reference to

method,refertoacountryinthe“other”countriesgroup,anddonotcontainanyempirical

analysis.Contrariwise,empiricalcontributionsthatcorrespondeithertosinglecasestudies

ortocomparativecountrystudiesandusemostlyqualitativemethodsarelocatedbetween

the two groups. In other words, as we would have expected intuitively, each group of

articlescontainssomeconceptualpapersthatdefineeitherPIorJUG/WOGfromageneral

point of view. An example for such a paper in the JUG/WOG group is the article by

Christensen and Lægreid (2007) that develops the concept of whole-of-government.

ConcerningPI,themostcitedconceptualarticlesconcernenvironmentalpolicyintegration,

which frame the concept of policy integration from the perspective of a specific policy

problem, namely environmental protection, such as the paper by Oberthür (2009). Only

more recently have contributions extended the discussion on policy integration to public

policy analysismore generally (Candel and Biesbroek 2016). The presence of a distinctive

groupofconceptualpapersisnotsurprisinginarelativelyyoungresearcharea.Ontheother

hand, empirical studiesmostly use a case study approach. They open an opportunity for

further research that synthesizes existing studies and develops encompassing theoretical

insightsfromthecasestudymaterial.

INSERTFIGURE2HERE


13

Inaddition,theresultsoftheMCAsuggestthatamongtheempiricalstudiesinthesample,

JUG/WOG articles tend to focus on administrative reforms only, whereas PI papers also

include policy-related elements (Figure 2, Table A4 in the supplementary material

document).Forinstance,thestudyonthelimitsofjoined-up-governmentbyDavies(2008)

or the comparativeworkbySanget al. concerning ruraldata infrastructure (2005)mainly

deal with administrative reforms. Conversely, PI papers have a tendency to analyze the

policy dimensionmore explicitly when looking at the horizontal relations between policy

fields. For instance, the comparative research on climate policy integration by Casado-

AsensioandSteurer(2016)focusesexplicitlyontheadoptionofpolicyprogramsinsteadof

administrative reforms.This findingunderlines thepointmadebyprevious reviewarticles

(e.g.TosunandLang2017)thatJUG/WOGandPIhaveadifferentfocusontheanalysisofa

widerresearchproblem,i.e.therelationshipbetweenpolicysectors.Particularly,ourresults

empirically confirm that JUG/WOG research focuses on the administrative and

organizational dimension of public sector reforms,whereas PI articles focus on the policy

dimensionandgivelessimportancetotheorganizationalaspect.

4.2Regulativevs.(re)distributivepolicies

Concerningthetypesofpoliciesreferredtobythearticlesunder investigation,ourresults

indicate that PI papers and JUG/WOG papers tend to focus on different types of policy

instruments. On the one hand, PI papers rather deal with sectors in which regulative

instrumentsplayanimportantrolefortheintegrationofdifferentsectorsandsubsystems,

suchasenvironmental,climate,orenergypolicies(Figure3,TableA4inthesupplementary

material document). As an example, Hull’s study (2008) analyses sustainable solutions in

transportpolicy, focusingonthe integrationofenvironmentalprotection,publictransport,

walkingandcycling,airquality,landuse,andpublichealth.

INSERTFIGURE3HERE

Ontheotherhand,wefindthatJUG/WOGarticlestendtofocusonpolicysectorsthathave

astrong(re)distributivecomponent.Theseanalysesconcernforinstancedifferentsubfields

of social policy,which includes predominantly employment-related policy integration, but

also health and education policy (Figure 3, Table A4 in the supplementary material


14

document)aswellaspoliciesdesignedtotargetspecificgroups.Forinstance,Signorettaand

Craglia(2002)analyzeajoined-upgovernmentstrategyforaddressingtheneedsofchildren

in the city of Sheffield, UK. The authors show how the elaboration of a children’s plan

includedawiderangeofadministrativeunits,amongwhichthePolice,theDepartmentsof

Social Services, Education, the Young Children’s Service, Community Health Sheffield,

Sheffield Health, Authority, Central Policy Unit, and the Department of Housing. The

Department of Social Services took the leadership in this reform of administrative

coordination(SignorettaandCraglia2002,66).

Thisdifferenceinthepolicyfocusofthetwogroupsofarticlesleadsustosuggestthatthe

nature of the policy instruments under investigation determines a specific form of

integration. Inthecaseofregulativepolicies,bridgingdifferentpolicysectorscanbedone

effectivelybyusingpolicyinstrumentsonly,suchaslegalframeworksandpolicystrategies.

Ontheotherhand,incaseofredistributivepolicies,therelationshipbetweenpolicysectors

entails a strong bureaucratic component because funds and their use need to be

coordinatedbypublicsectororganizations.Inregulativepolicies,thefinancialaspectisless

important. Furtherempirical analysis isneeded to test thishypothesis about thedifferent

formsofintegrationandcoordinationthatregulativeanddistributivepolicyinstrumentscall

forrespectively.

4.3ContinentalEuropeandEUvs.Anglo-SaxonandSouthernEuropeancountries

The results further reveal systematic similarities and differences between the samples of

countriesexaminedinthePIandtheJUG/WOGgroupsofarticles.Notably,PIpaperstendto

focuson continental Europeancountriesandon thepolitical systemof theEU,whilealso

mostly taking a cross-country comparative approach (Figure 2, Table A4 in the

supplementary material document). For instance, Schout and Jordan’s (2005) empirical

studyofenvironmentalpolicy integrationat theEuropean level reveals theweaknessesof

networkgovernanceforachievinggoodcoordination.Ontheotherhand,JUG/WOGarticles

tend to deal with different country samples, among which Anglo-Saxon and Southern

European countries figure most prominently (Figure 2, Table A4 in the supplementary

materialdocument).Forinstance,Rossetal.(2011)analyzetheintroductionofawhole-of-

government approach for a strategy to prevent family violence in the Australian state of


15

Victoria, focusing on the establishment of administrative structures at different levels of

government.ThearticlebyLewis(2011)ontheCentralPolicyReviewStaffprovidesuswitha

morehistoricexampleofadministrativecoordinationintheUK.

Some clusters of countries, however, are equally important for both PI and JUG/WOG

articles.Scandinaviancountries,forinstance,arelocatedinbetweenthegroups,according

tothemultiplecorrespondenceanalysis.Indeed,thereisnosubstantialdifferenceregarding

their operationalization in either PI or JUG/WOG papers (Figure 2, Table A4 in the

supplementarymaterialdocument).Forinstance,Christensenandcolleagues(2007)analyze

coordination in the Norwegian welfare and employment administration from a whole-of-

government perspective. On the other hand, Nilsson (2005) analyzes the horizontal

coordinationregardingenvironmentalpolicyintegrationinSwedenfromtheperspectiveof

policyintegration.

Thesedifferencesbetweenthetwogroupsonthatdimensioncanbeexplainedasfollows.

TheprominenceofEUstudies inthePIgroupmayderivefromthefactthattheEuropean

Unionengagesaboveallinregulatorypolicymaking,whichistypicallyexaminedwithapolicy

integrationapproach,asmentionedabove.ThefindingthatJUG/WOGarticlesratherstudy

Anglo-Saxon, Southern European or Scandinavian countries is potentially related to the

structure of the state. These countries (except for Canada and theU.S.) tend to build on

strongcentralstatesandnationalgovernmentsshouldthereforepossessstrongersteering

capacitiestocoordinatepublicsectororganizations,whichcouldexplainthatadministrative

formsofcoordinationprevailinthesecountries.NationalgovernmentsinScandinavianand

Southern European countries have large discretion over the public sector in combination

withdevelopedandtax-financedwelfarestates,whichleavesroomforJUG/WOGreforms.

Also,NPM reformswere implementedearly andextensively inAnglo-Saxon countries and

latercreatedahighdemandfor“post-NPM”coordination.

4.4Theoreticalfocus:commonalitiesanddifferencesbetweengroups

Concerning the theoretical focus applied in the reviewed articles, our findings are

particularly interesting. They show that there is, on the one hand, a common theoretical


16

coreofPIandJUG/WOGresearch,while,ontheother,therearealsosystematictheoretical

differencesbetweenthetwogroups.

INSERTFIGURE4HERE

Thetwogroupsofarticlesshareacommontheoreticalcoreinsuchastheybuildontheories

abouttheroleofinstitutions,actorsandpolitics,policyimplementation,andpolicycapacity

(Figure4).Concerningtheinstitutionaldimension,articlesinthesamplerefertopositiveor

negative impacts of institutions on coordination arrangements in both the PI and the

JUG/WOG literature (Table 1).7For instance, even in a centralized government, such as in

the UK, pre-existing institutional differences between various departments complicate

successful implementationof joined-upgovernmentarrangements(KavanaghandRichards

2001, 17). A very similar argument is put forward in PI papers. For instance,Giessen and

Krott’s analysis of PI in the forestry sector shows that integrative programs designed at

higher levelsofgovernmentareoften incompatiblewith theactualpolicy implementation

units and the subnational and local levels of government (Giessen and Krott 2008, 97).

Respectively,inbothgroupswefindpapersthatpointoutthatinstitutionalfactorscanhave

positiveeffects.Forinstance,thepresenceofaninstitutionalcoreisimportanttoestablish

policyintegrationsuccessfully,suchasinthefoodpolicysector(UglandandVeggeland2006,

613).

Next to institutional elements, PI and JUG/WOG articles share additional theoretically

relevantelements,forexampleregardingpolitics,implementation,andpolicycapacity.The

above-citedarticlebyKavanaghandRichardsdoesnotonly refer to institutionalelements

regardingjoined-upgovernmentbutalsototheeffectofpolitics.Thepaperpointsoutthat

considerabledifferencesexist inhow joined-upgovernmentworkedunderNewLaborand

the Conservative Major governments due to political conflicts within political parties

(KavanaghandRichards2001,16-17).Furthermore,theoreticalapproachesconcernedwith

policy implementationandpolicy capacity appearapproximatelywith the same frequency

acrossgroups.Forinstance,apaperbyWeberandDriessenprovidesuswithananalysisof

7TablereportsthecountforthedifferentvariablesinbothgroupswithouttheweightthatweappliedinFigure4.Thus,theshareofreferencestonegativeinstitutionalfactorsishigherinthePIgroup.


17

theimplementationofnoiseandspatialplanningintheDutchcontext(WeberandDriessen

2010,1121).Hughesetal. illustratethelinkofpolicycapacity, implementationandwhole-

of-governmentinAustralia(Hughesetal.2015).

In addition to these similarities,we find systematic differences concerning the theoretical

focususedinthetwogroupsofarticles.Particularly,ourresultsrevealthatPIarticlestend

toconcentratemoreontheroleofdiffusion,learning,andpolicyideas,whilealsoadoptinga

policyinstrumentsperspective,whereasthisisnotthecaseofJUG/WOGpapers(Figure4).

For instance, the paper by Lafferty and Hovden, which defined environmental policy

integration as a conceptual framework, implicitly refers to the role of theUnitedNations

ConferenceforEnvironmentandDevelopmentandtheEUforthediffusionoftheideasof

environmental policy integration (Lafferty and Hovden 2003, 4). Similar to diffusion and

related theoretical frameworks, researchers have used the notion of policy instruments

especiallyinarticlesonpolicyintegration.Asanexample,theresearchbyUrwinandJordan

onpublicsupportforclimatechangeadaptationrefersexplicitlytopolicy instrumentsasa

distinctanalyticalcategoryforpolicyintegration(UrwinandJordan2008,183).Contrariwise,

JUG/WOG papers tend to refer relatively less to diffusion, learning, ideas, and policy

instruments.Thetheoreticalfocusofthesepapersprivilege institutionalelements,politics,

implementation,andpolicycapacity.For instance,LægreidandRykkja (2015)highlightthe

importance of an organizational culture that favors the finding of joint solutions and

coordination in a joined-up organizational setting. From an implementation perspective,

Carey et al. (2015) show that a “supportive architecture” and consistency of instruments,

processesandgoalsaredecisiveforachievingjoined-upgovernment.

The differences and similarities between the two groups of articles regarding their

theoreticalfocusupholdtheassumptionthatPIarticlesmainlyaddressthepolicydimension

whereasJUG/WOGpaperspoint(also)totheadministrativeandorganizationaldimensionof

policy sector rearrangement. Indeed, PI studies use theories and concepts that are

particularlywell-suitedtoexaminepolicyinstruments,suchaslearning,ideas,diffusion,and

instrumental design, whereas approaches suitable for organizational analysis are more

frequent intheJUG/WOGgroup.Ontheotherhand, it isremarkabletoobservethatboth

groups share a theoretical core that reveals the institutional foundations of the analyses


18

centered on the reconfiguration of the boundaries of policy sectors. As a consequence,

furtherresearchontherelationsbetweenpolicysectorsshouldregardatbothdimensions

as important and at the same time could use amore explicit institutional perspective to

connectandarticulatethesetwodimensions.

5.Conclusions

This article undertakes a systematic review of the literature on the coordination and

integrationofpublic policiesby comparing articles referring topolicy integration (PI)with

papers looking at joined-up government and/or whole-of-government (JUG/WOG).

Precisely, we tackled the following research question: How do PI and JOG/WOG studies

differorresembleoneanotherregardingthebuildingblocksoftheirresearchapproaches?

In the following,wewill summarize theresultsanddiscusshowresearcherscandealwith

thesimilaritiesanddifferencesbetweentheseconcepts.

Taken together, our results point to some systematic commonalities and differences

betweenthetwogroupsofarticles.Regardingsimilarities,wefindthatmostofthepapers

correspond to single policy and/or country studies using qualitative methods. In both

samples,thereisacleardifferencebetweenasetofconceptualpaperswithoutanexplicit

focusonmethods,asopposedtothelargergroupofempiricalarticles.Furthermore–and

importantly, both groupshave a common theoretical core, i.e. similar theoretical focuses,

thatreferstoinstitutionalaspects,actor-levelandpolitics-relatedelements,thequestionof

policy implementation, and policy capacity. Nevertheless, there are some important

dissimilarities in thefocusofPIandJUG/WOGarticles: theconceptofpolicy integration is

mostlyusedforanalyzingenvironmentalandclimatepolicyandisratherappliedinstudies

oncontinentalEuropeancountriesandtheEUasawhole;JUG/WOGarticles,however,tend

to examine social, health, and education policies, as well as general reforms of the

administration and organizational coordination, mostly in Anglo-Saxon and Southern

European countries. What is more, there are some differences regarding the theoretical

focusofthepapers.PIarticlesmainlyfocusondiffusion, ideationalapproaches,andpolicy

learningaswellaspolicyinstruments,whereastheseapproachesaremuchlessprominent

intheJUG/WOGgroup.


19

Overall,ouranalysisshowsthat,inthelasttenyears,wewitnessaconsiderableincreasein

theacademicattentiontowardsthecoordinationand integrationofpolicies,mostlyunder

thePIlabelbutalsoframedinJUG/WOGterms,althoughtoalesserextent(Figure1).This

trendgoesalongwithheterogeneity intheories,designs,andempirical focusbetweenthe

twostrandsofresearch.Thisheterogeneityisprobablyrelatedtohistoricalandcontingent

factors,suchasspecificcountry-relatedscientifictrajectoriesandresearchgroupprograms.

This isnotsurprising incomparativepoliticalscience(Maggetti2015),especially fora field

that is still in its infancy, and similar situations can be found in more mature fields of

research, such as policy diffusion studies (Maggetti and Gilardi 2016). At the same time,

there are some systematic similarities between the two groups of articles,which suggest

that there is potential for cross-fertilization and tighter connection between the two

approaches.

What are themain implications of our systematic review and how dowemove on from

here? Firstly, since both groups – PI and JUG/WOG – share a common theoretical core,

specificallyrelatedtotheir institutionalistfoundations,thereispotentialforresearchersto

consider both policy and administrative/organizational elements for the analysis of the

relationsbetweenpolicy sectors.However, since therearealso significantdifferences,we

suggesttoarticulatethesethetwodimensionsandtoexploretheirrelationshipsbykeeping

themanalyticallyseparated,insteadofconflatingtheminasinglemeasurethatranksthem

according to the degree of coordination/integration (Braun 2008). Such a strategy would

allowresearcherstoraiseacoherentsetofresearchquestionsthatspanoverthepolicyand

organizationaldimensions.Therefore, itwouldbepossible tocombinepolicy-orientedand

administration/organization-oriented approaches, for instance by analyzing in-depth the

interplaybetweenpolicylearningandorganizationaldynamicswithrespecttothediffusion

ofpolicy/administrative instruments.Thiswould imply, forexample, to formulateresearch

questions that address explicitly the policy and strategical as well as the organizational

dimensions of the interplay between policy sectors (e.g. Cejudo andMichel 2017), or the

coevolution(Trein2017)ofpolicyintegrationandorganizationalcoordination,whichallows

to explore the temporality and hierarchy of the two dimensions along reforms that

rearranged the relationship of policy sectors. Such a research strategy would combine


20

insights from the different sub-strands of research and relate to concerns of design and

implementationofintegratedpolicies.

Secondly, there is room for the systematic comparison and even the aggregation of the

findingsfromcasestudies–notnecessarilyintonewanalyticalconcepts–butregardingthe

driversandconsequencesofthecoordinationandintegrationofpolicysectors.Thiscouldbe

donebythemeansofmeta-analysesorcomparativeresearchprojectsthatbridgedifferent

countries andpolicy fields.More specifically, to promote the accumulationof knowledge,

futureresearchcouldtakeovermeta-analytictechniquestoadjoin,synthesizeanddistillthe

findingsfromthelargewealthofcasestudiesthathavebeenandhopefullycontinuetobe

produced in this literature. At the same time, there is room for comparative empirical

research on the relationship between policy sectors (e.g. Trein 2015, 2017). In addition,

futureresearchshouldresorttostatisticalanalysistocomplementqualitativeresearchasit

would aim at testing different explanatory factors emerging from case studies; in turn,

subsequentcasestudieswouldhelpimprovingtheinterpretationofstatisticalfindings.For

instance, future research could compare integration and coordination of policies within

larger policy fields, such as environmental and employment policy, across a sample of

comparablecountriesfromdifferentgeographicalareasandpoliticaltraditions,forexample

OECDmembers. Such an approachwould build on and complement existing case studies

withcross-sectorandcross-countrycomparativeresearchtoadvanceourunderstandingof

theintegrationandcoordinationofpoliciesandproducemoregeneralizableknowledge.This

macro-comparativeresearchstrategywouldbuildonexistingworkandfeeditsfindingsback

tomorespecificandcase-orientedanalyses.

These two suggestions to move forward the research agenda on policy integration and

coordinationwouldallowthedifferentstrandsofliterature–andthescholarlycommunities

related to them – to learn from one another. In otherwords, these considerations could

enableapotentially fruitful exchangebetweenPI and JUG/WOGapproaches,whileat the

sametimemakingthecasefortheimportanceofkeepingthemdistinctandpointingtotheir

respective contributions. Hopefully, this common endeavor could foster an even more

productive analysis of “new” complex or wicked policy problems, such as the migration

crisis, from a broader perspective articulating policy and organizational elements for the


21

analysis of the reconfiguration of policy sectors. Clarifying the connection between the

policy and organizational elements of cross-sectoral policymaking is not only interesting

from a research-oriented perspective but has also very practical implications. The

elaborationofintegratedpolicystrategiesnecessarilyrequirestheirimplementationthrough

the coordination of public sector organizations. This further step might prove to be

complicated, as the implementation literature has since long shown (McLaughlin 1987;

Matland 1995). More systematic cross-fertilization between policy and administrative

research could facilitate this endeavor, representing thus a crucialmilestone towards the

developmentofabetterpolicypractice.


22

6.References

6,Perri.2004.“Joined-UpGovernmentintheWesternWorldinComparativePerspective:APreliminary Literature Review and Exploration.” Journal of Public AdministrationResearchandTheory14(1):103-138.doi:10.1093/jopart/muh006.

6, Perri. 2013. “Housing Policy in the Risk Archipelago: Toward Anticipatory and HolisticGovernment.”HousingStudies13(3):347-375.doi:doi:10.1080/02673039883326.

Andrews, Rhys, George A. Boyne, Jennifer Law, and Richard M. Walker. 2009.“Centralization,OrganizationalStrategy,andPublicServicePerformance.”JournalofPublicAdministrationResearchandTheory19(1):57-80.

Bogdanor, Vernor, ed. 2005. Joined-UpGovernment. Oxford, New York: OxfordUniversityPress.

Bourdieu,Pierre.1984.Distinction:ASocialCritiqueof the JudgementofTast.Cambridge:HarvardUniversityPress.

Braun,Dietmar.2008. "Organising thePoliticalCoordinationofKnowledgeand InnovationPolicies."ScienceandPublicPolicy35(4):227-39.

CabinetOffice.1999.Modernisinggovernment.Vol.Cm4310.London:HMSO.Candel, Jeroen JL, and Robbert Biesbroek. 2016. “Toward a Processual Understanding of

PolicyIntegration.”PolicySciences:49(3):211-231.Casado-Asensio,Juan,andReinhardSteurer.2016."BookkeepingratherthanClimatePolicy

Making:NationalMitigationStrategiesinWesternEurope."ClimatePolicy16(1):88-108.

Cejudo, Guillermo M, and Cynthia L Michel. 2017. "Addressing fragmented governmentaction:Coordination,coherence,andintegration."PolicySciences50:745–67.

Chow, Danny S. L., Christopher Humphrey, and Jodie Moll. 2007. “Developing Whole ofGovernment Accounting in the UK: Grand Claims, Practical Complexities andsuggested future Research Agenda.” Financial Accountability & Management 23(1):27-54.

Christensen,Tom,AnneLiseFimreite,andPerLægreid.2007."Reformof theEmploymentand Welfare Administrations - the Challenges of Co-coordinating Diverse PublicOrganizations."InternationalReviewofAdministrativeSciences73(3):389-408.

Christensen, Tom, andPer Lægreid. 2007. “TheWhole-of-GovernmentApproach to PublicSectorReform.”PublicAdministrationReview67(6):1059-1066.

Cooper,Harris, Larry VHedges, and Jeffrey CValentine. 2009.TheHandbook of ResearchSynthesisandMeta-analysis.NewYork:RussellSageFoundation.

Davies, Jonathan S. 2009. "The Limits of Joined-Up-Government: Towards a PoliticalAnalysis."PublicAdministration87(1):80-96.

Dunleavy, Patrick, Helen Margetts, Simon Bastow, and Jane Tinkler. 2006. “New PublicManagement is Dead—Long Live Digital-era Governance.” Journal of PublicAdministrationResearchandTheory16(3):467-494.

Eckerberg, Katarina, andMansNilsson. 2013.Environmental Policy Integration in Practice:ShapingInstitutionsforLearning.London:Routledge.

Exadaktylos,Theofanis,andClaudioMRadaelli.2009.“ResearchDesigninEuropeanStudies:TheCaseofEuropeanization.”JCMS:JournalofCommonMarketStudies47(3):507-530.


23

Fabbri,Daniele,andChiaraMonfardini.2009.“Rationingthepublicprovisionofhealthcarein thepresenceofprivate supplements:Evidence from the ItalianNHS.” JournalofHealthEconomics28(2):290-304.

Giessen,Lukas,andMaxKrott.2009."ForestryJoiningIntegratedProgrammes?AQuestionofWillingness,AbilityandOpportunities."AllgemeineForst-undJagdzeitung180(5-6):94-100.

Greenacre,Michael, and JörgBlasius.2006.MultipleCorrespondenceAnalysisandRelatedMethods.BocaRaton:CRCPress.

Graham,ErinR,CharlesRShipan,andCraigVolden.2013."Thediffusionofpolicydiffusionresearchinpoliticalscience."BritishJournalofPoliticalScience43(3):673-701.

Hou, Yilin, and Gene A Brewer. 2010. "Substitution and Supplementation Between Co-Functional Policy Instruments: Evidence from State Budget Stabilization Practices."PublicAdministrationReview70(6):914-24.

Hughes,A,DGleeson,DLegge,andVLin.2015."GovernanceandPolicyCapacityinHealthDevelopmentandimplementationinAustralia."PolicyandSociety34(3):229-45.

Hull, Angela. 2008. "Policy Integration: What will it take to achieve more SustainableTransportSolutionsinCities?"TransportPolicy15(2):94-103.

Jochim, Ashley E., and Peter J. May. 2010. “Beyond Subsystems: Policy Regimes andGovernance.”PolicyStudiesJournal38(2):303-326.

Jordan,Andrew,andAndreaLenschow.2010.“Environmentalpolicy integration:astateoftheartreview.”EnvironmentalPolicyandGovernance20(3):147-158.

Kavanagh, Dennis, and David Richards. 2001. "Departmentalism and Joined-upGovernment."ParliamentaryAffairs54(1):1-18.

Keiser,LaelR,andKennethJMeier.1996.“PolicyDesign,BureaucraticIncentives,andPublicManagement: The Case of Child Support Enforcement.” Journal of PublicAdministrationResearchandTheory6(3):337-364.

Knoepfel, Peter, Corinne Larrue, and FrédéricVarone. 2011.Public PolicyAnalysis. Bristol:TheUniversityofBristol:ThePolicyPress.

Krippendorff,Klaus.2013.ContentAnalysis:AnIntroductiontoitsMethodology.LosAngeles,London,NewDehli,Singapur,WashingtoD.C.:Sage.

Laffan, Brigid, and Jane O’Mahony. 2007. “Managing Europe from an Irish Perspective:CriticalJuncturesandtheincreasingFormalizationoftheCoreExecutiveinIreland.”PublicAdministration85(1):167-188.

Lafferty,William,andEivindHovden.2003. “EnvironmentalPolicy Integration:TowardsanAnalyticalFramework.”Environmentalpolitics12(3):1-22.

Lægreid, Per, and Lise H. Rykkja. ‘Hybrid Collaborative Arrangements: The WelfareAdministration inNorway – betweenHierarchy andNetwork’.PublicManagementReview17,no.7(2015):960–80.doi:10.1080/14719037.2015.1029349.

LeRoux,Brigitte,andHenryRouanet.2010.MultipleCorrespondenceAnalysis.LosAngeles:Sage.

Lenschow, Andrea. 2002. Environmental Policy Integration: Greening Sectoral Policies inEurope.London:Earthscan.

Lewis,Jane.2011."TheSearchforCoordination:TheCaseoftheCentralPolicyReviewStaffandSocialPolicyPlanning,1971-77."SocialPolicy&Administration45(7):770-87.

Maggetti, Martino. 2015. “Knowledge Progress in Comparative Political Science.” InComparativePolitics:TheoreticalandMethodologicalChallenges,editedbyDietmarBraunandMartinoMaggetti,154-185.Cheltenham:EdwardElgar.


24

Maggetti, Martino, and Fabrizio Gilardi. 2016. “Problems (and Solutions) in theMeasurementofPolicyDiffusionMechanisms.”JournalofPublicPolicy36(1):87-107.

Matland, Richard E. 1995. "Synthesizing the Implementation Literature: The Ambiguity-conflictModelofPolicyImplementation."JournalofPublicAdministrationResearchandTheory5(2):145-74.

Mawson, John, and Stephen Hall. 2013. “Joining It Up Locally? Area Regeneration andHolisticGovernmentinEngland.”RegionalStudies34(1):67-74.

May,PeterJ.,JoshuaSapotichne,andSamuelWorkman.2006.“PolicyCoherenceandPolicyDomains.”PolicyStudiesJournal34(3):381-403.

May, Peter J., Ashley E. Jochim, and Joshua Sapotichne. 2011. “Constructing HomelandSecurity:AnAnemicPolicyRegime.”PolicyStudiesJournal39(2):285-307.

May,PeterJ.,BryanD.Jones,BetsiE.Beem,EmilyA.Neff-Sharum,andMelissaK.Poague.2005. “Policy Coherence and Component-Driven Policymaking: Arctic Policy inCanadaandtheUnitedStates.”PolicyStudiesJournal33(1):37-63.

McLaughlin, Milbrey W. 1987. "Learning from Experience: Lessons from PolicyImplementation."EducationalEvaluationandPolicyAnalysis9(2):171-8.

Nilsson,Måns.2005.“Learning,Frames,andEnvironmentalPolicy Integration:TheCaseofSwedish Energy Policy.” Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 23(2):207-226.

Nilsson,Måns, andKatarina Eckerberg. 2007.Environmental Policy Integration in Practice:ShapingInstitutionsforLearning.London:Earthscan.

Oberthür, Sebastian. 2009. "Interplay Management: Enhancing Environmental PolicyIntegration among International Institutions." International EnvironmentalAgreements:Politics,LawandEconomics9(4):371-91.

Pierson, Paul, and Stephan Leibfried. 1995. “The Dynamics of Social Policy Integration.”EuropeanSocialPolicy:432-465.

Roberts,NancyC,andLindaWargo.1994. “TheDilemmaofPlanning inLarge-ScalePublicOrganizations:TheCaseoftheUnitedStatesNavy.”JournalofPublicAdministrationResearchandTheory4(4):469-491.

Ross, Stuart, Marion Frere, Lucy Healey, and Cathy Humphreys. 2011. "A Whole ofGovernment Strategy for Family Violence Reform." Australian Journal of PublicAdministration70(2):131-42.

Sanchirico, James N, Josh Eagle, Steve Palumbi, and Jr Thompson, Barton H. 2009.“Comprehensiveplanning,dominant-usezones,anduserrights:anewareainoceangovernance.”BulletinofMarineSciences(2):273-285.

Sang,N,RVBirnie,AGeddes,NGBayfield,JLMidgley,DMShucksmith,andDElston.2005."ImprovingtheRuralDataInfrastructure:theProblemofAddressableSpatialUnitsinaRuralContext."LandUsePolicy22(2):175-86.

Schaffrin, André, Sebastian Sewerin, and Sibylle Seubert. 2015. "Toward a comparativemeasureofclimatepolicyoutput."PolicyStudiesJournal43(2):257-82.

Schout, Adriaan, and Andrew Jordan. 2005. "Coordinated European Governance: Self-OrganizingorCentrallySteered?"PublicAdministration83(1):201–20.

Signoretta, Paola, andMassimo Craglia. 2002. "Joined-upGovernment in Practice: A CaseStudyofChildren'sNeedsinSheffield."LocalGovernmentStudies28(1):59-76.

Thomas, James, and Angela Harden. 2008. “Methods for the Thematic Synthesis ofQualitativeResearchinSystematicReviews.”BMCMedicalResearchMethodology8(1):1.


25

Tosun, Jale, and Achim Lang. 2017. “Policy Integration:Mapping the Different Concepts.”PolicyStudies38(6):553-70.

Tosun,Jale,andSamuelWorkman.2017."StruggleandTriumphinfusingPolicyProcessandComparative Research." In Theories of the policy process, ed. C.M.Weible and P.Sabatier.Boulder,CO:WestviewPress,329-62.

Trein,Philipp.2017."CoevolutionofPolicySectors:AComparativeAnalysisofHealthCareandPublicHealth."PublicAdministration95(3):744-58.

Trein,Philipp.2015. “Co-evolutionofPolicySectors:HealthCareandPublicHealth inFiveCountries.” Ph.D., Department of Political, Historical and International Studies,UniversityofLausanne.

Tufféry, Stéphane. 2011.DataMiningand Statistics forDecisionMaking. Chichester: JohnWiley&Sons.

Ugland,Trygve,andFrodeVeggeland.2006."ExperimentsinFoodSafetyPolicyIntegrationintheEuropeanUnion."JCMS:JournalofCommonMarketStudies44(3):607-24.

van Schendelen, Rinus. 2002. Machiavelli in Brussels: The Art of Lobbying the EU.Amsterdam:AmsterdamUniversityPress.

Varone,Frédéric,StéphaneNahrath,DavidAubin,andJean-DavidGerber.2013."FunctionalRegulatorySpaces."PolicySciences46(4):311-33.

Weber,Miriam,andPeterPJDriessen.2010."EnvironmentalPolicyIntegration:theRoleofPolicyWindows in the IntegrationofNoiseandSpatialPlanning."EnvironmentandPlanningC:GovernmentandPolicy28(6):1120-34.

Weible,ChristopherM.,andPaulSabatier,eds.2017.TheoriesofthePolicyProcess.Boulder,CO:WestviewPress.

Urwin,Kate,andAndrewJordan.2008."DoesPublicPolicySupportorUndermineClimateChange Adaptation? Exploring Policy Interplay across Different Scales ofGovernance."GlobalEnvironmentalChange18(1):180-91.


26

Graphsandtables

Figure1:Publicationsofarticlesperyear

Table1:Distributionofvariablesacrossgroups(inpercentofitemsinarticlegroup(PIor

JUG/WOG))8

PI JUG/WOG PI JUG/WOGCountryfocus Policyfocus Anglo-Sax. 22.4 65.9 Econ./Fin.Pol. 6.6 15.9Scand. 11.8 13.6 Soc./Heal./Ed.Pol. 15.8 52.3Cont.Eur. 10.5 4.5 Env.Pol. 69.7 9.1South.Eur. 2.6 2.3 Clim.Pol. 23.7 2.3EU 11.8 0 EnergyPol. 10.5 4.5No/Other 22.3 9.1 Infra./Land.Pol. 47.4 11.4AcrossGroups 18.4 4.5 Food/Agri.Pol. 11.8 9.1

8Thesampleconsistsof76PIand44JUG/WOGarticles.


27

Policyresearchdesign

Techn.Pol. 5.3 2.3

Admin.Ref./No.Pol.

0 36.3 Theoreticalfocus

SinglePol. 82.9 63.6 Soc.-Econ. 6.6 6.8Comp.Pol. 17.1 0 Neg.Eff.Inst. 88.2 79.5Countryresearchdesign

Pos.Eff.Inst. 11.8 20.5

Sing.Count. 43.4 61.4 Diffusion 13.2 2.3Comp.Count. 38.1 20.5 Learning 15.8 11.4

Concept.Art. 18.4 18.1 Pol.Ideas 14.5 9.1Method Actor 22.4 27.3Qual.Meth. 76.3 81.8 Politics 9.2 18.2Quant.Meth. 1.3 0 Implem. 23.7 36.4MixedMeth. 7.9 4.5 Pol.Instrum. 14.5 4.5NoMeth. 14.4 13.6 Pol.Capac. 10.5 18.2


28

Figure2:Dimensions1and2oftheMCAshowingmethods,researchdesign,andcountries9

9Tocontinuewiththeanalysis,inthefollowingwefocusonlyonthevariablesthatcontributeatleast1%totheexplanationoftheinertiawithintherespectivedimension.


29

Figure3:Dimensions1and2oftheMCAshowingpolicyfields,countries,andtheoretical

approaches


30

Figure4:Theoreticalsimilaritiesanddifferencesbetweengroups(summarystatistics)10

10Thegraphsshowthecountforeachofthetheoreticalcategoriesperarticlegroup.TotakeintoconsiderationthedifferentsamplesizesforPIandJUG/WOGarticlesweinsertedaweightwhencreatingFigure4.Notably,weweighedthearticlesinthesecondgroup(JUG/WOG)by1.73,whichreflectstherelationshipof76PIto44JUG/WOGarticlesinthesample.

The Coordination and Integration of Public Policies: A ...€¦ · different policy goals or...

Documents

Transcript of The Coordination and Integration of Public Policies: A ...€¦ · different policy goals or...