Boundary-Crossing Strategies: Managing Macro Policies in a Federal Government
Peer Review Report
Main Article Content
Pedro Cavalcante
Gabriela Spanghero Lotta
Abstract
Objectives: this paper aims to analyze boundary-crossing strategies, henceforth BCS, a complex and relatively new coordination trend in public administration. To do so, we investigated how three prioritized coordination policies from different sectors were designed and implemented in Brazil. Methods: following a literature review on BCS, the paper employs content analysis of the programs’ legislation and government white papers. To understand how the programs actually functioned, we interviewed key government stakeholders. Results: they suggest that two macro policies incorporated most of the boundary-crossing features in their formal design and, more importantly, implementation processes. However, the degree to which these characteristics are present varies according to the research focus or the interviewee’s position. Conclusions: main findings of BCS strategy are that policy effectiveness and continuity depend on the consensus of different stakeholders about policy goals; the empowerment of leaders; adoption of new coordination instruments; and continuing policy prioritization. Finally, by exploring the adaptation of an international trend to the Brazilian public administration context, the paper shows crucial insights for innovation in terms of policy coordination and implementation.
Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
Download data is not yet available.
Article Details
How to Cite
Cavalcante, P., & Lotta, G. S. (2021). Boundary-Crossing Strategies: Managing Macro Policies in a Federal Government. Journal of Contemporary Administration, 25(5), e200012. https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-7849rac2021200012.en
Section
Articles
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Since mid-February of 2023, the authors retain the copyright relating to their article and grant the journal RAC, from ANPAD, the right of first publication, with the work simultaneously licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC BY 4.0), as stated in the article’s PDF document. This license provides that the article published can be shared (allows you to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format) and adapted (allows you to remix, transform, and create from the material for any purpose, even commercial) by anyone.
After article acceptance, the authors must sign a Term of Authorization for Publication, which is sent to the authors by e-mail for electronic signature before publication.
References
Abrucio, F. L. (2007). Trajetória recente da gestão pública brasileira: Um balanço crítico e a renovação da agenda de Reformas. Revista de Administração Pública - RAP, 41(spe), 67-86. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0034-76122007000700005
Arantes, R. B., Loureiro, M. R., Couto, C., & Teixeira, M. A. C. (2010). Controles democráticos sobre a administração pública no Brasil: Legislativo, tribunais de contas, Judiciário e Ministério Público. In M. R. Loureiro, F. L. Abrucio, R. S. Pacheco (Eds.), Burocracia e política no Brasil: Desafios para o estado democrático no século XXI. Rio de Janeiro: FGV Editora.
Arbix, G., Salerno, M. S., Amaral, G., & Lins, L. M. (2017). Avanços, equívocos e instabilidade das políticas de inovação no Brasil. Novos estudos CEBRAP, 36(3), 9-27. https://doi.org/10.25091/s0101-3300201700030002
Batjargal, B., Hitt, M. A., Tsui, A. S., Arregle, J.-L., Webb, J. W., & Miller, T. L. (2013). Institutional polycentrism, entrepreneurs’ social networks, and new venture growth. Academy of Management Journal, 56(4), 1024–1049. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.0095
Birrell, D. (2008). The final outcomes of the review of public administration in Northern Ireland. Tensions and compatibility with devolution, parity and modernization. Public Administration, 86(3), 779-793. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2008.00725.x
Boston, J., & Eichbaum, C. (2008). Financial management and democratic accountability: Lessons from New Zealand. In M. Ezzamel, N. Hyndman, Å. Johnsen & I. Lapsley (Eds.), Accounting in politics: Devolution and democratic accountability. London: Routledge
Bouckaert, G., Peters, B. G, & Verhoest, K. (2010). The coordination of public sector organizations. New York: Palgrave Macmillan Hampshire.
Brasil. (2011a) Plano plurianual – PPA 2012-2015. Ministério do Planejamento, Orçamento e Gestão: Secretaria de Planejamento e Investimentos Estratégicos. Brasília, DF, Brazil. Retrieved from https://www.gov.br/economia/pt-br/assuntos/planejamento/plano-plurianual-ppa/ppa-2012-2015
Brasil. (2011b). Mensagem ao congresso nacional. Presidência da República do Brasil. Brasília. Retrieved from http://www.biblioteca.presidencia.gov.br/publicacoes-oficiais/mensagem-ao-congresso-nacional/mensagem-ao-congresso-nacional-dilma-rousseff-2011.pdf/view
Brasil. (2012). Mensagem ao Congresso Nacional. Presidência da República do Brasil. Brasília. Retrieved from http://www.biblioteca.presidencia.gov.br/publicacoes-oficiais/mensagem-ao-congresso-nacional/mensagem-ao-congresso-nacional-dilma-rousseff-2012/view
Brasil. (2013). Mensagem ao Congresso Nacional. Presidência da República do Brasil. Brasília. Retrieved from http://www.biblioteca.presidencia.gov.br/publicacoes-oficiais/mensagem-ao-congresso-nacional/mensagem-ao-congresso-nacional-dilma-rousseff-2013/view
Brasil. (2014). Mensagem ao Congresso Nacional. Presidência da República do Brasil. Brasília. Retrieved from http://www.biblioteca.presidencia.gov.br/publicacoes-oficiais/mensagem-ao-congresso-nacional/mensagem-ao-congresso-nacional-dilma-rousseff-2014/view
Cavalcante, P. (2017). Gestão pública contemporânea: Do movimento gerencialista ao pós-NPM. Brasília: Instituto de Pesquisa Econômica Aplicada-IPEA.
Christensen, T., & Lægreid, P. (2007) The whole‐of‐government approach to public sector reform. Public Administration Review, 67(6), 1059-1066. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2007.00797.x
Christensen, T., & Lægreid, P. (2012). Competing principles of agency organization: The reorganization of a reform. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 78(4), 579–596. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0020852312455306
Cohen, L., Mansion, L., & Morrison, K. (2000). Research methods in education (5 ed.). London: Routledge.
Denzin, N. K. (2006). Sociological methods: A sourcebook (1st ed.). New York: Routledge.
Dommett, K., & Flinders, M. (2015). The centre strikes back: Meta‐governance, delegation, and the core executive in the United Kingdom, 2010–14. Public Administration, 93(1), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12121
Dunleavy, P., Margetts, H., Bastow, S., & Tinkler, J. (2006). New public management is dead — long live digital-era governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16(3), 467-494. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mui057
Ejersbo, N., & Greve, C. (2016). Relevance of management instruments. In C. Greve, P. Lægreid, & L. H. Rykkja (Eds.), Nordic administrative reforms: Lessons for public management (pp. 129-144). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Elston, T., MacCarthaigh, M., & Verhoest, K. (2018). Collaborative cost-cutting: Productive efficiency as an interdependency between public organizations. Public Management Review, 20(12), 1815-1835. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2018.1438498
Faling, M., Biesbroek, R., Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen, S., & Termeer, K. (2019). Policy entrepreneurship across boundaries: A systematic literature review. Journal of Public Policy, 39(2), 393-422. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0143814X18000053
Fossestøl, K., Breit, E., Andreassen, T. A., & Klemsdal, L. (2015). Managing institutional complexity in public sector reform: Hybridization in front‐line service organizations. Public Administration, 93(2), 290-306. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12144
Goldfinch, S. & Wallis, J. L. (2009). International handbook of public management reform. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Goldfinch, S. (2009). New Zealand: Reforming a new public management exemplar? In S. Goldfinch, & J. L. Wallis (Eds.), International handbook of public management reform (chap. 9). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Gomide, A., & Pires, R. (2014). Capacidades estatais e democracia: A abordagem dos arranjos institucionais para análise de políticas públicas. Brasília: Instituto de Pesquisa
Greve, C., Lægreid, P., & Rykkja, L. H. (2016). Nordic administrative reforms: Lessons for public management. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Ingold, J. (2018). Employer engagement in active labour market programmes: The role of boundary spanners. Public Administration, 96(4), 707–720. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12545
Jesus, M. S. (2011). Estudos das necessidades de informação dos coordenadores da sala de situação do Programa de aceleração do crescimento (PAC) (Master thesis). Universidade de Brasília, Brasília, DF, Brazil.
Kolltveit, K. (2015). Strengthening of the executive center: Looking beyond NPM as the explanation for change. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 81(1), 18–36. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0020852314541566
Lægreid, P., Sarapuu, K., Rykkja, L., & Randma-Liiv, T. (2016). Organizing for coordination in the public sector: Practices and lessons from 12 European countries. London: Palgrave MacMillan
Lam, W. F. (2005). Coordinating the government bureaucracy in Hong Kong: An institutional analysis. Governance, 18(4), 633-654. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0491.2005.00295.x
Lazzarini, S., Pongeluppe, L., Ito, N., Oliveira, F., & Ovanessoff, A. (2020). Public capacity, plural forms of collaboration, and the performance of public initiatives: A configurational approach. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 30(4), 579-595. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muaa007
Lei nº 12.593, de 18 de janeiro de 2012. (2012). Institui o plano plurianual da união para o período de 2012 a 2015. Diário Oficial da União, Brasília, DF: Ministério do Planejamento, Orçamento e Gestão.
Lodge, M., & Gill, D. (2011). Toward a new era of administrative reform? The myth of post‐NPM in New Zealand. Governance, 24(1), 141-166. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0491.2010.01508.x
Lotta, G., & Favareto, A. (2016). Desafios da integração nos novos arranjos institucionais de políticas públicas no Brasil. Revista de Sociologia e Política, 24(57), 49-65. https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-987316245704
Loureiro, M. R., Abrucio, F. L., Olivieri, C., & Teixeira, M. A. C. (2012). Do controle interno ao controle social: A múltipla atuação da CGU na democracia brasileira. Cadernos Gestão Pública e Cidadania, 17(60), 54-67. https://doi.org/10.12660/cgpc.v17n60.3980
Meerkerk, I. V., & Edelenbos, J. (2018). Facilitating conditions for boundary-spanning behaviour in governance networks. Public Management Review, 20(4), 503-524. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2017.1302248
Moretto, A. J. (2014). Brazilian strategy against poverty: the bolsa familia and Brazil sem miséria. In K. Fakier, & E. Ehmke (Orgs.), Socio-Economic Insecurity in Emerging Economies (pp. 160-174). London: Routlege/Eathscan
O’Fynn, J., Blackman, D., & Halligan, J. (2013). Crossing boundaries in public management and policy: The international experience. London: Routledge.
Ostrom, E. (2005). Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Ostrom, E. (2010). Beyond markets and states: Polycentric governance of complex economic systems. American Economic Review, 100(3), 641–672. https://doi.org/110.1257/aer.100.3.641
Peters, B. G. (2015). Pursuing horizontal management: The politics of public sector coordination. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.
Pires, R. R. C. (2015). Por dentro do PAC: Dos arranjos formais às interações e práticas dos seus operadores. In P. Cavalcante, G. Lotta. (Orgs.), Burocracia de médio escalão: Perfil, trajetória e atuação (pp. 177-222). Brasília: Escola Nacional de Administração Pública - ENAP.
Pollitt, C. (2010). Simply the best? The international benchmarking of reform and good governance. In J. Pierre, P. W. Ingraham (Eds.), Comparative administrative change and reform: Lessons learned (pp. 91-113). Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
Rezende, F. C. (2004). Por que falham as reformas administrativas? Rio de Janeiro: Editora FGV.
Schapiro, M., (2014). Ativismo estatal e industrialismo defensivo: Instrumentos e capacidades na política industrial brasileira. In A. Gomide, R. Pires. (Orgs.), Capacidades estatais e democracia: Arranjos institucionais de políticas públicas. Rio de Janeiro: Instituto de Pesquisa Econômica Aplicada - IPEA. Retrieved from https://direitosp.fgv.br/node/87826
Teixeira, L. R., & Teixeira, M. A. C. (2019). Arquitetura da participação social no Brasil: Um espaço em construção. Revista Iberoamericana de Estudios Municipales, (20), 33-57. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0719-17902019000200033
Torfing, J. (2019). Collaborative innovation in the public sector: The argument. Public Management Review, 21(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2018.1430248
Verhoest, K., Bouckaert, G., & Peters, B. G. (2007). Janus-faced reorganization: Specialization and coordination in four OECD countries in the period 1980—2005. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 73(3), 325-348. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0020852307081144
Wegrich, K. (2009). The administrative burden reduction policy boom in Europe: Comparing mechanisms of policy diffusion [Discussion Paper 52]. Centre for Analysis of Risk and Regulation, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK.
Arantes, R. B., Loureiro, M. R., Couto, C., & Teixeira, M. A. C. (2010). Controles democráticos sobre a administração pública no Brasil: Legislativo, tribunais de contas, Judiciário e Ministério Público. In M. R. Loureiro, F. L. Abrucio, R. S. Pacheco (Eds.), Burocracia e política no Brasil: Desafios para o estado democrático no século XXI. Rio de Janeiro: FGV Editora.
Arbix, G., Salerno, M. S., Amaral, G., & Lins, L. M. (2017). Avanços, equívocos e instabilidade das políticas de inovação no Brasil. Novos estudos CEBRAP, 36(3), 9-27. https://doi.org/10.25091/s0101-3300201700030002
Batjargal, B., Hitt, M. A., Tsui, A. S., Arregle, J.-L., Webb, J. W., & Miller, T. L. (2013). Institutional polycentrism, entrepreneurs’ social networks, and new venture growth. Academy of Management Journal, 56(4), 1024–1049. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.0095
Birrell, D. (2008). The final outcomes of the review of public administration in Northern Ireland. Tensions and compatibility with devolution, parity and modernization. Public Administration, 86(3), 779-793. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2008.00725.x
Boston, J., & Eichbaum, C. (2008). Financial management and democratic accountability: Lessons from New Zealand. In M. Ezzamel, N. Hyndman, Å. Johnsen & I. Lapsley (Eds.), Accounting in politics: Devolution and democratic accountability. London: Routledge
Bouckaert, G., Peters, B. G, & Verhoest, K. (2010). The coordination of public sector organizations. New York: Palgrave Macmillan Hampshire.
Brasil. (2011a) Plano plurianual – PPA 2012-2015. Ministério do Planejamento, Orçamento e Gestão: Secretaria de Planejamento e Investimentos Estratégicos. Brasília, DF, Brazil. Retrieved from https://www.gov.br/economia/pt-br/assuntos/planejamento/plano-plurianual-ppa/ppa-2012-2015
Brasil. (2011b). Mensagem ao congresso nacional. Presidência da República do Brasil. Brasília. Retrieved from http://www.biblioteca.presidencia.gov.br/publicacoes-oficiais/mensagem-ao-congresso-nacional/mensagem-ao-congresso-nacional-dilma-rousseff-2011.pdf/view
Brasil. (2012). Mensagem ao Congresso Nacional. Presidência da República do Brasil. Brasília. Retrieved from http://www.biblioteca.presidencia.gov.br/publicacoes-oficiais/mensagem-ao-congresso-nacional/mensagem-ao-congresso-nacional-dilma-rousseff-2012/view
Brasil. (2013). Mensagem ao Congresso Nacional. Presidência da República do Brasil. Brasília. Retrieved from http://www.biblioteca.presidencia.gov.br/publicacoes-oficiais/mensagem-ao-congresso-nacional/mensagem-ao-congresso-nacional-dilma-rousseff-2013/view
Brasil. (2014). Mensagem ao Congresso Nacional. Presidência da República do Brasil. Brasília. Retrieved from http://www.biblioteca.presidencia.gov.br/publicacoes-oficiais/mensagem-ao-congresso-nacional/mensagem-ao-congresso-nacional-dilma-rousseff-2014/view
Cavalcante, P. (2017). Gestão pública contemporânea: Do movimento gerencialista ao pós-NPM. Brasília: Instituto de Pesquisa Econômica Aplicada-IPEA.
Christensen, T., & Lægreid, P. (2007) The whole‐of‐government approach to public sector reform. Public Administration Review, 67(6), 1059-1066. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2007.00797.x
Christensen, T., & Lægreid, P. (2012). Competing principles of agency organization: The reorganization of a reform. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 78(4), 579–596. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0020852312455306
Cohen, L., Mansion, L., & Morrison, K. (2000). Research methods in education (5 ed.). London: Routledge.
Denzin, N. K. (2006). Sociological methods: A sourcebook (1st ed.). New York: Routledge.
Dommett, K., & Flinders, M. (2015). The centre strikes back: Meta‐governance, delegation, and the core executive in the United Kingdom, 2010–14. Public Administration, 93(1), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12121
Dunleavy, P., Margetts, H., Bastow, S., & Tinkler, J. (2006). New public management is dead — long live digital-era governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16(3), 467-494. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mui057
Ejersbo, N., & Greve, C. (2016). Relevance of management instruments. In C. Greve, P. Lægreid, & L. H. Rykkja (Eds.), Nordic administrative reforms: Lessons for public management (pp. 129-144). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Elston, T., MacCarthaigh, M., & Verhoest, K. (2018). Collaborative cost-cutting: Productive efficiency as an interdependency between public organizations. Public Management Review, 20(12), 1815-1835. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2018.1438498
Faling, M., Biesbroek, R., Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen, S., & Termeer, K. (2019). Policy entrepreneurship across boundaries: A systematic literature review. Journal of Public Policy, 39(2), 393-422. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0143814X18000053
Fossestøl, K., Breit, E., Andreassen, T. A., & Klemsdal, L. (2015). Managing institutional complexity in public sector reform: Hybridization in front‐line service organizations. Public Administration, 93(2), 290-306. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12144
Goldfinch, S. & Wallis, J. L. (2009). International handbook of public management reform. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Goldfinch, S. (2009). New Zealand: Reforming a new public management exemplar? In S. Goldfinch, & J. L. Wallis (Eds.), International handbook of public management reform (chap. 9). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Gomide, A., & Pires, R. (2014). Capacidades estatais e democracia: A abordagem dos arranjos institucionais para análise de políticas públicas. Brasília: Instituto de Pesquisa
Greve, C., Lægreid, P., & Rykkja, L. H. (2016). Nordic administrative reforms: Lessons for public management. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Ingold, J. (2018). Employer engagement in active labour market programmes: The role of boundary spanners. Public Administration, 96(4), 707–720. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12545
Jesus, M. S. (2011). Estudos das necessidades de informação dos coordenadores da sala de situação do Programa de aceleração do crescimento (PAC) (Master thesis). Universidade de Brasília, Brasília, DF, Brazil.
Kolltveit, K. (2015). Strengthening of the executive center: Looking beyond NPM as the explanation for change. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 81(1), 18–36. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0020852314541566
Lægreid, P., Sarapuu, K., Rykkja, L., & Randma-Liiv, T. (2016). Organizing for coordination in the public sector: Practices and lessons from 12 European countries. London: Palgrave MacMillan
Lam, W. F. (2005). Coordinating the government bureaucracy in Hong Kong: An institutional analysis. Governance, 18(4), 633-654. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0491.2005.00295.x
Lazzarini, S., Pongeluppe, L., Ito, N., Oliveira, F., & Ovanessoff, A. (2020). Public capacity, plural forms of collaboration, and the performance of public initiatives: A configurational approach. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 30(4), 579-595. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muaa007
Lei nº 12.593, de 18 de janeiro de 2012. (2012). Institui o plano plurianual da união para o período de 2012 a 2015. Diário Oficial da União, Brasília, DF: Ministério do Planejamento, Orçamento e Gestão.
Lodge, M., & Gill, D. (2011). Toward a new era of administrative reform? The myth of post‐NPM in New Zealand. Governance, 24(1), 141-166. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0491.2010.01508.x
Lotta, G., & Favareto, A. (2016). Desafios da integração nos novos arranjos institucionais de políticas públicas no Brasil. Revista de Sociologia e Política, 24(57), 49-65. https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-987316245704
Loureiro, M. R., Abrucio, F. L., Olivieri, C., & Teixeira, M. A. C. (2012). Do controle interno ao controle social: A múltipla atuação da CGU na democracia brasileira. Cadernos Gestão Pública e Cidadania, 17(60), 54-67. https://doi.org/10.12660/cgpc.v17n60.3980
Meerkerk, I. V., & Edelenbos, J. (2018). Facilitating conditions for boundary-spanning behaviour in governance networks. Public Management Review, 20(4), 503-524. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2017.1302248
Moretto, A. J. (2014). Brazilian strategy against poverty: the bolsa familia and Brazil sem miséria. In K. Fakier, & E. Ehmke (Orgs.), Socio-Economic Insecurity in Emerging Economies (pp. 160-174). London: Routlege/Eathscan
O’Fynn, J., Blackman, D., & Halligan, J. (2013). Crossing boundaries in public management and policy: The international experience. London: Routledge.
Ostrom, E. (2005). Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Ostrom, E. (2010). Beyond markets and states: Polycentric governance of complex economic systems. American Economic Review, 100(3), 641–672. https://doi.org/110.1257/aer.100.3.641
Peters, B. G. (2015). Pursuing horizontal management: The politics of public sector coordination. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.
Pires, R. R. C. (2015). Por dentro do PAC: Dos arranjos formais às interações e práticas dos seus operadores. In P. Cavalcante, G. Lotta. (Orgs.), Burocracia de médio escalão: Perfil, trajetória e atuação (pp. 177-222). Brasília: Escola Nacional de Administração Pública - ENAP.
Pollitt, C. (2010). Simply the best? The international benchmarking of reform and good governance. In J. Pierre, P. W. Ingraham (Eds.), Comparative administrative change and reform: Lessons learned (pp. 91-113). Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
Rezende, F. C. (2004). Por que falham as reformas administrativas? Rio de Janeiro: Editora FGV.
Schapiro, M., (2014). Ativismo estatal e industrialismo defensivo: Instrumentos e capacidades na política industrial brasileira. In A. Gomide, R. Pires. (Orgs.), Capacidades estatais e democracia: Arranjos institucionais de políticas públicas. Rio de Janeiro: Instituto de Pesquisa Econômica Aplicada - IPEA. Retrieved from https://direitosp.fgv.br/node/87826
Teixeira, L. R., & Teixeira, M. A. C. (2019). Arquitetura da participação social no Brasil: Um espaço em construção. Revista Iberoamericana de Estudios Municipales, (20), 33-57. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0719-17902019000200033
Torfing, J. (2019). Collaborative innovation in the public sector: The argument. Public Management Review, 21(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2018.1430248
Verhoest, K., Bouckaert, G., & Peters, B. G. (2007). Janus-faced reorganization: Specialization and coordination in four OECD countries in the period 1980—2005. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 73(3), 325-348. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0020852307081144
Wegrich, K. (2009). The administrative burden reduction policy boom in Europe: Comparing mechanisms of policy diffusion [Discussion Paper 52]. Centre for Analysis of Risk and Regulation, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK.