In this article, we explore how public front‐line service organizations respond to contradictory demands for institutional reform and the types of hybridization this entails. Our research context is a major administrative welfare reform in Norway characterized by a dominant New Public Management (NPM) logic of uniform user service and central administrative control, and a subordinate post‐NPM logic of holistic user service and local organizational autonomy. We elucidate four types of responses by the front‐line organizations as they have incorporated these contradictory demands: ‘non‐hybridity’ (ignoring post‐NPM demands), ‘ad hoc hybridity’ (indecisive adherence to both demands), ‘negative hybridity’ (separation of the demands), and ‘positive hybridity’ (integration of both demands). On the basis of these findings, we argue that hybridization and agency are possible in fields of public reform characterized by a highly institutionalized NPM logic and explore the key organizational characteristics that facilitate hybridization in such fields.

No abstract

Using as an example a project where the Norwegian Labor and Welfare Directorate developed a comprehensive model for the follow-up of low-income families, this article demonstrates the process of developing a program theory for policy-initiated interventions. The data consist of interviews with program developers, political documents from early stages, and observations of the program's development. The results demonstrate that, although research inspired the program developers, the program was also the outcome of policy priorities, experiences from earlier projects, and input from the practice field. Multiple sources contributed to its relevance for the practice field, however, increasing its complexity. The program includes several intervention levels and follow-up areas and partially builds on elements found to be important across interventions. Although a program theory can be difficult to conceptualize within policy-initiated interventions, it is important to articulate it prior to evaluation and, if necessary, reassess it when data have been analyzed.

No abstract

No abstract