Public management and organizational autonomy: the continuing relevance of significant earlier knowledge

Abstract

A key theme of recent reforms in public management in various countries is the perceived need for many organizations in government to have a degree of legal and operational autonomy. In studying this and other aspects of the reforms, there is considerable merit in examining how the underlying ideas have been explored in earlier works. In this article, we argue that this is particularly relevant to the current interest in organizational autonomy. Pertinent ideas, issues and concerns were addressed several decades ago by scholars such as Macmahon, Seidman, Selznick and Follett. The contributions of these scholars have continuing analytical value and deserve to be revisited.

Symposium introduction: Dynamics of governance and civic engagement

“…Such bodies result from power and responsibility in governance being dispersed by delegation or devolution, both functionally and territorially, based on the acknowledged value of public participation through representation (OECD, 2002;Thynne and Wettenhall, 2004;UNDP, 2010). They are variously subject to the pushes and pulls of policy integration and operational autonomy in their spheres of activity.…”

Symposium Introduction: The Global Financial Crisis, Governance and Institutional Dynamics

“…Combinations of function and territory underlie decentralization initiatives based on delegation and devolution (Macmahon 1961;Thynne and Wettenhall 2004). These are components of subsidiarity schemes in which work and power of public significance, nationally and internationally, are logically and sensibly located in the most fitting place or space within or between sectors (Thynne and Massey 2009: 21).…”

“…Structural options are manifest in patterns of integration and autonomy, with centralized and decentralized structures and processes configured both vertically and horizontally (Thynne and Wettenhall 2004). Operational options involve facilitating and doing, or "steering" and "rowing" (Osborne and Gaebler 1992;Kettl 2000), with much scope for combinations of in-house and out-sourced action comprising mixes of production, provision and regulation.…”

Symposium introduction‐Climate change, governance and environmental services: Institutional perspectives, issues and challenges

“…7-8). The potentially counterpoising forces of autonomy and integration can be particularly potent not only for states as a whole, but often even more so for their various institutions, be they domestic or international (Thynne, 1998(Thynne, , 2000Thynne and Wettenhall, 2004). Also, the more institutions of the market and civil society become public actors in national and international arenas, the more the forces are applicable to them too.…”