The autonomy of government agencies in Germany and Norway: explaining variation in management autonomy across countries and agencies

Abstract

1 This article reports the results of a comparative analysis of the human resources management (HRM) autonomy of government agencies in Germany and Norway. Whereas the academic literature largely focuses on ministry-agency relations in countries where agencies have been only recently established, these two countries have a long tradition of delegation to agencies outside ministerial departments. However, although sharing a broadly similar administrative tradition, each country differs with regard to the management reform trajectory. This allows an empirical test to be carried out of the effects of management reforms on HRM autonomy, drawing on survey data. The article also discusses the literature on how task characteristics and formal agency structure supposedly affect agency autonomy and puts these claims to an empirical test. The empirical analysis reveals cross-country differences, a somewhat limited effect of task characteristics, and a clear effect of formal structure on de facto HRM autonomy, especially in the German context.

Transnational Bureaucratic Politics: An Institutional Rivalry Perspective on Eu Network Governance

“…The literature review in this article and the articles in the symposium suggest that the actual autonomy of agencies may differ quite substantially from their formal autonomy, a finding which is consistent with research on national agencies (Yesilkagit and van Thiel ; Maggetti ; Bach ). Due to their nature as networked agencies, the actual autonomy of supranational agencies needs to be assessed in conjunction with the formal and actual powers of those national agencies incorporated in the decision‐making structures of the supranational agencies (Mathieu ), as well as with the institutional interests of national agencies (Heims ; Busuioc ).…”

Autonomy and managerial reforms in Europe: Let or make public managers manage?

“…The three Scandinavian countries have a similar profile, with managerial autonomy being high and broadly homogeneous (except in Sweden) between types of organization and hierarchical levels, and again largely determined by the relatively wide degree of leeway in human resource management. In placing the emphasis on HRM‐related autonomy, our findings are consistent with studies that highlight the importance of reforms that have increased the flexibility of civil services in the Scandinavian countries and their effects on managerial autonomy (see Bach on Norway).…”

“…In the Scandinavian countries, which have a long‐standing agency tradition, it has been common practice to grant decentralized powers to lower echelons (agencies and also local government), specifically on HRM issues such as collective bargaining decisions, including recruitment and wage determination (Ibsen et al ; for Norway, Bach ). Civil service reforms have been accompanied by increasing flexibility in employment and greater managerial autonomy.…”

Comparing the autonomy of international public administrations: An ideal‐type approach

“…From a conceptual viewpoint, it is problematic, however, to treat autonomy of will and action as equally relevant and independent. Doing so risks obscuring differences in certain autonomy dimensions that are relevant for studying its causes and consequences (Bach , p. 344). An ideal‐type approach better accounts for the multi‐dimensional structure of autonomy and provides an analytic standard against which real‐world bureaucracies can be compared (Peters , p. 29; Knill , p. 116).…”