Search

To unlock the full potential of ICT-related public sector innovation and digital transformation, governments must embrace collaborative working structures and leadership, is commonly argued. However, little is known about the dynamics of such collaborations in contexts of hierarchy, silo cultures, and procedural accountability. A widely voiced but empirically insufficiently substantiated claim is that bringing cross-cutting digital endeavours forward requires more lateral, network-based approaches to governance beyond traditional Weberian ideals. We test this claim by shedding light on three distinct challenges (complexity, risk, and power imbalance) encountered when implementing the specific collaborative case of the German Online Access Act (OAA) and by examining how they have been addressed in institutional design and leadership. Our analysis, which combines desk research and semi-structured expert interviews, reveals that flexible, horizontal approaches are on the rise. Taking a closer look, however, vertical coordination continues to serve as complementary means to problem-solving capability. Dass Regierungen kooperative Arbeitsstrukturen und Führungsformen annehmen müssten, ist eine gängige Forderung, um das Potenzial von IKT-bezogener Innovation und digitaler Transformation im öffentlichen Sektor auszuschöpfen. Bislang ist jedoch wenig über die Dynamik solcher Kooperationen unter Rahmenbedingungen bekannt, die durch Hierarchie, Silokulturen und prozedurale Verantwortlichkeit charakterisiert sind. Auch empirisch nicht ausreichend untermauert ist die weit verbreitete Behauptung, die Förderung bereichs-übergreifender, digitaler Bestrebungen erfordere laterale, netzwerkbasierte Governance-Ansätze, die über die traditionellen Weber'schen Ideale hinausgehen. Wir prüfen diese Annahme, indem wir drei spezifische Herausforderungen (Komplexität, Risikowahrnehmung und Machtasymmetrien), die bei der Umsetzung des deutschen Onlinezugangsgesetz (OZG) aufgetreten sind, näher beleuchten, und untersuchen, wie diesen mit Maßnahmen des institutionellen Designs und Leadership begegnet wurde. Unsere Analyse kombiniert Literaturrecherchen mit semi-strukturierten Experteninterviews und zeigt, dass flexible, horizontale Ansätze an Relevanz gewinnen. Gleichzeitig wird jedoch deutlich, dass vertikale Koordination weiterhin als komplementäres Mittel zur Problemlösung Anwendung findet.

Coordinating and integrating different policies and public sector organizations is a major challenge for practitioners and a continuing topic of interest for researchers. This Viewpoint essay argues that research on this topic needs reorientation to provide better insights for practice and theory of policy making, as well as policy implementation. The authors offer four suggestions on how future research could advance: (1) combining existing conceptual and epistemological approaches more systematically; (2) complementing case studies and surveys with large‐N analyses and novel research tools and methods; (3) more systematic analysis of the causal mechanisms in policy coordination and integration; and (4) more thorough study of the real‐world impact of policy coordination and integration.

Through an analysis of climate policy-making in the European Commission (EU), this article argues that co-ordination in the Commission displays the same characteristics as the co-ordination across ministries in central governments, i.e., the properties of negative co-ordination. The article is based on a survey among Commission officials. Overall, the article reveals that a public administration perspective on the Commission proves invaluable to gain insights on how decisions are made at the European Union level. The article contributes to the emerging literature viewing the Commission as an ordinary bureaucracy – as opposed to a unique supranational organization.