By
Shahab Sabahi – Energy and Environment for Development – Research Group
Along with the advent of globalization, climate change, sustainable development, and etc., public policy scholars have recognized the problems associated with horizontal policy integration (cross-cutting). Horizontal policy integration is understood as balancing variety of public-wide objectives (e.g. economic growth, social development, distribution of wealth, environment protection). Indeed horizontal public policy integration aims to balance between interests and trade-offs of public-wide objectives. In theory, the balancing occurs when the integrated public policy maximizes (minimizes) synergies (negative impacts) of the all objectives.
Traditionally, the policy formulation was largely defined within the framework of BUREAUCRACY. Bureaucracy is the hierarchy-based model of institutional function that described by Max Weber in the 20s. It has been widely accepted as an optimal way to organize an institution in order to achieve maximum EFFICIENCY. Horizontal policy integration is (in particular under the context of sustainable development policy, global governance) a policy formulating process that is dominated by cross-administrative practices rather than high-profile political decisions (Steurer & Martinuzzi, 2007; Steurer, 2008). Therefore the efficiency of the whole system is not the sole objective of horizontal public policy. Sustainability and effectiveness of the whole system are as important as efficiency.
The challenge of horizontal policy integration is still pressing. Against this background, new paradigms have emerged to define how cross-administration policy should be deigned. The two most popular ones are namely New Public Management (the market-oriented model that emerged in the 1980s) and New Governance (the network-centred response to the market-hype in public administration). The guiding principle of New Governance is not efficiency but effectiveness (Jackson, 2001; Salamon, 2002; Jervis & Richards, 1997).
Evidently none of these paradigms effectively addresses the challenge of horizontal policy integration. Due to complexity of large integrated systems, “New Governance” faces difficult challenges. Driving forces are hard to understand and measured. Driving forces differ strongly from country to country and influenced by culture elements and value systems.
Along with the advent of globalization, climate change, sustainable development, and etc., public policy scholars have recognized the problems associated with horizontal policy integration (cross-cutting). Horizontal policy integration is understood as balancing variety of public-wide objectives (e.g. economic growth, social development, distribution of wealth, environment protection). Indeed horizontal public policy integration aims to balance between interests and trade-offs of public-wide objectives. In theory, the balancing occurs when the integrated public policy maximizes (minimizes) synergies (negative impacts) of the all objectives.
Traditionally, the policy formulation was largely defined within the framework of BUREAUCRACY. Bureaucracy is the hierarchy-based model of institutional function that described by Max Weber in the 20s. It has been widely accepted as an optimal way to organize an institution in order to achieve maximum EFFICIENCY. Horizontal policy integration is (in particular under the context of sustainable development policy, global governance) a policy formulating process that is dominated by cross-administrative practices rather than high-profile political decisions (Steurer & Martinuzzi, 2007; Steurer, 2008). Therefore the efficiency of the whole system is not the sole objective of horizontal public policy. Sustainability and effectiveness of the whole system are as important as efficiency.
The challenge of horizontal policy integration is still pressing. Against this background, new paradigms have emerged to define how cross-administration policy should be deigned. The two most popular ones are namely New Public Management (the market-oriented model that emerged in the 1980s) and New Governance (the network-centred response to the market-hype in public administration). The guiding principle of New Governance is not efficiency but effectiveness (Jackson, 2001; Salamon, 2002; Jervis & Richards, 1997).
Evidently none of these paradigms effectively addresses the challenge of horizontal policy integration. Due to complexity of large integrated systems, “New Governance” faces difficult challenges. Driving forces are hard to understand and measured. Driving forces differ strongly from country to country and influenced by culture elements and value systems.
