Ministerial organization and the politics of policy integration in parliamentary democracies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The capacity to formulate cross-sectoral, integrated policies has become a functional requirement that governments face increasingly but seem ill-equipped to deal with because the organisational structure of ministries induces sectoral logics of policy coordination. The literature on policy integration (PI) suggests that reorganisations of governments, and the fusion of ministries in particular, may be instruments for PI. In this thesis, I combine the literature on PI with arguments from organisational theory, which has long studied the effects of organisational structure on coordination, to explore if the distribution of ministerial policy competences may act as a condition explaining the adoption of PI reforms. To answer this question, this study compares the adoption of PI in three policies: environmental protection, employment, and immigrant integration. Based on two novel datasets that cover ministerial organisation and PI reforms in nine parliamentary democracies (Australia, Austria, Canada, France, Germany, Netherlands, New Zealand, Sweden, United Kingdom) between 1970 and 2016, the study applies Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) to identify the complex combinations of political and organisational conditions under which governments adopt PI reforms. The findings show that organisational structure interacts with the preferences of the governing parties and governments’ executive capacity in complex patterns that vary between the policies, and are elucidated by case illustrations. -- La capacité à formuler des politiques intersectorielles et intégrées est devenue une exigence fonctionnelle à laquelle les gouvernements sont de plus en plus confrontés, mais pour laquelle ils semblent mal équipés, car la structure organisationnelle des ministères induit des logiques sectorielles de coordination. La littérature sur l'intégration des politiques publiques (PI) suggère que les réorganisations, et la fusion des ministères en particulier, peuvent faciliter l’adoption de réformes intégrant des politiques publiques. Dans cette thèse, je combine la littérature sur PI avec des arguments de la théorie organisationnelle, qui étudie depuis longtemps les effets de la structure organisationnelle sur la coordination, afin d’explorer si la répartition des compétences ministérielles peut constituer une condition expliquant l'adoption des réformes de l'IP. A cette fin, cette étude compare l'adoption de réformes de PI dans trois politiques publiques : la protection de l'environnement, l'emploi et l'intégration des immigrants. En se basant sur deux nouveaux ensembles de données couvrant l'organisation ministérielle et les réformes PI entre 1970 et 2016 dans neuf démocraties parlementaires (Australie, Autriche, Canada, France, Allemagne, Pays-Bas, Nouvelle- Zélande, Suède, Royaume-Uni), elle applique la Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) pour identifier les combinaisons complexes de conditions politiques et organisationnelles dans lesquelles les gouvernements adoptent des réformes de PI. Les résultats montrent que la structure organisationnelle interagit avec les préférences des partis au pouvoir et la capacité exécutive des gouvernements dans des schémas complexes qui varient d'une politique à l'autre, et sont élucidés par des illustrations de cas.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".