The Demise of an Agency Director – A Puzzling Saga of Political Control and Professional Autonomy

References

• Allison, G. T. (1971). Essence of decision. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.
   Google Scholar
• Brunsson, N. (1989). The organization of hypocrisy. Chichester, UK: John Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Brunsson, N., & Olsen, J. P. (1993). The reforming organization. London, UK: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Bye. (2017, Jan 5). Research in SSB. Report from a committee to discuss the future research strategy for SSB. Oslo, Norway: SSB.
   Google Scholar
• Carpenter, D. P. (2001). The forging of bureaucratic autonomy: Reputations, network, and policy innovations in executive agencies, 1862–1928. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Christensen, J. (2018). Economic knowledge and scientization of policy. Policy Science, 51, 291–311. doi:10.1007/s11077-018-9316-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Christensen, T. (2003). Narrative of Norwegian governance: Elaborating the strong state. Public Administration, 81(1), 163–190. doi:10.1111/1467-9299.00341
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Christensen, T., Egeberg, M., Lægreid, P., & Trondal, J. (2018). Sentralforvaltningen gjennom 40år. Stabilitet og endring (The central civil service through 40 years. Stability and change). Oslo, Norway: Universitetsforlaget.
   Google Scholar
• Christensen, T., & Lægreid, P. (2005). Trust in government – The relative importance of service satisfaction, political factors and demography. Public Performance & Management Review, 28(4), 487–511.
   Google Scholar
• Christensen, T., Lægreid, P., Roness, P. G., & Røvik, K. A. (2007). Organization theory and the public sector. Instrument, culture and myth. London, UK: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. (1963). A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Egeberg, M., & Trondal, J. (2009). Political leadership and bureaucratic autonomy: Effects of agencification. Governance, 22(4), 673–688. doi:10.1111/gove.2009.22.issue-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fischer, F. (2009). Democracy & expertise. Reorienting policy analyses. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gora, M., Holst, C., & Warat, M. (eds). (2018). Expertization and democracy in Europe. London, UK: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Greve, C., Lægreid, P., & Rykkja, L. H. (eds). (2016). Nordic administrative reforms. Lessons for public management. London, UK: Palgrave.
   Google Scholar
• Howard, C., & Bakvis, H. (2016). Conceptualizing interagency coordination as metagovernance: Complexity, dynamism, and learning in Australia and British Statistical Administration. International Journal of Public Administration, 39(6), 417–428. doi:10.1080/01900692.2015.1018427
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Innst. 199 S. (2017-2018). Report from the Scrutiny and Constitution Committee on the Handling of the Reorganization of SSB. The Norwegian Parliament
   Google Scholar
• Kingdon, J. (1984). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.
   Google Scholar
• Lægreid, P., Roness, P. G., & Rubecksen, K. (2012). Norway. In K. Verhoest, S. Van Thiel, G. Bouckaert, & P. Lægreid (Eds.), Government agencies: Practices and lessons from 30 Countries (234–244). Chapter 22. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Lægreid, P. (2014). New public management and public accountability”. In M. Bovens, R. E. Goodin, & T. Schillemans (Eds.), The oxford handbook of public accountability (pp. 324–338). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Levy, J. S. (2008). Case studies: Types, designs nd logics of influence. Conflict Management and Peace Science, 25(1), 1–18. doi:10.1080/07388940701860318
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maggetti, M. (2007). De facto independence after delegation.: A Fuzzy-set analysis. Regulation & Governance, 1(4), 271–294. doi:10.1111/rego.2007.1.issue-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maggetti, M., & Verhoest, K. (2014). Unexplored aspects of bureaucratic autonomy: A state of the field and ways forward. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 80(2), 239–256. doi:10.1177/0020852314524680
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mahoney, J., & Thelen, K. (2010). Explaining Institutional change. Ambiguity, agency, and power. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Maor, M. (1999). The paradox of managerialism. Public Administration Review, 59(1), 5–18. doi:10.2307/977475
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1976). Ambiguity and choice in organizations. Bergen, Norway: Universitetsforlaget.
   Google Scholar
• March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1983). Organizing political life. What administrative reorganization tells us about government. American Political Science Review, 77, 281–297. doi:10.2307/1958916
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1989). Rediscovering Institutions. New York, NY: The Free Press.
   Google Scholar
• Marcussen, M. (2006). Institutional transformation? The scientization of central banking as a case study. In T. Christensen & P. Lægreid (Eds.), Autonomy and regulation. Coping with agencies in the modern state (pp. 81–109). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• Meyer, C., & Norman, V. (2019). Ikke for å konkurrere. Strategi for fellesskapets tjenere (Not for competing. Strategy for the servants of the society. Bergen, Norway: Fagbokforlaget.
   Google Scholar
• Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutional organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363. doi:10.1086/226550
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moseng, E. (2019). Samfunnsoppdraget til SSB i fare? (The societal mission of statistics Norway in danger?). Master thesis, Department of Political Science, University of Oslo.
   Google Scholar
• NOU. (2018: 7). Ny lov om offisiell statistikk og Statistisk Sentralbyrå (New law on public statistics and statistics Norway). Oslo, Norway: Ministry of Finance.
   Google Scholar
• Olsen, J. P., Roness, P. G., & Sætren, H. (1982). Norway: Still coexistence and revolution in slow motion? In J. J. Richardson (Ed.), Policy styles in Western Europe (pp. 47–79). London, UK: Allen & Unwin.
   Google Scholar
• Olsen, J. P. (2009). Democratic government, institutional autonomy and the dynamics of change. West European Politics, 32(3), 439–465. doi:10.1080/01402380902779048
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parliament. (2018a, January 10). Open hearing in the scrutiny and constitution committee. Retrieved from https://www.stortinget.no/no/Hva-skjer-pa-Stortinget/Horing/horing/?h=10003909
   Google Scholar
• Parliament. (2018b, March 1). Open hearing in the scrutiny and constitution committee. Retrieved from https://www.stortinget.no/no/Hva-skjer-pa-Stortinget/Horing/horing/?h=10003926
   Google Scholar
• Parliament. (2018c, April). Debate in the PARLIAMENT April 12., 2018 about the SSB case. Retrieved from https://www.stortinget.no/no/Saker-ogpublikasjoner/Publikasjoner/Referater/Stortinget/2017-2018/refs-201718-04-12/4
   Google Scholar
• Polidano, C. (1999). The Bureaucrat who fell under a bus: Ministerial responsibility, executive agencies and the Derek Lewis affair in Britain. Governance, 12(2), 201–229. doi:10.1111/gove.1999.12.issue-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pollitt, C., Bathgate, K., Caulfield, J., & Smullen, A. (2001). Agency fever? Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 3, 271–290. doi:10.1023/A:1012301400791
   Google Scholar
• Pollitt, C., Talbot, C., Caulfield, C., & Smullen, A. (2004). Agencies: How governments do things through semi-autonomous organizations. New York, NY: PalgraveMacmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Roness, P. G., Verhoest, K., Rubecksen, K., & MacCarthaigh, M. (2008). Autonomy and regulation of state agencies: Reinforcement, indifference or compensation. Public Organization Review, 8, 155–174. doi:10.1007/s11115-008-0057-4
   Google Scholar
• Røvik, K. A. (2002). The secret of the winners: Management ideas that flow. In K. Sahlin-Andersson & L. Engwall (Eds.), The expansion of management knowledge (pp. 113–144). Stanford, UK: Stanford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Selznick, P. (1957). Leadership in administration. New York, NY: Haråper & Row.
   Google Scholar
• Simon, H. A. (1957). Administrative behaviour. New York, NY: Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Tsebelis, G. (2002). Veto players. How political institutions work. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Turner, S. (2003). Liberal democracy 3.0. London, UK: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Van Thiel, S. 2012. Comparing agencies across countries. In K. Verhoest, S. Van Thiel, G. Bouckaert & P. Lægreid (Eds.), Government agencies. Practices and lessons form 30 countries. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Verhoest, K., Guy Peters, B., Bouckaert, G., & Verschhuere, B. (2004). The study of organizational autonomy: A conceptual review. Public Administration and Development, 24, 101–118. doi:10.1002/pad.316
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verhoest, K., Roness, P. G., Verschuere, B., Rubecksen, K., & MacCarthaigh, M. (2010). Autonomy and control of state agencies: Comparing states and agencies. Basingstoke, UK: PalgraveMacmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Verhoest, K., Van Thiel, S., Bouckaert, G., & Lægreid, P. (eds). (2012). Government Agencies: Practices and lessons from 30 countries. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Wallis, J. (2001). Different perspectives on leadership in the New Zealand public sector: The curious case of Christine Rankin (Economics Discussion Papers Series No. 113). University of Otago. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10523/949
   Google Scholar
• Weaver, B. K., & Rockman, B. A. (1993). Assessing the Effects of Institutions. In R. K. Weaver & B. A. Rockman (Eds.), Do institutions matter? Government capabilities in the United States and Abroad. (pp. 1–41). Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
   Google Scholar
• Weingast, P. (1999). Scientific expertise and political accountability: Paradoxes of science in politics. Science and Public Policy, 26(3), 151–161. doi:10.3152/147154399781782437
   Google Scholar
• Yesilkagit, K., & Christensen, J. G. (2009). Institutional design and formal autonomy: Political versus historical and cultural explanations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20(1), 53–74. doi:10.1093/jopart/mup002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yesilkagit, K., & Van Thiel, S. (2008). Political influence and bureaucratic autonomy. Public Organization Review, 8(2), 137–153. doi:10.1007/s11115-008-0054-7
   Google Scholar