Public sector reform trajectories: A complexity-embracing perspective

References

• Alford, J., & Hughes, O. (2008). Public value pragmatism as the next phase of public management. American Review of Public Administration, 38(2), 130–148.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baldini, G., Bolgherini, S., Dallara, C., & Mosca, L. (2009). Unioni di comuni: le sfide dell’intercomunalità in Emilia Romagna. Istituto Cattaneo.
   Google Scholar
• Bezes, P., Fimreite, A. L., Lidec, P. L., & Lægreid, P. (2013). Understanding organizational reforms in the modern state: specialization and integration in Norway and France. Governance, 26(1), 147–175.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boulton, J. G., Allen, P. M., & Bowman, C. (2015). Embracing complexity: strategic perspectives for an age of turbulence. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Brodkin, E. Z. (2011). Policy work: Street-level organizations under new managerialism. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21, i253–i277.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Butler, M. J. R., & Allen, P. M. (2008). Understanding policy implementation processes as self-organizing systems. Public Management Review, 10(3), 421–440.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cairney, P. (2015). Debate: What is complex government and what can we do about it? Public Money & Management, 35(1), 3–6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cairney, P., & Geyer, R. (2015). Conclusion: Where does complexity and policy go from here? In P. Cairney, & R. Geyer (Eds.), Handbook on complexity and public policy (pp. 457–465). Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• Cairney, P., & Geyer, R. (2017). A critical discussion of complexity theory: How does ‘Complexity Thinking’ improve our understanding of politics and policy-making? Complexity, Governance & Networks, 3(2), 1–11.
   Google Scholar
• Capano, G. (2003). Administrative traditions and policy change: When policy paradigms matter. the case of italian administrative reform during the 1990s. Public Administration, 81(4), 781–801.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Castelnovo, W., & Sorrentino, M. (2018). Engaging with complexity in a public programme implementation. Public Management Review, 20(7), 1013–1031.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Casula, M. (2016). Between national constraints and the legacies of the past: Explaining variations in inter-municipal co-operation in Italian regions. Regional Studies, Regional Science, 3(1), 482–490.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chapman, J. (2004). System failure: Why governments must learn to think differently. Demos.
   Google Scholar
• Christensen, T., & Lægreid, P. (2011). Complexity and hybrid public administration—theoretical and empirical challenges. Public Organization Review, 11(4), 407–423.
   Google Scholar
• Christensen, T., & Lægreid, P. (2012). Competing principles of agency organization–the reorganization of a reform. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 78(4), 579–596.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Christensen, T., & Lægreid, P. (2013). Context and administrative reforms: a transformative approach. In C. Pollitt (Ed.), Context in public policy and management (pp. 131–156). Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• Coaffee, J., & Johnston, L. (2005). The management of local government modernisation. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 18(2), 164–177.
   Google Scholar
• CSCAL. (2015). Conferenza Stato-città ed autonomie locali—Rapporto di fine anno 2015. https://autonomie.regione.emilia-romagna.it/unioni-di-comuni/osservatorio-unioni/monitoraggi/rapporti-prt-2016-2018/rapporto-fine-anno-2015-conferenza-stato-citta-ed-autonomie-locali
   Google Scholar
• Daviter, F. (2019). Policy analysis in the face of complexity: What kind of knowledge to tackle wicked problems? Public Policy and Administration, 34(1), 62–83.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dollery, B. E., Garcea, J., & LeSage, E. C. (eds.). (2008). Local government reform. a comparative analysis of advanced Anglo-American countries. Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• Eppel, E. (2017). Complexity thinking in public administration’s theories-in-use. Public Management Review, 19(6), 845–861.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eppel, E., & Rhodes, M. L. (2018). Complexity theory and public management: a ‘becoming’ field. Public Management Review, 20(7), 949–959.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garlatti, A., Fedele, P., & Iacuzzi, S. (2020). Can amalgamations deliver? Barriers to local government mergers from an historical institutionalist perspective. Public Money & Management, 42(6), 420–430.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• George, L., A., & Bennett, A. (2005). Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Haque, M. S., van der Wal, Z., & van den Berg, C. (2021). Comparative studies in public administration: Intellectual challenges and alternative perspectives. Public Administration Review, 81(2), 344–348.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haveri, A. (2006). Complexity in local government change. Public Management Review, 8(1), 31–46.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haveri, A., Nyholm, I., Røiseland, A., & Vabo, I. (2009). Governing collaboration: Practices of meta-governance in Finnish and Norwegian local governments. Local Government Studies, 35(5), 539–556.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haynes, P. (2015). Managing complexity in the public services. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Heylighen, F. (1999). The growth of structural and functional complexity during evolution. In F. Heylighen, J. Bollen, & A. Riegler (Eds.), The evolution of complexity (pp. 17–44). Kluwer.
   Google Scholar
• Hulst, J. R., van Montfort, A. J. G. M., Haveri, A., Airaksinen, J., & Kelly, J. (2009). Institutional shifts in inter-municipal service delivery: an analysis of developments in eight western European countries. Public Organization Review, 9(3), 263–285.
   Google Scholar
• Jones, H. (2011). Taking responsibility for complexity. Overseas Development Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Kim, Y., & Warner, M. E. (2016). Pragmatic municipalism: Local government service delivery after the Great Recession. Public Administration, 93(3), 789–805.
   Google Scholar
• Kim, Y., & Warner, M. E. (2021). Pragmatic municipalism or austerity urbanism? Understanding local government responses to fiscal stress. Local Government Studies, 47(2), 234–252.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klijn, E. H. (2008). Complexity theory and public administration: What's new? Public Management Review, 10(3), 299–317.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klok, P.-J., Denters, B., Boogers, M., & Sanders, M. (2018). Intermunicipal co-operation in the Netherlands: the costs and the effectiveness of polycentric regional governance. Public Administration Review, 78(4), 527–536.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuhlmann, S., & Wollmann, H. (2014). Introduction to comparative public administration. Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• Lowe, T., French, M., Hawkins, M., Hesselgreaves, H., & Wilson, R. (2021). New development: Responding to complexity in public services—the human learning systems approach. Public Money & Management, 41(7), 573–576.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meyers, M. K., Riccucci, N. M., & Lurie, I. (2001). Achieving goal congruence in complex environments: the case of welfare reform. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 11(2), 165–202.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morçöl, G. (2012). A complexity theory for public policy. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• OECD. (2017). Multi level governance reforms. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264272866-en.
   Google Scholar
• Pawson, R. (2013). The science of evaluation. A realist manifesto. Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Pierre, J. (2013). Context, theory and rationality: an uneasy relationship? In C. Pollitt (Ed.), Context in public policy and management (pp. 124–130). Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• Pollitt, C.2013). Context in public policy and management. The missing link? Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• Rhodes, M. L., Murphy, J., Muir, J., & Murray, J. A. (2011). Public Management and Complexity Theory: Richer Decision-making in Irish Public Services. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• RL. (2020). Esame della relazione n. 77 del 2020. Regione Lombardia.
   Google Scholar
• Sandfort, J. R., & Moulton, S. (2020). Replication or innovation? Structuration in policy implementation. Perspectives on Public Management and Governance, 3(2), 141–154.
   Google Scholar
• Simon, H. A. (1997). Administrative behavior. The Free Press.
   Google Scholar
• Stephan, M., Marshall, G., & McGinnis, M. (2019). An introduction to polycentricity and governance. In A. Thiel, D. E. Garrick, & W. A. Blomquist (Eds.), Governing complexity: analysing and applying polycentricity (pp. 21–44). Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Straussman, J. D. (2018). Complexity made simple: The value of brief vignettes as a pedagogical tool in public affairs education. Teaching Public Administration, 36(2), 93–109.
   Google Scholar
• Strebel, M. A., & Kübler, D. (2021). Citizens’ attitudes towards local autonomy and inter-local co-operation: Evidence from Western Europe. Comparative European Politics, 19(2), 188–207.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Swianiewicz, P., & Teles, F.2018). Intermunicipal co-operation in Europe. Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Teisman, G. R., & Klijn, E. H. (2008). Complexity theory and public management. Public Management Review, 10(3), 287–297.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Teles, F. (2016). Local governance and inter-municipal co-operation. Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Warner, M., & Hebdon, R. (2001). Local government restructuring: Privatization and its alternatives. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 20(2), 315–336.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wollmann, H. (2010). Comparing two logics of interlocal co-operation: The cases of France and Germany. Urban Affairs Review, 46(2), 263–292.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yin, R. K. (2017). Case Study research and applications. design and methods. Sage.
   Google Scholar