Coordination as showcasing: the establishment of Norway’s Afghanistan Forum

References

• 6, P., et al., 2002. Towards holistic governance: the new reform agenda. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
   Google Scholar
• Askim, J., Karlsen, R., and Kolltveit, K., 2014. Statssekretærer i norsk politikk: de oversette maktutøverne [State secretaries in Norwegian politics: powerful, yet overlooked]. Norsk statsvitenskapelig tidsskrift, 30 (4), 233–255.
   Google Scholar
• Askim, J., Karlsen, R., and Kolltveit, K., 2016. Political appointees in executive government: exploring and explaining roles using a large-n survey in Norway. Public administration, 95 (2), 342–358. doi:10.1111/padm.12272
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baumann, A.B., 2012. Clash of organisational cultures? A comparative analysis of American and British approaches to the coordination of defence, diplomacy and development in stability operations, 2001–2010. Thesis (PhD). Oxford University. doi:10.1094/PDIS-11-11-0999-PDN
   Google Scholar
• Bensahel, N., 2007. Organising for nation building. Survival, 49 (2), 43–76. doi:10.1080/00396330701437827
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bogdanor, V., ed.. 2005. Joined-up government. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Børresen, J., Gjeseth, G., and Tamnes, R., 2004. Allianseforsvar i endring: 1970–2000 [Alliance defence undergoing change: 1970–2000]. Bergen: Eide.
   Google Scholar
• Christensen, T., et al., 2007a. Organization theory and the public sector: instrument, culture and myth. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Christensen, T., Fimreite, A.L., and Lægreid, P., 2007b. Reform of the employment and welfare administrations — the challenges of co-coordinating diverse public organizations. International review of administrative sciences, 73 (3), 389–408. doi:10.1177/0020852307081149
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Christensen, T. and Lægreid, P., 2007. The whole-of-government approach to public sector reform. Public administration review, 67 (6), 1059–1066. doi:10.1111/puar.2007.67.issue-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Christensen, T. and Lægreid, P., 2008. The challenge of coordination in central government organizations: the Norwegian case. Public organization review, 8 (2), 97–116. doi:10.1007/s11115-008-0058-3
   Google Scholar
• Dafinova, M., 2018. Keeping the inter-agency peace? A comparative study of Swedish, German, and British whole-of-government approaches in Afghanistan. Thesis (PhD). Carleton University.
   Google Scholar
• de Coning, C., et al., 2009. Norway’s whole-of-government approach and its engagement with Afghanistan. NUPI Report Security in Practice 8. Oslo: The Norwegian Institute of International Affairs.
   Google Scholar
• Desrosiers, M.-E. and Lagassé, P., 2009. Canada and the bureaucratic politics of state fragility. Diplomacy & statecraft, 20 (4), 659–678. doi:10.1080/09592290903455774
   Google Scholar
• Difi, 2011. Hva skjer i departementene? Om utfordringer og utviklingsbehov [What’s going on in the ministries? Challenges and development needs]. Difi-rapport 2011:11. Oslo: Agency for Public Management and eGovernment (Difi).
   Google Scholar
• Egeberg, M., 2012. How bureaucratic structure matters: an organizational perspective. In: J. Pierre and B.G. Peters, eds.. The SAGE handbook of public administration. 2nd ed. Los Angeles, CA: Sage, 157–168.
   Google Scholar
• Egnell, R., 2013. Civil–military coordination for operational effectiveness: towards a measured approach. Small wars & insurgencies, 24 (2), 237–256. doi:10.1080/09592318.2013.778017
   Google Scholar
• Eide, E.B., et al., 2005. Report on integrated missions: practical perspectives and recommandations: independent study for the expanded UN ECHA core group. Available from: https://reliefweb.int/report/world/report-integrated-missions-practical-perspectives-and-recommendations [Accessed 6 February 2018].
   Google Scholar
• Eide, E.B., 2007a. Why is Norway in Afghanistan? How can we best complete our mission? Ministry of Defence. Available from: https://www.regjeringen.no/en/aktuelt/why-is-norway-in-afghanistan-how-can-we-/id456378/ [Accessed 13 March 2018].
   Google Scholar
• Eide, E.B., 2007b. Utfordringer i norsk forsvarspolitikk [Challenges in Norwegian defence policy]. Available from: https://www.regjeringen.no/no/aktuelt/utfordringer-i-norsk-forsvarspolitikk-/id481025/ [Accessed 13 March 2018].
   Google Scholar
• Friis, K., et al., 2010. Nordic approaches to whole-of-government: in Afghanistan and beyond. NUPI Report Security in Practice 6. Oslo: The Norwegian Institute of International Affairs.
   Google Scholar
• Fyhn, M., 2006. Skal styrke Norges Afghanistan-hjelp [Will strengthen Norway’s Afghanistan assistance]. Aftenposten, April 21, p.12.
   Google Scholar
• Gareis, S., 2012. Conclusive concept or cathword? On the pretence and practice of germany’s networked security in Afghanistan. In: H.-G. Ehrhart, S. Gareis, and C. Pentland, eds. Afghanistan in the balance: counterinsurgency, comprehensive approach, and political order. Kingston, Canada: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 123–138.
   Google Scholar
• Gordon, S., 2016. Defence policy and the ‘joined up government’ agenda: defining the limits of the ‘comprehensive approach’. In: D. Brown, ed. The development of british defence policy. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 121–138.
   Google Scholar
• Greentree, T., 2013. Bureaucracy does its thing: US performance and the institutional dimension of strategy in Afghanistan. Journal of strategic studies, 36 (3), 325–356. doi:10.1080/01402390.2013.764518
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grønlie, T., Flo, Y., and Svinningen, T., 2009. Sentraladministrasjonens historie etter 1945: B. 1: Ekspansjonsbyråkratiets tid 1945-1980 [The history of central public administration in Norway after 1945: Vol. 1: the time of the expanding bureaucracy 1945–1980]. Bergen: Fagbokforlaget.
   Google Scholar
• Hall, P.A. and Taylor, R.C.R., 1996. Political science and the three new institutionalisms. Political studies, 44 (5), 936–957. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9248.1996.tb00343.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jakobsen, P.V., 2008. NATO’s comprehensive approach to crisis response operations. DIIS Report 2008:15. Copenhagen: Danish Institute for International Studies, DIIS.
   Google Scholar
• Kolltveit, K., 2014. Samordning i det norske regjeringsapparatet [Coordination in the Norwegian government apparatus]. In: Ø. Østerud and H. Baldersheim, eds. Det norske demokratiet i det 21. århundre [Norwegian democracy in the 21st century]. Bergen: Fagbokforlaget, 303–321.
   Google Scholar
• Kolltveit, K., 2015. Strengthening of the executive centre: looking beyond NPM as the explanation for change. International review of administrative sciences, 81 (1), 18–36. doi:10.1177/0020852314541566
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Korski, D., 2009. British civil-military integration: the history and next steps. The RUSI journal, 154 (6), 14–24. doi:10.1080/03071840903532841
   Google Scholar
• Krasner, S., 1988. Sovereignty: an institutional perspective. Comparative political studies, 21 (1), 66–94. doi:10.1177/0010414088021001004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lægreid, P. and Rykkja, L.H., 2015. Organizing for “wicked problems”– analyzing coordination arrangements in two policy areas: internal security and the welfare administration. International journal of public sector management, 28 (6), 475–493. doi:10.1108/IJPSM-01-2015-0009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• March, J.G. and Simon, H.A., 1993. Organizations. 2nd. edn. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Business.
   Google Scholar
• Meld. St. 14 (1992–1993). Beredskap for fred. Om Norges framtidige militære FN-engasjement og FNs rolle som konfliktløser [white paper on Norway’s future UN military engagement and the UN’s role in conflict resolution]. Oslo: Ministry of Defence.
   Google Scholar
• Meld. St. 20 (2007–2008). Om Noregs deltaking i den 62. ordinære generalforsamlinga i Dei sameinte nasjonane (FN) og vidareførte sesjonar av den 61. generalforsamlinga i FN [white paper on Norway’s participation in the 62nd session of the UN General Assembly and continued sessions from UNs 61st General Assembly]. Oslo: Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
   Google Scholar
• Meld. St. 28 (2006–2007). Om samarbeidet i NATO i 2006 [white paper on Norway’s cooperation with NATO in 2006]. Oslo: Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
   Google Scholar
• Meyer, J.W. and Rowan, B., 1977. Institutionalized organizations: formal structure as myth and ceremony. American journal of sociology, 83 (2), 340–363. doi:10.1086/226550
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ministry of Defence, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Norwegian High Command, 2001. Kosovo-krisen: nasjonal rapport [The Kosovo crisis: national Report]. Ministry of Defence. Available from: https://www.regjeringen.no/no/dokumenter/kosovo-krisen-nasjonal-rapport/id105587/ [Accessed 14 February 2018].
   Google Scholar
• NOU, 2016: 8. A good ally: Norway in Afghanistan 2001–2014. Official Norwegian Reports. Available from: https://www.regjeringen.no/contentassets/09faceca099c4b8bac85ca8495e12d2d/en-gb/pdfs/nou201620160008000engpdfs.pdf [Accessed 6 February 2018].
   Google Scholar
• NTB, 2006. Regjeringen kritisk til Afghanistan-innsats [Government critical of Afghanistan efforts]. NTB,16 Nov 2006.
   Google Scholar
• Oma, I.M., 2015. Small states and burden-sharing in allied operations abroad. The case of Norway in ISAF. Thesis (PhD). University of Oslo.
   Google Scholar
• Patrick, S. and Brown, K., 2007. Greater Than the Sum of Its Parts? Assessing “Whole of Government” Approaches to Fragile States. New York: International Peace Academy. Available from: https://www.cgdev.org/sites/default/files/9780937722985-Patrick-Brown-greater-than-sum.pdf [Accessed 16 January 2019].
   Google Scholar
• Pharo, P.F.I., 2000. Norge på Balkan 1990–1999: ‘Lessons learned’ [Norway in the Balkans 1990–1999: ‘Lessons learned’]. IFS info 3. Oslo: Institutt for forsvarsstudier.
   Google Scholar
• Pierson, P., 2000. The limits of design: explaining institutional origins and change. Governance: an international journal of policy and administration, 13 (4), 475–499. doi:10.1111/gove.2000.13.issue-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roness, P.G., 1997. Organisasjonsendringar: teoriar og strategiar for studiar av endringsprosessar [Organizational changes: theories and strategies for studying change processes]. Bergen: Fagbokforlaget.
   Google Scholar
• Saideman, S.M., 2016. Adapting in the dust: lessons learned from Canada’s war in Afghanistan. Toronto: University Of Toronto Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sarapuu, K. et al., 2014. Lessons learned and policy implications. In: P. Lægreid, et al., ed., Organizing for coordination in the public sector: practices and lessons from 12 European countries. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillian, 263–277.
   Google Scholar
• Scott, W.R., 1981. Organizations: rational, natural, and open systems. Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice-Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Selznick, P., 1957. Leadership in administration. New York: Harper & Row.
   Google Scholar
• Simon, H.A., 1997. Administrative behavior: a study of decision-making processes in administrative organization. 4th. New York: Simon & Schuster Free Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sølhusvik, L., 2013. Kristin Halvorsen: gjennomslag [Kristin Halvorsen: breakthrough]. Oslo: Cappelen Damm.
   Google Scholar
• Strøm-Erichsen, A.-G., 2005. Norges innsats i Afghanistan [Norway’s efforts in Afghanistan]. Dagbladet, 26 Dec, p. 46.
   Google Scholar
• Summary of SOU: 16, 2017. Summary of the report of the inquiry on Sweden’s Engagement in Afghanistan 2002-2014. Stockholm: Ministry for Foreign Affairs, Ministry of Defence.
   Google Scholar
• SOU, 2017: 16. Sverige i Afghanistan 2002-2014. Stockholm: Ministry for Foreign Affairs, Ministry of Defence.
   Google Scholar
• Statskonsult, 1999. På kryss og tvers: om departementenes samordningsmekanismer [Crosswise. On the coordination mechanisms of government ministries]. Rapport 1999:12. Oslo: Statskonsult.
   Google Scholar
• Thelen, K., 2003. How institutions evolve. Insights from comparative historical analysis. In: J. Mahoney and D. Rueschemeyer, eds. Comparative historical analysis in the social sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 208–240.
   Google Scholar
• van der Lijn, J., 2015. Comprehensive approaches, diverse coherences: the different levels of policy coherence in the Dutch 3D approach in Afghanistan. Small wars & insurgencies, 26 (1), 72–89. doi:10.1080/09592318.2014.959773
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar