Cross-agency coordination in the shadow of hierarchy: 'Jjoining up' government geospatial information systems

International Journal of Geographical Information Science

Volumn 23, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 249-269

  Lance, K T ^a   Georgiadou, Y ^a   Bregt, A K ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TWENTE   (Netherlands)

^b WAGENINGEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Cross agency coordination; Joined up government; Metagovernance; SDI implementation

Indexed keywords

ACCOUNTABILITY; DATA MANAGEMENT; GIS; GOVERNMENT; REGULATORY FRAMEWORK; SPATIAL ANALYSIS;

CANADA; NORTH AMERICA; UNITED STATES;

EID: 62149101142     PISSN: 13658816     EISSN: 13623087     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/13658810801909615     Document Type: Article

References (72)

1. 6, P. (2004) Joined-up government in the western world in comparative perspective: A preliminary literature review and exploration. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 14, pp. 103-138.
2. Bell, S. and Park, A. (2006) The problematic metagovernance of networks: water reform in New South Wales. Journal of Public Policy, 26, pp. 63-83.
3. Borins, S. (2000) What border? Public management innovation in the United States and Canada. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 19, pp. 46-74.
4. Butler, A., Voss, A., Goreham, D. and Moeller, J. (2005) The national geospatial coordinating council: A dramatic new approach to build the NSDI. GeoWorld
5. Christensen, T. and Laegreid, P. (2006) The Whole-of-Government approach-regulation, performance, and public-sector reform. A Performing Public Sector: The Second Transatlantic Dialogue Conference, Workshop 2-Performance of Regulation and Regulation of Performance
6. Coleman, D. J. (1999) Collaborative approaches to building a Canadian spatial data infrastructure. Cambridge Conference, Ordnance Survey of Great Britain, Southampton, UK
7. Coleman, D. J. and Cooper, J. (2004) Examining the role of partnerships in building a Canadian geospatial data infrastructure. UN, FIG, PC IDEA Inter-regional Special Forum on The Building of Land Information Policies in the Americas
8. Considine, M. (2002) Joined at the lip? What does network research tell us about governance?. Knowledge Networks and Joined-Up Government: Conference Proceedings, Centre for Public Policy, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
9. Craig, W. J. (1995) Why can't we share data: Institutional inertia. Sharing Geographic Information, pp. 107-118. Centre for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ
10. De Man, E. W. H. (2006) Understanding SDI: Complexity and institutionalization. International Journal of Geographic Information Science, 20, pp. 329-343.
11. Elliott, R., Jobber, D. and Sharp, J. (1995) Using the theory of reasoned action to understand organizational behaviour: The role of belief salience. British Journal of Social Psychology, 34, pp. 161-172.
12. Federal Geographic Data Committee (2005) Final Draft Report of the NSDI Future Directions Governance Action Team
13. Fujitsu Consulting (Canada) Ltd (2005) The IACG Benefits Case, Version 1.1, CIO Branch, Treasury Board Secretariat, Ottawa, Canada
14. Furlong, S. R. (1998) Political Influence on the bureaucracy: The bureaucracy speaks. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory: J-PART, 8, pp. 39-65.
15. Government Accountability Office (2004) Geospatial Information: Better Coordination Needed to Identify Reduce Duplicative Investments
16. Grus, L., Crompvoets, J. and Bregt, A. (2006) Defining national spatial data infrastructures as complex adaptive systems. GSDI-9 Conference Proceedings
17. Gulick, L. (1937) Notes on the theory on organizations, with special reference to government. Papers on the Science of Administration, A. M. Kelley, New York, NY
18. Halligan, J. (2005) The reassertion of the centre in a first generation reforming system. SCANCOR Workshop, Autonomisation of the State: From integrated administrative models to single purpose organizations
19. Harvey, F. (2001) Constructing GIS: Actor networks of collaboration. URISA Journal, 13, pp. 29-37.
20. Herranz Jr, J. (2006) Network Management Strategies, Daniel J. Evans School of Public Affairs, University of Washington, Seattle, WA
21. Hill, C. J. and Lynn Jr, L. E. (2005) Is hierarchical governance in decline? Evidence from empirical research. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15, pp. 173-195.
22. Hood, C. (2005) The idea of joined-up governance: A historical perspective. Joined-up Government, British Academy/OUP, Oxford
23. Hou, Y., Ma, J. and Wu, J. (2005) Changing roles of the central budget agency in the Chinese context of performance-based budgeting. Seminar on Public Budgeting and Finance Reforms in Transitional China
24. Inter-Agency Committee on Geomatics (2006) Coordinating Geomatics in the Government of Canada, Federal Geomatics Strategy and Policy Framework
25. James, O. (2004) Executive agencies and joined up government in the UK. Unbundled Government: A Critical Analysis of the Global Trend to Agencies, Quangos and Contractualization, Routledge Studies in Public Management, London
26. Jessop, B. (1997) Capitalism and its future: Remarks on regulation, government and governance. Review of International Political Economy, 4, pp. 561-581.
27. Keast, R., Mandell, M. P., Brown, K. and Woolbock, G. (2004) Network structures: Working differently and changing expectations. Public Administration Review, 64, pp. 363-371.
28. Kelly, J. (2006) Central regulation of English local authorities: An example of meta-governance?. Public Administration, 84, pp. 603-621.
29. Kenis, P. and Provan, K. G. (2006) Towards an exogenous theory of network performance. Conference on the Determinants of Performance in Public Organizations II
30. Kettl, D. F. (2002) The Transformation of Governance: Public Administration for Twenty First Century America, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD
31. Kickert, W. J. M., Klijn, E. H. and Koppenjan, J. F. M. (1997) Introduction: A management perspective on policy networks. Managing Complex Networks: Strategies for the Public Sector, pp. 1-13. Sage Publications Ltd, London
32. Kooiman, J. (2000) Societal governance: Levels, models and orders of social-political action. Debating Governance: Authority, Steering, Democracy, Oxford University Press, Oxford
33. Lance, K. T., Georgiadou, P. Y. and Bregt, A. (2006) Understanding how and why practitioners evaluate SDI performance. International Journal of Spatial Data Infrastructures Research, 1, pp. 65-104.
34. Last, R. (2006) The renewed GeoConnections: Focus, major programme tracks & governance. GeoConnections' CGDI Technical Workshop
35. Lazer, D. and Binz-Scharf, M. C. (2004) Information Sharing in E-Government Projects: Managing Novelty and Cross-Agency Cooperation, IBM Endowment for the Business of Government, Washington, DC
36. Ling, T. (2002) Delivering joined up government in the UK: Dimensions, issues and problems. Public Administration, 80, pp. 615-642.
37. Masser, I. (1999) All shapes and sizes: The first generation of national spatial data infrastructures. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 13, pp. 67-84.
38. Masser, I. (2003) International comparison. GI in the Wider Europe
39. McGuire, M. (2006) Collaborative public management: Assessing what we know and how we know it. Public Administration Review, 66, pp. 33-43.
40. Melkers, J. and Willoughby, K. (2004) Staying the Course: The Use of Performance Measurement in State Governments, IBM Centre for the Business of Government, Washington, DC
41. Meuleman, L. (2006) Internal metagovernance as a new challenge for management development in public administration. 2006 EFMD Conference on Post Bureaucratic Management: A New Age for Public Services?
42. Miller, J. (2006) OMB to agencies: Measure IT costs, savings from e-gov. Government Computer News (GCN) online
43. Miller, J. (2007) OMB to ask agencies for metrics on EA effectiveness. FCW.com
44. Morin, A. L. (1994) Regulating the flow of data: OMB and the control of government information. Public Administration Review, 54, pp. 434-443.
45. National Academy of Public Adminisration (1998) Geographic Information for the 21st Century: Building a Strategy for the Nation, National Academy of Public Administration, Washington, DC
46. National Research Council (2007) National Land Parcel Data: A Vision for the Future, National Academies Press, Washington, DC
47. Office of Management and Budget (2002)
48. Osborne, D. and Gaebler, T. (1992) Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit is Transforming the Public Sector, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA
49. Pare, G. (2004) Investigating information systems with positivist case study research. Communications of the AIS, 13, pp. 233-264.
50. Pollitt, C. (2003) Joined-up government. Political Studies Review, 1, pp. 34-49.
51. Powell, W. W. (1990) Neither market nor hierarchy: Network forms of organization. Research in Organizational Behaviour, 12, pp. 295-336.
52. Rhind, D. (1996) Economic, legal and public policy issues influencing the creation, accessibility and use of GIS databases. Transactions in GIS, 1, pp. 3-12.
53. Rose, R. (1984) Understanding Big Government-The Programme Approach, Sage Publications, London
54. Saxby, S. J. (2006) Public policy and the development of a UK national geographic information strategy. International Journal of Law and Information Technology, 14, pp. 147-194.
55. Scharpf, F. (1994) Games real actors play: Positive and negative coordination in embedded negotiations. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 6, pp. 27-53.
56. Seidman, H. (1999) Politics, Power and Position, Oxford University Press, New York, NY
57. Sietzen Jr, F. (2003) Federal GIS: A weapon of mass dysfunction?.
58. Staw, B. M. (1991) Dressing up like an organization: When psychological theories can explain organizational action. Journal of Management, 17, pp. 805-819.
59. Stewart, C. (2006) Results-based Management Accountability Framework (RMAF). GeoConnections Management Board Summer Workshop
60. Thomas, C. W. (2006) Bureaucratic Landscapes: Interagency Cooperation and the Preservation of Biodiversity, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
61. Tomkin, S. L. (1998) Inside OMB: Politics and Process in the President's Budget Office, M.E. Sharpe, Inc., Armonk, NY
62. Trailstone Value Management Consulting (2005) Value Management Overview, January.
63. Treasury Board Secretariat (2005)
64. Van Loenen, B. (2006) Developing geographic information infrastructures: the role of information policies.
65. Vandenbrouke, D. (2005) Spatial Data Infrastructures in Europe: State of Play, Spring 2005, Catholic University, Leuven, Belgium
66. Verhoest, K., Peters, G. B., Beuselinck, E., Meyers, F. and Bouckaert, G. (2005) How coordination and control of public organizations by government interrelate: An analytical and empirical exploration. Scandinavian Consortium for Organizational Research (SCANCOR)/Structure and Organisation of Government (SOG) Workshop, Autonomization of the State: From Integrated Administrative Models to Single Purpose Organizations
67. Walsham, G. (2006) Doing interpretive research. European Journal of Information Systems, 15, pp. 320-330.
68. Wanna, J. (2003) Introduction: The changing role of central budget agencies. Controlling Public Expenditure: The Changing Roles of Central Budget Agencies-Better Guardians?, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham
69. Weber, M. (1947) The Theory of Social and Economic Organization, Free Press, New York, NY
70. Whitehead, M. (2003) In the shadow of hierarchy: Metagovernance, policy reform and urban regeneration in the West Midlands. Area, 35, pp. 6-14.
71. Willoughby, K. G. (2004) Performance measurement and budget balancing: state government perspective. Public Budgeting and Finance, 24, pp. 21-39.
72. World Bank (2005) E-Government Experience in the US and Canada: How Relevant is it to Developing Countries?.