Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T17:47:53.609Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Corporate governance and democratic accountability: local state-owned enterprises in Norway

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 August 2019

Jan Erling Klausen Open the ORCID record for Jan Erling Klausen [Opens in a new window]  and
Marte Winsvold
Jan Erling Klausen*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, University of Oslo, Norway
Marte Winsvold
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, University of Oslo, Norway E-mail: [email protected]
*
Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Transferring public service provision to state-owned enterprises (SOEs) raises concerns over accountability deficits. We argue that the governance of SOEs requires reconciliation of the accountability relations found in traditional models of public administration, and the normative structures of control and accountability developed in the world of private enterprises, commonly referred to as corporate governance. To this end, we propose a model for structuring accountability relations between SOEs and governmental owners. The model prescribes a distinction between the roles of elected representatives and top managers as “forums” for accountability concerning the governmental owner’s mission-related and non-mission-related preferences towards the SOE. The model’s relevance is tested empirically using data from a study of SOEs in Norway’s local government sector. The analysis indicates that accountability practices in line with the prescriptions of the model were associated with a heightened sense of control over the SOEs.

Keywords

corporate governancedemocratic accountabilitylocal governancelocal governmentstate-owned enterprises
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Public Policy , Volume 41 , Issue 1 , March 2021 , pp. 161 - 184
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aars, J and Ringkjøb, H-E (2011) Local Democracy Ltd: The Political Control of Local Government Enterprises in Norway. Public Management Review, 13, 825–844.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aarsæther, N and Vabo, SI (2002) Fristilt og velstyrt? Fokus på kommune-Norge. Oslo: Samlaget.Google Scholar
Allison, G (1982) Public and Private Management: Are They Fundamentally Alike in All Unimportant Respects? In Lane, F. S. (ed.), Current Issues in Public Administration. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press, 13–33.Google Scholar
André, R (2010) Assessing the Accountability of Government-Sponsored Enterprises and Quangos. Journal of Business Ethics, 97, 271–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Antonakis, J, Bendahan, S, Jacquart, P and Lalive, R (2010) On Making Causal Claims: A Review and Recommendations. The Leadership Quarterly, 21, 1086–1120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aucoin, P (1990) Administrative Reform in Public Management: Paradigms, Principles, Paradoxes and Pendulums. Governance, 3, 115–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barberis, P (1998) The New Public Management and a New Accountability. Public Administration, 76, 451–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barker, A (1982) Quangos in Britain: Government and the Networks of Public Policy-Making. London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berle, AA and Means, GC (1933) The Modern Corporation and Private Property. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Bjørnsen, HM, Klausen, JE and Winsvold, M (2015) Kommunale selskap og folkevalgt styring gjennom kommunalt eierskap, NIBR-report 2015:1. Oslo: NIBR (Norwegian Institute for Urban and Regional Research).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blair, MM (1995) Ownership and Control: Rethinking Corporate Governance for the Twenty-First Century. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
Bognetti, G and Obermann, G (2012) Local Public Services in European Countries: Main Results of a Research Project by Ciriec International. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 83, 485–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borge, L-E (2005) Strong Politicians, Small Deficits: Evidence from Norwegian Local Governments. European Journal of Political Economy, 21, 325–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bovens, M (2005) Public Accountability. In Ferlie, E., Lynn, L. E. Jr and Pollitt, C. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Public Management. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 182–208.Google Scholar
Bovens, M (2007) Analysing and Assessing Accountability: A Conceptual Framework. European Law Journal, 13, 447–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bovens, M, Goodin, RE and Schillemans, T (2014) The Oxford Handbook of Public Accountability, 1st ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bovens, MAP, t´Hart, P and Schillemans, T (2008) Does Public Accountability Work? An Assesment Tool. Public Administration, 86, 225–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandsma, GJ and Schillemans, T (2013) The Accountability Cube: Measuring Accountability. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 23, 953–975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brennan, N and Solomon, J (2008) Corporate Governance, Accountability and Mechanisms of Accountability: An Overview. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 21, 885–906.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruton, GD, Peng, MW, Ahlstrom, D, Stan, C and Xu, K (2015) State-owned Enterprises Around the World as Hybrid Organizations. Academy of Management Perspectives, 29, 92–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caiden, GE (1994) Administrative Reform-American Style (Book Review). Public Administration Review, 54, 123–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, DT, Fiske, DW and Helson, H (1959) Convergent and Discriminant Validation by the Multitrait-Multimethod Matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81–105.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Christensen, T and Lægreid, P (2001) New Public Management: The Transformation of Ideas and Practice. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Christensen, T and Lægreid, P (2006) Autonomy and Regulation: Coping with Agencies in the Modern State. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Christensen, T, Lægreid, P, Peters, BG and Bouckaert, G (2004) Governmental Autonomisation and Control: The Norwegian Way. Public Administration and Development, 24, 129–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Citroni, G, Lippi, A and Profeti, S (2013) Remapping the State: Inter-Municipal Cooperation through Corporatisation and Public-Private Governance Structures. Local Government Studies, 39, 208–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cote, JA and Buckley, MR (1987) Estimating Trait, Method, and Error Variance: Generalizing across 70 Construct Validation Studies. Journal of Marketing Research, 24, 315–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Denters, B and Rose, LE (2005) Towards Local Governance? In Denters, B. and Rose, L. E. (eds.), Comparing Local Governance. Trends and Developments. Basingstoke: Palgrave, 246–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doty, DH and Glick, WH (1998) Common Methods Bias: Does Common Methods Variance Really Bias Results? Organizational Research Methods, 1, 374–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Esping-Andersen, G (1990) The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Fuller, D and Roffey, B (1993) Improving Public Sector Accountability and Strategic Decision-Making. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 52, 149–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerring, J (2017) Case study research : principles and practices, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gjertsen, A and Martiniussen, K (2006) Styring og kontroll av kommunale selskaper og foretak. NF-rapport (18). Bødo: Nordlandsforskning.Google Scholar
Gray, A and Jenkins, B (1995) From Public Administration to Public Management: Reassessing a Revolution? Public Administration, 73, 75–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grossi, G, Papenfuß, U and Tremblay, M-S (2015) Corporate Governance and Accountability of State-owned Enterprises: Relevance for Science and Society and Interdisciplinary Research Perspectives. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 28, 274–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hart, O (1995) Corporate Governance: Some Theory and Implications. The Economic Journal, 105, 678–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodge, G and Coghill, K (2007) Accountability in the Privatized State. Governance, 20, 675–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
HoL (2012) The Accountability of Civil Servants. 6th Report of Session 2012–13. House of Lords. Select committee on the Constitution. London: The Stationery Office Limited.Google Scholar
Hood, C (1991) A Public Management for All Seasons? Public Administration, 69, 3–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hood, C (2002) The Risk Game and the Blame Game. Government and Opposition, 37, 15–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hood, C (2011) The Blame Game: Spin, Bureaucracy, and Self-Preservation in Government. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Hughes, O (1992) Public Management or Public Administration? Australian Journal of Public Administration, 51, 286–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, N. (1982) Accountability, Control and Complexity. In Barker, A. (ed.), Quangos in Britain. Government and the Networks of Policy-Making. London: The Macmillan Press Ltd., 206–218.Google Scholar
Jones, GW (1992) The Search for Local Accountability. In Leach, S. (ed.), Strengthening Local Government in the 1990s. London: Longman, 49–78.Google Scholar
Kettl, DF (1997) The Global Revolution in Public Management: Driving Themes, Missing Links. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 16, 446–462.3.0.CO;2-H>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kleinbaum, DG (1998) Applied Regression Analysis and Other Multivariable Methods. Pacific Grove, CA: Duxbury Press.Google Scholar
Koppell, JGS (2003) The Politics of Quasi-Government: Hybrid Organizations and the Dynamics of Bureaucratic Control. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kuhlmann, S (2008) Reforming Local Public Services: Trends and Effects in Germany and France. Public Management Review, 10, 573–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, N and Longley, D (1996) Ministerial Responsibility: The Next Steps. Public Law, Autumn, 490–507.Google Scholar
Lückerath-Rovers, M (2013) Women on Boards and Firm Performance. Journal of Management & Governance, 17, 491–509. doi: 10.1007/s10997-011-9186-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luke, B (2010) Examining Accountability Dimensions in State‐owned Enterprises. Financial Accountability & Management, 26, 134–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meier, KJ and O’Toole, LJ Jr (2010) Organizational Performance: Measurement Theory and an Application: Or, Common Source Bias, the Achilles Heel of Public Management Research. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, September 1–5, 2010, Washington DC, Copyright American Political Science Association.Google Scholar
Mouritzen, PE and Svara, JH (2002) Leadership at the Apex: Politicians and Administrators in Western Local Governments. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
Mulgan, R (1997) Contracting Out and Accountability. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 56, 106–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mulgan, R (2014) Accountability Deficits. In Bovens, M., Goodin, R. E. and Schillemans, T. (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Public Accountability. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
OECD (2015a) G20/OECD Principles of Corporate Governance. Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
OECD (2015b) Government at a Glance 2015. Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
OECD (2015c) OECD Guidelines on Corporate Governance of State-Owned Enterprises, 2015 Edition. Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
Olsen, TH, Solstad, E and Torsteinsen, H (2017) The Meaning of Institutional Logics for Performance Assessment in Boards of Municipal Companies. Public Money & Management, 37, 393–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osborne, SP (2010) The New Public Governance?: Emerging Perspectives on the Theory and Practice of Public Governance. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Painter, M (1988) Editorial Public Management: Fad or Fallacy? Australian Journal of Public Administration, 47, 1–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parker, LD and Gould, G (1999) Changing Public Sector Accountability: Critiquing New Directions. Accounting Forum, 23, 109–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Podsakoff, PM, Mackenzie, SB, Lee, J-Y, Podsakoff, NP and Zedeck, S (2003) Common Method Biases in Behavioral Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommended Remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pollitt, C (2004) Agencies: How Governments Do Things Through Semi-autonomous Organizations. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan UK.Google Scholar
Pollitt, C, Bathgate, K, Caulfield, J, Smullen, A and Talbot, C (2001) Agency Fever? Analysis of an International Policy Fashion. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 3, 271–290.Google Scholar
Pollitt, C and Bouckaert, G (2011) Public Management Reform: A Comparative Analysis: New Public Management, Governance, and the Neo-Weberian State. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pollitt, C and Talbot, C (2004) Unbundled Government: A Critical Analysis of the Global Trend to Agencies, Quangos and Contractualisation. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schillemans, T (2011) Does Horizontal Accountability Work? Administration & Society, 43, 387–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schippers, MC, Den Hartog, DN, Koopman, PL and Wienk, JA (2003) Diversity and Team Outcomes: The Moderating Effects of Outcome Interdependence and Group Longevity and the Mediating Effect of Reflexivity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 779–802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sellers, JM and Lidström, A (2007) Decentralization, Local Government, and the Welfare State. Governance, 20, 609–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teles, F (2015) Local Governance and Intermunicipal Cooperation. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan UK.Google Scholar
Thynne, I (2011) Ownership as an Instrument of Policy and Understanding in the Public Sphere: Trends and Research Agenda. Policy Studies, 32, 183–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tricker, B (1995) Corporate Governance – A Subject Whose Time Has Come. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 3, 187–188.Google Scholar
Verhoest, K, Roness, PG, Verschuere, B, Rubecksen, K and MacCarthaigh, M (2010) Autonomy and Control of State Agencies: Comparing States and Agencies. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verhoest, K, Van Thiel, S, Bouckaert, G and Lægreid, P eds. (2012) Government Agencies: Practices and Lessons from 30 Countries. Basingstoke: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warner, M and Hebdon, R (2001) Local Government Restructuring: Privatization and Its Alternatives. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 20, 315–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watson, WE, Kumar, K and Michaelsen, L (1993) Cultural Diversity’s Impact on Interaction Process and Performance: Comparing Homogeneous and Diverse Task Groups. The Academy of Management Journal, 36, 590–602.Google Scholar
Willems, T and Van Dooren, W (2012) Coming to Terms with Accountability: Combining Multiple Forums and Functions. Public Management Review, 14, 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wollmann, H, Koprić, I and Marcou, G (2016) Public and Social Services in Europe. From Public and Municipal to Private Sector Provision. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zatti, A (2012) New Organizational Models in European Local Public Transport: From Myth to Reality. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 83, 533–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Klausen and Winsvold supplementary material

Online Appendix

Download Klausen and Winsvold supplementary material(File)
File 26 KB