Suchergebnisse

AbstractThis study explores the policymaking role of the chief of cabinet, as head of the partisan political staff and a central actor within politico‐administrative relations. We focus on the local government level, where the role of political staff is understudied. While the added value of partisan political staff can be diverse and comprise advisory and non‐advisory activities, we do assume an active policymaking role for the chiefs of cabinet within the local policy advisory system. The research question is: "How do chiefs of cabinet conceive their own policymaking role at the local government level?" Adopting an actor‐centered approach, this research studies 20 chiefs of cabinet in cities in the Belgian region Flanders, where the amount of political staff has risen sharply. Q methodology is used for self‐assessment of the policymaking role (Van Exel & De Graaf, 2005), with statements based on Maley's three arenas (Maley, 2015). The results show that multiple types of chief of cabinet exist, revealing variation within one single institutional system. The resulting taxonomy consists of three types of chiefs of cabinet, each with a different role and impact on both policymaking and the civil service: "The Whip," "The Negotiator," and "The Streamliner."

The topic of policy integration has become an important component of several distinct lines of policy research. However, the concept of policy integration is notoriously difficult to specify and observe. This article provides valuable insights that explore the subjectivity of responses by political and administrative officials at the local level charged with policy integration. In response to its central question: 'How do local politicians and civil servants perceive politico-administrative barriers facing policy coordination and integration?' the study reveals political and managerial perceptions of key politicians and civil servants in local governments about the barriers to achieving policy integration.
By contrast with other studies involving politico-administrative relations, it draws on a broader institutional context, inclusive of the complex and dynamic environment and local level environment. Its findings show that significant barriers to coordination and integration continue to limit the policy coordination and integration needed to address complex societal challenges.
Using Q methodology, three perspectives emerge which provide crucial insights into the main barriers preventing integration. These findings adeptly depict the complex relationship between vertical, hierarchical relationships between politicians and bureaucrats, and the requirement for a more horizontal, consensual relationship in order to meet crosscutting societal challenges.
In this way, the article offers a significant contribution to the scholarship on policy integration.