Abstract
New post-bureaucratic organizational forms, such as projects, are increasingly used in policy implementation. Their assumed benefits in decreasing bureaucracy and increasing flexibility have, however, been questioned. It has been argued that public projects increase red tape (or bureaucracy perceived as a nuisance) because of the formal rules associated with them. Despite the topicality of the subject, we do not know how public project bureaucracy is perceived by the actors involved. This article explores the bureaucracy of public projects by analysing project managers’ perceptions of them with data from European Union Cohesion policy projects in Finland. The data consist of project register data and a survey to project managers ( N = 728). The study finds that when talking of the perception of bureaucracy, it is relevant to distinguish between a general attitude towards bureaucracy and a specific perception of the task at hand. The general attitude seems more negative than the specific perception of bureaucracy. We also show that project managers’ experience, institutional background and share of administrative tasks in the project condition the extent to which bureaucracy is perceived as red tape. To conclude, the findings are discussed in relation to previous research on red tape in public administration. Points for practitioners Project organization connotes flexibility and innovation but involves also bureaucracy, which can be received as red tape, especially for inexperienced managers. In general, managers consider project bureaucracy as red tape, while in their own projects, bureaucracy is seen as less burdensome. Public managers have an advantage over managers from non-public organizations by perceiving public project bureaucracy as less burdensome.
Highlights
Since the 1980s, the public sector in Western welfare states has been reformed to become less bureaucratic and more reflexive and effective (e.g. Christensen and Laegreid, 2011; Lynn, 2006)
Translating the duality of attitude and perception to project implementation, with project managers as the agents of interest, we argue that their opinion on bureaucracy can be distinguished as a general sentiment of red tape, affected by the public discourse about red tape, and subjective perception on bureaucracy in a specific task or activity, which is an evaluation of the case at hand, as against the anticipation
The aim of this article was to explore the perception of red tape related to postbureaucracy in modern public governance, as exemplified by project-based policy implementation
Summary
Since the 1980s, the public sector in Western welfare states has been reformed to become less bureaucratic and more reflexive and effective (e.g. Christensen and Laegreid, 2011; Lynn, 2006). The new organizations are assumed to be flexible and inclusive, and, effective tools for public service delivery and policy implementation (du Gay, 2000; Lynn, 2011). Public managers, who encounter these organizations in their daily work, have questioned the de-bureaucratization measures as counterproductive and raised concerns that the new processes in the old structures increase rather than decrease bureaucracy (Moynihan, 2008). The discrepancy between optimistic post-bureaucratic assumptions regarding flexibility and efficiency in public governance, and the bureaucratic reality of contemporary public managers, is perhaps embodied most strikingly in project-based policy implementation (Sjo€blom et al, 2013). Public sector projects operate in administrative structures that demand certain formality, such as funding applications, regular finance and operative reporting, and project management practices (Lynn, 2006; Sjo€blom et al, 2013). Public projects have been criticized for failing to deliver on the promise of flexibility and increasing time-consuming administrative routines (Fred, 2018; Hodgson, 2004)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
