Abstract
The purpose of this article is to analyse the design and implementation of strategic planning and performance management in governmental agencies in two Nordic countries, Finland and Norway. Nordic countries are an interesting study from a comparative perspective because while they are commonly assumed to have been high-intensity new public management reformers, they are also commonly assumed to have a distinct public management tradition. Moreover, these two countries are interesting to study because within the Nordic public management tradition, Finland and Norway specifically represent two different public management traditions. Finland belongs to the Eastern Nordic public management tradition, with an emphasis on decentralisation and agency autonomy, while Norway belongs to the Western Nordic public management tradition, with an emphasis on hierarchical governance, and hence, much performance management and reporting. Therefore, we expected to find more decentralised strategic management and an emphasis on evaluation in Finland, and more central, planning-like strategic management and reporting in Norway. Our comparison shows that both countries had mandatory strategic planning and utilised decentralised strategic planning in government agencies. The stronger legal orientation in the public administration in Finland, however, made strategic changes more complicated in Finland than in Norway.
Highlights
The purpose of this article is to analyse the design and implementation of strategic planning and performance management in governmental agencies in a Nordic context
In Norway, the Western Nordic public management traditional emphasis on hierarchical governance could be related to the practice of a strong emphasis on agency governance by performance management and the practice of formally less-binding agency strategic planning
The purpose of this article was to analyse the design and implementation of strategic planning in central government agencies in a Nordic context by a comparative case study of two countries representing the Eastern and Western Nordic management traditions. We found that both countries had mandatory strategic planning, as expected for high-intensity, new public management reformers, but, unexpectedly, both countries utilised decentralised strategic planning in the government agencies
Summary
The purpose of this article is to analyse the design and implementation of strategic planning and performance management in governmental agencies in a Nordic context. In order to compare the governmental strategic management systems in these two countries, we employed the New Zealand model of integrated strategic planning and performance management (Boston and Pallot 1997) as an ideal model (in a Weberian sense) This model shares many core assumptions with the normative strategic planning models (Bryson 2018) that originated in theory developed from Anglo-American contexts, such as North America and the UK. In Norway, the Western Nordic public management traditional emphasis on hierarchical governance could be related to the practice of a strong emphasis on agency governance by performance management and the practice of formally less-binding agency strategic planning The implications of these findings are that different national public management traditions and performance management regimes impact how strategic management is utilised in government and within countries that are often assumed to be distinct from a comparative perspective.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
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 call
