Singular memory or institutional memories? Toward a dynamic approach
Abstract
The ability of the civil service to act as a reservoir of institutional memory is central to the pragmatic task of governing. But there is a growing body of scholarship that suggests the bureaucracy is failing at this core task. In this article, we distinguish between two different ways of thinking about institutional memory: one “static” and one “dynamic.” In the former, memory is singular and held in document form, especially by files and procedures. In the latter, memories reside with people and are thus dispersed across the array of actors that make up the differentiated polity. Drawing on four policy examples from three countries, we argue that a more dynamic understanding of the way institutions remember is both empirically salient and normatively desirable. We conclude that the current conceptualization of institutional memory needs to be recalibrated to fit the types of policy learning practices required by modern collaborative governance.
REFERENCES
-
Alford, J., &
O'Flynn, J. (2012). Rethinking public service delivery: Managing with external providers. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
10.1007/978-1-137-00724-7 Google Scholar
- Bartenberger, M., & Sześciło, D. (2016). The benefits and risks of experimental co-production: The case of urban re-design in Vienna. Public Administration, 94(2), 509–525.
- Bell, S. (2011). Do we really need a new “constructivist institutionalism” to explain institutional change? British Journal of Political Science, 41(04), 883–906.
- Bennett, C. J., & Howlett, M. (1992). The lessons of learning: Reconciling theories of policy learning and policy change. Policy Sciences, 25(3), 275–294.
-
Bevir, M., &
Rhodes, R. A. W. (2010). The state as cultural practice. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199580750.001.0001 Google Scholar
- Bouckaert, G. (2017). Taking stock of “governance”: A predominantly European perspective. Governance, 30(1), 45–52.
- Carey, G., & Crammond, B. (2015). What works in joined-up government? An evidence synthesis. International Journal of Public Administration, 38(13–14), 1020–1029.
- Corbett, J., & Howard, C. (2017). Why perceived size matters for agency termination. Public Administration, 95(1), 196–213.
- Czarniawska, B. (1997). Narrating the organization: Dramas of institutional identity. Chicogo, IL: University of Chicago Press.
- Czarniawska, B. (2004). Narratives in social science research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
- Duncan, R. B., & Weiss, A. (1979). Organizational learning: Implications for organizational design. In B. M. Staw (Ed.), Research in organizational behaviour (Vol. 1, pp. 75–124). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
- Dunlop, C. A., & Radaelli, C. M. (2013). Systematising policy learning: From monolith to dimensions. Political Studies, 61(3), 599–619.
- Elston, T. (2014). Not so “arm's length”: Reinterpreting agencies in UK central government. Public Administration, 92(2), 458–476.
-
Fischer, F. (2003). Reframing public policy: Discursive politics and deliberative practices. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
10.1093/019924264X.001.0001 Google Scholar
- Hay, C. (2011). Interpreting interpretivism interpreting interpretations: The new hermeneutics of public administration. Public Administration, 89(1), 167–182.
- Hendriks, C. M. (2009). The democratic soup: Mixed meanings of political representation in governance networks. Governance, 22(4), 689–715.
-
Hood, C., &
Lodge, M. (2006). The politics of public service bargains: Reward, competency, loyalty-and blame. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
10.1093/019926967X.001.0001 Google Scholar
- Kania, J., & Kramer, M. (2011). Collective impact. Stanford Social Innovation Review, (Winter), 36–41.
- King, A., & Crewe, I. (2013). The blunders of our governments. London, UK: Oneworld.
- Lindblom, C. (1959). The science of muddling through. Public Administration Review, 19(2), 79–88.
- Linde, C. (2008). Working the past: Narrative and institutional memory. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
- Lijphart, A. (1971). Comparative politics and the comparative method. American Political Science Review, 65(3), 682–693.
- Lindquist, E. A., & Eichbaum, C. (2016). Remaking government in Canada: Dares, resilience and civility in westminster systems. Governance, 29(4), 553–571.
-
Lowndes, V., &
Roberts, M. (2013). Why institutions matter: The new institutionalism in political science. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
10.1007/978-1-137-32913-4 Google Scholar
- March, J. G. (1972). Model bias in social action. Review of Educational Research, 42(4), 413–429.
-
Marsh, D., &
Rhodes, R. A. W. (1992). Policy networks in British Government. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.
10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198278528.001.0001 Google Scholar
- Marsh, D. (2011). The new orthodoxy: The differentiated polity model. Public Administration, 89(1), 32–48.
- Nystrom, P. C., & Starbuck, W. H. (1984). To avoid organizational crisis, unlearn. Organizational Dynamics, 12(4), 53–65.
- S. Osborne (Ed.) (2009). The new public governance? London, UK: Routledge.
- Pierson, P. (2000). Increasing returns, path dependence, and the study of politics. American Political Science Review, 94(2), 251–267.
-
Pierson, P. (2004). Politics in time. history, institutions and social analysis. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
10.1515/9781400841080 Google Scholar
-
Pollitt, C. (2000). Institutional amnesia: A paradox of the “information age”? Prometheus, 18(1), 5–16.
10.1080/08109020050000627 Google Scholar
-
Pollitt, C. (2007). Chapter 9 time out? In K. Schedler & I. Proeller (Eds.), Cultural aspects of public management reform (Research in public policy analysis and management) (Vol. 16, pp. 231–245). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group.
10.1016/S0732-1317(07)16009-7 Google Scholar
- Pollitt, C. (2008). Time, policy, management: Governing with the past. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
- Pollitt, C. (2009). Bureaucracies remember, post-bureaucratic organizations forget? Public Administration, 87(2), 198–218.
- Rhodes, R. A. W. (1997). Understanding governance: Policy networks, governance, reflexivity and accountability. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
- Rhodes, R. A. W. (2011). Everyday life in British Government. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
- Rhodes, R. A. W., & Tiernan, A. (2014). Lessons of governing. A profile of prime ministers' chiefs of staff. Melbourne, Australia: Melbourne University Press.
-
Rhodes, R. A. W.,
Wanna, J., &
Weller, P. (2009). Comparing Westminster. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199563494.001.0001 Google Scholar
- Richards, D., & Smith, M. (2016). The Westminster model and the “indivisibility of the political and administrative elite”: A convenient myth whose time is up? Governance, 29(4), 499–516.
- Schmidt, V. A. (2008). Discursive institutionalism: The explanatory power of ideas and discourse. Annual Review of Political Science, 11(1), 303–326.
- Schmidt, V. A. (2010). Taking ideas and discourse seriously: Explaining change through discursive institutionalism as the fourth “new institutionalism”. European Political Science Review, 2(01), 1–25.
- Schon, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner. New York, NY: Basic Books.
- Scott, R. J., & Boyd, R. (2017). Interagency performance targets: A case study of New Zealand's results programme. Washington, DC: IBM Business of Government.
- Smullen, A. (2010). Translating agency reform through durable rhetorical styles: Comparing official agency talk across consensus and adversarial contexts. Public Administration, 88(4), 943–959.
- Stark, A. (2017). The shelf-life of public policy: Institutional memory and amnesia in four Westminster systems. Paper presented at the Political Studies Association annual conference, Glasgow.
- Sullivan, H. (2015). Democracy and hybrid governance in Australia. Meanjin, 74(3), 120–122.
- Walsh, J. P., & Ungson, G. R. (1991). Organizational memory. Academy of Management Review, 16(1), 57–91.
-
Wettenhall, R. (2011). Organisational amnesia: A serious public sector reform issue. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 24(1), 80–96.
10.1108/09513551111099235 Google Scholar