<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<record
    xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
    xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim http://www.loc.gov/standards/marcxml/schema/MARC21slim.xsd"
    xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim">

  <leader>01455pab a2200181 454500</leader>
  <controlfield tag="008">180718b2012   xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d</controlfield>
  <datafield tag="100" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Torsteinsen, Harald</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="245" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Why does post - bureaucracy lead to more formalisation?</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="260" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="c">2012</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="300" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">p.321-344.</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="362" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Jun</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">This paper discusses and tries to explain the paradoxical observation that a local government reform aimed at reducing or even removing bureaucracy actually leads to more formalisation, not less. During the last 10&#xFF96;15 years more than 40 per cent of Norwegian municipalities have adopted an organisational model that makes the administration more disaggregated, decentralised and flat. The reform has been promoted by strong post- or even anti-bureaucratic rhetoric, arguing for increased managerial autonomy at the operational level. The basic idea is that greater autonomy will create better performance. The paradox of increased formalisation is discussed on the basis of rhetoric, unintended consequences, diagnostic problems and linguistic problems. The paper concludes by pointing out the need for a more nuanced conception of bureaucracy than the dichotomous approach of post-bureaucracy can offer. It also outlines a couple of supplementing explanations for increased formalisation. - Reproduce</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Local government</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Administrative reform</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="773" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Local Government Studies</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="908" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">N</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="909" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">96944</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="999" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="c">96944</subfield>
    <subfield code="d">96944</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="0">0</subfield>
    <subfield code="1">0</subfield>
    <subfield code="4">0</subfield>
    <subfield code="7">0</subfield>
    <subfield code="a">IIPA</subfield>
    <subfield code="b">IIPA</subfield>
    <subfield code="d">2018-07-19</subfield>
    <subfield code="h">Volume no: 38, Issue no: 3</subfield>
    <subfield code="p">AR97404</subfield>
    <subfield code="r">2018-07-19</subfield>
    <subfield code="w">2018-07-19</subfield>
    <subfield code="y">AR</subfield>
  </datafield>
</record>
