E-government and NPM reforms in Flanders Match or conflict?

KATHOLIEKE UNIVERSITEIT LEUVEN E-government and NPM reforms in Flanders Match or conflict? Pelgrims Christophe & Kris Snijkers Paper presented on: The Ninth International Research Symposium on Public Management - IRSPM IX Bocconi School of Management, Milan, April,6 th - April,8 th 2005 Public Management Institute Katholieke Universiteit Leuven. E. Van Evenstraat 2 c 3000 Leuven Belgium Christophe.pelgrims@soc.kuleuven.ac.be Kris.snijkers@soc.kuleuven.ac.be

Abstract In the past decades, many administrative reforms occurred. On the one hand, these reforms aimed at an improvement of accountability relations and political steering; on the other hand, these reforms had to improve public service delivery. In 1999, the Flemish government started two reform projects: Beter Bestuurlijk Beleid and an e-government project. However, as both reforms had a different primacy, focus, orientation and perspective on the citizen they collided with each other. The strengthening of (vertical) accountability relations seemed to impede the improvement of (horizontal) process redesign. In this paper, we will describe and compare these two reform projects. After the analysis of both reforms, we will look at the possibility of horizontal forms of network accountability to overcome this problem. 1 Introduction Administrative reforms are introduced in a range of public services across Europe (Pollitt & Bouckaert, 2000). This tendency to reform is also present in the Flemish Community, one of the regional entities in Belgium. The Flemish government, which took office in 1999, had the explicit ambition to transform the Flemish administration into one of the best performing administrations in the OECD. That same year, the Flemish government presented a farreaching reform plan for the Flemish government. This reform (called Beter Bestuurlijk Beleid ) is based on the restoration of the primacy of politics. Its ultimate goal is to optimise the public administration by the reduction of rules, a larger responsibility for civil servants and the reduction of ministerial cabinets. Consequently, the reform has a far-reaching impact on the present structure of the Flemish administration. Parallel with this reform programme, the Flemish government launched an e-government project. The main goal of this project is that every citizen, company or organization can communicate in an interactive way with the government and that the different levels of government co-operate and integrate their services from a customer-oriented perspective. This paper analyses two reform programs in the Flemish administration. We examine whether both programs are convergent or divergent. Therefore, both are analysed according to their primacy, the focus of reforms, the orientation and the perspective on citizens. Next, we argue that organisational and e-government reforms diverge, due to different concepts of government. To conclude, we try to find a way to converge both reforms in the concept of network accountability. 2 Beter Bestuurlijk Beleid Before the reforms, the Flemish administration had a matrix structure with five vertical and two horizontal departments. Since its establishment, the administration has already 1

experienced several waves of reform. It was of course confronted with a steady growth due to Flanders increasing competences, following the different state reforms. In addition, some initiatives were taken during the 1980s to increase co-ordination, e.g. the installation of a board of secretary-generals. During the 1990s, several projects of administrative reform were launched in different management areas: human resources, strategy, technology, and organisation (Bouckaert & Auwers, 1999a). Overall, these past reforms have been evaluated as rather successful (Bouckaert & Auwers, 1999b). In its coalition agreement of 1999, the Flemish government explicitly agreed to reform the administration (Vlaamse regering, 1999). This basis was further elaborated in the Leuven Agreement, reached on February, 19 th 2000. On March, 31 st 2000 two senior civil servants were appointed to develop the actual plans and prepare the process of administrative reform. They published their report on December, 21 st 2000 (Victor & Stroobants, 2000). 2.1 Two principles of reform Two principles underpin the proposed reforms. The first one is the restoration of the primacy of politics 1. In the mid-nineties Guy Verhofstadt, then a prominent member of the liberal-democrat party, later on Prime Minister, put this issue on the political agenda. Initially, the concept referred to the balance of power between politics on the one hand and the trade unions and other interest groups on the other (Stouthuysen, 2002). In the years after its introduction, the meaning of the concept primacy of politics gradually evolved and increasingly also referred to politico-administrative relations and the necessarily dominant role for politics. As such, it of course referred to a basic democratic principle and accountability also frequently referred to in academic literature. According to Bouckaert political primacy means: legislative power has precedence over executive power, ministers over civil servants/managers and the public interest has priority over particular interests (Bouckaert, 1997). In the Flemish context, the concept primacy of politics was particularly used to justify political precedence in two areas with extensive tension: the power balance between politics and the core administration and (more importantly) the power balance between politics and the agencies. In the Flemish coalition agreement of 1999, the concept was specified as follows: The primacy of politics implies that ministers decide on the policy; in this decision they are supported by their ministerial cabinet to ensure a political balancing of the potential policy choices. Once the decision is taken at the political level, this automatically commissions the administration to start implementation (Vlaamse regering, 1999). The commissioners report (see above) argued that rather than being in opposition to the role of 1 The role of the concepts New Political Culture and primacy of politics in the agenda setting process of administrative and political reform has been described by Maesschalck J., Hondeghem A. & C. Pelgrims (Maesschalck, Hondeghem, & Pelgrims, 2002). 2

the civil servants, the primacy of politics even reinforces the role of the latter (Victor & Stroobants, 2000). A second core principle of the reform was to downsize the ministerial cabinets and to strengthen the policy capacities of the administration. In Flanders, as in the Belgian federal and other regional governments, most of the policy formulation and design is done in ministerial cabinets (Dewachter, 1995; Hondeghem, 2000). These essentially consist of a number (roughly 20 to 25) political advisors, appointed by the minister, sometimes recommended by interest groups related to the minister s party (Pelgrims, 2001). Ministerial cabinets have political and policy functions (Brans, Hoet, & Pelgrims, 2002; Suetens & Walgrave, 2001). Their political functions are related to the nature of Belgian party political recruitment and particracy (Dewinter, 1981) 2. Their policy functions include producing policy advice, communication and co-ordination, providing guidance to the minister into the secrets of the bureaucracy and fostering policy support from civil society. As such, the administration is left with implementation only (Hondeghem, 1990). In the Flemish coalition agreement of 1999, the government explicitly acknowledged that downsizing the ministerial cabinets is a necessary condition to strengthen the policy capacities of the administration (Vlaamse regering, 1999). It is important to note that in its programme of administrative reform, the Flemish government did not propose to abolish the cabinets, but only to downsize them. A small group of political advisers around the minister will remain to assess the policy initiatives from a political point of view. In addition, these downsized cabinets will maintain an important role in the co-ordination process on the political level (Pelgrims, 2004; Pelgrims, Steen, & Hondeghem, 2003). Thus, the second aim focuses on the different roles ministers and civil servants have in the policy process and has the intention to strengthen the role of civil servants. This should lead towards an improvement of the relations between both actors. 2.2 Targets of reform First, the reform aims at establishing homogeneous policy domains around departments and agencies. A homogeneous policy domain is defined as a cluster of policy fields that create a coherent whole both from the perspective of politics and from the perspective of the client (Victor & Stroobants, 2000). For every policy domain, a department will be created, which will be responsible for policy formulation, monitoring and evaluation. The primary task of the department will be to support the minister. In addition, it will be responsible for the implementation of those aspects which cannot be put at arms length. The agencies primary task will be implementation. Thus, the reform creates a structural and organizational 2 Ministerial cabinets function as recruitment and career mechanisms for professional politicians, as lubricants for coalition government formation, party control of ministers and support to party organisation 3

distinction between policy formulation and policy implementation, as both need different competences. The initial reform plan created thirteen homogeneous policy domains 3 (Victor & Stroobants, 2000): 1. Service of the minister-president 2. Foreign Policy and International Co-operation 3. Scientific and Technological Innovation 4. Administrative affairs 5. Finance and Budget 6. Education and Training 7. Welfare and Public Health 8. Culture, Sports and Media 9. Economy, Employment and Tourism 10. Agriculture 11. Environment and Conservation 12. Mobility 13. Town and Country Planning, Housing, Monuments and Landscape A second aim of the reform is to establish a one-to-one relationship between the minister and his/her department and agencies. In 1990 a board of secretary-generals was established to ensure proper co-ordination across all departments. In the course of the years, this body had developed significant power and was thus alleged to threaten the primacy of politics. In the new structure, there will be a one-to-one relationship between the minister and his/her administration. This not only implies no mediation of a collegiate college of civil servants, it also precludes that more than one minister and department will bear responsibility over one agency. Finally, the policy reform creates a policy board at the top of each policy domain (i.e. the department and its agencies). This board will include the minister, the head of his/her cabinet and all the top civil servants of the policy domain (both of the department and the agency). The board should act as the strategic platform. It should be a place for an open dialogue between politicians and civil servants about the strategic opportunities and needs 3 The latest Flemish government, which took office in 2004, reshuffled the homogenous policy domains. Through this the one-to-one relationship was left. The new policy domains will be: 1. Service of the Minister-President; 2. Administrative Affairs; 3. Finance and Budget; 4. Foreign Policy, Foreign Trade, International Cooperation and Tourism; 5.Economy, Science and Innovation; 6. Education and Training; 7. Welfare, Public Health and Family; 8. Culture, Youth, Sport and Media; 9. Work and Social Economy; 10. Agriculture and Sea Fisheries; 11. Environment, nature and Energy; 12. Mobility and Public Works; 13. Town and Country Planning, Housing, Estate Inheritance (Vlaamse regering, 2005). 4

of the policy domain (Victor & Stroobants, 2000). In addition, the board should guard good governance and support policy formulation. In contrast with previous reform programs, the Beter Bestuurlijk Beleid reform targets the Flemish administration as a whole: reforms are not only focused on the Flemish ministry, but also include semi-governmental bodies. The reform proposals integrate human resource management changes with the restructuring of the organisational model of the Flemish administration. 3 E-government in the Flemish administration The use of new information and communication technologies (ICTs) in public administration has been an important evolution during the past decades. Especially the introduction of network technologies like the internet offers many new possibilities to restructure the administration. Some authors call the internet a transformative technology because it not only makes existing tasks and activities more efficient, but it also can transform and alter the way in which processes are structured (Lenihan & Kaufman, 2001). In this way, beside an enhancement of efficiency, also the effectiveness, transparency and democratic capacity of public administration are greatly enhanced. In public service delivery, ICTs can be used to redesign processes that run through administrative boundaries. The concept business process reengineering is often used to describe the way in which ICTs are used as an enabler to restructure administrative processes in such a way that the value of the outcome of a process is maximised (Hammer, 1990; Hammer & Champy, 1993). A fragmented and compartmentalised service delivery may be turned into an integrated customer oriented service delivery. The Flemish administration did not keep behind in this evolution. During the 1990s, however, the strategy that had to be followed was not clear. The importance of an improvement of service delivery and the use of one-stop-shops was mentioned for the first time after the elections of 1991 (Dehaene, 1992; Vlaamse regering, 1992). In these elections, anti-establishment parties had a big electoral success. According to the new government, this success was caused by an increased alienation of the Flemish citizen from government. In order to stop this alienation, a Chief Information Officer (CIO) and an Ombud were installed and the public service delivery should be improved. Yet, the concept of a onestop-shop and the use of information and communication technologies was not further elaborated by the new government in 1991. At the beginning of the 1990s, there was no attention for ICTs to enhance the relation between government and citizens. This can be explained by the fact that ICTs were not widespread in Flanders at that time. In 1994, the CIO of the Flemish administration 5

mentions the use of ICTs and the evolution towards an information society. However, he thought of the internet as just another electronic hype that soon would be over (Decoster, 1995). According to him, the internet was only an interesting medium to reach foreigners but not to reach Flemish citizens. In this way, he assumed that a website of the Flemish administration should only be targeted at foreigners. One year later, his discourse completely changed. In 1995 the Flemish CIO acknowledged that the internet was here to stay and would play an important role in public administration (Decoster, 1996). From now on, the Flemish CIO wanted to use the internet as one of the major channels through which the Flemish government would communicate with its citizens. 3.1 Target of reform Although the importance of the internet was acknowledged in 1995, the first encompassing e-government program started after the elections of 1999. After these elections, the new government made a priority of the e-government policy. In line with the European Lisbon Strategy, the Flemish government wanted to go on-line (this was the tenth action point of the Lisbon Strategy). In the policy declaration of the new government it was stated that: Flanders cherishes the ambition to be the first region in the world to build a fully functional e-government. The citizen has to be able to consult all policy documents on-line, to apply for all administrative forms on-line and to contact every political responsible or administrative service on-line. Citizens and companies must receive an integrated service delivery at a one-stop-shop (a virtual or a real one) for all of their questions and administrative files. (Dewael, 2000) To realise this goal a new portal site (front-office) and a new administrative structure that would steer and co-ordinate the process redesign (back-office) were set up. The first site of the Flemish government (www.vlaanderen.be), which was brought online in 1996, was not only a very static site; it actually was a collection of several departmental sites. In this way, the site not only lacked a common look and feel but it was also very difficult for a citizen to find the needed information. The fragmentation and compartmentalisation of the Flemish administration was pursued on-line. In 2001, a new portal site was launched. Although the new site was an improvement, compared to the old one, a citizen only could find information on policy and administrative procedures. The site was not yet a transactional one. Since 2001, the site of the Flemish government has been replaced two times: once in 2003 and once in 2004. The realisation of a transactional site with an integrated service delivery implies an important change in the view on public administration (Leenes, 2001). Traditionally, services are provided in function of existing administrative structure. Therefore, each administration 6

provides a certain service (e.g. the provision of an allowance or a permit). However, a specific service seldom provides a solution to the problem of a citizen. For example, when a citizen wants to build a house, he is not only interested in a building permit, but also in subsidies to build an environment-friendly house. In practice, it is possible that the permit will be provided by the administration responsible for spatial planning, and the subsidy by the administration responsible for environment. Now, the integration of services implies that service delivery is not organised in function of the administrative structure, but in function of the problem situation of the citizen. Of course, to do so, different administrations have to collaborate and redesign and integrate processes that run through their boundaries. 3.2 Administrative structure In the Flemish administration, the creation of integrated services meant that the classic administrative structure was not suited to steer the e-government development, because of the necessary boundary crossing activities. Instead of using existing structures, a new structure was created, within the existing administration. The new structure consisted of so called clusters (Vlaamse regering, 2000). A cluster is seen as a bundle of services that are logically interrelated from the viewpoint of the citizen. An example of a cluster is employment. Such a cluster has to provide all services related to the theme or problem situation employment. A first problem for the Flemish administration was the selection and construction of clusters. Although the rationale of clusters as a bundle of services seems to be logic, this idea is quite difficult to realise in practice. Which services are logically interrelated from the viewpoint of the citizen? To answer this question, the Flemish administration made use of the knowledge and the experience of the Flemish Infophone and the ombud services of the Flemish as well as of local governments. Based on the questions and complaints of citizens, eleven clusters were defined (Vlaamse regering, 2002): 1. Building and Living 2. Companies 3. Employment 4. Health and Welfare 5. Flemish and Local Taxes 6. Environment 7. Education and Training 8. Mobility 9. Culture, Sports, Leisure and Media 10. Government 11. Science and Technology 7

Each cluster is responsible to deliver information, interactive and transactional services. To realise this target, each cluster has a steering committee and a cluster team. The steering committee is composed of ministers and high-level civil servants. The cluster team is composed of civil servants who are responsible to realise the e-government vision in practice. The composition of the clusters implies that a cluster does not consist of one specific department or administration, but of several departments and administrations from different policy domains (possibly even of different levels of government). The political responsibility of a cluster is placed with one specific minister. Yet, as a cluster can consist of several administrations, it is possible that other ministers are involved in the activities of a certain cluster. It is never explicitly made clear what this involvement is and how the responsibilities between the responsible and involved ministers are shared. The responsibility for the performance of a cluster lies with the cluster teams. As these teams are composed of civil servants from several administrations, they have a shared responsibility on the performance of a cluster. The question remains how this responsibility is linked with the general political responsibility of the minister. What if certain targets are not met? Can the responsible minister steer civil servants or administrations that do not actually resort within his policy domain? What if the responsible and the involved ministers do not agree on certain developments and the civil servants within one cluster are steered in different directions? Of course, the steering committee of a cluster can play an important role here, and they are a critical success factor in the further development of boundary crossing public services. 4 Beter bestuurlijk beleid versus e-government When we compare the Beter Bestuurlijk Beleid reform with the e-government project of the Flemish administration, we see some remarkable conceptual differences in the policy documents of the two initiatives. In this paragraph, we will analyse these differences by looking at the primacy, the focus, the orientation and the perspective on the citizen of both reforms. Table 1 - Beter Bestuurlijk Beleid versus e-government Beter Bestuurlijk Beleid e-government Primacy Politics Citizen Focus Competences & accountability Processes & value-chains Orientation Vertical Horizontal Perspective on the citizen Voter Customer 8

The primacy of a reform is a quite difficult concept. In general, we can define the primacy as the central, steering and guiding principle of a reform or policy. In the Beter Bestuurlijk Beleid reform, the primacy of politics is an important concept. The primacy of politics means that democratic elected politicians define public policy. In this way, the starting point of the whole reform is politics: the ministers of the Flemish government and the Flemish parliament. The new administrative structure (homogeneous policy domains) is build in function of politics, to enhance the capacity of politics to steer the administration and to improve accountability relations between the administration and politics. In the e-government initiative, the primacy was not politics but citizens. The idea is to place the citizen at the centre of reform. The old situation, in which public services were organised in function of administrative structures, should be replaced by a situation in which the administration and public services are organised in function of the citizen. Therefore, here the starting point of reform was the citizen. The e-government clusters were constructed according to the problem situations of citizens. As the starting point of Beter Bestuurlijk Beleid and the e-government initiative differ, both reforms also have a different focus on public administration and the way in which an administrative structure should be shaped. The Beter Bestuurlijk Beleid reform focused on a very strict division of tasks and responsibilities. An important illustration of this ambition is the creation of thirteen homogeneous policy domains. The aim of the Beter Bestuurlijk Beleid reform was to group tasks and responsibilities concerning one policy domain under the authority of one minister (the one-to-one relation). Within a policy domain, a strict allocation of tasks between politics and administration as well as between the core departments and the agencies was set up. Beside the task allocation within the Flemish administration, there also was attention for the task allocation between the central Flemish administration, the provinces and the municipalities (Bouckaert et al., 2002; Snijkers & Verhoest, 2003). The idea of task specialisation and task allocation was grounded in the believe that by allocating specific tasks to a certain administrative unit, the responsibilities of these administrative units would become more clear. In the end, this should lead towards an increased accountability towards politics. An e-government reform takes an opposite approach. Here, the focus does not lie on specific tasks, but on entire processes. The central issue is not to find the one best method or administration to fulfil a specific task, but to maximise the value of the outcome of an entire process. In this way, the emphasis is not placed on the separation of tasks between different administrations, but on co-operation between different administrations. The distinction between tasks and processes is a very important one. However, in many e- Government reforms this distinction is not taken into account (Snijkers, 2004). ICTs are 9

often introduced on the level of specific tasks instead of on the level of entire processes. In this way, the efficiency of certain tasks can be enhanced, but the effectiveness of the process is not. Especially the new networking possibilities of ICTs give the opportunity to focus on processes and to stimulate co-operation between different administrations. A third important difference between both reforms is their orientation. While the orientation of Beter Bestuurlijk Beleid is vertical, the orientation of the e-government project is horizontal. A core principle of the Beter Bestuurlijk Beleid reform was the creation of homogeneous policy domains. Such a domain is organised in a classic way: the minister is the top responsible of the policy domain, and the administrations and agencies below him have to implement policy that is decided by the minister. Therefore, the steering and accountability relations are organised in a vertical way. The clusters of the e-government project have a horizontal orientation. Different administrations and agencies, from different policy domains, collaborate in function of the problem situation of citizens. Here, not so much the vertical accountability relations prevail, but the added value for the citizen. The quality and performance of a cluster depends on the collaboration over the boundaries of a homogeneous policy domain. The fourth difference between both reforms is the perspective on the role of the citizen. In his relation to government, a citizen plays several roles. In the literature, two classic roles can be distinguished: the citizen as a voter and the citizen as a customer (Maes, 1998; Maes, 1999; Smith & Huntsman, 1997). Each of these roles can be placed within a political theory. As a voter, the citizen elects his representatives. According to Edwards, the relation between the citizen, his political representatives and the administration is a hierarchic one (Edwards, 1995). The political representatives have to make decisions that are in line with the popular will. These decisions have to be implemented by the administration. It is this model that we find in the Beter Bestuurlijk Beleid reform: according to the principle of the political primacy, the administration has to follow the line that has been set out by the minister. Of course, in the end, this minister will stand for elections and is hold accountable by his electorate. As a customer of public services, the citizen wants to obtain the highest value for his taxmoney. This role is important in an economic view on democracy or the citizens-customer model (Downs, 1957; Smith & Huntsman, 1997). The citizen is a homo economicus that tries to maximise his own benefits. Thus, public services have to be organised in a way that best suits the citizen. Osborne and Gaebler express the need for the improvement of public service delivery in their work Reinventing Government : 10

Democratic governments exist to serve their citizens. Businesses exist to make profits. And yet it is business that searches obsessively for new ways to please the American people (Osborne & Gaebler, 1993). In the customer-model, citizens are seen as customers of public service delivery in the same way as they are customers of products and services of private companies. Bellamy and Taylor call this the consumer democracy (Bellamy & Taylor, 1998). This model can be found back in the e-government initiative. By ICTs, the Flemish administration wants to improve its service delivery towards the citizen. Figure 1 illustrates the divergence of Beter Bestuurlijke Beleid and the e-government project. 11

Figure 1 - Beter Bestuurlijk Beleid versus e-government 12

5 Network accountability Our analysis shows a divergence of both reform plans. Different concepts of government were the logic behind this divergence. The reform project Beter Bestuurlijk Beleid created homogenous policy domains, each led by one minister, that have to give account to the parliament, the democratic representation of the nation. The vertical line of authority (marked on Figure 1) creates a unified chain of command and becomes the line of accountability. Primacy of politics involves accountability in a vertical line. In this vertical line accountability is understood as the legal obligation to be responsive to the legitimate interest of those affected by decisions, programs and interventions (Considine, 2002). The e-government project creates a network inside the civil service, starting from the primacy of citizen. The accountability rising is a horizontal one. The focus lies on processes towards citizens. These cross-cutting processes require other and more complex accountability relations compared to the traditional ones. According to Keohane and Nye two traditional mechanism of accountability are not applicable in networks: electoral accountability and hierarchical accountability (Keohane & Nye, 2001). On top of this, Rhodes states that these complex relations undervalue the traditional mechanisms of representative bureaucracy. (Rhodes, 1997) The search of convergence shows similarities with the Joined-up Government debate (Wilkins, 2002). This debate concerns the integration of services from more than one department to achieve a better result than acting separately. 4 One of the possibilities suggested, is the creation of pooled budgets. One of the partners would host the budget and manage it. Pooled budget changes the idea of responsibility within the traditional, vertical concept of accountability. Although steering on resources could be a solution for interdepartmental outcomes, it does not solve the accountability issues. Wilkins makes an apt remark that: pooled budgets need a clearly articulated accountability framework indicating how responsibilities and accountability will be shared (Wilkins, 2002). The different aspects of accountability lie at the core of the divergence of both reform plans. Converging both reform plans requires a new issue of accountability namely network accountability. Scholars refer also to a multi-dimensional system of accountability (Brenner, Reinicke, & Witte, 2004). Network accountability has two components: an administrative and a political one. The administrative one requires pooling civil servants as well vertical as horizontal. Civil servants become responsible for processes that go beyond departmental structures, but remain responsible to their vertical minister. According to Considine 4 According to Wilkins the joined-up government initiatives also involves initiatives from other levels of government and community groups (Wilkins, 2002). These discussions are outside the scope of this article. 13

accountability becomes a matter of organizational convergence, which involves a cultural strategy (Considine, 2002). Creating shared mandates in order to converge NPM reforms and e-government projects requires accompanying a cultural framework of obligations (in a horizontal way) and the traditional vertical lines of accountability (Considine, 2002). Besides, converging both administrative reform plans requires also a political transformation. Executives should also, next to vertical accountability relations, accept horizontal accountability. Through this, they also become responsible for horizontal outcomes. This redefinition of tasks for political executives requires a transformation of accountability towards the parliament. Agreeing with Perry 6 government should innovate with more intermediate and indirect forms of accountability such as focusing parliamentary committees, ministers and others on outcomes rather than on functions (Perry 6, 1999). 6 Conclusion The Flemish government, which took office in 1999, had the ambition to transform the Flemish administration into one of the best in the OECD. Therefore two administrative reform plans were launched: Beter Bestuurlijk Beleid and e-government. Two principles underpin the Beter Bestuurlijk Beleid reform. Firstly, the restoration of the primacy of politics and secondly, the downsizing of ministerial cabinets and the aim to strengthen policy capacities of the administration. Therefore the reform plans reshuffled the Flemish administration into 13 homogeneous policy domains. Each policy domain consists of a department alongside agencies. On top of each domain a board should be installed. Each policy domain is led by one minister. In the e-government project 11 clusters were installed. These clusters cross the boundaries of the homogenous policy domains. A cluster is seen as a bundle of services that are logically interrelated from the viewpoint of the citizen. We analysed both plans according to four principles: primacy, focus, orientation and perspective on the citizen. In each of these aspects both reform plans differ. Therefore, we concluded that based on our analysis both plans diverge. This has immediately implications for the operation and implementation. The underlying divergence was found in the vertical and horizontal accountability relations. The convergence of both reforms requires a new concept of accountability. Therefore, we suggested the concept of network accountability. Network accountability has two components: an administrative and a political one. On the administrative level shared mandates accompanying a cultural framework of obligations in a horizontal way and the traditional vertical lines of accountability allow a convergence. On the political level, executives should also accept horizontal accountability next to vertical 14

accountability. These transformations imply also changes in the relation towards parliament and in the parliament itself. We conclude that a convergence of both administrative reforms, requires on top also transformations on a political level. 7 Reference list Bellamy, Ch., & Taylor, J. (1998). Governing in the information age. Buckingham: Open University Press. Bouckaert, G., & Auwers, T. (1999a). De modernisering van de Vlaamse Overheid. Brugge: Die Keure. Bouckaert, G., & Auwers, T. (1999b). Prestaties meten in de overheid. Brugge: Die Keure. Bouckaert, G., Verhoest, K., Wayenberg, E., Snijkers, K., Winters, S., Vandamme, B., Struyven, L., Vanhoren, I., Van Ootegem, L., Bachus, K., Hedebouw, G., & Sannen, L. (2002). Kerntaken van de verschillende overheden. Brussel: Hoge Raad voor Binnenlands Bestuur. Bouckaert, G. (1997). Nieuwe politieke cultuur en nieuwe overheidsmanagement. R. Maes Democratie Legitimiteit en Nieuwe Politieke Cultuur (pp. 107-120). Leuven: Acco. Brans, M., Hoet, D., & Pelgrims, C. (2002). Abolishing ministerial cabinets for re-inventing them? Comparative observations on professional policy advice and political control. ASPA Conference 2002. Brenner, T., Reinicke, W., & Witte, J. M. (2004). Multisectoral networks in global governance: towards a pluralistic system of accountability. Government and Opposition, 39(2), 191-210. Considine, M. (2002). The end of the line? Accountable governance in the age of networds, partnerships, and joined-up services. Governance, 15(1), 21-40. Decoster, F. (1995). Jaarverslag 1994 van de informatieambtenaar. Brussel: Ministerie van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap. Decoster, F. (1996). Jaarverslag 1995 van de informatieambtenaar. Brussel: Ministerie van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap. Dehaene, J. L. (1992). Regeringsverklaring uitgesproken voor het parlement op 9 maart 1992 door de Eerste minister, de heer Jean-Luc Dehaene en regeerakkoord. Brussel: Inbel. Dewachter, W. (1995). Besluitvorming in Politiek België. Leuven: Acco. 15

Dewael, P. (2000). Septemberverklaring 2000. Brussel: Vlaamse regering. Dewinter, L. (1981). De partijpolitisering als instrument van particratie. Res Publica, 1, 60-75. Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper. Edwards, A. R. (1995). Informatization and views of democracy. W. B. H. J. Van de Donk, I. Th. M. Snellen, & P. W. Tops Orwell in Athens (pp. 33-49). Amsterdam: IOS Press. Hammer, M. (1990). Reengineering Work: Don't Automate, Obliterate. Harvard Business Review, (4), 104-112. Hammer, M., & Champy, J. (1993). Reengineering the corporation. London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing. Hondeghem, A. (1990). De loopbaan van de ambtenaar. Tussen droom en werkelijkheid. Leuven: VCOB. Hondeghem, A. (2000). The national civil service in Belgium. H. Bekke, & F. Van der Meer Civil service systems in Western Europe (pp. 120-128 ). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Keohane, R., & Nye, J. (2001). Democracy, Accountability and Global Governance. Cambridge: Kennedy School of government. Leenes, R. E. (2001). De moeizame weg naar elektronische dienstverlening. Openbaar Bestuur, (6-7), 12-15. Lenihan, D. G., & Kaufman, J. (2001). Leveraging our Diversity: Canada as a Learning Society. Ottawa: Centre for Collaborative Government. Maes, R. (1998). Political and administrative innovations as a social project: the Belgian case. A. Hondeghem Ethics and accountability in a context of governance and new public management. (pp. 111-122). Amsterdam: IOS Press. Maes, R. (1999). De nieuwe media en de burgergerichte vernieuwingen in het lokaal bestuur. J. Steyaert Digitale steden en gemeenten in Vlaanderen. Een stand van zaken. (pp. 61-70). Brussel: Politeia. Maesschalck, J., Hondeghem, A., & Pelgrims, C. (2002). De evolutie naar Nieuwe Politieke Cultuur in België: een beleidswetenschappelijke analyse. Beleidswetenschap, 16(4), 295-317. 16

Osborne, D., & Gaebler, T. (1993). Reinventing government: how the entrepreneurial spirit is transforming the public sector. New York: Plume. Pelgrims, C. (2004). Afslanking van kabinetten en NPM veranderingen. Een Vlaamse catch 22? Bestuur Burger En Beleid, 1(3), 226-236. Pelgrims, C., Steen, T., & Hondeghem, A. (2003). Coordinatie van beleid binnen een veranderende politieke ambtelijke verhouding. Leuven: SBOV. Pelgrims, C. (2001). Ministeriële kabinetsleden en hun loopbaan. Tussen mythe en realiteit. Brugge: Die Keure. Perry 6. (1999). Governing in the round : strategies for holistic governement. London: Demos. Pollitt, C., & Bouckaert, G. (2000). Public Management Reform. A Comparative Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rhodes, R. (1997). Understanding Governance : policy networks, governance and accountability. Buckingham: Open University Press. Smith, G. E., & Huntsman, C. A. (1997). Reframing the metaphor of the citizen-government relationship: a value-centered perspective. Public Administration Review, 57(4), 309-318. Snijkers, K. (2004). egovernment in een interbestuurlijke context: een exploratie. Leuven: Steunpunt Bestuurlijke Organisatie Vlaanderen. Snijkers, K., & Verhoest, K. (2003). Het kerntakendebat: lessen voor de toekomst. Vlaams Tijdschrift Voor Overheidsmanagement., 8(3), 20-25. Stouthuysen, P. (2002). Het primaat van de politiek. Een situering van het Vlaamse debat. Bestuurskunde, 11(2), 69-78. Suetens, M., & Walgrave, S. (2001). Belgian politics without ministerial cabinets? On the possibilities and limitations of a new political culture. Acta Politica, 282-305. Victor, L., & Stroobants, E. (2000). Beter Bestuur. Een visie op een transparant organisatiemodel voor de Vlaamse administratie. Vlaamse regering. (1992). Krachtlijnen en prioriteiten van het beleid van de Vlaamse regering: tekst van het regeerakkoord van de Vlaamse regering goedgekeurd door de onderhandelaars van CVP, SP en VU/VVD, 28 januari 1992. Brussel: Ministerie van de 17

Vlaamse Gemeenschap. Vlaamse regering. (1999). Een nieuw project voor Vlaanderen. Brussel: Vlaamse regering. Vlaamse regering. (2000). De uitbouw van geintegreerde overheidsloketten. Brussel: Ministerie van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap. Vlaamse regering. (2002). De verdere uitbouw van het Vlaamse e-government. Brussel: Minister-president. Vlaamse regering. (2005) Beter Bestuurlijk Beleid : Besluit van de Vlaamse Regering over de organisatie van de Vlaamse administratie [Web Page]. URL www.vlaanderen.be. Wilkins, P. (2002). Accountability and Joined-up government. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 61(1), 1441-119. 18