دانلود رایگان مقاله انگلیسی حکومت، مسئولیت پذیری و توسعه سازمانی: تجارب مدیران اداری و سیاستمداران - تیلور و فرانسیس 2018

ABSTRACT

This article explores how local politicians and care unit managers in Swedish eldercare experience and respond to state supervision (SSV). Twelve politicians and twelve managers in 15 previously inspected municipalities were interviewed about their experiences of and reactions to SSV in relation to their views of care quality and routines in eldercare practice. The findings indicate that local managers and political chairs perceived SSV in eldercare positively at a superficial level but were critical of and disappointed with specific aspects of it. In terms of (a) governance, chairs and managers said SSV strengthened implementation of national policies via local actors, but they were critical of SSV’s narrow focus on control and flaws in eldercare practice. With regard to (b) accountability, SSV was seen as limited to accountability for finances and systemic performance, and regarding (c) organizational development, SSV was seen as limited to improving routines and compliance with legislation, while local definitions of quality are broader than that. In general, local actors regarded SSV as improving administrative aspects and routines in practice but ignoring the relational content of eldercare quality.

Conclusions

Local politicians and service managers conceived and responded positively to SSV at the same time as they experienced major weaknesses in the SSV system. Mainly, SSV contributed to strengthening the state’s accountability function, that is, to reinforce local governments’ and actors’ compliance with statues (accountability for finances and fairness).

The findings of this study could be of international relevance, as they reveal limitations of the function of SSV in relation to its overall aim of ensuring equal distribution and good quality in eldercare inherent in the various pieces of legislation in the eldercare area. SSV appears insufficient to address some of the fundamental quality issues linked with eldercare. The limited role, the narrow supervision focus, and the vague inspection report statements characteristic of governance by SSV are also mirrored in SSV’s contribution to accountability. SSV’s main emphasis is accountability for fairness, while accountability for performance is reduced to a striving to equalize care between different municipal settings and between public and private care providers (cf. Behn, 2001).