The integration field touches so many ministries, so it makes sense that we are “on the move”. (Informant 4)

Over the past 20 years, Norwegian governments have transferred ministerial responsibility for the integration field, by moving the subdepartment responsible for this policy field seven times in the ministerial structure. This Department of Integration has been organised under the ministries responsible for local government and development, labour and social inclusion, children and families, justice, public security, and education and research (Hernes, 2021). This article explores how such organisational changes affect policy development, whether frequent changes produce specific effects and the role of organisational culture in the processes.

Changes in horizontal organisation––specifically, how tasks and responsibilities are distributed at the same hierarchical level (Egeberg & Trondal, 2018)–– is not only a political and administrative tool part of the governance of an field, but could also influence political processes and outcomes after its implementation (Lægreid & Rolland, 2017; Vestlund, 2015; Hernes, 2021). As the highest political and administrative level of governance, the horizontal organisation of the ministerial structure can particularly contribute to ensuring (or hindering) targeted policy development within the respective sectors and fields (Mortensen & Green-Pedersen, 2014). A large research literature has focused on various drivers for changes in ministerial structure (such as political ideologies and constellations, types of government, agenda-setting) where the ministerial structure is the dependent variable (Davis et al., 1999; White & Dunleavy, 2010; Mortensen & Green-Pedersen, 2014; Lægreid & Rolland, 2017; Hernes, 2018; Kuipers, Yesilkagit, & Carroll, 2021). However, the organizational structure may not only be studied as an outcome, but also as an independent variable affecting policy development (Hernes, 2021). Although we see a growing interest in this latter approach (Vestlund, 2015; Hegele, 2021; Durrant & Tetlow, 2019; Heppell, 2011; Kuipers, Yesilkagit, & Carroll, 2021), there is still limited knowledge about the various effects of such ministerial changes. Furthermore, previous studies have often focused on the impact of a specific change from one sector to another, whereas none have specifically analysed how horizontal changes at ministry level affect policy development in cases where changes are recurrent and frequent. This is theoretically relevant since the frequency of changes can also influence the process and actual effects of horizontal changes. Recent research indicates that recurrent and frequent organisational changes may have (most often negative) consequences on various outcomes, such as increased organisational absenteeism rates (Wynen et al., 2019), higher degree of fear of speaking up, such as sharing ideas and opinions on the execution of tasks or on the organization itself (Wynen et al., 2020a), and increased risk of political influence on agencies that were designed to operate impartially (Wynen et al., 2020b). These recent studies echo Pollitt’s (2007) call for research to adopt a more holistic view of the long-term processes and effects of reorganisations. This study answers this call by investigating the impact of recurrent reorganisations at ministry level on policymaking processes and outputs.

The relocation of the integration field in the Norwegian ministerial structure is an interesting case in this context. Integration is a classic example of a “wicked issue”, defined as a problem characterised by complexity and a lack of easily definable solutions, often spanning multiple administrative areas and hierarchical levels (Nesheim et al., 2019). Because integration encompasses many different policy areas (employment, education, schools, children, health, housing, immigration etc.), it may be potentially coupled with and organised under different sectors and ministries (Hernes, 2018). Horizontal changes––and often frequent changes––of the integration field in the ministerial structure is not uncommon in European countries (with the Scandinavian countries being among those countries with most frequent changes). However, the Norwegian case is particularly interesting for studying frequent changes, as a comparative analysis of the organisation of the integration field in ministerial structures in 16 European countries shows that Norway is the country that relocated the field the most times over a 20-year period (Hernes, 2021).

This article will firstly present a literature review on horizontal organisational and ministerial structure before using instrumental and institutional theory to develop hypotheses on how changes in organisational structure produced by recurrent reorganisations might affect policy development. The study builds on document studies of policy development in the integration field from the past 10 years, supplemented by interviews with leaders and employees who have experienced multiple relocations between ministries. We find that the main goals for integration have remained stable, whereas ministerial affiliation and frequent shifts have influenced the use of policy instruments and interorganisational coordination. Contrary to existing theoretical expectations of negative effects and resistance to recurrent reorganisations, the interviews show that the affected actors have developed an organisational culture that accepts, nurtures and exploits the opportunities these changes produce. In the conclusion, we discuss the parallels between recurrent reorganisations of departments and interorganisational mobility at the individual level, and how recurrent reorganisations may be a political and administrative tool for “wicked policy issues”.

The literature on horizontal organisation focuses on how organisational structure is not merely an administrative arrangement but can be a decisive factor in overarching governance dynamics (Schattschneider, 1975), as it determines which issues are prioritised and how they are handled (Hammond, 1986). Furthermore, the horizontal organisation of various policy fields contributes to defining and coupling (or decoupling) different interests and goals (White & Dunleavy, 2010; Egeberg & Trondal, 2018). Thus, the structure affects which actors have influence, which information channels are used and how different interests and goals are integrated into the decision-making process. In this way, horizontal organisation becomes a tool for influencing policy (Hammond, 1986), as it may significantly shape which interests and goals are pursued, which areas are prioritised and which issues reach the top level of the decision-making process (Egeberg & Trondal, 2018).

The ministerial structure is a classic example of horizontal organisation where different sectors and fields must be prioritised and distributed among a limited number of ministries. Governments decide which policy fields will be assigned to a dedicated ministry and/or how various fields (such as integration) will be coupled with or decoupled from other fields in line with their political objectives (Trein, 2016; Hernes, 2018). In this way, the ministerial structure becomes a political tool, and previous studies document that governments indeed use changes in ministries as a strategic tool for political decisions (Tosun, 2018; Sieberer et al., 2019; Bertels & Schulze-Gabrechten, 2020; Lægreid & Rolland, 2017). Furthermore, several studies have examined various drivers for changes in ministerial structure (such as political ideologies and constellations, types of government, agenda-setting) where the ministerial structure is the dependent variable (Davis et al., 1999; White & Dunleavy, 2010; Mortensen & Green-Pedersen, 2014; Lægreid & Rolland, 2017; Hernes, 2018; Kuipers, Yesilkagit, & Carroll, 2021).

Studies examining the impact of ministerial changes, with organisational structure as the independent variable, have been relatively limited but have increased in recent years. This includes research on horizontal organisation at both the national level and within the EU Commission. Vestlund (2015) reveals in a case study how the reorganisation of the pharmaceutical unit in the EU Commission shifted policy focus from industrial interests to public health. Hegele (2021) examines the effects of reorganisations in ministries and finds that ministries develop preferences and goals and allocate attention based on their portfolio combination. Other studies have focused on the more negative effects of such changes. Durrant and Tetlow (2019) conducted an evaluation of the economic consequences associated with reorganisations, highlighting that such changes can often result in disruptions and reduced efficiency. Heppell (2011) focuses on the political and practical consequences of ministerial changes and illustrates how reorganisation (negatively) affects long-term efficiency.

The aforementioned studies share the commonality of using ministerial structure as the independent variable to examine various effects or mechanisms (in line with the purpose of this study). Previous research either investigates the impact of a specific change or how the general portfolio composition influences policy formulation. Our contribution to the existing literature is therefore not only an addition to the growing body of research on the effects of changes in horizontal organisation in general, and ministerial structure in particular, but also a more specific examination of how frequent changes within a field affect policy development. The few studies that specifically investigate effects of frequent organisational changes have also mainly focused on and found negative consequences. Wynen et al. (2020a) show that successive structural reforms affects employee engagement in the strategy of “defensive silence”, implying that employees withhold ideas and opinions on the execution of tasks or on the organization itself in fear of conflict or controversy. Wynen et al. (2020b) demonstrate how frequent reorganisations may affect how public employees balance different values and considerations. They find that frequent structural reforms may increase the risk of political influence on agencies that were designed to operate impartially. Lastly, Wynen et al. (2019) employ organizational absenteeism rates as an indicator for “repetitive change injury”, and find that intense reform sequences disproportionally increase organizational absenteeism rates.

We employ two organisational theoretical perspectives: the instrumental and institutional perspectives. These perspectives help understand (1) how organisations are shaped through (frequent) structural changes and how this can affect agenda-setting, the policy instruments used, and coordination in policy development, and (2) how organisational culture may function as a moderating factor in response to these structural changes over time.

The study analyses recurrent reorganisations by examining a case of what White and Dunleavy (2010) define as “responsibility transfers at the ministerial level”, by studying the transfer of the subdepartment (and directorate) responsible for the integration field between ministries in Norway. In practice, such a change involves two elements. First, when the government decides on a change in the ministerial structure, the political and administrative responsibility is usually immediately transferred to the new ministry. In our case, this means that the Department of Integration (INA) and the Directorate of Integration and Diversity (IMDi) are transferred to a new political (minister) and administrative leadership. The directors of INA and IMDi then join the new ministry’s leadership team. Second, a ministerial transfer often involves a physical relocation. In our case, IMDi has its own premises outside the ministry and has not had to change location when switching ministerial affiliation. However, INA has physically moved to the new ministry’s offices, a process that often takes longer (to prepare office spaces etc.). INA’s employees must also be given new email addresses and digital equipment, in addition to a significant archiving task where cases are transferred to the new system.

The study is based on document analyses of 1) propositions concerning legislative changes in the integration and immigration fields and 2) allocation letters from the responsible ministry to IMDi, to examine the relationship between changes in organisational structure and policy development. Additionally, we have conducted six interviews with employees and leaders in INA and IMDi to gain the perspectives of those affected on how organisational structure influences policy development, and how culture may function as a moderating factor.

The empirical analysis reveals that sector affiliation and ministerial transfers have influenced policy development in the field of integration. While the overarching goals have remained relatively stable, the use of policy instruments and short-term coordination have been affected by the sector they are associated with. Thus, this case aligns with theoretical assumptions in an instrumental perspective on the effects of horizontal organisation. However, we also seek to identify what nuances the study uncovers regarding the effects of specifically recurrent reorganisations, and what role organisational culture plays as a moderating factor. Here, we wish to emphasise four theoretical implications.

Firstly, this study does not find that frequent reorganisations have led to changes in the main goals of integration policy. In contrast, Vestlund (2015), who analysed a major reorganisation of the pharmaceutical unit in the EU Commission from industry interests to public health, concludes that the reorganisation led to clear shifts in policy focus from industry interests to public health. A possible explanation here could be that recurrent relocations prompt employees to work systematically to ensure continuity in a constantly changing environment. The employees at INA tell how they actively use research and “educate” new ministries to foster understanding. Thus, it may be reasonable to assume that a ministerial transfer has a greater impact on policy focus (in line with Vestlund’s concept) and main goals when there is a single isolated change than when reorganisation becomes part of the expected work routine.

Secondly, the analyses show the importance of organisational culture as a moderating, or reinforcing, factor in the potential effect of structural organisational changes. The interviews paint a picture of an open and adaptable organisational culture that, while acknowledging the costs, mainly focuses on the learning potential and opportunities when entering a new ministry. The overall positive attitude towards recurrent reorganisations found in this study is theoretically counterintuitive and contradicts our original institutional assumption of a general resistance to change (March & Olsen, 2006; Selznick, 1957). However, the organisational culture at INA signals robustness, with the ability to adapt to new structural conditions without losing its fundamental character and functionality. We find that the informants have incorporated the expectation of recurrent changes as part of their cultural identity, making them adaptable in the face of constant change. However, INA’s organisational culture, which accepts and is prepared for recurrent structural changes, may be a decisive factor for the effects found in this case study. It may be reasonable to assume that with an organisational culture that was highly critical and reluctant to constant shifts, the actual impact of ministerial transfers would be less significant, where cultural resistance serves to diminish or counteract potential structural effects (Selznick, 1957; Christensen, 2019).

Thirdly, while previous studies have often focused on ‘the dark side’ (negative effects) of either ministerial changes (Durrant & Tetlow, 2019; White & Dunleavy, 2010; Heppell, 2011) or recurrent reorganisations (Wynen et al., 2020a; Wynen et al., 2020b), this study exemplifies the potential bright side of recurrent ministerial transfers. Although the interviewees acknowledge challenges with recurrent reorganisation, they mainly highlight several positive effects of frequent shifts, including how the integration field gains knowledge of and access to new policy instruments, as well as long-term coordination effects with actors across the ministerial apparatus.

Finally, the starting point for this analysis was how organisational structure (the ministry’s sector and expertise) influences policy development, in line with a more top-down perspective that often dominates studies of departmental changes. An important finding in our study, highlighted by the informants themselves, is how employees in the integration field actively utilise the opportunities that arise in the new ministry to bring integration onto the agenda of the respective ministries’ general sector policy. Agenda-setting can be understood in many ways, but Cobb, Ross, and Ross (1976) describe a bottom-up approach to agenda-setting, an internally initiated model, where groups (e.g., INA and IMDi) with direct access to decision-makers can actively influence the agenda by shaping the discourse. The core of the internally initiated model lies in the fact that discussions about desired changes in policy areas are often confined to specialised groups with in-depth knowledge of the relevant field. The initial negotiations and discussions about policy development in one’s sector or field often start internally within a department. Here, however, the integration department is able to promote integration considerations and focus on the target group (immigrants) early on in processes that involve more general sector policy (Cobb, Ross, & Ross, 1976, 135; Vabo, Klausen, & Askim, 2020, 92).

In relation to the latter point, it is important to emphasise that the document analyses in this study have been limited to investigating how integration policies have been affected by changes in ministerial affiliation. It has not been designed to investigate how the integration department may have influenced the general sector policy in the ministries they have been affiliated with. However, this bottom-up perspective surfaced in the interviews on the initiative of the interviewees themselves. To test the interviewees’ perception of such bottom-up effects systematically would require broader document analyses of policy development within the relevant sectors, as well as interviews with other actors in the ministries where the integration department has “temporarily resided”. The bottom-up perspective on agenda-setting is, nonetheless, an interesting area for further research, both for the literature on changes in ministerial structure and horizontal reorganisation in general. As the internal culture in INA is found to be an important moderating factor in our analysis, the culture in and attitudes of the recipient ministries towards including a new subdepartment would also be important to investigate in such studies.

This article explores the effects of recurrent reorganisation of the field of integration within the Norwegian ministerial structure over the past 25 years, and we have looked at how such organisational changes affect policy development, whether recurrent reorganisations bring about specific effects and the role of organisational culture in the processes.

We find that the overarching goals have remained relatively stable in the period 2010-2024, but that the (changing) ministerial affiliation has affected the integration department’s use of policy instruments and coordination patterns. Our study contradicts previous assumptions in institutional theory and public administration literature, which often focuses on resistance to change and negative consequences of (frequent) reorganisations more generally (Wynen et al., 2019; Wynen et al., 2020a; Wynen et al., 2020b). We find that although informants acknowledge that such reorganisations can be time and resource intensive, they are largely positive about the recurrent ministerial transfers. In the interviews, the majority focus on the positive effects of being on the move, such as cross-sectoral networks, the possibility of learning about and adopting new sectoral policy instruments, and the ability to put integration on the agenda in the respective ministries. However, an important moderating factor for these positive effects is that the integration department has embraced being a “frequent mover” as part of its identity and organisational culture.

The findings in this study have interesting policy implications. According to the informants, there may be a rationale behind their constant movement across ministries, as it provides the opportunity to place integration on the agenda of the respective ministries and in their general sectoral policies. If the integration field had always been separated from many of these areas by being confined to one single ministry, integration considerations, and immigrants as a group, might not have been prioritised in other areas such as education, training, employment, preparedness and equality. However, linking integration with multiple areas over time has allowed a two-way process where the integration field incorporates different sectoral perspectives, and the sectoral policies better incorporate the integration perspective. This two-way effect has not been part of an overarching political strategy, but rather caused by political priorities, government reshuffles and responses to crises. Nevertheless, this study shows how recurrent reorganisations can potentially be used as a political tool to ensure coordination across ministerial silos, which is perhaps particularly relevant for “wicked issues”.

This has a clear parallel to the concept of interorganisational employee mobility, which shows that such mobility increases interorganisational coordination, and that these effects are intensified for “recurrent movers” (Vantaggiato et al., 2024). Future studies of recurrent reorganisations should build on this line of research and test whether similar positive and negative effects, and the conditions for optimising positive effects and mitigating negative effects, are transferable also at the organisational level. Our study highlights that one crucial mediating factor for optimising the positive effects is to nurture an organisational culture that accepts and welcomes reorganisations by (mostly) focusing on the opportunities they bring, rather than the costs they involve.

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

No funding was received.