Lise H. Rykkja

Attitudes towards anti-terror measures: the role of trust, political orientation and civil liberties support

This article analyses Norwegian citizens attitudes towards the use of strong prevention measures in the fight against terrorism. Norwegians stand out as being relatively supportive of such measures, despite having been relatively shielded from serious terrorism. Nevertheless, they are generally more critical towards keeping people in custody without trial. This analysis shows that trust, political orientation and civil liberties support have significant explanatory value, also when the effects of gender, age, education and occupational status are controlled for. However, trust turns out to be a complicated indicator; whereas high scores on social trust predict more sceptical attitudes, a strong belief in personal abilities and in the political system fosters attitudes that are less sceptical. The article concludes that the combination of low threat, limited previous experience and high levels of trust creates a favourable environment for preventive policies, and recommends a further exploration of these dimensions in different contexts.

Coordinating for Crisis Management in Norway after the Terrorist Attack in 2011

The Norwegian government’s responsibility for crisis management and internal security and safety came under scrutiny after the devastating terrorist attacks in Oslo and on the island of Utoya on 22 July 2011. A total of 77 people, mainly youths, were killed by a lone perpetrator. A public inquiry into the events raised serious criticism towards the governments’ crisis management (NOU, 2012: 14). Lack of preparedness, failing central crisis management, leadership and culture and a fragmented structure was at the heart of the discussions. Important adjustments in government arrangements for preparedness and crisis management have been introduced since.

Introduction: Emerging Coordination Practices in European Public Management

Increasing interest in the issues of public sector coordination and joining up separate government bodies into more integrated apparatuses that have informed the international administrative discourse over the past decade form the background of this book. A recent five-country report on governance concluded that horizontal policy-making is becoming ever more important and is one of the key aspects in ensuring that governments are able to tackle contemporary policy challenges (Governments for the Future, 2013). At the same time, states have developed various approaches to counter fragmentation and to make their public sectors more integrated entities (Osborne, 2009; Wegrich, 2010). The new coordination practices have assumed numerous shapes and go under various names, such as integrated governance, outcome steering, joined-up-government (Bogdanor, 2005; Hood, 2005), holistic governance (6 et al., 2002), new public governance (Osborne, 2009), networked government, partnerships, connected government, cross-cutting policy, horizontal management, collaborative public management (Gregory, 2003) and whole-of-government (OECD, 2005; Christensen and Laegreid, 2007a).