In the 2000s, horizontal governance has become a growing mode of public sector governance across the Europe and beyond (Bryson, Crosby & Bloomberg 2014). In this presentation, we present our recent research article (Authors, in print), in which we examined the implementation of horizontal governance in youth career guidance and counselling (hereafter, referred to as ‘guidance’) in Finland. Traditionally, the governance of guidance has followed more or less the administrative boundaries of the main three ministries (Ministry of Education and Culture, Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment and Ministry of Social Affairs and Health). In the national policy strategies, a more efficient and customer-friendly service framework is achieved by increasing horizontal governance and networked activity (e.g. Government Programme 2019). However, as many studies have shown, the implementation of horizontal governance is often challenging, especially when it is in conflict with the rules and beliefs of existing institutions (Termeer 2009; Peters 1998).

Positioned in the research field of public sector reforms in education, our aim in the study was to examine how horizontal governance – its aims, benefits and challenges – are manifested in the discourses on guidance by the Finnish policy actors. Our theoretical framework applied from discursive institutionalism, which emphasizes the role of emerging ideas and discourses as the main driver for institutional change (Schmidt 2008). We were interested to see how the three main paradigms of modern public sector governance (Weberian bureuacracy, new public management and new public governance) construct the discursive space towards increased horizontal governance (Bryson, Crosby & Bloomberg 2014). Our research question was simplified as follows: ‘What possibilities for a horizontal governance does the discourse on governance of guidance embrace?’

Our empirical research data consisted of ten (10) thematic interviews with public sector officials and other experts working in the governance of guidance at the national level in Finland. The interviews were collected in late 2019 and transcribed for analysis. The interviewees were asked to describe the current political and administrative framework of guidance and to share their notions on networked governance between different stakeholders. Our analysis started with content analysis for categorising the interview data. We marked the sections in which horizontal governance was described and discussed in terms of four steering mechanisms in governance: ideology (aims), legislation, finance and evaluation (Lundgren 1990). After that, we examined how these sections related to the features and ideals of traditional bureaucracy (Weberian), new public management and new public governance. Finally, by using discourse analysis (Laclau & Mouffe 1985) we analysed how the interviewees’ discourses either opened up or limited the possibilities for increased horizontal governance.

Our analysis showed that in terms of ideological aims, there was a shared understanding among the interviewees of the need to increase horizontal governance in guidance. The informants pointed out the relevance of two important institutional improvements: a working group (led jointly by the Ministry of Education and Culture and Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment) created to coordinate the network of various stakeholders in guidance; and the One-Stop Guidance Centres, which provide multidisciplinary guidance services (guidance in employment, education or everyday life) for youth. At the ideological level, the discourse of new public governance that promotes and normalises networked agency beyond administrative branches, constructed a view in which horizontal governance turns beneficial for both the client (youth) and the system. However, in terms of legislation, finance or evaluation, the discourse of new public governance was challenged (and superseded) by the traditional bureaucratic discourse and the NPM discourse. For example, when discussing the legislative rights and duties of officials in a multidisciplinary guidance service, joint budgeting mechanisms or the selection of appropriate evaluation and accountability measures in a networked framework, existing rules and beliefs shaped the interviewees’ understanding of what is possible or not in a horizontal governance network. To summarize, despite many advancements in recent years, our interview data indicated an incomplete and on-going policy process towards increased horizontal governance in Finnish guidance.

Authors. (in print). Bryson, John. M., Crosby, Barbara C. & Bloomberg, Laura (2014). Public value governance: Moving beyond traditional public administration and the new public management. Public Administration Review, 74(4), 445–456. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12238. Government Programme (2019). The Government Programme of Sanna Marin’s (PM) Government in Finland. Laclau, Ernesto & Mouffe, Chantal (1985). Hegemony and socialist strategy: Towards a radical democratic politics. London: Verso. Lundgren, Ulf P. (1990). Educational policymaking. Decentralization and evaluation. Teoksessa Granheim, Marit, Kogan, Maurice & Ulf. P. Lundgren (Eds.), Evaluation as policymaking: Introducing evaluation into a national decentralized educational system (s. 66–88). London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. Peters, B. Guy (1998). Managing horizontal government: The politics of co‐ordination. Public Administration, 76, 295–311. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9299.00102. Schmidt, Vivien A. (2008). Discursive institutionalism: The explanatory power of ideas and discourse. Annual Review of Political Science, 11, 303–326. Termeer, Catrien J. A. M. (2009). Barriers To New Modes Of Horizontal Governance, Public Management Review, 11:3, 299-316, https://doi.org/10.1080/14719030902798180.