Resumé

Both in the literature and in public documents one usually operates with three levels of government: local, regional, and national. This may be partly due to a common perception of coordination and standardization as something that takes place only through hierarchical forms of organization. However, if we realize that coordination and standardization may also take place through other organizational as for instance bargaining, consultation, and autonomous adjustment, can add a. fourth level of government. At the same time, hierarchy seems considerably modified at the national levels. Thus, a central argument is that 'national' policies cannot be adequately explained by 'national' politics alone. Some data from the Norwegian context are used to illustrate this argument.

If we compare the content of public policy in western countries, it seems rather easy to point out differences. However, the many similarities are perhaps even more obvious (cf. for instance Heidenheimer et al. 1975; Heisler 1974). Such differences and similarities between countries have to a great extent been explained by intranational variables.¹ The purpose of this paper is to inquire whether these observed similarities indicate a process of political standardization within the western region. From an organizational-theoretical point of view, the important question is whether policy similarities can be regarded as a result of organized, political-administrative networks across national boundaries. In other words, the international regional level may be looked upon as one more level in the governmental system; a. fourth level of public policy-making. While such an idea may seem rather strange to many, my hope is that this paper will contribute towards making this idea more acceptable.

Both in the literature and in public documents one usually operates with

---

*I would like to thank Johan F. Jakhelln, Johan P. Olsen, Anton Steen, Ulf Torgersen, and Derek Urwin for their valuable comments.

three levels of government; local, regional, and national. This may be partly due to a common perception of coordination and standardization as something that takes place only through hierarchical forms of organization.We to remember that a common perception of the political organization of the nation-state has been that of a centralized organization,sometimes with majority rule in some way or another. On the other hånd, the international level has often been characterized as anarchy (Riggs 1961; Alger 1963; Masters 1964). Obviously these extremesare only to a modest degree to cover real world situations in the western region or the OECD area today. Neither hierarchy nor anarchyhas existed in its pure form. My assertion is that today these forms are, even more than in the past, both considerably modified and mixed. Political organization within countries as well as political organization between countries can also be characterized as a system of bargaining and consultation and autonomous adjustment.

Political organization implies that it is possible to make and implement binding decisions on behalf of society. These decisions may refer to all citizens, and regulate some aspects of their lives (Wolin 1960). Standardization equalizing public tasks and norms throughout the territory (Kjellberg 1974; Strand 1978). In this paper the territory is more inclusive than the nation-state. Our reference is the OECD area, or some part of it. Standardization of public policy within this region means, in practice, that policies have muchm common across national boundaries. Public policies are to a less extent typical for each country. My assumption is that policies cannot be adequately explained by national politics alone.

I shall first discuss how standardization and coordination may be attained different forms of political organization, including nonhierarchical Some empirical examples from the Norwegian context will then be given to illustrate the extent of international standardization, and how this phenomenon may be linked to the entangling of the politicaladministrative across national boundaries; or what here is called the fourth level of government. Jhe main purpose of this paper, however, is to present some perspectives and ideas for future empirical studies on the relationship between the national and the international regional level of public policy-making.

1. Forms of Political Organization

The form of political organization found in democratic theory often combinesmajority
and hierarchical control. Public bureaucracy acts on

behalf of a politically elected leadership. The premises are to be found in written rules. However, few observers of western governments today will accept this as an adequate description of political life. Rather, there seems to be an increasing interest in how majority rule and hierarchical control are constrained, and how political leadership through these organizational forms has been considerably modified. Both the formulation and implementationof policy increasingly involve a broad network of institutions localized at different territorial levels and within different functional areas, often closely connected with private organizations. Territorialand differentiation imply that the governmental system can be characterized as a loosely coupled system; a set of institutions, each with limited tasks, competences, resources, information, and interests ² This development indicates that the political organization of the nation-state cannot be adequately described only as majority rule and hierarchical control. Other forms of organization, such as for instance systems of bargaining and consultation and autonomous adjustment, emerge as rather important elements (Mayntz and Scharpf 1975; Hanf and Scharpf 1978; Olsen 1978). The term 'system of bargaining and consultation'is this purpose given a rather wide meaning, implying simply that participants and issues are not arranged in a clearcut hierarchical manner. Another property of a system of bargaining and consultation will normally be that of regulated streams of participants, problems, solutions, and choice opportunities, both regarding the access to, and the linkages among those streams. When such a regulation is modest, the term 'organized anarchy' would perhaps be moire appropriate than 'system of bargaining and consultation' (March and Olsen 1976). 'Autonomous adjustment' designates a form of coordination among two or more actors which may take place without mutual contact. The actors make their choices unilaterally(Dahl Lindblom 1953; Lindblom 1965). In a certain sense they choose autonomously. However, this adjustment depends on an existing system of information among actors that makes it possible to obtain information about the preferences and choices of other actors. Coordinationand may then be perceived as a by-product of the choices of the individual actors. In one sense the economic market is an analogue to this form of political organization (Lindblom 1965).

One important task, of course, is to specify some of the conditions under which the different organizational forms work. It has for instance been pointed out how Weberian hierarchical control (Weber 1971) depends on political-cultural factors more often found in, for instance, Germany than in Great Britain or the United States (Rudolph and Rudolph 1979). Scandinavianpolitical

dinavianpoliticalculture, too, is to a great extent characterized by a belief in non- hierarchical forms of organization (Anton 1969; Torgersen 1975). Elements of democratic theory, stressing the importance of discussion,and constitutional theory, also argue the necessity of constraining majority rule and hierarchical control (Wolin 1960).

Issue-related or goods-related variables also correlate with organizational Quantitatively as well as qualitatively, the public agenda has changed in character considerably. This phenomenon, accompanied by a high rate of change in society as a whole, has increasingly reduced the capacity of public problem-solving through written rules. Discretion and competence are being transferred from formal political authorities to bureaucracies. Important conditions, then, on which bureaucratic organizations have changed over the past years (Olsen 1978).

Scholars have argued that the distinction between collective and individual can also be fruitful in political analysis. I suppose that the more the goods in question are of the collective or public type, the greater the probability that the public tasks can be legitimized through majority decisions and hierarchical implementation. The more the goods in question of the individual or private type, the greater the probability that legitimation will depend on whether other forms of organization are established. practice this is done by assigning to groups specially concerned exclusive rights of consultation and bargaining. In other words, the more selective the public tasks, the greater the probability that the tasks will affect different groups or areas differently, and the greater the probability that the intensity of interests of different groups and areas will vary. This makes legitimization through majority rule and bureaucratic organization difficult, even problematic. As a consequence, other forms of organization tend to emerge; e.g. systems of bargaining and consultation, organized anarchy, or autonomous adjustment (cf. also Lindblom 1965).

'Der Nachtwächterstaat' is a common label that has been attached to political systems which limit their tasks to collective goods, and especially to matters of internal and external security. Confronted with empirical material, such a simple characterization seems rather inadequate. No doubt, however, public tasks have changed, quantitatively as well as qualitatively. For example, the proportion of individual goods has increased.According the line of thought pursued above, I assume forms of political organization other than majority rule and hierarchical control to have developed in parallel. We have to remember that organizational forms based on the principles of majority rule and bureaucracy broke through at a time when characteristics of public tasks were 'classical', i.e.

stressing collective and general elements (Wolin 1960). That means
perhaps a type of decision most suited for legitimization through majority
rule.

When we consider international political systems, however, majority rule and hierarchical organization in a Weberian sense are almost nonexistent. the above-mentioned theoretical reasoning, it follows that it seems to be a rather bad prediction to expect these organizational forms to become of any great importance at this territorial level. The factors counteracting such a development tend to be more crucial at this level of government. For instance, organizational environments tend to be more heterogeneous and shifting at the same time, conditioning decentralized forms or organization (Thompson 1967; Dahl & Tufte 1974). More heterogeneity implies that not only individual, but also typical collective goods tend to affect different groups and areas in rather different ways, making legitimization dependent on the existence of systems of bargaining and consultation at different levels of government.

Keohane & Nye (1975, 1977), perceiving international regions as complex,
systems of bargaining and consultation,
stress the following factors (cf. also Holsti 1978):

(1) Military power is not considered relevant for public problem-solving within an international region. Such regions could be examplified by North-America, the Nordic area, Western Europe and the OECDarea.

(2) The 'national' political-administrative systems within the region are woven together in a rather complex manner; international relations are certainly not monopolized by foreign ministries and diplomacy. Other ministries, agencies, interest groups, political parties and parliamentarians, institutions, corporations and their international counterparts, international governmental and non-governmental organizations, parties and assemblies of parliamentarians, and multinational corporations are all represented in this network (cf. also Kaiser 1971).

(3) The public agenda of international relations is made up of very different including problems and solutions normally associated with domestic politics. Absence of hierarchy among issues predominates (also cfr. Hanrieder, 1978).

A complex network of political-administrative relations across national
boundaries, accompanied by a corresponding complex agenda, and withoutclearcut
arrangements, implies that we should expect

lines of conflict and cooperation to be found across as well as along national boundaries. And in the process of bargaining and consultation, international organizations, or parts of them, are assumed to play a crucial role, regulating and relating the streams of participants, problems, solutions,and opportunities. In practice this is done through agendabuildingand the founding of committees and work groups (Keohane & Nye 1974). Altogether, this organizational context seems decisive for understanding most public policy today. And from this perspective, the distinction between domestic and foreign politics becomesblurred.

Political organization perceived as a system of bargaining and consultation to be supplemented with the same organization perceived as a system of autonomous adjustment within international regions. For instance, OECD can be also seen as an informational system encompassing member states. Standardization of public policy then also takes place without bargaining (Sjøstedt 1973).

Copying public policies of other countries when planning public tasks can also be subsumed under the concept of autonomous adjustment. In fact, such an imitation means standardization of public policy across national boundaries. However, since coordination through autonomous adjustment is attained as a by-product of individual choices, it is still not obvious what conditions this type of standardization. In markets, it is argued, individual choices are motivated mainly by economic self-interest. theory of how the standardization of public policies across national boundaries takes place through autonomous adjustment could possibly be deduced from a general theory of organizational decisionmaking. organizational search for solutions has been described as problemistic, simple-minded, and biased (Cyert & March 1963). Problemistic means search that is stimulated by a problem - usually a rather specific one - and is directed toward finding a solution to that problem. Simple-minded search means search in the neighbourhood of the problem symptom, and search in the neighbourhood of the current alternative. in search reflects the special training, experience, and goals of various parts of the organization.

Organizational search for solutions in the neighbourhood of the current alternative may also accelerate looking aiother organizations acting under similar conditions. Local and regional governmental organizations tend to adopt solutions adopted and proved by comparable neighbouring organizations(Walker Sharansky 1970). Governmental organizations at the national level, however, can be expected to imitate organizations

acting under similar conditions in other countries. At this point, however, a theory of organizational search has to be supplemented by a theory of exposure. Problems are looking for solutions, but solutions are also lookingfor to which they may be an answer. Negotiated environmentsroutinize exposure to solutions not being asked for (Cyert & March 1963; March & Olsen 1976; Olsen & Wagtskjold 1979). However, students of political diffusion have not supplied us with much information about those channels of diffusion (cf., for instance, Walker 1969; Collier & Messick 1975; Kuhnle 1978). In sum, I will conclude this theorizing by arguing that organizational differences between the national and the international regional level of government should not be exaggerated.My of departure is that to understand the content of public policy and its implementation, we necessarily need to take into considerationthe character of the modern governmental system. This multilevel system also includes a fourth level of public policy-making.

2. The Fourth Level of Government and Standardization of Public Policy: Some Empirical Examples Drawn from the Norwegian Context³

2.1 Organizational Context

A complex set of linkages among political-administrative systems across national boundaries is no new phenomenon (cf., for instance, Gourevitch 1978). During the period 1915-1920 Norway was already a member of 22 international governmental organizations (IGOs). Several factors indicate, that the amount of intergovernmental relations across national boundaries has grown even faster after World War II (Egeberg 1978). In 1970 Norwegian IGO-memberships numbered 72. During the same period IGOs continuously expanded and specialized. At the national level ministries established special units (divisions, sections etc.) for handling international relations.

Most Norwegian ministerial administrators and executive officers (60 percent) handle issues of an international character at least once a year. Only in the Ministry of Agriculture do we find a majority - 63 percent - dealing with national issues only. These results indicate the difficulties involved in discovering issue-areas which are not linked in one way or another to the international level. Coordination, planning, and law-making appear to be the most internationalized functions. In the higher echelons, almost everyone handles issues of an international character. Of the

Director-Generals, 65 percent allocate a rather large portion of their
attention to international affairs.

External contacts are in no way monopolized by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Those handling issues of an international character also usually have their own direct international contacts. Most of the contacts are directed towards the other Nordic countries and the rest of the OECDarea.

Of those handling international issues, only about one-third perceive conflicts between countries to be dominant. Only in the Ministries of Commerce and Shipping, of Foreign Affairs, and of Industry does this percentage exceed 50 percent. Instead, patterns of conflict and cooperation mainly perceived to be rather complex and shifting, often crosscutting lines of conflict associated with international politics. Thus 'unusual' coalition behaviour' can also be predicted. How patterns of conflict are perceived may be expected to be highly correlated with properties of organizational structure. Here I have in mind not only ministerial contact networks, but also the organizational links between political parties and interest groups across national boundaries. Most Norwegian party organizations and their sub-groups are formally linked to international party organizations and their 'sister parties' in other countries (Moren et al. 1976). More than half of Norway's 1200 national voluntary organizations are reported to be in regular contact with their 'sister organizations' in other countries, and a similar portion holds memberships one or more international non-governmental organizations (Hallenstvedt & Moren 1975).

2.2 The Content of Public Policy: Standardization

The growing complexity of organizational links between governmental levels is paralleled by a multi-level standardization of policy. In 1972 Norway was a party to 1038 treaties with other countries or international governmental organizations. Three out of four treaties had come into effect during the post-war years: 45 percent were signed during the period 1961-1972 (Egeberg 1978).

During one year (1975) the harmonization of national laws and rules across national boundaries activated 21 per cent of the Norwegian ministerialadministrators executive officers. If we look only at those preparing laws and rules, the percentage is 29. Concentrating on those preparing laws and rules in the: Ministry of Justice we found two out of three to be occupied with the international standardization of these rules. This ministry has a central position in the legislative process. The ministry

expresses its opinion about most proposals, and this makes up a formal procedure.⁴ The amount of time spent on preparing laws and rules in general correlates significantly with harmonization activity (gamma= Of those mainly preparing laws and rules in the ministries (N = 71) 54 per cent were also working on international standardization of these rules. The formal harmonization of laws and rules across national boundaries can be related not only to the rather complex Nordic politicaladministrativenetwork, also to the organizational constraints imposed by the committee systems of international organizations in general (cf. Appendix). At the moment, it is not quite obvious what the standardizationmotives are, if indeed there are any. An internationalized legal system may, however, represent an end in itself. A belief in the value of similar conditions of living across national boundaries may be a motive (cf. NOU 1972:16). Standardization may also be interpreted as the politicalorganizing economic markets (cf. St.meld. nr. 39, 1975-76).⁵

As mentioned above, a factual, if not formal, standardization of public tasks within international regions takes place through organizational processes search and exposure. The routine of copying neighbouring countries when preparing public tasks seems to be a rather common one. About 70 percent of the ministerial administrators and executive officers are reported to copy other countries now and then, or more often. (26 percent are reported to copy other countries often when preparing public tasks.) Besides the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, this procedure can most easily be observed in the Ministry of Justice and in the Ministry of Health and Social Affairs, where the percentage is 83 and 85 percent respectively. Only in the Ministry of Fisheries and in the Ministry of Agriculture does the procedure of copying not deserve the term 'routine'. In general, those concentrating on preparing laws and rules, coordinating their colleagues, and informing the public most often copy other countries.

An observation from our study of economic interest organizations (cf. note 3) also deserves mentioning. Three out of four administrators from Norwegian economic interest organizations are reported to copy other countries now and then, or more often, when preparing new tasks. In particular, those involved in the (political) legislative process follow this procedure (82 percent). Bearing in mind the above-mentioned observations the ministerial study, it is rather difficult to imagine how the contents of laws and rules are to be explained without considering the legislative process as a multi-level process that also involves a fourth level of public policy-making.

The routine of copying other countries when preparing new tasks appearsto

pearstobe related to political -administrative networks including Nordic as well as non-Nordic countries. However, compared to standardization as formal harmonization of laws, standardization as copying does not presuppose specialized organizational structures; for instance committee systems (cf. Appendix).

Through political-administrative networks across national boundaries, policy standardization may take p] ace even when formal harmonization or copying cannot be observed. Some standardization may be the result when identical problems are put oin the agenda of different governments at the same time, when related solutions are worked out and diffused, and when information about policy impact is fed back through international networks. One-third of the ministerial administrators and executive officers international governmental organizations as initiators now and then, or more often, when new tasks are to be prepared. About the same proportion finds these organizations to be of some importance when information about policy impact is fed back.

3. Some Further Questions

Within the OECD-area public policies are increasingly characterized by common properties across national boundaries. A central argument in this paper has been that this tendency only to a very modest degree can be explained by intra-national variables. The standardization of public policy observed has to be related to international political-administrative networks are increasingly more complex, a fourth level of government, and public policy-making. This standardization and coordination takes place without majority rule and hierarchical implementation; that is without institutions, judicially speaking. Thus, it is important to notice that coordination and standardization can also be reached through other forms of organization, as for instance bargaining, consultation and autonomous adjustment. However, this observation also holds to a great extent for the national level. Even at this level political organization can not be adequately described as majority rule and hierarchy. Bargaining, consultation, and autonomous adjustment have to be added as major organizational forms.

Data from only one country are of course inadequate when the fourth level of public policy-making is to be analyzed. However, some available descriptions of international political administrative networks from other contexts show the same patterns as the Norwegian data (Hopkins 1976, Lintonen et al. 1978, Karvonen 1979, Blix 1964). Compared to other

regions, the OECD area constitutes by far the most tightly woven network,both regard to public and private organizational links (Wallace & Singer 1970; Skjelsbæk 1972; Hallenstvedt et al. 1975; Sundelius 1978; Soltvedt 1978; Wallace etal. 1977). At the same time, international treaties are more readily signed by countries within this area than by other countries(Nandrup 1968).

This paper has concentrated on the relationship between international (regional) political administrative networks and the content of public policy in general. However, policy content is also influenced in a more indirect manner by the fourth level of government. We also must expect patterns of organization, conflict, and attitudes at lower levels of government be increasingly exposed to change. It is, for instance, generally assumed that organizations involved in complex external networks are facing increased costs of internal coordination. This challenge tends to be met by changes in the forms of organizational coordination (Aiken & Hage 1976). Grønnegaard Christensen (1978) observed, for instance, a tendency towards more non-hierarchical forms of coordination in Danish administration a response to EC membership. A fourth level of public policymaking seems to place some constraints on corporative patterns of representation at the national level. Representation tends to be more concentrated, resulting in a more central position to peak organizations and groups rich in resources (e.g. administrative, economic etc.) (Buksti 1979).

Since lines of conflict and cooperation are expected to be found across as well as along national boundaries, coalition -building will also be assumed take place across national boundaries (Haas 1962; Keohane 1978). Thus, a given distribution of power at the national level may be challenged. Finally, attitudes of administrators and executive officers seem to be influenced by international networks. Data from the above mentioned survey (cf. note 3) show a rather high positive correlation between participation at the fourth level and a desire for strengthening the same level of government. But with regard to the relationships between the fourth level and organizational structures, patterns of coalition behaviour, attitudes, our knowledge today is very limited.

---

NOTES

1. Cf. the reviews of literature offered by Collier and Messick (1975) and Østerud (1978). Collier and Messick stress a diffusion perspective.

2 A central argument of this theoretical reasoning is that political power and influence have something to do with formal decision-making, but also with taking initiatives, elucidating solutions, implementing policies, and interpreting consequences (Olsen 1978).

---

3 The empirical material used was gathered by the Norwegian Power Study. Questionnaires were circulated among ministerial administrators and executive officers, and among comparable position holders in a sample of economic interest organizations. The number of ministerial respondents is 784 (71.5 piercent), and organizational respondents make up 536 (72.4 percent). Considering the limited use of data analysis in this paper, a further elaboration of the data material will not be given here. Discussions of sampling and representativity etc. are to be found in Lægreid and Olsen 1978, and Gaasemyr 1979.

4 According to directives from the Prime Minister's Office, dated 20.10.72 and 25.08.75.

5 Considering issues of a more technical character, however, an element of 'pure system coercion' may explain standardization. For instance air transport, railway transport etc. presuppose equal technical standards across national boundaries.

REFERENCES

Aiken, M. and Hage, J. 1976. 'Organizational Interdependence and Intra-Organizational
Structure', in W. M. Evan (ed.): Interorganizational Relations. London: Penguin.

Alger, C. F. 1963. 'Comparison of Intranational and International Polities', American Political
Review 57, 406-419.

Anton, T. J. 1969. 'Policy-Making and Political Culture in Sweden', Scandinavian Political
Studies 4, 88--102.

Blix, H. 1964. Statsmyndigheternas internationella forbindelser. Stockholm: Norstedt &
Sønner.

Buksti, J. A. 1979. Corporate Structures in Danish EC Policy: Patterns of Organizational
Participation and Adaptation. University of Aarhus, Institute of Political Science, paper.

Collier, D. and Messick, R. E. 1975. 'Prerequisites vs. Diffusion: Testing Alternative Explanations
Social Security Adoption', American Political Science Review 69, 1299-1315.

Cyert, R. and March, J. G. 1963. A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.:
Prentice-Hall.

Dahl, R. A. and Lindblom, C. 1953. Politics, Economics and Welfare. New York: Harper &
Row.

Dahl, R. A. andTufte, E. R. 1974. Size and Democracy. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Egeberg, M. 1978. «Den offentlige politikkens internasjonalisering», in J.P. Olsen (ed.):
Politisk organisering. Bergen: Universitetsforlaget.

Gourevitch, P. 1978. 'The Second Image Reversed: the International Sources of Domestic
Polities', International Organization 32, 881-912.

Grønnegaard Christensen, J. 1978. «Da centraladministrationen blev international», Studier
i dansk udenrikspolitik. Århus: Forlaget Politica.

Gaasemyr, J. 1979. Organisasjonsbyråkrati og korporativisme. Bergen: Universitetsforlaget.

Haas, E. B. 1962. 'System and Process in the International Labour Organization', 'World
Politics 14, 322-352.

Hallenstvedt, A. and Moren, J. 1975. <Det organiserte samfunn», in N. R. Ramsøy og M.
Vaa (ed.): Det norske samfunn, I. Oslo: Gyldendal.

Hallenstvedt, A., Kalela, A., Kalela, J. and Lintonen, R. 1975. The Nordic Transnational
Association Network: Structure and Correlates. Research Reports, Series C. Helsinki:
Institute of Political Science.

Hanf. K. and Scharpf, F. W. (eds.) 1978. Interorganizational Policy-Making. Limits to
Coordination and Central Control. London: Sage.

Hanrieder, W. F. 1978. 'Dissolving International Politics: Reflections on the Nation-State',
American Political Science Review 72, 1276-1287.

Heidenheimer, A. J., H. Heclo and Adams, C. T. 1975. Comparative Public Policy. New
York: St. Martin's Press.

Heisler, M. (ed.) 1974. Politics in Europe. Structures and Processes in some Post-industrial
Democracies. New York: David McKay Co.

Holsti, K. J. 1978. 'A New International Politics? Diplomacy in Complex Interdependence',
International Organization 32, 513-530.

Hopkins, R. F. 1976. 'The International Role of 'Domestic' Bureaucracy', International
Organization 30, 405-432.

Kaiser, K. 1971. 'Transnational Politics: Toward a Theory of Multinational Politics', International
25, 790-817.

Karvonen, L. 1979. Nationellt beslutsfattande och extern orientering: En studie av finländska
1950-76. Åbo Akademi.

Keohane, R. O. 1978. 'The lEA: State Influence and Transgovernmental Polities', International
32, 929-951.

Keohane, R. O. and Nye, J. S. 1975. 'International Interdependence and Integration', in
Greenstein and Polsby (eds.): Handbook of Political Science, vol. 8. Reading, Mass.:
Addison- Wesley.

Keohane, R. O. and Nye, J. S. 1977. Power and Interdependence. Little, Brown.

Kjellberg, F. 1974. »Politiske konsekvenser av standardisering av offentlige ydelser»,
Tidsskrift for samfunnsforskning 15, 138-153.

Kuhnle, S. 1978. 'The Beginnings of the Nordic Welfare States: Similarities and Differences',
Acta Sociologica 21, Supplement: 9-35.

Lindblom, C. 1965. The Intelligence of Democracy. New York: Free Press.

Lintonen, R., Niemi, M., Olasvirta, L. and Personen, J. 1978. Structure and Change of the
Finnish External Governmental Relations. Research Reports, Series A. Helsinki: Univwrsity
Helsinki, Department of Political Science.

Lægreid, P. and Olsen, J. P. 1978. Byråkrati og beslutninger, Bergen; Universitetsforlaget.

March, J. G. and Olsen, J. P. 1976. Ambiguity and Choice in Organizations. Bergen:
Universitetsforlaget.

Masters, R. D. 1964. 'World Politics as a Primitive Political System', World Politics 16,
595-619.

Mayntz, R, and Scharpf, F. W. 1975. Policy-Making in the German Federal Bureaucracy.
Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Moren, J., Hallenstvedt, A. and Christensen, T. 1976. Norske organisasjoner. Oslo: Tanum.

Nandrup Dahl, K. 1968. 'The Role of 1.L.0. Standards in the Global Integration Process,
1919-1969', Journal of Peace Research, 309-351.

Olsen, J. P. 1978. «Folkestyre, byråkratis og korporativisme», in J. P. Olsen (ed.): Politisk
Organisering. Bergen: Universitetsforlaget.

Olsen, J. P. and Wagtskjold, B. 1979. Organisering av læringshorisonter. Department of
Public Administration and Organization Theory, University of Bergen.

Riggs, F. W. 'International Relations as a Prismatic System', World Politics 14, 144-81.

Rudolph, L. I. and Rudolph, S. H. 1979. 'Authority and Power in Bureaucratic and Patrimonial
World Politics 31, 195-227.

Sharkansky, I. 1970. The Routines of Politics. New York: Vein Nostrand Reinhold.

Sjøstedt, G. 1973. OECD-samarbetet: Funktioner och effekter. Political Studies 3. Stockholm:
of Political Science.

Skjelsbæk, K. 1972. 'Peace and the Structure of the International Organization Network',
Journal of Peace Research 4, 315-330.

Soltvedt, L. P. 1978. «Nordisk råd», Internasjonalpolitikk 2, 217-231.

Strand, T. 1978. «Staten og kommunane: Standardisering, hjelp og sjølvhjelp», in J. P. Olsen
(ed.): Politisk organisering. Bergen: Universitetsforlaget.

Sundelius, B. 1978. Managing Transnationalism in Northern Europe. Boulder, Colo.:
Westview Press.

Thompson, J. D. 1967. Organizations in Action. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Torgersen, U. 1975. «De politiske insdtusjonene», in N. R. Ramsøy and M. Vaa (ed.): Det
norske samfunn, 11, Oslo: Gyldendal.

Walker, J. L. 1969. 'The Diffusion of Innovations among the American States'. American
Political Science Review 63, 880-899.

Wallace, M. and Singer, J. D. 1970. 'Intergovernmental Organization in the Global System,
1815-1964. A Quantitative Description', International Organization 24, 239-287.

Wallace, H., Wallace, W and Webb, C. (eds.) 1977. Policy-Making in the European Communities.
John Wiley & Sons.

Weber, M. 1971. «Byråkrati», in E. Fivelsdal (ed.): Max Weber. Makt og byråkrati. Oslo:
Gyldendal.

Wolin, S. 1960. Politics and Vision. Continuity and Innovation in Western Political Thought.
Boston: Little, Brown & Co.

Østerud, 0. 1978. Utviklingsteori og historisk endring. Oslo: Gyldendal.

Public documents: NOU 1972:16. Gjennomføring av lovkonvensjoner i norsk rett. Oslo:
Universitetsforlaget.

St.meld. nr. 39, 1975-76. Om Norges deltakelse i Organisasjonen for Økonomisk samarbeid
og Utvikling (OECD).