手法を比較

	Whole-of-Government Analysis	Bureaucratic Reputation Analysis
分野	Public Administration	Public Administration
系統	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
提唱年	2007	2001
提唱者	Tom Christensen & Per Lægreid	Daniel P. Carpenter
種類	Analytical framework	Theoretical analytical framework
原典	Christensen, T., & Lægreid, P. (2007). The Whole-of-Government Approach to Public Sector Reform. Public Administration Review, 67(6), 1059–1066.	Carpenter, D. P. (2001). The Forging of Bureaucratic Autonomy: Reputations, Networks, and Policy Innovation in Executive Agencies, 1862–1928. Princeton: Princeton University Press. ISBN: 9780691070100
別名	Joined-Up Government Analysis, Horizontal Coordination Analysis, WofG Analysis, Cross-Government Integration Analysis	Agency Reputation Analysis, Reputational Theory of Bureaucracy, Organizational Reputation Analysis, Carpenter Reputation Framework
関連	4	4
概要	Whole-of-government analysis examines how public organisations coordinate across portfolio, sectoral and jurisdictional boundaries to tackle problems that no single agency can solve alone. Articulated by Tom Christensen and Per Lægreid in their 2007 study of whole-of-government reform, it is a response to the fragmentation produced by decades of New Public Management — the proliferation of single-purpose agencies, contracting and silos. The analysis identifies cross-cutting or 'wicked' problems, maps the actors and boundaries involved, assesses the coordination mechanisms in play, diagnoses where joined-up working breaks down, and recommends integration strategies.	Bureaucratic reputation analysis is an analytical framework for explaining the behaviour, power and autonomy of public agencies through the lens of their reputation — the set of symbolic beliefs about an agency's capacities, intentions and history held by its many audiences. Developed by Daniel Carpenter, notably in his 2001 study of how U.S. executive agencies forged autonomy, and elaborated with George Krause, the framework treats reputation as a strategic asset that agencies cultivate and protect. It distinguishes performative, moral, technical and procedural dimensions of reputation and traces how reputational concerns drive what agencies do.