Editing Politics of Norway (section)

== Managing Performance and Accountability in Norway  ==

Norway’s public sector reforms have been shaped by globalization, economic shifts, and administrative challenges. The adoption of New Public Management (NPM) in the 1980s and 1990s aligned governance with global trends, emphasizing performance, efficiency, and accountability. Inspired by international models, particularly from the United Kingdom and New Zealand, Norway introduced performance-based management and decentralization <ref name=":5">Hood, C. (1991). A Public Management for All Seasons? Public Administration, 69(1), 3–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.1991.tb00779</ref>  

Administrative inefficiencies and rising public expectations also drove reforms. Traditional bureaucratic structures were seen as rigid, costly, and ineffective, prompting demands for greater transparency and improved services. Norway responded with institutional restructuring, digital governance, and service delivery improvements to enhance responsiveness <ref>Bjørnå, H., & Weigård, J. (2020). From Public to Private Accountability in Norwegian Local Government. SAGE Open, 10(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244020957042</ref>

Economic shifts, including fluctuating oil revenues, influenced governance strategies. To ensure fiscal sustainability and efficiency, the government adopted budgetary optimization and performance-based management. Broader economic pressures in the 1980s and 1990s, including global recessions and rising welfare costs, accelerated the use of cost-control measures, performance budgeting, and accountability mechanisms <ref>Christensen, T., & Lægreid, P. (2007). The whole-of-government approach to public sector reform. Public Administration Review, 67(6), 1059-1066. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2007.00797.x</ref>

Norway’s performance measurements follow NPM principles, emphasizing goal setting, monitoring, and evaluation through measurable indicators like service efficiency and operational outcomes <ref name=":5"></ref> 

=== Performance Measurement Systems ===

Norway's Management by Objective Results (MBOR) framework, aligned with New Public Management (NPM) principles, emphasizes goal setting, monitoring, and structured evaluation to enhance government efficiency and accountability <ref name=":6">Laegreid, P., Roness, P. G., & Rubecksen, K. (2006). Performance Management in Practice: The Norwegian Way. In Financial Accountability & Management (22(3); Journal Compilation, pp. 251–270). Blackwell Publishing Ltd.  </ref>  

==== Core Components of MBOR ====

•	Annual Activity Plans: Each agency outlines strategic priorities and performance targets. For example, the Norwegian Health Directorate sets annual goals for reducing hospital wait times and improving patient satisfaction <ref name=":5"></ref> 

•	Performance Indicators: 
1. Cost-efficiency ratios in public services, 2. Operational: Patient treatment rates in hospitals, 3. Service-Oriented: Citizen satisfaction surveys and service delivery metrics <ref name=":9">DFØ. (2020). DFO rapport 2020 11 Nar stovet har lagt seg. Erfaringer fra statlige reformer. https://dfo.no/sites/default/files/fagomr%C3%A5der/Rapporter/2020/DFO-rapport-2020-11-Nar-stovet-har-lagt-seg.-Erfaringer-fra-statlige-reformer.pdf</ref>

•	Steering Dialogues: Ministries and subordinate agencies engage in continuous performance reviews to align goals with policy priorities <ref name=":6"></ref> 

==== MBOR has evolved through key policy reforms ====
1. 1986 – Budget Reforms: Introduced productivity-oriented budgeting, giving agencies greater autonomy in resource allocation, 2. 	1990 - MBOR Mandate: Required all public-sector units to adopt annual activity plans, strengthening political control and goal-setting clarity, 3. 1991 - Salary Reforms: Linked administrative leaders’ pay to performance, with compensation tied to individual contracts and annual assessments, 4. 1996 - New Government Financial Regulations: Formalized “Letters of Allocation”, contract-like agreements defining budget resources, objectives, and performance indicators <ref name=":6"></ref>

=== Accountability Mechanisms ===

==== National Audit Office of Norway (NAO) ====
The National Audit of Norway (NAO Norway) is the independent audit agency of the Storting (Norwegian Parliament), ensuring financial accountability and transparency. It conducts government audits, and performance reviews, and monitors state-owned enterprises to ensure compliance with financial regulations and parliamentary decisions. 
<ref name=":7">National Audit Office of Norway. (2023). About us: Role and activities. Retrieved 29 January 2025, from https://www.riksrevisjonen.no/en/about-the-oag/about-us/</ref>

Audit by the NAO revealed significant issues in Norway’s performance-based financing (PBF) system. Key findings included:<ref name=":7"></ref>

•	Misclassified Cases: 41% of pneumonia cases were misclassified, requiring one in four admissions to be reassigned to a new Diagnosis-Related Group (DRG). This led to funding discrepancies and inefficiencies in resource allocation. <ref name=":7"></ref>

•	Coding Inconsistencies: Post-audit, pneumonia cases decreased from 2.7 to 2.3 conditions per admission, and hip replacements dropped from 1.5 to 1.0, highlighting systemic coding errors (see Table 4).<ref name=":7"></ref>

•	Recommendations: The NAO called for improved coding accuracy, stricter oversight, and enhanced financial controls to ensure accurate reporting and fiscal accountability in Norway’s healthcare sector. <ref name=":7"></ref>

==== The Norwegian Parliamentary Ombudsman  ====

Sivilombudsmannen established in 1962, and appointed by the Storting, ensures fair administrations, protects individual rights, and uploads human rights standards in public governance. Unlike non-parliamentary ombudsmen in other countries, the Norwegian model operates independently from executive influence and reports directly to Parliament <ref>Norwegian Parliamentary Ombud. (2025). About the Ombud: Role and responsibilities. Retrieved 29 January 2025, from https://www.sivilombudsmannen.no</ref>

'''Performance'''
In 2021, the Ombud’s handled 4,032 complaints, resolving 50% through administrative corrections. It conducted 26 own-initiative investigations on prison monitoring, police access, and case processing delays, recommending procedural improvements <ref>Norwegian Parliamentary Ombud. (2021). Annual report 2021. Retrieved from 01 February 2025, from https://www.sivilombudet.no/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Annual-report-2021.pdf</ref>

==== Public Consultation Platforms   ====

Høyringar allows citizens, organizations, and businesses to provide input on laws, regulations, and policies, ensuring transparency and public transportation. <ref name=":8">Norwegian Government. (2025). Public consultations: Participation in policy-making. Retrieved 29 January 2025, from https://www.regjeringen.no/en/find-document/consultations/id1763/</ref>

'''Key stages of the process'''
1.	Proposal Submission: Ministries publish draft laws and policies, 2.	Public Notification: Proposals are available on the consultation portal (Høringsportalen), 3.	Feedback Collection: Stakeholders and the public submit opinions and recommendations digitally, 4. Revies: The government evaluates feedback and adjusts proposals, 5.	Final Decision: Revised proposals proceed to Parliament or administrative adoption. <ref name=":8"></ref>

=== Result-Oriented Reforms ===

Between 2000 and 2020, Norway has adopted several different performance-driven reforms to enhance public sector efficiency, service delivery, and governance. <ref name=":9"></ref><ref name=":10">Christensen, T., Lægreid, P., & H. Rykkja, L. (2024). Governance Reforms in Scandinavia: Denmark, Norway, and Sweden. In A. Farazmand (Ed.), Comparative Governance Reforms (pp. 64–66). Springer Nature Switzerland AG. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-70306-5_4</ref> 

==== Healthcare Sector Reforms (2002 and 2012)  ====

The 2002 hospital reform centralized public hospital ownership under the Ministry of Health while granting management autonomy to regional and local health enterprises. The reform aimed to improve efficiency and implement performance-based governance.  <ref name=":9"></ref><ref>Byrkjeflot, H., & Vrangbæk, K. (2012). Dimensions of accountability in healthcare. In T. Christensen & P. Lægreid (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook to accountability and welfare state reforms in Europe (pp. 105–118). Routledge.</ref>

The 2012 Collaboration Reform sought to improve coordination between municipal primary care and government-controlled secondary care through performance-based incentives, contracts, and agreements. <ref name=":9"></ref>

'''The Results:'''
The Faster Return to Work (FRW) scheme introduced in 2007 reduced waiting times by 12–15 days and shortened sick leave by approximately 8 days on average. Surgical patients in the FRW scheme had 15–23 days shorter sick leave periods compared to those on regular waiting lists. <ref>Christensen, B. J., Lentz, R., Lassen, D. D., & Matiasen, J. R. (2012). Hospital capacity, waiting times, and sick leave duration: An empirical analysis of a Norwegian health policy reform (Working Papers in Economics No. 10/12). Department of Economics, University of Bergen.</ref>

==== Welfare Administration Reform (2005-2007) ====

The 2005 Welfare Administration Reform in Norway merged central government pensions and labor agencies into a single national entity, streamlining social welfare administration. A local partnership agreement was introduced integrating municipal social welfare bodies to enhance service coordination. By 2007, regional pension offices and administrative units were established, shifting certain responsibilities from local to regional levels of employment.  <ref name=":9"></ref><ref name=":10"></ref>

==== Police Sector Reforms (2001 and 2015) ====

The 2001 reform centralized police governance under a central Police Agency, reducing police districts from 54 to 27. The 2015 “Community Police Reform” further consolidated police districts to 12 and local units from 350 to 210, aiming to strengthen emergency response. <ref name=":9"></ref>

==== Regional and Municipal Reforms (2015 and 2020) ==== 

The 2015 Norwegian Municipal Reform aimed to consolidate municipalities from 428 to 356 due to local resistance. The 2020 Regional Reform reduced counties from 19 to 11, though few new responsibilities were transferred. <ref name=":9"></ref><ref>Klausen, J. E., Askim, J., & T. Christensen T. (2021). Local government reform: Compromise through cross-cutting cleavages. Political Studies Review, 19(1), 111–126. https://doi.org/10.1177/1478929919887649 </ref>

==== Digitalization and Trust Reforms (2020) ==== 

The establishment of the Digitalization Agency in 2020 aimed to accelerate public sector digital transformation and enhance coordination, efficiency, and citizen services. <ref name=":9"></ref>

In 2021, the Trust Reform was introduced, inspired by similar reforms in Denmark and Sweden. It aimed to reduce market-driven governance, enhance collaboration with labor organizations, and increase public sector employee involvement in decision-making. <ref name=":9"></ref><ref name=":10"></ref>

==== Education Reforms (2020) ====

The National Testing and Evaluation System was introduced by the Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training in 2020 to measure school and student performance. <ref>Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research. (2020). National Tests and Reporting in Education. Retrieved January 12, 2025, from https://www.regjeringen.no/en/topics/education/innsikt/national-tests/id2006130/ </ref>


'''Completion Reform Impact:''' Dropout rates in upper secondary education (VGO) have declined due to improved evaluation measures and targeted policies. The reform enhances early intervention and personalized learning to support student success. <ref>Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research. (2021). Meld. St. 21 (2020–2021) The Completion Reform – With Open Doors to the World and the Future. Retrieved from 01 February 2025, https://www.regjeringen.no</ref>

'''The Results'''

•	Mathematics Performance: Norway ranks 3rd out of 38 OECD countries with a 97.1% variation, among the highest compared to the OECD average. <ref name=":11">OECD. (2022). Norway: Student performance (PISA 2022). Retrieved January 12, 2025, from https://gpseducation.oecd.org/CountryProfile?primaryCountry=NOR&treshold=10&topic=PI </ref>

•	Reading Performance: Norway ranks 11th out of 38 OECD countries, with an 88% variation, also among the largest in OECD assessments. <ref name=":11"></ref>