MERGING PUBLIC SERVICES

Abstract

Forthcoming Reorganisations Inter‐Authority working parties develop programmes for forthcoming Local Government reorganisation. Elaborate Health Service reorganisation plans are formulated. Schools are merged to form comprehensives. Central Government reshuffles frequently involve merging or demerging whole departments, and Common Market entry will eventually lead to some synthesis of services and policies at continental levels of operation. Many European countries approach major Social Services mergers—for example, the Dutch are soon to take action on Seebohm‐style report called “Structural Perspective”, and the 1970 Danish Social Steering Act is equivalent to the 1970 British Social Services Act, except that it allows for a four‐year changeover period. The Swedes continue to test integrated service delivery at neighbourhood level along the lines of such famous experiments as the Tierp commune block in Uppsala. Many European countries are in throes of Maud‐type Local Government reorganisations, which Italy embarked on in April 1972, and Britain is to embark in April 1974. The public sector is evidently moving through a period of major mergers as scepticism about 1960s' industrial conglomeration prompts the Government's fair trading legislation promising new merger evaluation methods. General principles about merging public services begin to emerge. Relevant data derives from British Social Services' reorganisation following the Seebohm Report, London Local Government reorganisation, American and Australian state‐level experiments in service integration incorporated under Allied Services legislation and various service industry mergers. Merger theory is still in its infancy, even that part which derives from industrial experience the degree of potential upheaval in public services reorganisations demands that fullest possible use be made of our existing understanding of what may occur when two or more organisations merge.

Citation

Algie, J. (1973), "MERGING PUBLIC SERVICES", Management Decision, Vol. 11 No. 5, pp. 280-293. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb001027