Conference Agenda

This paper investigates how public sector organizations govern through and with expertise, focusing on the case of free public transport in France. While this policy has gained political traction in many French municipalities, it remains largely opposed by a network of transport experts situated within local public governance and transport firms. These experts play a central role in structuring not only knowledge, but also what counts as governable, legitimate, and feasible (Christensen & Lægreid, 2006; MacCarthaigh, 2012).

Drawing on public policy and political sociology, this study examines how expert discourses function as modes of governance, particularly in contexts where public transport is delegated to semi-public or private operators through contractual and financial mechanisms (Jugl, 2022; Egeberg, 2023). These hybrid governance arrangements blur traditional lines of political responsibility and empower technical actors to frame the scope of possible policy alternatives (Brans, 2007; Rykkja & Christensen, 2020).

The research stems from a robust processual analysis of the trajectory of free public transport in Montpellier. The empirical material consists of 31 semi-directive interviews conducted with local elected officials, civil servants, transport operators, consultants, and advocacy groups. These interviews shed light on how actors define, justify, or contest the legitimacy of fare abolition. A detailed analysis of internal reports, strategy notes, technical and financial assessments, and a systematic press review of over 1200 articles complements this material. We apply discourse analysis methods to all these materials to examine how they frame arguments, how they mobilize expertise rhetorically, and how they disqualify or legitimize policy proposals in public debate and decision-making processes.

This paper contributes to the theme of governing public sector organizations by offering an in-depth empirical and conceptual analysis of how these organizations adapt, negotiate, and sometimes resist policy change through the mobilization of expertise. It adds to ongoing reflections on governance capacity and legitimacy by showing how hybrid organizational settings and expert networks constrain democratic responsiveness, particularly in the face of contentious or disruptive policy proposals. The paper unpacks the discursive and institutional work that experts do in the governance of public transport. It thereby echoes and enriches the group’s interest in organizational specialization, accountability, and the evolving dynamics between public and private actors. It is therefore well suited to contribute to the broader debates of the panel on the future of public sector governance in complex and polarized political environments.

While employment rates amongst neurodivergent adults are notoriously low, little is known about their experiences in the workplace, including the public sector. At the same time, the views of colleagues and employers with regards to the inclusion of neurodiverse adults in the workforce are important. Building on a systematic literature review exploring what is known about the experiences of neurodiverse employees, their colleagues, and employers in the workplace, this paper seeks to explore the implications for public sector employment. Issues to be examined include what is known about the incidence of neurodiversity in government, and what the implications are for how information is processed and decisions reached within public sector organisations. Key facilitators and barriers for neurodiverse bureacurats are also considered, adopting employee, managerial, and organizational perspectives.

In an era marked by an increasingly complex global environment, public sector organizations struggle to keep up with developments such as the proliferation of biometric surveillance and personalized advertising, the emergence of decentralized digital currencies, and the production of lab-grown food. These rapid societal evolutions demand a more adaptive governance framework and a re-evaluation of the role which public sector organizations play in fostering innovation and societal compliance.

This paper examines the dynamic interplay between executive bodies and regulatory agencies in three sectors - data protection, finance, and food safety, across four countries – Belgium, Germany, Spain and Switzerland. Executive bodies or ministries are responsible for the development and implementation of regulations, whilst regulatory agencies oversee and enforce compliance with the regulations. Together, these actors determine how regulations are formed, supervised, and enforced.

Little is known about what shapes these actors' perceptions of regulation and regulatory enforcement, specifically why they might view both as either excessively strict or lenient. This paper investigates the drivers behind these perceptions, focusing on how individual perceptions, organizational characteristics, and political and sectoral pressures interact to shape their views on the strictness of regulation and enforcement. Therefore, this study provides valuable insights for policymakers and practitioners, potentially informing the development of more effective and adaptive regulation, enforcement and governance.

Employing a data triangulation methodology, we combine survey data at the individual and sectoral levels with coded qualitative data from regulations and policy documents. The data will be analyzed through multivariate multi-level regression analysis, examining how perceptions of regulation and perceptions of enforcement are formed.