arbiter
JournalsPricingAccount

Unveiling the double-edged sword of magic concepts in public sector reforms: Why capacity to cope with paradoxes makes all the difference

Tina Øllgaard Bentzen & Marte Winsvold

Perspectives on Public Management & Governance2025https://doi.org/10.1093/ppmgov/gvaf016article
AJG 2
Weight
0.46

What the paper says

This study examines how the use of magic concepts in public sector reform can simultaneously promote and undermine the achievement of reform. By integrating insights from magic concepts and paradox theory, the study suggests deploying magic concepts in reform can activate clusters of organizational paradoxes that in turn create unique opportunities for transformative change. Case studies from two Scandinavian municipalities illustrate the double-edged nature of magic concepts in reform: Only when an organization has the capacity to deal with heightened paradoxical tensions in an integrative way can the magic concept effectively contribute to achieving the desired reform outcomes.

4 citations

Open paper page →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1093/ppmgov/gvaf016

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{tina2025,
  title        = {{Unveiling the double-edged sword of magic concepts in public sector reforms: Why capacity to cope with paradoxes makes all the difference}},
  author       = {Tina Øllgaard Bentzen & Marte Winsvold},
  journal      = {Perspectives on Public Management & Governance},
  year         = {2025},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1093/ppmgov/gvaf016},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

Unveiling the double-edged sword of magic concepts in public sector reforms: Why capacity to cope with paradoxes makes all the difference

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.

Evidence weight

0.46

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.37 × 0.4 = 0.15
M · momentum0.60 × 0.15 = 0.09
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.