Obviously, we need international publications in public management for communication about what happens in different nations. Accordingly, a good reason to review Governing in the Roundfor this journal is to inform readers of this valuable source of information about efforts in the UK to coordinate government programs. The aim of integrating fragmented activities by people who should be working at common purposes is, in a sense, an old one in many nations. In the 1970’s, the US Congress passed the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA) to provide for local coordination of a diffuse array of employment and training programs in government. Around the same time, the Equal Employment Opportunity Coordinating Council was formed to coordinate the divergent EEO activities in the federal government. Integrated service delivery, one stop shopping, and related efforts have been objectives in public programs for years. “Partnering” has become part of the mantra of government in recent years (e.g., Holzer & Callahan, 1998). In Governing in the Round, however, the authors describe a growing perception in the UK and elsewhere that the reinventing government movement has actually aggravated problems of fragmentation, through its emphasis on enhancing the performance of individual agencies and programs in delivering services. They indicate a higher-level and more widespread concern with “joined up” and “holistic” government, voiced by Tony Blair and other leaders of “New Labor.” They argue that this trend amounts to more than a simple repetition of some of the efforts in the 1970s, such as those noted above. As do others, they regard it as a significant, central theme in reform for now and the next decade at least, for nations around the world (Osborne, 2000). Regardless of whether one accepts this particular argument, virtually all participants in public administration should acknowledge the importance of coordinating and integrating programs and services. This makes the authors’ depiction of the current developments in the UK of particular value for readers who have not been able to follow them as closely as these authors have, due to their research and advantageous perspective. Of still greater interest are the authors’ efforts, based on their research, to assess this movement and draw lessons from it, provide a framework and strategies for “holistic” government, and ultimately to defend the movement against some growing criticisms and expressions of discouragement. Moreover, many of their conclusions reflect on more general International Public Management Journal 3 (2000) 145–148