Advertisement

Next Steps und zwei Schritte zurück? Stereotypen, Executive Agencies und die Politik der Delegation in Gro\britannien

Chapter

Auszug

Neben der weitreichenden Privatisierungspolitik gelten die sogenannten „Next Step Agencies“ als eines der markantesten AushÄngeschilder britischer Verwaltungsreformpolitik. Dies gilt nicht nur für die Wahrnehmung dieser Entwicklung „von au\en“, auch britische Beobachter teilen diese Sicht. So stellen Next Step Agencies beispielsweise für Grant Jordan, zumindest auf den ersten Blick, „the most spectacular change“ dar, den die britische Verwaltung im 20. Jahrhundert durchlaufen hat (Jordan 1994: 137). In Ähnlicher Weise betrachtet (2003: 91) das „Next Steps-Projekt“ als Teil eines übergreifenden VerÄnderungstrends, der in den letzten 15 Jahren zu der „... most significant reorganisation of the machinery of central government since the latter part of the nineteenth century ...“ geführt hat.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literatur

  1. Aucoin, Peter (1990): Administrative Reform in Public Management. In: Governance 3, 115–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baker, Anthony (1998): Political Responsibility for UK Prison Security: Ministers Escape Again. In: Public Administration 76, 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barberis, Peter (1998): The New Public Management and a New Accountability. In: Public Administration 76, 451–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Campbell, Colin/ Wilson, Graham K. (1995): The End of Whitehall. Death of a Paradigm? Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  5. Craig, Paul P. (2003): Administrative Law. London: Sweet & Maxwell.Google Scholar
  6. Drewry, Gavin./ Giddings, Philip (1995): The Origins of the Next Steps Programme. In: Giddings, Philip (Hrsg.): Parliamentary Accountability: A Study of Parliament and Executive Agencies. Basingstoke, Macmillan.Google Scholar
  7. Dunleavy, Patrick J. (1991): Bureaucracy, Democracy and Public Choice. Hemel Hemsted, Harvester: Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
  8. Efficiency Unit (1988): Improving Management in Government: The Next Steps. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  9. Fiorina, Morris (1982): Legislative Choice of Regulatory Forms: Legal Process or Administrative Process. In: Public Choice 39, 33–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fraser, Sir Angus (1991): Making the Most of Next Steps. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  11. Gains, Francesca (2003): Executive Agencies in Government: The Impact of Bureaucratic Networks on Policy Outcomes. In: Journal of Public Policy 23, 55–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Greer, Patricia (1994): Transforming Central Government: The Next Steps Initiative. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Gregory, Robert (1998): A New Zealand Tragedy: Problems of Political Accountability. In: Governance 11, 231–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Harlow, Carol (1999): Accountability, New Public Management and the Problems of the Child Support Agency. In: Journal of Law and Society 26, 150–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hogwood, Brian W. (1995): Whitehall Families: Core Departments and Agency Forms in Britain. In: International Review of Administrative Sciences 61, 511–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hogwood, Brian W. (1994): A Reform Beyond Compare? The Next Steps Restructuring of British Central Government. In: Journal of European Public Policy 1, 71–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hogwood, Brian W.: (1993): Restructing Central Government: The Next Steps“ Initiative in Britain“. In: Kooiman, Jan (Hrsg.): Managing Public Organizations. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  18. Hood, Christopher (2002): The Risk Game and the Blame Game. In: Government and Opposition 37(1), 15–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hood, Christopher (2000): Paradoxes of Public Sector Managerialism, Old Public Management, and Public Service Bargain. In: International Public Management Journal 3, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hood, Christopher (1994): Explaining Economic Policy Reversals. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Hood, Christopher (1981): Axeperson, Spare that Quango.... In: Hood, Christoper/ Wright, Maurice (Hrsg.): Big Government in Hard Times. Oxford: Martin Robinson.Google Scholar
  22. Hood, Christopher (1978): Keeping the Centre Small: Explanations of Agency Type. In: Political Studies XXVI(1), 30–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hood, Christopher/ Scott, Collin/ James, Oliver/ Jones, George/ Travers, Tony (1999): Regulation Inside Government. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. James, Oliver (2003): The Executive Agency Revolution in Whitehall. London: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  25. James, Oliver (1995): Explaining the Next Steps in the Department of Social Security: the Bureau-shaping Model of Central State Reorganization. In: Political Studies XLIII, 614–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jordan, Grant (1994): The British Administrative System: Principles versus Practice. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  27. Judge, David/ Hogwood, Brian W./ McVicar, Michael (1997): The „Pondlife“ of Executive Agencies: Parliament and „Informatory“ Accountability. In: Public Policy and Administration 12, 95–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kemp, Paul (1990): Next Steps for the British Civil Service. In: Governance 3(2), 186–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kellner, Peter/ Crowther-Hunt, Norman (1980): The Civil Servants: An Inquiry into Britain’s Ruling Class. London: MacDonald.Google Scholar
  30. Learmont, General Sir John (1995): Review of Prison Service Security in England & Wales and the escape from Parkhurst Prison on 3 January 1995. In: Cm3020, HMSO.Google Scholar
  31. Lodge, Martin (2004): The Regulation of Prisons in Germany. In: Hood, Christopher./ James, Oliver/ Peters, B. Guy/ Scott, Colin (Hrsg.): Controlling Modern Government. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  32. Moran, Michael (2003): The British Regulatory State. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  33. NAO (National Audit Office) (2002): Improving Service Delivery: The role of executive agencies. London: NAO.Google Scholar
  34. NAO (National Audit Office) (1999): The United Kingdom Passport Agency: The Passport Delays 1999. HC 812(98/99).Google Scholar
  35. Office of Public Services Reform and HM Treasury (2002): Better Government Services. Executive Agencies in the 21st Century. In: The Agency Policy Review, July 2002.Google Scholar
  36. Parris, Henry (1969): Constitutional Bureaucracy. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  37. Pliatzky, Sir Leo (1980): Report on Non-Departmental Public Bodies. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  38. Polidano, Charles (1999): The Bureaucrat who Fell Under the Buss: Ministerial Responsibility, Executive Agencies and the Derek Lewis Affair in Britain. In: Governance 12, 201–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften | GWV Fachverlage GmbH, Wiesbaden 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Government der London School of Economics (LSE)Deutschland
  2. 2.Centre for Analysis of Risk and Regulation (CARR)Deutschland

Personalised recommendations