Advertisement

Ministries and Agencies: Steering, Meddling, Neglect and Dependency

  • Christopher Pollitt

Abstract

It is commonly held by many expert commentators that the authority of the nation state is becoming more dispersed and that its institutional structure is becoming more decentralized, fragmented and complex (OECD, 2002a; Pierre and Peters, 2000; Rhodes, 1997). In some accounts this is explicitly celebrated as a form of progress: multipurpose, rigid, centralized bureaucracies are the old model; specialized, flexible, semi-autonomous agencies are the new model (Hughes, 1998; Osborne and Gaebler, 1992). However, whether decentralization is regarded as good, bad or both, it is definitely an internationally widespread phenomenon. It is perhaps the most pervasive theme of recent state reform, both in the core new public management (NPM) countries and in consensualist/corporatist continental states that are modernizing, but in more incremental, less NPM-ish ways than in the majoritarian Anglo-American and Australasian countries (Pollitt and Bouckaert, 2000; Pollitt et al, 2001; Pollitt and Talbot, 2004).

Keywords

Public Management Parent Ministry Executive Agency Canadian Food Inspection Agency Policy Capacity 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Algemene, Rekenkamer (1995) ‘Verslag 1994. Deel 3. Zelfstandige Bestuurorganen en Ministeriële Verantwoordelijkheid’, second Chamber, 1994–95 assembly, 24 130, no. 3 (Den Haag: Sdu).Google Scholar
  2. Aucoin, P. (1996) ‘Designing Agencies for Good Public Management: The Urgent Need for Reform’, Choices (IRPP), vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 5–20.Google Scholar
  3. Bardach, E. (1998) Getting Agencies to Work Together: The Practice and Theory of Managerial Craftsmanship (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution).Google Scholar
  4. Bogt, H. ter (1999) ‘Financial and Economic Management in Autonomized Dutch Public Organizations’, Financial Accountability and Management, vol. 15, nos 3–4, pp. 329–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boston, J., J. Martin, J. Pallot and P. Walsh (1996) Public Management — The New Zealand Model (Auckland: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
  6. Boyne, G., C. Farrell, J. Law, M. Powell and R. Walker (2003) Evaluating Public Management Reforms (Buckingham: Open University Press).Google Scholar
  7. Brunsson, N. and J. Olsen (1993) The Reforming Organization (London, Routledge).Google Scholar
  8. Castells, M. (1997) The Power of Identity: The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture, vol. 2 (Oxford: Blackwell).Google Scholar
  9. de Bruijn, H. (2002) Managing Performance in the Public Sector (London, Routledge).Google Scholar
  10. Doering, R. (1996) Alternative Service Delivery: The Case of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (Nepean: Canadian Food Inspection Agency).Google Scholar
  11. Dunleavy, P. (1991) Democracy, Bureaucracy and Public Choice. (Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatstreay).Google Scholar
  12. Efficiency Unit (1988) Improving Management in Government: The Next Steps (the Ibbs Report) (London: HMSO).Google Scholar
  13. Fraser, Sir A. (1991) Making the Most of Next Steps: The Management of Ministers’ Departments and Their Executive Agencies (the Fraser Report) (London: HMSO, May).Google Scholar
  14. Gains, F. (1999) ‘Understanding Department-Next Steps Agency Relationships’, PhD thesis, Department of Politics, University of Sheffield.Google Scholar
  15. Gains, F. (2004) ‘Adapting the Agency Concept: Variations Within “Next Steps”, in C. Pollitt and C. Talbot (eds), Unbundled Government (London: Taylor and Francis).Google Scholar
  16. Goldsworthy, D. (1991) Setting Up Next Steps (London: HMSO).Google Scholar
  17. Hofstede, G. (2001) Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and Organizations Across Nations (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage).Google Scholar
  18. Hogwood, B., D. Judge and M. McVicar (2000) ‘Agencies and Accountability’, in R. Rhodes (ed.), Transforming British Government: Changing Institutions, vol. 1 (Basingstoke, Palgrave).Google Scholar
  19. Hood, C. (1983) The Tools of Government (London: Macmillan).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hood, C. (1998) The Art of the State: Culture, Rhetoric and Public Management (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
  21. Hood, C. and M. Jackson (1991) Administrative Argument (Aldershot: Dartmouth).Google Scholar
  22. Hood, C., C. Scott, O. James, G. Jones and T. Travers (1999) Regulation Inside Government: Waste Watchers, Quality Police and Sleaze-busters (Oxford: Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hughes, O. (1998) Public Management and Administration: An Introduction, 2nd edn (London: Macmillan).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. James, O. (2001) ‘Evaluating Executive Agencies in UK Government’, Public Policy and Administration, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 24–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. James, O. (2003) The Executive Agency Revolution in Whitehall: Public Interest Versus Bureau-Shaping Perspectives (Basingstoke: Palgrave).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kickert, W. (2000) Public Management Reforms in the Netherlands: Social Reconstruction of Reform Ideas and Underlying Frames of Reference (Delft: Eburon).Google Scholar
  27. Kickert, W. (2001) ‘Public Management of Hybrid Organizations: Governance of Quasi-Autonomous Executive Agencies’, International Public Management Journal, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 135–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kraak, A. and van R. Oosteroom (2002) Agentschappen: Innovatie in Bedrijfsvoering (Den Haag:, Sdu).Google Scholar
  29. Lane, J.-E. (2000) New Public Management (Aldershot: Ashgate).Google Scholar
  30. Learmont, Sir John (1995) Review of Prison Service Security in England and Wales and the Escape from Parkhurst Prison on 3rd January 1995 (The Learmont Report), Cmnd 3020 (London: HMSO).Google Scholar
  31. Lewis, D. (1997) Hidden Agendas: Politics, Law and Disorder (London: Hamish Hamilton).Google Scholar
  32. Molander, P., J.-E. Nilsson and A. Schick (2002) Does Anyone Govern? The Relationship between the Government Office and the Agencies in Sweden (report from the SNS Constitutional Project) (Stockholm: SNS).Google Scholar
  33. OECD (1997) In Search of Results: Performance Management Practices (Paris: PUMA/OECD).Google Scholar
  34. OECD (2002a) ‘Distributed Public Governance: Agencies, Authorities and Other Government Bodies’ (CCNM/GF/GOV/PUBG (2002)2), paper presented at the OECD Global Forum on Governance, London School of Economics, 2–3 December.Google Scholar
  35. OECD (2002b) ‘Governing for Results’ (CCNM/GF/GOV/PUBG (2002)3), paper presented at the OECD Global Forum on Governance, London School of Economics, 2–3 December.Google Scholar
  36. Office of Public Services Reform (2002) Better Government Services: Executive Agencies in the 21st Century (http://www.civilservice.gov.uk/agencies).Google Scholar
  37. Osborne, D. and T. Gaebler (1992) Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit is Transforming the Public Sector (New York: Plume).Google Scholar
  38. Pierre, J. (ed.) (1995) Bureaucracy in the Modem State: An Introduction to Comparative Public Administration (Aldershot: Edward Elgar).Google Scholar
  39. Pierre, J. (2004) ‘Central Agencies in Sweden: A Report from Utopia’, in C. Pollitt and C. Talbot (eds), Unbundled Government (London; Taylor and Francis).Google Scholar
  40. Pierre, J. and G. B. Peters (2000) Governance, Politics and the State (Basingstoke: Palgrave).Google Scholar
  41. Pierson, P. (2000) ‘Increasing Returns, Path Dependence and The Study of Politics’, American Political Science Review, vol. 94, no. 2, pp. 251–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pollitt, C. (2000) ‘How do we know how good public services are?’, in G. Peters and D. Savoie (eds), Governance in the 21st century (Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press).Google Scholar
  43. Pollitt, C. (2002) ‘Clarifying Convergence: Striking Similarities and Durable Differences in Public Management Reform’, Public Management Review, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 471–92.Google Scholar
  44. Pollitt, C. (2003a) ‘Agencies, Apples and Pears: Mapping the Agency Debate’, (paper presented to the 7th International Research Seminar in Public Management (IRSPM7), Hong Kong, 2–4 April.Google Scholar
  45. Pollitt, C. (2003b) The Essential Public Manager (Buckingham: Open University Press/McGraw Hill).Google Scholar
  46. Pollitt, C., J. Birchall and K. Putman (1998) Decentralizing Public Service Management (London: Macmillan).Google Scholar
  47. Pollitt, C. and G. Bouckaert (2000) Public Management Reform: A Comparative Analysis (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
  48. Pollitt, C., J. Caulfield, A. Smullen and C. Talbot (2001) ‘Agency Fever? Analysis of an International Fashion’, Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis, vol. 3, pp. 271–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Pollitt, C. and C. Talbot (eds) (2004) Unbundled Government (London: Taylor and Francis).Google Scholar
  50. Pollitt, C., C. Talbot, J. Caulfield and A. Smullen (2005) Agencies: How Governments Get Things Done Through Semi-autonomous Organizations (Basingstoke: Palgrave).Google Scholar
  51. Powell, W. and P. DiMaggio (eds) (1991) The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press).Google Scholar
  52. Prince, M. (2000) ‘Banishing Bureaucracy or Hatching a Hybrid? The Canadian Food Inspection Agency and the Politics of Reinventing Government’, Governance, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 215–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Rhodes, R. (1997) Understanding Governance (Buckingham: Open University Press).Google Scholar
  54. Smith, P. (1996) ‘On the Unintended Consequences of Publishing Performance Data in the Public Sector’, International Journal of Public Administration, vol. 18, nos 2–3, pp. 277–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Smithers, R. (2002) ‘Schools Cheat to Boost Exam Results’, Guardian, 5 June, p. 1.Google Scholar
  56. Talbot, C. (1996) Ministers and Agencies: Control, Performance and Accountability (London: CIPFA).Google Scholar
  57. Talbot, C. and J. Caulfield (eds) (2002) Hard Agencies in Soft States? A Study of Agency Creation Programmes in Jamaica, Latvia and Tanzania (a report for the Department for International Development, UK) (Pontpridd: University of Glamorgan).Google Scholar
  58. Taliercio, R. (2004) ‘The Design, Performance and Sustainability of Semi-autonomous Revenue Authorities in Africa and Latin America’, in C. Pollitt and C. Talbot (eds), Unbundled Government (London: Taylor and Francis).Google Scholar
  59. Trosa, S. (1994) Next Steps: Moving On (the Trosa Report) (London: Cabinet Office, February).Google Scholar
  60. van Thiel, S. (2001) Quangos: Trends, Causes and Consequences (Aldershot: Ashgate).Google Scholar
  61. Vos, E. (2003) ‘Agencies and the European Union’, in L. Verhey and T. Zwart (eds), Agencies in European and Comparative Law (Antwerp: Intersentia Publishing), pp. 113–47.Google Scholar
  62. Wilson, J. Q. (1989) Bureaucracy: What Government Agencies Do and Why They Do It (New York: Basic Books).Google Scholar
  63. Yamamoto, K. (2004) ‘Agencification in Japan: Renaming, or Revolution?’, in C. Pollitt and C. Talbot (eds), Unbundled Government (London: Taylor and Francis).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christopher Pollitt

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations