Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Ministries and Agencies: Steering, Meddling, Neglect and Dependency

  • Chapter
Challenges to State Policy Capacity

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).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Bardach, E. (1998) Getting Agencies to Work Together: The Practice and Theory of Managerial Craftsmanship (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution).

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boston, J., J. Martin, J. Pallot and P. Walsh (1996) Public Management — The New Zealand Model (Auckland: Oxford University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyne, G., C. Farrell, J. Law, M. Powell and R. Walker (2003) Evaluating Public Management Reforms (Buckingham: Open University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Brunsson, N. and J. Olsen (1993) The Reforming Organization (London, Routledge).

    Google Scholar 

  • Castells, M. (1997) The Power of Identity: The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture, vol. 2 (Oxford: Blackwell).

    Google Scholar 

  • de Bruijn, H. (2002) Managing Performance in the Public Sector (London, Routledge).

    Google Scholar 

  • Doering, R. (1996) Alternative Service Delivery: The Case of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (Nepean: Canadian Food Inspection Agency).

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunleavy, P. (1991) Democracy, Bureaucracy and Public Choice. (Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatstreay).

    Google Scholar 

  • Efficiency Unit (1988) Improving Management in Government: The Next Steps (the Ibbs Report) (London: HMSO).

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Gains, F. (1999) ‘Understanding Department-Next Steps Agency Relationships’, PhD thesis, Department of Politics, University of Sheffield.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Goldsworthy, D. (1991) Setting Up Next Steps (London: HMSO).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofstede, G. (2001) Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and Organizations Across Nations (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage).

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Hood, C. (1983) The Tools of Government (London: Macmillan).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hood, C. (1998) The Art of the State: Culture, Rhetoric and Public Management (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hood, C. and M. Jackson (1991) Administrative Argument (Aldershot: Dartmouth).

    Google Scholar 

  • 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).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, O. (1998) Public Management and Administration: An Introduction, 2nd edn (London: Macmillan).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • James, O. (2001) ‘Evaluating Executive Agencies in UK Government’, Public Policy and Administration, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 24–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • James, O. (2003) The Executive Agency Revolution in Whitehall: Public Interest Versus Bureau-Shaping Perspectives (Basingstoke: Palgrave).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kickert, W. (2000) Public Management Reforms in the Netherlands: Social Reconstruction of Reform Ideas and Underlying Frames of Reference (Delft: Eburon).

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kraak, A. and van R. Oosteroom (2002) Agentschappen: Innovatie in Bedrijfsvoering (Den Haag:, Sdu).

    Google Scholar 

  • Lane, J.-E. (2000) New Public Management (Aldershot: Ashgate).

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Lewis, D. (1997) Hidden Agendas: Politics, Law and Disorder (London: Hamish Hamilton).

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • OECD (1997) In Search of Results: Performance Management Practices (Paris: PUMA/OECD).

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Office of Public Services Reform (2002) Better Government Services: Executive Agencies in the 21st Century (http://www.civilservice.gov.uk/agencies).

    Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, D. and T. Gaebler (1992) Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit is Transforming the Public Sector (New York: Plume).

    Google Scholar 

  • Pierre, J. (ed.) (1995) Bureaucracy in the Modem State: An Introduction to Comparative Public Administration (Aldershot: Edward Elgar).

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Pierre, J. and G. B. Peters (2000) Governance, Politics and the State (Basingstoke: Palgrave).

    Google Scholar 

  • Pierson, P. (2000) ‘Increasing Returns, Path Dependence and The Study of Politics’, American Political Science Review, vol. 94, no. 2, pp. 251–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Pollitt, C. (2003b) The Essential Public Manager (Buckingham: Open University Press/McGraw Hill).

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollitt, C., J. Birchall and K. Putman (1998) Decentralizing Public Service Management (London: Macmillan).

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollitt, C. and G. Bouckaert (2000) Public Management Reform: A Comparative Analysis (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pollitt, C. and C. Talbot (eds) (2004) Unbundled Government (London: Taylor and Francis).

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollitt, C., C. Talbot, J. Caulfield and A. Smullen (2005) Agencies: How Governments Get Things Done Through Semi-autonomous Organizations (Basingstoke: Palgrave).

    Google Scholar 

  • Powell, W. and P. DiMaggio (eds) (1991) The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rhodes, R. (1997) Understanding Governance (Buckingham: Open University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smithers, R. (2002) ‘Schools Cheat to Boost Exam Results’, Guardian, 5 June, p. 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Talbot, C. (1996) Ministers and Agencies: Control, Performance and Accountability (London: CIPFA).

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Trosa, S. (1994) Next Steps: Moving On (the Trosa Report) (London: Cabinet Office, February).

    Google Scholar 

  • van Thiel, S. (2001) Quangos: Trends, Causes and Consequences (Aldershot: Ashgate).

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Wilson, J. Q. (1989) Bureaucracy: What Government Agencies Do and Why They Do It (New York: Basic Books).

    Google Scholar 

  • Yamamoto, K. (2004) ‘Agencification in Japan: Renaming, or Revolution?’, in C. Pollitt and C. Talbot (eds), Unbundled Government (London: Taylor and Francis).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Christopher Pollitt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. City University of Hong Kong, China

    Martin Painter (Professor of Public and Social Administration) (Professor of Public and Social Administration)

  2. Department of Government, University of Gothenburg, Sweden

    Jon Pierre (Professor of Political Science) (Professor of Political Science)

Copyright information

© 2005 Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Pollitt, C. (2005). Ministries and Agencies: Steering, Meddling, Neglect and Dependency. In: Painter, M., Pierre, J. (eds) Challenges to State Policy Capacity. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230524194_7

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation