Measuring autonomy in social security agencies: A four country comparison

Public Administration and Development

Volumn 24, Issue 2, 2004, Pages 137-145

  Caulfield, Janice L ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG   (Hong Kong)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AUTONOMY; COMPARATIVE STUDY; INTERNATIONAL COMPARISON; MEASUREMENT METHOD; SOCIAL POLICY; SOCIAL SECURITY;

BENELUX; EURASIA; EUROPE; FINLAND; NETHERLANDS; NORTHERN EUROPE; SCANDINAVIA; SWEDEN; UNITED KINGDOM; WESTERN EUROPE;

EID: 2442564445     PISSN: 02712075     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/pad.319     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Alexander Report. 2002. Better Government Services: Executive Agencies in the 21st Century. Cabinet Office: London.
2. Bergmark A, Thorslund M, Lindberg E. 2000. Beyond benevolence-solidarity and welfare state transition in Sweden. International Journal of Social Welfare 9: 238-249.
3. Bradshaw J. 1992. Social security. In Implementing Thatcherite Policies, Marsh D, Rhodes RW (eds). Open University Press: Buckingham.
4. Christensen T, Laegreid P, Lois RW. 2002. Transforming Administrative Policy. Public Administration 80(1): 153-178.
5. Considine M. 2001. Enterprising States: The Public Management of Welfare-to-Work. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
6. DHSS. 1985. Department of Health and Social Security, United Kingdom. The Reform of Social Security: Programme for Action. HMSO: London.
7. Esping-Andersen G (ed.). 1996. Welfare States in Transition: National Adaptations in Global Economies. Sage: London.
8. Esping-Andersen G, Korpi W. 1984. From poor relief towards institutional welfare states: the development of Scandinavian social policy. The Swedish Institute for Social Research, Report 5.
9. Finland. The Social Insurance Institution (KELA). Social security and health research: Working Chapters No. 17/2000. Outcome Orientation in the Development of Management Methods at KELA.
10. Gains F. 2000. Understanding Department-Agency Relationships. Ph.D. thesis, University of Sheffield.
11. Greve C, Flinders M, van Thiel S. 1999. Quangos-what's in a name? Defining Quangos from a comparative perspective. Governance: An International Journal of Policy and Administration 12(2) April: 129-146.
12. Harden I. 1992. The Contracting State. Open University Press: Buckingham.
13. Harrinvirta MO. 2000. Strategies of Public Sector Reform in the OECD Countries: A Comparison. Finnish Society of Sciences and Letters: Hensinki.
14. James O. 2003a. The Executive Agency Revolution in Whitehall: Public Interest versus Bureau-shaping Perspectives. Palgrave: Basingstoke.
15. James O. 2003b. Executive agencies and joined-up Government in the UK. In Unbundled Government: A Critical Analysis of the Global Trend to Agencies, Quangos and Contractualisation, Pollitt C, Talbot C (eds). Routledge: London.
16. Kautto M, Heikkila M, Hvinden B, Marklund S, Ploug N (eds). 1999. Nordic Social Policy: Changing Welfare States. Routledge: London.
17. Manning N, Shaw I. 1998. The transferability of welfare models: a comparison of the Scandinavian and state socialist models in relation to Finland and Estonia. Social Policy and Administration 32(5): December: 572-590.
18. Mabbett D, Bolderson H. 1999. Devolved social security systems: principal-agent versus multi-level governance. Journal of Public Policy 18(2): 177-200.
19. Pierre J. 1995. Governing the welfare state: public administration, the state and society in Sweden. In Bureaucracy in the Modern State: An Introduction to Comparative Public Administration, Pierre J (ed.). Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, 140-160.
20. Pollitt C, Talbot C, Caulfield J, Smullen A. 2004. Agencies: How Governments Get Things Done Through Semi-Autonomous Organizations. Palgrave: Basingstoke.
21. Pollitt C, Bouckaert G. 2000. Public Management Reform. Oxford University Press: Oxford.
22. Premfors R. 1991. The Swedish model. West European Politics 76(2): 141-160.
23. Premfors R. 1998. Reshaping the democratic state: Swedish experiences in a comparative perspective. Public Administration 76(Spring): 141-159.
24. Sweden, History of the Swedish National Labour Market Administration. http://www.ams.se/AMS_histen.htm
25. United Kingdom, Benefits Agency, Department of Social Security (2000). Performance and Expenditure Report 2000/01 (December, Period 9).
26. Van der Veen R. 2000. Restructuring a corporatist welfare state: managed liberalization and the role of the state, the social partners and the market in Dutch social security and labor market policy. In Governance in Modern Society: Effects, Change and Formation of Government Institutions, van Heffen O, Kickert W, Thomassen J (eds). Kluwer Academic Publishers: Dordrecht.
27. Van Thiel S. 2003. Quangos in Dutch Government. In Unbundled Government: A Critical Analysis of the Global Trend to Agencies. Quangos and Contractualisation, Pollitt C, Talbot C (eds). Routledge: London.
28. Verhaak FOM. 1997, Shifting frames of reference in dutch autonomisation reforms. In Public Management and Administration: Reform in Western Europe, Kickert WJM (ed.). Edward Elgar: Cheltenham.