Autonomy and regulation of state agencies: Reinforcement, indifference or compensation?

Public Organization Review

Volumn 8, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 155-174

  Roness, Paul G ^a   Verhoest, Koen ^b   Rubecksen, Kristin ^a   MacCarthaigh, Muiris ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BERGEN   (Norway)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN   (Belgium)

^c Institute of Public Administration Ireland   (Ireland)

Author keywords

Administrative doctrines; Agencies; Autonomy; Regulation

Indexed keywords

EID: 47749111661     PISSN: 15667170     EISSN: 15737098     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11115-008-0057-4     Document Type: Article

References (63)

1. 6, P. 2004. Joined-up government in the Western world in comparative perspective: A preliminary literature review and exploration. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 14(1): 103-138.
2. Aucoin, P. 1990. Administrative reform in public management: Paradigms, principles, paradoxes and pendulums. Governance, 3(2): 115-137.
3. Baldwin, R., Scott, C., & Hood, C. 1998. A reader on regulation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
4. Bogdanor, V. 2005. Joined-up government. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
5. Boorsma, P. B., & Halachmi, A. 1998. Inter and intra government arrangements for productivity: An agency approach. London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
6. Boston, J., & Eichbaum, C. 2005. State sector reform and renewal in New Zealand: Lessons for governance. Paper prepared for Conference on Repositioning of Public Governance - Global Experiences and Challenges, Taipei, 18-19 November 2005.
7. Bouckaert, G., & Verhoest, K. 1999. A comparative perspective on decentralisation as a context for contracting in the public sector: Practice and theory. In Fortin, Y. (Ed.). La Contractualisation dans le Secteur Public des Pays Industrialisés depuis 1980: 199-240. Paris: L'Harmattan.
8. Christensen, J. G. 2001. Bureaucratic autonomy as a political asset. In Peters, B. G., & Pierre, J. (Eds.). Politicians, bureaucrats and administrative reform: 119-131. London: Routledge.
9. Christensen, T., & Lægreid, P. 2001. A transformative perspective on administrative reforms. In Christensen, T., & Lægreid, P. (Eds.). New public management - The transformation of ideas and practice: 13-39. Aldershot: Ashgate.
10. Christensen, T., & Lægreid, P. 2006a. Agencification and regulatory reform. In Christensen, T., & Lægreid, P. (Eds.). Autonomy and regulation. Coping with agencies in the modern state: 8-49. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
11. Christensen, T., & Lægreid, P. 2006b. Rebalancing the state: Reregulation and the reassertion of the centre. In Christensen, T., & Lægreid, P. (Eds.). Autonomy and regulation. Coping with agencies in the modern state: 359-380. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
12. Christensen, T., & Lægreid, P. 2007. Regulatory agencies - The challenges of balancing agency autonomy and political control. Governance, 20(3): 497-519.
13. Christensen, T., Lie, A., & Lægreid, P. 2007. Still fragmented government or reassertion of the centre? In In Christensen, T., & Lægreid, P. (Eds.). Transcending new public management. The transformation of public sector reforms: 17-41. Aldershot: Ashgate.
14. Elgie, R. 2006. Why do governments delegate authority to quasi-autonomous agencies, the case of independent administrative authorities in France. Governance, 19(2): 207-227.
15. Flinders, M. 2001. The politics of accountability in the modern state. Aldershot: Ashgate.
16. Gains, F. 2004. Adapting the agency concept. Variations within 'Next Steps'. In Pollitt, C., & Talbot, C. (Eds.). Unbundled government. A critical analysis of the global trend to agencies, quangos and contractualisation: 51-74. London: Routledge.
17. Gregory, R. 2006. Theoretical faith and practical works: De-autonomizing and joining-up in the New Zealand State Sector. In Christensen, T., & Lægreid, P. (Eds.). Autonomy and regulation. Coping with agencies in the modern state: 137-161. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
18. Halligan, J. 2006. The reassertion of the centre in a first generation NPM system. In Christensen, T., & Lægreid, P. (Eds.). Autonomy and regulation. Coping with agencies in the modern state: 162-180. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
19. Heyman, D. B. 1988. Input controls in the public sector: What does economic theory offer? IMF Working Paper WP/88/59.
20. Hofstede, G. H. 2001. Culture' s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
21. Hoggett, P. 1996. New modes of control in the public service. Public Administration, 74(1): 9-32.
22. Hood, C. 1995. The new public management of the 1980s. Variations on a theme. Accounting, Organization and Society, 20(2-3): 93-109.
23. Hood, C., & Jackson, M. 1991. Administrative argument. Aldershot: Dartmouth.
24. Hood, C., Scott, C., James, O., Jones, C., & Travers, T. 1999. Regulation inside government. Waste-watchers, quality police, and sleaze-busters. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
25. Hood, C., Rothstein, H., & Baldwin, R. 2001. The government of risk. Understanding risk regulation regimes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
26. Jordana, J., & Levi-Faur, D. 2004. The politics of regulation in the age of governance. In Jordana, J., & Levi-Faur, D. (Eds.). The politics of regulation: Institutions and regulatory reform in the age of governance: 1-28. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
27. Kastelein, J. 1990. Modulair organiseren. Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff.
28. Kettl, D. F. 2000. The global public management revoultion. A report on the transformation of governance. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution.
29. Kickert, W. J. M. 1998. Aansturing van Verzelfstandigde Overheidsdiensten. Over Publiek Management van Hybride Organisaties. Alphen aan den Rijn: Samsom.
30. Lijphart, A. 1999. Patterns of democracy: Government forms and performance in thirty-six countries. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.
31. Lægreid, P., Roness, P. G., & Rubecksen, K. 2006. Autonomy and control in the Norwegian civil service: Does agency form matter? In Christensen, T., & Lægreid, P. (Eds.). Autonomy and regulation. Coping with agencies in the modern state:: 234-267. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
32. McGauran, A.-M., Verhoest, K., & Humphreys, P. C. 2005. The corporate governance of agencies in Ireland: Non-commercial national agencies. Dublin: Institute of Public Administration, Report.
33. Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. 1977. Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2): 340-363.
34. Moe, T. M. 1990. The politics of structural choice: Toward a theory of public bureaucracy. In Williamson, O. (Ed.). Organization theory: From Chester Barnard to the present and beyond:: 116-153. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
35. Mulgan, R. 2003. Holding power to account. Accountability in modern democracies. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
36. Niskanen, W. A. 1971. Bureaucracy and representative government. Chicago: Aldine-Atherton.
37. Norman, R. 2003. Obedient servants? Management freedoms & accountabilities in the New Zealand public sector. Wellington: Victoria University Press.
38. OECD 1997. In search of results: Performance management practices in ten OECD countries. Paris: Public Management Committee, OECD.
39. Pollitt, C. 2003. Joined-up government: A survey. Political Studies Review, 1(1): 34-49.
40. Pollitt, C., & Bouckaert, G. 2004. Public management reform. A comparative analysis 2nd Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
41. Pollitt, C., Talbot, C., Caulfield, J., & Smullen, A. 2004. Agencies: How governments do things through semi-autonomous organizations. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
42. Pratt, J. W., & Zeckhauser, R. J. 1991. Principals and agents: An overview. In Pratt, J. W., & Zeckhauser, R. J. (Eds.). Principals and agents: The structure of business: 1-35. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
43. Roness, P. G. 2007. Types of state organizations: Arguments, doctrines and changes beyond new public management. In Christensen, T., & Lægreid, P. (Eds.). Transcending new public management. The transformation of public sector reforms: 65-88. Aldershot: Ashgate.
44. Savas, E. S. 2000. Privatization and public-private partnerships. New York: Chatham House Publishers.
45. Schick, A. 1996. The spirit of reform: Managing the New Zealand state sector in a time of change. A report prepared for the State Services Commission and the Treasury. Wellington: State Service Commission.
46. Smullen, A. 2004. Lost in translation? Shifting interpretations of the concept of agency: The Dutch case. In Pollitt, C., & Talbot, C. (Eds.). Unbundled government. A critical analysis of the global trend to agencies, quangos and contractualisation: 184-202. London: Routledge.
47. Smullen, A., Van Thiel, S., & Pollitt, C. 2001. Agentschappen en de verzelfstandigingsparadox. Beleid & Maatschappij, 28(4): 190-201.
48. Talbot, C. 2004. The agency idea. Sometimes old, sometimes new, sometimes borrowed, sometimes untrue. In Pollitt, C., & Talbot, C. (Eds.). Unbundled government. A critical analysis of the global trend to agencies, quangos and contractualisation: 3-21. London: Routledge.
49. 't Hart, P. 2002. Politiek-ambtelijke verhoudingen na verzelsstantinging: Op zoek naar spelregels. In t Hart, P., & Wille, A. (Eds.). Politeik-Ambtelijke Verhoudingen in Beweging. Amsterdam: Boom.
50. Thompson, F. 1993. Matching responsibilities with tactics: Administrative controls and modern government. Public Administration Review, 54(3): 303-318.
51. Verhoest, K. 2005. The impact of contractualisation on control and accountability in government-agency relations: The case of Flanders (Belgium). In Drewry, G., Greve, C., & Tanquerel, T. (Eds.). Contracts, performance and accountability. Amsterdam: IOS Press.
52. Verhoest, K., & Bouckaert, G. 2005. Machinery of government and policy capacity: The effects of specialisation and coordination. In Painter, M., & Pierre, J. (Eds.). Challenges to state policy capacity. Global trends and comparative perspectives: 92-111. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
53. Verhoest, K., Peters, G. B., Bouckaert, G., & Verschuere, B. 2004a. The study of organisational autonomy: A conceptual review. Public Administration and Development, 24(2): 101-118.
54. Verhoest, K., Verschuere, B., Peters, B. G., & Bouckaert, G. 2004b. Controlling autonomous public agencies as an indicator of New Public Management. Management International/International Management/Gestion Internacional, 9(1): 25-35.
55. Verhoest, K., Rubecksen, K. & Humphreys, P. C. (2006). Structure and autonomy of public sector agencies in Norway, Ireland and Flanders (Belgium): Does politico-administrative culture help us to understand similarities and differences ? Paper presented at the 22nd EGOS Colloquium, Bergen, Norway, 6-8 July 2006.
56. Verhoest, K., McGauran, A.-M., & Humphreys, P. C. 2007a. To agencify or not to agencify? A more systematic approach to the creation of Irish agencies. Administration, 50(1): 149-180.
57. Verhoest, K., Verschuere, B., & Bouckaert, G. 2007b. Pressure, legitimacy and innovative behaviour by public organisation. Governance, 20(3): 469-497.
58. Verschuere, B. 2007. The autonomy-control balance in Flemish arm's length public agencies. Public Management Review, 9(1): 107-133.
59. Verschuere, B., Verhoest, K., Meyers, F., & Peters, B. G. 2006. Accountability and accountability arrangements in public agencies. In Christensen, T., & Lægreid, P. (Eds.). Autonomy and regulation. Coping with agencies in the modern state: 268-298. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
60. Weber, M. 1947. The theory of social and economic organization. New York: The Free Press.
61. Wettenhall, R. 2005. Agencies and non-departmental public bodies. The hard and soft lenses of agencification theory. Public Management Review, 7(4): 615-635.
62. Yesilkagit, K. 2004a. The design of public agencies: Overcoming agency costs and commitment problems. Public Administration and Development, 24(2): 119-127.
63. Yesilkagit, K. 2004b. Bureaucratic autonomy, organizational culture and habituation. Administration and Society, 36(5): 528-552.