Abstract
In the last 15 years, the governments of many OECD countries have transferred a wide range of functions to new, agency-type organizations. Allowing for the fact that, for comparative purposes, it is difficult precisely to define agencies, and further acknowledging that in many countries agencies are far from being new, it nevertheless remains the case that there seems to have been a strong fashion for this particular organizational solution.
This article investigates the apparent international convergence towards “agencification.” It seeks to identify the reasons for, and depth of, the trend. It asks to what extent practice has followed rhetoric. The emerging picture is a complex one. On the one hand, there seems to be a widespread belief, derived from a variety of theoretical traditions, that agencification can unleash performance improvements. On the other hand, systematic evidence for some of the hypothetical benefits is very patchy. Furthermore, the diversity of actual practice in different countries has been so great that there must sometimes be considerable doubt as to whether the basic requirements for successful performance management are being met.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Aucoin, P. (1996). “Designing Public Agencies for Good Public Management: The Urgent Need for Reform.” Choices (IRPP) 2(4), 5–20.
Bogt, H. ter. (1999). “Financial and Economic Management in Autonomized Dutch Public Organizations.” Financial Accountability and Management 15(3/4), 329–348.
Boston, J., J. Martin, J. Pallot, and P. Walsh. (1996). Public Management: the New Zealand Model, Auckland: Oxford University Press.
Brunsson, N. (1989). The Organisation of Hypocrisy: Talk, Decisions and Actions in Organisations. Chichester: Wiley.
Cabinet Office. (1999). Next Steps Report 1998, Cm4273. London: The Stationary Office.
Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. (1997). Next Steps: Agencies in Government: Review 1996, Cm3579. London: The Stationary Office.
Christensen, J. (1999). “Bureaucratic Autonomy as a Political Asset.” Paper presented at the European Consortium for Political Research Joint Workshops, Mannheim, March 26–31.
Donaldson, L. (1985). In Defence of Organisation Theory: A Reply to the Critics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gains, F. (1999). Understanding Department-Next Steps Agency Relationships. Ph.D thesis, Department of Politics, University of Sheffield.
Greve, C., M. Flinders, and S. van Thiel. (1999). “Quangos: What's in a Name? Defining Quangos from a Comparative Perspective.” Governance 12(1), 129–146.
Hogwood, B., D. Judge, and M. McVicar. (2000). “Agencies and Accountability.” In R. Rhodes (ed.), Transforming British Government, Vol. 1: Changing Institutions. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Hood, C. (1998). The Art of the State: Culture, Rhetoric and Public Management. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hood, C. and G. Schuppert (eds.). (1988). Delivering Public Services in Western Europe. London: Sage.
Hood, C. and M. Jackson. (1991). Administrative Argument. Aldershot: Dartmouth.
James, O. (1994). “The Agency Revolution in Whitehall: A Bureau-Shaping Analysis.” Paper presented at the U.K. Political Studies Association Conference, York, April.
James, O. (1999). “Varieties of New Public Management: ‘Business-Like’ Government Agencies— Like What Model of Business?” Paper presented at the American Political Science Association Annual Conference, Atlanta, Georgia, 2–5 September.
Kettl, D. (2000). The Global Public Management Revolution: A Report on the Transformation of Governance. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution.
Lane, J. (2000). New Public Management. London: Routledge.
Ministerie van Financien. (1998). Verder met resultaat: het agentschapsmodel 1991–1997. Den Haag: Dutch Ministry of Finance.
Ministry of Finance. (1997). Public Management Reforms: Five Country Studies. Helsinki: Ministry of Finance.
Norris, P. (ed.). (1999). Critical Citizens: Global Support for Democratic Governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nye, J., P. Zelikow, and D. King. (1997). Why People Don't Trust Government. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
OECD. (1995). Governance in Transition: Public Management Reforms in OECD Countries. Paris: PUMA/OECD.
OECD. (1997). In Search of Results: Performance Management Practices. Paris: PUMA/OECD.
OECD. (1998). Budgeting in Sweden. Paris: PUMA/OECD.
Osborne, D. and T. Gaebler. (1992). Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit is Transforming the Public Sector. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
O'Toole, B. and G. Jordan. (1995). Next Steps: Improving Management in Government. Aldershot: Dartmouth.
Pierre, J. (ed.). (1995). Bureaucracy in the Modern State: An Introduction to Comparative Public Administration. Aldershot: Edward Elgar.
Pierson, P. (2000). “Increasing Returns, Path Dependence and the Study of Politics.” American Political Science Review 94(2), 251–267.
Polidano, C. (2000). “Administrative Reform in Core Civil Services: Application and Applicability of the New Public Management.” In W. McCourt and M. Minogue (eds.), The Internationalisation of Public Management: Reinventing the Third World State. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Pollitt, C. and G. Bouckaert (eds.). (1995). Quality Improvement in European Public Services: Concepts, Cases and Commentary. London: Sage.
Pollitt, C., J. Birchall, and K. Putman. (1998). Decentralising Public Service Management. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Pollitt, C. and G. Bouckaert. (2000). Public Management Reform: A Comparative Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pollitt, C. (2000). “Is the Emperor in his Underwear? An Analysis of the Impacts of Public Management Reform.” Public Management: An International Journal of Theory and Research 2(2), 181–199.
Pollitt, C. (Forthcoming). “Convergence: The Useful Myth?” Public Administration.
Premfors, R. (1998). “Reshaping the Democratic State: Swedish Experiences in a Comparative Perspective.” Public Administration 76(1), 141–159.
Prince, M. (2000). “Banishing Bureaucracy or Hatching a Hybrid? The Canadian Food Inspection Agency and the Politics of Reinventing Government.” Governance 13(2), 215–232.
Samuels, M. (1997). Benchmarking Next Steps Agencies—An Evaluation of the Agency Benchmarking Pilot Exercise. London: Cabinet Office/Office of Public Service.
SIGMA. (1999). Public Management Profiles of Central and Eastern European Countries: Latvia. Paris: PHARE/OECD.
SIGMA. (2001). Financial Management and Control of Public Agencies. SIGMA Paper No. 32. Paris: CCNM/SIGMA/PUMA (2001) 4, April (available at www.oecd.org/puma/sigmaweb).
Stewart, J. (1992). Managing Difference: An Analysis of Service Characteristics. Birmingham: Institute of Local Government Studies.
Summa, H. (1995). “Old and New Techniques For Productivity Promotion: From Cheese-Slicing to a Quest for Quality.” In A. Halachmi and G. Bouckaert (eds.), Public Productivity Through Quality and Strategic Management. Amsterdam: IOS Press, pp. 155–165.
Talbot, C. (1996). Ministers and Agencies: Control, Performance and Accountability. London: CIPFA.
Talbot, C. (1997). “UK Civil Service Personnel Reform: Devolution, Decentralization and Delusion.” Public Policy and Administration 12(4), 14–34.
Tarchys, D. (1988). “PGOs in Sweden.” In C. Hood and G. Schuppert (eds.), Delivering Public Services in Western Europe. London: Sage, pp. 63–74.
van Thiel, S. (2000). Quangocratization: Trends, Causes and Consequences. Ph.D thesis, University of Utrecht, Interuniversity Centre for Social Science Theory and Methodology.
Wilson, J.Q. (1989). Bureaucracy: What Government Agencies Do and Why They Do It. New York: Basic Books.
Wilson, R. (1999). “The Civil Service in the New Millenium.” Speech, May (Sir Richard Wilson is Head of the Home Civil Service).
Yamamoto, H. (2000). “Comparative Study of Agencification in Britain, the United States and Japan.” Unpublished paper, Center for National University Finance, Tokyo.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Pollitt, C., Bathgate, K., Caulfield, J. et al. Agency Fever? Analysis of an International Policy Fashion. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis 3, 271–290 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012301400791
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012301400791