CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 16Public Policy and Administration ResearchPublic Administration and GovernanceAdministrative Law and Governance

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Agencification in Public Administration

Verhoest, Koen, van Thiel, Sandra, De Vadder, Steven F·2021·Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics
DOI 10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.1466
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Agencification is the creation of semi-autonomous agencies: organizations charged with public tasks like policy implementation, regulation, and public service delivery, operating at arm’s length from the government. Although not a new development, agencification became very popular from the 1980s on as part of the New Public Management reforms. Three types of agencies can be distinguished, based predominantly on their formal legal features. Type 1 agencies have some managerial autonomy but do not have their own legal identity separate from the state or their parent ministry. Type 2 agencies are organizations and bodies with managerial autonomy that have their own legal identity separate from the state or their parent ministry. Type 3 organizations have their own legal identity vested in, and defined by, private law and are established by, or on behalf of, the government in the form of a private law corporation, company, or a foundation, but they are predominantly controlled by government and are at least partially involved in executing public tasks. Specific characteristics of agencies differ between countries and findings show few systematic patterns: similar tasks are charged to different types of agencies. A crucial element in the functioning of agencies is the formal and de facto interplay of autonomy and control, and how this can be explained in a static and dynamic way. Studies about agencification list three main categories of its effects: economic, organizational, and political effects. However, there is still a lot that needs to be studied about agencification, its forms, and its effects.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.1466

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Still being checked.

Research works printed but not linked: 152

  1. 2005, Mapping the field of quasi-autonomous organizations in France and Italy., International Journal of Public Management
  2. Andrews, R. (2011). NPM and the search for efficiency. In T. Christensen & P. Lægreid (Eds.), The Ashgate research companion to New Public Management (pp. 281–294). Ashgate.
  3. Bach, T. (2010). Policy and management autonomy of federal agencies in Germany. In P. Lægreid & K. Verhoest (Eds.), Governance of public sector organizations—Proliferation, autonomy, and performance (pp. 89–110). Palgrave Macmillan. · DOI
  4. 2016, Transnational bureaucratic politics: An institutional rivalry perspective on EU network governance., Public Administration
  5. 2010, Animals in the administrative zoo: Organizational change and agency autonomy in Germany., International Review of Administrative Sciences
  6. 2013, Networking for autonomy? National agencies in European networks., Public Administration
  7. 2015, The differential empowering effects of Europeanization on the autonomy of national agencies., Governance
  8. 2017, Administrative tradition and management reforms: A comparison of agency chief executive accountability in four continental Rechtsstaat countries., Public Management Review
  9. 2020, The interaction of administrative traditions and organizational characteristics: The case of agency personnel management autonomy., International Review of Administrative Sciences
  10. 2019, Perspectives on international public administration research: A rejoinder to Johan Christensen and Kutsal Yesilkagit.
  11. 2002, Understanding the waves of agencification and the governance problems they have raised in Central and Eastern Europe., OECD Journal on Budgeting
  12. 2006, The role of political ideology in the structural design of new governance agencies., Public Administration Review
  13. 2006, Delegating to the quango: Ex ante and ex post ministerial constraints., Governance
  14. 2007, Choice of organizational form makes a real difference: The impact of corporatization on government agencies in Canada., Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory
  15. 2019, International Journal of HRM
  16. 2014, On a diet: Explaining differences in overhead among public agencies in the era of austerity., Public Performance and Management Review
  17. 2019, The effects of organizational features on media attention for public organisations., Policy and Politics
  18. 2020, Regulation & Governance
  19. 2020, What determines the audiences that public service organisations target for reputation management?, Policy & Politics
  20. 2000, Encouraging innovation in the public sector., Journal of Intellectual Capital
  21. 2010, The coordination of public sector organizations: Shifting patterns of public management
  22. 1999, Human resource management in the public and private sectors: An empirical comparison., Public Administration
  23. 2005, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory
  24. 2007, Managerial autonomy: Does it matter for the performance of water utilities?., Public Administration and Development: The International Journal of Management Research and Practice
  25. 2011, Journal of European Public Policy
  26. 2001, Forging bureaucratic autonomy: Reputations, networks and policy innovation in executive agencies
  27. 2012, Reputation and public administration., Public Administration Review
  28. 2019, International public administrations: A critique., Journal of European Public Policy
  29. Christensen, J. G. (2001). Bureaucratic autonomy as a political asset. In B. G. Peters & J. Pierre (Eds.), Politicians, bureaucrats and administrative reform (pp. 114–126). Routledge.
  30. 2007, The whole-of-government approach to public sector reform., Public Administration Review
  31. 2007, Organization theory and the public sector: Instrument, culture and myth
  32. 2008, Public management reform in Portugal: Successes and failure., International Journal of Public Sector Management
  33. 2014, The effects of agency reform in Europe: A review of the evidence., Public Policy and Administration
  34. 1997, Toward a stewardship theory of management., The Academy of Management Review
  35. 2014, Opening the black box of administrative reform: A strategic-relational analysis of agency responses to termination threats., International Public Management Journal
  36. 1999, The impact of bureaucratic structure on policy making., Public Administration
  37. 2006, Multilevel union administration: The transformation of executive politics in Europe
  38. 2009, Political leadership and bureaucratic autonomy: Effects of agencification., Governance
  39. 2018, Collaborative cost cutting: Productive efficiency as an interdependency between public organizations., Public Management Review
  40. 2016, Sharing services, saving money? Five risks to cost saving when organizations share services., Public Money & Management
  41. 2012, Shrinking the quango state: Five challenges in reforming quangos., Public Money and Management
  42. 2016, From “poor parenting” to micro-management: Coalition governance and the sponsorship of arm’s length bodies in the United Kingdom, 2010–2013., International Review of Administrative Sciences
  43. 2002, Policy credibility and delegation to independent regulatory agencies: A comparative empirical analysis., Journal of European Public Policy
  44. 2008, Delegation in the regulatory state: Independent regulatory agencies in Western Europe
  45. 2003, All the king’s horses and all the king’s men: Putting New Zealand’s public sector back again., International Public Management Review
  46. 1999, Quangos—What’s in a name? Defining quangos from a comparative perspective., Governance
  47. Groenleer, M. (2009). The autonomy of European Union agencies: A comparative study of institutional development [Doctoral dissertation, Universiteit Leiden].
  48. 2014, Agency autonomy actually: Managerial strategies, legitimacy, and the early development of the European Union’s agencies for drug and food safety regulation., International Public Management Journal
  49. Hajnal, G. (2010). The agency landscape in Hungary, 2002–2006. In P. Lægreid & K. Verhoest (Eds.), Governance of public sector organizations—Proliferation, autonomy, and performance (pp. 44–65). Palgrave Macmillan. · DOI
  50. 2007, Reintegrating government in third generation reforms of Australian and New Zealand., Public Policy and Administration
  51. Hammerschmid, G., Höllerer, M. A., Egger-Peitler, I., & Seiwald, J. (2008, September). Impact of budgetary flexibilization and autonomization on agency performance—Experiences from Austria. Unpublished paper presented at EGPA Annual Conference, Rotterdam.
  52. 2012, Measuring the formal independence of regulatory agencies., Journal of European Public Policy
  53. Hawkins, D. G., & Jacoby, W. (2006). How agents matter. In D. G. Hawkins, D. A. Lake, D. L. Nielson, & M. J. Tierney (Eds.), Delegation and agency in international organizations (pp. 199–228). Cambridge University Press. · DOI
  54. 2001, Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations
  55. 1991, A public management for all seasons?, Public Administration
  56. 2002, Deliberate discretion: The institutional foundations of bureaucratic autonomy
  57. 2001, Legislatures and statutory control of bureaucracy., American Journal of Political Science
  58. 2014, Structural and behavioural independence: Mapping the meaning of agency independence at the field level., International Review of Administrative Sciences
  59. 2003, The executive agency revolution in Whitehall: Public interest versus bureau-shaping perspectives
  60. James, O., & van Thiel, S. (2011). Structural devolution and agencification. In T. Christensen & P. Lægreid (Eds.), The Ashgate research companion to New Public Management (pp. 209–222). Ashgate.
  61. 2014, Agencification and performance: The impact of autonomy and result-control on the performance of executive agencies in Korea., Public Performance and Management Review
  62. 2018, Structural reform histories and perceptions of organizational autonomy: Do senior managers perceive less strategic policy autonomy when faced with frequent and intense restructuring?, Administration
  63. 2005, On innovation in the public sector
  64. 2015, Only good fences keep good neighbors! The institutionalization of ministry-agency relationships at the science-policy nexus in German food safety policy., Public Administration
  65. Lægreid, P., Roness, P. G., & Rubecksen, K. (2006). Autonomy and control in the Norwegian civil service: does agency form matter? In T. Christensen & P. Lægreid (Eds.), Autonomy and regulation: Coping with agencies in the modern state (pp. 235–267). Edward Elgar. · DOI
  66. 2008, Controlling regulatory agencies., Scandinavian Political Studies
  67. 2011, Explaining the innovative culture and activities of state agencies., Organization Studies
  68. 2010, Governance of public sector organizations—Proliferation, autonomy, and performance
  69. 2005, How much decentralization? Managerial autonomy in the Canadian public service., The American Review of Public Administration
  70. 2007, De facto independence after delegation: A fuzzy‐set analysis., Regulation and Governance
  71. 2012, Regulation in practice: The de facto independence of regulatory agencies
  72. 2014, Unexplored aspects of bureaucratic autonomy: A state of the field and ways forward., International Review of Administrative Sciences
  73. 1997, From the positive to the regulatory state: Causes and consequences of changes in the mode of governance., Journal of Public Policy
  74. 2009, Lithuanian Political Science Yearbook
  75. Moe, T. M. (1990). The politics of structural choice: Toward a theory of public bureaucracy. In O. E. Williamson (Ed.), Organization theory: From Chester Barnard to the present and beyond (pp. 116–153). Oxford University Press. · DOI · Paper page
  76. 2020, Images of coordination: How implementing organizations perceive coordination arrangements., Public Administration Review
  77. 2005, Testing how management matters in an era of government by performance management., Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory
  78. 2009, Public management reform and modernization: Trajectories of administrative change in Italy, France, Greece, Portugal and Spain
  79. 2002, Distributed public governance: Agencies, authorities and other government bodies
  80. 1995, Reinventing government., Journal of Leisure Research
  81. 2015, Driven by expertise and insulation? The autonomy of European regulatory agencies., Politics and Governance
  82. Overman, S. (2016a). Great expectations of autonomous agencies [Doctoral dissertation, Utrecht University].
  83. 2016, Great expectations of public service delegation: A systematic review., Public Management Review
  84. 2016, Agencification and public sector performance: A systematic comparison in 20 countries., Public Management Review
  85. 2014, Resisting governmental control: How semi-autonomous agencies use strategic resources to challenge state coordination., International Review of Administrative Sciences
  86. 2015, Accountability after structural disaggregation: Comparing agency accountability arrangements., Public Administration
  87. 2010, Tradition and public administration
  88. 2011, Task matters: A structural-instrumental analysis of the autonomy of Hong Kong government bodies., The American Review of Public Administration
  89. 2015, Rethinking New Public Management delivery forms and efficiency: Long-term effects in Spanish local government., Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory
  90. 2008, Motivation in public management: The call of public service
  91. Pollitt, C. (2005). Ministries and agencies: Steering, meddling, neglect and dependency. In M. Painter & J. Pierre (Eds.), Challenges to state capacity: Global trends and comparative perspectives (pp. 112–136). Palgrave MacMillan. · DOI
  92. 2006, Performance management in practice: A comparative study of executive agencies., Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory
  93. 2017, Public management reform: A comparative analysis
  94. 2013, Searching for impacts in performance-oriented management reform: A review of the European literature., Public Performance and Management Review
  95. 2004, Agencies: How governments do things through semi-autonomous organizations
  96. Quenneville, M.-È., Laurin, C., & Thibodeau, N. (2010). The long run performance of decentralized agencies in Québec. In P. Lægreid & K. Verhoest (Eds.), Governance of public sector organizations—Proliferation, autonomy, and performance (pp. 44–65). Palgrave Macmillan. · DOI
  97. Rommel, J. (2012). Organisation and management of regulation. Autonomy and coordination in a multi-actor setting [Doctoral dissertation, KULeuven].
  98. 2009, Steering from ministers and departments: Coping strategies of agencies in Flanders., Public Management Review
  99. 2014, Exploring effects of coordination on the autonomy of regulators: Energy regulators in Belgium., International Review of Administrative Sciences
  100. 2015, Agencies between two worlds: Information asymmetry in multi-level policy-making., Journal of European Public Policy
  101. 2007, Cultural aspects of public management reform
  102. Schick, A. (2002). Agencies in search of principles. In Distributed public governance: Agencies, authorities and other government bodies (pp. 33–52). OECD.
  103. 2008, Accountability in the shadow of hierarchy: The horizontal accountability of agencies., Public Organization Review
  104. 2013, Moving beyond the clash of interests: On stewardship theory and the relationships between central government departments and public agencies., Public Management Review
  105. 2020, Trust and verification: Balancing agency and stewardship theory in the governance of agencies., International Public Management Journal
  106. 2010, Translating agency reform: Rhetoric and culture in comparative perspective
  107. Talbot, C. (2004). The agency idea: Sometimes old, sometimes new, sometimes borrowed, sometimes untrue. In C. Pollitt & C. Talbot (Eds.), Unbundled government: A critical analysis of the global trend to agencies, quangos and contractualisation (pp. 3–21). Routledge.
  108. 2002, Theory and practice of delegation to non-majoritarian institutions., West European Politics
  109. Tonkiss, K., van Thiel, S., Verhoest, K., & Skelcher, C. (2015, April). How are arm’s length relationships instrumentalised in Europe: A three country comparison. Unpublished paper presented at MPSA Conference, Chicago.
  110. 2007, Toward a public administration theory of public service motivation., Public Management Review
  111. Van der Wal, Z. (2008). Value solidity: Differences, similarities and conflicts between the organizational values of government and business [Doctoral dissertation, VU University]. · DOI
  112. 2008, Value solidity in government and business: Results of an empirical study on public and private sector organizational values., The American Review of Public Administration
  113. Van Dooren, W., & Hoffmann, C. (2018). Performance management in Europe: An idea whose time has come and gone? In E. Ongaro & S. van Thiel (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of public administration and management in Europe (pp. 207–225). Palgrave MacMillan. · DOI
  114. 2001, Quangos: Trends, causes and consequences
  115. 2006, Styles of reform: Differences in agency creation between policy sectors in the Netherlands., Journal of Public Policy
  116. 2011, Comparing agencification in Central Eastern European and Western European countries: Fundamentally alike in unimportant respects?, Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences
  117. van Thiel, S. (2012). Comparing agencies across countries. In K. Verhoest, S. Van Thiel, G. Bouckaert, & P. Lægreid (Eds.), Government agencies: Practices and lessons from 30 countries (pp. 18–26). Palgrave MacMillan. · DOI
  118. van Thiel, S. (2016, April). Blame avoidance, scapegoats and spin: Why Dutch politicians don’t evaluate ZBO-outcomes. Unpublished paper presented at IRSPM conference, Hong Kong.
  119. 2002, The performance paradox in the public sector., Public Performance and Management Review
  120. van Thiel, S., & Pollitt, C. (2007). The management and control of executive agencies: An Anglo-Dutch comparison. In C. Pollitt, S. vanThiel, & V. Homburg (Eds.), New Public Management in Europe: Adaptation and alternatives (pp. 52–70). Palgrave MacMillan. · DOI
  121. 2010, The effect of organizational value congruence on the relationship between ministries and quangos., Public Organization Review
  122. 2017, Beleid en Maatschappij
  123. 2011, Good neighbours or distant friends: Trust between Dutch ministries and their executive agencies., Public Management Review
  124. 2014, Does task matter? The effect of task on the establishment, autonomy and control of semi-autonomous agencies., International Review of Administrative Sciences
  125. Verhoest, K. (2013). Agencification processes and agency governance: Organizational innovation at a global scale? In P. Valkama, S. J. Bailey, & A. Anttiroiko (Eds.), Organizational innovation in public services: Forms and governance (pp. 49–71). Palgrave Macmillan. · DOI
  126. Verhoest, K. (2018). Agencification in Europe. In E. Ongaro & S. vanThiel (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of public administration and management in Europe (pp. 327–346). Palgrave MacMillan. · DOI
  127. Verhoest, K., & Lægreid, P. (2010). Organizing public sector agencies: Challenges and reflections. In P. Lægreid & K. Verhoest (Eds.), Governance of public sector organizations: Proliferation, autonomy and performance (pp. 276–297). Palgrave Macmillan. · DOI
  128. 2004, The study of organisational autonomy: A conceptual review., Public Administration and Development: The International Journal of Management Research and Practice
  129. Verhoest, K., Rommel, J., & Boon, J. (2015). How organizational reputation and trust may affect autonomy of independent regulators: The case of the Flemish energy regulator. In A. Wæraas & M. Maor (Eds.), Organizational reputation in the public sector (pp.118–138). Routledge.
  130. 2010, Autonomy and control of state agencies: Comparing states and agencies
  131. 2012, Government agencies: Practices and lessons from 30 countries
  132. 2007, Pressure, legitimacy and innovative behavior by public organizations., Governance
  133. 2018, Why do autonomous public agencies use performance management techniques? Revisiting the role of basic organizational characteristics., International Public Management Journal
  134. Verschuere, B. (2006). Autonomy and control in arm’s length public agencies: Exploring the determinants of policy autonomy [Doctoral dissertation, KULeuven].
  135. 2005, Agencies and non-departmental public bodies: The hard and soft lenses of agencification theory., Public Management Review
  136. 1989, Bureaucracy: What government agencies do and why they do it
  137. 2015, Do NPM-type reforms lead to a cultural revolution within public sector organizations?, Public Management Review
  138. 2016, Internal performance-based steering in public sector organizations: Examining the effect of organizational autonomy and external result control., Public Performance and Management Review
  139. 2020, How multiple organizational changes shape managerial support for innovative work behavior: Evidence from the Australian Public Service., Review of Public Personnel Administration
  140. 2020, Just keep silent . . . Defensive silence as a reaction to successive structural r, eforms., Public Management Review
  141. 2019, Are public organizations suffering from repetitive change injury? A panel study of the damaging effect of intense reform sequences., Governance
  142. 2017, More reforms, less innovation? The impact of structural reform histories on innovation-oriented cultures in public organizations., Public Management Review
  143. 2014, Innovation-oriented culture in the public sector: More managerial autonomy, more innovation?, Public Management Review
  144. 2014, Decentralization in public sector organizations: Do organizational autonomy and result control lead to decentralization towards lower hierarchical levels?, Public Performance & Management Review
  145. 2006, Performance of semi‐autonomous public bodies: Linkage between autonomy and performance in Japanese agencies., Public Administration and Development: The International Journal of Management Research and Practice
  146. 2004, Bureaucratic autonomy, organizational culture, and habituation: Politicians and independent administrative bodies in the Netherlands., Administration and Society
  147. 2011, Institutional compliance, European networks of regulation and the bureaucratic autonomy of national regulatory authorities., Journal of European Public Policy
  148. 2010, Institutional design and formal autonomy: Political versus historical and cultural explanations., Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory
  149. 2008, Political influence and bureaucratic autonomy., Public Organization Review
  150. Yesilkagit, K., & van Thiel, S. (2012a). The Netherlands. In K. Verhoest, S. Van Thiel, G. Bouckaert, & P. Lægreid (Eds.), Government agencies: Practices and lessons from 30 countries (pp. 179–190). Palgrave MacMillan. · DOI
  151. 2012, Autonomous agencies and perceptions of stakeholder influence in parliamentary democracies., Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory
  152. 2015, Expertise and power: Agencies operating in complex environments., Politics and Governance

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Verhoest, K., van Thiel, S., & De Vadder, S. F.
Affiliations
  • University of Antwerp (BE)
  • Erasmus University Rotterdam (NL)
  • Department of Political Science, University of Antwerp
ORCID
Venue
Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics
Publisher
Oxford University PressNew York, NY
Published
2021-03-25
DOI
10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.1466
OpenAlex
W3154619653
Cited by
16
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 1
Type
reference entry
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics (publishedVersion)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Public Administration › Public Policy and Administration Research
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Public Administration and Governance
  • Social Sciences › Law › Administrative Law and Governance
Keywords
agencification, New Public Management, managerial autonomy, public service delivery, regulation, policy implementation, autonomy and control, organizational effects, political consequences, economic impact

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review