Developments in UK executive agencies: Re-examining the ‘disaggregation–reaggregation’ thesis

Abstract

Executive agencies remain key players in UK government. However, reflecting their declining political profile, little research has emerged on the longer term evolution of this key new public management (NPM) infrastructure. Although widely cited, the 'disaggregation-reaggregation' thesis -which posits that a significant reversal has taken place, following the extensive agencification of the 1990s -has received little systematic evaluation. As political interest in the agency model reawakens under the Coalition Government, it is necessary to understand how the agency landscape has evolved while outside of the limelight. Accordingly, this article examines developments across 1988-2010 along two dimensions: 'structural', relating to organisational boundaries; and 'functional', relating to the department-agency task division. Viewed within this structural-functional framework, considerable merit is found in the disaggregationreaggregation thesis, although not entirely in the terms in which it has come to be accepted. The limited extent of formal 'de-agencification', particularly, challenges existing reports of the expansion and decline of agencies, and raises important issues for the future research agenda.

Not So ‘Arm's Length’: Reinterpreting Agencies in Uk Central Government

“…First, despite the agency model's ongoing prominence in UK public service delivery, its ideational departmentalization challenges existing claims of the fragmented nature of central government, as well as the methods and assumptions continuing to facilitate that description. Among the few ‘post‐Next Steps’ studies available, Elston () points to only partial structural reaggregation through organizational mergers and limited de‐agencification, while James et al (, p. 67) suggest that, despite adjustments, the essential agency model ‘remains intact’. Both deploy large‐N methods akin to organization ecology.…”

“…More cautiously, Christensen and Lægreid (, p. 11) identify a layering of new ideals over enduring managerialist precepts, arguing not for a paradigm shift, but for ‘a change of emphasis away from structural devolution, disaggregation and single‐purpose organizations’. More delimited national and comparative analyses of agencification have broadly supported this latter claim of ‘post‐NPM’ evolution rather than revolution, reporting continuing administrative dispersal, tempered mainly by agency mergers, new coordination and oversight mechanisms, and only limited formal de‐agencification (see Verhoest et al ; MacCarthaigh ; Elston ).…”

“…Decentralization from government ministries to arm's‐length public agencies – so‐called ‘agencification’ – has attracted much attention in recent years (Pollitt et al ; Christensen and Lægreid ; Smullen ; Verhoest et al ; MacCarthaigh ; Elston ). In particular, this reflects the international ubiquity of ‘agency fever’ (Pollitt et al ), and its collation and combination of multiple New Public Management (NPM) doctrines.…”

The New Public Management and Public Management Studies

“…Thirdly, the NPM's construction of autonomised and specialist agencies can counterproductively strengthen inward facing 'silo' thinking and erode wider systemic capacity, a criticism perhaps acknowledged in the recent decline in the number of Executive Agencies (Elston, 2012). Not all government tasks are high volume or simple, or amenable to rapid productivity increases.…”

From ‘poor parenting’ to micro-management: coalition governance and the sponsorship of arm’s-length bodies in the United Kingdom, 2010–13

“…Elements of this broader reform agenda include the coalition government's view that executive agencies (i.e. hived-in rather than hived-out forms of delegation -but see Elston, 2013) represent the most appropriate balance between autonomy and control and also the imposition of a new set of transparency rules that are designed to impose external control pressures.…”