For regulators, independence is associated with good governance, reform and best practice. It has become one of the most claimed characteristics of the regulatory state. But what does it really mean to be an independent agency? This article explores this question with stakeholders of five privacy (and information) commissions to map the understanding of those actually involved in the everyday processes of regulation. It is argued that the beliefs and expectations of stakeholders shape not only relationships but ultimately the legitimacy of regulatory practices. Six separate themes of understanding are identified. The themes represent areas of particular concern for each stakeholder group. Together they suggest a shared understanding of independence that encompasses both behavioural qualities as well as structural arrangements. A framework is proposed that provides a means for incorporating the different accounts of independence and recognizing the active role of agencies in determining independence.
Points for practitioners
Agency independence relates to behavioural qualities as well as structural arrangements. Behavioural qualities of independence encompass championing public interest, engendering trust and demonstrating impartiality. Procedures and routines based on clear principles of procedural fairness and transparency are likely to enhance agency independence.
BarkowRE. Insulating agencies: Avoiding capture through institutional design.2010. Public Law and Legal Theory Working Papers, Paper 240. New York University.
2.
BennettCJRaabCD (2006) The Governance of Privacy: Policy Instruments in Global Perspective, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
3.
BlackJ (2002) Regulatory conversations. Journal of Law and Society29: 163–196.
4.
BlackJHopperMBandC (2007) Making a success of principles-based regulation. Law and Financial Markets Review1: 191–206.
BrymanA (2008) Social Research Methods, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
7.
BuschA (2012) The regulation of privacy. In: Levi-FaurD (ed) Handbook on the Politics of Regulation, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 227–240.
8.
CarpenterDP (2001a) The political foundations of bureaucratic autonomy: A response to Kernell. Studies in American Political Development15: 113–122.
9.
CarpenterDP (2001b) The Forging of Bureaucratic Autonomy: Reputations, Networks, and Policy Innovation in Executive Agencies, 1862–1928, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
10.
ChirkovVRyanRMKimY (2003) Differentiating autonomy from individualism and independence: A self-determination theory perspective on internalization of cultural orientations and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology84: 97–110.
11.
ChristensenTLaegreidP (2006) Autonomy and Regulation: Coping with Agencies in the Modern State, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
12.
ChristensenTLægreidP (2011) The new regulatory orthodoxy: A critical assessment. In: Levi-FaurD (ed) Handbook on the Politics of Regulation, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 361–372.
13.
DworkinG (1988) The Theory and Practice of Autonomy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
14.
FeredayJMuir-CochraneE (2006) Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: A hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. International Journal of Qualitative Methods5: 80–92.
15.
FligsteinN (2001) Social skill and the theory of fields. Sociological Theory19: 105–125.
16.
FlindersMV (2008) Delegated Governance and the British State: Walking Without Order, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
17.
GilardiF (2008) Delegation in the Regulatory State, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
18.
GilardiFMaggettiM (2011) The independence of regulatory authorities. In: Levi-FaurD (ed) Handbook on the Politics of Regulation, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 201–214.
19.
GreenwoodRRaynardMKodeihF (2011) Institutional complexity and organizational responses. The Academy of Management Annals5: 317–371.
20.
GroenleerM (2009) The Autonomy of European Union Agencies, Delft: Eburon Uitgeverij.
21.
HeugensPPLanderMW (2009) Structure! Agency! (and other quarrels): A meta-analysis of institutional theories of organization. Academy of Management Journal52: 61–85.
22.
JordanaJLevi-FaurD (2004) The politics of regulation in the age of governance. In: JordanaJLevi-FaurD (eds) The Politics of Regulation, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 1–28.
23.
KingBGWhettenDA (2008) Rethinking the relationship between reputation and legitimacy: A social actor conceptualization. Corporate Reputation Review11: 192–207.
24.
LægreidPRonessPGRubecksenK (2006) Autonomy and control in the Norwegian civil service: Does agency form matter. In: ChristensenTLaegreidP (eds) Autonomy and Regulation: Coping With Agencies in the Modern State, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 235–267.
25.
LaegreidPRonessPGRubecksenK (2008) Controlling regulatory agencies. Scandinavian Political Studies31: 1–26.
26.
MaggettiM (2007) De facto independence after delegation: A fuzzy-set analysis. Regulation & Governance1: 271–294.
27.
MaggettiM (2012) Regulation in Practice: The de facto Independence of Regualtory Agencies, Colchester: ECPR Press.
28.
MajoneG (1997) Independent agencies and the delegation problem: Theoretical and normative dimensions. In: SteunenbergBVan VughtF (eds) Political Institutions and Public Policy, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, pp. 139–156.
29.
MajoneG. Strategy and structure the political economy of agency independence and accountability.2005. Proceedings of an Expert Meeting in London, 10–11 January, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris, pp. 125–155.
30.
MarchJGOlsenJP (2006) The logic of appropriateness. In: MoranMReinMGoodinRE (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Public Policy, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 689–708.
31.
NewmanA (2012) The governance of privacy. In: Levi-FaurD (ed) The Oxford Handbook of Governance, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 599–610.
32.
NSW Attorney General (2010). (2010) Privacy and Government Information Legislation Amendment Bill 2010 Second Reading Speech New South Wales Legislative Assembly Hansard, 25689.
33.
OliverC (1991) Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management Review, pp. 145–179.
34.
PollittCHupeP (2011) Talking about government. Public Management Review13: 641–658.
35.
RapleyT (2011) Some pragmatics of data analysis. In: SilvermanD (ed) Qualitative Research, 3rd edn. London: Sage Publications, pp. 273–290.
36.
RonessPG (2009) Handling theoretical diversity on agency autonomy. In: RonessPGSætrenH (eds) Change and Continuity in Public Sector Organizations. Essays in Honour of Per Lægreid, Bergen: Fagbokforlaget, pp. 45–62.
37.
RyanGWBernardHR (2003) Techniques to identify themes. Field Methods15: 85–109.
38.
RyanRMDeciEL (2000) Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist55: 68.
39.
ScottSGLaneVR (2000) A stakeholder approach to organizational identity. Academy of Management Review, pp. 43–62.
ScottWRMeyerJW (1991) The organization of societal sectors: Propositions and early evidence. In: PowellWWDiMaggioPJ (eds) The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, pp. 108–140.
42.
SeoMGCreedWED (2002) Institutional contradictions, praxis, and institutional change: A dialectical perspective. Academy of Management Review, pp. 222–247.
43.
SoloveD (2008) Understanding Privacy, Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
44.
SuchmanMC (1995) Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, pp. 571–610.
45.
SuddabyRVialeT (2011) Professionals and field-level change: Institutional work and the professional project. Current Sociology59: 423–442.
46.
SuddabyRCooperDJGreenwoodR (2007) Transnational regulation of professional services: Governance dynamics of field level organizational change. Accounting, Organizations and Society32: 333–362.
47.
ThatcherMStone SweetA (2002) Theory and practice of delegation to non-majoritarian institutions. West European Politics25: 1–22.
48.
ThorntonPHOcasioWLounsburyM (2012) The Institutional Logics Perspective: A New Approach to Culture, Structure, and Process, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
49.
VerhoestKPetersBGBouckaertG (2004) The study of organizational autonomy: A conceptual review. Public Administration and Development24: 101–118.
50.
VerhoestKRonessPGVerschuereB (2010) Autonomy and Control of State Agencies: Comparing States and Agencies, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
51.
VerhoestKVan ThielSBouckaertG (2012) Government Agencies: Practices and Lessons from 30 Countries, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmilla.
52.
VerschuereB (2009) The role of public agencies in the policy making process. Public Policy and Administration24: 23–46.
53.
VerschuereBVerhoestKMeyersF (2006) Accountability and accountability arrangements in public agencies. In: ChristensenTLaegreidP (eds) Autonomy and Regulation: Coping with Agencies in the Modern State, pp. 268–298Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
54.
YesilkagitK (2004) Bureaucratic autonomy, organizational culture, and habituation politicians and independent administrative bodies in the Netherlands. Administration & Society36: 528–552.
55.
YesilkagitKVan ThielS (2008) Political influence and bureaucratic autonomy. Public Organization Review8: 137–153.
56.
YesilkagitKVan ThielS (2011) Autonomous agencies and perceptions of stakeholder influence in parliamentary democracies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory22: 101–119.
