Reputation-seeking can explain some decisions of U.S. federal agencies. However, it has remained unclear whether it could be used in the European context where agencies have proliferated in national and regional governance in the past few decades. This article shows that reputation-seeking can occur at autonomous agencies in the European context. A unique participant-observational study of an international public health agency acting in response to the 2009 H1N1 “swine” influenza pandemic provides bases for this conclusion. It adds empirical support for the proposition using real-time observations of and in-depth interviews on the agency’s decision-making processes.
BennettA. (2010). Process tracing for causal inference. In BradyH.CollierD. (Eds.), Rethinking social inquiry: Diverse tools, shared standards (2nd ed.) [pp. 207-220]. Plymouth, UK: Rowman & Littlefield.
2.
BoinA.McConnellA.‘t HartP. (Eds.). (2008). Governing after crisis: The politics of investigation, accountability, and learning. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
3.
BrunssonN. (2002). The organization of hypocrisy (2nd ed.). Herndon, VA: Copenhagen Business School Press.
4.
CarpenterD. (2000). State building through reputation building: Coalitions of esteem and program innovation in the National Postal System, 1883-1913. Studies in American Political Development, 14, 121-155.
5.
CarpenterD. (2001). The forging of bureaucratic autonomy: Reputation, networks, and policy innovation in executive agencies, 1862-1928. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
6.
CarpenterD. (2010). Reputation and power: Organizational image and pharmaceutical regulation at the FDA. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
7.
CarpenterD.KrauseG. A. (2011). Reputation and public administration. Public Administration Review, 72, 26-32.
8.
ChristensenT.LægreidP. (2002). New public management: The transformation of ideas and practice. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.
9.
DunleavyP. (1985). Bureaucrats, budgets and the growth of the state: Reconstructing an instrumental model. British Journal of Political Science, 15, 299-328.
10.
DunleavyP. (1991). Democracy, bureaucracy and public choice. London, England: Pearson.
11.
GeorgeA. L.BennettA. (2005). Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
12.
GroenleerM. (2009). The autonomy of European union agencies: A comparative study of institutional development. Delft, The Netherlands: Uitgeverij Eburon.
13.
MaorM. (2010). Organizational reputation and jurisdictional claims: The case of the U.S. food and drug administration. Governance, 23, 133-159.
14.
MaorM. (2011). Organizational reputations and the observability of public warnings in 10 pharmaceutical markets. Governance, 24, 557-582.
15.
NiskanenW. A. (1971). Bureaucracy and representative government. Chicago, IL: Aldine, Atherton.
16.
OsborneS. P. (2010). The new public governance? Emerging perspectives on the theory and practice of public governance. Oxon, UK: Routeledge.
17.
PetersG. (1998). Comparative politics, theory and method. New York: New York University Press.
18.
PollittC.BouckaertG. (2011). Public management reform: A comparative analysis—New public management, governance, and the Neo-Weberian state (3rd ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
19.
PO Record. (2009, October-December). Record for the [International Public Health Agency (IPHA)]. In 2009 H1N1 “swine” Influenza Pandemic Response Participant-Observer (PO) Diaries.
20.
PressmanJ. L.WildavskyA. (1973). Implementation: How great expectations in Washington are dashed in Oakland. Berkeley: University of California Press.
21.
PrzeworskiA.TeuneH. (1970). The logic of comparative social inquiry. New York, NY: John Wiley.
22.
RobertsP. S. (2006). FEMA and the prospects for reputation-based autonomy. Studies in American Political Development, 20, 57-87.
23.
SixF. (2013). Trust in regulatory relations: How new insights from trust research improve regulation theory. Public Management Review, 15, 163-185.
24.
SørensenE.TorfingJ. (2007). Theoretical approaches to governance network dynamics. In SørensenE.TorfingJ. (Eds.), Theories of democratic network governance (pp. 25-42). Houndsmills, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
25.
WilsonJ. Q. (1989). Bureaucracy: What government agencies do and why they do it. New York, NY: Basic Books.
YesilkagitK. (2004). Bureaucratic autonomy, organizational culture, and habituation: Politicians and independent administrative bodies in the Netherlands. Administration & Society, 36, 528-552.
29.
YesilkagitK.ChristensenJ. G. (2010). Institutional design and formal autonomy: Political versus historical and cultural explanations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20, 53-74.
30.
YesilkagitK.van TheilS. (2008). Political influence and bureaucratic autonomy. Public Organizational Review, 8, 137-153.
