Researchers have recently shown increasing interest in how leaders of agencies respond to external threats. This article extends Katharine Dommett and Chris Skelcher’s strategic-relational analysis of agency leaders’ responses to exogenous threats. It focuses on the role of dramatic performances and impression management in agencies’ strategic responses. Interviews with senior officials in statistical agencies in Britain and Canada were used to assess the strategic-performative model. Agencies are better able to defend their functions and autonomy when they undertake effective dramatic performances to shape external stakeholders’ impressions. These findings further our understanding of the mechanisms that influence the legitimacy and autonomy of public agencies.
AllisonG. (1971). Essence of decision: Explaining the Cuban missile crisis. Little, Brown and Company.
2.
AucoinP. (2012). New political governance in Westminster systems: Impartial public administration and management performance at risk. Governance: An International Journal of Policy and Administration, 25(2), 177–199.
3.
BoinA.KuipersS.SteenbergenM. (2010). The life and death of public organizations: A question of institutional design?Governance: An International Journal of Policy and Administration, 23(3), 385–410.
CarpenterD. P. (2001). The forging of bureaucratic autonomy: Reputations, networks, and policy innovation in executive agencies, 1862-1928. Princeton University Press.
6.
CarpenterD. P. (2010). Reputation and power: Organizational image and pharmaceutical regulation at the FDA. Princeton University Press.
7.
ChristensenT.LægreidP. (2012). Competing principles of agency organization–the reorganization of a reform. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 78(4), 579–596.
8.
CorbettJ.HowardC. (2017). Why perceived size matters for agency termination. Public Administration, 95(1), 196–213.
DiMaggioP. J.PowellW. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 147–160.
DommettK.SkelcherC. (2014). Opening the black box of administrative reform: A strategic-relational analysis of agency responses to termination threats. International Public Management Journal, 17(4), 540–563.
13.
DownsA. (1967). Inside bureaucracy. Little, Brown and Company.
14.
ElstonT. (2014). Not so “arm’s length”: Reinterpreting agencies in UK Central Government. Public Administration, 92(2), 458–476.
15.
European Statistical System Committee. (2018). European statistics code of practice. Publications Office of the European Union.
16.
FellegiI. P. (1996). Characteristics of an effective statistical system. Canadian Public Administration, 39(1), 5–34.
17.
FlindersM. (2008). Walking without order: Delegated governance and the British state. Oxford University Press.
18.
FlindersM.DommettK.TonkissK. (2014). Bonfires and barbecues: Coalition governance and the politics of quango reform. Contemporary British History, 28(1), 56–80.
19.
FlindersM.SkelcherC. (2012). Shrinking the quango state: Five challenges in reforming quangos. Public Money & Management, 32(5), 327–334.
Labour Party. (1997). New labour: Because Britain deserves better. Labour Party.
33.
LauxR.AlldrittR.DunnellK. (2007). Evolution of the United Kingdom statistical system. Statistical Journal of the IAOS: Journal of the International Association for Official Statistics, 24(1), 47–60.
34.
LewisD. E. (2002). The politics of agency termination: Confronting the myth of agency immortality. The Journal of Politics, 64(1), 89–107.
35.
Liberal Party of Canada. (2015). Real change: A new plan for a strong middle class. Federal Liberal Agency of Canada.
36.
MartinL. (2010). Harperland: The politics of control. Penguin Canada.
37.
McDonoughP. M. (1997). Choosing colleges: How social class and schools structure opportunity. SUNY Press.
38.
MeierK. J. (1979). Politics and the bureaucracy: Policymaking in the fourth branch of government. Duxbury Press.
39.
MeyerJ. W.RowanB. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363.
40.
MoeT. (1997). The positive theory of public bureaucracy. In MuellerD. C. (Ed.), Perspectives on public choice (pp. 455–480). Cambridge University Press.
PollittC.BouckaertG. (2011). Public Management Reform: A comparative analysis-new public management, governance, and the Neo-Weberian state. Oxford University Press.
43.
PollittC.TalbotC. (2004). Unbundled government: A critical analysis of the global trend to agencies, quangos and contractualisation. Routledge.
44.
RampW.HarrisonT. W. (2012). Libertarian populism, neoliberal rationality, and the mandatory long-form census: Implications for sociology. Canadian Journal of Sociology, 37(3), 273–294.
45.
RytenJ. (1990). Statistical organization criteria for inter-country comparisons and their application to Canada. Journal of Official Statistics, 6(3), 319.
United Nations Statistics Division. (2003). The handbook of statistical organization, third edition: The operation and organization of a statistical agency.
59.
van ThielS. (2012). Debate: From trendsetter to laggard? Quango reform in the UK. Public Money & Management, 32(6), 399–400.
60.
WellsP. (2013). The longer I’m Prime Minister: Stephen Harper and Canada, 2006. Random House Canada.
61.
WilsonJ. Q. (1989). Bureaucracy: What government agencies do and why they do it. Basic Books.
WortonD. A. (1998). Dominion Bureau of Statistics: A history of Canada’s Central Statistical Office and Its Antecedents, 1841-1972 (Vol. 22). McGill-Queen’s University Press.
