This article considers the theory and practice of accountability arrangements for quangos in the UK. Theoretical notions of accountability are discussed and the practice of parliamentary accountability evaluated in the context of the traditional notion of ministerial responsibility. The study outlines the results obtained through an empirical analysis of parliamentary questions, M.P.s’ replies to a questionnaire and several interviews with M.P.s. The analysis suggests that ministerial oversight over these bodies is more extensive than scholars have traditionally assumed. In addition, the study draws attention to the role of members’ constituencies in raising concerns about quangos and the extent to which M.P.s collaborate with quangos rather than scrutinise their activities.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Barker, A. (1982), ‘Governmental bodies and networks of mutual Accountability’, in A. Barker (ed), Quangos in Britain: Government and the Networks in Public Policy - Making, ( London: Macmillan ), pp.3-33.
2.
Butler, D. (1973), The Canberra Model: Essays on Australian Government, ( Melbourne: Macmillan ).
3.
Chester, D.N. and Bowring, N. (1962), Questions in Parliament, ( Oxford: Clarendon Press ).
4.
Cole, M.S. (1991), Quasi-Government: The Issue of Accountability, ( Southampton: University of Southampton ).
5.
Cole, M.S. (1999), ‘Accountability and Quasi-Government: The Role of Parliamentary Questions’ , The Journal of Legislative Studies, Vol.5, No. 1, pp. 77-101 .
6.
Dudley, G. (1994), ‘The Next Steps Agencies, Political Salience and the Arms’ Length Principle: Barbara Castle at the Ministry of Transport 1965-68’ , Public Administration, Vol.72, No. 2, pp. 219-240 .
7.
Elcock, H. (1998), ‘The Changing Problem of Accountability in Modern Government: an analytical agenda for reformers’ , Public Policy and Administration, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp. 23-37 .
8.
Finer, S. (1956), ‘The Individual Responsibility of Ministers’ , Public Administration, Vol.34, No. 4, pp. 377-396 .
9.
Flinders, M.V. (1998), ‘Quangos: Why Do Governments Love Them?’, in Flinders M.V. and Smith, M.J. , (eds), Quangos, Accountability and Reform, ( London: Macmillan ), pp.26-39.
10.
Flinders M.V. and McConnell, M.V. (1998), ‘Diversity and Complexity: the QuangoContinum’, in M.V. Flinders and M.J. Smith (eds), Quangos, Accountability and Reform, ( London: Macmillan ), pp. 17-25.
11.
Fry, G.K. (1979), The Growth of Government, ( London: Frank Cass ).
12.
Griffiths, J.A.G. and Ryle, M. (1989), Parliament: Functions, Practice and Procedure, ( London: Sweet and Maxwell ).
13.
Hague, D.C. , Mackenzie W.J.M. and Barker, A. (eds), (1975), Public Policy and Private Interests: The Institutions of Compromise, ( London: Macmillan ).
14.
Hirst, P. (1995), ‘Quangos and Democratic Government’ , Parliamentary Affairs, Vol.48, No. 2, pp. 341-359 .
15.
Hood, C.C. and Schuppert, G.F. (1988), ‘Evaluation and Review’, in Hood, C.C. and Schuppert, G.F. (eds), Delivering Public Services in Western Europe, ( London: Sage ), pp.244-260.
16.
Leazes, F.J. (1997). ‘Public Accountability: Is It a Private Responsibility?’ , Administration and Society, Vol.29, No. 4, pp. 395-411 .
17.
Madgwick, P. and Woodhouse, D. (1989), ‘The Westland Affair: Helicopter crashes into the British Constitution’ , Social Studies Review, Vol.4, No. 4, pp. 156-163 .
18.
Massey, A. (1995), Public Bodies and the Next Steps: An Assessment of the application of Next Steps Principles to Executive Non-Departmental Public Bodies, ( London: Cabinet Office ).
19.
Massey, A. (1997), ‘Management, Politics and Non-Departmental Public Bodies’ , Public Money and Management, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 21-25 .
20.
Morrison, H. (1933), Socialization and Transport, ( London: Constable ).
21.
Norton, P. (1981), The Commons in Perspective, ( Oxford: Martin Robertson ).
22.
Norton, P. (1993), Does Parliament Matter?, ( London: Harvester Wheatsheaf ).
23.
Richards, P. (1959), Honourable Members, ( London: Faber and Faber ).
24.
Richards, P. (1972), The Backbenchers, ( London: Faber and Faber ).
25.
Rowe, M. (1999), ‘Joined Up Accountability: Bringing the Citizen Back In’ , Public Policy and Administration, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 91-102 .
26.
Searing. D.D. (1994), Westminster's World: Understanding Political Roles, ( Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press ).
27.
Stewart, J. and Davis, H. (1994), ‘A New Agenda for Local Governance’ , Public Money and Management, Vol.14, No. 4, pp. 29-36 .
28.
Stone, B. (1995), ‘Administrative Accountability in the ‘Westminster Democracies': Towards a New Conceptual Framework’ , Governance, Vol.8, No. 4, pp. 505-526 .
29.
Sutherland, S.L. (1991), ‘Responsible and Government and Ministerial Responsibility: Every Reform Is Its Own Problem’ , Canadian Journal of Political Science, Vol.24, pp. 91-120 .
30.
Talbot, C.F. (1997). ‘UK Civil Service Personnel Reform: Devolution, Decentralisation and Delusion’ , Public Policy and Administration, Vol.12, No. 4, pp. 14-34 .
31.
Weir, S. and Hall, W. (eds), (1994), EGO Trip, ( London: Charter 88 Trust ).
32.
Wilding, R. (1982), ‘A triangular affair: quangos, Ministers and M.P.s’, in A. Barker (ed), Quangos in Britain, ( London, Macmillan ), pp.34-43.
