Evaluating executive agencies is important even though most government and academic interest is currently focused on ‘modernising government’, ‘e-government’, ‘joined-up’ government and ‘partnership’ working. Firstly, executive agencies are a significant part of the structure of UK central government. In 2000 about 60 per cent of civil servants worked in 126 agencies with about 75 per cent of civil servants working either in agencies or bodies working on agency lines. But there has been very little assessment of whether agencies have been a success. Instead, attention has moved on to the next reform. Secondly, the current ‘joined-up’ government agenda, in part, rests on a view of the merits and shortcomings of agencies. The evidence base for this view requires strengthening. These issues are particularly salient because the Cabinet Office has belatedly instigated an agency policy review and several countries have embarked on reforms seeking to emulate the UK agency initiative. This paper evaluates executive agencies through a general survey of their performance and a case study of the largest agency, the Benefits Agency. The case study enables the effects of agency structures on performance to be assessed. The research draws on existing studies and new research, identifying gaps in evidence and the need for further research which could be incorporated in the Cabinet Office agency policy review.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Benefits Agency (1999a), Annual Report and Accounts, 1998-99 HC, 580 ( London: The Stationery Office ).
2.
Benefits Agency (1999b), Supplementary Memorandum Submitted by the DSS Benefits Agency to the Public Accounts Committee Report on Vote I Appropriation Account 1996-97: Class XII (Administered Social Security Benefits and Other Payments), HC, 419 I, Session 1998-99 ( London: The Stationery Office ).
3.
Benefits Agency (2001), Benefits Agency Business Plan ( Leeds: Benefits Agency ). http://www.dss.gov.uk/publications/dss/2001/babbsubessplan/baplanl.htm.
4.
Benefit Fraud Inspectorate (1999a), Report on London South Directorate (AD3) Benefits Agency, http://www.dss.gov.uk/hq/pubs/bfl/londons/.
5.
Benefit Fraud Inspectorate (1999b), Report on East Devon District Council, http://www.dss.gov.uk/hq/pubs/bfi/devon/.
6.
Benefit Fraud Inspectorate (1999c), Report on the Social Security Contributions Agencyhttp://www.dss.gov.uk/hq/pubs/bfi/devon/.
7.
Benefit Fraud Inspectorate (1999d), Annual Report: Securing the Systemhttp://www.dss.gov.uk/hq/pubs/bfi/bfiar/.
8.
Bichard, M. (1999) Modernising the Policy Process ( London: Public Management and Policy Association ).
9.
Cabinet Office (2000), E-Government: A Strategic Framework for Public Services in the Information Age ( London: Cabinet Office ).
10.
Cabinet Office (2000b), Civil Service Statistics 1999 ( London: Government Statistical Service ).
11.
Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1992), The Next Steps Agencies Review 1992 Cm 21 11 ( London: The Stationery Office ).
12.
Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1993), Next Steps Agencies in Government Review 1993 Cm 2430 ( London: The Stationery Office ).
13.
Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1994), Next Steps Review 1994 Cm 2750 ( London: The Stationery Office ).
14.
Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1995), Next Steps Review 1995 Cm 3164 ( London: The Stationery Office ).
15.
Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1997), Next Steps Agencies in Government Review 1996 Cm 3579 ( London: The Stationery Office ).
16.
Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1998), Next Steps Report Cm 3889 ( London: The Stationery Office ).
17.
Chancellor of the Exchequer (1987), The Government’. Expenditure Plans 1987-88 to 1989-90 Vol. II Cm 56-I1 ( London: The Stationery Office ).
18.
Chancellor of the Exchequer (1994), Public Expenditure Statistical Supplement to the Financial Statement and Budget Report 1994-95 Cm 2519 ( London: The Stationery Office ).
19.
Chancellor of the Exchequer (1998), Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses 1998-99 Cm 3901 ( London: The Stationery Office ).
20.
Efficiency Unit (1988), Improving Management in Government: the Next Steps ( London: The Stationery Office ).
21.
Gains, F. (2000), Understanding Department-Agency Relationships (PhD Thesis, University of Sheffield).
22.
Goldsworthy, D. (1991), Setting Up Next Steps ( London: The Stationery Office ).
23.
Hansard (2001), Answer by Ian McCartney, Minister for the Cabinet Office to Mr Goggins 7th March 2001, Column 266W Session 2000-2001 ( London: The Stationery Office ).
24.
Harlow, C. (1999), ‘Accountability, New Public Management, and the Problems of the Child Support Agency’ , Journal of Law and Society, Vol 26, No 2, pp. 150-174 .
25.
Hogwood, B.W. (1997), ‘The Machinery of Government 1979-97’ , Political Studies, Vol 45, No 4, pp. 704-715 .
26.
Hood, C. (1991), ‘A Public Management for All Seasons?’ , Public Administration, Vol 69, No 1, pp. 3-19 .
27.
Hood, C.C. and Jones, G.W. (1990), ‘Progress in the Government’. Next Steps Initiative’, Memorandum Submitted to the Treasury and Civil Service Committee included in Appendices to the Minutes of Evidence of the Eighth Report Progress in the Next Steps Initiative HC 481 Session 1989-90 ( London: The Stationery Office ).
28.
James, O. (1995), ‘Explaining the Next Steps in the Department of Social Security: the Bureau-shaping Model of Central State Reorganisation’ , Political Studies, Vol 43, No 4, pp. 614-629 .
29.
James, O. (2000), ‘Regulation inside Government: Public Interest Justifications and Regulatory Failure’ , Public Administration, Vol 78, No 2, pp. 327-343 .
30.
James, O. (2001a), ‘Beyond the ‘New Public Management’. Regulated Partnerships in the UK’, in Byong-Man, A. , Halligan, J. and Wilks, S. (eds), Reforming Public and Corporate Governance: Management and the Market in Australia, Britain and Korea ( London: Edward Elgar ).
31.
James, O. (2001b), ‘Business Models and the Transfer of Business-like Central Government Agencies’ , Governance, Vol 14, No 2, pp. 233-252 .
32.
James, O. (2002), The Executive Agency Revolution in Whitehall: Public Interest versus Bureau-shaping Interpretations ( Basingstoke: Palgrave ).
33.
James, O. (forthcoming), ‘Executive Agencies and Joined-up Government’, in C. Pollitt and C. Talbot (eds), Unbundled Government: A Critical Analysis of the Global Trend to Agencies, Quangos and Contractualisation ( London: Routledge ).
34.
Judge, D , Hogwood, B. and McVicar, M. (1997), ‘The Pondlife of Executive Agencies: Parliamentary and Informatory Accountability’ , Public Policy and Administration, Vol 12,No 2, pp. 95-115 .
35.
Lan, Z and Rosenbloom, D. (1992), ‘Editorial’ , Public Administration Review, 52, pp. 535-537 .
36.
Massey, A. (1995), After Next Steps ( London: Cabinet Office ).
37.
Minister for the Cabinet Office (1999a), Next Steps Report 1998 Cm 4273 ( London: The Stationery Office ).
38.
Minister for the Cabinet Office (1999b), Modernising Government ( London: The Stationery Office ).
39.
Minister for the Cabinet Office (2000), Executive Agencies 1999 Report Cm 4658, ( London: The Stationery Office ).
40.
National Audit Office (1988), Department of Health and Social Security: Quality of Service to the Public at Local Offices HC 451, Session 1987-88 ( London: The Stationery Office ).
41.
National Audit Office (1996), Management of Telephones in the Benefits Agency HC 126 Session 1995-96 ( London: The Stationery Office ).
42.
National Audit Office (1996c), General Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General for 1994-95 on Appropriation and Other Accounts 15-XIII ( London: The Stationery Office ).
43.
National Audit Office (1997), Financial Auditing and Reporting 1995-96 General Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General J1-XII ( London: The Stationery Office ).
44.
National Audit Office (1998a), Underpayments to Public Service Pensioners on Invalidity Benefit HC 681, Session 1997-98 ( London : The Stationery Office ).
45.
National Audit Office (1998b), Benefits Agency: Performance Measurement HC 952, Session 1997-98 ( London: The Stationery Office ).
46.
National Audit Office (1998c), Department of Social Security: Progress on Measures to Combat Housing Benefit Fraud HC 31, Session 1998-99 ( London: The Stationery Office ).
47.
National Audit Office (1998d), Financial Auditing and Reporting 1996-97 General Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General 251-XIX ( London: The Stationery Office ).
48.
National Audit Office (1999a), Department of Social Security: progress on Measures to Combat Housing Benefit Fraud HC 319, Session 1998-9 ( London: The Stationery Office ).
49.
National Audit Office (1999b), Financial Auditing and Reporting 1997-98 General Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General 251-XIX ( London: The Stationery Office ).
50.
National Audit Office (1999c), Fire Service College Accounts 1996-97 and 1997-98 ( London: National Audit Office ).
51.
National Audit Office (1999d), The Passport Delays of Summer 1999 HC 812, Session 1998-99 ( London: The Stationery Office ).
52.
National Audit Office (2000a), State Earnings-related Pension Scheme: The Failure to Inform the Public of Reduced Pension Rights for Widows and Widowers HC 320, Session 1999-2000 ( London: The Stationery Office ).
53.
National Audit Office (2000b), Financial Auditing and Reporting 1998-99 General Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General 11-XIX ( London: The Stationery Office ).
54.
National Audit Office (2000c), Good Practice in Performance Measurement and Reporting in Executive Agencies and Non-Departmental Public Bodies ( London: The Stationery Office ).
55.
National Audit Office (2001), Measuring the Performance of Government Departments HC 301, Session 2000-01 ( London: National Audit Office ).
56.
Osborne, D. and Gaebler, T. (1992), Reinventing Government ( Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley ).
57.
Pendlebury, M. , Jones, R. , and Yarbhari, S. (1992), ‘Accounting for Executive Agencies in the UK Government’ , Financial Accountability and Management, Vol 8, No 1, pp. 35-48 .
58.
Performance and Innovation Unit (2000), Wiring It Up: Whitehall’. Management of Cross-cutting Policies and Service ( London: The Stationery Office ).
59.
Polidano, C. (1999), ‘The Bureaucrat Who Fell Under a Bus: Ministerial Responsibility, Executive Agencies and the Derek Lewis Affair’ , Governance, Vol 12, No 2, pp. 201-229 .
60.
Pollitt, C. (1995), ‘Justifications by Works or Faith? Evaluating the New Public Management’ , Evaluation, Vol 1, No 2, pp. 133-154 .
61.
Pollitt, C. , Bathgate, K. , Smullen, A. , and Talbot, C. (2000), ‘Agencies: a Test Case for Convergence?’ , Paper presented to the Fourth International Symposium on Public Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, April.
62.
Prime Minister and Minister for the Civil Service and the Minister of State, Privy Council Office (1990), Improving Management in Government - The Next Steps Agencies Review 1990 Cm 1261 ( London: The Stationery Office) .
63.
Prime Minister and Minister for the Civil Service and the Minister of State, Privy Council Office (1991), Improving Management in Government - The Next Steps Agencies Review 1991 Cm 1760 ( London: The Stationery Office ).
64.
Prime Minister, Chancellor of the Exchequer and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1994), The Civil Service: Continuity and Change Cm 2627 ( London: The Stationery Office ).
65.
Public Accounts Committee (1999), Minutes of Evidence Wednesday 28th April 1999 HC 419 I, Session 1998-99 ( London: The Stationery Office ).
66.
Public Accounts Committee (2000), Appropriation Accounts 1997-98, Class XII, Vote 1 (Central Government Administered Social Security Benefits and Other Payments) HC 103, Session 1999-2000 ( London: The Stationery Office ).
67.
Samuels, M. (1997), Benchmarking Next Steps Executive Agencies ( London: Cabinet Office ).
68.
Social Security Committee (1998), Social Security Committee: Minutes of Evidence: Thursday 21st May 1998 HC 587iii, Session 1997-98 ( London: The Stationery Office ).
69.
Talbot, C. (1996), ‘Ministers and Agencies: Responsibilities and Performance’ in Public Service CommitteeSecond Report Ministerial Accountability and Responsibility Volume II Minutes of Evidence HC 313, Session 1995-96 ( London: The Stationery Office ), pp.39-55.
70.
Talbot, C. (forthcoming), ‘Small Step or Giant Leap? Evaluating Ten Years of the “Next Steps” Agencies in the UK (1988-98)’, Public Money and Management.
71.
Treasury and Civil Service Committee (1990), Eighth Report: Progress in the Next Steps Initiative Session HC 481 Session 1989-90 ( London: The Stationery Office ).
72.
Treasury and Civil Service Committee (1993), 5th Report The Role of the Civil Service Volume II Minutes of Evidence HC 27-I, Session 1993-94 ( London: The Stationery Office ).
73.
Trosa, S. (1994), Next Steps: Moving On ( London: Office of Public Service ).
