A recent review of executive agencies argued there must be a ‘new revolution’ galvanizing the agency model for the 21st century. It identifies contemporary concerns around agencies' role in delivering government goals and their accountability. Originally in 1988 the ‘Next Steps’ agency model was developed precisely to tackle shortcomings in the delivery of central government functions and to extend existing accountability arrangements based on ministerial responsibility. This article examines the contrasting narratives of modernization through agencification under the Conservatives and New Labour, identifying change in the agency story and reflecting on the trajectory of change. It argues that ideas about delivery have altered radically, reflecting New Labour's understanding of the role of the state. There has also been a gradual reassertion of the primacy of ministerial responsibility in the organization of accountability arrangements, reflecting path dependency in the institutional arrangements. In concluding, the future of agencies under New Labour is discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Barker, A. (1998), ‘Political Responsibility for UK Prison Security - Ministers Escape Again’ , Public Administration, Vol 76, No 1, pp. 1-23 .
2.
Bevir, M. and Rhodes, R.A.W. (2002), ‘Interpretive Theory’, in March, D. and Stoker, G. (eds), Theory and Methods in Political Science ( Houndmills: Palgrave ).
3.
Chapman, R.A. (1988), ‘The Next Steps: A Review’ . Public Policy and Administration, Vol 3, No 3, pp. 3-10 .
4.
Chapman, R.A. (1997), The Treasury and Policy Making ( London: Routledge ).
5.
Chipperfield, G. (1994), The Civil Servant's Duty. Essex Papers in Politics and Government No 95 ( Colchester: University of Essex ).
6.
Cabinet Office Press Release , 12 March 1997. Deputy Prime Minister calls for more scrutiny of Next Steps agencies as nine year revolution takes hold.
Cabinet Office (1999), Modernising Government, Cm 4310 ( London: The Stationery Office ).
9.
Cabinet Office (2000), Executive Agencies 1999 Report, Cm 4658 ( London: The Stationery Office ).
10.
Cabinet Office Press Release , 22 July 2002. Reconnecting Departments and their Agencies.
11.
Committee of Public Accounts (1999), 1999-2000 session. 24th Report: The Passport Delays of Summer ( London: The Stationery Office ).
12.
Davies A. and Willman, J. (1991), What Next? Agencies, Departments and the Civil Service ( London: IPPR ).
13.
Drewy, G. (1994), ‘The Civil Service from the 1940s to “Next Steps” and beyond’ , Parliamentary Affairs, Vol 47, No 4, pp. 583-597 .
14.
Dowding, K. (1995), The Civil Service ( London: Routledge ).
15.
Dudley G. (1994), ‘The Next Steps Agencies, Political Salience and the Arm's Length Principle’ , Public Administration, Vol 72, No 2, pp. 219-240 .
16.
Efficiency Unit (1988), Improving Management in Government: The Next Steps, (Ibbs Report) ( London: HMSO ).
17.
Flinders, M. (2000), ‘The enduring centrality of individual ministerial responsibility within the British constitution’ , Journal of Legislative Studies, Vol 6, No 3, pp. 73-92 .
18.
Foster, D. (1996), ‘The civil service under Labour: restoration and renewal’ , Executive Agency, Vol 4, pp. 18-19 .
19.
Foster, C.D. and Plowden, W. (1996), The State under Stress ( Buckingham: Open University Press) .
20.
Fry, G. , Flynn, A. , Gray, A. , Jenkins, W. and Rutherford, B. (1988), ‘Symposium on Improving Management in Government’ , Public Administration, Vol 66No 4, pp. 429-429 .
21.
Gains, F. (1999), ‘Implementing Privatisation Policies in Next Steps Agencies’ , Public Administration, Vol 77, No 4.
22.
Gains, F. (2000), ‘Understanding Department-Agency Relationships’, Phd Thesis, University of Sheffield.
23.
Gains, F. (2002), ‘Hardware, software or network connection? Crisis Catalyst and Crisis Response in the UK Child Support Agency and Prison Service Agency’ , paper presented at Leiden University, 7-8 June 2002.
24.
Goldsworthy, D. (1991), Setting up Next Steps ( London: HMSO ).
25.
Greer, P. (1994), Transforming Central Government: The Next Steps Initiative ( Buckingham: Open University Press ).
26.
Hall, P.A. and Taylor, R.C.R. (1996), ‘Political science and the three new institutionalisms’ , Political Studies, Vol 44, No 4, pp. 936-957 .
27.
Hansard , 19 May 1997. Debate on the Address: Home Affairs. Col 379-480.
28.
Hennessy, P. (1989), Whitehall ( London: Secker and Warburg ).
29.
HM Treasury (1989), The Financing and Accountability of Next Steps Agencies. Cm 914 ( London: HMSO ).
30.
Hogwood, B. (1993), The Uneven Staircase: Measuring up to Next Steps, Strathclyde Papers on Government and Politics No 92.
31.
Holliday, I. (2000), ‘Is the British State Hollowing Out?’ , Political Quarterly, Vol 71, No 2, pp. 167-176
32.
James, O. (2001), ‘Evaluating Executive Agencies in UK Government’ , Public Policy and Administration, Vol 16, No 3, pp. 24-52 .
33.
John, P. (1998), Analysing Public Policy ( London: Pinter ).
34.
Jordan, G. (1994), ‘Reinventing Government but will it work?’ , Public Administration, Vol 72, No 2, pp. 271-279 .
35.
Judge, D. (1993), The Parliamentary State ( London: Sage ).
36.
Judge, D. , Hogwood, B. and McVicar, M. (1997), ‘The pondlife of executive agencies: Parliament and informatory accountability’ , Public Policy and Administration, Vol 12, No 2, pp. 95-115 .
37.
Kavanagh, D. and Richards, D. (2001), ‘Departmentalism and Joined Up Government: Back to the Future?’ , Parliamentary Affairs, Vol 54, No 1, pp. 1-18 .
38.
Kemp, P. (1990), ‘Can the Civil Service adapt to managing by Contract’ , Public Money and Management, Vol 10, No 3, pp. 25-31 .
39.
Kemp, P., 19 May 1997, Interview with Author.
40.
Llewellyn, N. (2001), ‘The role of storytelling and narrative in a modernization initiative’ , Local Government Studies, Vol 27, No 4, pp. 35-58 .
41.
Marquand, D. (1997), The New Reckoning ( Cambridge: Polity ).
42.
Massey, A. (1995), ‘Civil Service Reform and Accountability’ , Public Policy and Administration, Vol 10, No 1, pp. 16-33 .
43.
Metcalfe, L. and Richards, S. (1990), Improving Management in Government ( London: Sage ).
44.
National Audit Office (2003), Improving Service Delivery: The Role of Executive Agencies, HC 525 Session 2002-2003 ( London: The Stationery Office ).
45.
Office of Public Service Reform (2002), Better Government Service: Executive Agencies in the 21st Century ( London: The Stationery Office ).
46.
O'Toole, B. and Chapman, R. (1995), ‘Parliamentary Accountability’, in O'Toole, B. and Chapman, R. , Next Steps: Improving Management in Government ( Aldershot: Dartmouth ).
47.
Painter, C. (1999), ‘Public Service Reform: A Third Way’ , Parliamentary Affairs, Vol 52, No 1, pp. 94-112 .
48.
Performance and Innovation Unit (2000), Wiring it up ( London: PIU ).
49.
Pitt, D.C. and Smith, B.C. (1981), Government Departments: An Organising Perspective ( London: Routledge ).
50.
Plowden, W. (1994), Ministers and Mandarins ( London: IPPR ).
51.
Polidano, C. (1999), ‘The bureaucrat who fell under a bus: Ministerial responsibility, executive agencies and the Derek Lewis Affair in Britain’ , Governance, Vol 12, No 2, pp. 201-229 .
52.
Pollitt, C. (2003), ‘Joined-Up Government: a Survey’ , Political Studies Review, Vol 1, No 1, pp. 34-49
53.
Pollitt, C. (1993), Managerialism and the Public Services ( Oxford: Blackwell ).
54.
Pollitt, C. , Bathgate, K. , Caulfield, J. , Smullen, A. and Talbot, C. (2001), ‘Agency Fever? Analysis of an International Policy Fashion’ , Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis, Vol 3, pp. 271-290 .
55.
Public Service Committee (1996), HC 313, Second Report, Ministerial Responsibility and Accountability, Session 1995-96 ( London: HMSO ).
56.
Rhodes, R.A.W. (1995), Understanding Governance ( Buckingham: Open University Press ).
57.
Rhodes, R.A.W. (2000), ‘New Labour's Civil Service: Summing up Joining up’ , Political Quarterly, Vol 71, No 2, pp. 151-166 .
58.
Richards, D. and Smith, M.J. , (2001), ‘New Labour, the Constitution and Reforming the State’, in Ludlam, S. and Smith, M.J. (eds), New Labour in Government ( London: Macmillan ).
59.
Stoker, G. (2000), ‘Understanding New Labour’ , Renewal, Vol 8, No 3.
60.
Talbot, C. (1996), ‘The Prison Service: A Framework of Irresponsibility’ , Public Money and Management, Vol 16, pp. 5-7 .
61.
Talbot, C. (2001), Models of Performance , Public Administration Committee Conference, 3-5 September, Sunningdale.
62.
Taylor, A. (2000). ‘Hollowing out or filliigg in? Taskforces and the management of cross cutting issues in British government’ , British Journal of Politics and International Relations, Vol 2, No 1, pp. 46-71 .
63.
Treasury and Civil Service Committee , July (1988), HC 494, Session 1987-88, Eighth Report: Civil Service Management Reforms-The Next Steps ( London: HMSO ).
64.
Treasury and Civil Service Committee (1989), HC 348, 5th Report Development in the Next Steps Programme, Session 1988-89 ( London: HMSO ).
65.
Treasury and Civil Service Committee (1991), HC 496, The Next Steps Initiative, Session 1990-91 ( London: HMSO ).
66.
Treasury and Civil Service Committee , July (1993), HC 390, Sixth Report, 1992-93 session, The role of the civil service (interim report) ( London: HMSO ).
67.
Treasury and Civil Service Committee (1994), HC 460, 4th Special Report, Session 1993-94 ( London: HMSO ).
68.
Treasury and Civil Service Committee (1994), HC 27, 5th Report, Session 1993-94 ( London: HMSO ).
69.
Wilson, R. (1999), ‘The Civil Service in the New Millenium’, http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/1999/senior/rw-speech.htmI
70.
Woodhouse, D. (1994), Accountability in Theory and Practice ( Oxford: Oxford University Press ).
71.
World Bank . (2002), ‘Administrative and Civil Service Reform: Alternative Service Delivery Mechanisms’, http://wwwl.worldbank.org/publicsector/civilservice/altemative,htm.
