Administrative leadership in UK central government has been reformed through the creation of boards in all departments and agencies. This `boardization' is modelled on principles of private sector corporate governance and is a civil service designed response to the administrative implications of depoliticization. It raises issues of political accountability and adaptation of private sector models to the public sector and therefore poses a challenge to the UK Whitehall model. Boardization has been variously implemented across accounting units of central government involving the negotiation of a variety of public sector bargains. It highlights a de-synchronization of administrative and political reforms but provides a potential for boards to become alternative locations for governance and accountability. The article registers concerns about the suitability of reform based on private sector corporate governance and identifies new research agendas.
Aguilera, R. and Cuervo-Cazurra, A. (2004) `Codes of Good Governance Worldwide: What is the Trigger?', Organization Studies25(3): 415—43.
2.
Barberis, P. (1998) `The New Public Management and a New Accountability' , Public Administration76(3): 451—70.
3.
Barker, L. (2004) Building Effective Boards: Enhancing the Effectiveness of Independent Boards in Executive Non-Departmental Public Bodies. London: HM Treasury.
4.
Bartos, S. (2005) `The Uhrig Report: Damp Squib or Ticking Timebomb ?', Australian Journal of Public Administration64(1): 95—9.
5.
Bevir, M. (2003) `Narrating the British State: An Interpretive Critique of New Labour's Institutionalism', Review of International Political Economy10(3): 455—80.
6.
Blair, A. (2006) Speech at the 21st Century Public Services Conference , June, URL (consulted June 2006): http://www.number10.gov.uk/output/page9564.asp
7.
Cabinet Office (2003) Maximising Board Effectiveness: A Toolkit for Departments and Agencies. London: Cabinet Office.
8.
Cabinet Office (2006) Capability Reviews: The Findings of the First Four Reviews and Capability Review of the Home Office, July, URL (consulted July 2006): http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk
9.
Campbell, C. and Wilson, G. (1995) The End of Whitehall: Death of a Paradigm? Oxford: Blackwell.
10.
Clarke, J. and Newman, J. (1997) The Managerial State. London : Sage.
11.
Coen, D. and Thatcher, M. (2005) `The New Governance of Markets and Non-Majoritarian Regulators', Governance18(3): 329—46.
12.
DiMaggio, P. and Powell, W. (1991) `The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality', in W. Powell and P. DiMaggio (eds) The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, pp. 63—82. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
13.
Ellwood, S. (2003) `Bridging the GAAP Across the UK Public Sector' , Accounting and Business Research33(2): 105—21.
14.
Farrell, C. (2005) `Governance in the UK Public Sector: The Involvement of the Governing Board', Public Administration85(1): 89—110.
15.
Feldman, M. and Khademian, A. (2002) `To Manage is to Govern', Public Administration Review62(5): 541—54.
16.
Financial Reporting Council (2003) The Combined Code on Corporate Governance. London: FRC.
17.
Financial Reporting Council (2005) Internal Control: Revised Guidance for Directors on the Combined Code. London: FRC.
18.
Flinders, M. (2002) `Shifting the Balance?: Parliament, the Executive and the British Constitution', Political Studies50(1): 23—42.
19.
Flinders, M. (2004) `Distributed Public Governance in Britain', Public Administration82(4): 883—901.
20.
Flinders, M. and Buller, J. (2006) `Depoliticization: Principles, Tactics and Tools ', British Politics1(1): 1—26.
21.
Foster, C. (2005) British Government in Crisis or The Third English Revolution. Oxford: Hart.
22.
Hall, P. and Soskice, D. (2001) `An Introduction to Varieties of Capitalism', in P. Hall and D. Soskice (eds) Varieties of Capitalism, pp. 1—68. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
23.
Halligan, J. and Horrigan, B. (2005) Reforming Corporate Governance in the Australian Federal Public Sector: From Uhrig to Implementation, ARC Paper 2, University of Canberra.
24.
Hood, C. and Lodge, M. (2006) The Politics of Public Sector Bargains: Reward, Competency, Loyalty — and Blame. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
25.
Howard, C. and Seth-Purdie, R. (2005) `Governance Issues for Public Sector Boards', Australian Journal of Public Administration64(3): 56—68.
26.
Independent Commission for Good Governance in Public Services (ICGG) (2006) Introduction to the Commission's Work, URL (consulted December 2006): http://www.opm.co.uk/icggps/
27.
James, O. (2001) `Business Models and the Transfer of Businesslike Central Government Agencies', Governance14(2): 233—52.
28.
James, O. (2003) The Executive Agency Revolution in Whitehall: Public Interest versus Bureau-Shaping Perspectives. Basingstoke : Palgrave Macmillan.
29.
Likierman, A. (2003) `Planning and Controlling UK Public Expenditure on a Resource Basis', Public Money and Management (January): 45—50.
30.
Majone, G. (2002) `The European Commission: The Limits of Centralization and the Perils of Parliamentarianism', Governance15(3): 375—92.
31.
Marquand, D. (2004) Decline of the Public. Cambridge : Polity.
32.
Newman, J. (2004) `Constructing Accountability: Network Governance and Managerial Agency', Public Policy and Administration19(4): 17—33.
33.
O'Donnell, Sir G. (2006) Speech at the 21st, Century Public Services Conference, URL (consulted July 2006 ): http://www.nationalschool.gov.uk/psrc2006
34.
Office for the Commissioner of Public Appointments (2005) The Commissioner for Public Appointments, Tenth Report 2004—05. London: OCPA .
35.
Olsen, J. (2006) `Maybe it is Time to Rediscover Bureaucracy', Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory16(2): 1—24.
36.
Pollack, M. (2002) `Learning from Americanists: The Study of Delegation', West EuropeanPolitics25(1): 24—42.
37.
Pollitt, C. and Bouckaert, G. (2004) Public Management Reform: A Comparative Analysis , 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
38.
Skelcher, C. (1998) The Appointed State: Quasi-governmental Organizations and Democracy. Buckingham: Open University Press.
39.
Smith, M., Mathur, N. and Skelcher, C. (2006) `Corporate Governance in a Collaborative Environment' , Corporate Governance14(3): 159—71.
40.
Talbot, C. (2004) `Executive Agencies: Have They Improved Management in Government?', Public Money and Management (April): 104—11.
41.
Thatcher, M. and Stone Sweet, A. (2002) `Theory and Practice of Delegation to Non-Majoritarian Institutions', West European Politics25(1): 1—22.
Treasury (2005) Corporate Governance in Central Government Departments: Code of Good Practice, July. London: HM Treasury.
44.
Turnbull, Sir A. (2005) `Professionalising Public Management in an Era of Choice', Speech to the Guardian Public Services Summit, February, URL (consulted June 2006): http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk
45.
Turnbull Report (1999) Internal Control: Guidelines for Directors on the Combined Code. London: Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales.
46.
Van Theil, S. (2004) `Trends in the Public Sector: Why Politicians Prefer Quasi-Autonomous Organizations', Journal of Theoretical Politics16(2): 175—201.
47.
Van Theil, S. (2006) `Styles of Reform: Differences in Quango Creation between Policy Sectors in the Netherlands', Journal of Public Policy26(2): 115—39.
48.
Wilks, S. (2002) `The Unanticipated Consequences of Creating Independent Competition Agencies', West EuropeanPolitics25(3): 148—72.
49.
Willson, F. (1955) `Ministries and Boards: Some Aspects of Administrative Development Since 1832', Public Administration33(Spring): 43—58.
