Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Agencification in Europe

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Palgrave Handbook of Public Administration and Management in Europe

Abstract

Agencification, referring to the creation of semi-autonomous public organizations at arm’s length from government, has been a major trend. After highlighting the features of public agencies in their different appearances in Europe, we discuss how NPM and Post-NPM have changed the motives for agency creation and agency governance. The basic dimensions of organizational autonomy and control are discussed as well as what research has learned us about them as static phenomena. We outline how agency autonomy is influenced by organizational, task-related factors and politico-administrative culture. Agency autonomy and control is increasingly understood as dynamic, relational and socially constructed phenomena. We discuss relevant studies and delve into relations between autonomy, reputation and trust. Future challenges for research and practice like effect studies are listed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Andrews, R. (2011). NPM and the search for efficiency. In T. Christensen & P. Lægreid (Eds.), The Ashgate research companion to new public management (pp. 281–294). Farnham, SRY: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bach, T. (2010). Policy and management autonomy of federal agencies in Germany. In P. Lægreid & K. Verhoest (Eds.), Governance of public sector organizations—proliferation, autonomy, and performance (pp. 89–110). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bach, T., & Jann, W. (2010). Animals in the administrative zoo: Organizational change and agency autonomy in Germany. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 76, 443–468.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bach, T., & Ruffing, E. (2013). Networking for autonomy? National agencies in European networks. Public Administration, 91, 712–726.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bach, T., Ruffing, E., & Yesilkagit, K. (2015). The differential empowering effects of Europeanization on the autonomy of national agencies. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration and Institutions, 28, 285–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bach, T., de Francesco, F., Maggetti, M., & Ruffing, E. (2016). Transnational bureaucratic politics: An institutional rivalry perspective on EU Network Governance. Public Administration, 94, 9–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bianculli, A. C., Fernández-i-Marín, X., & Jordana, J. (2013, October). The World of regulatory agencies: Institutional varieties and administrative traditions (Jerusalem Papers on Regulation and Governance, JPRG Paper No. 58).

    Google Scholar 

  • Bilodeau, N., Laurin, C., & Vining, A. (2007). Choice of organizational form makes a real difference: The impact of corporatization on government agencies in Canada. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 17, 119–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bouckaert, G. (1997). Overview and synthesis. In OECD, Search of results: Performance management practices in ten OECD Countries. Paris: Public Management Committee, OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bouckaert, G., Peters, B., & Verhoest, K. (2010). The coordination of public sector organizations: Shifting patterns of public management. London Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Boyne, G. A., & Walker, R. M. (2005). Introducing the “determinants of performance in public organizations” symposium. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15, 483–488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braadbaart, O., Van Eybergen, N., & Hoffer, J. (2007). Managerial autonomy: Does it matter for the performance of water utilities? Public Administration and Development, 27, 111–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Busuioc, M., Curtin, D., & Groenleer, M. (2011). Agency growth between autonomy and accountability: The European police office as a “living institution”. Journal of European Public Policy, 18, 848–867.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Busouic, M., Groenleer, M., & Trondal, J. (Eds.). (2012). The agency phenomenon in the European Union. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter, D. P. (2001). Forging bureaucratic autonomy: Reputations, networks and policy innovation in executive agencies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter, D., & Krause, G. A. (2012). Reputation and public administration. Public Administration Review, 72, 26–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, J. G. (2001). Bureaucratic autonomy as a political asset. In B. G. Peters & J. Pierre (Eds.), Politicians, bureaucrats and administrative reform. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, T., & Laegreid, P. (Eds.). (2006). Autonomy and regulation: Coping with agencies in the modern state. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, T., & Laegreid, P. (2007). The whole-of-government approach to public sector reform. Public Administration Review, 67, 1059–1066.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, T., & Laegreid, P. (2008). NPM and beyond: Structure, culture and demography. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 74, 7–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, T., Laegreid, P., & Rovik, K. A. (2007). Organization theory and the public sector: Instrument, culture, and myth. Oxon: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, J. G., & Nielsen, V. L. (2010). Administrative capacity, structural choice and the creation of EU agencies. Journal of European Public Policy, 17, 176–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dan, S. (2014). The effects of agency reform in Europe: A review of the evidence. Public Policy and Administration, 29, 221–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dan, S., Jilke, S., Pollitt, C., van Delft, S., Van de Walle, S., & van Thiel (2012). Effects of privatization and agencification on citizens and citizenship: an international comparison. COCOPS, 43. European Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Bruijn, H., & Dicke, W. (2006). Strategies for safeguarding public values in liberalized utility sectors. Public Administration, 84, 717–737.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dommett, K., & MacCarthaigh, M. (2016). Quango reform: The next steps. Public Money and Management, 36(4), 249–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Egeberg, M. (1999). The impact of bureaucratic structure on policy making. Public Administration, 77(1), 155–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Egeberg, M. (2006). Multilevel union administration: The transformation of executive politics in Europe. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Egeberg, M., & Trondal, J. (2009). Political leadership and bureaucratic autonomy: Effects of agencification. Governance, 22, 673–688.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elston, T., & MacCarthaigh, M. (2016). Sharing services, saving money? Five risks to cost-saving when organizations share services. Public Money & Management, 36, 349–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flinders, M. V., & Smith, M. J. (Eds.). (1999). Quangos, accountability and reform: The politics of quasi-government. London: MacMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilardi, F. (2002). Policy credibility and delegation to independent regulatory agencies: A comparative empirical analysis. Journal of European Public Policy, 9, 873–893.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilardi, F. (2008). Delegation in the regulatory state: Independent regulatory agencies in Western Europe. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Greve, C., Flinders, M. V., & van Thiel, S. (1999). Quangos: What’s in a name? Defining quasi-autonomous bodies from a comparative perspective. Governance, 12, 129–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Groenleer, M. (2009). The autonomy of European union agencies: A comparative study of institutional development. Ph.D. thesis, Delft.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanretty, C., & Koop, C. (2012). Measuring the formal independence of regulatory agencies. Journal of European Public Policy, 19, 198–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hawkins, D. G., & Jacoby, W. (2006). How agents matter? In D. G. Hawkins, D. A. Lake, D. L. Nielsen, & M. J. Tierney (Eds.), Delegation and agency in international organizations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks CA Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horn, M. (1995). The political economy of public administration: Institutional choice in the public sector. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Huber, J. D., & Shipan, C. R. (2002). Deliberate discretion: The institutional foundations of bureaucratic autonomy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Huber, J. D., Shipan, C. R., & Pfahler, M. (2001). Legislatures and statutory control of bureaucracy. Americal Journal of Political Science, 45, 330–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, C. (2014). Structural and behavioural independence: Mapping the meaning of agency independence at the field level. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 80, 257–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • James, O. (2003). The executive agency revolution in Whitehall. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Jordana, J., Levi-Faur, D., & Fernandez i Marín, X. (2011). The global diffusion of regulatory agencies. Comparative Political Studies, 44, 1343–1369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, N., & Cho, W. (2014). Agencification and performance: The impact of autonomy and result-control on the performance of executive agencies in Korea. Public Performance & Management Review, 38, 214–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Korinek, R.-L., & Veit, S. (2015). Only good fences keep good neighbors! The institutionalization of ministry-agency relationships at the science-policy nexus in German food safety policy. Public Administration, 93, 103–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laegreid, P., & Verhoest, K. (Eds.). (2010). Governance of public sector organizations: Proliferation, autonomy and performance. Southampton, HPH: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laegreid, P., Roness, P. G., & Rubecksen, K. (2006). Performance management in practice—The Norwegian Way. Financial Accountability and Management, 22, 251–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laegreid, P., Roness, P. G., & Rubecksen, K. (2008). Controlling regulatory agencies. Scandinavian Political Studies, 31, 1–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laegreid, P., Roness, P. G., & Verhoest, K. (2011). Explaining the innovative culture and activities ofstate agencies. Organization Studies, 32, 1321–1347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lonti, Z. (2005). How much decentralization? The American Review Public Administration, 35, 122–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maggetti, M. (2007). De facto independence after delegation: A fuzzy-set analysis. Regulation & Governance, 1, 271–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maggetti, M. (2012). Regulation in practice. Colchester: ECPR Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maggetti, M., & Verhoest K. (2014). Unexplored aspects of bureaucratic autonomy: A state of the field and ways forward. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 80, 239–256 (ISSN 0020-8523-80).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Majone, G. (1997). From the positive to the regulatory state: Causes and consequences of changes in the mode of governance. Journal of Public Policy, 17, 139–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mathieu, E., Verhoest, K., & Matthys, J. (2016). Measuring multi-level regulatory governance: Organizational proliferation, coordination, and concentration of influence. Regulation & Governance. Published in early view: 15 august 2016.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moe, T. M. (1989). The politics of structural choice: Toward a theory of public bureaucracy. In O. E. Williamson (Ed.), Organization theory: From chester barnard to the present and beyond. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moe, T. M. (1990). The Politics of Structural Choice: Toward a Theory of Public Bureaucracy, In O. Williamson (ed.), Organization Theory: From Chester Barnard to the Present and Beyond. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (1994). Performance management in government: Performance measurement and results oriented management. Paris: Public Management Committee, OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (1997). Report on regulatory reform. Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2002). Distributed public governance: Agencies, authorities and other government bodies. Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2008). Ireland: Towards an integrated public service. Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ongaro, E. (2009). Public management reform and modernization: Trajectories of administrative change in Italy, France, Greece, Portugal and Spain. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ongaro, E., Parrado, S., & Verhoest, K. (2012). Comparing agencification in Latin countries. In K. Verhoest, S. Van Thiel, P. Laegreid, & G. Bouckaert (Eds.), Government agencies. practices and lessons from 30 countries. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ossege, C. (2015). Driven by expertise and insulation? The autonomy of European regulatory agencies. Politics and Governance, 3, 101–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Overman, S. (2016a). Autonomous agencies, happy citizens? Challenging the satisfaction claim. Governance. Published in early view on doi:10.1111/gove.12207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Overman, S. (2016b). Great Expectations of Public Service Delegation: A Systematic Review. Public Management Review, 18 (8), 1238–1262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Overman, S., & van Thiel, S. (2016). Agencification and public sector performance: A systematic comparison in 20 countries. Public Management Review, 18, 611–635.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Painter, M., & Peters, B. G. (Eds.). (2010). Tradition and public administration. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Painter, M., & Yee, W. H. (2011). Task matters: A structural-instrumental analysis of the autonomy of Hong Kong government bodies. The American Review of Public Administration, 41, 395–410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pérez-López, G., Prior, D., & Zafra-Gómez, J. L. (2015). Rethinking new public management delivery forms and efficiency: Long-term effects in Spanish local government. JPART, 25, 1157–1183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pollitt, C. (2004). Theoretical overview. In C. Pollitt & C. Talbot (Eds.), Unbundled government: A critical analysis of the global trend to agencies, quangos and contractualization (pp. 319–341). London: Routledge.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Pollitt, C., & Bouckaert, G. (2011). Public management reform: A comparative analysis new public management, governance and the Neo-Weberian State (3rd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollitt, C., Bathgate, K., Caulfield, J., Smullen, A., & Talbot, C. (2001). Agency fever? Analysis of an international policy fashion. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 3, 271–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pollitt, C., Talbot, C., Caufield, J., & Smullen, A. (2004). Agencies: How governments do things through semi-autonomous organizations. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rommel, J. (2012). Organization and Management of Regulation. Autonomy and Coordination in a Multi-Actor Setting. Ph.D., KULeuven.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rommel, J., & Verhoest, K. (2014). Exploring effects of coordination on the autonomy of regulators. Energy regulators in Belgium. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 80(2), 298–317 (ISSN 0020-8523-80).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roness, P. G. (2007). Types of state organizations: Arguments, doctrines and changes beyond new public management. In T. Christensen & P. Lægreid (Eds.), Transcending new public management. The transformation of public sector reforms (pp. 65–88). Aldershot: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruffing, E. (2015). Agencies between two worlds: Information asymmetry in multi-level policy-making. Journal of European Public Policy, 22, 1109–1126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schedler, K., & Proeller, I. (Eds). (2011). Cultural aspects of public management reform. Research in public policy analysis and management (Vol. 16). Oxford: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schick, A. (2002). Agencies in search of principles. In OECD. Distributed public governance: Agencies, authorities and other government bodies (pp. 33–52). Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schillemans, T. (2013). Moving beyond the clash of interests: On stewardship theory and the relationships between central government departments and public agencies. Public Management Review, 15, 541–562.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Talbot, C. (2004). Executive agencies: Have they improved management in government? Public Money & Management, 24, 104–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thatcher, M., & Sweet, A. S. (2002). Theory and practice of delegation to non-majoritarian institutions. West European Politics, 25, 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van der Wal, Z. (2008). Value solidity. An empirical perspective on the differences, similarities and conflicts between the organizational values of government and business. Amsterdam: VU University Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • van der Wal, Z., & Huberts, L. W. J. C. (2008). Value solidity in government and business. Results of an empirical study on public and private sector organizational values. American Review of Public Administration, 38, 264–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Thiel, S. (2012). Comparing agencies across countries. In K. Verhoest, S. van Thiel, G. Bouckaert, & P. Lægreid (Eds.), Government agencies: Practices and lessons from 30 countries (pp. 18–26). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Van Thiel, S., & van der Wal, Z. (2010). The effect of organizational value congruence on therelationship between ministries and quangos. Public Organization Review, 10, 377–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Thiel, S., & Yesilkagit, K. (2011). Good neighbours or distant friends? Public Management Review, 13, 783–802.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Thiel, S., & Yesilkagit, K. (2014). Does task matter? The effect of task on the establishment, autonomy and control of semi-autonomous agencies. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 80, 318–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Thiel, S., Verhoest, K., Bouckaert, G., & Laegreid, P. (2012). Lesson and recommendations for the practice of agencification. In K. Verhoest, S. van Thiel, G. Bouckaert, & P. Lægreid (Eds.), Government agencies: Practices and lessons from 30 countries (pp. 413–439). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Verhoest, K. (2013). Agencification processes in the public sector: forms and governance. In P. Valkama et al. (Eds.), Organizational innovation in public services. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verhoest, K., & Laegreid, P. (2010). Organizing public sector agencies: Challenges and reflections. In P. Laegreid & K. Verhoest (Eds.), Governance of public sector organizations: Proliferation, autonomy and performance (pp. 275–297). Southampton, HPH: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verhoest, K., & Wynen, J. (2016). Why do autonomous public agencies use performance management techniques? Revisiting the role of basic organizational characteristics. International Public Management Journal. Published online in early view: 28 June 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verhoest, K., Peters, G. B., Bouckaert, G., & Vermeulen, B. (2004). The study of organizational autonomy: A conceptual overview. Public Administration and Development, 24, 101–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verhoest, K., Verschuere, B., & Bouckaert, G. (2007). Pressure legitimacy and innovative behavior by public organizations. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration and Institutions, 20, 469–497.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verhoest, K., Roness, P. G., Verschuere, B., Rubecksen, K., & MacCarthaigh, M. (2010). Autonomy and control of state agencies: Comparing states and agencies. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Verhoest, K., van Thiel, S., Bouckaert, G., & Lægreid, P. (Eds.). (2012). Government agencies in Europe and beyond: Practices and lessons from 30 countries. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verhoest, K., Rommel, J., & Boon, J. (2015). How organizational reputation and trust may affect autonomy of independent regulators? The case of the flemish energy regulator. In A. Waeraas & M. Maor (Eds.), Organizational reputation in the public sector (pp. 118–138). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verschuere, B. (2006). Autonomy & control in arm’s length public agencies: Exploring the determinants of policy autonomy. Ph.D., KULeuven.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walsh, K. (1995). Public services and market mechanisms: Competition, contracting and the new public management. London: MacMillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wettenhall, R. (2005). Agencies and non-departmental public bodies: The hard and soft lenses of agencification theory. Public Management Review, 7, 615–635.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, J. Q. (1989). Bureaucracy: What government agencies do and why they do it. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wonka, A., & Rittberger, B. (2010). Credibility, complexity and uncertainty: Explaining the institutional independence of 29 EU agencies. West European Politics Journal, 33, 730–752.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wynen, J., & Verhoest, K. (2015). Do NPM-type reforms lead to a cultural revolution within public sector organizations? Public Management Review, 17, 356–379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wynen, J., & Verhoest, K. (2016). Internal performance-based steering in public sector organizations: Examining the effect of organizational autonomy and external result control. Public Performance & Management Review, 39, 535–559.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wynen, J., Verhoest, K., & Rübecksen, K. (2014a). Decentralization within public sector organizations: Do organizational autonomy and result control lead to decentralization towards lower hierarchical levels? Public Performance & Management Review, 37, 497–521.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wynen, J., Verhoest, K., van Thiel, S., & Ongaro, E. (2014b). Innovation-oriented culture in the public sector: Do managerial autonomy and result control lead to innovation?. Public Management Review, 16(1), 45–66 (ISSN1471-9037).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yamamoto, K. (2006). Performance of semi-autonomous public bodies: Linkage between autonomy and performance in Japanese agencies. Public Administration and Development, 26, 35–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yesilkagit, A. K. (2004). Bureaucratic autonomy organizational culture, and habituation: Politicians and independent administrative bodies in the netherlands. Administration & Society, 36, 528–552.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yesilkagit, K. (2011). Institutional compliance, European networks of regulation and the bureaucratic autonomy of national regulatory authorities. Journal of European Public Policy, 18(7), 962–979.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yesilkagit, K., & Christensen, J. G. (2010). Institutional design and formal autonomy: Political versus historical and cultural explanations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20, 53–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yesilkagit, K., & van Thiel, S. (2008). Political influence and bureaucratic autonomy. Public Organization Review, 8, 137–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yesilkagit, A. K., & van Thiel, S. (2012). Autonomous agencies and perceptions of stakeholder influence in parliamentary democracies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22, 101–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zito, A. R. (2015). Expertise and power: Agencies operating in complex environments. Politics and Governance, 3, 73–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Research Group on Public Administration and Management, Department of Political Science, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium

    Koen Verhoest

Authors
  1. Koen Verhoest
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Koen Verhoest .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department for Public Leadership and Social Enterprise—PulSE Faculty of Business and Law , The Open University, Milton Keynes, United Kingdom

    Edoardo Ongaro

  2. Institute for Management Research, Radboud University Nijmegen, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

    Sandra Van Thiel

Copyright information

© 2018 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Verhoest, K. (2018). Agencification in Europe. In: Ongaro, E., Van Thiel, S. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Public Administration and Management in Europe. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-55269-3_17

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation