Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Organizational justifications in public governance: seized or missed opportunities in the existence and operation of semi-autonomous state organizations?

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Global Public Policy and Governance Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Organizations of the state, often working with market and civil society organizations, are centrepieces of public governance. They collectively exist and operate in multiple arenas and, in doing so, make widely encompassing contributions to public life in the public interest. Their form, powers, purposes and performance can, and do, differ considerably from one type to another. This is particularly so where they are semi-autonomous executive bodies, statutory bodies and state-owned companies rather than centralized ministries and departments subject to direct government control. Their form and powers are ostensibly determined by governments as being well suited to purposes to be achieved through appropriate performance. Accordingly, it is important to know why and how they are, or can be, justified as such, as guided and informed by an understanding of their existence and operation.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aberbach, J. D., Putnam, R. D., & Rockman, B. A. (1981). Bureaucrats and politicians in western democracies. Harvard University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • AGPC (Australian Government Productivity Commission). (2009). Strengthening evidence-based policy in the Australian federation. AGPC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Appleby, P. H. (1949). Policy and administration. University of Alabama Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beetham, D. (2013). The legitimation of power (2nd ed.). Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Berkley, G. E. (1971). The administrative revolution: Notes on the passing of organization man. Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boin, A., Fahy, L. A., & ‘t Hart, P. (Eds.). (2021). Guardians of public value: How public organisations become and remain institutions. Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boston, J., Martin, J., Pallot, J., & Walsh, P. (1996). Public management: The New Zealand model. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bouckaert, G., & Halligan, J. (2008). Managing performance: International comparisons. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bovens, M., Schillemans, T., & ’t Hart, P. (2008). Does public accountability work? An Assessment Tool. Public Administration, 86(1), 225–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burns, T., & Stalker, G. M. (1961). The management of innovation. Tavistock.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caulfield, J., Peters, B. G., & Bouckaert, G. (eds.). (2006). The diffusion of the agency model [Special issue]. Public Administration and Development, 26(1), 1–92.

  • Christensen, T. (2022). Organization theory and public administration. In B. G. Peters & I. Thynne (Eds.), The Oxford encyclopedia of public administration (pp. 1043–1060). Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Curnow, G. R., & Saunders, C. A. (Eds.). (1983). Quangos: The Australian experience. Hale & Iremonger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dolowitz, D. P., & Marsh, D. (2000). Learning from abroad: The role of policy transfer in contemporary policy-making. Governance, 13(1), 5–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dudau, A., Verschuere, B., & Glennon, R. (eds.). (2019). Co-production, co-design and value co- creation in public services [Special issue]. Public Management Review, 21(11), 1577–1752.

  • Egeberg, M., & Trondal, J. (2022). The organizational basis for public governance. In B. G. Peters & I. Thynne (Eds.), The Oxford encyclopedia of public administration (pp. 1060–1078). Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, M. (2009). New directions in the study of policy transfer. Policy Studies, 30(3), 237–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Gjaltema, J., Biesbroek, R., & Termeer, K. (2019). From government to governance … to meta- governance: A systematic literature review. Public Management Review, 22(2), 1760–1780.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greer, P. (1994). Transforming central government: The next steps initiative. Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greve, C., Flinders, M., & Van Thiel, S. (1999). Quangos: What’s in a name? Defining quangos from a comparative perspective. Governance, 12(2), 129–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Head, B. W. (2014). Public administration and the promise of evidence-based policy: Experience in and beyond Australia. Asia Pacific Journal of Public Administration, 36(1), 48–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Head, B. W., Brown, A. J., & Connors, C. (Eds.). (2008). Promoting integrity: Evaluating and improving public institutions. Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodge, G. A., & Greve, C. (2007). Public-private partnerships: An international performance review. Public Administration Review, 67(3), 545–558.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hodge, G. A., Greve, C., & Boardman, A. E. (Eds.). (2010). International handbook on public-private partnerships. Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hood, C. C. (1986a). The hidden public sector: The quango-cratization of the world. In F.-X. Kaufman, G. Majone, & V. Ostrom (Eds.), Guidance, control and evaluation in the public sector (pp. 183–205). Walther de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hood, C. C. (1986b). Administrative analysis: An introduction to rules, enforcement and organisations. Wheatsheaf Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hood, C. C., & Schuppert, G. F. (Eds.). (1988). Delivering public services in Western Europe: Sharing Western European experience of para-government organization. Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huberts, L. W. J. C., Maesschalck, J., & Jurkiewicz, C. L. (Eds.). (2008). Ethics and integrity of governance: Perspectives across frontiers. Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kettl, D. F. (2000). The global public management revolution: A report on the transformation of governance. Brookings Institution Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knill, C., & Tosun, J. (2012). Public policy: A new introduction. Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kooiman, J., & Jentoft, S. (2009). Meta-governance: Values, norms and principles, and the making of hard choices. Public Administration, 87(4), 818–836.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lane, J.-E. (1997). Incorporation as public sector reform. In J.-E. Lane (Ed.), Public sector reform: Rationale, trends and problems (pp. 283–300). Sage.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lane, J.-E. (2005). Public administration and public management: The principal-agent perspective. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lane, J.-E. (2022). The principal-agent approach and public administration. In B. G. Peters & I. Thynne (Eds.), The Oxford encyclopedia of public administration (pp. 1202–1213). Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindberg, S. I. (2013). Mapping accountability: Core concept and subtypes. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 79(2), 202–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacCarthaigh, M., & Saarniit, L. (2022). Administrative culture. In B. G. Peters & I. Thynne (Eds.), The Oxford encyclopedia of public administration (pp. 14–33). Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marsh, D., & Evans, M. (eds.). (2012). Policy transfer: Coming of age and learning from the experience [Special issue]. Policy Studies, 33(6), 477–481.

  • NCFES (National Council for Fire and Emergency Services). (2023). NCFES Homepage: https://www.afac.com.au/. Accessed 1 Aug 2023

  • OECD. (2017). The size and sectoral distribution of state-owned enterprises. OECD Publishing.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2018). Ownership and governance of state-owned enterprises: A compendium of national practices. OECD Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development). (2002). Distributed public governance: Agencies, authorities and other government bodies. OECD Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olsen, J. P. (2010). Change and continuity: An institutional approach to institutions of democratic government. In J. Pierre & P. W. Ingraham (Eds.), Comparative administrative change and reform: Lessons learned (pp. 15–47). McGill-Queen’s University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Olsen, J. P. (2015). Democratic order, autonomy, and accountability. Governance, 28(4), 425–440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olvera, J. G., & Avellaneda, C. N. (2022). Performance management in public administration. In B. G. Peters & I. Thynne (Eds.), The Oxford encyclopedia of public administration (pp. 1093–1110). Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, D., & Gaebler, T. (1992). Reinventing government: How the entrepreneurial spirit is transforming the public sector. Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, V., & Ostrom, E. (1977). Public goods and public choices. In E. S. Savas (Ed.), Alternatives for delivering public services: Toward improved performance (pp. 7–49). Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Overman, S., & Van Thiel, S. (2016). Agencification and public sector performance: A systematic comparison in 20 countries. Public Management Review, 18(4), 611–635.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peters, B. G., & Bouckaert, G. (eds.). (2004). Symposium on autonomous organisations in the public sector [Special issue]. Public Administration and Development, 24(2), 89–181.

  • Pierre, J., & Ingraham, P. W. (Eds.). (2010). Comparative administrative change and reform: Lessons learned. McGill-Queen’s University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollitt, C., & Bouckaert, G. (2017). Public management reform: A comparative analysis—into the age of austerity (4th ed.). Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Popp, J. K., Milward, H. B., MacKean, G., Casebeer, A., & Lindstrom, R. (2014). Inter- organizational networks: A review of the literature to inform practice. IBM Center for the Business of Government.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rutter, J. (2012). Evidence and evaluation in policy making: A problem of supply or demand? Institute for Government.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sager, F., & Rosser, C. (2022). Weberian bureaucracy. In B. G. Peters & I. Thynne (Eds.), The Oxford encyclopedia of public administration (pp. 1497–1512). Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seidman, H. (1998). Politics, position, and power: The dynamics of federal organization (5th ed.). Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Selznick, P. (1957). Leadership in administration: A sociological interpretation. Harper and Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stanton, T. (2007). The life cycle of the government-sponsored enterprise: Lessons for design and accountability. Public Administration Review, 67(5), 837–845.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Svara, J. H. (1999). Complementarity of politics and administration as a legitimate alternative to the dichotomy model. Administration & Society, 30(6), 676–705.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Svara, J. H. (2001). The myth of the dichotomy: Complementarity of politics and administration in the past and future of public administration. Public Administration Review, 61(2), 176–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Svara, J. H. (2022). Woodrow Wilson and the tradition of dualism in public administration. In B. G. Peters & I. Thynne (Eds.), The Oxford encyclopedia of public administration (pp. 1524–1545). Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • SWFI (Sovereign Wealth Fund Institute). (2023). SWF Institute homepage: http:// www.swfinstitute.org/2023. Accessed 1 Aug 2023

  • Thynne, I. (2006). Statutory bodies: How distinctive and in what ways? Public Organization Review, 6(3), 171–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thynne, I. (2010). Leaders and leadership in administrative reform. In J. Pierre & P. W. Ingraham (Eds.), Comparative administrative change and reform: Lessons learned (pp. 68–87). McGill-Queen’s University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Thynne, I. (2011). Ownership as an instrument of policy and understanding in the public sphere: Trends and research agenda. Policy Studies, 32(3), 183–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thynne, I. (2012). Institutional maturity and challenges for integrity bodies. Policy Studies, 33(1), 37–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thynne, I. (2022a). Fundamentals of government structure: Alignments of organizations at and beyond the center of power. In B. G. Peters & I. Thynne (Eds.), The Oxford encyclopedia of public administration (pp. 546–564). Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thynne, I. (2022b). State-owned enterprises: Structures, functions, and legitimacy. In B. G. Peters & I. Thynne (Eds.), The Oxford encyclopedia of public administration (pp. 1395–1411). Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thynne, I. (2022c). Institutionalizing public action: Multiple alignments of goods, services, roles, and tasks. In B. G. Peters & I. Thynne (Eds.), The Oxford encyclopedia of public administration (pp. 799–819). Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thynne, I., & Peters, B. G. (2015). Addressing the present and the future in government and governance: Three approaches to organising public action. Public Administration and Development, 35(2), 73–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thynne, I., & Wettenhall, R. (2004). Public management and organizational autonomy: The continuing relevance of significant earlier knowledge. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 70(4), 609–621.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Dooren, W., Bouckaert, G., & Halligan, J. (2015). Performance management in the public sector (2nd ed.). Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Verhoest, K., Peters, B. G., Bouckaert, G., & Verschuere, B. (2004). The study of organizational autonomy: A conceptual review. Public Administration and Development, 24(2), 101–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Verhoest, K., Van Thiel, S., Bouckaert, G., & Laegreid, P. (Eds.). (2012). Government agencies: Practices and lessons from 30 countries. Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verhoest, K., Van Thiel, S., & De Vadder, S. (2022). Agencification in public administration. In B. G. Peters & I. Thynne (Eds.), The Oxford encyclopedia of public administration (pp. 101–121). Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organisation. A. M. Henderson & T. Parsons, Trans. & (eds.). Free Press.

  • Weber, M. (1973). Legitimate authority and bureaucracy. In D. S. Pugh (Ed.), Organization theory (pp. 5–29). Penguin Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weimer, D. L., & Vining, A. R. (1992). Policy analysis: Concepts and practice (2nd ed.). Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wettenhall, R. (2022). Machinery-of-government building blocks: Ministries, departments, and agencies. In B. G. Peters & I. Thynne (Eds.), The Oxford encyclopedia of public administration (pp. 945–957). Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • World Bank. (2017). World development report 2017: Governance and the law. World Bank.

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Politics and Public Administration, University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam Road, Hong Kong SAR, China

    Ian Thynne

Authors
  1. Ian Thynne
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ian Thynne.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The author has no competing interests to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Thynne, I. Organizational justifications in public governance: seized or missed opportunities in the existence and operation of semi-autonomous state organizations?. GPPG 3, 359–374 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43508-023-00081-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43508-023-00081-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation