Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-66d7dfc8f5-tkm4r Total loading time: 0.266 Render date: 2023-02-08T05:27:25.710Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "useRatesEcommerce": false } hasContentIssue false
  • English
British Journal of Political Science British Journal of Political Science

Article contents

The Politics of Agency Death: Ministers and the Survival of Government Agencies in a Parliamentary System

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2015

Oliver James ,
Nicolai Petrovsky ,
Alice Moseley  and
George A. Boyne
Get access Rights & Permissions[Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article extends the theory of government agency survival from separation of powers to parliamentary government systems. It evaluates expectations of increased risk to agencies following transitions in government, prime minister or departmental minister, and from incongruence between the originally establishing and currently overseeing political executive. Using survival models for UK executive agencies between 1989 and 2012, the study finds that politics trumps performance. Ministers seek to make their mark by terminating agencies created by previous ministers, which is reinforced by high media attention to the agency. Performance against agency targets is not associated with higher termination risk, and replacement agencies do not perform any better than those that were terminated. Financial autonomy provides some protection for agencies that are less dependent on budgetary appropriations.

Type
Articles
Information
British Journal of Political Science , Volume 46 , Issue 4 , October 2016 , pp. 763 - 784
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Department of Politics, University of Exeter (email: o.james@exeter.ac.uk); Martin School of Public Policy & Administration, University of Kentucky (email: nicolai.petrovsky@uky.edu); Department of Politics, University of Exeter (email: a.moseley@exeter.ac.uk); Cardiff Business School, Cardiff University (email: boyne@cardiff.ac.uk). Support for this research was provided by the UK Economic and Social Research Council (Chief Executive Succession and the Performance of Central Government Agencies, grant no RES-062-23-2471). We would like to thank J.S. Butler and Ken Meier for helpful comments on earlier versions of this article. Replication data and code will be available by June 2015 at http://dx.doi.org/doi: 10.1017/S0007123414000477 and also at http://socialsciences.exeter.ac.uk/politics/research/projects/executiveagencies/ and http://www.petrovsky.ws/.

References

Adam, C., Bauer, M.W., Knill, C., and Studinger, P.. 2007. The Termination of Public Organizations: Theoretical Perspectives to Revitalise a Promising Research Area. Public Organization Review 7:221–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aldrich, H.E., and Auster, E.. 1986. Even Dwarfs Started Small: Liabilities of Age and Size and their Strategic Implications. In Population Perspectives on Organizations, edited by H.E. Aldrich, 29–60. Uppsala: Coronet Books.Google Scholar
Alesina, Alberto, Roubini, Nouriel, and Cohen, Gerald D.. 1997. Political Cycles and the Macroeconomy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Allison, Paul D. 1984. Event History Analysis: Regression for Longitudinal Event Data. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Altman, E. 1968. Financial Ratios, Discriminant Analysis, and the Prediction of Corporate Bankruptcy. Journal of Finance 23:589–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumgartner, F.R., and Jones, B.D.. 2009. Agendas and Instability in American Politics, 2nd Edition Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Beck, Nathaniel, Katz, Jonathan N., and Tucker, Richard. 1998. Taking Time Seriously: Time-Series-Cross-Section Analysis with a Binary Dependent Variable. American Journal of Political Science 42 (40):1260–1288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berlinski, S., Dewan, T., and Dowding, K.M.. 2012. Accounting for Ministers: Scandal and Survival in British Government 1945–2007. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berry, Christopher R., and Howell, William G.. 2007. Accountability and Local Elections: Rethinking Retrospective Voting. Journal of Politics 69 (3):844–858.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blondel, J. 1985. Government and Ministers in the Contemporary World. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Boin, A., Kuipers, S., and Steenbergen, M.. 2010. The Life and Death of Public Organizations: A Question of Institutional Design? Governance 23 (3):385–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyne, G.A., James, O., John, P., and Petrovsky, N.. 2009. Democracy and Government Performance: Holding Incumbents Accountable in English Local Governments. Journal of Politics 71 (4):1273–1284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burden, B., Berry, C.R., and Howell, W.G.. 2010. After Enactment: The Lives and Deaths of Federal Programs. American Journal of Political Science 54:1–14.Google Scholar
Carpenter, D., and Lewis, D.E.. 2004. Political Learning from Rare Events: Poisson Inference, Fiscal Constraints and the Lifetime of Bureaus. Political Analysis 12:201–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carpenter, D.P. 2001. The Forging of Bureaucratic Autonomy: Networks, Reputations and Policy Innovation in Executive Agencies, 1862–1928. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Castles, F.G., ed. 1982. The Impact of Political Parties: Politics and Policies in Capitalist Democratic States. London: Sage.Google Scholar
de Figueiredo, Rui J.P. Jr. 2002. Electoral Competition, Political Uncertainty, and Policy Insulation. American Political Science Review 96 (2):321–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dess, G.G., and Beard, D.W.. 1984. Dimensions of Organizational Task Environment. Administrative Science Quarterly 29:52–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, Ruth, Arndt, Christiane, Mullers, Manuel, Vakkuri, Jarmo, Engblom-Pelkkala, Kristiina, and Hood, Christopher. 2013. A Lever for Improvement or a Magnet for Blame? Press and Political Responses to International Educational Rankings in Four EU Countries. Public Administration 91 (2):484–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowding, K.M., and Dumont, P., eds. 2009. The Selection of Ministers in Europe: Hiring and Firing. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Downs, A. 1967. Inside Bureaucracy. Boston: Little Brown.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elgie, R., and McMenamin, I.. 2005. Credible Commitment, Political Uncertainty or Policy Complexity? British Journal of Political Science 35:531–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falvey, R., Greenaway, D., and Yu, Z.. 2007. Market Size and the Survival of Foreign-Owned Firms. The Economic Record 83:S23–S34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, Stewart D., and Saul, Kathleen. 1991. A Leader’s Wake: Organization Member Reactions to CEO Succession. Journal of Management 17 (3):619–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilardi, F. 2008. Delegation in the Regulatory State: Independent Regulatory Agencies in Western Europe. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilmour, J.B., and Lewis, D.E.. 2006a. Assessing Performance Budgeting at OMB: The Influence of Politics, Performance, and Program Size. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 16 (2):169–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilmour, J.B., and Lewis, D.E.. 2006b. Does Performance Budgeting Work? An Examination of OMB’s PART Scores. Public Administration Review 66 (5):742–752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grusky, Oscar. 1960. Administrative Succession in Large Organizations. Social Forces 39 (2):105–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grusky, Oscar. 1963. Managerial Succession and Organizational Effectiveness. American Journal of Sociology 69 (1):21–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hannan, M.T., and Freeman, J.. 1989. Organizational Ecology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Heffernan, R. 2003. Prime Ministerial Predominance? Core Executive Politics in the UK. British Journal of Politics and International Relations 5:347–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heinrich, Carolyn J. 2012. How Credible is the Evidence, and Does it Matter? An Analysis of the Program Assessment Rating Tool. Public Administration Review 72 (1):123–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heiss, F., and Köke, J.. 2004. Dynamics in Ownership and Firm Survival: Evidence from Corporate Germany. European Financial Management 10 (1):167–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huber, J.D., and Lupia, A.. 2001. Delegation with Potentially Unstable Principals: How Coalition Termination Affects Bureaucratic Accountability in Parliamentary Democracy. American Journal of Political Science 45:18–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
James, O. 2003. The Executive Agency Revolution in Whitehall: Public Interest Versus Bureau-Shaping Perspectives. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
James, O.. 2004. The UK Core Executive’s Use of Public Service Agreements as a Tool of Governance. Public Administration 82 (2):397–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
James, O., and van Thiel, S.. 2010. Structural Devolution to Agencies. In The Ashgate Companion to New Public Management, edited by Tom Christensen and Per Laegreid Farnham, 209–222. Surrey: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Jenkins, S.P. 2005. Survival Analysis. Book manuscript. Available from https://www.iser.essex.ac.uk/resources/survival-analysis-with-stata (accessed 20 November 2013).Google Scholar
Jennings, Will, Bevan, Shaun, and John, Peter. 2011. The Agenda of British Government: The Speech from the Throne, 1911–2008. Political Studies 59 (1):74–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jennings, Will, and John, Peter. 2009. The Dynamics of Political Attention: Public Opinion and the Queen’s Speech in the United Kingdom. American Journal of Political Science 53 (4):838–854.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
John, Peter, and Jennings, Will. 2010. Punctuations and Turning Points in British Politics: The Policy Agenda of the Queen’s Speech 1940–2005. British Journal of Political Science 40 (3):561–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaufman, H. 1976. Are Government Organizations Immortal? Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
King, G., Alt, J.E., Burns, N.E., and Laver, M.. 1990. A Unified Model of Cabinet Dissolution in Parliamentary Democracies. American Journal of Political Science 34 (3):846–871.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laegreid, Per, and Verhoest, Koen, eds. 2010. Governance of Public Sector Organizations: Proliferation, Autonomy and Performance, Governance and Public Management Series. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, David E. 2002. The Politics of Agency Termination: Confronting the Myth of Agency Immortality. Journal of Politics 64 (1):89–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, David E.. 2004. The Adverse Consequences of the Politics of Agency Design for Presidential Management in the United States. British Journal of Political Science 34:377–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCubbins, M.D., Noll, R., and Weingast, B.. 1989. Structure and Process, Politics and Policy: Administrative Arrangements and the Political Control of Agencies. Virginia Law Review 75:431–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moe, Terry M., and Caldwell, Michael. 1994. The Institutional Foundations of Democratic Government: A Comparison of Presidential and Parliamentary Systems. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics 150 (1):171–195.Google Scholar
National Audit Office (NAO). 2010. Reorganising Central Government, Report by the Comptroller and Auditor General, HC 452, Session 2009–2010. London: NAO.Google Scholar
North, D. 1993. Institutions and Credible Commitment. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics 149 (1):11–23.Google Scholar
Olsen, J.P. 2009. Democratic Governments Institutional Autonomy and the Dynamics of Change. West European Politics 32 (3):439–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peters, G., and Hogwood, B.W.. 1988. Births, Deaths and Marriages. Organizational Change in the US Federal Bureaucracy. The American Review of Public Administration 18:119–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollitt, Christopher, and Bouckaert, Geert. 2003. Public Management Reform: A Comparative Analysis, 2nd Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pollitt, Christopher, and Talbot, Colin, eds. 2004. Unbundled Government: A Critical Analysis of the Global Trend to Agencies, Quangos and Contractualisation. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Powell, R.G. 1997. Modelling Takeover Likelihood. Journal of Business Finance and Accounting 24:1009–1030.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ranney, Austin. 1954. The Doctrine of Responsible Party Government. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Rolland, V.W., and Roness, P.G.. 2009. Mapping Organizational Change in the State: Challenges and Classifications. Paper Presented at International Workshop on Mapping State Administrations: Towards a Common European Research Agenda, Dublin, 20 March.Google Scholar
Rose, R. 1987. Ministers and Ministries: A Functional Analysis. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Schmidt, Manfred G. 1996. When Parties Matter: A Review of the Possibilities and Limits of Partisan Influence on Public Policy. European Journal of Political Research 30:155–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stinchcombe, A.L. 1965. Social Structure and Organizations. In Handbook of Organizations, edited by J.G. March, 142–193. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally & Company.Google Scholar
Strøm, K. 2000. Delegation and Accountability in Parliamentary Democracies. European Journal of Political Research 37:261–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsebelis, G. 2002. Veto Players: How Political Institutions Work. Princeton, NJ: University of Princeton Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verhoest, Koen Sandra van Thiel, Geert Bouckaert, and Per Laegreid, eds. 2012. Government Agencies: Practices and Lessons from 30 Countries. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Warwick, P.V. 1995. Government Survival in Parliamentary Democracies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, A., and Dunleavy, P.. 2010. Making and Breaking Whitehall Departments: A Guide to Machinery of Government Changes. London: LSE/Institute for Government.Google Scholar
Wollebaek, D. 2009. Survival in Local Voluntary Associations. Nonprofit Management and Leadership 19 (3):267–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

James et al. supplementary data

Supplementary data

Download James et al. supplementary data(File)
File 39 KB
Supplementary material: File

James et al. supplementary data

SUpplementary data

Download James et al. supplementary data(File)
File 361 KB
Supplementary material: PDF

James supplementary material

Appendix 1

Download James supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 81 KB
Supplementary material: File

James

Data

Download James(File)
File 62 KB
32
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

The Politics of Agency Death: Ministers and the Survival of Government Agencies in a Parliamentary System
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

The Politics of Agency Death: Ministers and the Survival of Government Agencies in a Parliamentary System
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

The Politics of Agency Death: Ministers and the Survival of Government Agencies in a Parliamentary System
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *