Search

In Chapter 8 we discussed the extent to which agencies use management techniques, and whether differences or similarities exist in their use between agencies in different states. We emphasized comparisons across states, and whether the similarities and dissimilarities were upheld for agencies with certain features. In this chapter we analyse the extent to which agency characteristics, and the autonomy and control of agencies, make a difference for their use of various management techniques. Thus, we aim to answer the fifth research question: RQ 5: What agency-level factors influence the internal management of agencies? To what extent does the level of autonomy and control affect the internal management? As shown in Chapter 9, there is a wide variation in the degree to which agencies use management techniques — our dependent variables. Taking all agencies in the three states together, we see that half of them use techniques such as allocation of resources internally on the basis of performance and cost-calculation systems. Techniques related to quality management systems are used by approximately 35 per cent of the agencies. Techniques like multiyear planning (85 per cent), public reporting (93 per cent) and customer surveys (68 per cent) are applied by a (large) majority of the agencies in Norway, Ireland and Flanders.

The previous chapter shows that the dominant pattern for managerial autonomy, result control and use of management techniques is that Norwegian agencies rank higher than the other two states, and that they are closer to the NPM ideal-type model of agencies. Flemish agencies report using more management techniques than Irish agencies, but with regard to managerial autonomy and result control, agencies in these two states are quite similar, demonstrating low to moderate levels. In this chapter we discuss the third research question: RQ 3: How can we explain similar/dissimilar levels and patterns of autonomy, control and use of management techniques between the three states by referring to aspects of their politico-administrative regimes (state-level characteristics)? In Chapter 7 we formulated hypotheses on the importance of environmental pressures, politico-administrative culture, structural and functional elements of polity, and actor constellations and deliberate actions on agency autonomy, control and internal management (see Table 7.1). In the change management approach, hypotheses focused on the influence of environmental or state-level characteristics on the extent to which a state would adopt more radical NPM-type agency reforms. Such reforms would result in agencies which report relatively higher levels of managerial autonomy, result control and use of management techniques.

This chapter maps the development of agencies in the three states, with a particular focus on ‘waves’ or agencification and related administrative reforms. We respond to the first empirical research question, setting the background of this study: RQ 1: To what extent are agencies created by the governments of the three states, in what form, with what legal-structural status, and in which policy domains? What tasks are they performing? How is the creation o f agencies evolving over time? While clearly delineating what does or does not constitute an agency differs according to politico-administrative regimes, the definitions discussed in Chapter 2 provide a compass for our inquiries. Each state is considered in turn, beginning with Norway. The last part of the chapter compares the actual agency landscapes in the three states in terms of task, size, budget, governance structures and other characteristics.

The influence of management on the performance of public sector organizations has regained academic interest with the rise of the ‘management matters’ thesis, itself inspired to a large extent by the doctrines of ‘managerialism’ and the ‘New Public Management’. These doctrines advocate the adoption of private managerial tools (e.g. Hood 1991; Osborne and Gaebler 1992) within public sector organizations in order to increase their efficiency, effectiveness, and quality of service delivery. The amount of empirical evidence on the influence of managerial styles and strategies on organizational performance has been growing rapidly, but the contextual factors remain very unclear. Besides, not much is known about the influence of specific managerial tools on performance of public sector organizations. Finally, studies in this area mainly focus on governments as a whole rather than on individual public sector organizations.

In Chapter 8 we presented the extent of perceived agency autonomy and control for all agencies and for agencies within each of the three states. We emphasized comparisons across states, and examined whether the similarities and dissimilarities were upheld for agencies with certain features. In this chapter we check whether, and to what extent, agency characteristics make a difference for their autonomy and control. Thus, we aim to answer the fourth research question: RQ 4: What agency-level factors influence the degree and pattern of autonomy and control of agencies? The analysis is based on the discussion of the importance of structural, cultural and task features for agency autonomy and control in Chapter 10. As noted, in most instances the hypotheses being formulated imply variations in opposite directions for autonomy and control. The hypotheses are summarized in Table 11.1, together with the main arguments why these agency characteristics will make an impact on agency autonomy (and control).

Autonomous bodies established by or reformed under NPM-inspired reforms should be, from a normative point of view, characterized by (1) structural disaggregation, (2) managerial freedom, (3) contractual relationships with the oversight authorities, and (4) tasks on the operations side of the policy-operations divide. We aim to investigate the extent to which real-life agencies reflect these normative characteristics, by taking as an empirical setting the Flemish and Italian public sectors. Our findings suggest that in reality, the normative NPM ideal type agency is only rarely observed. Secondly, we want to explore the effect of the country, the age, and the tasks of the agency on the extent to which it reflects the characteristics of the NPM ideal-type. We find that Italian agencies better reflect the ideal type compared to their Flemish counterparts, and that there is virtually no effect of agencies' age and tasks on the extent to which they reflect the NPM ideal typical agency.

Scholarship interested in nonprofits’ repertoire of political tactics, and its possible ‘qualitative thinning out’ – i.e. a presumed shift in political tactics – has been limited by two major caveats: (1) political tactics are often reduced to advocacy tactics alone and (2) political tactics are examined within a predominantly liberal nonprofit regime. We address these issues by focusing on a neo-corporatist nonprofit regime and including politicization tactics. Our statistical analysis is based on a database of nonprofits in Flanders, the northern region of Belgium (N = 496). Our results show that (a) advocacy is more heavily pursued than politicization, (b) there are similarities between the political repertoire of advocacy and politicization, (c) cooperative and direct political tactics are more frequently used than confrontational and indirect ones and (d) the assumption of ‘qualitative thinning out’ should be replaced by the assumption of ‘neo-corporatist path dependency’ for the Flemish context.