Did they ‘Read before burning’? The Coalition and quangos

Katharine Dommett, Matthew Flinders, Chris Skelcher, Katherine Tonkiss

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Attitudes to quangos are paradoxical. On the one hand they are perceived to be undemocratic, unaccountable organisations, while on the other they are seen to improve effectiveness, limit political interference and increase public confidence in government. This paradox is reflected in the behaviour of political parties, which generally adopt a harsh line towards quangos in opposition, but come to rely on these bodies in office. Ahead of the 2010 general election it was, however, noticeable that the Conservative party rejected this dynamic by promising to pursue ‘a more sophisticated approach’. This article explores the Coalition government's subsequent ‘public bodies reform programme’, assessing its progress against recommendations contained within the Institute for Government's Read before Burning report of July 2010. It concludes that while the Coalition has addressed long-standing concerns about the day-to-day governance of public bodies, it has failed to resolve a set of broader and strategic (metagovernance) issues.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)133–142
Number of pages10
JournalPolitical Quarterly
Volume85
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Apr 2014

Bibliographical note

This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: Dommett, K., Flinders, M., Skelcher, C., & Tonkiss, K. (2014). Did they ‘Read before burning’? The Coalition and quangos. Political quarterly, 85(2), 133–142, which has been published in final form at http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-923X.12072. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Self-Archiving

Keywords

  • quangos
  • governance
  • democracy
  • accountability
  • control
  • failure

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Did they ‘Read before burning’? The Coalition and quangos'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this