MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W7026532224

Agencification in Canada: pulling back the veil of arms-length government

2021· dissertation· en· W7026532224 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff

Notice bibliographique

RevueUVic’s Research and Learning Repository (University of Victoria) · 2021
Typedissertation
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiquePublic Policy and Administration Research
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésAgency (philosophy)Transparency (behavior)Government (linguistics)Public sectorCorporate governancePublic serviceNew public managementPublic policy
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Governments around the world, including Canada, continue to look for new ways to structure themselves and deliver services to accommodate the growing challenges of governing in an increasingly complex global environment. One strategy is to hive off functions to arms-length entities. This continues to be a popular option for service delivery, consuming significant amounts of public resources with little understood about the implications on accountability, performance, transparency and cost. Distributing public governance by moving functions further out from the institutional centre of government has tended to make the public sector less visible. In Canada, there has been negligible critical analysis about the trend and its impacts, in particular, at the provincial level. This study addresses that gap by analyzing the use of arms-length entities over time in two provinces, British Columbia and Ontario. It empirically determines trends in agencification, explores the rationale for creation and use of arms-length entities, and contributes to a better understanding of the implications, impacts and challenges that continue to arise in distributing public governance. 
\n\tThe study uses a mixed methods approach relying on a quantitative analysis of jurisdictional data to describe changes in the agency landscape in British Columbia and Ontario over a 65 -year period from 1951 to 2016. The qualitative strategy uses 32 interviews of current and past government and agency executives to provide insights into the rationale for agency creation, relationships between government and its arms-length entities, the impacts on public sector governance, and the future of agencification. Document and literature reviews were conducted to support the analysis of both the quantitative and qualitative data.
\n\tResults show there has been a continued and statistically significant increase in the overall number of arms-length entities in both jurisdictions over time. Creation, though, ebbs and flows, and is not necessarily a reflection of political ideology or economic climate. However, political influence has not been eliminated with the establishment of governance frameworks for arms-length entities. Recognizing this, agencies have become more adept at reading political signals and building relationships with government that earn them trust and autonomy. The key findings of this study suggest that:
\n1.\tThe governance structures in Canada continue, increasingly, to illustrate a broad range of arms-length entities to deliver a breadth of services and functions, with little consistency in the rationale and structure for their creation. 
\n2.\tNew governance controls and mechanisms are being implemented to address issues of performance, accountability and political brand as the shape of the public sector continues to evolve.
\n3.\tThe independence of arms-length agencies is more myth than reality. Ultimately governments are accountable for their delegation of authority and this reality has and will continue to influence the relationship between government and its arms-length entities.
\n4.\tIndividual personalities matter. Despite governance frameworks and mechanisms intended to prescribe the accountability relationship between government and arms-length entities, individuals on both sides of the relationship can have a significant impact on agency performance and viability. 
\n\t
\n\tAll indications suggest that governments will continue to use arms-length agencies to deliver a variety of services using various organizational forms and inconsistent governance frameworks. In addition to agency creation, the reshaping of agencies through merger, re-categorization, mandate shifts, renaming, etc., will continue, as will the changing landscape of distributed public governance. The ability to design a governance framework that addresses the ongoing reshaping of government structure will need to evolve in order to address challenges with coordination, fragmentation, service delivery and accountability. To this end, governments have been rationalizing their governance systems, increasing their ability to control arms-length entities through a variety of mechanisms, including the creation of new “super agencies”. As the use of agencies continues, the governance environment becomes more complex with a greater number of actors, changes in government capacity and resourcing, and global, multi-level government systems in meeting public needs. Governance rationalization supports the need for increased focus on why and how governments re-shape themselves and how this impacts accountability and performance, providing new opportunities for further research as the shape of the public sector continues to evolve.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: Qualitatif
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,185
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,043
Tête enseignante GPT0,313
Écart entre enseignants0,270 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeQualitatif
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations1
Publié2021
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueUVic’s Research and Learning Repository (University of Victoria)Même sujetPublic Policy and Administration ResearchTravaux en français237 207