Talk:Executive agency

Prologue

The difference between an Executive Agency and the institutions listed on Public bodies and task forces of the UK government is not very clear. Can someone clarify please? This raises a question about the function ofcategory:UK Agencies. It should probably be renamed category:Executive agencies of the United Kingdom and an extra category called category:Public bodies and task forces of the UK government created. Bhoeble 22:45, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I'd agree that the difference between public bodies and Executive Agencies is not clearly explained here. The paragraph on NDPBs in the introduction does not seem to cover this subject completely, but NDPB redirects here. This is particularly confusing given the statement that there are 127 Executive Agencies (which is true) when combined with the exhaustive, and daunting, Public bodies and task forces of the UK government. Is there a need for a seperate NDPB page? MrTrev 02:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

A major problem with this article, compared to Quango is the exclusively British focus. We need a general article on this kind of body. I'd oppose any merge until this is resolved. JQ 21:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Quango should have its own article however - lots of new politrical science see that word and do not really understand it - so this article can be a great help to them. - Bachs

I second this notion. I came to this article looking for the British QUANGOs, and I never would have found it otherwise.Mysticfeline 12:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

QUANGO should definately have its own artile the difference between executive agencies int he Uk and QUANGOs is great. 82.24.22.222 13:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC) Ellie

I agree that QUANGO is different and ought to stay separate.--Mereda 16:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Feels like a consensus for keeping the two articles separate. I've taken the tag off. --Mereda 10:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I've just been researching this topic to write an article about Executive Agencies in the UK. A few points - Executive Agencies are part of the civil service - NDPBs (i.e. QUANGOs) are not so I'd agree that these articles should not be amalgamated. I do feel however that there should be separate articles for EAs in each country that has them as they probably have different a legal status and obviously vary from country to country. I've also deleted some of the agencies listed for DIUS as they include some NDPBs - according to the DIUS website they only have one EA - the National Weights and Measurements Laboratory. That brings me onto another point - there are some organisations (e.g. for DIUS there's the UK Intellectual Property Office) that are neither NDPBs nor Executive Agencies and I'm not sure they're covered by any article on Wikipedia - unless I've overlooked something? Andrewself (talk) 08:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

http://www.ipo.gov.uk/about/about-ourorg/about-whatwedo.htm ;)

Cleaning up structure

The United States also has executive agencies (not just independent agencies). I agree that there should be a global article with links to the various countries having executive agencies. Patent Lawyer 001 02:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know whether executive agencies are really a worldwide phenomenon. The significance of UK executive agencies (the majority of civil service staff; and the majority (?) of central government services) means that it deserves more content to balance the article Departments of the United Kingdom Government. I'd suggest moving most of the existing content to Executive agencies of the United Kingdom and leaving a shorter global article here. --Mereda 16:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I've looked a bit further now. Australia has 5 executive agencies at the federal/commonwealth level [1] ; US federal government has a large number of independent agencies, and I suspect there are executive agencies at state level e.g. prisons.--Mereda 17:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I've been meaning to add some material about Australia. There's an article on government agency that overlaps with this one, and it would be good to get a sensible classification. My view is that the article on Executive (government) would be a good place to start. This could give a distinction between government department which currently has no seaprate article (redirects to government agency), and government agency. Government agency could then be subdivided into Executive agency and something corresponding to non-departmental public body. I'm not clear how globally applicable this classification is, but it would work pretty well for the English-speaking countries with which I'm familiar.JQ 21:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem keeps getting bigger! There seems to be a logical gap between Government which is in a politics series linking to Government operations which is categorised as economic data; while Executive (government) - politics series and Category:Government institutions - doesn't link sensibly either to government-by-country or, as JQ says, to global definitions like Executive agency. I'm feeling the first step to take is to follow JQ's idea of starting changes from Executive (government). I've left a marker on the discussion page there and at Government agency. --Mereda 07:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Reading Executive (government), I see there is a stubby article on the topic Ministry (government department) linked from there. So the approach I've suggested seems to be feasible.JQ 09:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

There are other changes being proposed elsewhere, see Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Category:United States federal agencies to Category:Agencies of the United States government--Mereda 14:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm going slower at this than I hoped. So far, I've pulled together a few paragraphs of a rewrite of government agency making some new connections with material like intelligence agency and the historic New Deal stuff; and I've done a brief article on machinery of government. I'm feeling that there's not too much global consistency, so the country sections will need to cope with that. --Mereda 14:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering about this exact issue while reading this article. The United States most certainly has executive agencies, no doubt about it, and at the fed level, no less. I'd like to see that reflected in this article. Elfred (talk) 04:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

NPOV?

...a lot of effort and public money is devoted to creating the impression of separation, of guided autonomy and direct accountability, while in reality departments are required by HM Treasury to maintain tight controls over every aspect of an agency's business via budgetary controls, service level agreements, business plans, general and specific directions and other organisational devices. As the staff of executive agencies are civil servants and each department maintains a "sponsor unit" to oversee, negotiate with and monitor each of its agencies, staffed by civil servants, it does not require much competence with figures to appreciate that agencies are an expensive way of letting ministers off the very hook they were appointed to the UK's executive to be on. However, and despite all the individual instances of appalling and costly failure, a lot of effort has been put into presenting executive agencies as a modernising success.

This could easily be true, but nonetheless it sounds very POV, and at the very least there needs to be some references. Wardog 16:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Corrections to identified agencies

The Environment Agency was listed as an Executive Agency under DEFRA. It is actually a NDPB / quango. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.162.93 (talk) 14:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

My names Abdihakim arab abdi Cabdixakiim carab (talk) 22:52, 11 July 2019 (UTC)