From marketization to agency reclassification: A qualitative comparative analysis of de‐agencification in China

Abstract A standing contention in the agencification/de‐agencification literature concerns how to explain the adoption or reversal of the agency form for service delivery. What considerations—transaction costs or political and institutional factors—drive the choice of specific reform strategies? Employing a configurational perspective, this article examines this question in the context of China's service organization reform. By tracing the de‐agencification process and strategy shift of 11 service organizations in the environmental management system of Guangzhou, this article shows that transaction‐cost changes are neither sufficient nor necessary to explain strategy shifts or a slowdown of de‐agencification. A combination of political‐institutional factors can offset the influence of transaction‐cost changes. Reform uncertainty, if combined differently with other factors, can result in divergent outcomes. Moreover, political priority, rather than party politics, shapes China's de‐agencification. A shift in reform strategy does not necessarily impede the pace of de‐agencification reform.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Public Administration Review
Published
2024-09-05
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13876
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Qualitative Comparative Analysis Research
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
1.13

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

From marketization to agency reclassification: A qualitative comparative analysis of de‐agencification in China

Ning Liu, Carlos Wing‐Hung Lo, Shui‐Yan Tang, Chenyang He
1 citations
Public Administration Review
Qualitative Comparative Analysis Research
1.13
article

From marketization to agency reclassification: A qualitative comparative analysis of de‐agencification in China

Ning Liu, Carlos Wing‐Hung Lo, Shui‐Yan Tang, Chenyang He
article en
1 citations

Abstract

Abstract A standing contention in the agencification/de‐agencification literature concerns how to explain the adoption or reversal of the agency form for service delivery. What considerations—transaction costs or political and institutional factors—drive the choice of specific reform strategies? Employing a configurational perspective, this article examines this question in the context of China's service organization reform. By tracing the de‐agencification process and strategy shift of 11 service organizations in the environmental management system of Guangzhou, this article shows that transaction‐cost changes are neither sufficient nor necessary to explain strategy shifts or a slowdown of de‐agencification. A combination of political‐institutional factors can offset the influence of transaction‐cost changes. Reform uncertainty, if combined differently with other factors, can result in divergent outcomes. Moreover, political priority, rather than party politics, shapes China's de‐agencification. A shift in reform strategy does not necessarily impede the pace of de‐agencification reform.

Public Administration ReviewVol. 85(3)
University of Southern California (US), City University of Hong Kong (HK), Chinese University of Hong Kong (HK), Fudan University (CN)
City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Chinese University of Hong Kong
Openalex Percentile: Top 17%
Qualitative Comparative Analysis Research
1.13
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.