10 Merton Street, Oxford OX1 4JJ Tel: +44 (0)1865 614343 Fax: +44 (0)1865 616719 enquiries@bsg.ox.ac.uk www.bsg.ox.ac.uk Evidence Submitted to the Cabinet Office Review of the Administrative Classification of Public Bodies Dr Thomas Elston, 1 Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Blavatnik School of Government, University of Oxford Question 1. In what capacity are you providing evidence? I am a postdoctoral research fellow at the Blavatnik School of Government, and a research associate at Green Templeton College, University of Oxford. My work is in the field of public administration. Question 2. What is your experience of the classification framework and process? My doctoral thesis examined the changing role of executive agencies over a twenty‐five year period (Elston, 2013b). For this, I undertook extensive analysis of historic and contemporary documents, as well as more than fifty research interviews in the Cabinet Office, the Ministry of Justice, and its agencies (National Offender Management Service, HM Courts and Tribunals Service, and Office of the Public Guardian). Results from this work have been published in two learned journals (Elston, 2013a, 2014). I also sit on the advisory board for the “Shrinking the State” research project, run by the Universities of Birmingham and Sheffield, and funded by the Economic and Social Research Council. This work has monitored the Public Bodies Reforms initiated in 2010. Question 3. Based on these experiences, are the classification framework and processes fit for purpose, in whole or in part? A major strength of the current framework is that it allows for variation and contingency in the oversight of state activity. As implied in the Cabinet Office’s recent discussion paper, the tasks of government are inherently diverse, and this limits how much ‘tidiness’ can be achieved through administrative classification. Moreover, given the different operational, regulatory and quasi‐judicial roles performed by public bodies, the variation in oversight and autonomy afforded by the current system is important. Notwithstanding this, there is potential to strengthen public and parliamentary accountability by adjusting and clarifying the present classification framework. My experience relates primarily to the executive agency classification, over which there is much ambiguity of meaning and purpose. As explained below, this poses risks to both accountability and effectiveness. Question 4a. To the extent that you think they are not fit for purpose, what do you believe is specifically wrong with the classification framework and/or process? 1 Email: thomas.elston@bsg.ox.ac.uk Telephone: 01865 614377