The QUANGO and the Administrative and Managerial State

This weekend not-so-long read goes into the etymology of a familiar British political term that is strangely absent in the U.S. How come?

Editor’s note: The debate over the nature of the Administrative State in America tends to focus on its constitutional dimensions, though here and there attention turns to the role of GSEs (government-sponsored enterprises like Fannie Mae) and NGOs (non-government organizations, meaning non-profit advocacy groups of increasingly leftist bent). In Britain such organizations have long been called “quangos,” which sounds like some exotic Australian mammal. Here our central European correspondent Clifford Angell Bates gives us a synoptic history of the quango quagmire, and what lessons it has for governance on both sides of the Atlantic.

—Steve

The term "quango," an acronym for "quasi-autonomous non-governmental organization," is widely used in British political discourse to describe organizations that operate independently of direct governmental control while still receiving public funding. This term encapsulates a unique phenomenon within the UK’s governance structure, highlighting the relationship between government and independent bodies.

In contrast, the American political language lacks a direct equivalent for "quango." Instead, the US employs various terms, such as government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs), independent agencies, and "the non-profit sector" (though the original European term "non-governmental organization,' or NGO, is catching on in the US) to describe organizations that serve public functions but retain a degree of autonomy. This essay explores several factors contributing to the absence of a singular term like "quango" in American political discourse. Its absence in American discourse points toward beyond differences of governmental form (parliamentary versus distinct branches of government power) to the differences between the "managerial state" described by James Burnham, and the "administrative state" that American constitutionalists are currently battling.

Historical Context

The evolution of the term "quango" in the UK can be traced back to the mid-20th century, particularly following World War II. During this period, the British government established various independent bodies to implement policies and deliver services without direct political interference.

These organizations emerged as part of a broader strategy to enhance governance efficiency while ensuring public accountability. Establishing quangos was seen as a pragmatic response to the complex demands of post-war society.

In the US, however, the historical development of public administration has taken a different path. The American system, characterized by a strong emphasis on the separation of powers and checks and balances, has, with a few exceptions,formed distinctly defined government entities rather than quasi-independent organizations.

This historical divergence sets the stage for why a term like "quango" has not found a parallel in American political language. The institutions and practices that have evolved in the U.S. do not lend themselves to a single term that captures the essence of this unique governance structure.

Nature of Governance

The differences in governance structures between the UK and the U.S. also play a crucial role in the absence of a term equivalent to "quango." The UK operates under a parliamentary system that often enables more centralized decision-making.

This centralized approach allows for creating independent bodies that can operate under the government’s broader framework while retaining a degree of autonomy. The term "quango" effectively encapsulates this relationship, emphasizing the hybrid nature of these organizations.

Conversely, the U.S. federal system is characterized by a decentralization of power, resulting in diverse governance models. This decentralized structure often leads to a preference for established government entities rather than quasi-independent organizations.

In American political discourse, terms like "independent agency" and "public corporation" describe entities that fulfill specific governmental functions. These terms reflect the structure and function of the organizations rather than emphasizing their hybrid nature.

Furthermore, the public perception of governance in the US differs from that in the UK. While quangos may be considered necessary compromises that balance expertise and accountability in British society, Americans are increasingly skeptical about independent organizations that operate outside direct government oversight.

Public Perception

The public perception of quangos in the UK has often been shaped by their role in delivering public services efficiently and effectively. Many citizens view these organizations as essential for enhancing the expertise and specialization required to address complex societal issues.

In contrast, American citizens may be more critical of the concept of quasi-independent organizations. This skepticism may stem from a historical preference for transparency and accountability in government institutions.

In the US, there is a prevailing belief that government agencies should be directly accountable to elected officials, which diminishes the necessity for a term like "quango" to describe organizations that operate with a degree of autonomy.

The absence of an equivalent term also reflects the cultural values inherent in American political discourse. The emphasis on individualism, personal responsibility, and direct accountability may create a disinclination to embrace the concept of independent organizations functioning outside the direct purview of government.

Language and Terminology

The specificity of the term "quango" highlights a particular phenomenon within the British context, where various organizations operate at the intersection of government and private sectors. This specificity is crucial to why the term has gained traction in the UK.

In contrast, American political language is characterized by a broader range of terms that reflect the diverse nature of public administration. Terms such as GSEs, independent agencies, and public corporations serve distinct purposes and capture different aspects of governance.

The existence of multiple terms in American discourse diminishes the need for a single equivalent to "quango." Each term conveys specific organizational functions or statuses, allowing for a more nuanced discussion of governance in the U.S.

Additionally, language evolves based on cultural contexts. The British political landscape has embraced the term "quango" as part of its political discourse, while American political language has developed differently, favoring terms that directly describe organizational functions.

Political and Legal Frameworks

The regulatory frameworks in which quangos operate also contribute to the term's prominence in the UK. Quangos are often established through legislation, which refers to a specific vocabulary that reflects their role and function within the political system.

In the U.S., however, the diverse regulatory landscape leads to various forms of organizations, each with its own set of rules and regulations. This diversity can make it challenging to establish a single term that encapsulates the hybrid nature of these organizations.

Moreover, accountability mechanisms in the UK political system have explicitly developed for quangos, making the term relevant in discussions about governance. While the cabinet ultimately bears active responsibility for the actions of a quango in the UK, in the U.S., many independent agencies, GSEs, and NGO contractors, enjoy considerable independence from direct political control and accountability. One example of this is President Barack Obama deflecting all responsibility or control over the National Labor Relations Board's attempt in 2011 to prevent Boeing from building its newest passenger airplane in South Carolina‚ an anti-union right-to-work state, saying he could not control this "independent" agency.

Ironically, the principle of the separation of powers, formally absent in the UK's parliamentary system, enables this deflection from and ambiguity over responsibility and oversight. Both Congress and the President have mixed motives, allowing both Congress and the President to delegate power to independent agencies for specific issues, and diffusing accountability when agency actions become controversial. This erases the meaningful separation of powers in some cases; that is, many agencies perform legislative, executive, and judicial functions, in clear violation of James Madison's caution in Federalist 47 that "The accumulation of all powers legislative, executive and judiciary in the same hands, whether of one, a few or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."

It is just on this point that the distinction can be made between the "managerial state" and the "administrative state." While the American administrative state is a managerial state, a managerial state need not be an administrative state in the American sense, as Britain's quangos fit easily in their constitutional traditions. (The managerial institutions of the European Union are a different matter, and more closely resemble the American problem. Notably the EU does not employ the term "quango" either.)

The presence of a clear distinction between government entities and quasi-independent organizations may contribute to the absence of an equivalent term in American political language.

Conclusion

In summary, the absence of a term equivalent to "quango" in American political language can be attributed to various historical, political, and cultural factors. The unique evolution of public administration in the UK has fostered the development of a specific term that encapsulates a particular governance phenomenon.

The differences in governance structures between the UK and the US further contribute to this divergence. The British parliamentary system allows for the creation of independent bodies that operate under the government’s direct umbrella, while in the US the federal government the scene is more complex There are different degrees of autonomy, along with the specific rule-making legal process in the US, that makes it hard to classify some government entities. The Federal Reserve enjoys powerful autonomy wholly within the US government, and as such would not be called a quango in Britian, while the US Federal National Mortgage Administration ("Fannie Mae") is a classic GSE that makes it a semi-private entity that would be labeled a quango in Britain.

The specificity of language and terminology in both contexts underscores the complexities of governance and the diverse functions that organizations serve. The absence of a singular equivalent to "quango" in the US reflects American society's unique political landscape and cultural values. While quangos are considered necessary components of governance in the UK, American skepticism towards independent organizations may inhibit the emergence of a similar term. (This deprives Americans of making the obvious pun about the adjudicative powers of administrative agencies, which could be called "quango-roo courts.")

As governance structures continue to evolve in both the UK and the US, it is doubtful whether a term akin to "quango" will emerge in American political language. However, for now, the distinct terminologies used in each context highlight the complexities of public administration and the differing approaches to governance.

Ultimately, understanding the absence of an equivalent term in American political language provides insight into the broader dynamics of governance and the cultural values that shape political discourse in both the UK and the US.