1) UK Quangos are "accountable", don't think so. Read what Liz Truss has to say about them: they can completely block policies of elected governments, once they have, at some previous point, received a parliamentary blessing to do so. Once granted, such blocks are hard to remove and absolutely impossible in any reasonable time frame. 2) The author glosses over what happens when NGOs and the like collude with politicians to pursue policies that benefit the NGOs and said politicians - but, viewed by others, absolutely do not benefit the public at large. Excellent examples are the homeless "crises" in California, or Oregon (Portland). $Billions$ spent, with zero accountability and the problem is worse now than before the grifters got the money. 3) Key to the author's blessing of these arrangements is "the public good", but he evades the thorny problem of who exactly determines what is "the public good". 4) Another thorny problem the author evades is huge in both the UK and the US: the ever-increasing authority of the bureaucracies entrenched in both countries, which are unaccountable to both the public and in practice, the elected governments.
To sum, another look at UK Quangos and US NGOs (and the like), with a considerable reduction in added honey sweetener, is warranted. Every available evidence points to the root of many of these problems: that if something needs to be done, then government should either do it or hire someone to get it done. That is the road to hell and there are plenty of examples to prove it. How did we get to the point of having government kiss our every boo-boo and cook our every meal and select our clothes? This works less and less well as government tries to do more and more.
I'm not sure I'm following, perhaps because your focus seems to be the nature of the relationship between the govenrment and the private organization..
I used to be a bureaucrat in USDA--there we had different categories of "private" organizations which were involved in government services and beneifts, essentially filling the space between governement and the citizen, arguably an alternative to a government agency.. For example, cooperatives owned by farmers which provided loans or enforced standards., research and promotion agreements covering a specific commodity (i.e, milk, cotton...), crop insurance companies with subsidized operations. More recently programs for outreach to various groups such as "disadvantaged farmers.
These organizations fill niches; they aren't the well-known organizations like the FED, FTC, FCC, TVA, etc. which you seem to be discussing on the US side. In part they seem to serve as a stand-in for the government, hiding the "faceless bureaucrat." In part they are a way for an organized interest group to get government dollars for their members/clients.
Congress does not grant them any authority to regulate or rule. Now the administration might toss money their way and take advice from them (like any interest group) but what you point to here has none of the power to determine actual state policy as does Natural England which blocks new housing projects in the UK.. This is the 3rd partying of administration and even legislative control, in ways the US Congress would be very unwilling to engage in.
In cases where Congress has decided to administer a program through the states (i.e., food stamps, unemployment insurance, etc) have they delegated any policy-making?
These agency policy advisors received grants from the EPA authorized by the U.S. Congress under the Inflation Reduction Act. The difference seems to be that they don't administer the policies that they set indirectly, under administration cover, for those agencies that they advise.
Quoting the late Robin Williams "Gren-ah-da, Gren-ay-da, let's call the whole thing off!"
We should probably look up to see just how many of those environmental justice organizations are engaged in law suits with the U.S. and state governments. Perhaps suing to close nuclear or coal power plants, to allow overcharging for wind and solar electricity, or to stop gas pipelines.
Also yes, the US interest groups have always played an active role not only in the Courts, but the very Administrative Procedures process for public consultations of any proposed policy or regulatory change. The very important truism in local government in the US, those who show up (staying to the very end of the meetings no matter how long they go) and actively engage and participate tend to get their way.
I clicked to listen, not yet having read the text here. But I'm negative about the need to have jokey metaphors everywhere. (And presenter seems to be AI.) And negative reaction to some of the assertions re what Americans prefer in way of govt and ngo's. Those assertions seemed all wrong to me.
The AI editor insisted on simplifying and adding jokes, yet I was interested in seeing how it turned out. Yes, it simplified some thing, but it was generally correct in the broad strokes.
1) UK Quangos are "accountable", don't think so. Read what Liz Truss has to say about them: they can completely block policies of elected governments, once they have, at some previous point, received a parliamentary blessing to do so. Once granted, such blocks are hard to remove and absolutely impossible in any reasonable time frame. 2) The author glosses over what happens when NGOs and the like collude with politicians to pursue policies that benefit the NGOs and said politicians - but, viewed by others, absolutely do not benefit the public at large. Excellent examples are the homeless "crises" in California, or Oregon (Portland). $Billions$ spent, with zero accountability and the problem is worse now than before the grifters got the money. 3) Key to the author's blessing of these arrangements is "the public good", but he evades the thorny problem of who exactly determines what is "the public good". 4) Another thorny problem the author evades is huge in both the UK and the US: the ever-increasing authority of the bureaucracies entrenched in both countries, which are unaccountable to both the public and in practice, the elected governments.
To sum, another look at UK Quangos and US NGOs (and the like), with a considerable reduction in added honey sweetener, is warranted. Every available evidence points to the root of many of these problems: that if something needs to be done, then government should either do it or hire someone to get it done. That is the road to hell and there are plenty of examples to prove it. How did we get to the point of having government kiss our every boo-boo and cook our every meal and select our clothes? This works less and less well as government tries to do more and more.
I'm not sure I'm following, perhaps because your focus seems to be the nature of the relationship between the govenrment and the private organization..
I used to be a bureaucrat in USDA--there we had different categories of "private" organizations which were involved in government services and beneifts, essentially filling the space between governement and the citizen, arguably an alternative to a government agency.. For example, cooperatives owned by farmers which provided loans or enforced standards., research and promotion agreements covering a specific commodity (i.e, milk, cotton...), crop insurance companies with subsidized operations. More recently programs for outreach to various groups such as "disadvantaged farmers.
These organizations fill niches; they aren't the well-known organizations like the FED, FTC, FCC, TVA, etc. which you seem to be discussing on the US side. In part they seem to serve as a stand-in for the government, hiding the "faceless bureaucrat." In part they are a way for an organized interest group to get government dollars for their members/clients.
We don't have qungoes in the U.S.?
Biden-Harris Environmental Justice Advisors Raked In Nearly $500 Million From Taxpayers
https://dailycaller.com/2024/10/16/environmental-justice-advisors-raked-500-million-taxpayers/
Yet, somehow, the money moves.
Congress does not grant them any authority to regulate or rule. Now the administration might toss money their way and take advice from them (like any interest group) but what you point to here has none of the power to determine actual state policy as does Natural England which blocks new housing projects in the UK.. This is the 3rd partying of administration and even legislative control, in ways the US Congress would be very unwilling to engage in.
In cases where Congress has decided to administer a program through the states (i.e., food stamps, unemployment insurance, etc) have they delegated any policy-making?
These agency policy advisors received grants from the EPA authorized by the U.S. Congress under the Inflation Reduction Act. The difference seems to be that they don't administer the policies that they set indirectly, under administration cover, for those agencies that they advise.
Quoting the late Robin Williams "Gren-ah-da, Gren-ay-da, let's call the whole thing off!"
We should probably look up to see just how many of those environmental justice organizations are engaged in law suits with the U.S. and state governments. Perhaps suing to close nuclear or coal power plants, to allow overcharging for wind and solar electricity, or to stop gas pipelines.
Also yes, the US interest groups have always played an active role not only in the Courts, but the very Administrative Procedures process for public consultations of any proposed policy or regulatory change. The very important truism in local government in the US, those who show up (staying to the very end of the meetings no matter how long they go) and actively engage and participate tend to get their way.
Again, it's not about the getting of public money, but the actual control over parliament and the ministries the Quangos have.
I clicked to listen, not yet having read the text here. But I'm negative about the need to have jokey metaphors everywhere. (And presenter seems to be AI.) And negative reaction to some of the assertions re what Americans prefer in way of govt and ngo's. Those assertions seemed all wrong to me.
The AI editor insisted on simplifying and adding jokes, yet I was interested in seeing how it turned out. Yes, it simplified some thing, but it was generally correct in the broad strokes.
We just use "boondoggle."