ABSTRACT
This chapter explores the origins of quangos, their growth in the Netherlands and the UK and discusses their effects. It considers their role in collaborative government and their audit and evaluation. The chapter assesses the strengths and weaknesses of new collaborative mechanisms in which quangos play a part, especially the design and effectiveness of evaluative and accountability systems. It defines quangos as "part of the public sector by virtue of their collective purpose, underlying accountability to governmental authority, lack of direct and indirect board election and primary resourcing from the public purse". In the case of the evaluation of HAZs, Judge et al. argue that traditional evaluation approaches do not reflect the complexities of collaborative government, arguing instead for the adoption of methodologies based on models of "realistic evaluation" and the "theories of change" approach promoted by the US Aspen Institute. The quango question illustrates some of the general problems underlying evaluation in collaborative government.
