The term quango or QUANGO (less often QuANGO or QANGO) is a description of an organisation to which a government has devolved power, but which is still partly controlled and/or financed by government bodies.
It is very unclear what Quangos have to do with the rest of this whole post and why they get a random mention in the “make EA look bad” section. Looking into it it appears that someone on twitter criticised this WoFG bill and also EA on the grounds that this bill includes a Quango.
Now, I am not sure that anyone denies that Quangos can be useful tools. The authors (Larks and James) do not at any point make a case against Quangos or say they cannot be a useful in the correct circumstance. In fact they make a case for more Quangos (with the three lines of defence suggestion).
However I do think some people believe they are overused in policy design so put a high credence on polices asks contain a Quango on being poorly thought out. So if such a person saw a policy proposal that they were already sceptical of and noticed it contained a Quango and you didn’t have any time to look into the details you might update negatively on that policy idea.
I think this is basically what has happened. I think our Twitter author took a circular line of reasoning and went from: I have a high prior that EAs are bad at policy, to look an EA policy idea with a Qunago therefore EAs must be very bad at policy. It does not for a moment the possibility that EAs supporting a bill that includes a Quango was a carefully considered policy decision given the weight of available evidence.
I am not sure there is much more to the anti-Quango criticism than that. But I think this person is friends with John so interested to see if John has another take on what has gone on here.
I can’t speak for the Twitter author you mention but I think our comment about quangos was primarily intended to add a minor element of humour to lighten a very long piece. I apologize if that was a poor choice on our part. Quangos were extensively joked about in the old UK television series and book Yes Minister.
My personal view about the quango (the Commission) suggested in the Bill is that without substantial revision it risks doing net damage. I certainly agree that some forms of quango may be useful, although I think it is often difficult to design them to ensure that the benefits exceed the costs. It would be great if the next quango proposed generates much greater consensus that the proposal is likely to be net beneficial.
For those like me who don’t know what a quango is, here’s a Wikipedia link:
It is very unclear what Quangos have to do with the rest of this whole post and why they get a random mention in the “make EA look bad” section. Looking into it it appears that someone on twitter criticised this WoFG bill and also EA on the grounds that this bill includes a Quango.
Now, I am not sure that anyone denies that Quangos can be useful tools. The authors (Larks and James) do not at any point make a case against Quangos or say they cannot be a useful in the correct circumstance. In fact they make a case for more Quangos (with the three lines of defence suggestion).
However I do think some people believe they are overused in policy design so put a high credence on polices asks contain a Quango on being poorly thought out. So if such a person saw a policy proposal that they were already sceptical of and noticed it contained a Quango and you didn’t have any time to look into the details you might update negatively on that policy idea.
I think this is basically what has happened. I think our Twitter author took a circular line of reasoning and went from: I have a high prior that EAs are bad at policy, to look an EA policy idea with a Qunago therefore EAs must be very bad at policy. It does not for a moment the possibility that EAs supporting a bill that includes a Quango was a carefully considered policy decision given the weight of available evidence.
I am not sure there is much more to the anti-Quango criticism than that. But I think this person is friends with John so interested to see if John has another take on what has gone on here.
I can’t speak for the Twitter author you mention but I think our comment about quangos was primarily intended to add a minor element of humour to lighten a very long piece. I apologize if that was a poor choice on our part. Quangos were extensively joked about in the old UK television series and book Yes Minister.
My personal view about the quango (the Commission) suggested in the Bill is that without substantial revision it risks doing net damage. I certainly agree that some forms of quango may be useful, although I think it is often difficult to design them to ensure that the benefits exceed the costs. It would be great if the next quango proposed generates much greater consensus that the proposal is likely to be net beneficial.
Sorry! Thank you very much for the explanation.
Note quango isn’t an official term. UK government recognises 4 different types of groups:
Non ministerial departments
Agencies and other public bodies
High profile groups
Public corporations
Some examples:
National Audit Office
Office of Budget Reponsibility
Climate Change Committee
Independent Commission for Aid Impact
National Infrastructure Commission
Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure