Thursday, August 28, 2008
Tweet[IWS] CRS: THE QUASI GOVERNMENT: HYBRID ORGANIZATIONS with BOTH GOVERNMENT and PRIVATE SECTOR LEGAL CHARACTERISTICS [online August 2008]
IWS Documented News Service
_______________________________
Institute for Workplace Studies----------------- Professor Samuel B. Bacharach
School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies
Cornell University
16 East 34th Street, 4th floor---------------------- Stuart Basefsky
New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau
________________________________________________________________________
Congressional Research Service (CRS)
Order Code RL30533
The Quasi Government: Hybrid Organizations with Both Government and Private Sector Legal Characteristics Updated January 31, 2008 [online August 2008]
Kevin R. Kosar, Analyst in American National Government, Government and Finance Division
http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL30533_20080131.pdf
[full-text, 44 pages]
Summary
This report provides an overview of federally related entities that possess legal
characteristics of both the governmental and private sectors. These hybrid
organizations (e.g., Fannie Mae, National Park Foundation, In-Q-Tel), collectively
referred to in this report as the "quasi government," have grown in number, size, and
importance in recent decades.
A brief review of executive branch organizational history is followed by a
description of entities with ties to the executive branch, although they are not
"agencies" of the United States as defined in Title 5 of the U.S. Code. Several
categories of quasi governmental entities are defined and discussed: (1) quasi official
agencies, (2) government-sponsored enterprises (GSE), (3) federally funded research
and development corporations, (4) agency-related nonprofit organizations, (5)
venture capital funds, (6) congressionally chartered nonprofit organizations, and (7)
instrumentalities of indeterminate character.
The quasi government, not surprisingly, is a controversial subject. To
supporters of this trend toward greater reliance upon hybrid organizations, the proper
objective of governmental management is to maximize performance and results,
however defined. In their view, the private and governmental sectors are alike in
their essentials, and thus subject to the same economically derived behavioral norms.
They tend to welcome this trend toward greater use of quasi governmental entities.
Critics of the quasi government, on the other hand, tend to view hybrid
organizations as contributing to a weakened capacity of government to perform its
fundamental constitutional duties, and to an erosion in political accountability, a
crucial element in democratic governance. They tend to consider the governmental
and private sectors as being legally distinct, with relatively little overlap in behavioral
norms.
Congress is increasingly engaged with the quasi government. The issues run the
gamut from enacting legislation to encourage the creation of nonprofit organizations
to promote individual national parks, to proposals to strengthen regulation of
government-sponsored enterprises such as Fannie Mae, to oversight hearings
respecting national security issues at Los Alamos Laboratory. There is nothing
modest about the size, scope, and impact of the quasi government.
Time will tell whether the emergence of the quasi government is to be viewed
as a symptom of decline in our democratic government, or a harbinger of a new,
creative management era where the purportedly artificial barriers between the
governmental and private sectors are breached as a matter of principle.
This report will be updated at the beginning of each Congress.
Contents
Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
In Search of a Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Spectrum or Categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Federal Organization and Management:
The Traditional View Under Question . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Quasi Governmental Organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Quasi Official Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Government-Sponsored Enterprises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs) . . . . . . . 14
Agency-Related Nonprofit Organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Adjunct Organizations Under the Control of a Department
or Agency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Organizations Independent of, But Dependent Upon, Agencies . . . . . 21
Nonprofit Organizations Affiliated with Departments or Agencies . . 23
Venture Capital Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Congressionally Chartered Nonprofit Organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Instrumentalities of Indeterminate Character . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
American Institute in Taiwan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
National Endowment for Democracy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
U.S. Investigation Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Conclusion: Paradigms in Conflict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
______________________________
This information is provided to subscribers, friends, faculty, students and alumni of the School of Industrial & Labor Relations (ILR). It is a service of the Institute for Workplace Studies (IWS) in New York City. Stuart Basefsky is responsible for the selection of the contents which is intended to keep researchers, companies, workers, and governments aware of the latest information related to ILR disciplines as it becomes available for the purposes of research, understanding and debate. The content does not reflect the opinions or positions of Cornell University, the School of Industrial & Labor Relations, or that of Mr. Basefsky and should not be construed as such. The service is unique in that it provides the original source documentation, via links, behind the news and research of the day. Use of the information provided is unrestricted. However, it is requested that users acknowledge that the information was found via the IWS Documented News Service.
Stuart Basefsky
Director, IWS News Bureau
Institute for Workplace Studies
Cornell/ILR School
16 E. 34th Street, 4th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (607) 255-2703
Fax: (607) 255-9641
E-mail: smb6@cornell.edu
****************************************
_______________________________
Institute for Workplace Studies----------------- Professor Samuel B. Bacharach
School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies
Cornell University
16 East 34th Street, 4th floor---------------------- Stuart Basefsky
New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau
________________________________________________________________________
Congressional Research Service (CRS)
Order Code RL30533
The Quasi Government: Hybrid Organizations with Both Government and Private Sector Legal Characteristics Updated January 31, 2008 [online August 2008]
Kevin R. Kosar, Analyst in American National Government, Government and Finance Division
http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL30533_20080131.pdf
[full-text, 44 pages]
Summary
This report provides an overview of federally related entities that possess legal
characteristics of both the governmental and private sectors. These hybrid
organizations (e.g., Fannie Mae, National Park Foundation, In-Q-Tel), collectively
referred to in this report as the "quasi government," have grown in number, size, and
importance in recent decades.
A brief review of executive branch organizational history is followed by a
description of entities with ties to the executive branch, although they are not
"agencies" of the United States as defined in Title 5 of the U.S. Code. Several
categories of quasi governmental entities are defined and discussed: (1) quasi official
agencies, (2) government-sponsored enterprises (GSE), (3) federally funded research
and development corporations, (4) agency-related nonprofit organizations, (5)
venture capital funds, (6) congressionally chartered nonprofit organizations, and (7)
instrumentalities of indeterminate character.
The quasi government, not surprisingly, is a controversial subject. To
supporters of this trend toward greater reliance upon hybrid organizations, the proper
objective of governmental management is to maximize performance and results,
however defined. In their view, the private and governmental sectors are alike in
their essentials, and thus subject to the same economically derived behavioral norms.
They tend to welcome this trend toward greater use of quasi governmental entities.
Critics of the quasi government, on the other hand, tend to view hybrid
organizations as contributing to a weakened capacity of government to perform its
fundamental constitutional duties, and to an erosion in political accountability, a
crucial element in democratic governance. They tend to consider the governmental
and private sectors as being legally distinct, with relatively little overlap in behavioral
norms.
Congress is increasingly engaged with the quasi government. The issues run the
gamut from enacting legislation to encourage the creation of nonprofit organizations
to promote individual national parks, to proposals to strengthen regulation of
government-sponsored enterprises such as Fannie Mae, to oversight hearings
respecting national security issues at Los Alamos Laboratory. There is nothing
modest about the size, scope, and impact of the quasi government.
Time will tell whether the emergence of the quasi government is to be viewed
as a symptom of decline in our democratic government, or a harbinger of a new,
creative management era where the purportedly artificial barriers between the
governmental and private sectors are breached as a matter of principle.
This report will be updated at the beginning of each Congress.
Contents
Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
In Search of a Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Spectrum or Categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Federal Organization and Management:
The Traditional View Under Question . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Quasi Governmental Organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Quasi Official Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Government-Sponsored Enterprises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs) . . . . . . . 14
Agency-Related Nonprofit Organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Adjunct Organizations Under the Control of a Department
or Agency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Organizations Independent of, But Dependent Upon, Agencies . . . . . 21
Nonprofit Organizations Affiliated with Departments or Agencies . . 23
Venture Capital Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Congressionally Chartered Nonprofit Organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Instrumentalities of Indeterminate Character . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
American Institute in Taiwan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
National Endowment for Democracy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
U.S. Investigation Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Conclusion: Paradigms in Conflict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
______________________________
This information is provided to subscribers, friends, faculty, students and alumni of the School of Industrial & Labor Relations (ILR). It is a service of the Institute for Workplace Studies (IWS) in New York City. Stuart Basefsky is responsible for the selection of the contents which is intended to keep researchers, companies, workers, and governments aware of the latest information related to ILR disciplines as it becomes available for the purposes of research, understanding and debate. The content does not reflect the opinions or positions of Cornell University, the School of Industrial & Labor Relations, or that of Mr. Basefsky and should not be construed as such. The service is unique in that it provides the original source documentation, via links, behind the news and research of the day. Use of the information provided is unrestricted. However, it is requested that users acknowledge that the information was found via the IWS Documented News Service.
Stuart Basefsky
Director, IWS News Bureau
Institute for Workplace Studies
Cornell/ILR School
16 E. 34th Street, 4th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (607) 255-2703
Fax: (607) 255-9641
E-mail: smb6@cornell.edu
****************************************
# posted by SBasefsky : 10:29 AM
