Purpose

This review frames the state of agencification studies to explore the development and results achieved to date (Q1: what has been done?) and identify future directions (Q2: what could be done?) of the studies.

Design/methodology/approach

A systematic approach is carried out to summarize how agencification is adopted, variability of implementation, and its effects, from literature published in the past 48 years (1973–2020). Eligibility criteria include a combination of literature quality (number of citation) and source reputation (journal impact factor). From this, 84 articles and 9 books were included in the review.

Findings

The review finds various country-specific adoptions of agencification and some similarities and differences of agencification practice across various administrative settings. Studies on the effects of agencification is limited and offer mixed results. Meanwhile, little attempt was made to reveal how micro-processes are happening in the everyday practice of agencification. The paper outlines a set of research agenda and possible alternative approaches for future studies.

Research limitations/implications

This review provides an avenue for scholars and practitioners to pay more attention to the “street level” of agencification. Future studies may challenge New Public Management's view of agencification by proposing new perspectives based on a direct observation.

Originality/value

This study contributes to the growing amount of agencification studies by synthesizing theoretical and empirical works across countries covering developed and developing economies in local, regional, and national levels of government.

中文翻译：

---

代理化的浪潮：文学发展与未来方向

目的

这篇综述总结了机构化研究的现状，以探索迄今为止的发展和取得的成果（Q1：做了什么？）并确定研究的未来方向（Q2：可以做什么？）。

设计/方法/方法

从过去 48 年（1973-2020 年）发表的文献中，采用系统方法来总结如何采用代理化、实施的可变性及其影响。资格标准包括文献质量（引用次数）和来源声誉（期刊影响因子）的组合。由此，84篇文章和9本书被纳入审查。

发现

审查发现了不同国家对代理化的采用以及在各种行政环境中代理化实践的一些异同。对代理化影响的研究是有限的，并且结果不一。与此同时，很少有人试图揭示微观过程是如何在日常代理化实践中发生的。该论文概述了一系列研究议程和未来研究可能的替代方法。

研究限制/影响

这篇综述为学者和从业者提供了一个途径，让他们更加关注代理化的“街头水平”。未来的研究可能会通过基于直接观察提出新观点来挑战新公共管理的代理化观点。

原创性/价值

本研究通过综合涵盖地方、区域和国家各级政府的发达和发展中经济体的国家的理论和实证工作，为越来越多的代理化研究做出了贡献。