Abstract
I have spent most of my career in British Universities, almost always teaching British politics, among many other things. At present, I am based in a Sociology Department in Australia. As such, I am experiencing two degrees of separation, which, perhaps, allows me a different perspective on the current state of the study of British politics. I have dealt before with the two issues considered here, the general paucity of consideration of models of British politics and the relative lack of theoretically or comparatively informed studies of British politics; therefore, my aim is to examine what has changed in the last decade. In essence, my argument will be that much has changed, although much remains the same. As a brief corollary, I will also argue that, although much could be better, the issues I discuss have been much better addressed in the study of British politics than in the study of Australian politics.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Of course, all this literature could, in an important sense, be subsumed under arguments about a move to late modernity, which sees the current period as characterised by increased complexity, network governance and reflexivity (see Bang, 2011; Marsh, 2011).
Bevir and Rhodes (2003) argue that the Westminster model sees power as an object, as something individuals have and use, and power relations as a zero-sum game. I do not disagree, but it also needs to be recognised that most proponents of the Westminster model are pluralists, although elite pluralists. In such a view, although some have more power in the Westminster system, there are checks and balances provided by the executive's ultimate accountability to both Parliament and the electorate.
See the Government and Opposition special issue 2010 and, especially, the Bradbury and John contributions. For the use of this framework, see some of the articles in the special issue, plus, as examples, Buller, 2000 and James, 2011).
These tables were produced by one researcher; therefore, although there may be differences of opinion between different researchers about these classifications, at the margins, the assessments are consistent across time and across journals. More details on the coding are available from the author.
Thompson Reuters 2010 Journal Citation Reports.
References
Bache, I. and Flinders, M. (2004) Multi-level governance and the study of the British state. Public Policy and Administration 19 (1): 31–51.
Bang, H. (2011) The politics of threats: Late-modern politics in the shadow of neoliberalism. Critical Public Policy 5 (4): 434–448.
Bevir, M. and Rhodes, R.A.W. (2003) Reinterpreting British Governance. London: Routledge.
Bevir, M. and Rhodes, R.A.W. (2006) Governance Narratives. London: Routledge.
Bevir, M. and Rhodes, R.A.W. (2010) The State as Cultural Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bradbury, J. (2010) Jim Bulpitt's territory and power in the United Kingdom and interpreting political development: Bringing the state and temporal analysis back in. Government and Opposition 45 (3): 318–344.
Buller, J. (2000) National Statecraft and European Integration. London: Pinter.
Bulpitt, J. (1983/2008) Territory and Power in the United Kingdom. Colchester, Essex: ECPR.
Burnham, P. (2001) New labour and the politics of depoliticisation. British Journal of Politics and International Relations 3 (2): 127–149.
Fawcett, P. (2009) Government, governance and metagovernance in the British core executive. unpublished PhD Thesis, The University of Birmingham.
Fawcett, P. (2012) Changing Patterns of Interdependence in Whitehall: New Labour, Metagovernance and the Core Executive (1997–2007). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave.
Fawcett, P. and Marsh, D. (2012) Responding to the parochial critique: Examining models of the British polity in an Australian context. Paper for Political Studies Association Conference; April 2012, Belfast.
Flinders, M. and Buller, J. (2006) Depoliticisation: Principles, tactics and tools. British Politics 1 (2): 293–318.
Flinders, M., Gamble, A., Hay, C. and Kenny, M. (2009) The Oxford Handbook of British Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gamble, A. (1990) Theories of British politics. Political Studies 30 (3): 404–420.
James, T. (2011) Institutional change as statecraft? A critical appraisal of the contribution of Jim Bulpitt's statecraft thesis to theories of institutional change. Paper delivered to Public Administration Committee Conference; 2001, University of Birmingham.
Jessop, B. (2004) Multi-level governance and multi-level meta-governance. In: I. Bache and M. Flinders (eds.) Multi-level Governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 49–75.
John, P. (2010) Central state power and its limits in bulpitts territory and power. Government and Opposition 45 (2): 345–364.
Kerr, P. and Kettell, S. (2006) In defence of British politics: The past, present and future of the discipline. British Politics 1 (1): 3–25.
Marsh, D. (2008) Understanding British government: Analysing competing models. British Journal of Politics and International Relations 10 (2): 251–268.
Marsh, D. (2010) The new orthodoxy: The differentiated polity model. Public Administration 89 (1): 32–48.
Marsh, D. (2011) Late modernity and the changing nature of politics: Two cheers for Henrik Bang. Critical Public Policy 5 (1): 74–89.
Marsh, D., Richards, R. and Smith, M. (2003) Changing Patterns of Governance in the UK: Reinventing Whitehall. Basingstoke, UK: Macmillan.
Marsh, D. and Rhodes, R.A.W. (1992) Policy Networks in British Politics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Rhodes, R.A.W. (1988) Beyond Westminster and Whitehall: The Sub-Central Governments of Britain. London: Allen and Unwin.
Rhodes, R.A.W., Wanna, J. and Weller, P. (2009) Comparing Westminster. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
The Editors (1999) Editorial: Studying British politics. British Journal of Politics and International Relations 1 (1): 1–2.
Thompson, E. (1980) The ‘Washminster’ mutation. In: P. Weller and D. Jaensch (eds.) Responsible Government in Australia. Melbourne, Australia: Drummond and APSA.
Thompson, E. (2001) The constitution and the Australian system of limited government, responsible government and representative deomocracy: Revisiting the Washminster mutation. University of New South Wales Law Journal 24 (3): 657–669.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Marsh, D. British politics: A view from afar. Br Polit 7, 43–54 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1057/bp.2011.34
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/bp.2011.34