Advertisement

Modes of State Governance, Populist Pressures and Public Sector Reform

  • Matthew FlindersEmail author
  • Christopher Huggins
Chapter
  • 30 Downloads
Part of the International Series on Public Policy book series (ISPP)

Abstract

The traditional account of political authority and policy-making in the United Kingdom offers a simplistic picture of governance. Under the ‘Westminster model’, governance capacity is seen to be centralised in a strong executive which dominates legislative and policy-making processes and exercises control through a unitary state. In recent decades, this model has come under strain due to the widespread delegation of tasks, functions and responsibilities away from the direct control of national politicians. In this chapter, the changing topography of the state is mapped through the analysis of two specific modes or ‘types’ of multilevel governance which, in turn, offer empirical evidence that underpins concerns regarding unintended consequences, particularly around public values, by highlighting control-dilemmas, complexity questions and confusion in relation to accountability. This chapter suggests that these unintended consequences have played a role in fuelling the emergence of populist pressures in ways that have generally not been acknowledged in analyses that have focused on economic and cultural rather than bureaucratic factors.

Keywords

Political authority Governance Westminster model Governance capacity Executive Legislative Unitary state Multilevel governance Public values Accountability Populist Economic Cultural Bureaucratic 

References

  1. Axelsson, R. (2000). The Organizational Pendulum: Healthcare Management in Sweden 1865–1998. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 28(1), 47–53.Google Scholar
  2. Bache, I., Bartle, I., Flinders, M., & Marsden, G. (2015). Blame Games and Climate Change: Accountability, Multi-level Governance and Carbon Management. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 17(1), 64–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bagehot, W. (1867). The English Constitution. Glasgow: William Collins Sone and Co..Google Scholar
  4. Bailey, D., & Wood, M. (2017). The Metagovernance of English Devolution. Local Government Studies, 43(6), 966–991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Birch, A. (1964). Representative and Responsible Government. London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
  6. Blunkett, D., Flinders, M., & Prosser, B. (2016). Devolution, Evolution, Revolution … Democracy? What’s Really Happening to English Local Governance? The Political Quarterly, 87(4), 553–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cairney, P., Heikkila, T., & Wood, M. (2019). Making Policy in a Complex World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cairney, P., Russell, S., & St Denny, E. (2016). The ‘Scottish Approach’ to Policy and Policymaking: What Issues Are Territorial and What Are Universal? Policy and Politics, 44(3), 333–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chwalisz, C. (2015). The Populist Signal: Why Politics and Democracy Need to Change. London: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  10. Checkland, K., Dam, R., Hammond, J. O. N., Coleman, A., Segar, J., Mays, N., & Allen, P. (2018). Being Autonomous and Having Space in Which to Act: Commissioning in the ‘New NHS’ in England. Journal of Social Policy, 47(2), 377–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Davies, N., Chan, O., Cheung, A., Freeguard, G., & Norris, E. (2018). Government Procurement: The Scale and Nature of Contracting in the UK. Retrieved from https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/IfG_procurement_WEB_4.pdf.
  12. De Vries, M. S. (2000). The Rise and Fall of Decentralization: A Comparative Analysis of Arguments and Practices in European Countries. European Journal of Political Research, 38(2), 193–224.Google Scholar
  13. Deering, J., & Feilzer, M. (2019). Hollowing Out Probation? The Roots of Transforming Rehabilitation. Probation Journal, 66(1), 8–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Deloitte. (2016). The State of the State 2016–17. London: Deloitte LLP.Google Scholar
  15. Deloitte. (2017). The State of the State 2017–18. London: Deloitte LLP.Google Scholar
  16. Dommett, K., & Flinders, M. (2015). The Centre Strikes Back: Meta-Governance, Delegation, and the Core Executive in the United Kingdom, 2010–14. Public Administration, 93(1), 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Flinders, M. (2005). The Politics of Public–Private Partnerships. Political Studies, 7(2), 215–239.Google Scholar
  18. Flinders, M. (2008). Walking Without Order: Delegated Governance and the British State. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Flinders, M. (2015). The General Rejection? Political Disengagement, Disaffected Democrats and ‘Doing Politics’ Differently. Parliamentary Affairs, 68(S1), 241–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Flinders, M., & Kelso, A. (2011). Mind the Gap. British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 13(2), 249–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Flinders, M., & Judge, D. (2017). Fifty Years of Representative and Responsible Government: Contemporary Relevance, Theoretical Revisions and Conceptual Reflection. Representation, 53(2), 97–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Foa, R., & Mounk, Y. (2017). The Signs of Deconsolidation. Journal of Democracy, 28(1), 5–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gray, M., & Barford, A. (2018). The Depths of the Cuts: The Uneven Geography of Local Government Austerity. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 11(3), 541–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Greve, C., Flinders, M., & Van Thiel, S. (1999). Quangos—What’s in a Name? Defining Quangos from a Comparative Perspective. Governance, 12(2), 129–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hansard Society. (2019). Audit of Political Engagement 16. Retrieved from https://www.hansardsociety.org.uk/publications/reports/audit-of-political-engagement-16
  26. Hellowell, M. (2010). The UK’s Private Finance Initiative: History, Evaluation, Prospects. In G. A. Hodge, C. Greve, & A. E. Boardman (Eds.), International Handbook on Public-Private Partnerships (pp. 307–332). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  27. Hirschman, A. (1990). Exit, Voice and Loyalty. Harvard: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Hood, C. (2010). The Blame Game: Spin, Bureaucracy, and Self-preservation in Government. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hood, C., & Dixon, R. (2015). A Government that Worked Better and Cost Less? Evaluating Three Decades of Reform and Change in UK Central Government. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hooghe, L., & Marks, G. (2003). Unravelling the Central State, but How? American Political Science Review, 97(2), 233–243.Google Scholar
  31. Hunter, J. (2017). Rebooting Devolution: A Common-sense Approach to Taking Back Control. Retrieved from https://www.ippr.org/publications/rebooting-devolution.
  32. Jessop, B. (1997). Capitalism and Its Future: Remarks on Regulation, Government and Governance. Review of International Political Economy, 4(3), 561–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Jessop, B. (1998). The Rise of Governance and the Risks of Failure: The Case of Economic Development. International Social Science Journal, 50(155), 29–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Jessop, B. (2015). The Course, Contradictions, and Consequences of Extending Competition as a Mode of (Meta-) Governance. Distinktion: Journal of Social Theory, 16(2), 167–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Jones, M. (2019). The March of Governance and the Actualities of Failure. International Social Science Journal, 68(227–228), 25–41.Google Scholar
  36. Jones, P., Wynn, M., Hillier, D., & Comfort, D. (2017). A Commentary on the City Deals in the UK. Journal of Public Affairs, 17(3), 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Jordan, G., & Cairney, P. (2013). What Is the ‘Dominant Model’ of British Policymaking? Comparing Majoritarian a and Policy Community Ideas. British Politics, 8(3), 233–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kooiman, J., & Jentoft, S. (2009). Meta-governance: Values, Norms and Principles, and the Making of Hard Choices. Public Administration, 87(4), 818–836.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lijphart, A. (2012). Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries (2nd ed.). New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Local Government Association. (2018). LGA Responds to Government’s Annual Devolution Report. Retrieved from https://www.local.gov.uk/about/news/lga-responds-governments-annual-devolution-report
  41. Lyall, S., Wood, M., & Bailey, D. (2015). Democracy: The Missing Link in the Devolution Debate. Retrieved from https://neweconomics.org/uploads/files/1888588d95f1712903_e3m6ii50b.pdf
  42. Moore, M. H. (1994). Public Value as the Focus of Strategy. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 53(3), 296–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. National Audit Office. (2018). Financial sustainability of local authorities 2018. Retrieved from https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Financial-sustainabilty-of-local-authorites-2018.pdf.
  44. National Audit Office. (2019). Transforming Rehabilitation: Progress Review. Retrieved from https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Transforming-Rehabilitation-Progress-review.pdf.
  45. O’Brien, P., & Pike, A. (2015). City Deals, Decentralisation and the Governance of Local Infrastructure Funding and Financing in the UK. National Institute Economic Review, 233, R14–R26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Office for Budget Responsibility. (2017). Fiscal Risks Report. Retrieved from https://cdn.obr.uk/July_2017_Fiscal_risks.pdf
  47. Peters, B. G., & Pierre, J. (2004). Multi-Level Governance and Democracy: A Faustian Bargain? In I. Bache & M. Flinders (Eds.), Multi-Level Governance (pp. 75–89). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Pollitt, C., & Talbot, C. (2003). Unbundled Government. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  49. Public Administration Select Committee. (2010). Smaller Government: Shrinking the Quango State (Fifth Report of Session 2010–2011, HC537). Retrieved from https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmpubadm/537/537.pdf.
  50. Public Administration Select Committee. (2014). Who’s Accountable? Relationships Between Government Departments and Arm’s-Length Bodies (First report of session 2014–2015, HC110). Retrieved from https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmselect/cmpubadm/110/110.pdf.
  51. Prosser, B., Renwick, A., Giovanni, A., Sandford, M., Flinders, M., Jennings, W., Smith, G., Spada, P., Stoker, G., & Ghose, K. (2017). Citizen Participation and Changing Governance: Cases of Devolution in England. Policy and Politics, 45(2), 251–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Ridley, F., & Wilson, D. (Eds.). (1995). The Quango Debate. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Rhodes, R. A. W. (1997). Understanding Governance: Policy Networks, Governance, Reflexivity and Accountability. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Sandford, M. (2017). Signing Up to Devolution: The Prevalence of Contract Over Governance in English Devolution Policy. Regional and Federal Studies, 27(1), 63–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Sandford, M. (2019). Local Authority Financial Resilience (House of Commons Library Briefing 08520). Retrieved from https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-8520.
  56. Stoker, G. (2006). Public Value Management: A New Narrative for Networked Governance? American Review of Public Administration, 36(1), 41–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Van Thiel, S. (2001). Quangos: Trends, Causes and Consequences. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2021

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of SheffieldSheffieldUK
  2. 2.University of SuffolkSuffolkUK

Personalised recommendations