Modes of State Governance, Populist Pressures and Public Sector Reform
- 28 Downloads
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.
KeywordsPolitical authority Governance Westminster model Governance capacity Executive Legislative Unitary state Multilevel governance Public values Accountability Populist Economic Cultural Bureaucratic
- Axelsson, R. (2000). The Organizational Pendulum: Healthcare Management in Sweden 1865–1998. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 28(1), 47–53.Google Scholar
- Bagehot, W. (1867). The English Constitution. Glasgow: William Collins Sone and Co..Google Scholar
- Birch, A. (1964). Representative and Responsible Government. London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
- Chwalisz, C. (2015). The Populist Signal: Why Politics and Democracy Need to Change. London: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
- 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.
- 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
- Deloitte. (2016). The State of the State 2016–17. London: Deloitte LLP.Google Scholar
- Deloitte. (2017). The State of the State 2017–18. London: Deloitte LLP.Google Scholar
- Flinders, M. (2005). The Politics of Public–Private Partnerships. Political Studies, 7(2), 215–239.Google Scholar
- Hansard Society. (2019). Audit of Political Engagement 16. Retrieved from https://www.hansardsociety.org.uk/publications/reports/audit-of-political-engagement-16
- 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
- Hirschman, A. (1990). Exit, Voice and Loyalty. Harvard: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Hooghe, L., & Marks, G. (2003). Unravelling the Central State, but How? American Political Science Review, 97(2), 233–243.Google Scholar
- Hunter, J. (2017). Rebooting Devolution: A Common-sense Approach to Taking Back Control. Retrieved from https://www.ippr.org/publications/rebooting-devolution.
- Jones, M. (2019). The March of Governance and the Actualities of Failure. International Social Science Journal, 68(227–228), 25–41.Google Scholar
- Lijphart, A. (2012). Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries (2nd ed.). New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- Morse A. (2018). Risks, Resources and Government–supplier Relationships. Retrieved from www.nao.org.uk/naoblog/risks-resources-and-government-supplierrelationships/?utm_content=andutm_medium=emailandutm_name=andutm_source=govdelivery.
- 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.
- 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.
- Office for Budget Responsibility. (2017). Fiscal Risks Report. Retrieved from https://cdn.obr.uk/July_2017_Fiscal_risks.pdf
- Pollitt, C., & Talbot, C. (2003). Unbundled Government. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- 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.
- 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.
- Ridley, F., & Wilson, D. (Eds.). (1995). The Quango Debate. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Rhodes, R. A. W. (1997). Understanding Governance: Policy Networks, Governance, Reflexivity and Accountability. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
- Sandford, M. (2019). Local Authority Financial Resilience (House of Commons Library Briefing 08520). Retrieved from https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-8520.
- Van Thiel, S. (2001). Quangos: Trends, Causes and Consequences. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing.Google Scholar