Abstract
The Anglosphere represents an unusually apt lens through which to explore the structural dimensions of policy transfer. Shared foreign policy initiatives between the Anglosphere states are numerous and stem largely from their shared history. Prominently, they share ideological and administrative traditions such as a commitment to a mixed economy, legal systems based on common law tradition, an open society, the values of liberal democracy and so on. This chapter unpacks these dynamics. Drawing on assemblage, constructivist and transgovernmental perspectives, the chapter holds culture, values and norms as critical to the coalescence of cross-border policy relations and an important additional explanation of how transnational collaborative environments emerge. These, it is suggested, facilitate (i) the transfer of policy ideas to resolve domestic policy problems and (ii) establish collaborative mechanisms to resolve transnational challenges. Consideration of these novel public sector ‘assemblages’ deepens our empirical and theoretical knowledge of the new spaces of transnational administration.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Anderson, B. (2006). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism. New York and London: Verso books.
Bell, D. (2016). Reordering the world: Essays on liberalism and empire. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Benson, D., & Jordan, A. (2011). What have we learned from policy transfer research? Dolowitz and marsh revisited. Political Studies Review, 9(3), 366–378. Retrieved from (Go to ISI)://WOS:000293794900007.
Bevir, M. (2008). Key concepts in governance. Wiltshire: Sage.
Bevir, M., & Richards, D. (2009). Decentring policy networks: A theoretical agenda. Public Administration, 87(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2008.01736.x.
Bjørnholt, B., & Larsen, F. (2014). The politics of performance measurement: Evaluation use as mediator for politics. Evaluation, 20(4), 400–411.
Blyth, M. (2010). On setting and upsetting agendas. In A. Gofas & C. Hay (Eds.), The role of ideas in political analysis: A portrait of contemporary debates (pp. 167–186). London: Routledge.
Christensen, T. (2006). Smart policy? In R. E. Goodin, Moran, M., & Rein, M. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of public policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Common, R. K. (1998). Convergence and transfer: A review of the globalisation of new public management. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 11(6), 440–450.
Daguerre, A., & Taylor-Gooby, P. (2004). Neglecting Europe: Explaining the predominance of American ideas in New Labour’s welfare policies since 1997. Journal of European Social Policy, 14(1), 25–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/0958928704039786.
Dollery, B., Garcea, J., & LeSage, E. C. (2008). Introduction. In B. Dollery, J. Garcea, & E. C. LeSage (Eds.), Local government reform: A comparative analysis of advanced Anglo-American countries. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Duffy, D. (2017). Evaluation and governing in the 21st century. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-54513-8.
Fichtner, J. (2017). Perpetual decline or persistent dominance? Uncovering Anglo-America’s true structural power in global finance. Review of International Studies, 43(1), 3–28. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210516000206.
Finkelstein, N. D. (2000). Transparency in Public Policy: Berlin: Springer.
Flynn, N., & Strehl, F. (1996). Public sector management in Europe. London: Prentice Hall.
Halligan, J. (2007). Anglo-American systems: Easy diffusion. In J. C. N. Raadschelders, T. A. J. Toonen, & F. M. Van der Meer (Eds.), The civil service in the 21st century. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Halligan, J. (2015). Anglophone systems: Diffusion and policy transfer within an administrative tradition. In Comparative civil service systems in the 21st century (pp. 57–76). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hansen, L. (2003). Introduction. In L. Hansen & O. Waever (Eds.), European Integration and National Identity. London: Routledge.
Hansen, L., & Wæver, O. (2003). European integration and national identity: The challenge of the Nordic states. London: Routledge.
Hebel, K., & Lenz, T. (2013). The identity/policy nexus in European foreign policy. Journal of European Public Policy, 23(4), 473–491. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2015.1047398.
Holland, J. (2020). Selling war and peace: Syria and the Anglosphere: Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hood, C. (1991). A public management for all seasons? Public Administration, 69(1), 3–19.
Hood, C. (1995). The “new public management” in the 1980s: Variations on a theme. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 20(2–3), 93–109.
Jones, T., & Newburn, T. (2002). Policy convergence and crime control in the USA and the UK Streams of influence and levels of impact. Criminology and Criminal Justice, 2(2), 173–203.
Krahmann, E. (2003). Conceptualizing security governance. Cooperation and Conflict, 38(1), 5–26.
Kenny, M., & Pearce, N. (2016). After Brexit: The Eurosceptic dream of an Anglosphere. Juncture, 22(4), 304–307.
Keohane, R. O., & Nye, J. S. (1974). Transgovernmental relations and international organizations. World Politics, 27(1), 39–62. https://doi.org/10.2307/2009925.
Larmour, P. (2002). Westminster constitutions in the South Pacific: A “policy transfer” approach. Asian Journal of Political Science, 10(1), 39–54.
Lee, C., & Strang, D. (2006). The international diffusion of public-sector downsizing: Network emulation and theory-driven learning. International Organization, 60(4), 883–909.
Legrand, T. (2012). Overseas and over here: Policy transfer and evidence-based policy-making. Policy Studies, 33(4), 329–348. https://doi.org/10.1080/01442872.2012.695945.
Legrand, T. (2018). Structure, agency and policy learning: Australia’s multinational corporations dilemma. In C. A. Dunlop, C. M. Radaelli, & P. Trein (Eds.), Learning in Public Policy (pp. 215–241). Basingstoke: Springer.
Legrand, T. (2019). Sovereignty renewed. In D. A. M. Stone & K. Moloney (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of global policy and transnational administration (p. 200). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
McGuire, L. (2001). Service charters-global convergence or national divergence? A comparison of initiatives in Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States. Public Management Review, 3(4), 493–524.
Mead, L. M. (2005). Why anglos lead. The National Interest, 82, 124–131.
Mesquita, R. (2016). The hegemonic hermano: South American collective identity and Brazilian regional strategy. Canadian Journal American and Caribbean Studies, 41(2), 215–238. https://doi.org/10.1080/08263663.2016.1182691.
Miller, D. (2016). Citizenship and national identity. In R. Blaug (Ed.), Democracy: A reader (Vol. 447). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Peters, B. G., & Pierre, J. (2004). Politicization of the civil service: Concepts, causes, consequences. In The Politicization of the civil service in comparative perspective (pp. 13–25). London: Routledge.
Pierre, J. (2013). Globalization and governance. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Pollitt, C., & Bouckaert, G. (2000). Public management reform: A comparative analysis. New York: Oxford University Press.
Pollitt, C. (2015). Towards a new world: Some inconvenient truths for Anglosphere public administration. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 81(1), 3–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852314544069.
Pollitt, C., & Bouckaert, G. (2011). Public management reform: A comparative analysis-new public management, governance, and the Neo-Weberian state. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rhodes, R. A. W. (1994). The hollowing out of the state—The Changing nature of the public-service in Britain. Political Quarterly, 65(2), 138–151. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-923X.1994.tb00441.x.
Rhodes, R. A. W. (2006). Policy network analysis. In M. Moran, M. Rein, & R. E. Goodin (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of public policy (pp. 423–445). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rhodes, R. A. W. (2007). Understanding governance: Ten years on. Organization Studies, 28(8), 1243–1264. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840607076586.
Rhodes, R. A. W., & Marsh, D. (1992). New directions in the study of policy networks. European Journal of Political Research, 21(1–2), 181–205. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6765.1992.tb00294.x.
Risse‐Kappen, T. (1996). Exploring the nature of the beast: International relations theory and comparative policy analysis meet the European union. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 34(1), 53–80.
Risse‐Kappen, T. (2016). Collective identity in a democratic community. Domestic Politics and Norm Diffusion in International Relations: Ideas Do Not Float Freely, 78.
Rose, R. (1991). What is lesson-drawing? Journal of Public Policy, 11(01), 3–30.
Rose, R. (1993). Lesson-drawing in public policy: A guide to learning across time and space. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House Publishers.
Rosta, M. (2011). What makes a new public management reform successful? An institutional analysis (pp. 1–41). Corvinus University of Budapest.
Rumelili, B., & Cebeci, M. (2015). Theorizing European identity: Contributions to constructivist international relations debates on collective identity. In V. Kaina, I. P. Karolewski., & S. Kuhn (Eds.), European Identity Revisited. London: Routledge.
Santos, S. C. (2015). Identity in Mercosur: Regionalism and nationalism. Global Governance, 21(1), 43–59. https://doi.org/10.1163/19426720-02101005.
Simmons, B. A., & Elkins, Z. (2004). The globalization of liberalization: Policy diffusion in the international political economy. American Political Science Review, 98(1), 171–189. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055404001078.
Veenendaal, W. P., & Corbett, J. (2015). Why small States offer important answers to large questions. Comparative Political Studies, 48(4), 527–549. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414014554687.
Vucetic, S. (2011). Bound to follow? The Anglosphere and US-led coalitions of the willing, 1950–2001. European Journal of International Relations, 17(1), 27–49. Retrieved from (Go to ISI)://WOS:000287648100002.
Wellings, B. (2020). English nationalism, Brexit and the Anglosphere: Wider still and wider. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Wendt, A. (1994). Collective identity formation and the international state. American Political Science Review, 88(2), 384–397. https://doi.org/10.2307/2944711.
Willetts, D. (2007). England and Britain, Europe and the anglosphere. The Political Quarterly, 78, 54–61.
Wodak, R. (2009). Discursive construction of national identity. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Yates, L., Woelert, P., Millar, V., & O’Connor, K. (2017). New public management and the changing governance of universities. In Knowledge at the Crossroads? (pp. 59–75). Dordrecht: Springer.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Legrand, T. (2021). Political-Cultural Propinquity in the Anglosphere. In: The Architecture of Policy Transfer. Studies in the Political Economy of Public Policy. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55821-5_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55821-5_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-55820-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-55821-5
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)