Devolution and individual choice in local government services

Abstract

The Labour government in England is pressing for further individual consumer choice in local authority services and, in the name of localism, exploring possibilities for devolution of powers to councils. Little work has been done on how the two agendas might interact. Are they in inevitable tension, because choice promotes exit and devolution promotes voice? Might devolution be offered as a reward for good performance in choice? What might be the consequences for equity? This article argues that the more significant interaction issues are likely to arise from the dynamics created by their combined effects on incentives on households at the margin to relocate. The article offers conceptual and deductive analysis, because before we know the design of devolution and choice schemes we cannot measure the size of the interaction effects. Although major policy tension is not inevitable, the article concludes that policy makers may have to decide how much gains in voice and from choice are worth the possible losses in equity.     

How did international economic regulation survive the last period of deglobalization?

As trade wars and protectionism again present severe challenges and obstructions to international economic regulatory organizations (IEROs), it is timely to ask how their predecessors survived the last deep deglobalization of the interwar years. This article presents a fresh neo-Durkheimian institutional explanation. It highlights contrasting pathways to survival and bequest of IEROs in three fields of regulation – international infrastructure, capital and labor, and commodities. Our explanation shows that functional imperatives and short-term market pressures in these different areas of regulation facilitated specific forms of social organization within IEROs (such as hierarchy or individualistic brokering). These contrasting forms of social organization cultivated distinct regulatory styles during deglobalization and cultivated capacities for contrasting survival and bequest strategies. Our approach is thus able to account for variation in pathways to survival in a way that other possible explanations, such as theories of regulatory capture or bureaucratic autonomy, cannot.     

Joined-up government and privacy in the United Kingdom: managing tensions between data protection and social policy. Part II

The tension between the goals of integrated, seamless public services, requiring more extensive data sharing, and of privacy protection, now represents a major challenge for UK policy‐makers, regulators and service managers. In Part I of this article (see Public Administration volume 83, number 1, pp. 111–33), we showed that attempts to manage this tension are being made at two levels. First, a settlement is being attempted at the level of general data protection law and the rules that govern data‐sharing practices across the public sector. We refer to this as the horizontal dimension of the governance of data sharing and privacy. Secondly, settlements are also being attempted within particular fields of public policy and service delivery; this we refer to as the vertical dimension. In this second part, we enquire whether risks to privacy are greater in some policy sectors than others. We do this, first by showing how the Labour Government's policy agenda is producing stronger imperatives towards data sharing than was the case under previous administrations in three fields of public policy and services, and by examining the safeguards introduced in these fields. We then compare the settlements emerging from differing practices within each of these policy sectors, before briefly assessing which, if any, principles of data protection seem to be most at risk and in which policy contexts. Four strategies for the governance of data sharing and privacy are recapitulated – namely, seeking to make the two commitments consistent or even mutually reinforcing; mitigating the tensions with safeguards such as detailed guidelines; allowing privacy to take precedence over integration; and allowing data sharing to take precedence over privacy. We argue that the UK government has increasingly sought to pursue the second strategy and that the vertical dimension is, in practice, much more important in defining the settlement between data sharing and privacy than is the horizontal dimension. This strategy is, however, potentially unstable and may not be sustainable. The conclusion proposes a radical recasting of the way in which the idea of a ‘balance’ between privacy and data‐sharing imperatives is conceived.     

New Labour's modernization in the public sector: a neo-Durkheimian approach and the case of mental health services

Five accounts of New Labour's style of public management reform can be identified in the recent academic literature. Although each has merits, none is wholly convincing. After a discussion of their scope and limits, this article offers a distinctive account, grounded in wider social theory, which also synthesizes the most valuable elements in the five mainstream accounts. The article then uses the case of New Labour's reforms of the mental health system to support this account, showing how it exemplifies each of the 15 major strands of reform activity that have together been the hallmark of what in practice New Labour has meant by 'modernization'. This provides the basis for a critique of the limits and dangers of the New Labour style.     

Should We Be Compelled to Have Identity Cards? Justifications for the Legal Enforcement of Obligations

In many countries, there is a debate about whether compulsory identity card schemes are acceptable and justifiable. The UK government, for example, has now committed itself to introduce such a scheme. This case provides the main example in the article, although the argument is of general application. Justifying compulsion requires not only that there be a demonstrated and fundamental obligation upon residents in a country to identify themselves using a prescribed card, but that the duty should be so strong as to merit legal enforcement. The article considers, from first principles, various arguments for the existence of an obligation upon citizens to possess a standard state-issued form of identification and produce it when reasonably requested to do, and for the enforceability of such a duty. A distinctive argument is presented that there can be a valid but limited justification for such an obligation. However, this will not justify any compulsory identity card scheme. Many schemes will violate important additional side-constraints, and there are reasons to suspect that the British government's current proposals may do so. If the argument is accepted, then it would clarify exactly what the focus of debate about an identity card scheme should be. The argument also has wider implications for the scope of individual obligations.     

Joined-up government and privacy in the United Kingdom: managing tensions between data protection and social policy. Part I

The Labour government that came to power in the United Kingdom in 1997 made much of its commitment to ‘joined‐up working’, by which it meant horizontal integration between policies and co‐ordination across services. The particular manner in which it pursued this commitment has led to growing pressure for the sharing of citizens’ personal information among public service agencies. Yet at the same time, Parliament was engaged in implementing the European Data Protection Directive with a new Data Protection Act and the Government was honouring its manifesto commitment to bring the European Convention on Human Rights – including its enshrined right to private life – into domestic law. Government has therefore been obliged to find ways of managing the potential tension between these commitments. There are two analytically distinct dimensions to the arrangements through which this is being attempted. First, the horizontal dimension consists in initiatives that apply across all policy fields, and includes the establishment of cross‐governmental guidelines for implementing data protection law as well as the development of national policy on sharing personal data between public services. In 2002, the government published a major policy paper on data sharing and privacy. By late 2003, its approach to the need for legislation had changed sharply. The second analytically distinct dimension, the vertical dimension, consists in the laws, codes and norms developed in specific policy fields to govern relationships between data sharing and privacy within those fields. This two‐part article discusses these arrangements. Part I analyses the horizontal dimension of the governance of data sharing and privacy. Part II (published in the next issue) examines the vertical dimension in three fields in which tensions between data sharing and privacy have come to the fore: community safety, social security and NHS health care. Four options for the governance of data sharing and privacy are analytically distinguished: (1) seeking to make the two commitments consistent or even mutually reinforcing; (2) mitigating the tensions with detailed guidelines for implementation; (3) allowing data sharing to take precedence over privacy; and (4) allowing privacy to take precedence over data sharing. The article argues that, despite its strong assertion of (1), the government has, in practice, increasingly sought to pursue option (2) and that, in consequence, the vertical dimension has become much more important in shaping the relationship than the horizontal dimension. The articles argue, however, that option (2) is a potentially unstable strategy as well as being unsustainable.