THE CENTRE STRIKES BACK: META‐GOVERNANCE,DELEGATION, AND THE CORE EXECUTIVE IN THE UNITED KINGDOM, 2010–14

A growing literature on ‘agencification’, ‘quangocratization’, and the ‘autonomization’ of the state has highlighted a coordination dilemma in contemporary public governance whereby governments rely on delegated governance but are frustrated by the lack of control that arises from such structures. In the run‐up to the 2010 General Election in the United Kingdom this coordination dilemma was prominent as the capacity of the Cabinet Office to exert control over arm's‐length bodies, either directly or indirectly, received intense criticism. This article presents the findings of the first detailed research project to examine the subsequent Coalition Government's approach to this dilemma. It argues that in relation to the governance of public bodies, the role and capacity of the Cabinet Office has been transformed. In mapping this development the article explores the implications of the centre striking back in the context of ‘post‐New Public Management’ reforms.     

BRINGING STRUCTURES BACK IN: THE ‘GOVERNANCE NARRATIVE’, THE ‘DECENTRED APPROACH’ AND ‘ASYMMETRICAL NETWORK GOVERNANCE’ IN THE EDUCATION AND SPORT POLICY COMMUNITIES

We reflect upon the ‘governance narrative’ as a means of conceptualizing recent developments in the British state. Recent public administration research has advocated a ‘decentred approach’ that would reject the linear narrative of a shift from hierarchical to network governance. We seek to build on ‘decentring’ theorists' critique of existing governance literature by offering case studies of the education and sport policy communities, arguing that the ‘new’ governance form is present in these sectors, but only as an element of a state strategy, the effect of which is to reduce autonomy and increase dependence on the centre among actors outside the core executive. We use the case studies to reflect back on the utility of the decentred approach and suggest that the range of questions it might tackle could be expanded by allowing for a greater role for structures and institutions in explanation, alongside the ideas, culture and belief of actors.     

BUREAUCRACY TRIUMPHANT OR DENIED? THE EXPANSION OF THE BRITISH CIVIL SERVICE, 1919–1939

The power of central government in Britain increased significantly in the inter-war period, but did Britain become bureaucratic? This article examines the expansion of the civil service as a whole through a detailed case study of one particular department (the Ministry of Labour) in the light of traditional critiques of bureaucracy. It concludes that previous over-concentration on the role of the Treasury has distorted analysis. The inter-war civil service became bureaucratic in terms not of rationality, inefficiency or power but only of size and increasing complexity. In this it reflected a general trend in British society, which also affected industry and the trade union movement.     

THE STATE OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION: A PROFESSIONAL HISTORY, 1970–1995

This article surveys developments in the profession of public administration in Britain in the 1980s. It explores: publications by analysing the contents of the leading journal; research grants through an analysis of ESRC awards; teaching through a resume of recent CNAA reports; and employment through a secondary analysis of the Political Studies Association's survey of the political science profession. Where possible, I compare the results with the findings of equivalent surveys in the US. These several surveys support five conclusions.     

POLICY‐LEARNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY INTEGRATION IN THE COMMON AGRICULTURAL POLICY, 1973–2003

This article uses the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) ( Sabatier and Jenkins‐Smith 1999 ; Weible and Sabatier 2007 ) and a refined version of the social learning approach of Peter Hall (1993) to assess and explain policy change in the Common (Agricultural) Policy (CAP) with a special view on Environmental Policy Integration (EPI). Three stages of EPI are discerned that move from central to vertical and later horizontal EPI, complementing an impact model of agriculture and the environment with a public goods model. Reform debates appear as prolonged and iterative battles over the institutionalization of new ideas which are finally incorporated into the existing policy framework. The policy network increasingly reflects cross‐policy interdependencies and includes superior authorities, rendering the notion of a policy subsystem problematic. Contrary to the social learning model, the major (although not the most radical) change proponent dominates the policy community while superior authorities tend to intervene on behalf of the status quo. The argument is developed on the base of interviews with policy‐makers in Brussels.