Effects of Budgetary Constraints on HR Reforms in Central Public Administrations and the Importance of Institutional Context

A standard criticism toward New Public Management has been its focus on efficiency and cost saving. As a consequence, other important reform objective aspects and administrative values such as quality, fairness, engagement, trust, and sustainability would be neglected. In the field of HRM, this again would result in many (un-)intentional reform effects, such as more demotivation, less engagement, and less trust of the workforce in leadership. Unfortunately, many of these claims have not been tested empirically.Especially in the field of HRM, there is very little comparative evidence on how costs are being cut on a grand scale in different institutional contexts, Human Resource Management policies, with regard to different HR instruments and how these cuts impact on Human Resource Management.This study investigates the current HR reforms in central public administration in 32 OECD countries. Using recent OECD data (OECD Data Set, 2015), the study analyses the impact of budgetary constraints with regard to 40 HR issues and HR instruments. These issues were grouped into different HR bundles. The analysis reveals a strong correlation between budgetary constraints and cost-cutting measures. As a consequence, HRM as such is changing dramatically in some countries. Whereas the past reform trends in most OECD countries were characterized by a move away from the classical bureaucratic model, the present focus is on the implementation of ad hoc reforms in order to save resources. Neither is there a common trend toward one alternative high-work performance model nor a reformed universal “bureaucracy-lite mode.” Overall, data show that HR management is not seen as a strategic factor in the reform process in many countries. In fact, most countries have focused on cost reductions and downsizing and not on responsible restructuring.     

Minority Interest Nation: The Changing Contours of Reporting Scotland on BBC and STV

Scotland's media has traditionally provided one of the central aspects of Scottish distinctiveness, autonomy and identity. This has often historically been viewed unproblematically and uncritically, but in recent times, the selective discourses of the mainstream media have come under increasing scrutiny and challenge, particularly in the recent independence referendum. This article examines the changing output of BBC and STV, considering in detail the evening news and current affairs programmes of both channels, and charting how they have evolved in media content and output. It also examines wider output and representation by BBC and STV, and concludes by addressing the evolving political and media environment.     

Scotland's Progressive Dilemma

Since the 1980s the Scottish National Party has presented its political project in progressive terms, but this created a twin dilemma: in order to achieve independence, the SNP needed to win political power, and in order to achieve political power it had to win an election, and orthodoxy dictated that winning elections in Scotland involved a centre‐left platform. But the two have often been in conflict, as is clear as the SNP approaches its tenth anniversary in devolved government and agitates for another referendum.     

Intergovernmental Relations in the UK: Time for a Radical Overhaul?

Brexit and the coronavirus pandemic have put relationships between the UK government and its devolved counterparts under growing strain. Tensions generated by both of these developments have exposed the inadequacies of the existing, under-developed system for bringing governments together in the UK. The limitations of the current system include the ad hoc nature of intergovernmental meetings, and their consultative rather than decision-making character. Drawing upon an analysis of how intergovernmental relationships are structured in five other countries, the authors offer a number of suggestions for the reconfiguration of the UK model. They explore different ways of enabling joint decision making by its governments, and argue against the assumption that England can be represented adequately by the UK administration. Without a serious attempt to address this dysfunctional part of the UK’s territorial constitution, there is every prospect that relations between these different governments will continue to deteriorate.     

Brexit,Fisheries and Scottish Devolution: An Intergovernmental Disruption

With the UK set to leave the EU, the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) will no longer apply and an alternative legislative framework will need to be put in place, simultaneously navigating the devolved settlement. However, aspects of fisheries management fall under the area of international negotiation which is reserved to the UK government. Disagreements between the UK and Scottish governments over where the line between devolved and reserved lies in this matter has led to difficulties in formulating a post‐Brexit fisheries framework. This dispute has exposed weaknesses in relations between the two governments.     

Unravelling the ‘devolution paradox’: Citizen preferences for self-rule and for shared rule

Recent survey research has revealed a ‘devolution paradox’: some citizens who favour stronger regional governments inconsistently desire policy uniformity across regions and state-wide intervention in policy provision. It is argued and empirically shown that preferences for regional authority can be broken down into preferences for self-rule – that is, for autonomy for the region – and for shared rule – that is, for collaboration between regional and national governments. Drawing upon the International Constitutional Values Survey, which includes 4,930 respondents from 142 regions in eight countries, it is also shown that preferences for self-rule and shared rule have different impacts. Preferences for self-rule translate into a preference for regional reform that strengthens regional autonomy, whereas preferences for shared rule drive preferences for fiscal transfers from richer to poorer regions. These results are important because they can explain why citizens who are in favour of more regional authority may support an apparently ‘paradoxical’ set of policy outcomes.     

The Future of Social Policy in Scotland: Will Further Devolved Powers Lead to Better Social Policies for Disabled People?

Scotland has laid claim to being ‘different’ from the rest of the UK with regards to disability policy. This article examines the evidence for that with regard to long‐term and social care, and discusses the possibilities opened up by the devolution of disability benefits. It asks whether Scotland will demonstrate policy divergence from the rest of the UK, and whether that is likely to be beneficial for disabled people. It argues that Scotland has the potential to create better social policies for disabled people, but faces significant challenges in doing so.     

National Identity or National Interest? Scottish,English and Welsh Attitudes to the Constitutional Debate

This article analyses political attitudes to the union in England, Scotland and Wales after the Scottish independence referendum. Using public opinion data, we explore constitutional preferences and perceptions of national grievance, before examining the role that national identity plays in structuring preferences. Our evidence shows that considerable demand exists for nationally demarcated forms of government within the UK, although these constitutional preferences do not translate in support for policy diversity across the UK. We also find evidence that these constitutional preferences relate closely to national identity, but relate also to appeals to national interest.     

The No‐men of England: The Geordie Revolt that Defeated the Scotland and Wales Bill in 1977

The Scotland and Wales Acts 1978 failed on multiple criteria. Although devolution of powers to Scotland and Wales was a principal policy of the Labour governments in office from 1974 to 1979, it was defeated in a guillotine vote in 1977. That defeat was orchestrated by the leaders of Tyne & Wear County Council, angry that a government of their own party was apparently neglecting their region in favour of Scotland. The project was rescued in two separate bills, but a further rebel amendment inserted a minimum assent condition in the required referendums. The people of Wales rejected the devolution they were offered. The people of Scotland accepted it, but by a margin that failed to cross the threshold. The resulting vote of confidence brought down the Labour government in March 1979. The role of Tyne & Wear County Council in killing the first bill has never been fully acknowledged. The lessons of the story for current devolution policy are explored. If the UK remains a single country, any policy for tax transfers must be fair to the English as well as to the people of the other three territories.