Search

The term 'governance' is popular but imprecise. It has at least six uses, referring to: the minimal state; corporate governance; the new public management; 'good governance'; socio-cybernetic systems; and self-organizing networks. I stipulate that governance refers to 'self-organizing, interorganizational networks' and argue these networks complement markets and hierarchies as governing structures for authoritatively allocating resources and exercising control and co-ordination. I defend this definition, arguing that it throws new light on recent changes in British government, most notably: hollowing out the state, the new public management, and intergovernmental manage-ment. 1 conclude that networks are now a pervasive feature of service delivery in Britain; that such networks are characterized by trust and mutual adjustment and undermine management reforms rooted in competition; and that they are a challenge to governability because they become autonomous and resist central guidance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Focuses on the state of public service in Great Britain. Administrative reforms; Public administration policies; Trends; Public intervention to government policies; Alternative service delivery systems.

Argues that British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's effect on policy was more limited than many claim and suggests why the Thatcher effect was greater in some policy areas than others and why it was generally limited. Influence of Thatcher government; Failure to deliver radical policy change; Housing, industrial relations, privatization and local government; Discussion.

This article engages with Meg Russell and Ruxandra Serban's (2021) argument that the Westminster model is 'a concept stretched beyond repair' that deserves 'to be retired'. We examine the logic, theory and methods that led to such a powerful, potent and provocative argument. We suggest their approach may have inadvertently 'muddied' an already muddled concept. We assess the implications of 'muddying' for their conclusion that the Westminster model is, in essence, a dead concept in need of a decent funeral. We suggest the concept is 'stretched but not snapped' by developing a simple four-perspective broadening of the analytical lens. This approach aids understanding about what the concept covers, how it is operationalized and why it remains useful in comparative research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article adopts and reinvents the ethnographic approach to uncover what governing elites do, and how they respond to public disaffection. Although there is significant work on the citizens' attitudes to the governing elite (the demand side) there is little work on how elites interpret and respond to public disaffection (the supply side). It is argued here that ethnography is the best available research method for collecting data on the supply side. The article tackles longstanding stereotypes in political science about the ethnographic method and what it is good for, and highlights how the innovative and varied practices of contemporary ethnography are ideally suited to shedding light into the 'black box' of elite politics. The potential pay‐off is demonstrated with reference to important examples of elite ethnography from the margins of political science scholarship. The implications from these rich studies suggest a reorientation of how one understands the drivers of public disaffection and the role that political elites play in exacerbating cynicism and disappointment. The article concludes by pointing to the benefits to the discipline in embracing elite ethnography both to diversify the methodological toolkit in explaining the complex dynamics of disaffection, and to better enable engagement in renewed public debate about the political establishment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]