Search

Although the concept of depoliticisation has existed as an important theme in a range of disciplines for some time, in recent years it has become a significant issue for scholars interested in European politics, governance and public policy. Within the same period depoliticisation has been championed by government ministers and proposed by think tanks and pressure groups at the national level as a solution to both public policy and constitutional challenges. At the global level depoliticisation has been promoted by the World Bank and United Nations as a means through which developing countries can enhance state capacity and market credibility. However, the wider literature on depoliticisation has arguably failed to offer any definitional clarity. Nor has it sought to tease apart and deconstruct the concept of depoliticisation in order to distinguish between different types of depoliticisation tactics or understand the interplay between them. This article gleans insights from a number of disciplines and synthesises the wider literature in order to offer a multi-level analytical framework. This framework, it is suggested, facilitates a deeper understanding of contemporary depoliticisation strategies, tools and tactics while also providing an insight into shifts in contemporary modes of governance.

Although the concept of depoliticisation has existed as an important theme in a range of disciplines for some time, in recent years it has become a significant issue for scholars interested in European politics, governance and public policy. Within the same period depoliticisation has been championed by government ministers and proposed by think tanks and pressure groups at the national level as a solution to both public policy and constitutional challenges. At the global level depoliticisation has been promoted by the World Bank and United Nations as a means through which developing countries can enhance state capacity and market credibility. However, the wider literature on depoliticisation has arguably failed to offer any definitional clarity. Nor has it sought to tease apart and deconstruct the concept of depoliticisation in order to distinguish between different types of depoliticisation tactics or understand the interplay between them. This article gleans insights from a number of disciplines and synthesises the wider literature in order to offer a multi-level analytical framework. This framework, it is suggested, facilitates a deeper understanding of contemporary depoliticisation strategies, tools and tactics while also providing an insight into shifts in contemporary modes of governance.British Politics (2006) 1, 293–318. doi:10.1057/palgrave.bp.4200016

The British State is currently being restructured through a process of constitutional and institutional reform. This process contributes to other changes that are creating an increasingly complex range of inter-governmental relationships of shifting and opaque jurisdictional boundaries together with a redefinition of state-society relations. In light of this, observers are increasingly making reference to an emergent system of ‘multi-level governance’ within Britain. The focus of this article is conceptual. The aim is to assess the value of multi-level governance as an analytical framework that can contribute to understanding the changing nature of the British State. In doing so, we identify and apply the two models or types of multi-level governance developed by Hooghe and Marks (2004). We conclude that while multi-level governance has its limitations, it has great potential as a contrastive concept when juxtaposed with the Westminster Model.

Bovens Mark, Paul't Hart, and B.G. Peters (eds.). (2001). Success and Failure in Public Governance. Cheltenham, U.K., and Northampton, MA, U.S.A.: Edward Elgar.Dresang, Dennis L. (2002). Public Personnel Management and Public Policy, 4th ed.: Longman, 356 pp.Liou, Kuotsai Tom. (ed.). (2001). Handbook of Public Management Practice and Reform. New York: Marcel Dekker, 787 pp., $250.van Thiel, Sandra. (2001). Quangos: Trends, Causes and Consequences. Aldershot: Ashgate, 249 pp.

Despite concerns regarding its practical utility the convention of individual ministerial responsibility remains central to any analysis of the British constitution. The convention forms the ‘buckle’ in the relationship between parliament and the executive. It is widely acknowledged that throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries the executive has gained the ascendancy in this relationship. Consequently, the enduring centrality of the convention rests not in its use by parliament as a tool with which to scrutinise the executive but, conversely, as a tool used by the executive to dismiss reform proposals that threaten its dominant position. This article reviews the way in which British government developed and particularly how this evolution gave primacy to a convention that contained mutually supportive yet contradictory strands. It then demonstrates the core argument of this article by examining two case studies ‐the introduction of freedom of information legislation and the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights. The article concludes by considering the wider implications of the continuing centrality of ministerial responsibility and the paradoxes and challenges it presents.