Search

To purchase or authenticate to the full-text of this article, please visit this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2006.00632.x Byline: Mark Bevir (1), R. A. W. Rhodes (2) Abstract: This article asks, 'how do practitioners understand the relationship between the prime minister, ministers and the rest of Westminster and Whitehall?' We focus on three topics. First, we review tales of a Blair presidency. Second, we explore the governance paradox in which people tell tales of a Blair presidency as they recount stories of British governance that portray it as fragmented with several decision-makers. Finally, we argue that this paradox reveals the distorting influence the Westminster model still exerts on many accounts of British politics. It acts as a smokescreen for the changes in executive politics. Author Affiliation: (1)University of California at Berkeley (2)Australian National University Article History: (Accepted: 30 January 2006)

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 management. I 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.

This paper explores the contemporary history of that area of intellectual inquiry known as Public Administration. It focuses on developments in the 1980s and on the contribution of political science. It argues that the subject is diverse and characterized by competing theoretical frameworks. It evaluates organization theory, state theory, rational choice, public management and their associated methods. It concludes that the distinctive contribution from political science lies in multi-theoretic research, methodological pluralism, setting one's own agenda, the avoidance of trivial organizations and the defence of public bureaucracies.