Search

To authenticate to the full-text of this article, please visit this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2009.01763.x Byline: R.A.W. RHODES (1), JOHN WANNA (2) Abstract: We challenge the usefulness of the 'public value' approach in Westminster systems with their dominant hierarchies of control, strong roles for ministers, and tight authorizing regimes underpinned by disciplined two-party systems. We identify two key confusions: about public value as theory, and in defining who are 'public managers'. We identify five linked core assumptions in public value: the benign view of large-scale organizations; the primacy of management; the relevance of private sector experience; the downgrading of party politics; and public servants as platonic guardians. We identify two key dilemmas around the 'primacy of party politics' and the notion that public managers should play the role of platonic guardians deciding the public interest. We illustrate our argument with short case studies of: the David Kelly story from the UK; the 'children overboard' scandal in Australia; the 'mad cow disease' outbreak in the UK; the Yorkshire health authority's 'tea-parties', and the Cave Creek disaster in New Zealand. Author Affiliation: 1R.A.W. Rhodes holds a joint appointment as Professor of Government in the School of Government at the University of Tasmania and Distinguished Professor of Political Science in the Research School of Social Sciences at the Australian National University. 2John Wanna is the inaugural Sir John Bunting Chair of Public Administration at the Research School of Social Sciences at the Australian National University and Director of Research for the Australian and New Zealand School of Government (ANZSOG). Article History: Date received 9 March 2007 Date accepted 23 April 2008

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]

To purchase or authenticate to the full-text of this article, please visit this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8500.2008.00594.x Byline: R.A.W. Rhodes (*), John Wanna ([dagger]) Author Affiliation: (*)University of Tasmania ([dagger])Australian National University

To purchase or authenticate to the full-text of this article, please visit this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2007.00694.x Byline: R. A. W. RHODES, BILL JENKINS, WALTER KICKERT

To purchase or authenticate to the full-text of this article, please visit this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8500.2007.00553.x Byline: R.A.W. Rhodes (*), John Wanna (*) Keywords: bureaucracy; public value; public interest; public management; Westminister Abstract: In various guises, public value has become extraordinarily popular in recent years. We challenge the relevance and usefulness of the approach in Westminster systems with their dominant hierarchies of control, strong roles for ministers, and tight authorising regimes underpinned by disciplined two-party systems. We start by spelling out the core assumptions behind the public value approach. We identify two key confusions; about public value as theory, and in defining 'public managers'. We identify five linked core assumptions in public value: the benign view of large-scale organisations; the primacy of management; the relevance of private sector experience; the downgrading of party politics; and public servants as Platonic guardians. We then focus on the last two assumptions because they are the least applicable in Westminster systems. We defend the 'primacy of party politics' and we criticise the notion that public managers should play the role of Platonic guardians deciding the public interest. The final section of the article presents a 'ladder of public value' by which to gauge the utility of the approach for public managers in Westminster systems. Author Affiliation: (*)The Australian National University

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)

To purchase or authenticate to the full-text of this article, please visit this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2006.00627.x Byline: R.A.W. RHODES, BILL JENKINS, WALTER KICKERT

To purchase or authenticate to the full-text of this article, please visit this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8500.2006.00482.x Byline: Mark Bevir (1), R. A. W. Rhodes (2) Author Affiliation: (1)University of California (2)Australian National University

The interpretive approach to political science that criticizes the science is opposed by suggesting that criticisms rest on both misconceptions and misplaced beliefs. The misconceptions about interpretive approach are that it focuses on beliefs or discourses, ignores concepts of social structure, and is incapable of producing policy-relevant knowledge.

Has British Public Administration lost its sense of coherent identity? This article describes the major changes of the postwar period. It describes the decline of traditional Public Administration with its [...]

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]

The author discuss the views of Hendrik Wagenaar on their work regarding interpretivism. They mention that Wagenaar suggests that they do not integrates belief and practice enough, in which they say that they have stressed that actions and practices are intrinsically meaningful. They explore the concern of Wagenaar regarding relative paucity of own empirical work.

This article argues for research grounded in interpretive theory, or the beliefs and practices of actors, and observational fieldwork, or thick descriptions of what the actors think they are doing. However, discussions of theory and method only come to life when they are grounded in fieldwork. So, at the heart of the article is an account of the Private Offices of British central government departments. I argue that the focus on beliefs and practices enables me to tell a new story. The existing literature does not explore how the individuals who comprise the department’s core executive coordinate the department’s tasks and resolve conflicts. There is a ‘departmental court’ that dare not speak its name. By describing the court ‘at work’, I focus not on individual Private Offices but on the tasks of coordination and conflict resolution at the top of the department. I conclude that any approach that provides new evidence and a novel interpretation makes a strong case for inclusion in the armoury of every student of public administration. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

This article revisits the country case studies and seeks to answer two questions. What are the strengths and weaknesses of an interpretive approach? What lessons can we draw from our analysis of public sector reform? To assess an interpretive approach, we discuss: the issues raised in identifying beliefs; the meaning of explanation; how to select traditions; the shift from prediction to informed conjecture and policy advice as storytelling. To assess the lessons, we outline our preferred story of public sector reform. We seek to show that an interpretive approach produces insights for students of public administration. We argue it remains feasible to give policy advice to public sector managers by telling them stories and providing rules of thumb (proverbs) to guide managerial practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To understand governance, we ask who is telling the story from within which tradition. We argue there is no essentialist notion of governance but at least four conceptions each rooted in a distinctive tradition. The first section of the paper describes the relevant traditions: Tory, Liberal, Whig and Socialist. The second section describes the different notions of governance associated with each tradition; intermediate institutions, marketizing public services, reinventing the constitution and trust and negotiation. We explain these distinct conceptions of governance as responses to the dilemmas of inflation and state overload. In the conclusion, we summarize how and why traditions change, concluding, there is no such thing as governance, but only the differing constructions of the several traditions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The role of the state is changing under the impact of, for example, globalization. The changes have been variously understood as the new public management (NPM), the hollowing–out of the state and the new governance. This special issue of Public Administration explores the changing role of the state in advanced industrial democracies. It focuses on the puzzle of why states respond differently to common trends. This introductory article has three aims. First, we provide a brief review of the existing literature on public sector reform to show that our approach is distinctive. We argue that the existing literature does not explore the ways in which governmental traditions shape reform. Second, we outline an interpretive approach to the analysis of public sector reform built on the notions of beliefs, traditions, dilemmas and narratives. We provide brief illustrations of these ideas drawn from the individual country articles. Finally, we outline the ground covered by all the chapters but we do not summarize and compare their experiences of reform. That task is reserved for the concluding article. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The report describes the flow of manuscripts and the contents of the journal before briefly surveying each section of the journal. It ends with a résumé of changes during the year and a thank you to the many people who have helped. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Views the new public management (NPM) as a prime example of the laws of unintended consequences in action in the United Kingdom. Dimensions of NPM; Unintended consequences of reform; Interpretation of the changes from marketization to networks.

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.

Presents an essay which examined the legacy of `Thatcherism,' and its construction by the dominant traditions of British government. Discussion of several narratives on the issue; Definition of the traditions in the context of Thatcherism; How Thatcherism brought change in the British government.

Surveys developments in the profession of public administration in Great Britain in the 1980s. Growth of a mini-industry on research and research methodology in public administration; Source of research grants; Statistical portrait of the academic profession of public administration.

Analyzes the effect of the European Economic Community membership on the administrative structure of local governments in Great Britain. Background on the Community's directives on public works contracts; Participation of local government in community decision-making.

Provides a summary of the future agendas for research offered by the participants to the Australia and New Zealand School of Government (ANZSOG) Future Research Agenda Workshop, organized under the major topics of inquiry. Workshop purpose of developing a common understanding of the research imperatives and interests for the public service and academic members of the ANZSOG consortium.