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.

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.

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.

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.

This article provides a personal interpretation of the key findings of the Economic and Social Research Council's Whitehall Programme. I tell the distinctive story of 'governance' - of fragmentation, networks, unintended consequences and diplomacy - challenging the dominant, managerial account of change in British government since 1979. I present a view of the world in which networks rival markets and bureaucracy as ways of allocating resources and co-ordinating policy and its implementation.

This article introduces a symposium based on the findings of the ESRC's Whitehall Programme. It describes the Programme's origins, covering its objectives and themes. It provides a summary of the Programme's activities and publications. It allows the Programme Director to identify some of his personal highlights under the headings: from government to governance; publications; interdisciplinary work; international links and elite seminars. In the conclusions I identify four broad topics for future research: network steering, decentralization, anti-foundational epistemology and methods, and comparing Westminster systems. Finally in Appendix 1, I list all the programme publications so far and, in Appendix 2, I provide a list of projects along with the contact details for the principal investigator., This article introduces a symposium based on the findings of the ESRC's Whitehall Programme. It describes the Programme's origins, covering its objectives and themes. It provides a summary of the Programme's activities and publications. It allows the Programme Director to identify some of his personal highlights under the headings: from government to governance; publications; interdisciplinary work; international links and elite seminars. In the conclusions I identify four broad topics for future research: network steering, decentralization, anti-foundational epistemology and methods, and comparing Westminster systems. Finally in Appendix 1, I list all the programme publications so far and, in Appendix 2, I provide a list of projects along with the contact details for the principal investigator.

Labour has been slow to enact any of the civil service reforms promised in its White Paper 'Better Government' (1997). A history of civil service reforms accompanies an evaluation of the government's revised 1999 White Paper policies in 'Modernising Government'.

New public management techniques are substantively different in Britain and Australia. The UK public sector reform utilizes at least bureaucracy, networks and markets as governing structures, while Australia's marketization lacks strong executive positions, utilizes constitutional constraints on leadership, and relies on no working majorities in parliament. Australian government is learning indirect management skills.

Government must manage the mix of governing structures such as markets, hierarchies and networks through diplomacy. Government must acquire the skills in indirect management if it is to be successful in new public management. The government must be able to cope with complexity, reestablish trust relations and employ patience, perseverance and persuasion.

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 [...]

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.

Government practitioners are often attracted to bestselling management literature which actually contain inadequate theories, methods and evidence. They fail to search for other literature which may not be as strong in the market but which do offer sound management theories. Such literature fail to be bestsellers due to several factors such as the marketing capability of publishers, use of jargon, cultural barriers and literature trends.

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.