New Public Administration in Britain

John Greenwood, Robert Pyper, David Wilson

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2005
• Print ISBN:
  9780415236799
• eBook ISBN:
  9781134561087
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Comparative Politics
• Index: Politics & International Relations

First published in 1984 this book has established itself as the leading text in British public administration. The third edition builds on the previous edition's success to bring the considerable changes and very latest developments in the field. This edition includes: * a new chapter on the influence of Europe * a focus on new developments that have emerged in recent years such as managerialism, privatisation, consumerism, charters, contracting and regulation * new features include boxed summaries of key concepts and facts, guides to further reading as well as an extensive bibliography. Written by three leading authorities in the field, this text will be essential reading for those who want an authoritative and comprehensive introduction to public administration.

Chapter 1
The context of British public administration

Introduction

What is public administration?

The policy/administration dichotomy

The changing context of public administration

Public administration or public management?

The managerialisation of British public administration

The scope of British public administration

The complexity of British public administration

The discipline of public administration

Conclusion

Further reading

Introduction

‘The United Kingdom has undergone a large number of changes over the last twenty years’, wrote Gray in 2000. As a result, he added, ‘the state itself has been altered into new forms that allow for the management and administration of public goods and services to take place in new ways’ (ibid., pp. 283, 299). He could have gone further. Their cumulative effect has arguably changed the ‘very role of government in society’ (Hughes, 1998, p. 1). Analysis of these ‘new ways’ of administering public services, and of the extent to which they have developed from and transformed institutions and procedures inherited from earlier periods, is the main focus of this text.

Initially, however, it is necessary to place that analysis into context. This chapter surveys the main developments to which Gray alludes, examines the scope and complexity of contemporary British public administration, and discusses the challenges which this presents to students. Firstly, however, it addresses the question ‘What is public administration?’

What is public administration?

Defining ‘public administration’ has long presented difficulty. Waldo (1955, p. 2) observed, ‘The immediate effect of all one-sentence or one-paragraph definitions of public administration is mental paralysis rather than enlightenment and stimulation.’ The variegated nature of the subject’s component parts and the complex linkages between them make analysis difficult. At one level misunderstandings occur because the term ‘public administration’ is used in different ways. Fletcher (1967, pp. 53–4) explains that it can denote:

1. the activity of public servants;
2. the structure of government: that is the institutions and relationships through which the activity of public servants is carried on;
3. the study of 1 and 2.

Slightly differently, Hughes (1998, p. 7) suggests that ‘the term “public administration” always meant the study of the public sector, in addition to it being an activity and a profession’. More critically, Dunleavy (1982, p. 215) argues that public administration focuses pre-eminently on:

institutions, organizational structures and decision/implementation processes of government. It is largely a ‘formal’ field, concerned with arrangements and procedures for making decisions, rather than with the substance or impacts of these decisions…. Finally, it is an area of study… largely ‘applied’ and closely linked with practical problems and practical solutions.

In 1991 Rhodes (p. 535), after an exhaustive analysis, concluded, ‘There remains the troubling question: “What is Public Administration?”’

Because of definitional problems it is important to clarify the sense in which public administration is treated in this text. Our central concern is with analysing the first two of Fletcher’s meanings, albeit as an aid to the third. However, the discipline is not fixed, but changes according to developments within the practice of public administration. This is something also discussed in this chapter.

The policy/administration dichotomy

A distinction is sometimes made between, on the one hand, ‘policy’ and ‘politics’ (perceived as the work of elected politicians) and, on the other, ‘administration’ (the work of officials or administrators). However, this distinction is problematic because the term ‘administration’ is not straightforward. Dunsire (1973) identified at least fifteen meanings, ranging from implementing decisions to initiating policy. Moreover, the distinction between policy and administration breaks down because of the so called policy/administration dichotomy. This has two main aspects:

1. Policy and administration are largely indistinguishable because policy decisions are to some extent predicated upon considerations about implementation. No government, for example, could realistically decide to mount a moon landing until means of implementation were available. Moreover, administrative decisions—about how to implement a policy— themselves require implementation, and often themselves become policy decisions. For example, a decision to reduce inflation might be implemented in various ways: controlling prices and incomes, making tax changes, imposing monetary controls, etc. Assuming that the first of these is chosen, this will become a policy—a prices and incomes policy—which will itself require decisions regarding implementation. Should, for example, all wages and prices be controlled? Should machinery be established to monitor price and income movements? Should penalties be imposed upon companies breaking the law? There is a ‘seamless web’ of policy and administration. Precisely where ‘policy’ ends and ‘administration’ begins is impossible to determine.
2. Administrative considerations bulk large in policy-making, and much policymaking requires specialist advice. Consequently, politicians rely heavily on officials when formulating policy. Recently, moreover, efficiency considerations have become increasingly important as factors in policymaking. The distinction between policy determined by politicians and administration performed by officials has little credibility in practice.

Despite these observations, changes in recent years have led to a redefinition of political and managerial roles in a manner seemingly reminiscent of the distinction between policy and administration (Stewart, 2000a). We shall discuss this theme later.

The changing context of public administration

Public bodies do not exist in a vacuum. They are closely related to the environment which they inhabit, and they influence, and are influenced by, that environment.

Environmental influences upon organisations

A number of external influences assist and constrain public administrators. Particularly important are the following:

The political environment

Public administration is heavily influenced by the political environment, changes in which have had a profound impact in recent years. Isaac-Henry (1997, pp. 3–6) notes in particular:

1. The ideas of the New Right and Thatcherism which, while supporting a ‘strong state’ on issues such as law and order, emphasise individualism, personal freedom, choice and the primacy of markets rather than politics as a vehicle for efficient distribution of goods and services. While the state necessarily provides goods and services which individuals cannot provide (e.g. defence) or which are socially desirable (e.g. education), the New Right generally sees a reduced role for government. Under Thatcher and Major these ideas were reflected in economic policy—where collectivist Keynesian policies were replaced by a free-market, monetarist approach— and in a reduced public sector.
2. The end of consensus: It is generally held (although contested by some) that the post-war period in Britain witnessed a political consensus which emphasised welfarism and collectivism, and resulted in rises in both the size of government and public spending. However, the tax burden necessary to support these policies, as well as a growing realisation that government could not solve all society’s problems, caused political disillusionment. Thatcher significantly broke from post-war consensus policies, a position seemingly endorsed by electors who returned Conservative governments to power at four successive general elections between 1979 and 1992.

The social and cultural environment

This also impacts upon public administration. For example, late twentieth-century demographic changes saw a rapidly ageing population place increasing strain on public services such as social security and health. A better-educated and informed electorate demanded better public services, while multiculturalism necessitated attention to the needs of a more diverse society.

Nationalism and Europeanisation

British public administration has been affected by the contradictory pulls of nationalism and European integration. Nationalism led to dramatic changes in the United Kingdom’s political and administrative systems in the 1990s, while membership of the European Union (EU) has given a European dimension to policy and administration in many fields (see Chapter 10).

Globalisation

This has had profound influences upon most national governments. Held et al. (1999, p. 20) define globalisation as ‘the widening, deepening and speeding up of worldwide interconnectedness in all aspects of life’. While globalisation takes a number of forms (political, ecnomic, etc.), to which individual governments have responded in different ways, one manifestation has been widespread adoption of new patterns of public management. Generally known as new public management (NPM), this, as seen below, has transformed British public administration in recent decades.

Information and communications technologies

ICTs have influenced public administration in many countries. In British public administration ICTs emerged initially in

a piecemeal, bottom-up way, within such data-heavy sectors as tax administration, social security, the health service and the criminal justice system. The main stimuli…were…severe difficulties associated with attempting to shed costs and enhance these politically sensitive services in the context of an inflexible and fragmented government machine.

(Bellamy, 1999, p. 134)

Subsequently, with the development of the ‘information superhighway’ the British along with many other governments developed a more strategic and coordinated approach. In 1995 the government created the Central IT Unit (CITU) with responsibility for developing ICTs across government, and in 1996 published a Green Paper (Cabinet Office, 1996) outlining proposals for electronic forms of service delivery. These proposals were subsequently adopted by Blair’s government within a wider programme of ‘re-engineering government services in the information age’ (COI, 1997). The vision is of re-engineering government through ICTs leading to an age of ‘Electronic Government’ (Bellamy, 1999, p. 141).

Even without such visions ICTs have already influenced the way that bureaucracies function, replacing largely paper-driven administrative systems with electronic means of collating, storing and retrieving information, and also enhancing the research, planning, intelligence and management capacity of governments. Networks now permit data linkages between different parts of government: for example, the Department of Social Security (DSS) matches social security data against information in other departments to detect fraud. ICTs have also reduced staffing requirements, as well as impacting on organisational roles—for example, in local government there has been a diffusion of computer usage from specialist IT departments to front-line professional and administrative staff and even councillors; and also upon structures—for example, in the 1990s the DSS developed proposals for ‘one-stop’ benefits shops as a way of breaking down functional groupings. More recent developments such as email and the internet have revolutionised the ability of not just officials and politicians but all sectors of society to communicate information through global networks. Of course, ICTs also present problems of data protection, privacy and civil liberties. There is also concern that, while information may become more accessible to many, minority and disadvantaged groups without access or the ability to use the necessary technology may not benefit.

While the importance of environmental factors upon public administration is profound, relationships between organisations and their environment are never purely mechanistic; the importance of choice within organisations must always be recognised.

Organisational influences upon the environment

Public authorities are not simply passive systems; they themselves can affect the environment. Civil servants, for example, can manipulate their environment by selecting the pressure groups which are admitted into departmental policy-making processes. Likewise, ministers manipulate public opinion by ‘leaking’ information to the media, or through speeches which mould public debate.

Organisational interdependence

Organisational interdependence is an important element of contemporary public administration. Rhodes (1981, p. 7) illustrates this with central/local government relationships:

Local authorities are not ‘mere agents’ of central government. They are political systems in their own right with the capacity to resist central demands. Moreover, central government is dependent upon local authorities for information, for expertise and for the implementation of policy.

Similar reciprocity is replicated at all levels of public administration. Indeed, in recent years tendencies towards fragmentation within the public sector have heightened the significance of organisational interdependence, leading to increasing emphasis on joined-up government and inter-organisational networks drawn from the public, voluntary and even the private sectors (see p. 15).

Public administration or public management?

A further problem in defining public administration stems from its relationship to ‘private management’. Farnham and Horton (1999, p. 26) explain that traditionally “‘management” described the way private businesses were run, whilst “administration” was a description of the approach to running public bodies.’ Whereas ‘management’ occurs within voluntary bodies, partnerships and businesses, ‘public administration’ relates to state activities usually within a political setting. Private sector management also generally has more restricted aims than public administration, usually being motivated by profit. Public administration not only haswider goals than private management, but its practitioners were traditionally required to have special regard to principles such as public accountability, equity and legality (Box 1.1).

BOX 1.1 KEY PRINCIPLES IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

Public accountability
Public bodies have to account for their activities to other people and provide a justification for what has been done in a way that private bodies do not. In other words, public bodies are subject to external checks and supervision (e.g. ministers are accountable to Parliament for conduct of their departments by the convention of ministerial responsibility) from which private companies are relatively immune. The nearest private sector analogy is the accountability of company boards to shareholders, although this rarely involves the same degree of external supervision as in the public sector.

Equity
Administrators are expected to treat members of the public fairly, without showing partiality to one at the expense of another. While there is often ambiguity about precisely what this means, at some levels it is relatively easy to determine. With income tax, for example, taxpayers in identical circumstances should receive identical treatment- even though they may be dealing with different local offices. In the private sector, by contrast, favouritism may be shown towards special customers, for example with discounts; or customers may be treated differently in different market situations, e.g. sales.

Legality
Decisions and actions of officials must never be ultra vires (or beyond their legal powers). Whereas private individuals and companies are generally free to perform any act not prohibited in law, public authorities can only do those things which they are specifically empowered by law to perform.

Source: Adapted from Greenwood and Wilson (1989, pp. 9–10)

The relevance of th...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Figures
• Tables
• Boxes
• Preface
• Chapter 1: The Context of British Public Administration
• Chapter 2: The Whitehall Universe: Departments and Agencies
• Chapter 3: The Core Executive
• Chapter 4: Ministers and Civil Servants
• Chapter 5: Local Government In Context
• Chapter 6: Inside Local Government
• Chapter 7: Governance, Partnerships and Central Control
• Chapter 8: Quasi-Government
• Chapter 9: Parliament
• Chapter 10: Multi-Level Governance
• Chapter 11: Privatisation and the Regulatory State
• Chapter 12: Accountability and Redress: Citizens, Clients and Customers
• Bibliography