Author
Abstract
This paper contends that since 2010 in the UK, there has been an unprecedented attempt to disrupt the traditional civil service ‘monopoly’ over policy advice, outsourcing policy-making to actors beyond the central state. The author argues that the policy-making processes of Whitehall and Westminster governance are being radically overhauled. In many Anglophone countries, ministers have sought to reduce their structural dependence on the permanent civil service. In so doing, ministers sought to gain political control over the machinery of policy-making. These efforts to restructure the permanent bureaucracy have had unintended consequences, however. The policy process in the UK state has become more fragmented, as policy-making and implementation have increasingly diverged.Those policy-makers and practitioners who have contact with civil servants and government ministers need to better understand the more fluid and unpredictable policy environment that is emerging at various tiers of UK governance, shaped by a multiplicity of actors sitting within, and outside, the formal boundaries of the state. The diverse ecology of policy-making institutions includes think-tanks, research institutes, non-governmental organizations, charities, community groups, management consultancies, and professional services companies, all of whom are involved in directly providing policy advice to ministers. The ‘monopoly’ over policy-making traditionally enjoyed by the civil service is eroding, with important implications for the work of policy-makers and public managers who have to negotiate the more fractious system of Whitehall bureaucracy. A subtle but perceptible shift is occurring whereby elected politicians and their advisers are gaining greater control over the policy-making processes of the UK state.
Suggested Citation
Patrick Diamond, 2020.
"Externalization and politicization in policy advisory systems: a case study of contestable policy-making 2010–2015,"
Public Money & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(1), pages 42-51, January.
Handle:
RePEc:taf:pubmmg:v:40:y:2020:i:1:p:42-51
DOI: 10.1080/09540962.2019.1583890
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:pubmmg:v:40:y:2020:i:1:p:42-51. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RPMM20 .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.