That England has a hierarchical relationship between central and local government is a staple of postwar constitutional commentary. By using cultural theory's five modes of organisation—namely, hierarchies, markets, networks, autonomism, and fatalism—to analyse 109 interviews conducted with politicians and managers in nine local authorities I question the adequacy of this characterisation. While many of those interviewed did indeed describe the operation of a very hierarchical system, others pointed to the excesses of network and market forms of organisation. Others, still, seemed to think that local authorities enjoyed altogether too much autonomy in certain areas.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BerlinI, 1969Four Essays on Liberty (Oxford University Press, Oxford).
2.
BevanGHoodC, 2006, “What's measured is what matters: Targets and gaming in the English public health care system”Public Administration84517–538.
3.
BrownM P, 1992, “The possibility of local autonomy”Urban Geography13257–279.
4.
BulpittJ, 1989, “Walking back to happiness?”, in The New Centralism Eds CrouchCMarquandD, (Blackwell, Oxford) pp 56–73.
5.
ChoC-LWrightD S, 2004, “The devolution revolution in intergovernmental relations in the 1990s: Changes in cooperative and coercive state–national relations as perceived by state administrators”Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory14447–468.
6.
CopusC, 2006, “British local government: A case for a new constitutional settlement”Public Policy and Administration214–21.
7.
DaviesJ, 2008, “Double devolution or double dealing? The local government white paper and the Lyons review”Local Government Studies343–22.
8.
DeFilippisJ, 1999“Alternatives to the ‘New Urban Politics’: Finding locality and autonomy in local economic development”Political Geography18973–990.
9.
DenteB, 1985, “Intergovernmental relations as central control policies: The case of Italian local finance”Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy3383–402.
10.
DerthickM, 2000, “American federalism: Half-full or half-empty?”The Brookings Review1824–27.
11.
DowneJMartinS, 2007, “Regulation inside government: Processes and impacts of the inspection of local public services”Policy and Politics35215–232.
12.
EntwistleTLaffinM, 2003, “The multiple strategies of the Local Government Association: Partner, player and think-tank?”Policy and Politics3137–50.
13.
EntwistleTBristowGHinesFDonaldsonSMartinS, 2007, “The dysfunctions of markets, hierarchies and networks in the meta-governance of partnership”Urban Studies4463–79.
14.
FleurkeFHulstR, 2006, “A contingency approach to decentralization”Public Organization Review637–56.
15.
FleurkeFWillemseR, 2006, “Measuring local autonomy: A decision making approach”Local Government Studies3271–87.
16.
GargiuloMBenassiM, 1999, “The dark side of social capital”, in Corporate Social Capital and Liability Eds LeendersTAJGabbayS M, (Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht) pp 298–322.
17.
GoldsmithM J, 2002, “Central control over local government—a western European comparison”Local Government Studies2891–112.
18.
GriffithJAG, 1966Central Departments and Local Authorities (Allen and Unwin, London).
19.
HoodC, 2000The Art of the State: Culture and Rhetoric in Public Management (Oxford University Press, Oxford).
20.
JohnPWardHDowdingK, 2004, “The bidding game: Competitive funding regimes and the political targeting of urban schemes”British Journal of Political Science34405–428.
21.
LaffinM, 1986Professionalism and Policy: The Role of the Professions in the Central – Local Government Relationship (Gower, Aldershot, Hants).
22.
LaffinM, 2009, “Central - local relations in an era of governance: Towards a new research agenda”Local Government Studies3521–37.
23.
LowndesV, 2002, “Between rhetoric and reality: Does the 2001 White Paper reverse the centralising trend in Britain?”Local Government Studies28135–147.
24.
MarshDRichardsDSmithM J, 2001Changing Patterns of Governance in the United Kingdom (Palgrave, London).
25.
MeulemanL, 2010, “The cultural dimension of metagovernance: Why governance doctrines may fail”Public Organization Review1049–70.
26.
PageE, 1984, “The marginalisation of local political elites in Britain”Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy2161–176.
27.
PageEGoldsmithM J, 1985, “Centralisation and decentralisation: A framework for comparative analysis”Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy3175–185.
28.
PratchettL, 2004, “Local autonomy, local democracy and the ‘New Localism”Political Studies52358–375.
29.
RhodesRAW, 1988Beyond Westminster and Whitehall (Unwin Hyman, London).
30.
RhodesRAW, 1997, “From marketisation to diplomacy: It's the mix that matters”Australian Journal of Public Administration5640–53.
31.
Rodríguez-PoseAGillN, 2003, “The global trend towards devolution and its implications”Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy21333–351.
32.
Rodríguez-PoseASandallR, 2008, “From identity to the economy: Analysing the evolution of the decentralisation discourse”Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy2654–72.
33.
StokerG, 2002, “Life is a lottery: New Labour's strategy for the reform of devolved governance”Public Administration80417–434.
34.
TenbenselT, 2005, “Multiple modes of governance: Disentangling the alternatives to hierarchies and markets”Public Management Review7267–288.
35.
ThompsonMEllisRWildavskyA, 1990Cultural Theory (Westview Press, Boulder, CO).
36.
ThompsonMGrendstadGSelleP, (Eds) 1999Cultural Theory as Political Science (Routledge, London).
37.
TullockG, 1975, “Competing for aid”Public Choice2141–51.
38.
WalkerD, 2002In Praise of Centralism (Catayst, London).
39.
Wilks-HeegS, 2009, “New Labour and the reform of English local government, 1997–2007: Privatizing the parts that Conservative governments could not reach”Planning Practice and Research2423–39.
40.
WilliamsonO E, 1975Markets and Hierarchies: Analysis and Antitrust Implications (Free Press, New York).
41.
WilsonD, 2003, “Unravelling control freakery: Redefining central – local government relations”British Journal of Politics and International Relations5317–346.
42.
WolfeJ, 1991, “State power and ideology in Britain: Mrs Thatcher's privatization programme”Political Studies39237–252.
43.
WolmanH, 1988“Understanding recent trends in central – local relations: Centralisation in Great Britain and decentralisation in the United States”European Journal of Political Research16425–435.
44.
WolmanH, 2008, “Comparing local government systems across countries: Conceptual and methodological challenges to building a field of comparative local government studies”Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy2687–103.
45.
WolmanHGoldsmithM, 1990, “Local autonomy as a meaningful analytical concept: Comparing local government in the United States and the United Kingdom”Urban Affairs Quarterly263–27.
