This article seeks to explain the attitudes of bureaucrats to the redesign of their bureaus by their elected principals. The starting point is a puzzle that a constitutional change in English local government, which was designed to enhance the influence and role of leading local politicians, resulted with bureaucrats as its most enthusiastic champions. The article explores explanations of this response, drawing on the deliberate discretion or policy conflict model of Huber and Shipan and on the bureau-shaping model of Dunleavy. By finding support for the bureau-shaping model, as well as the objectives of implementation efficiency and career advancement, we argue that bureaucrats may regard the increase in political power as a way of realising other objectives they value.
AulichC. (1999) ‘Bureaucratic limits to markets: The case of local government in Victoria, Australia’, Public Money and Management, 19:4, 37–43.
2.
BendorJ.GlazerA. and HammondT. (2001) ‘Theories of delegation’, Annual Review of Political Science, 4, 235–269.
3.
BesleyT. (2006) Principled Agents? The Political Economy of Good Government (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
4.
BiggsS. and DunleavyP. (1995) ‘Changing organizational patterns in local government: A bureau-shaping analysis’, in StanyerJ. (ed.), Contemporary Political Studies (Exeter: Political Studies Association), 685–698.
5.
BoltonN. and LeachS. (2002) ‘Strategic planning in local government: A study of organisational impact and effectiveness’, Local Government Studies, 28:4, 1–21.
6.
DolleryB. and HamburgerP. (1996) ‘Modelling bureaucracy: The case of the Australian federal budget sector’, Public Administration, 74:3, 477–507.
7.
DownsA. (1967) Inside Bureaucracy (Boston, MA: Little Brown).
8.
DunleavyP. (1985) ‘Bureaucrats, budgets and the growth of the state: Reconstructing an instrumental model’, British Journal of Political Science, 15:3, 299–328.
9.
DunleavyP. (1989a) ‘The architecture of the British central state. Part I: Framework for analysis’, Public Administration, 67:3, 249–275.
10.
DunleavyP. (1989b) ‘The architecture of the British central state. Part II: Empirical findings’, Public Administration, 68:4, 3–28.
11.
DunleavyP. (1991) Democracy, Bureaucracy and Public Choice (London: Harvester Wheatsheaf).
12.
EpsteinD. and O'HalloranS. (1999) Delegating Powers (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
13.
FriedrichC. J. (1940) ‘Public policy and the nature of administrative responsibility’, in EdwardC. J. and MasonS. (eds), Public Policy: A Yearbook of the Graduate School of Public Administration, Harvard University (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press), 3–24.
GainsF. (forthcoming) ‘Narratives and dilemmas of local bureaucratic elites: Whitehall at the coalface?’, Public Administration.
16.
GainsF.JohnP. and StokerG. (2005) ‘Path dependency and the reform of English local government’, Public Administration, 83:1, 25–46.
17.
GoldsmithM. and WolmanH. (1992) Urban Politics and Policy: A Comparative Approach (Oxford: Blackwell).
18.
HecloH. and WildavskyA. (1981) The Private Governance of Public Money (London: Macmillan).
19.
HenessyP. (1990) Whitehall (London: Fontana).
20.
HoopesS. (1997) Oil Privatization, Public Choice and International Forces (London: Macmillan).
21.
HuberJ. and ShipanC. (2002) Deliberate Discretion? The Institutional Foundations of Bureaucratic Autonomy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
22.
JamesO. (1995) ‘Explaining the next steps in the Department of Social Security: The bureau-shaping model of central state organisation’, Political Studies, 43:4, 614–629.
23.
JamesO. (2003) The Executive Agency Revolution in Whitehall: Public Interest Versus Bureau-Shaping Interpretations (Basingstoke: Palgrave/Macmillan).
24.
KellnerP. and Crowther-HuntL. (1980) Britain's Civil Servants: An Inquiry into Britain's Ruling Class (London: McDonald).
25.
LaffinM. and EntwistleT. (2000) ‘New problems and old professions? The changing national world of UK local government professions’, Policy and Politics, 28:2, 207–220.
26.
LeachS. and WilsonD. (2002) ‘Rethinking political leadership’, Public Administration, 80:4, 665–689.
27.
MoeT. (1984) ‘The new economics of organization’, American Journal of Political Science, 28:4, 739–777.
28.
MoeT. (1985) ‘Control and feedback in economic regulation’, American Political Science Review, 79:4, 1094–1116.
29.
MoeT. (1989) ‘The politics of bureaucratic structure’, in ChubbJ. and PetersonP. (eds), Can the Government Govern? (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution), 267–329.
30.
MourizenP.-E. and SvaraJ. (2002) Leadership at the Apex (Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press).
31.
NewtonK. (1976) Second City Politics (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
32.
PageE. (1985) Political Authority and Bureaucratic Power. A Comparative Analysis (Brighton: Harvester).
33.
PratchettL. and WingfieldM. (1996) ‘Petty bureaucracy and woolly-minded liberalism? The changing ethos of local government's officers’, Public Administration, 74:4, 639–656.
34.
PutnamR. (1974) ‘The political attitudes of senior civil servants in Europe: A preliminary report’, British Journal of Political Science, 3:3, 257–290.
35.
StokerG. (2004) Transforming Local Governance (Basingstoke: Macmillan).
36.
StokerG.GainsF.JohnP.RaoN. and HardingA. (2003) Implementing the New Council Constitutions (London: ODPM).
37.
SuleimanE. (1974) Politics, Power and Bureaucracy in France (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).
38.
ThainC. and WrightM. (1995) The Treasury and Whitehall (Oxford: Clarendon).
39.
WeingastB. (1984) ‘The congressional-bureaucratic system: A principal–agent perspective (with applications to the SEC)’, Public Choice, 44:1, 147–191.
