This article tests some received ideas on bureaucratic vulnerability to cutbacks, using data drawn from U.K central government departments over the period 1975-85. It looks at vulnerability at the level of programs, of groups within the bureaucracy, and of department, and tests three approaches to explaining vulnerability: party-political influences on political outcomes, the impact of prior history, and the influence of bureaucratic processes. Party-political influences and prior history seem to have low power in predicting vulnerability to cutbacks, but bureaucratic process influences have some predictive power for these data, particularly at the group and departmental levels of vulnerability.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BECK JØRGENSEN, T. (1985) "The management of survival and growth in public organizations." Presented at ECPR Joint Sessions, Barcelona, March.
2.
DOWNS, A. (1957) An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper & Row.
3.
DOWNS, A. (1967) Inside Bureaucracy. Boston: Little, Brown.
4.
DUNLEAVY, P. (1980) "The political implications of sectoral cleavages and the growth of state employment."Pol. Studies28: 364-383, 527-549.
5.
FINER, S. (1975) Adversary Politics and Electoral Reform. London: Anthony Wigram.
6.
GLENNERSTER, H. (1981) "Social service spending in a hostile environment," pp. 174-196 in C. Hood and M. Wright (eds.) Big Government in Hard Times. Oxford: Martin Robertson.
7.
HEATH, A. , R. JOWELL, and J. CURTICE (1985) How Britain Votes. Oxford: Pergamon.
8.
HECLO, H. and A. WILDAVSKY (1974) The Private Government of Public Money. London: Macmillan.
9.
HOOD, C. and M. WRIGHT [eds.] (1981) Big Government in Hard Times. Oxford: Martin Robertson.
10.
KAUFMAN, H. (1985) Time, Chance, and Organizations. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.
11.
LAVER, M. (1984) "On party policy, polarization and the breaking of moulds: the 1983 British party manifestos in context."Parliamentary Affairs37 (1): 33-39.
12.
LEVINE, C. H. (1978) "Symposium: organizational decline and cutback management."Public Admin. Rev.38 (4): 316-325.
13.
MARTIN, S. (1983) Managing Without Managers. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
14.
MIDWINTER, A. and E. PAGE (1981) "Cutting local spending: the Scottish experience," pp. 56-75 in C. Hood and M. Wright (eds.) Big Government in Hard Times. Oxford: Martin Robertson.
15.
ORZECHOWSKI, W. (1977) "Economic models of bureaucracy: survey, extensions and evidence," pp. 229-259 in T. E. Bocherding (ed.) Budgets and Bureaucrats: The Sources of Government Growth. Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press.
16.
POMMEREHNE, W. and F. SCHNEIDER (1983) "Does government in a representative democracy follow a majority of voters' preferences? An empirical examination," pp. 61-84 in H. Hanusch (ed.) Anatomy of Government Deficiencies. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
17.
ROURKE, F. E. (1976) Bureaucracy, Politics and Public Policy (2nd ed.). Boston: Little, Brown.
18.
WILDAVSKY, A. (1980) How to Limit Government Spending. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press.
19.
WRIGHT, M. (1977) "Public expenditure in Britain: the crisis of control."Public Administration55 (2): 171-179.
20.
Central Statistical Office (monthly) Economic Trends. London: HMSO.
21.
HM Treasury (annual) Civil Service Statistics. London: HMSO.
22.
Report on Manpower Reductions in 1982-3 to the Treasury and Civil Service Committee (n.d.a) HM Treasury 207/1982-3. (unpublished)
23.
Report on Manpower Reductions in 1983-4 to the Treasury and Civil Service Committee (n.d.b) HM Treasury 207/1983-4. (unpublished)
24.
Report on Manpower Reductions in 1984-5 to the Treasury and Civil Service Committee (n.d.c) HM Treasury 207/1984-5. (unpublished)
25.
Treasury and Civil Service Committee (1980-81) Civil Service Manpower Reductions (Seventh Report, HC 423 1980-1). London: HMSO.
26.
Treasury and Civil Service Committee (1981-82) Civil Service Manpower Reductions (First Special Report, HC 46 1981-2). London: HMSO.
27.
The United Kingdom National Accounts [formerly National Income and Expenditure] (annual)London: HMSO.
