Book Review: Proressionalism in Local Government
| DOI | 10.1177/014473949101100109 |
| Published date | 01 March 1991 |
| Date | 01 March 1991 |
| Author | Lionel D Feldman |
| Subject Matter | Book Reviews |
Teaching
Public
Administration
policy
it
seems
very
probable
that
the
net
effect
of
the
privatisation
and
quasi-market
initiatives
will
be
to
increase
rather
than
decrease
public
expenditure
by
making
need
identification
more
explicit
and
by
encouraging
providers
to
make
more
efficient
claims
for
resources.
Overall,
then,
this
is
a
useful
sourcebook
but
a
disappointing
account
of
the
welfare
state
during
the
Eighties.
Department
of
Social
Policy
University
of
Newcastle
upon
Tyne
MICHAEL HILL
ProIeBBio~
in
Local
Government
by
MARTIN
LAFFIN
AND
KEN
YOUNG.
(Harlow,
Longman,
1990,
pp.116,
£19.95
p/b.)
This
is
an
important
contribution
to
a
section
of
the
local
government
literature
that
has
been
dormant
for
almost
forty
years.
There
are
three
complaints
or
misgivings
about
the
book.
One
is
beyond
the
control
of
the
authors,
that
is
the
price.
Unfortunately,
almost
£20.00
for
a 116
page
book
is
likely
to
deny
Professionalism
in
Local
Government
a
place
on
most
public
and
almost
all
private
bookshelves.
The
other
misgiving
is
squarely
in
the
author's
domain.
Why
is
there
no
index?
Even
with
a
very
detailed
Table
of
Contents
it
is
aggravating
not
to
be
able
to
find
a
topic
quickly.
This
is
especially
so
because
this
is
a
work
which
links
topics
in
terms
of
concept
and
example
so
skillfully.
Finally,
the
complaint:
the
methodology
is
flawed.
The
research
covered
'almost
15
years'
(p.2)
when
80
chief
officers
and
chairs
were
interviewed
for
Laffin's
PhD
dissertation.
Two
paragraphs
later
one
is
told,
'we
embarked
on
a
further
series
of
tape
recorded
interviews
...
with
chief
officers
and
chairs
...
during
1984'.
How
many
chief
officers
and
chairs?
Were
they
the
same
or
some
of
the
aame
ones
that
Laffin
interviewed
in
1976-1977? Were
they
from
the
aame
local
authorities?
If
not,
why
not?
Young
'resumed'
a
series
of
interviews
and
workshops
with
chief
officers
and
leading
councillors
(p.3);
and
in
1987
there
was
another
series
of
'group
discussions'.
Were
the
groups
that
Young
met
with
constant?
How
many
of
those
interviewed
by
Laffin
in
1976-1977
were
interviewed
by
Young;
were
they
at
least
from
the
local
authority?
As
it
stands
all
the
reader
can
be
certain
about
is
that
a
presumably
significant
number
of
interviews
were
conducted.
Whether
there
was
a
control
group
of
officials
interviewed,
or
even
a
control
group
of
local
authorities
is
doubtful.
Why
the
attempt
to
establish
a
methodology;
when
all,
and
it
is
considerable,
that
was
done
was
to
interview,
tape
record
or
hold
roundtable
discussions
with
a
randomly
selected
number
of
local
government
people
elected
and
appointed.
The
first
chapter
does
an
exceptional
job
of
definition;
it
is
followed
by
61
To continue reading
Request your trial