Governing beyond the Centre: A Critique of the Anglo-Governance School
| Published date | 01 October 2003 |
| DOI | 10.1111/1467-9248.00443 |
| Author | Mike Marinetto |
| Date | 01 October 2003 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Governing beyond the Centre:
A Critique of the Anglo-Governance
School
Mike Marinetto
Cardiff University
One of the more intriguing theoretical discussions of recent years involves the concept of gover-
nance. There is now a substantial body of work concerning the way governance has affected the
contribution of central government to the policy process. Possibly the most prominent and influ-
ential account of governance theory in British political science is offered by Rod Rhodes. His most
recent writings have employed governance theory to explore the institutions, actors and processes
of change within the core executive. His ‘Anglo-governance’ model has emerged as a prevalent
and authoritative account of how new methods of governing have emerged in society. Signifi-
cantly, it is maintained that a distinct shift has taken place in government, from a hierarchical
organisation to a fragmented and decentralised entity that is heavily reliant on a range of complex
and independent policy networks. There is undoubted evidence that government is a fractured
institution that is dependent on state and non-state actors beyond the centre. This paper ques-
tions whether such features entail the emergence of a new form of governance. Central govern-
ment is still highly resourced and has, at its disposal, a range of powers with which to retain
influence over public sector agencies. Historical evidence also shows that the British polity has
long been decentralised. Thus, it is difficult to see how recent developments have in any way trans-
formed the capacities of the core executive. It seems that alternative ways of conceptualising the
institutions, actors and processes of change in government are required. Recent efforts to develop
‘organising perspectives’, within the intellectual parameters of governance theory, offer a more
‘conceptually cautious’ treatment of the central state.
Gamble (1990) claims that theory generation is not a particular ‘brand feature’ of
British political science. The preference is for empiricism over theorising. This might
seem a little caricatured or even unfair; he acknowledges that ‘it is hard for polit-
ical scientists to avoid general theories altogether’ (Gamble, 1990, p. 406). One of
the more intriguing theoretical discussions of recent years involves the concept of
governance. There is now a substantial body of work concerning the way gover-
nance has affected the contribution of central government to the policy process.
There are different definitions of what is meant by ‘governance’ and distinct ana-
lytical interpretations as to its impact in government.
Possibly the most prominent and influential account of governance theory in
British political science is offered by Rod Rhodes. His more recent writings embrace
governance theory to explore theoretically the institutions, actors and processes of
change within the core executive. His ‘Anglo-governance’ model has formed into
an authoritative theory of how new methods of governing society have emerged.
As part of this analysis, he examines the contribution made by actors and institu-
tions beyond the central state to the process of governance. This theoretical con-
tribution challenges conventional wisdom, which portrays government as a strong,
POLITICAL STUDIES: 2003 VOL 51, 592–608
© Political Studies Association, 2003.
Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA
THE ANGLO-GOVERNANCE SCHOOL 593
centralised executive, controlling a unified state. Significantly, it is maintained that
a distinct shift has taken place in government, from a hierarchical bureaucratic
organisation to a fragmented and decentralised entity. To capture these changes,
this model has relied on a range of aphorisms and concepts: hollowing out the
state, networks, core executive and fragmentation. There is a great deal of value
in this work, from both an empirical and a theoretical standpoint. Such analysis
has reinvigorated the study of governing institutions, producing a sophisticated
theoretical account of the modern British state. The purpose here is to initially
detail the central tenets and arguments of this Anglicised version of governance
theory and to assess its import. Evidence from academic literature would suggest
that it has gained a wide currency in both political science and cognate disciplines.
Although governance theory has gained a semblance of orthodoxy, this should not
preclude it from scrutiny. The argument of this paper is that the Anglo-governance
school is analytically vulnerable in a number of areas: its depiction of institutional
arrangements in the core executive; its analysis regarding the autonomy of policy
networks beyond the central state; and its historical portrayal of institutional
change within government.
A Paradigm Shift from Government to Governance
Thomas Kuhn’s post-empiricist book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Kuhn,
1970) contains an illuminating analysis of how professional scientists behave as a
community of scholars. His account is critical of the customary perception of
science as driven or maintained by the deductive search for actual truths. Rather
it is sustained by an intellectual consensus – or what he terms a paradigm – so that
observations and research conclusions are made to fit in with existing theoretical
assumptions (Kuhn, 1970, p. 23). Paradigms are generally not subject to rigorous
falsification, but when anomalies do emerge they are denied or dismissed. Para-
digmatic shifts only begin to take place once irregularities between consensus of
opinion and research findings reach some sort of critical mass. Kuhnian-type par-
allels can be drawn between the natural and social sciences. Admittedly, the social
sciences are more pluralistic than the natural sciences, where there is a greater
likelihood of single paradigms dominating scientific thought and activity. Yet within
the social sciences, there are notable intellectual trends. It is possible to understand
governance theory as part of this ebb and flow of intellectual paradigms, an intel-
lectual process that involves the formation and eventual replacement of prevailing
theories about the nature of central government.
The dominant intellectual paradigm during the formative development of politics
as a distinct academic discipline in Britain was concerned with the formal institu-
tions of government. For nineteenth-century constitutional scholars such as A. V.
Dicey, this mostly entailed a preoccupation with parliamentary government and
the philosophy of parliamentary sovereignty. This was an intellectual position that
dominated the first half of the twentieth century. From the writings of notable
political scholars in this period, such as Mackintosh (1977) and Birch (1964), the
key tenets for the study of politics boil down to parliamentary sovereignty; cabinet
government; executive authority (through the positions of prime minister and key
ministerial figures); the parliamentary conventions for legislation; and the role of
a neutral civil service.
To continue reading
Request your trial