Government within Governance: Network Steering in Yorkshire and the Humber
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9299.00219 |
| Date | 01 September 2000 |
| Author | Ian Bache |
| Published date | 01 September 2000 |
GOVERNMENT WITHIN GOVERNANCE:
NETWORK STEERING IN YORKSHIRE AND
THE HUMBER
IAN BACHE
This article considers whether the narrative of ‘governing witho ut Government
in a differentiated polity’ (Rhodes 1997, p. 200) provides an accurate description
of the regeneration policy networks in Yorkshire and the Humb er.
1
In doing so,
it considers the role of the recently created Go vernment Office for Yorkshire and
the Humber within policy networks for both UK and EU regeneration initiatives
at regional and local levels. The case studies show that while Rho des’ narrative
has value in explaining the transformation of the institutions of the Westminster
model, the role of Government Office in the re gion has ensured that the trans-
formation to ‘governing without Government’ is far from complete in Yorkshire
and the Humber.
INTRODUCTION
Our grasp of this world is fragile. All too often we simplify to impose
an order that is not there. Our theories fall about our ears as our methods
collect data with no inherent meaning. All that is solid, including polit-
ical institutions, can seem as if it is melting into air. The Westminster
model has not, and will not, evaporate. But its institutions have been
eroded and transformed since 1945. The narrative of governing without
Government in the differentiated polity seeks to capture the transform-
ation (Rhodes 1997, 200).
This article tests the arguments of Rhodes (1997) in relation to new empiri-
cal material. In particular, it considers whether the narrative of ‘governing
without Government in a differentiated polity’ (Rhodes 1997, p. 200) pro-
vides an accurate description of the regeneration policy networks in York-
shire and the Humber. In doing so, it draws on research from a number of
studies conducted by this author on the operation of policy networks for
both UK and EU regeneration initiatives at regional and local levels. The
case studies show that while Rhodes’s narrative has value in explaining the
transformation of the institutions of the Westminster model, the transform-
ation to ‘governing without Government’ is far from complete in terms of
economic regeneration policy.
Ian Bache is a Lecturer in the Department of Politics at the University of Sheffield.
Public Administration Vol. 78 No. 3, 2000 (575–592)
Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2000, 108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF, UK and 350 Main Street,
Malden, MA 02148, USA.
576 IAN BACHE
GOVERNING WITHOUT GOVERNMENT IN A DIFFERENTIATED
POLITY
Rhodes (1997) provides a different ‘organising perspective’ to the
Westminster model. He describes this perspective as the differentiated polity.
The Westminster model, with its focus on the strong executive and tradition
of ‘leaders know best’ ‘founders on the complex, multiform maze of insti-
tutions that makes up the differentiated policy’ (1997, p. 3). In its place,
Rhodes puts forward the differentiated polity to describe ‘the new insti-
tutional setting of British government’ and to ‘identify the constraints on
executive power’ (1997, p. 3).
Three ‘core themes’ guide the organizing perspective of the differentiated
polity: networks, governance, reflexivity and accountability. The focus here
is on the first two of these themes. First, Rhodes argues that ‘policy net-
works of resource-dependent organizations are a defining characteristic of
the British policy process’, and that ‘there has been a shift from a strong
executive to the segmented executive, characterized by bargaining games
within and between networks’ (1997, p. 4). Second, within this new, differ-
entiated polity, ‘Government confronts self-steering interorganizational net-
works. The relationship is asymmetric, but centralization must co-exist with
interdependence’ (1997, p. 4).
Policy networks
The Rhodes model of policy networks has been outlined often (see in parti-
cular Rhodes 1986; Marsh and Rhodes 1992; and Rhodes 1997). This section
summarizes the key aspects of the model. The Rhodes model refers to a
policy network as a set of resource-dependent organizations linked through
their interest in a specific policy sector. The nature of the linkages between
organizations can range from tightly integrated policy communities to
loosely coupled issue networks. Policy communities are characterized by
restricted membership, high interdependence between organizations and
stability over time. Issue networks have wide membership, limited inter-
dependence between organizations and a tendency to disperse once issues
are dealt with. If the ideal types of policy communities and issue networks
are on extreme ends of the same spectrum, in between lie typologies of
networks with some features of both.
The power-dependence framework is employed to explore linkages
between organizations within a network. This framework rests on five
propositions:
1 Any organization is dependent upon other organizations for resources.
2 In order to achieve their goals, the organizations have to exchange
resources.
3 Decision-making within organizations is constrained by the existence
of other organizations within the network.
Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2000
To continue reading
Request your trial