Interpreting the World of Political Elites
| Author | David Richards,Martin J. Smith |
| Date | 01 December 2004 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.0033-3298.2004.00419.x |
| Published date | 01 December 2004 |
ARTICLES
Public Administration Vol. 82 No. 4, 200 4 (777–800)
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2004, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street,
Malden, MA 02148, USA.
INTERPRETING THE WORLD OF POLITICAL
ELITES
DAVID RICHARDS AND MARTIN J. SMITH
This paper uses an interpretative approach to analyse the relationship between
ministers and officials. It argues that generally, the relationship between ministers
and civil servants is harmonious. This can be explained by the fact that both sets of
actors tend to draw from the same tradition, the Westminster model. The Westminster
model can be understood as the building block from which both ministers and civil
servants develop narratives that shape and condition their actions. In the case of
ministers, the dominant narrative drawn from the Westminster model is what we
refer to as that of ‘historical impact’. In the case of civil servants, their dominant
narrative, again drawn from the Westminster model is conditioned by the need to
provide an account that continually emphasizes how they have acted with ‘constitu-
tional propriety’. Generally, these two contrasting narratives do not lead to conflict
between ministers and civil servants. However, a serious breakdown in the relation-
ship between ministers and civil servants can occur when either one or both sets of
actors draw on a tradition other than the Westminster model, or when they appeal to
a different narrative within the Westminster model which shapes their subsequent
behaviour and actions.
INTRODUCTION
Despite what might be called the vagueness of the British Constitution, the
relationship between ministers and civil servants has always been clearly
codified. The origins of the present relationship can be traced back to the
Haldane Committee Report of 1918, its nature is symbiotic, in which the role
of the official is to advise and the role of the minister is to decide. The
emphasis here is that they should not act independently of one another. Still
today, at least in the rhetoric of politicians and senior civil servants, this
David Richards is Reader in the Department of Politics, University of Sheffield. Martin J. Smith is
Professor in the Department of Politics, University of Sheffield.
778 DAVID RICHARDS AND MARTIN J. SMITH
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2004
view is presented as being at the core of the workings of government. For
example, in a recent analysis of foreign policy-making, the former Perman-
ent Secretary at the Foreign Office, John Coles stated: ‘The guiding principle
is that officials advise whilst ministers decide’ (Cole 2000, p. 85).
Elsewhere, much of the recent discussion related to new public manage-
ment, the growing politicization of the civil service, constitutional reform
and the increasing use of political advisers has suggested that these distinc-
tions and roles are being undermined (see Foster 2001). Moreover, despite
the longevity of the constitutional codes specifying the formal relationship
between ministers and civil servants, the relationship is determined in
practice by the way in which ministers and civil servants interpret their own
roles and the limits on their behaviour. The point here is that the recent
changing practices in British government, coupled to the flexibility afforded
both ministers and civil servants in interpreting their roles, means that ana-
lysing the relationship between these two sets of actors is not as straightfor-
ward a task as constitutional theory textbooks would have it.
In order to provide a fuller account of the complex relationship between
ministers and civil servants, we argue that, generally, the relationship
between ministers and civil servants is harmonious. This can be explained
by the fact that both sets of actors tend to draw from the same tradition, the
Westminster model. The Westminster model can be understood as the
building block from which both ministers and civil servants develop narra-
tives that shape and condition their actions. In the case of ministers, the
dominant narrative drawn from the Westminster model is what we refer to
as that of ‘historical impact’. This is a desire by ministers to establish an
account of their own impact on policy and the political world they inhabit.
In the case of civil servants, their dominant narrative, again drawn from the
Westminster model, is conditioned by the need to provide an account that
continually emphasizes how they have acted with ‘constitutional propriety’.
Generally, these two contrasting narratives do not lead to conflict between
ministers and civil servants, since the source of their narratives is the same –
the Westminster model. However, a serious breakdown in the relationship
between ministers and civil servants can occur when either one or both sets
of actors: (a) ascribe to a tradition other than the Westminster model; or (b)
when they appeal to different narratives within the Westminster model
which shapes their subsequent behaviour and actions. The theoretical tool
we use to develop this argument is the ‘interpretative approach’, associated
with the recent works of Bevir and Rhodes (2003a, b) and Bevir et al. (2003).
The paper starts by providing a critique of the three traditional approaches
to analysing the behaviour of ministers and civil servants, arguing that
each fails to provide a full account. Instead, we argue that a more powerful
analytical and explanatory account can be provided by adopting the
‘interpretative approach’. The paper examines explanations of ministerial-
civil service behaviour through the application of an interpretative
approach. It then focuses on occasions where conflict has occurred between
To continue reading
Request your trial