Lobbying, Administrative Reform and Policy Styles. The Case of Land Drainage
| Published date | 01 March 1978 |
| Author | J. J. Richardson,R. H. Kimber,A. G. Jordan |
| DOI | 10.1111/j.1467-9248.1978.tb01519.x |
| Date | 01 March 1978 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
LOBBYING,
ADMINISTRATIVE REFORM
AND
POLICY
STYLES.
THE CASE
OF
LAND DRAINAGE*
J.
J. RICHARDSON, A.
G.
JORDAN,
AND
R. H.
KIMBER
University
of
Keele
Abstract.
In this article we anaiyse the successful attempt by a group
of
interests concerned
with water reorganization during the early
1970s
to prevent a radical change in administra-
tive arrangements concerning land drainage. Despite the apparently esoteric nature of the
policy area, the ‘politics of land drainage’ was fundamentally concerned with the important
matter of what has been called ‘the business concept’ of government. The case study also
provides a useful insight into the way in which established interests may have succeeded
in ‘colonizing’ certain central government departments. This suggests that a model of
pressure group activity depicting pressure on the centre may
be
misleading for certain
areas of policy. We also suggest that the evidence provided by a study of the politics of
water reorganization sheds some light on contrasting departmental styles of policy-making.
BRITAIN
has seen a decade of administrative change and reform, yet political
scientists have devoted relatively little attention to the essentially political
processes which such reforms involve.’ The field of administrative reform-
usually far removed from the battle of party ideologies-presents
a
particularly
good opportunity to analyse the relationships between the interests likely to be
affected by such reforms and the central administration charged with the task
of introducing them.
1.
Administrative Background
Until the implementation of the 1973 Water Act
on
1
April 1974, land drainage
was the responsibility of 29 river authorities. Apart from relatively large
exchequer grants, river authorities financed their expenditure
on
land drainage
mainly from precepts
on
local authorities and internal drainage boards.’
In
*
This article forms part of a larger study of water reorganization financed by the S.S.R.C.
The authors are grateful for the assistance given by many organizations and individuals in the
water industry.
In
particular they wish to thank John Maher, Jack Roughton,
and
David
Kinnersley. Thanks are
also
due to
W.
J. M. Mackenzie
for
his helpful comments
on
an earlier
draft.
1
For
a discussion of some of the principles involved in recent administrative reforms see:
F.
Stacey,
British Government
1966-75,
Years
of
Reform
(Oxford, Clarendon Press,
1975);
A. Dunsire, ‘Administrative Doctrine and Administrative Change’,
Public Administration
Bulletin,
15 (1973).
pp.
39-50;
N.
Johnson, ‘Recent Administrative Reform in Britain’ in
A.
F.
Leamans (ed.),
The Management
of
Change in Government,
1976.
2
See,
The Future Management
of
Water in England und Wales:
A report by the Central
Advisory Water Committee (C.A.W.C. Report) (London,
H.M.S.O.,
1971),
p.
21,
for expansion
of this description.
Political
Studies,
Vol.
XXVI,
No.
1
(47-64).
48 LOBBYING, ADMINISTRATIVE
REFORM
AND POLICY STYLES
addition internal drainage boards (elected by drainage ratepayers) existed in
areas where drainage is
of
particular local significance. They were usually fairly
active, as land drainage was recognized as important in the affected communities.
River authorities had a bare majority of members nominated by local
authorities within their areas. Other members were appointed by Ministers to
represent affected interests including land drainage and agriculture.
One of the effects of the Water Act 1973 was to alter this administrative frame-
work for land drainage.’ Briefly the main features of the new system are:
(1)
the transfer of land drainage functions to the new regional water
(2) the delegation of these functions to regional and local land drainage
authorities.
committees.
2.
The Emergence
of a
Radical Policy
Goal2
2.1.
The Origins
of
the Policy.
On the face
of
it, the land drainage issue was
one
of
the least controversial aspects of the Water Bill. Indeed a comparison of
the Government’s initial consultation document and of the eventual Act provides
little evidence that outside groups had much impact
on
this aspect
of
legislation.
However, this is to accept naively that the consultation document was in reality
designed to secure consultation. In fact it was the
culmination
of a bargain-
ing process between competing government departments and outside interests.
The main debate was prior to the publication of the consultation document.
The origins of the new policy for water may be traced back to the summer of
1968
when the Ministry of Housing and Local Government began to reconsider
its own advice to the Redcliffe-Maud Royal Commission. The Ministry had
earlier suggested a two-tier system of local/regional government in which water
supply and sewage disposal would have been allocated to the proposed new local
authorities. The main considerations in this decision were that (a) it would be
convenient to co-ordinate these services with the planning areas and (b)
it
would
ensure that the services would be responsive to local ~pinion.~
In
other words,
the Ministry at that time appeared to be committed to a ‘democratic’ rather than
a ‘managerial’ model for the water industry.
By the summer of 1969 M.H.L.G. were aware that ‘Redcliff-Maud’ had
accepted the principle of placing water firmly in the sphere of local government.
The Redcliffe-Maud Report said of water supply and sewerage: ‘These two
services are basic to a great deal of work of local authorities: to planning,
housing, and general development. Plainly within the definition of the purpose
of local government these ought to be local government services, provided as
part of the comprehensive responsibility for the health and well-being of the
peopIe’.’ However, while ‘Redcliffe-Maud’ was deliberating, M.H.L.G. became
1
Water Reorganisation, Future Organisation
of
Land Drainage, Explanatory Memorandum
and Consultation Paper by Ministry
of
Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (issued 18 September
1972).
2
For a full discussion
of
the origins
of
the reorganization see ‘The Origins
of
the Water Act
1973’, by
A.
G.
Jordan,
J.
J.
Richardson and
R.
H.
Kimber,
Public Administration,
55
(1977).
3
Royal Commission on Local Government
in
England and Wales: Written Evidence
of
M.H.L.G.
(London, H.M.S.O., 1967).
4
Quoted, Memorandum
of
Evidence
to
the Central Advisory Water Committee, British
Waterworks Association, February 1970,
p.
4.
To continue reading
Request your trial