Policy-making ‘front’ and ‘back’ stage: Assessing the implications for effectiveness and democracy
| Author | Sarah Ayres,Tessa Coombes,Mark Sandford |
| Date | 01 November 2017 |
| DOI | 10.1177/1369148117721842 |
| Published date | 01 November 2017 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/1369148117721842
The British Journal of Politics and
International Relations
2017, Vol. 19(4) 861 –876
© The Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1369148117721842
journals.sagepub.com/home/bpi
Policy-making ‘front’ and
‘back’ stage: Assessing the
implications for effectiveness
and democracy
Sarah Ayres1, Mark Sandford2
and Tessa Coombes1
Abstract
The aim of this article is to examine the complex interrelationship between ‘front’ and ‘back’
stage policy-making. ‘Front stage’ describes the activities of visible and accountable office
holders in elected bodies, constrained by established bureaucratic rules. ‘Back stage’ describes
the world of unseen decision-making where public officials are less constrained by formal
rules and public scrutiny. Drawing on a recent case study of English devolution in the United
Kingdom, this article examines how front and back stage policy-making shape one another and
the impact this can have on policy effectiveness and democratic accountability. Findings reveal
that policy-makers need to think more explicitly about the interplay between front and back
stage activities. In the context of English devolution, the transition from back to front stage
has been flawed. Central government’s purposeful strategy of informal negotiations with very
few formal objectives has resulted in low stakeholder buy-in, which has mitigated against the
potential effectiveness of back stage decision-making.
Keywords
back stage policy, complexity, deliberation, democracy, devolution, front stage policy, informal
governance, innovation, policy effectiveness, policy network, trust, uncertainty
Introduction
This article examines the interaction between ‘front’ and ‘back’ ‘stage’ policy-making—
more specifically, how an over-reliance on ‘back stage’ negotiations can impact policy
implementation at ‘front stage’. Friedman (1995: 16) states that at ‘front stage, actors are
visible to the audience and have to stay in role’. Public officials are observable and
accountable as office holders in elected bodies and are constrained by established
1School for Policy Studies, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
2House of Commons Library, London, UK
Corresponding author:
Sarah Ayres, School for Policy Studies, University of Bristol, 8 Priory Road, Bristol BS8 1TZ, UK.
Email: sarah.ayres@bristol.ac.uk
721842BPI0010.1177/1369148117721842The British Journal of Politics and International RelationsAyres et al.
research-article2017
Article
862 The British Journal of Politics and International Relations 19(4)
bureaucratic rules, codes of conduct and public scrutiny (Klijn, 2014). ‘Back stage’
describes the world of complex decision-making where public officials are hidden from
public scrutiny and can engage in negotiations less constrained by formal rules: ‘back
stage, actors can relax from their roles, step out of character and work with their drama-
turgical teammates to prepare for the front stage performance’ (Friedman, 1995: 17).
This article will explore the management of the transition between the two stages. It
will examine the contribution back stage decision-making can make to policy problems
which cannot easily be solved by traditional governance approaches. It will also explore
how informality can weaken democratic accountability and threaten policy implementa-
tion. These issues will be examined via an analysis of ‘devolution deals’ negotiated
between the central government and a number of localities in England (Political Studies
Association (PSA), 2016). This area of policy is highly suited to analysing the interrela-
tionship between front and back stage policy-making for the following reasons. First,
English devolution has recently attracted a lot of front stage attention (Kenny, 2016), via
commitments ‘to devolve powers and budgets to boost local growth in England’
(Conservative Party, 2015: 1). Second, the policy exhibits substantial reliance on back
stage negotiations. Institutional processes and practices for developing devolution deals
have been described as ‘almost entirely secret’ with details ‘being released only when
agreements have been reached’ (Centre for Public Scrutiny (CfPS), 2015: 8). Third, the
progress of the policy following its arrival at front stage has been mixed, making it a good
opportunity to investigate the relationship between the two stages.
Back stage policy-making is, of course, a normal, even vital, part of any policy-mak-
ing process. It is often described as ‘greasing the wheels’ and is a familiar feature of the
‘British political tradition’ (Richards and Smith, 2015). However, ‘the devolution agenda
is characterised by a particularly high degree of informal governance’ (PSA, 2016: 4). By
contrast with the more formal and standardised structures and processes for implementing
English devolution under the New Labour government (1997–2010), our findings reveal
a distinct and purposeful strategy on the part of central government and other critical
actors to locate discussions around devolution deals to the back stage. Particularly high
levels of informality in the devolution deal process have been noted elsewhere (Kenealy,
2016; Randall and Casebourne, 2016). However, this article makes an important and
original contribution to the debate by offering the first examination of precisely how deci-
sions were taken back stage, the implications for policy effectiveness and democracy and
how critical actors managed the transition between the front and back stages. Evidence
suggests that high levels of informality have led to a number of distinct advantages in the
short term, including maintaining political momentum, dealing with complexity and
uncertainty, building trust between critical actors and exploring innovative policy solu-
tions. These are common rationales for adopting a back stage approach.
However, we argue that the policy has been over-reliant on back stage. The transition
from back stage negotiations to the front stage has been flawed, which could serve to
undermine these benefits over the longer term. The emphasis on back stage has particular
implications for a policy concerned with enhancing local democracy and bringing politi-
cal decision-making closer to those most affected. These, of all policies, cannot avoid
active assent from stakeholders and the public at front stage. Indeed, this has produced an
uneasy paradox of a policy that is supposed to be democratising being carried out in an
undemocratic way. The government’s failure to clarify policy objectives and the inability
of central and local ‘insiders’ to generate buy-in from wider stakeholders mean that the
transition to front stage has not gone to plan, with a number of devolution deals
To continue reading
Request your trial