Reviews
| Date | 01 September 1997 |
| Published date | 01 September 1997 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.t01-1-00114 |
REVIEWS
Martin Loughlin,Legality and Locality: The Role of Law in Central–Local
Government Relations, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996, xxxii + 427 pp, hb
£55.00.
In the immediate aftermath of Britain’s 1976 IMF loan, with conditions attached,
which led to the first ever significant central government cuts in local authority
grants and loan sanctions, the then SSRC established one of its major research
programmes — into central–local relations. Out of this initiative came power
dependence theories, policy communities and network analysis in a series of
working papers, articles and books. Then the 1980s witnessed a far wider interest
in the high drama of central–local relations, with the tabloid press heavily involved
in several causes ce
´lebre
`s(the GLC’s campaign for survival; the antics of some
‘loony left’ councils, for example), and antipathy between the Thatcher
governments and local authorities, reducing relationships to an all-time low. So
profound was the transformation of the structure of government, with the rise of
new public, private and voluntary sector organisations, that many of the
assumptions behind the SSRC’s original research programme seemed no longer
applicable, and the successor ESRC in 1992 established a new and very large Local
Governance Programme. Martin Loughlin’s research activity, funded by neither of
these, spans this period of turmoil.
According to Loughlin, central–local government relations have been
‘politicised and juridified,’ and recent Conservative governments have managed
to ‘undermine the institution of local government’ (p417). By ‘juridified,’
Loughlin means increased reliance on the law (Acts and Regulations) and the
courts instead of the tradition of administrative negotiation within broadly
conceived framework legislation: a ‘regulatory regime’ through ‘instrumental
legislation’ (p 368) instead of a past political culture based on broad consensus and
on norms of behaviour which fall within the bounds of that consensus (p 366). In
reaching this conclusion, Loughlin has painstakingly delved into a century and a
half of primary and secondary materials, and his reading has spanned a range of
academic disciplines including public law, political theory, history and political
economy. This is a work of depth and scholarship — not an easy read (especially
made difficult by the excessive footnotes in very small print), but a reference book
of great value to practitioners and politicians as well as to academics; a possible
successor, as the standard text on the subject, to J.A.G. Griffith’s Central
Departments and Local Authorities (1967) and a work that is unlikely to be
superseded for many years.
As a public lawyer, Loughlin is following in the footsteps of not only Griffith,
but also William Robson, whose masterly 1936 book, The Development of Local
Government, also stood the test of time. Unlike his eminent predecessors, however,
Loughlin is currently somewhat at odds with contemporary political scientists.
While Robson and Griffith debated and fine-tuned their ideas in the
multidisciplinary setting of the Greater London Group at the LSE (which Robson
founded in the 1950s and which still flourishes today), Loughlin has chosen to
eschew such an approach and instead attack Professor Gerry Stoker, co-ordinator
The Modern Law Review Limited 1997 (MLR 60:5, September). Published by Blackwell Publishers,
108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.744
To continue reading
Request your trial