The Influence of Heclo and Wildavsky's
| Date | 01 October 2003 |
| Published date | 01 October 2003 |
| DOI | 10.1177/095207670301800402 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
The
Influence
of
Heclo
and
Wildavsky's
The
Private
Government
of
Public
Money
Richard
Parry
University
of
Edinburgh
Abstract
Hugh
Heclo
and
Aaron
Wildavsky's
Private
Government
of
Public
Money
was
one
of
the
most
influential
public
policy
books
of
the
1970s
because
of
the
flair
of
its
analysis
and
its
pioneering
use
of
interviews
with
policy-
makers.
Despite
a
revision
in
1981
it
fails
to
predict
the
demise
of
the
system
it
celebrated
the
Public
Expenditure
Survey
and
associated
Policy
Analysis
and
Review
-
and
its
influence
on
subsequent
studies
of
the
Treasury
has
not
been
great.
More
lasting
have
been
its
analytical
themes
-
the
notion
of
'political
administrators
'including
both
ministers
and
officials,
a
'trial
of
personalities'
as
the
key
to
policy-making,
and
the
importance
of
the
technical
dynamics
of
the
system
in
constraining
behaviour.
It
pioneered
a
new
way
of
writing
about
British
central
administration,
although
its
depersonalised
and
anonymised
presentation,
and
masculinised
image
of
the
'club'
has
been
superseded.
Some
of
the
authors'
policy
prescriptions
have
also
proved
prescient.
Although
the
book
now
seems
to
lack
the
systematic
and
quantitative
analysis
that
its
subject-matter
invited,
its
written
style
is
memorable
and
its
effect
on
other
researchers
remains
inspirational.
Hugh
Heclo
and
Aaron
Wildavsky's
The
Private
Government
of
Public
Money
(PGPM)
burst
on
to
the
British
public
policy
scene
with
particular
force
in
1974
as
the
conjunction
of
three
novel
elements:
the
use
of
American
methods
of
policy
analysis
rather
than
traditional
British
techniques
of
public
administration;
the
discussion
of
finance-based
quantitative
planning
rather
than
law-based
procedure;
and
a
mischievous
conspiracy
of
clever
authors
and
equally
clever
respondents
tracing
how
they
had
risen
several
notches
above
the
usual
practice
and
analysis
in
the
field.
The
fact
that
Americans
were
interested
in
the
topic
added
another
dimension,
only
briefly
matched
in
the
1980s
when
privatisation
seemed
to
make
Britain
a
world
leader
in
policy
development.
Attempts
to
elevate
the
Public
Policy
and
Administration
Volume
18
No.
4
Winter
2003
3
'third
way'
into
a
comparable
British-led
theme
have
been
unsuccessful,
and
technical
innovations
like
resource
budgeting
and
service
delivery
agreements
have
appealed
only
to
a
specialist
audience.
In
retrospect
it
is
hard
to
believe
that
the
dry
fields
of
public
finance
and
public
administration
could
have
been
enlivened
in
such
a
sparkling
way.
The
clue
is
the
often-overlooked,
and
not
very
sparkling,
subtitle
'Community
and
Policy
inside
British
Politics'.
This
betokens
a
work
of
sociology,
shading
into
anthropology:
a
study
of
human
behaviour
within
a
legal
and
political
framework,
rather
than
of
the
framework
itself.
It
also
signals
a
book
about
politics,
not
economics
or
public
finance.
PGPM
inspired
subsequent
books
treating
British
policy-making
and
the
role
of
the
civil
service
as
a
game
in
which
personality
meshed
with
process.
It
also
influenced
the
development
of
network
theory
and
administrative
sociology.
Over
the
years,
may
civil
servants
have
mentioned
it
or
enjoyed
being
recommended
it,
perhaps
flattered
by
the
portrait
it
gives
of
themselves
and
their
skills.
How
did
Heclo
and
Wildavsky
come
to
this
field?
Heclo
had
been
working
on
what
was
to
become
Modem
Social
Politics
in
Britain
and
Sweden
(1974),
a
pioneering
amalgam
of
politics,
social
policy
and
public
administration;
his
approach
was
based
upon
the
primacy
of
an
administrative
elite
able
to
steer
policy
in
an
enlightened
direction.
Heclo
also
wrote
the
memorably
titled
A
Government
of
Strangers:
Executive
Politics
in
Washington
(1978).
He
had
the
greater
previous
British
experience,
having
studied
at
Manchester
and
taught
at
Essex
universities.
He
went
on
to
become
professor
at
Harvard
and
currently
George
Mason
University,
a
respected
and
distinguished
figure
on
the
American
political
science
scene.
Wildavsky's
contribution
to
policy
analysis
was
immense,
culminating
in
Speaking
Truth
to
Power:
the
Art
and
Craft
of
Policy
Analysis
(1979).
He
died
in
1993
leaving
many
collaborators
and
students
(see
Caiden
and
White
1995,
Ellis
and
Thompson
1997).
The
aspect
of
his
work
that
gave
rise
to
PGPM
started
out
with
The
Politics
of
the
Budgetary
Process
(1964).
This
used
research
into
the
US
Congress
to
put
into
an
analytical
framework
the
discrepancy
between
the
formal
budgetary
process
and
the
system
actually
operating.
Concepts
like
log-rolling,
the
base
budget
and
fair
shares
were
given
an
empirical
backing.
What
had
seemed
to
be
a
series
of
random
acts
of
political
intervention
was
revealed
as
a
pattern
of
behaviour
based
upon
long-term
calculation
and
exchanges
of
support
and
favours.
Turned
down
by
nine
publishers
(Wildavsky
1988,
p.xvi)
it
became
'one
of
the
most
widely
read
political
science
books
ever
written'
(Premfors
1981,
p.203).
But
the
research
was
located
in
the
singular
circumstances
of
the
US
Congress,
where
the
manipulation
of
the
legislative
process
combined
with
the
promotion
of
favoured
local
projects
of
small
overall
significance
to
produce
an
unpredictable
system
far
removed
from
the
ordered
British
one.
The
two
authors
came
together
in
1971
when
Wildavsky
had
a
year's
fellowship
at
Nuffield
College
Oxford.
It
is
an
examination
of
the
Treasury
Public
Policy
and
Administration
Volume
18
No.
4
Winter
2003
4
To continue reading
Request your trial