‘The Next Steps’: A Review
| Date | 01 July 1988 |
| Author | Richard A. Chapman |
| DOI | 10.1177/095207678800300303 |
| Published date | 01 July 1988 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
'The
Next
Steps':
A
Review
Richard
A.
Chapman,
University
of
Durham
Backgound
Radical
plans
to
reshape
the
civil
service,
by
reducing
it
to
a
small
'core'
of
policy
makers
and
'transferring'
other
officials
to
work
under
free-standing
agency
boards,
were
in
principle
approved
by
the
Government
in
February
1988.
The
plans,
con-
ceived
by
the
Efficiency
Unit
under
the
direction
of
Sir
Robin
Ibbs,
follow
recom-
mendations
in
a
report
now
popularly
known
as
'The
Next
Steps'
Report,
or
the
Ibbs
Report,
which
was
presented
to
the
Prime
Minister
in
the
summer
of
1987
and
published
in
1988
(Report
to
the
Prime
Minister
from
the
Efficiency
Unit,
Improving
Management
in
Government:
The
Next
Set
Steps,
HMSO,
1988).
Since
its
publication
The
Next
Steps
has
attracted
much
attention
in
the
press
and
among
scholars
and
practitioners
of
public
administration.
It
has
also
become
a
focus
for
the
attention
of
public
sector
trades
union
leaders.
In
March
1988
the
House
of
Commons
Treasury
and
Civil
Service
Committee
appointed
a
sub-com-
mittee
to
inquire
into
the
proposed
management
reforms
in
the
civil
service
announced
by
the
Prime
Minister
in
the
House
of
Commons
on
18
February.
The
following
review
of
The
Next
Steps
is
a
slightly
amended
version
of
the
author's
evidence
submitted
to
the
sub-committee;
the
author
and
editor
acknowledge
with
thanks
the
permission
of
the
Treasury
and
Civil
Service
Committee
to
publish
it
in
this
form.
The
sub-committee's
report
is
likely
to
be
published
while
this
issue
of
Public
Policy
and
Administration
is
in
the
press.
Introduction
The
main
emphasis
in
The
Next
Steps
is
stated
in
its
first
paragraph.
In
that
para-
graph
the
report
stresses
the
need
for
more
urgency
in
the
search
for
better
value
for
money
and
towards
steadily
improving
services.
Later,
the
report
seems
to
find
any
change
beneficial
in
itself,
without
apparently
considering
the
direction
or
con-
sequences
of
the
change.
No
comment
is
offered
in
the
report
about
whether
the
change
is
or
is
not
advantageous
in
terms
of
the
aims
or
purposes
of
government
or
its
particular
services.
The
emphasis
throughout
is
on
what
might
be
achieved
in
terms
of
better
value
for
money.
Public
Policy
and
Administration
Volume
3
No.
3
Winter
1988
3
To continue reading
Request your trial