THE RISE OF THE INTERMEDIATE LEVEL INSTITUTION IN BRITISH PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION: THE CASE OF THE ARTS AND TRAINING
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.1994.tb00808.x |
| Published date | 01 December 1994 |
| Author | BRENDAN J. EVANS,ANDREW J. TAYLOR |
| Date | 01 December 1994 |
THE RISE
OF
THE INTERMEDIATE LEVEL
INSTITUTION IN BRITISH PUBLIC
ADMINISTRATION: THE CASE
OF
THE ARTS
AND TRAINING
BRENDAN
J.
EVANS AND ANDREW
J.
TAYLOR
During
the
1980s
there was both centralization and decentralization in the British policy
process. The centre was to be responsible for broad policy whilst the
institutions
in closest
contact with those who consumed or
used
a
service were to
be
responsible for implemen-
tation.
This
style was, in part, a reaction to the perception that organized interests acted
as a severe restraint on the centre. Experience, however, demonstrated government's
dependence on the cooperation of
organized
interests and their intermediate organiza-
tions.
This
article argues that effective policy-making requires the formation of interme
diate organizations
linking
macro- and
micro-institutions.
These
organizations are vital
for communication, representation and negotiation and therefore they inevitably con-
strain the centre's
freedom.
Effective policy requires a partnership between the centre and
sub-centre via intermediate
institutions
and these
institutions
are likely to become more
important as decentralization continues. The role of intermediate
institutions
are explored
via case
studies
of training and arts policy.
MANAGING COMPLEXIR THE IMPORTANCE
OF
THE
INTERMEDIATE LEVEL
This
article argues that the functional needs of the policy process requires the
development of intermediate structures providing linkages between macro- and
micro-institutions within a policy network.
These
intermediate structures per-
form the essential political functions of communication, representation, and
negotiation.
"his
is a general tendency of modem British government and
is
explored via case studies of training and arts policy and the internal politics of
these networks demonstrates the inevitability
of
government bargaining
with
major societal interests. The article examines the role
of
TEC
Council (formerly
G10)
and the English ReGIOnal
Arts
Bureau
(ERAB)
in the training and arts
policy networks.
To
some extent
this
characteristic of modem government was
addressed by the intergovernmental relations and policy community literature
which was developed
in
the
1980s
as a counter to Thatcherite simplicities and
to reflect the complexity of central and sub-central government relations
Brendan
J.
Evans
is
Professor
and Andrew
J.
Taylor
is
Principal Lecturer
in
the Division of Politics at
the University
of
Huddersfield.
Public
Administration Vol. 72 Winter 1994 (551-572)
Q
Basil Blackwell Ltd. 1994,108 Cowley Road, Oxford
OX4
IF,
UK
and 238 Main Street, Cambridge,
MA
02142, USA.
552
BRENDAN
J.
EVANS AND ANDREW
J.
TAYLOR
(Rhodes 1988; Stoker
1990).
This
literature stresses that the complex realities of
policy and policy-making requires a partnership of both the central and the sub-
central levels which automatically produces an implementation gap between
the desires and intentions of central government and what actually happens at
the point
of
policy delivery.
To
analyse
this
relationship,
two
theoretical frame-
works suggest themselves: intermediate institutions and meso-corporatism.
The complexity
of
public policy and the networks created to make and
implement policy require the development of geographically and functionally
intermediate institutions (Gray
1994,
Hogwood
and Keating (eds.) 1982). These
institutions have three main roles: they manage functions devolved from the
centre and co-ordinate other agencies (public and private) involved in service
delivery; they monitor and facilitate the implementation of central government
policies; and they represent territorial interests to the centre. Intermediate insti-
tutions are in a politically ambiguous position: they exist to advance and
represent government policy but they inevitably come to be seen as a conduit
into the central executive for those subject to, or charged with implementing,
government policy. Inevitably, these institutions become involved in policy-
making as feedback mechanisms, acting as the forum in which grass roots
sentiments are aggregated and articulated in an effort to mod* central policy.
The complexity of policy and government's desire to secure implementation
means that they negotiate with these intermediate institutions to ease policy-
making and implementation. Relations within the network are based on mutual
dependence. For policy to be made and delivered effectively all interests and
levels have to
be
involved in
an
exchange of resources, an exchange which
produces a degree of interdependence although the centre enjoys predominance
within the network.
In
common with the idea of intermediate institutions mesocorporatism com-
bines interest representation, decision-making and implementation (Cawson
1985, pp. 11-12). It is less concerned with the 'systems steering' concerns of
macro-corporatism, and capital and labour do not inevitably predominate as
participation is open to any interest with a capacity to organize a monopoly of
representation. Meso-corporatism
is
dominated by producer/provider interests
rather than consumer interests as the former have a greater propensity to engage
in collective action which enables them to participate in a political exchange.
This
too is conceptualized as a power dependence relationship. Within
this
framework both the interest association and the state enjoy a measure of au-
tonomy, albeit within a set of constraints which ultimately favour the state.
This
produces private interest government in which public purposes are secured by
essentially private organizations licensed, but not directly controlled, by the
state.
Both frameworks have much in common. First, both point to the need for a
body to coordinate interests, and to aggregate and articulate societal interests to
policy makers in the interest of
'good'
policy-making. Second, they stress the
inevitability of interdependence in the policy process, but that government can,
if
it
so
desires, secure the implementation of its wishes. Third, both point to the
6
Basil
Blackwell
Ltd.
1994
To continue reading
Request your trial