Thresholds of State Change: Changing British State Institutions and Practices in Northern Ireland after Direct Rule
| Author | Jennifer Todd |
| Published date | 01 October 2014 |
| Date | 01 October 2014 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9248.12082 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Thresholds of State Change: Changing British
State Institutions and Practices in Northern
Ireland after Direct Rule
Jennifer Todd
University College Dublin
A long process of state-institutional change underlay an eventual swift restructuring of Nor thern Ireland on a more
equal basis in the 2000s. This article shows how change occurred and explains its phasing, arguing that it took a
threshold form. It gives a distinctive characterisation of the ‘recognition’,‘agenda’ and‘implementation’ thresholds,and
the different politics that followedeach.This model of state change is of interest in three ways: in providinga distinctive
characterisation and explanation of the process; in addressing the comparative literature on ‘exclusion’, conflict and
settlement by sketching a threshold model of change from‘exclusion’ to‘inclusion’; and in speaking to a pressing moral
concern – if settlement was possible at all, why was it not possible sooner? The article makes use of new evidence in
the form of over 70 elite interviews with senior British and Irish politicians and officials who made, influenced and
closely observed the process.
Keywords: state; threshold; Northern Ireland; institutional change; exclusion; conflict
resolution
A long process of state-institutional change underlay the eventual swift restructuring of
Northern Ireland in the 2000s. This article shows that it took a threshold form. The
argument abstracts from the drama of politics within Northern Ireland in order to highlight
the intra-state processes that incentivised radical change in parties and paramilitaries there
and to contribute to comparative analysis of state change in conflict situations.
The concept of a threshold is used in the social sciences to refer to a step or phase in a
process of change, one that is difficult to pass but which, once passed, produces swift
observable outcomes (Lustick, 1993, pp. 43–6; Pierson, 2004, pp. 83–6). Thresholds are
likely to characterise state change in conflict situations because the intensity of opposing
interpretations, the embeddedness of state responses, the urgency of security imperatives
and the determination of veto players tend to block incremental forms of change. Ian
Lustick (1993; 2001) has argued that in cases of ‘state contraction’ a long slow process of
overcoming internal ‘ideological’ and‘reg ime’ (military) thresholds precedes a swift process
of boundary change. However there has been little elaboration of these ideas for other
conflict situations. This article shows a process of state threshold crossing which affected
sequentially British orientations, prioritisations and policies in Norther n Ireland. It uses
new evidence in the form of over 70 elite interviews with senior British and Irish
politicians and officials who made, influenced and closely observed the process.
Threshold phenomena exhibit seemingly sudden change after a long period of stasis or
failed attempts at change. British policy in Northern Ireland follows this pattern. In the first
decade of direct rule (1972–82) there was a sequence of failed political initiatives, a focus
on economic development and fair employment that by the mid-1980s was proven to have
bs_bs_banner
doi: 10.1111/1467-9248.12082
POLITICAL STUDIES: 2014 VOL 62, 522–538
© 2013The Author.Political Studies © 2013 Political Studies Association
no impact on Catholic relative disadvantage, and a security strategy that increased Catholic
and nationalist ‘alienation’ and polarised the communities without stopping the Ir ish
Republican Army (IRA) (O’Leary and McGarry, 1996, ch. 5). From the later 1980s,
effective fair employment and socio-economic policies were being put in place, and from
the later 1990s a rapid process of restructuring transformed the character of social relations
within Northern Ireland, putting an end to the gross communal inequalities of the past (see
McCrudden et al., 2009; Osborne and Shuttleworth, 2004; Ruane and Todd, 2012).
A threshold model of British state change is of interest in three ways. First, it provides a
new perspective on how the British state role and policies in Northern Ireland changed,
identifying the mechanisms by which seemingly unbreachable limits of state action and
constraints on state policy came to be seen as malleable, open to pragmatic change. At the
same time, it shows the difficulty of the process and the contingency of change (or lack
thereof) at key points.
Second, it is of direct relevance to comparative theories of conflict and settlement. It has
been shown that horizontal inequalities in general, and state exclusion (of politicised
minorities) in particular, are highly correlated with violent conflict (Cederman et al., 2010;
2011; Stewart, 2008), and that moves towards‘inclusion’ are conduciveto settlement (Brown
et al., 2012). There are related debates on the relevant types of inclusion and the relative
importance of exogenous and endogenous actors in such change (Hartzell and Hoddie,
2007). This case sketches a model of threshold change where exogenous influence (not
intervention) triggers increasing endogenous interest in and enthusiasm for the process,
where recognition of ‘exclusion’is itself a product of political change, and where the type of
‘inclusion’ that motivates settlement is highly dependent on the timing of change. It shows
how seemingly immovable limits of stateness can be made almost indefinitely malleable.
Third, the threshold model speaks to a pressing moral concern:‘If settlement was possible
at all, why was it not possible sooner?’ It shows that the Northern Ireland settlement was
underpinned and stabilised by a longer slower process of state change. If it might have been
accomplished sooner or better, it would always have been difficult to change entrenched
understandings and habits of statecraft, to reprioritise the agenda and to confront deter-
mined veto players.
The analysis that follows is informed by interviews conducted with British and Irish
elites who were involved in intergovernmental negotiations and institution building (see
Appendix). Elites do not always know, recall, remember accurately or wish to reveal
information about the past, and they do not have privileged insight into causal processes.
However, interviews remain one of the best sources for accessing the understandings,
conceptual frameworks and perspectives of elites, permitting in-depth questioning, and
allowing comparisons over time and between respondents.1The causal narrative that runs
through the article is constructed by interpreting the interviews and other evidence in light
of theoretical concepts of institutional change and threshold crossing, with the concepts in
turn revised in light of the evidence.The resultant ‘analytic narrative’ is to be judged for its
merits in incorporating the range of Br itish and Irish perspectives, for its explanation of the
phasing and process of change,and in compar ison with alternative scholarly explanations of
the process (see Bates et al., 1998,p. 10,p. 12).It shows only one strand of a complex process
leading from conflict to settlement, but a crucially impor tant one.2
THRESHOLDS OF STATE CHANGE 523
© 2013The Author.Political Studies © 2013 Political Studies Association
POLITICAL STUDIES: 2014, 62(3)
To continue reading
Request your trial