TRANSITION OR TRANSFORMATION? ‐ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY UNDER THATCHER
| Published date | 01 September 1987 |
| Author | ANDREW BLOWERS |
| Date | 01 September 1987 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.1987.tb00662.x |
TRANSITION OR TRANSFORMATION?
-
ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY UNDER THATCHER
ANDREW
BLOWERS
The degree of fundamental change or continuity in environmental policy under the Thatcher
governments since
1979
is explored in terms
of
three functional areas
of
policy-making.
The impact of Thatcherite ideology has been strongest in the
development
function.
Deregulation has weakened the role of strategic land use planning.
A
strong central state
allied to a free market has enabled primacy to be given to the promotion
of
private sector
development. Compromise has been characteristic
of
the
conservation
function where the
Government has had to arbitrate between its farming and rural preservationist consti-
tuencies
at a time when the rural economy
has
shifted
from an emphasis on food production
to the problem of surplus. International concerns about transboundary pollution and
EEC
environmental directives have constrained the Government's freedom of action
in
the
ecological
function of policy. Overall, environmental policy shows a mixture
of
transfor-
mation where ideology is strong and pragmatism where political and structural constraints
ensure the longer term continuity of policy.
IDEOLOGY
AND
POLICY
The question
I
wish to examine is whether environmental policy under Thatcher
represents a fundamental departure, a transformation, or is rather to be seen as
a transitional phase containing elements of continuity as well as change.
The
1979
election is widely regarded as marking a fundamental ideological divide. Like the
other 'watershed election of
1945,
it is held to have ushered in a political regime
intent on reversing the trends
of
British economic and social
policy.
The ideological
stress was on 'the freedom of the individual, the benefits of both market forces
and entrepreneurship, the role of law, and the perils
of
bureaucratic control
of
the economy and society' (Sorensen and Day
1981,
p.
390).
The role of the market
was to be enhanced by deregulation, privatization and curbing the power of the
unions. The role of the state was to remove obstacles to enterprise, to relieve the
burden
of
public spending and to enforce law and order.
A
strong state was seen
as compatible with a free market. The political commitment
with
which
these ideas
were pursued effected a profound change in national psychology, a mixture of
realism
and
fatalism, a belief that the shock
of
change was a necessary prelude
Andrew Blowers is Professor
of
Social Sciences (Planning), Faculty
of
Social Sciences, at
the
Open
University.
Public Administration
Vol.
65
Autumn 1987 (277-294)
0
Royal Institute
of
Public Administration
ISSN
0033-3298 $3.00
278
ANDREW
BLOWERS
to an improved economic performance. In short, the Government intended, and
appeared to achieve,
a
political transformation.
Yet there are indications that the changes, while profound, do not constitute
a hiatus with the past. In several respects the Thatcher government marks a
transitional phase in politics.
In
the
first
place the Government had to deal with
already established structural changes in the ecohomy. The recession, combined
with an international process
of
industrial restructuing, was producing an un-
familiar combination
of
inflation and high unemployment. But, in its efforts to
we inflation the Government
has
vastly increased the problem of unemployment.
Secondly, a number of policies were inherited by the Government such as the
deteriorating conditions in the inner cities. Some cuts in public expenditure were
already in train by
1979.
Thirdly, the Thatcher government found itself unable
to reverse
certain
policies.
Welfare
payments were sustained
taking
a hgher propor-
tion of public expenditure
as
unemployment rose. Resistance to cuts and changes
in other spending programmes provided a brake on ideological commitments. For
example, the invasion of market principles into education and the health service
was substantially deflected and the attempt
to
privatize the water authorities was
shelved during the Government’s second term. But such changes were not altogether
abandoned and water privatization is part of the programme for the third Thatcher
administration. Such restraints to change are inevitable as Mishra observes:
To
some extent, government’s inability to reduce public expenditure stems from
the fact that within the framework of liberal democracy
-
government by
consent, influence
of
organised interest groups, the rule of law, the principle
of honouring past commitments
-
change, whether towards the
Left
or the Right,
is necessarily slow and piecemeal
(1984,
p.
48).
Fourthly, the impact of Thatcherite ideology and policies provoked a reaction
lea- to the less radical tone that was becoming evident towards the end of the
second administration.
These
various trends are all apparent in the area
of
environmental policy.
Ideologically, there has been a transformation marked by an emphasis on the
market rather than on notions of public interest. But, in terms of policy there is
evidence
of
continuity, of policy in transition responding to changing economic
and political circumstances.
In
short, environmental policy under Thatcher reflects
the mixture of ideological transformation and policy transition which is evident
in other policy areas.
WHAT
IS ENVIRONMENTAL
POLICY?
Environmental policy
is
concerned
with
the
use
of land and the regulation of human
activities which have an impact on our physical surroundings.
It
has three related
functions. One is the
development
function, to ensure that land and resources are
available for the development of housing, industry, minerals, energy, agriculture,
transportation and other infrastructure. The second is the
consemution
function,
to ensure that land and resources are effectively husbanded and conserved. And
the third is the
ecologicul
function, to promote relationships between land uses
To continue reading
Request your trial