UK Local Government: The Impact of Modernization on Departmentalism
| Author | Michael Cole,John Fenwick |
| Published date | 01 June 2003 |
| Date | 01 June 2003 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/0020852303069002009 |
| Subject Matter | Journal Article |
UK local government: the impact of modernization on
departmentalism
Michael Cole and John Fenwick
Abstract
The issue of departmentalism has been a recurring theme in discussions about UK
local government. In this article the implications of the Labour Government’s
modernization agenda for departmentalism in local authorities are considered and
assessed. In particular, the potential impact of the political management reforms, Best
Value, the rise of the regulation agenda and community governance and partnership
working is discussed. An analysis of executive committees, scrutiny committees and
Best Value investigations in the shire counties and the London boroughs and a case
study of Devon County Council are used to support this discussion. The article
concludes that the modernization agenda is exerting pressure towards more cross-
departmental models of working.
Introduction
The issue of departmentalism has been a recurring feature of the debate about UK
local government. Departmentalism has its roots in the 19th century origins of
modern local government. The expansion of local government functions was
undertaken through the establishment of single-purpose boards. As the number of
boards increased fragmentation was perceived as a problem.1Eventually, these
single-purpose bodies were abolished and functions transferred to the multi-
purpose authorities. The separate functions retained, however, substantial inde-
pendence. The ‘problem of coordination was not so much resolved as internalised’
(Collinge, 1997: 350). Departmentalism was strengthened by the emergence of
new professions to administer these functions (Collinge, 1997: 350). Similarly, the
legacy of separate boards has been reflected in a political management structure
based on separate committees for each service or similar groups of services.
This fragmented and departmental tradition has, however, been accompanied
by a corporate agenda that has emphasized the ‘reintegration of executive func-
tions within a unified policy framework and administrative structure’ (Collinge,
1997: 352). In the 1960s and 1970s, the issue of departmentalism was addressed
in a series of government reports (see, for example, Maud, 1967; Bains, 1972),
which developed a wider corporate agenda. For example, this process led to a
Michael Cole is a Research Associate at the Department of Sociology, University of
Plymouth. John Fenwick is Principal Lecturer and Head of Politics at the University of
Northumbria. CDU: 352(42).
International Review of Administrative Sciences [0020–8523(200306)69:2]
Copyright © 2003 IIAS. SAGE Publications (London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New
Delhi), Vol.69 (2003), 259–270; 033538
02_IRAS69/2 articles 22/5/03 12:00 pm Page 259
To continue reading
Request your trial