‘Who else would we speak to?’ National Policy Networks in post-devolution Britain: The case of spatial planning
| Published date | 01 January 2018 |
| Date | 01 January 2018 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/0952076716669978 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Public Policy and Administration
2018, Vol. 33(1) 3–21
!The Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0952076716669978
journals.sagepub.com/home/ppa
Article
‘Who else would we
speak to?’ National
Policy Networks in
post-devolution
Britain: The case
of spatial planning
Janice Morphet
University College London, London, UK
Ben Clifford
University College London, London, UK
Abstract
The implementation of the devolution process that started in 1999 was frequently
assumed by contemporary commentators and scholars to lead to a fractured relation-
ship with the national centre and a fragmented state as a consequence. However, dis-
course analysis and policy reviews in relation to spatial planning policies demonstrates
that agendas and legislation implemented by central and devolved governments since
devolution are characterised by marked similarities in intention and type (albeit with
some differences in name and delivery route). In investigating the potential sites and
sources of these policy similarities and possible mobilities, and drawing on research
data, we suggest that the British Irish Council’s spatial planning task group as one of the
potential candidates to be considered as a national policy community or network.
Alongside a range of other factors following devolution, this has contributed to devel-
opment and delivery in one specific policy area that has taken a convergent rather than
divergent character.
Keywords
British Irish Council, devolution, policy mobility, policy networks, spatial planning
Corresponding author:
Janice Morphet, University College London, 14 Upper Woburn Place, London WC1H 0NN, UK.
Email: j.morphet@ucl.ac.uk
Introduction
Devolution of public policy to Scotland and Wales was one of the most notable
constitutional changes introduced by the Labour Government 1997–2010. Since
then, the process has continued to evolve under the Coalition and Conservative
Governments since (Keating, 2013; Mitchell, 2011), extending powers with succes-
sive rounds of specific legislation. The provenance of devolution in Britain lies
within a range of key political dynamics, particularly a growing movement for
self-determination in Scotland and Wales. A failed referendum in Scotland in
1979 (Bradbury, 1998; Mitchell, 1998) was followed by a declining number of
Conservative MPs (Hussain and Miller, 2006). This was addressed by successive
governments through administrative distinctiveness within the machinery of gov-
ernment in Scotland and Wales (Hazell, 2000) and a political commitment for
devolution was adopted by the Labour Party (Bradbury, 1997; Midwinter and
McVicar, 1996). When this commitment was fulfilled in 1999, the Labour Party
was in power in the UK, Scotland and Wales. Since then, new relationships have
emerged following changes in the political leadership of all three governments
(Laffin and Shaw, 2005).
At the point of devolution, there were concerns that it would cause policy dif-
ferentiation and fragmentation, further hollowing out the state (Jessop, 1990).
These views were not necessarily based on any empirical assessment of the con-
temporaneous policy context and operation. Legislation in Scotland had always
remained separate since the Act of Union (Trench, 2012). Since 1999, a new period
of institutional stabilisation has begun. Some studies are emerging that are inves-
tigating how these earlier, pre-devolution policy relationships have been influenced
by these changes. They have particularly focussed on policy networks and com-
munities within the devolved nations (e.g. Cairney, 2011; Keating et al., 2009, 2012)
and have demonstrated that relationships have not been adversely affected by
devolution whilst policy communities have adapted to meet any changes. Trench
(2012) argues that this is because devolution has been more administrative than
political in its character and the division of responsibilities has been
straightforward.
Other studies have focused on the development of post-devolution formal pol-
itical intergovernmental relations (IGR) within multi-level governance (MLG)
frames (Gallagher, 2012; McEwen et al., 2012a, 2012b; Parry, 2012). These
MLG studies characterise the post-devolution relationships as being adversarial
on both horizontal and vertical axis and contained within concepts of IGR. In the
early years of devolution, IGR relationships were cordial (Gallagher, 2012;
McEwen et al., 2012b) and the failsafe dispute mechanisms for disagreement
were not used. As a result, it is argued that IGR institutional structures have not
been extensively developed. The implementation of devolution has also engendered
discussion about a new form of the British state, which some argue is now quasi-
federal (Dolowitz, 2012; Hazell, 2006), although with little institutional apparatus
or acknowledgement. In contrast, the language of central government, since 1999,
4Public Policy and Administration 33(1)
To continue reading
Request your trial