Flinders, Matthew (2004):
Distributed Public Governance in Britain
Public Administration Vol. 82 No. 4, 2004 (883–909)
Please note: This page may contain data in Norwegian that is not translated to English.
Type of publication:
Tidsskriftsartikkel
Link to publication:
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.0033-3298.2004.00423.x
Number of pages:
28
Language of publication:
Engelsk
NSD-reference:
2699
This page was last updated:
13/9 2007
Affiliations related to this publication:
- Stat
Land som er gjenstand for studien:
- Storbritannia
Verkemiddel i den konstituerande styringa:
- 1.1 Organisering generelt
- 1.4 Finansiering
- 1.5 Lov- og regelverk
Verkemiddel i den operative styringa av ststlege verksemder:
- 2.1 Formell styringsdialog
Studieoppdrag:
- Forskning
Studietype:
- Effektstudie/implikasjoner/resultater
Type effekt:
- Strukturelle og styringsmessige effektar
- Kvalitet og sikkerhetsmessige effektar
- Verdimessige effektar
Sektor (cofog):
- Staten generelt
Summary:
The structure of the British state is growing increasingly complex. This trend raises a
number of questions that focus on the forces stimulating this complexity and its
implications both for society-state relationships and the design and implementation
of public policy. This article focuses on one specific element or strand of these
debates: the growth in the number and role of quasi-autonomous public bodies
within Britain. It seeks to analyse and reflect upon the distinctive approach taken by
the Labour government, since winning office in May 1997, in relation to the sphere of
‘distributed public governance’ in Britain. Moreover, the article seeks to locate this
analysis within broader debates surrounding the future of the British state and the
Labour government’s approach to statecraft through a thematic framework based
around: growth, co-ordination, accountability, depoliticization and power. The central
argument of this article is that the Labour government has increased considerably
the sphere of distributed public governance in Britain. This process has been
largely devoid of an underpinning rationale and this may have significant implications
for successful policy delivery, the public’s trust in government and the future
trajectory of the British state.