Document Library

New Labour's Civil Service: Summing up Joining-up

Author: R A W Rhodes
Date: 2000
Size: 16 pages (229 KB)

Access full text: available online

Summary

How has the Labour government reformed the British civil service? To what extent have the reforms achieved the stated aims of improved co-ordination and efficiency? This article from Political Quarterly examines the policy statements and decisions of the Labour government on civil service reform between 1997 and 2000. Although the government’s support for ‘joined-up’ administration and emphasis on policy networks rather than centralisation should be welcomed, reforms have had unintended side-effects, such as administrative fragmentation and accountability gaps.

British government civil service reforms undertaken since the 1970s have been characterised by: a) the introduction of private sector management approaches; b) privatisation combined with increased regulation; c) decentralisation through the creation of semi-autonomous agencies or political bodies; and d) the exercise of political control over the civil service. New Labour policy exemplifies many of these principles. Regulation, especially self-regulation, has received extra funding. Scottish and Welsh devolution achieved some bureaucratic decentralisation, while the increase in political advisers represented an assertion of central government control over the civil service. The government has also overseen a general shift of emphasis from marketised public services to policy networks, such as the ‘action zones’ in health and education in which the state enables co-operation between government, local authorities, the private sector and voluntary organisations.

Notwithstanding, these policy decisions have had several unintended consequences:

• Although New Labour advocates ‘joined-up’ government, fragmentation has resulted from the widening of public service providers resulting from the shift of focus towards policy networks.
• Efforts to link these bodies have been inadequate as agencies work in a ‘policy vacuum’. Steering is often based on crisis management and blame avoidance.
• Accountability is impaired by lack of co-ordination. Government has prioritised responsive rather than accountable government, and has failed to bolster ministerial responsibility.
• Although New Labour has not overtly politicised the civil service, open competition for high-ranking jobs may encourage political appointments.
• Increased managerialism has reduced the space for senior officials to initiate policy and has weakened the public service ethos, despite the new Ministerial Code which aims to prevent partisan influence in the civil service.

Although the Modernising Government White Paper sought to meet these challenges, several issues remain unresolved, including co-ordination, the variety of governing structures, accountability and top management reviews:

• While networks tend to promote wide-ranging agreement on policy, they are not effective in all circumstances and may impede accountability and integration.
• Importing marketised processes to professional networks may undermine trust, informality and co-operation.
• The White Paper failed to address ministerial responsibility and may indirectly impair accountability through its promotion of agencies, which are too disparate to hold to account.
• Although recruitment of top civil servants has recently become more diverse, partly through open competition, half of senior officials in 1998 were from Oxbridge.
• There remain no systematic procedures for evaluating the work of top administrators, which may fuel support for political appointments.

Access full text: available online

Source: Rhodes, R., 2000, 'New Labour's Civil Service: Summing up Joining-up', Political Quarterly, vol. 71, no. 2, pp. 151-166
Author: Rod Rhodes , Director.RSSS@anu.edu.au