The structure of the modern state has altered dramatically in recent decades. The implicit assumptions and explicit recommendations of managerialist reform strategies led to the rapid 'unbundling' or 'unravelling' of the state across both the developed and developing world. The large-scale 'balkanisation' of multi-purpose hierarchical public bureaucracies into larger numbers of single purpose arm's-length bodies (ALBs -bodies which carry out public functions with some degree of independence from government) as part of a new 'smaller, leaner and more streamlined' approach to the business of government not only formed a core component of the dominant public management paradigm but also posed new challenges in terms of navigating multiple relationships and steering complex networks. It is in exactly this context that Tobias Bach (2013) suggests that the literature on delegation has been dominated by two related but quite distinct analytical perspectives (for a review see James and Van Thiel 2011). The first perspective focuses on why politicians delegate and offers a range of theoretical explanations and research-based rationalities (see, for example, Bertelli 2006). The second perspective, by contrast, focuses on 'actual levels of autonomy ' (Verhoest et al. 2004) or the 'de facto independence' (Maghetti, 2007) of arm's-length bodies. The current state-of-the-art in this field is represented by the various outputs generated by the CRIPO/COBRA project (Verhoest et al., 2011) that combine to offer a rich account of the existence of a common gap between 'de jure' and 'de facto' levels of autonomy.
Mark Twain once noted that 'history never repeats itself, but it rhymes', and by this, he sought to capture the manner in which specific issues appear to re-emerge either within the public consciousness or onto the political agenda (or both) with a certain regularity. The electoral cycle and the existence of certain perennial social or political challenges add weight to this thesis and provide the broader context within which this article gives the first researchbased account of the Coalition Government's approach to what Nevil Johnson termed 'the quango problem'.1 The 'problem' in this sense is how to resolve the centrifugal dynamic and appointed nature of 'fringe bodies, quangos and all that' within a constitutional system that is forged upon the notion of electoral legitimacy and the centripetal logic of ministerial responsibility to Parliament.2 Even the most cursory analysis of British constitutional history in recent decades reveals the existence of a rather stark rhetoric-reality gap, whereby governments come into power committed to radically reducing the role and number of quangos (i.e. abolition) and ensuring that those which continue to exist, do so within a clear and transparent governance framework (i.e. reform). Igniting a 'bonfire of the quangos' is therefore part of the rhetorical mantra for almost any British political party in opposition. Yet, constitutional history reveals that quangos appear almost flame resistant in the sense that the rhetoric of abolition and reform has rarely been translated into reality. The comment in the House of Commons by the MP for Stoke on Trent Central, Tristram Hunt, in October 2010 that 'the much-vaunted bonfire of the quangos has turned into a clammy Sunday afternoon barbecue' therefore sought to tap into a long-running historical narrative about the use (and abuse) of quangos within British government.3 The problem with a discursive emphasis on 'bonfires' or 'barbecues' is that it over-emphasises abolition and underemphasizes reform. It also veils the manner in which many arm's-length bodies fulfil critical public tasks that are arguably best placed at some distance from elected party politicians. The aim of this article, however, is not to engage with normative arguments concerning the evolution of democratic governance but to present the results of the first detailed analysis of the Coalition Government's 'Public Bodies Reform Agenda' (PBRA) through a comparative historical analysis of previous governments. Stripped down to its core insights, this reveals five main findings: Notes
Theories of post-nationalism are concerned with deconstructing the relationship between citizenship and national identity. While literature in this field has tended towards macroinstitutionalist analysis, recent research has re-articulated post-nationalism as micro-level practice. This article builds on this development by attending to the 'affective conditions' of such micropolitical practices. The article draws on research into protests in Brisbane in February 2016 to prevent 'Asha', a child seeking asylum, from being returned to offshore detention. The analysis of this case demonstrates that affect performs a dual function in the practice of post-nationalism, to catalyse action in solidarity with the noncitizen informed primarily by the emotional resonance of a particular rendering of vulnerability, and in re-imagined solidarity with the co-citizen around a post-national community of feeling. Informed by this analysis, the article highlights the complex and fragile nature of a post-national solidarity dependent on intersecting, overlapping and at times problematic, affective conditions.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.