Assessing the impact of informal governance on political innovation

Abstract

General rightsThis document is made available in accordance with publisher policies. Please cite only the published version using the reference above. Full terms of use are available: http://www.bristol.ac.uk/pure/about/ebr-terms 1 Assessing the impact of informal governance on political innovation ABSTRACTThe aim of this article is to examine the role played by 'informal governance' in shaping political innovation. Informal governance can be defined as a means of decision-making that is un-codified, non-institutional and where social relationships play crucial roles. This article explores the impact of informal governance on three dimensions of political innovationinnovations in polity (institutions), politics (process) and policy (outcomes). It argues that an analysis of informal governance is essential if we are to fully understand how political innovation occurs. Research evidence suggest that even when formal structures and procedures are weak, political innovation can still thrive.

Engagement of patients and the public in NHS sustainability and transformation: An ethnographic study

“…Communications and engagement staff, trained in marketing, demonstrated little awareness of user-survivor movements (Barnes and Cotterell, 2010) or empowerment, as the contentious encounter with wider voluntary sector groups showed. The disparate views of members who may have either supported or campaigned against the imposition of new models of healthcare went unrecognised as consensus became a form of governmentality, reinforced through the ritual of tea, biscuits, humour and non-decision making practices (Ayres, 2017). Thus, as Alderwick et al found, "difficult decisions [were] easy to avoid" (Alderwick et al, 2016: 25).…”

“…These bureaucratic artefacts (minutes, agendas, action log) presented a business-like image but the more casual meeting culture constituted a practice of 'informal governance' (Ayres, 2017 This acknowledgement of possible contention was, however, usually glossed over as meetings operated with an informal culture of apparent consensus, described by the Programme Director as 'a group of friends' (fieldnotes). Internal processual issues dominated many meetings and the Group reviewed its terms of reference three times within two years.…”

“…The PPI Group adopted an informal meeting style that rarely recorded clear decisions (Ayres, 2017). A process of mimesis occurred whereby PPI Group documentation adopted templates such as an 'action-log' used by the Programme Board.…”

Territory, power and statecraft: understanding English devolution

“…The first relates to Bulpitt's focus on 'Court politics' and the small number of key individuals that form the decision-making political elite. In relation to post-2015 English devolution, the 'Court' was very small with the policy being personally associated with and driven by one person: George Osborne (Ayres, 2017). This might explain the manner in which several Whitehall departmentse.g., the departments for Education and Skills and Work and Pensions -seemed reluctant to engage in devolutionary discussions and why negotiations over specific policy areas (e.g., housing, pre-16 education etc.)…”

Policy-making ‘front’ and ‘back’ stage: Assessing the implications for effectiveness and democracy

“…Devolution of power features potential conflict amongst those negotiating, an uncertain context, and a 'large numbers' problem (Ayres, 2017), all incentivising a back stage approach. This appears to have been the rationale adopted during George Osborne's term as Chancellor of the Exchequer (May 2010-July 2016).…”