In Defence of British Politics: The Past, Present and Future of the Discipline

Kerr, Peter; Kettell, Steven

doi:10.1057/palgrave.bp.4200004

Cited by 34 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Mark Bevir and R. A. W. Rhodes' (2003, 2004, 2006a and 2006c) interpretive approach to the study of politics generally, and British politics particularly, is clearly establishing some purchase in a field of study which has often been regarded as atheoretical 1 . Indeed, Peter Kerr and Steven Kettell claim (2006, 11), in the introduction to a new journal focusing upon British politics:…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding British Government: Analysing Competing Models

Marsh

2008

The British Journal of Politics and International Relations

108

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

interpretive approach underpins the Differentiated Polity Model (DPM) which has replaced the Westminster Model as the dominant model of British politics. This article critiques both the interpretive approach and the DPM, arguing that the latter fails to recognise the continued importance of the role hierarchy, inequality and a dominant political tradition play in British politics, omissions which result, in large part, from its roots in an interpretist position. As such, the main aim of the article is to defend an alternative conception of British politics, the Asymmetric Power Model (APM), by considering three empirical areas in which these two models differ substantially: whether hierarchy or networks are the dominant mode of governance in the UK; the extent and importance of structured inequality in the UK; and whether there is a dominant tradition in British politics. interpretive approach to the study of politics generally, and British politics particularly, is clearly establishing some purchase in a field of study which has often been regarded as atheoretical. 1 Indeed, Peter Kerr and Steven Kettell claim (2006, 11), in the introduction to a new journal focusing upon British politics:The most self-confident and influential attempt at a post-positivist approach to date, however, has come in the form of 'interpretivist' political science. Here, Bevir and Rhodes have been particularly prominent in generating a wholesale critique of the problems associated with traditional approaches to British politics, and in offering in their place a deliberate attempt to move beyond ... the Westminster model.Kerr and Kettell also emphasise the link between Bevir and Rhodes' interpretive approach and the Differentiated Polity Model (DPM), initially developed by Rhodes (1997). In addition, they claim, 'the contemporary period has also witnessed the formal supplanting of the WM with that of the "governance" thesis, expressed most coherently in the Differentiated Polity model, as the dominant organising perspective within the field of British politics' (Kerr and Kettell 2006, 13). 2 In this article, I critique the DPM arguing that, unlike the Asymmetric Power Model (APM), which is the alternative I consider here, it fails to recognise the continued importance of the role of hierarchy, inequality and a dominant political tradition in British politics, an omission which results in large part from its roots in an

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding British Government: Analysing Competing Models

Marsh

2008

The British Journal of Politics and International Relations

108

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Secondly, and relatedly, we prefer to use the term 'Westminsterism' to denote the fact that the British political tradition of centralised leadership has historically been constructed and articulated through the discourse of the Westminster Model. While the use of this model is problematic in its own right, in that it offers an overly simplistic and caricatured view of the British political system, and one that it is now axiomatic to dismiss in favour of models of 'governance' (Rhodes, 1997;Marsh et al, 2001;Kerr and Kettell, 2006), the normative assumptions it contains are nonetheless still central to contemporary political activity in the UK (Judge, 1993;McAnulla, 2006;Bowles et al, 2007;Marsh and Hall, 2007). As Judge (2006, 390) puts it…”

Section: Westminsterism and Modernalitymentioning

confidence: 97%

“…This model emphasises the qualities of an ostensibly representative, responsible, and accountable system of government based around a majoritarian electoral system, a predominantly two-party structure, the doctrines of ministerial and collective responsibility, and a pragmatic and uncodified constitution. Yet, at the core of the model lies a fundamental acceptance, on the part of the British political elite, of the need for strong, centralised, and unified executive control over the policy-making process -that is, a top-down style of governmental leadership based upon a relatively limited notion of representation and a conservative view of responsibility (Kerr and Kettell, 2006).…”

Section: Westminsterism and Modernalitymentioning

confidence: 99%

One Year On: The Decline and Fall of Gordon Brown

Kettell

Kerr

2008

Br Polit

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The first 12 months of Gordon Brown's tenure as prime minister have witnessed an unprecedented collapse in his political fortunes. Examining the reasons for this decline, this paper sets out to achieve three reasonably modest ambitions. Firstly, the principal aim is to provide a detailed summary of Brown's record throughout his first year at the helm. Secondly, utilising evidence drawn from poll data and media commentaries during the period June 2007-June 2008, it argues that Brown's problems cannot be explained by the type of factors that normally help elucidate government unpopularity, such as economic instability, party disunity, voter weariness, or indeed, significant policy failure. Thirdly, the paper sets out to suggest, in a manner which is candidly reflective rather than theoretically rigorous, that Brown's unpopularity owes more to his failure to measure up on two key aspects of contemporary political leadership in Britain; namely, what we term here as the twin values of 'Westminsterism' and 'modernality'. Whereas the former, stemming from the historically constructed confines of the Westminster Model, demands strong, decisive, and resolute decision making; the latter, which has its roots in the more recent discourse of party modernisation, demands the need for a media-savvy, 'celebrity' persona and a ceaseless drive for modernisation.

show abstract

“…All of these quotes strongly suggest that Rhodes thinks Britain is best viewed as a differentiated polity and, indeed, much of the subsequent literature refers to it as the differentiated polity model (for example, see Carmichael 2003; Kerr and Kettell 2006; Jose 2007; Bache 2008).…”

Section: The Shift To Interpretivismmentioning

confidence: 99%

The New Orthodoxy: The Differentiated Polity Model

Marsh

2011

Public Administration

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Anthony King (1989, p. 97) argued some time ago that: ‘most of Britain's best political scientists (…) are for some reason journalists'. This is a claim which could only be made by someone who thinks that understanding, or explaining, politics merely revolves around knowing what happens at the centre of power. It neglects the point that facts do not speak for themselves; rather, they have to be interpreted within a conceptual or theoretical framework. Such theoretical frameworks are, for the most part, conspicuous by their absence in work on British politics. This point is amply illustrated by the most recent survey of work on British politics, Flinders et al. (2009), The Oxford Handbook of British Politics, which almost totally neglects broader ways of conceptualizing British politics that would allow us to situate some of the individual chapters against a wider background. There are nine references to the, once ubiquitous, Westminster model, but these are all in two chapters, Dennis Kavanagh's chapter ‘Antecedents’ and Oliver James' chapter ‘Central State’. Only James discusses recent alternatives to the Westminster model and, although he deals with interpretivist critiques, there is no reference to the ‘differentiated polity model’ in the book's index, let alone to the asymmetric power model, two of the positions considered here. Rod Rhodes' work provides a very important exception to that omission, which has stimulated a great deal of interest and encouraged younger scholars to move away from description and fairly mindless empiricism.

show abstract

In Defence of British Politics: The Past, Present and Future of the Discipline

Cited by 34 publications

References 46 publications

Understanding British Government: Analysing Competing Models

Understanding British Government: Analysing Competing Models

One Year On: The Decline and Fall of Gordon Brown

The New Orthodoxy: The Differentiated Polity Model

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About