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

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 Policy making 'front' and 'back' stage: Assessing the implications for effectiveness and democracy ABSTRACTThe aim of this article is to examine the complex interrelationship between 'front' and 'back' stage policy making. 'Front stage' describes the activities of visible and accountable officeholders in elected bodies, constrained by established bureaucratic rules. 'Back stage' describes the world of unseen decision making where public officials are less constrained by formal rules and public scrutiny. Drawing on a recent case study of English devolution in the United Kingdom, this article examines how front and back stage policy making shape one another and the impact this can have on policy effectiveness and democratic accountability. Findings reveal that policy makers need to think more explicitly about the interplay between front and back stage activities. In the context of English devolution, the transition from back to front stage has been flawed. Central government's purposeful strategy of informal negotiations with very few formal objectives has resulted in low stakeholder buy-in, which has mitigated against the potential effectiveness of back stage decision making.

Of Badgers, Bovines and Bacteria

“…I will use the metaphor of the 'backstage' and 'frontstage' of policymaking to analyse the interactions between policy and public spheres since the mid-1990s. 115 This account will start in Chap. 6 with the winding down of MAFF's twenty-year research programme and policy regime, and the commissioning of senior ecologist Professor (now Lord) John Krebs to review 'the scientific evidence' and 'to make recommendations' on this basis.…”

How can network leaders promote public value through soft metagovernance?

“…A lack of transparency and openness can result in mistrust, marginalization and ‘fuzzy accountability’ (Flinders et al ). A degree of political astuteness is required to manage the delicate ‘tipping point’ (Ayres et al ) between the flexibility afforded by soft metagovernance and the need to protect democratic legitimacy (Sørensen and Torfing ).…”

Inclusive growth in English cities: mainstreamed or sidelined?

“…First, this means that devolution has progressed in a piecemeal and fragmented manner. Rather than a transparent offer of devolution of particular powers, there has been an ad hoc and opaque process of negotiation in private with individual cities (Ayers et al, 2017a). Secondly, agreement of deals is subject to content being acceptable and agreeable to central government, including individual ministers and the Treasury (Tomaney, 2016).…”

“…More broadly, the nature of powers devolved has been constrained, and some powers have been centralised while simultaneously others have been devolved (Bailey & Wood, 2017). This raises questions about how meaningful the experience of subnational devolution has been (Ayers et al, 2017a;Ayers et al, 2017b). Within this context it has been argued that more radical and citizen-centric principles are needed to replace a pre-occupation with the failings of individual places (lack of competitiveness, skills deficits etc.)…”

“…There are a number of research gaps identified by the evidence we present. The nature of the negotiations between cities and central government and the process of boundary drawing and negotiability is not well understood (for an exception see Ayers et al, 2017a). As trust and working relationships are established between local and national actors, it may be the case that cities are able to focus more on social development and inclusive growth and to mainstream these aims; this is an important area for ongoing research.…”