UK defence policy 1957–2015: the illusion of choice

Blackburn, Gary R.

doi:10.1080/14702436.2015.1033849

Cited by 7 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…From the NPM, governance, and organizational change literature, the article rescues the idea that public organization face turbulent environments that can change in unforeseen and unpredictable ways (see Boyne and Meier 2009). Prime Minister Theresa May added another layer of complexity to managing policy change as her austerity measures further stressed defence structures and capabilities (Blackburn 2015). May's foundational layer for future military capability came hand in hand with an illusion of dynamic change, as opposed to more structured and hierarchical fiscal austerity plans.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Introducing Change in Public Service Organizations under Austerity: The Complex Case of the Governance of the Defence in the United Kingdom

Solar

2020

Politics & Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introducing, managing, and sustaining change in public service organizations is challenging for policy makers to implement and for scholars to theorize. In 2010, the U.K. Government introduced policy changes to help bring down the national deficit. The executive's planned reforms aimed to deliver a so‐called battle‐winning military force, a smaller and more professional Ministry of Defence, and an affordable overall defence organization. The article borrows from theories of management and public policy to help enlighten our understanding of change under New Public Management and governance approaches. The article's central claim is that the U.K. Government sought to correct cost‐efficiency processes in public service organizations trying to reshape organizational and managerial structures dependent on many internal and external pressures. The article examines the executive's purpose in developing a need for change and the ways to implement it. I question whether the U.K. Government's prescriptive and hierarchical approach to organizational change in public administration is sustainable in the long term. Related Articles Ariely, Gal. 2011. “Why People (Dis)Like the Public Service: Citizen Perception of the Public Service and the NPM Doctrine.” Politics & Policy 39 (6): 997‐1019. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-1346.2011.00329.x Burau, Viola, and Carole Clavier. 2018. “Understanding Gaps in the Coexistence between Different Modes of Governance: A Case Study of Public Health in Schools in a Multilevel System.” Politics & Policy 46 (4): 604‐629. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12269 Monza, Sabina, and Eva Anduiza. 2016. “The Visibility of the EU in the National Public Spheres in Times of Crisis and Austerity.” Politics & Policy 44 (3): 499‐524. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12163

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Introducing Change in Public Service Organizations under Austerity: The Complex Case of the Governance of the Defence in the United Kingdom

Solar

2020

Politics & Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Alongside this central machinery of government, pre-2010 UK security policy was shaped by defence white papers, averaging approximately one per decade (Blackburn, 2015; Taylor, 2010). The last such pre-2010 review was the 1998 Strategic Defence Review, updated/augmented in 2002 and 2003.…”

Section: Britain’s Evolving Machinery Of National Strategymentioning

confidence: 99%

A Very British National Security State: Formal and informal institutions in the design of UK security policy

Thomson

Blagden

2018

The British Journal of Politics and International Relations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

What are the roles of government institutions in the design and implementation of effective national security policy? Using the case of post-2010 reform to Britain's central government security policy machinery, we find that formal institutions can help the informal strategy-making institutions on their periphery to function better. Through interviews with 25 senior officials, we find that Britain's National Security Council and quinquennial Strategic Defence and Security Reviews-both instituted in 2010 with the intention of improving UK security policymaking-remain limited as formal makers of national strategy. But the networks of individuals and ideas they support, by absolving some decision-makers of audience costs while immersing others in creative yet coherent strategydevelopment communities, have improved the overall quality of UK security policymaking compared to its pre-2010 condition. This finding also carries implications for other contexts and thus represents a promising avenue for future research.

show abstract

“…Three key elements must be mentioned explicitly. First, in observing whether (and to what extent) change took place, literature sheds light on the responsiveness, at least in declaratory terms, of defence policy to the mutating environment, and to the shape of external threats (Blackburn 2015;Locatelli 2010). Limited policy change facing a mutated environment would signal that "strategic adjustment" is not a priority in setting the overall policy frame.…”

Section: Continuity and Change In Defence Policymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…An outcome could be decoupling, intended as transformations that have the purpose of mimicking change when organizations are pressured to follow mainstream ideas and approaches (Wiesner 2013) but do not have a real willingness, or resources, to adapt. "Muddling through" can thus follow, with the related inability to modify the structure and mission of the armed forces to face the new challenges (Blackburn 2015). Third, national cultural features relative to the use of military force, embodied in strategic cultures (Katzenstein 1996).…”

Section: Continuity and Change In Defence Policymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…First, we trace their origins, the political (domestic and international) contexts in which they originated. Second, we use content analysis to sharpen our examination, illustrating the evolution across time of the declaratory policy (Blackburn 2015) and illuminating the cognitive maps of defence policy-makers concerning specifically 1) the definition of their environment and areas of interests, 2) the threat assessment 3) the core missions of the armed forces, 4) the resource allocation, and 5) the organizational structure of the armed forces.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Renew or Reload? Continuity and Change in Italian Defence Policy

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies The Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies (RSCAS), created in 1992 and directed by Professor Brigid Laffan, aims to develop inter-disciplinary and comparative research on the major issues facing the process of European integration, European societies and Europe's place in 21 st century global politics. The Centre is home to a large post-doctoral programme and hosts major research programmes, projects and data sets, in addition to a range of working groups and ad hoc initiatives. The research agenda is organised around a set of core themes and is continuously evolving, reflecting the changing agenda of European integration, the expanding membership of the European Union, developments in Europe's neighbourhood and the wider world.

show abstract

UK defence policy 1957–2015: the illusion of choice

Cited by 7 publications

References 13 publications

Introducing Change in Public Service Organizations under Austerity: The Complex Case of the Governance of the Defence in the United Kingdom

Introducing Change in Public Service Organizations under Austerity: The Complex Case of the Governance of the Defence in the United Kingdom

A Very British National Security State: Formal and informal institutions in the design of UK security policy

Renew or Reload? Continuity and Change in Italian Defence Policy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About