Unequal Plurality: Towards an Asymmetric Power Model of British Politics

Abstract

Unequal Plurality: Towards an Asymmetric Power Model of British PoliticsOBSERVERS OF BRITISH POLITICS, BE THEY ACADEMICS, JOURNALISTS, politicians or other political activists, usually operate with an implicit, rather than an explicit, view of how British politics works. In part, this can be explained by the fact that only a small number of authors have developed an explicit model of the British political system. 1 As Gamble observes, for a long time: 'the majority of the political science profession were largely sympathetic' to the Westminster model. 2 Yet, the Westminster model has always been used more as a shorthand, normative, organizing perspective to portray a particular image of the British political system, rather than a theoretically, welldeveloped and explicit model of how British politics works. As a consequence, there has been little effort to theorize the state, that is, to provide a more developed model of British politics.One exception to the paucity of models of British Politics has been provided by Rhodes. 3 As an alternative to the Westminster model, Rhodes has developed the 'Differentiated Polity Model'. This model aims to capture the changing nature of the British state in an era of governance. 4 Rhodes argues that the Westminster model is too inflexible and monolithic to reflect the diverse nature and complex

Resisting self-regulation: an analysis of sport policy programme making and implementation in Sweden

“…They suggest a greater role for structures and institutions alongside the ideas, culture, and belief of actors in explanations of societal developments. They take their departure in critiquing the governance narrative, which, they argue, with due support from other political science scholars (e.g., March et al 2003), exaggerates the decline of state power. Their support for bringing the structures back stems, theoretically, from the ideas of Chris Skelcher (2000), who argues that network governance-self-organising networks of mutually resource-dependent actors-are in fact centrally governed by the state in its capacity to establish, sustain, and finance networks and partnerships.…”

“…The value of taking influence from the decentred approach (Bevir and Richards 2009), which Goodwin and Grix support, lays in its attention to diverse and conflicting beliefs among agents in all political processes. However, as Goodwin and Grix also point out, a decentred approach can be combined with an acknowledgement of structures and institutions as emphasized by March et al (2003).…”

Public Services in a ‘Postdemocratic Age’: An Alternative Framework to Network Governance

“…(1) Service delivery chains have indeed become more multi-organisational than was once the case. Nevertheless, power remains highly centralised as in the 'asymmetric power model' (Marsh et al, 2003, Marsh 2008, and Richards 2008. Public services are delivered through top-down institutionalised structures even despite apparently being 'de-bureaucratised' or outside direct government control.…”

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

“…While many critical accounts of the British political system have sought to highlight its various institutional and procedural deficiencies in terms of democratic practice (e.g. Judge, 1993Judge, , 2004Beetham, 1999, 2002), others have sought to challenge the claims made by governance scholars on their own terrain, contesting their assumptions of an increasingly pluralistic polity by highlighting the asymmetric nature of power relations that continue to exist between the core executive and other actors (see Marsh et al, 2001Marsh et al, , 2003.…”