The New Governance: Governing without Government

Political Studies

Volumn 44, Issue 4, 1996, Pages 652-667

  Rhodes, R A W ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0005478397     PISSN: 00323217     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9248.1996.tb01747.x     Document Type: Article

References (89)

1. Revised version of a lecture delivered to the RSA/ESRC Joint Initiative on The State of Britain, RSA, London, 24 January (1995). I would like to thank Charlotte Dargie (Newcastle) for help in tracking down a diffuse literature and Gerry Stoker (Strathclyde) for advice.
2. See S. E. Finer, Comparative Government (London, Allen Lane, Penguin 1970), pp. 3-4. Sidney Low, The Governance of England (London, Fisher Unwin, 1904) is an early example of its use in the analysis of British government but the term is not in the index nor defined in the text; it is a synonym for government.
3. See S. E. Finer, Comparative Government (London, Allen Lane, Penguin 1970), pp. 3-4. Sidney Low, The Governance of England (London, Fisher Unwin, 1904) is an early example of its use in the analysis of British government but the term is not in the index nor defined in the text; it is a synonym for government.
4. G. Stoker, Local Governance in Britain (Glasgow, Department of Government, University of Strathclyde, mimeo, November, 1994), p. 6.
5. See for example: D. Kavannah, Thatcherism and British Politics: the End of Consensus? (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1990), pp. 11-12
6. My thanks to Andrew Dunsire (University of York) for pointing out this use and providing several helpful references. Personal correspondence, 28 April (1994).
7. The Cadbury Report, The Report of the Committee on the Financial Aspects of Corporate Governance (London, Gee, 1992), p. 15.
8. R. I. Tricker, International Corporate Governance (Englewood Cliffs NJ, Prentice Hall, 1984), pp. 6-7.
9. CIPFA, The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, Corporate Governance in the Public Services (London, CIPFA, May, 1994), p. 6.
10. For a more detailed discussion of the term see: C. C. Hood, 'A public management for all seasons?', Public Administration, 69 (1991), 3-19; and C. Pollitt, Managerialism and the Public Services (Oxford, Blackwell, 2nd ed., 1993). Inevitably meanings proliferate and the term has been extended to cover the corporate take-over of public services and post-bureaucratic public management. See P. Dunleavy, 'The globalization of public services production: can government be "best in the world"?', Public Policy and Administration, 9 no. 2 (1994), 36-64; A. Yeatman, 'The reform of public management: an overview', Australian Journal of Public Administration, 53 (1994), 287-95; and M. Barzelay, with B. J. Armajani, Breaking Through Bureaucracy: a New Vision for Managing Government (Berkeley, University of California Press, 1992).
11. For a more detailed discussion of the term see: C. C. Hood, 'A public management for all seasons?', Public Administration, 69 (1991), 3-19; and C. Pollitt, Managerialism and the Public Services (Oxford, Blackwell, 2nd ed., 1993). Inevitably meanings proliferate and the term has been extended to cover the corporate take-over of public services and post-bureaucratic public management. See P. Dunleavy, 'The globalization of public services production: can government be "best in the world"?', Public Policy and Administration, 9 no. 2 (1994), 36-64; A. Yeatman, 'The reform of public management: an overview', Australian Journal of Public Administration, 53 (1994), 287-95; and M. Barzelay, with B. J. Armajani, Breaking Through Bureaucracy: a New Vision for Managing Government (Berkeley, University of California Press, 1992).
12. For a more detailed discussion of the term see: C. C. Hood, 'A public management for all seasons?', Public Administration, 69 (1991), 3-19; and C. Pollitt, Managerialism and the Public Services (Oxford, Blackwell, 2nd ed., 1993). Inevitably meanings proliferate and the term has been extended to cover the corporate take-over of public services and post-bureaucratic public management. See P. Dunleavy, 'The globalization of public services production: can government be "best in the world"?', Public Policy and Administration, 9 no. 2 (1994), 36-64; A. Yeatman, 'The reform of public management: an overview', Australian Journal of Public Administration, 53 (1994), 287-95; and M. Barzelay, with B. J. Armajani, Breaking Through Bureaucracy: a New Vision for Managing Government (Berkeley, University of California Press, 1992).
13. For a more detailed discussion of the term see: C. C. Hood, 'A public management for all seasons?', Public Administration, 69 (1991), 3-19; and C. Pollitt, Managerialism and the Public Services (Oxford, Blackwell, 2nd ed., 1993). Inevitably meanings proliferate and the term has been extended to cover the corporate take-over of public services and post-bureaucratic public management. See P. Dunleavy, 'The globalization of public services production: can government be "best in the world"?', Public Policy and Administration, 9 no. 2 (1994), 36-64; A. Yeatman, 'The reform of public management: an overview', Australian Journal of Public Administration, 53 (1994), 287-95; and M. Barzelay, with B. J. Armajani, Breaking Through Bureaucracy: a New Vision for Managing Government (Berkeley, University of California Press, 1992).
14. For a more detailed discussion of the term see: C. C. Hood, 'A public management for all seasons?', Public Administration, 69 (1991), 3-19; and C. Pollitt, Managerialism and the Public Services (Oxford, Blackwell, 2nd ed., 1993). Inevitably meanings proliferate and the term has been extended to cover the corporate take-over of public services and post-bureaucratic public management. See P. Dunleavy, 'The globalization of public services production: can government be "best in the world"?', Public Policy and Administration, 9 no. 2 (1994), 36-64; A. Yeatman, 'The reform of public management: an overview', Australian Journal of Public Administration, 53 (1994), 287-95; and M. Barzelay, with B. J. Armajani, Breaking Through Bureaucracy: a New Vision for Managing Government (Berkeley, University of California Press, 1992).
15. D. Osborne and T. Gaebler, Reinventing Government (Reading MA, Addison-Wesley, 1992), p. 20. I do not use 'steering' as a synonym for policy decisions in this paper but to refer to a mode of control which involves setting a norm and correcting deviations from it. See A. Dunsire, 'Holistic governance', Public Policy and Administration, 5, no. 1 (1990), p. 5. Also it is useful to distinguish steering (the process) from directedness (the effect). Andrew Dunsire, personal correspondence, 28 April (1994). For a more general discussion, see R. Mayntz, 'Governing failures and the problems of governability' in J. Kooiman (ed.), Modern Governance (London, Sage, 1993), pp. 9-20.
16. D. Osborne and T. Gaebler, Reinventing Government (Reading MA, Addison-Wesley, 1992), p. 20. I do not use 'steering' as a synonym for policy decisions in this paper but to refer to a mode of control which involves setting a norm and correcting deviations from it. See A. Dunsire, 'Holistic governance', Public Policy and Administration, 5, no. 1 (1990), p. 5. Also it is useful to distinguish steering (the process) from directedness (the effect). Andrew Dunsire, personal correspondence, 28 April (1994). For a more general discussion, see R. Mayntz, 'Governing failures and the problems of governability' in J. Kooiman (ed.), Modern Governance (London, Sage, 1993), pp. 9-20.
17. D. Osborne and T. Gaebler, Reinventing Government (Reading MA, Addison-Wesley, 1992), p. 20. I do not use 'steering' as a synonym for policy decisions in this paper but to refer to a mode of control which involves setting a norm and correcting deviations from it. See A. Dunsire, 'Holistic governance', Public Policy and Administration, 5, no. 1 (1990), p. 5. Also it is useful to distinguish steering (the process) from directedness (the effect). Andrew Dunsire, personal correspondence, 28 April (1994). For a more general discussion, see R. Mayntz, 'Governing failures and the problems of governability' in J. Kooiman (ed.), Modern Governance (London, Sage, 1993), pp. 9-20.
18. D. Osborne and T. Gaebler, Reinventing Government (Reading MA, Addison-Wesley, 1992), p. 20. I do not use 'steering' as a synonym for policy decisions in this paper but to refer to a mode of control which involves setting a norm and correcting deviations from it. See A. Dunsire, 'Holistic governance', Public Policy and Administration, 5, no. 1 (1990), p. 5. Also it is useful to distinguish steering (the process) from directedness (the effect). Andrew Dunsire, personal correspondence, 28 April (1994). For a more general discussion, see R. Mayntz, 'Governing failures and the problems of governability' in J. Kooiman (ed.), Modern Governance (London, Sage, 1993), pp. 9-20.
19. Osborne and Gaebler, Reinventing Government, p. 34.
20. This section draws on the work of my former colleague at the University of York, Adrian Leftwich and I would like to thank him for his help. See A. Leftwich, 'Governance, democracy and development in the Third World', Third World Quarterly, 14 (1993), 605-24. A. Leftwich, 'Governance, the state and the politics of development', Development and Change, 25 (1994), 363-86.
21. This section draws on the work of my former colleague at the University of York, Adrian Leftwich and I would like to thank him for his help. See A. Leftwich, 'Governance, democracy and development in the Third World', Third World Quarterly, 14 (1993), 605-24. A. Leftwich, 'Governance, the state and the politics of development', Development and Change, 25 (1994), 363-86.
22. World Bank, Governance and Development (Washington DC, The World Bank, 1992).
23. Leftwich, 'Government, democracy and development', p. 610.
24. Leftwich, 'Government, democracy and development', p. 611.
25. D. Williams and T. Young, 'Governance, the World Bank and liberal theory', Political Studies, 42 (1994), p. 87.
26. For ease of exposition, I focus on J. Kooiman (ed.) Modern Governance (London, Sage, 1993) as the best recent collection of articles about this approach. See especially: Kooiman, 'Social- political governance: introduction' in Kooiman, Modern Governance, pp. 1-6; and J. Kooiman, 'Findings speculations and recommendations' in Kooiman, Modern Governance pp. 249-62. However, I must also mention the work of Sir Geofffrey Vickers, one of the pioneers of systems thinking applied to British government, and Andrew Dunsire. See, for example: Dunsire, 'Holistic governance', A. Dunsire, 'A cybernetic view of guidance, control and evaluation in the public sector' in F. X. Kaufman, G. Majone and V. Ostrom (eds), Guidance, Control, and Evaluation in the Public Sector (Berlin, de Gruyter, 1986), pp. 327-46; and Sir Geoffrey Vickers, The Art of Judgement (London, Chapman and Hall, 1965).
27. For ease of exposition, I focus on J. Kooiman (ed.) Modern Governance (London, Sage, 1993) as the best recent collection of articles about this approach. See especially: Kooiman, 'Social-political governance: introduction' in Kooiman, Modern Governance, pp. 1-6; and J. Kooiman, 'Findings speculations and recommendations' in Kooiman, Modern Governance pp. 249-62. However, I must also mention the work of Sir Geofffrey Vickers, one of the pioneers of systems thinking applied to British government, and Andrew Dunsire. See, for example: Dunsire, 'Holistic governance', A. Dunsire, 'A cybernetic view of guidance, control and evaluation in the public sector' in F. X. Kaufman, G. Majone and V. Ostrom (eds), Guidance, Control, and Evaluation in the Public Sector (Berlin, de Gruyter, 1986), pp. 327-46; and Sir Geoffrey Vickers, The Art of Judgement (London, Chapman and Hall, 1965).
28. For ease of exposition, I focus on J. Kooiman (ed.) Modern Governance (London, Sage, 1993) as the best recent collection of articles about this approach. See especially: Kooiman, 'Social- political governance: introduction' in Kooiman, Modern Governance, pp. 1-6; and J. Kooiman, 'Findings speculations and recommendations' in Kooiman, Modern Governance pp. 249-62. However, I must also mention the work of Sir Geofffrey Vickers, one of the pioneers of systems thinking applied to British government, and Andrew Dunsire. See, for example: Dunsire, 'Holistic governance', A. Dunsire, 'A cybernetic view of guidance, control and evaluation in the public sector' in F. X. Kaufman, G. Majone and V. Ostrom (eds), Guidance, Control, and Evaluation in the Public Sector (Berlin, de Gruyter, 1986), pp. 327-46; and Sir Geoffrey Vickers, The Art of Judgement (London, Chapman and Hall, 1965).
29. For ease of exposition, I focus on J. Kooiman (ed.) Modern Governance (London, Sage, 1993) as the best recent collection of articles about this approach. See especially: Kooiman, 'Social- political governance: introduction' in Kooiman, Modern Governance, pp. 1-6; and J. Kooiman, 'Findings speculations and recommendations' in Kooiman, Modern Governance pp. 249-62. However, I must also mention the work of Sir Geofffrey Vickers, one of the pioneers of systems thinking applied to British government, and Andrew Dunsire. See, for example: Dunsire, 'Holistic governance', A. Dunsire, 'A cybernetic view of guidance, control and evaluation in the public sector' in F. X. Kaufman, G. Majone and V. Ostrom (eds), Guidance, Control, and Evaluation in the Public Sector (Berlin, de Gruyter, 1986), pp. 327-46; and Sir Geoffrey Vickers, The Art of Judgement (London, Chapman and Hall, 1965).
30. For ease of exposition, I focus on J. Kooiman (ed.) Modern Governance (London, Sage, 1993) as the best recent collection of articles about this approach. See especially: Kooiman, 'Social- political governance: introduction' in Kooiman, Modern Governance, pp. 1-6; and J. Kooiman, 'Findings speculations and recommendations' in Kooiman, Modern Governance pp. 249-62. However, I must also mention the work of Sir Geofffrey Vickers, one of the pioneers of systems thinking applied to British government, and Andrew Dunsire. See, for example: Dunsire, 'Holistic governance', A. Dunsire, 'A cybernetic view of guidance, control and evaluation in the public sector' in F. X. Kaufman, G. Majone and V. Ostrom (eds), Guidance, Control, and Evaluation in the Public Sector (Berlin, de Gruyter, 1986), pp. 327-46; and Sir Geoffrey Vickers, The Art of Judgement (London, Chapman and Hall, 1965).
31. For ease of exposition, I focus on J. Kooiman (ed.) Modern Governance (London, Sage, 1993) as the best recent collection of articles about this approach. See especially: Kooiman, 'Social- political governance: introduction' in Kooiman, Modern Governance, pp. 1-6; and J. Kooiman, 'Findings speculations and recommendations' in Kooiman, Modern Governance pp. 249-62. However, I must also mention the work of Sir Geofffrey Vickers, one of the pioneers of systems thinking applied to British government, and Andrew Dunsire. See, for example: Dunsire, 'Holistic governance', A. Dunsire, 'A cybernetic view of guidance, control and evaluation in the public sector' in F. X. Kaufman, G. Majone and V. Ostrom (eds), Guidance, Control, and Evaluation in the Public Sector (Berlin, de Gruyter, 1986), pp. 327-46; and Sir Geoffrey Vickers, The Art of Judgement (London, Chapman and Hall, 1965).
32. Kooiman, 'Social-political governance', p. 258.
33. Kooiman, 'Social-political governance', p. 4.
34. Kooiman, 'Findings speculations and recommendations', p. 252.
35. N. Luhmann, The Differentiation of Society (New York, Columbia University Press, 1982), p. xv.
36. J. N. Rosenau, 'Governance, order, and change in world politics' in J. N. Rosenau and E-O. Czempiel (eds), Governance without Government: Order and Change in World Politics (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1992), pp. 3-6.
37. See R. A. W. Rhodes, Local Governance (Swindon, Report to the ESRC's Society and Politics Research Development Group, November, 1991). See also R. A. W. Rhodes, Beyond Westminster and Whitehall (London, Unwin-Hyman, 1988).
38. See R. A. W. Rhodes, Local Governance (Swindon, Report to the ESRC's Society and Politics Research Development Group, November, 1991). See also R. A. W. Rhodes, Beyond Westminster and Whitehall (London, Unwin-Hyman, 1988).
39. Rhodes, Beyond Westminster and Whitehall, pp. 42-3.
40. L. Metcalfe and S. Richards, Improving Public Management (London, Sage, 2nd ed., 1991), p. 220.
41. Countries with a federal structure were quicker to realize the importance of network management. K. Hanf and F. W. Scharpf (eds), Interorganizational Policy Making (London, Sage, 1978) explore interorganizational policy making in Germany. R. Agranoff, Frameworks for Comparative Analysis of Intergovernmental Relations (Bloomington IN, Indiana University, School of Public and Environmental Affairs, Occasional Paper No. 26, August, 1990) explores intergovernmental management in the American federal system. But networks are a common feature of Western societies, federal or unitary. Walter Kickert, 'Complexity, governance and dynamics: conceptual explorations of public network management' in Kooiman, Modern Govenance, pp. 191-204 defines public management as: 'the managing, the governance, of complex interorganizational networks', and his example is widely followed by Dutch scholars. J. K. Friend, J. Power and C. J. L. Yewlett, Public Planning: the Intercorporate Dimension (London, Tavistock, 1974) was an early British contribution but it had little influence. There is now a growing literature on networks in British government. See, for example D. Marsh and R. A. W. Rhodes (eds), Policy Networks in British Government (Oxford, Clarendon, 1992).
42. Countries with a federal structure were quicker to realize the importance of network management. K. Hanf and F. W. Scharpf (eds), Interorganizational Policy Making (London, Sage, 1978) explore interorganizational policy making in Germany. R. Agranoff, Frameworks for Comparative Analysis of Intergovernmental Relations (Bloomington IN, Indiana University, School of Public and Environmental Affairs, Occasional Paper No. 26, August, 1990) explores intergovernmental management in the American federal system. But networks are a common feature of Western societies, federal or unitary. Walter Kickert, 'Complexity, governance and dynamics: conceptual explorations of public network management' in Kooiman, Modern Govenance, pp. 191-204 defines public management as: 'the managing, the governance, of complex interorganizational networks', and his example is widely followed by Dutch scholars. J. K. Friend, J. Power and C. J. L. Yewlett, Public Planning: the Intercorporate Dimension (London, Tavistock, 1974) was an early British contribution but it had little influence. There is now a growing literature on networks in British government. See, for example D. Marsh and R. A. W. Rhodes (eds), Policy Networks in British Government (Oxford, Clarendon, 1992).
43. Countries with a federal structure were quicker to realize the importance of network management. K. Hanf and F. W. Scharpf (eds), Interorganizational Policy Making (London, Sage, 1978) explore interorganizational policy making in Germany. R. Agranoff, Frameworks for Comparative Analysis of Intergovernmental Relations (Bloomington IN, Indiana University, School of Public and Environmental Affairs, Occasional Paper No. 26, August, 1990) explores intergovernmental management in the American federal system. But networks are a common feature of Western societies, federal or unitary. Walter Kickert, 'Complexity, governance and dynamics: conceptual explorations of public network management' in Kooiman, Modern Govenance, pp. 191-204 defines public management as: 'the managing, the governance, of complex interorganizational networks', and his example is widely followed by Dutch scholars. J. K. Friend, J. Power and C. J. L. Yewlett, Public Planning: the Intercorporate Dimension (London, Tavistock, 1974) was an early British contribution but it had little influence. There is now a growing literature on networks in British government. See, for example D. Marsh and R. A. W. Rhodes (eds), Policy Networks in British Government (Oxford, Clarendon, 1992).
44. Countries with a federal structure were quicker to realize the importance of network management. K. Hanf and F. W. Scharpf (eds), Interorganizational Policy Making (London, Sage, 1978) explore interorganizational policy making in Germany. R. Agranoff, Frameworks for Comparative Analysis of Intergovernmental Relations (Bloomington IN, Indiana University, School of Public and Environmental Affairs, Occasional Paper No. 26, August, 1990) explores intergovernmental management in the American federal system. But networks are a common feature of Western societies, federal or unitary. Walter Kickert, 'Complexity, governance and dynamics: conceptual explorations of public network management' in Kooiman, Modern Govenance, pp. 191-204 defines public management as: 'the managing, the governance, of complex interorganizational networks', and his example is widely followed by Dutch scholars. J. K. Friend, J. Power and C. J. L. Yewlett, Public Planning: the Intercorporate Dimension (London, Tavistock, 1974) was an early British contribution but it had little influence. There is now a growing literature on networks in British government. See, for example D. Marsh and R. A. W. Rhodes (eds), Policy Networks in British Government (Oxford, Clarendon, 1992).
45. Countries with a federal structure were quicker to realize the importance of network management. K. Hanf and F. W. Scharpf (eds), Interorganizational Policy Making (London, Sage, 1978) explore interorganizational policy making in Germany. R. Agranoff, Frameworks for Comparative Analysis of Intergovernmental Relations (Bloomington IN, Indiana University, School of Public and Environmental Affairs, Occasional Paper No. 26, August, 1990) explores intergovernmental management in the American federal system. But networks are a common feature of Western societies, federal or unitary. Walter Kickert, 'Complexity, governance and dynamics: conceptual explorations of public network management' in Kooiman, Modern Govenance, pp. 191-204 defines public management as: 'the managing, the governance, of complex interorganizational networks', and his example is widely followed by Dutch scholars. J. K. Friend, J. Power and C. J. L. Yewlett, Public Planning: the Intercorporate Dimension (London, Tavistock, 1974) was an early British contribution but it had little influence. There is now a growing literature on networks in British government. See, for example D. Marsh and R. A. W. Rhodes (eds), Policy Networks in British Government (Oxford, Clarendon, 1992).
46. There is a large literature on interorganizational analysis. For a useful collection of articles, see W. M. Evan (ed.), Inter-Organizational Relations (Harmondsworth, Penguin, 1977); and G. Thompson, J. Frances, R. Levacic and J. Mitchell (eds), Markets Hierarchies & Networks: the Co-ordination of Social Life (London, Sage, 1991), especially chs 14-24.
47. There is a large literature on interorganizational analysis. For a useful collection of articles, see W. M. Evan (ed.), Inter-Organizational Relations (Harmondsworth, Penguin, 1977); and G. Thompson, J. Frances, R. Levacic and J. Mitchell (eds), Markets Hierarchies & Networks: the Co-ordination of Social Life (London, Sage, 1991), especially chs 14-24.
48. W. W. Powell, 'Neither market nor hierarchy: network forms of organization' in Thompson et al., Markets, Hierarchies & Networks, pp. 265-76.
49. A. Larson, 'Network dyads in entrepreneurial settings: a study of governance exchange relationships', Administrative Science Quarterly, 37 (1992), 76-104.
50. J. Frances, R. Levacic, J. Mitchell and G. Thompson, 'Introduction' in Thompson et al., Markets, Hierarchies & Networks, p. 15.
51. This notion is closely related to that neologism to end all neologisms: autopoiesis. Autopoietic theory argues that organizations seek 'self-referential closure' with their environments; that is, an organization's relationship with its environment is internally determined and change is internally generated. For a short introduction see: G. Morgan, Images of Organization (London, Sage, 1986), pp. 235-45. do not discuss the several variants of autopoietic theory but see: B. Jessop, State Theory (Cambridge, Polity, 1990), ch. 11; W. Kickert, 'Autopoiesis and the science of (public) administration: essence, sense and nonsense', Organization Studies, 14 (1993), 261-78; and N. Luhmann, 'The autopoiesis of social systems' in F. Geyer and J. van der Zouwen (eds), Sociocybernetic Paradoxes (London, Sage, 1986), pp. 172-92.
52. This notion is closely related to that neologism to end all neologisms: autopoiesis. Autopoietic theory argues that organizations seek 'self-referential closure' with their environments; that is, an organization's relationship with its environment is internally determined and change is internally generated. For a short introduction see: G. Morgan, Images of Organization (London, Sage, 1986), pp. 235-45. do not discuss the several variants of autopoietic theory but see: B. Jessop, State Theory (Cambridge, Polity, 1990), ch. 11; W. Kickert, 'Autopoiesis and the science of (public) administration: essence, sense and nonsense', Organization Studies, 14 (1993), 261-78; and N. Luhmann, 'The autopoiesis of social systems' in F. Geyer and J. van der Zouwen (eds), Sociocybernetic Paradoxes (London, Sage, 1986), pp. 172-92.
53. This notion is closely related to that neologism to end all neologisms: autopoiesis. Autopoietic theory argues that organizations seek 'self-referential closure' with their environments; that is, an organization's relationship with its environment is internally determined and change is internally generated. For a short introduction see: G. Morgan, Images of Organization (London, Sage, 1986), pp. 235-45. do not discuss the several variants of autopoietic theory but see: B. Jessop, State Theory (Cambridge, Polity, 1990), ch. 11; W. Kickert, 'Autopoiesis and the science of (public) administration: essence, sense and nonsense', Organization Studies, 14 (1993), 261-78; and N. Luhmann, 'The autopoiesis of social systems' in F. Geyer and J. van der Zouwen (eds), Sociocybernetic Paradoxes (London, Sage, 1986), pp. 172-92.
54. This notion is closely related to that neologism to end all neologisms: autopoiesis. Autopoietic theory argues that organizations seek 'self-referential closure' with their environments; that is, an organization's relationship with its environment is internally determined and change is internally generated. For a short introduction see: G. Morgan, Images of Organization (London, Sage, 1986), pp. 235-45. do not discuss the several variants of autopoietic theory but see: B. Jessop, State Theory (Cambridge, Polity, 1990), ch. 11; W. Kickert, 'Autopoiesis and the science of (public) administration: essence, sense and nonsense', Organization Studies, 14 (1993), 261-78; and N. Luhmann, 'The autopoiesis of social systems' in F. Geyer and J. van der Zouwen (eds), Sociocybernetic Paradoxes (London, Sage, 1986), pp. 172-92.
55. Kickert, 'Autopoiesis and the science of (public) administration', p. 275.
56. Many of the theoretical issues will be explored by the ESRC's Whitehall programme which will analyse the changes in British central government in the postwar period. There are twenty-two projects in the programme which started in April 1995. See: R. A. W. Rhodes, The Changing Nature of the British Executive: a Research Proposal (Swindon, Report to the ESRC's Research Programmes Board, May, 1993).
57. R. A. W. Rhodes, Understanding Governance (Buckingham, Open University Press, 1996), ch. 6; and V. Wright, 'Reshaping the state: implications for public administration', West European Politics, 17 (1994), 103-34.
58. R. A. W. Rhodes, Understanding Governance (Buckingham, Open University Press, 1996), ch. 6; and V. Wright, 'Reshaping the state: implications for public administration', West European Politics, 17 (1994), 103-34.
59. For a more detailed account of hollowing out, see: R. A. W. Rhodes, 'The hollowing out of the state', Political Quarterly, 65 (1994), 138-51. Networks are a long-standing feature of British government, see: Rhodes, Beyond Westminster and Whitehall.
60. For a more detailed account of hollowing out, see: R. A. W. Rhodes, 'The hollowing out of the state', Political Quarterly, 65 (1994), 138-51. Networks are a long-standing feature of British government, see: Rhodes, Beyond Westminster and Whitehall.
61. Sir Robin Butler, 'The evolution of the Civil Service', Public Administration, 71 (1993) p. 404.
62. D. F. Kettl, Sharing Power: Public Governance and Private Markets (Washington DC, The Brookings Institution, 1993), pp. 206-7
63. See, for example C. Fudge and L. Gustafsson, 'Administrative reform and public management in Sweden and the United Kingdom', Public Money and Management, 9, no. 2 (1989), 29-34.
64. S. Weir and W. Hall, Ego-Trip: Extra-Governmental Organisations in the United Kingdom and their Accountability (Colchester, University of Essex, Democratic Audit; and London: Charter 88 Trust).
65. W. Plowden, Ministers and Mandarins (London, Institute for Public Policy Research, 1994), p. 13.
66. Metcalfe and Richards, Improving Public Management, p. 17.
67. Vickers, The Art of Judgement, p. 30.
68. See: M. A. P. Bovens, 'The social steering of complex organizations', British Journal of Political Science, 20 (1990), p. 115.
69. D. S. Wright, 'Managing the intergovernmental scene: the changing dramas of federalism, intergovernmental relations and intergovernmental management' in W. B. Eddy (ed.), Handbook of Organization Management (Berlin, de Gruyter, 1983), p. 431.
70. See: Agranoff, Frameworks of Comparative Analysis, pp. 23-4; and V. L. Marando and P. S. Florestano, 'Intergovernmental management: the state of the discipline' in N. Lynn and A. Wildavsky (eds), Public Administration: the State of the Discipline (Chatham NJ, Chatham House, 1990). p. 308.
71. See: Agranoff, Frameworks of Comparative Analysis, pp. 23-4; and V. L. Marando and P. S. Florestano, 'Intergovernmental management: the state of the discipline' in N. Lynn and A. Wildavsky (eds), Public Administration: the State of the Discipline (Chatham NJ, Chatham House, 1990). p. 308.
72. E. H. Klijn, J. Koopenjan and K. Termeer, 'Managing networks in the public sector', Public Administration, 73 (1995), 437-54.
73. Agranoff, Frameworks for Comparative Analysis, pp. 25-6. See also P. Bogason, 'The fragmented locality' in P. Bogason (ed.), New Modes of Local Political Organizing. Local Government Fragmentation in Scandinavia (New York, Nova, 1995); and L. G. White, 'Public management in a pluralistic arena', Public Administration Review, 49 (1989), 522-32.
74. Agranoff, Frameworks for Comparative Analysis, pp. 25-6. See also P. Bogason, 'The fragmented locality' in P. Bogason (ed.), New Modes of Local Political Organizing. Local Government Fragmentation in Scandinavia (New York, Nova, 1995); and L. G. White, 'Public management in a pluralistic arena', Public Administration Review, 49 (1989), 522-32.
75. Agranoff, Frameworks for Comparative Analysis, pp. 25-6. See also P. Bogason, 'The fragmented locality' in P. Bogason (ed.), New Modes of Local Political Organizing. Local Government Fragmentation in Scandinavia (New York, Nova, 1995); and L. G. White, 'Public management in a pluralistic arena', Public Administration Review, 49 (1989), 522-32.
76. Friend et al., Public Planning, pp. 43-4.
77. R. A. W. Rhodes, The National World of Local Government (London, Allen and Unwin, 1986), pp. 392-3.
78. On the limits to bureaucracy and markets see C. E. Lindblom, Politics and Markets (New York, Basic, 1977). There is a growing literature criticizing policy networks; see, for example: K. Dowding, 'Model or metaphor? A critical review of the policy network approach', Political Studies, 43 (1995), 136-58. However, I know of no critique of networks as a service delivery mechanism and there is little or no discussion in the literature of the conditions under which networks are effective or, indeed, of what constitutes effectiveness for a network.
79. On the limits to bureaucracy and markets see C. E. Lindblom, Politics and Markets (New York, Basic, 1977). There is a growing literature criticizing policy networks; see, for example: K. Dowding, 'Model or metaphor? A critical review of the policy network approach', Political Studies, 43 (1995), 136-58. However, I know of no critique of networks as a service delivery mechanism and there is little or no discussion in the literature of the conditions under which networks are effective or, indeed, of what constitutes effectiveness for a network.
80. I do not discuss new ways of steering in this paper. For a discussion of new tools derived from cybernetic theory, see: A. Dunsire, Manipulating Social Tensions: an Alternative Mode of Government Intervention (Koln, Max Planck Institut für Gesellschaftsforschung, Discussion Paper 93/7, August, 1993); and Kaufman and others, Guidance Control and Evaluation. For a rational choice analysis of the strengths and weakness of self-organizing institutions in regulating shared resources, see: E. Ostrom, Governing the Commons: the Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1990).
81. I do not discuss new ways of steering in this paper. For a discussion of new tools derived from cybernetic theory, see: A. Dunsire, Manipulating Social Tensions: an Alternative Mode of Government Intervention (Koln, Max Planck Institut für Gesellschaftsforschung, Discussion Paper 93/7, August, 1993); and Kaufman and others, Guidance Control and Evaluation. For a rational choice analysis of the strengths and weakness of self-organizing institutions in regulating shared resources, see: E. Ostrom, Governing the Commons: the Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1990).
82. I do not discuss new ways of steering in this paper. For a discussion of new tools derived from cybernetic theory, see: A. Dunsire, Manipulating Social Tensions: an Alternative Mode of Government Intervention (Koln, Max Planck Institut für Gesellschaftsforschung, Discussion Paper 93/7, August, 1993); and Kaufman and others, Guidance Control and Evaluation. For a rational choice analysis of the strengths and weakness of self-organizing institutions in regulating shared resources, see: E. Ostrom, Governing the Commons: the Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1990).
83. C. Offe, Contradictions of the Welfare State (London, Hutchinson, 1984), p. 310.
84. Marsh and Rhodes, Policy Networks in British Government, p. 265. They are paraphrasing: T. J. Lowi, The End of Liberalism (New York, Norton, 1969), pp. 85-97 and 287-97.
85. Marsh and Rhodes, Policy Networks in British Government, p. 265. They are paraphrasing: T. J. Lowi, The End of Liberalism (New York, Norton, 1969), pp. 85-97 and 287-97.
86. C. J. Fox and H. T. Miller, Postmodern Public Administration: Toward Discourse (London, Sage, 1995), p. 149.
87. J. N. Rosenau, 'Citizenship in a changing global order' in Rosenau and Czempiel, Governance without Government, p. 291.
88. Paul Hirst recommends associational democracy in which 'voluntary self-governing associations' are the locus of both democracy and service delivery. See: P. Hirst, Associative Democracy (Cambridge, Polity, 1994). Other governing structures include, for example, solidarity or 'acting according to common values and duties while neglecting the price'. See K. Gretschmann, 'Solidarity and markets' in Kaufman et al., Guidance, Control and Evaluation, p. 395. I note these normative accounts of governing structures in this article to broaden the discussion beyond management issues.
89. Paul Hirst recommends associational democracy in which 'voluntary self-governing associations' are the locus of both democracy and service delivery. See: P. Hirst, Associative Democracy (Cambridge, Polity, 1994). Other governing structures include, for example, solidarity or 'acting according to common values and duties while neglecting the price'. See K. Gretschmann, 'Solidarity and markets' in Kaufman et al., Guidance, Control and Evaluation, p. 395. I note these normative accounts of governing structures in this article to broaden the discussion beyond management issues.