Restructuring UK government at the Centre—Why the IfG Commission's Naïve Plan will not Work

Patrick Dunleavy
{"title":"Restructuring UK government at the Centre—Why the IfG Commission's Naïve Plan will not Work","authors":"Patrick Dunleavy","doi":"10.1111/1467-923x.13398","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"An Institute for Government (IfG) report on ‘government at the centre’ recommends creating new, rationalist policy machinery (including an inner cabinet) to manage the UK government's four‐year policy programmes—faithfully following how the Cameron‐Clegg coalition operated in 2010–15. That government's disastrous example shows how politically naïve this plan would be. This article draws out its complete infeasibility in late 2024 conditions. The IfG also proposes setting up a new Department for the Civil Service headed by a powerful minister as a counterweight to the Treasury (criticised only for being ‘too good’ and hence over‐dominant). Instead, this article sets out the case for a new and strong Department for Finance, Procurement and Productivity to take responsibility for spending control and other key public management roles, where the Treasury resource management has conspicuously failed in the last decade.","PeriodicalId":504210,"journal":{"name":"The Political Quarterly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Political Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-923x.13398","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

An Institute for Government (IfG) report on ‘government at the centre’ recommends creating new, rationalist policy machinery (including an inner cabinet) to manage the UK government's four‐year policy programmes—faithfully following how the Cameron‐Clegg coalition operated in 2010–15. That government's disastrous example shows how politically naïve this plan would be. This article draws out its complete infeasibility in late 2024 conditions. The IfG also proposes setting up a new Department for the Civil Service headed by a powerful minister as a counterweight to the Treasury (criticised only for being ‘too good’ and hence over‐dominant). Instead, this article sets out the case for a new and strong Department for Finance, Procurement and Productivity to take responsibility for spending control and other key public management roles, where the Treasury resource management has conspicuously failed in the last decade.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
重组英国中央政府--为什么 IfG 委员会的天真计划行不通?
英国政府研究所(IfG)的一份关于 "中央政府 "的报告建议创建新的、理性主义的政策机制(包括内阁),以管理英国政府的四年政策计划--这完全沿袭了卡梅伦-克莱格联盟在 2010-15 年的运作方式。卡梅伦-克莱格政府的灾难性例子表明,这一计划在政治上是多么幼稚。本文指出,在 2024 年末的条件下,该计划完全不可行。IfG 还建议成立一个新的公务员部,由一位大权在握的部长领导,以制衡财政部(只因其 "太优秀 "而受到批评,因此主导权过大)。相反,本文阐述了建立一个新的、强有力的财政、采购和生产力部的理由,该部将负责支出控制和其他关键的公共管理职责,而财政部的资源管理在过去十年中显然是失败的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Scrutiny of Police Institutions and the Spectre of Culture The language of imperial violence Liz Truss between dogma and ideology Were recent constitutional reforms desirable? From Estimating to Explaining and Eliminating Ethnic Disproportionality in Stop and Search
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1