A slow-burning crisis: Executive relations and the normalisation of distrust in Northern Ireland's ‘cash for ash’ fiasco

IF 2.7 4区 管理学 Q2 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION International Review of Administrative Sciences Pub Date : 2023-07-30 DOI:10.1177/00208523231189882
Charis Rice, B. Connaughton, Jenny Ratcliffe, Ian Somerville
{"title":"A slow-burning crisis: Executive relations and the normalisation of distrust in Northern Ireland's ‘cash for ash’ fiasco","authors":"Charis Rice, B. Connaughton, Jenny Ratcliffe, Ian Somerville","doi":"10.1177/00208523231189882","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper explores relationships between ministers, special advisers and civil servants through the lens of a high-profile government crisis in Northern Ireland (NI). Although political–administrative relationships are a mainstay of public administration research, we still have limited understanding of how these relationships feature and function within the ‘Westminster family’ of governance when operating within devolved institutions or post-conflict societies, nor of their role in crisis. We use Scott’s institutional pillars as an analytical framework and conduct a documentary analysis of public inquiry witness statements to explore the Renewable Heat Incentive crisis which led to the collapse of the NI legislature. Utilising a novel application of existing theory, we demonstrate that the implementation of the devolved, consociational power-sharing model incubated new governance norms, that prioritised and legitimised the agendas and actions of political actors (ministers and special advisers), over civil servants. Specifically, in understanding how relational norms – particularly distrust – feed public policy failure and institutional crisis, our findings contribute to this research area and to the broader public administration field. Government institutional crisis negatively impacts upon public service delivery and the wider health of democracy. Understanding such crises is an important first step in their amelioration. Structural, systemic and day-to-day behavioural layering of distrust adversely impacts government professionals’ ability to recognise, communicate and respond to risk; this can create policy problems, which can escalate, unchecked, until they have become full-blown crises. In order to proactively mitigate crises in other public policy contexts, managers and teams should build in awareness raising, reflection and management processes to individual and operational performance reviews to improve relational norms, and prevent the normalisation of distrust.","PeriodicalId":47811,"journal":{"name":"International Review of Administrative Sciences","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Review of Administrative Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00208523231189882","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This paper explores relationships between ministers, special advisers and civil servants through the lens of a high-profile government crisis in Northern Ireland (NI). Although political–administrative relationships are a mainstay of public administration research, we still have limited understanding of how these relationships feature and function within the ‘Westminster family’ of governance when operating within devolved institutions or post-conflict societies, nor of their role in crisis. We use Scott’s institutional pillars as an analytical framework and conduct a documentary analysis of public inquiry witness statements to explore the Renewable Heat Incentive crisis which led to the collapse of the NI legislature. Utilising a novel application of existing theory, we demonstrate that the implementation of the devolved, consociational power-sharing model incubated new governance norms, that prioritised and legitimised the agendas and actions of political actors (ministers and special advisers), over civil servants. Specifically, in understanding how relational norms – particularly distrust – feed public policy failure and institutional crisis, our findings contribute to this research area and to the broader public administration field. Government institutional crisis negatively impacts upon public service delivery and the wider health of democracy. Understanding such crises is an important first step in their amelioration. Structural, systemic and day-to-day behavioural layering of distrust adversely impacts government professionals’ ability to recognise, communicate and respond to risk; this can create policy problems, which can escalate, unchecked, until they have become full-blown crises. In order to proactively mitigate crises in other public policy contexts, managers and teams should build in awareness raising, reflection and management processes to individual and operational performance reviews to improve relational norms, and prevent the normalisation of distrust.
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
一场缓慢燃烧的危机:北爱尔兰“现金换灰烬”惨败的行政关系和不信任正常化
本文通过引人注目的北爱尔兰政府危机,探讨了部长、特别顾问和公务员之间的关系。虽然政治-行政关系是公共行政研究的支柱,但我们对这些关系在权力下放的机构或冲突后的社会中如何在治理的“威斯敏斯特家族”中发挥作用的理解仍然有限,也不了解它们在危机中的作用。我们使用斯科特的制度支柱作为分析框架,并对公众调查证人陈述进行了文献分析,以探讨导致NI立法机构崩溃的可再生热能激励危机。利用现有理论的新应用,我们证明了权力下放、联合权力分享模式的实施孕育了新的治理规范,使政治行为者(部长和特别顾问)的议程和行动优先于公务员,并使其合法化。具体来说,在理解关系规范(尤其是不信任)如何导致公共政策失败和制度危机方面,我们的发现有助于本研究领域和更广泛的公共行政领域。政府机构危机对公共服务的提供和更广泛的民主健康产生负面影响。了解这类危机是改善危机的重要第一步。结构性、系统性和日常行为层面的不信任对政府专业人员识别、沟通和应对风险的能力产生不利影响;这可能会产生政策问题,这些问题可能会不加控制地升级,直到演变成全面的危机。为了主动缓解其他公共政策背景下的危机,管理人员和团队应该建立对个人和业务绩效评估的认识、反思和管理过程,以改善关系规范,并防止不信任正常化。
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
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
4.30%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: IRAS is an international peer-reviewed journal devoted to academic and professional public administration. Founded in 1927 it is the oldest scholarly public administration journal specifically focused on comparative and international topics. IRAS seeks to shape the future agenda of public administration around the world by encouraging reflection on international comparisons, new techniques and approaches, the dialogue between academics and practitioners, and debates about the future of the field itself.
期刊最新文献
Is bureaucracy ironclad after all? Prevalence and variances of performance- and strategy-oriented management in German local governments A three-model approach to understand social media-mediated transparency in public administrations Board gender diversity in municipally owned corporations: A resource dependence perspective The autonomy and governance of mutual aid organizations for civil servants’ welfare Administrative reforms in Portugal and Spain: From bureaucracy to digital transition
×
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