Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Enhancing policy delivery: normalizing four critical contributions

  • Original Article
  • Published:
British Politics Aims and scope

Abstract

The desire to be more responsive to the demands of citizens complicates the relationship between Secretary of State and Permanent Secretary and has an impact on policy delivery capacity. This article considers four separate contributions to effective policy delivery in a context of increasing and increasingly variegated demands: those provided by the Secretary of State, Permanent Secretary, special political adviser (SpAd) and chair of the departmental board. Drawing on insights garnered through a series of interviews with key policy actors, we draw attention to the SpAd bridging function between Secretary of State and Permanent Secretary, which eases the tension between ministerial urgency for outcomes versus the officials’ realistic appraisal of ‘smoothing out’ the challenges to policy delivery. The departmental board’s stewardship of policy delivery, meanwhile, is minimal due to the lack of chairmanship by the Secretary of State, requiring professional chairs to be appointed to this role.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Andeweg, R.B. 2000. Ministers as double agents? The delegation process between Cabinet and Ministers. European Journal of Political Research 37 (3): 377–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bardach, E. 1977. The implementation game: What happens after a bill becomes a law. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • BBC News. 2012. Civil servants blocking government policy unacceptable – Maude, 2 October. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19797736. Accessed 10 May 2019.

  • Börzel, T.A. 1998. Organizing Babylon – On the different conceptions of policy networks. Public Administration 76 (2): 253–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyatzis, R.E. 1998. Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, W.A. 2005. Exploring the association between board and organizational performance in nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit Management and Leadership 15 (3): 317–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cabinet Office. 2012. The Civil Service Reform Plan, Cabinet Office and The Rt Hon Lord Maude of Horsham. http://www.civilservice.gov.uk/reform. Accessed 20 July 2016.

  • Cabinet Office. 2017. Annual report and accounts. Assets Publishing Service. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/646841/CO_Annual_Report_2016-17.pdf. Accessed 17 April 2019.

  • Cabinet Office. 2018. Ministerial Code. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/672633/2018-0108_MINISTERIAL_CODE_JANUARY_2018_FINAL_3.pdf. Accessed 20 October 2019.

  • Cash, D.W., W.C. Clark, F. Alcock, N.M. Dickson, N. Eckley, D.H. Guston, J. Jaeger, and R.B. Mitchell. 2003. Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 100 (14): 8086–8091.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cairney, P. 2009. Implementation and the governance problem: a pressure participant perspective. Public Policy and Administration 24 (4): 355–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, J.G., and N. Opstrup. 2018. Bureaucratic dilemmas: Civil servants between political responsiveness and normative constraints. Governance 31 (3): 481–498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cleary, H. and R. Reeves. 2009. The ‘Culture of Churn’ for UK Ministers and the price we all pay, Demos Research Briefing, 12 June 2009.

  • CO and HMT (Cabinet Office and HM Treasury). 2011. Corporate governance in central government departments: Code of good practice 2011. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/220645/corporate_governance_good_practice_july2011.pdf. Accessed 14 January 2021.

  • Connaughton, B. 2015. Navigating the borderlines of politics and administration: Reflections on the role of ministerial advisers. International Journal of Public Administration 38 (1): 37–45.

  • Craft, J., and M. Wilder. 2017. Catching a second wave: Context and compatibility in advisory system dynamics. Policy Studies Journal 45 (1): 215–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Du Gay, P. 2009. In defence of Mandarins: Recovering the ‘core business’ of public management. Management & Organizational History 4 (4): 359–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eichbaum, C., and R. Shaw. 2008. Revisiting politicisation: Political advisers and public servants in Westminster systems. Governance 21 (3): 337–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eichbaum, C., and R. Shaw. 2010. Partisan appointees and public servants: An international analysis of the role of the political adviser. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Eichbaum, C., and R. Shaw. 2011. Political staff in executive government: Conceptualising and mapping roles within the core executive. Australian Journal of Political Science 46 (4): 583–600.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grube, D. 2015. Responsibility to be enthusiastic? Public servants and the public face of ‘promiscuous partisanship.’ Governance 28 (3): 305–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hazell, R., A. Cogbill, D. Owen, H. Webber, and L. Chebib. 2018. Critical friends? The role of non-executives on Whitehall Boards Constitution Unit 2. https://www.constitutionunit://publications/tabs/unitpublications/178_Critical_Friends_The_Role_of_Non_Executives_on_Whitehall_Boards. Accessed 10 May 2019, paras 4.43–4.44.

  • HCPACAC (House of Commons, Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee). 2018. The Minister and the Official: The Fulcrum of Whitehall Effectiveness, Fifth Report of Session 2017–19, HC 497, House of Commons.

  • Hall, T.E., and Lawrence J. O’Toole. 2000. Structures for policy implementation: An analysis of national legislation, 1965–1966 and 1993–1994. Administration & Society 31 (6): 667–686.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hallsworth, M., S. Parker and J. Rutter. 2011. Policy making in the real world, Institute for Government, https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/Policy%20making%20in%20the%20real%20world.pdf. Accessed 29 December 2020.

  • Hill, M., and P. Hupe. 2009. Implementing public policy: Governance in theory and in practice. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • HM Government. 2012. Civil Service Reform Plan Published. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/civil-service-reform-plan-published. Accessed 20 November 2019.

  • Hustedt, T., K. Kolltveit, and H.H. Salomonsen. 2017. Ministerial advisers in executive government: Out from the dark and into the limelight. Public Administration 95 (2): 299–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, B.D., S.M. Theriault, and M. Whyman. 2019. The great broadening: How the vast expansion of the policymaking agenda transformed American politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Jordan, A.G. 1981. Iron triangles, woolly corporatism and elastic nets: Images of the policy process. Journal of Public Policy 1 (1): 95–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kakabadse, A., and N. Kakabadse. 2007. Leading the board: The six disciplines of world. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kakabadse, A.P., and N.K. Kakabadse. 2011. Eleven sides to the minister of the crown. British Politics 6 (3): 345–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kakabadse, A., and N. Kakabadse. 2020. SpAds: Political Sherpas Bridging Minister and Civil Servant. Open Journal of Political Science 10 (2): 234–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kakabadse, A., N.K. Kakabadse, and R. Barratt. 2006. Chairman and chief executive officer (CEO): That sacred and secret relationship. Journal of Management Development 25 (3): 134–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kakabadse, N.K., and E.S. Louchart. 2012. Delicate empiricism: An action learning approach to elite interviewing. In Global elites: The opaque nature of transnational policy determination, ed. A.P. Kakabadse and N.K. Kakabadse, 286–307. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kathyola, J. 2010. The Political–administrative Interface, Commonwealth Good Governance. http://www.cpahq.org/CPAHQ/CMDownload.aspx?ContentKey=d9598edd-7340-4dfb-8511. Accessed on 10 November 2015, pp. 65–69.

  • Kearsley, G., and B. Shneiderman. 1998. Engagement theory: A framework for technology-based teaching and learning. Educational Technology 38 (5): 20–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kenny, M. 2009. Taking the temperature of the British political elite 3: When grubby is the order of the day…. Parliamentary Affairs 62 (3): 503–513.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koliba, C., J.W. Meek, and A. Zia. 2011. Governance networks in Public Administration and Public Policy. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krause, R. 2017. Being the CEO’s boss: An examination of board chair orientations. Strategic Management Journal 38 (3): 697–713.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kvale, S. 2006. Dominance through interviews and dialogues. Qualitative Inquiry 12 (3): 480–500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lodge, G., S. Kalitowski, N, Pearce, and R. Muir. 2013. Accountability and responsiveness in the senior civil service: Lessons from overseas. https://www.civilservant.org.uk/library/2013_ippr_Accountability_and_Responsiveness_in_the_SCS.pdf. Accessed 14 January 2021.

  • Lord, C. 2004. The modern prince. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • LSE GV314 Group. 2012. New life at the top: Special advisers in British Government. Parliamentary Affairs 65 (4): 715–732.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manzie, S., and J. Hartley. 2013. Dancing on ice: Leadership with political astuteness by senior public servants in the UK. London: Open University Paper, The Open University Business School.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayntz, R. 1983. The conditions of effective public policy: A new challenge for policy analysis. Policy & Politics 11 (2): 123–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McAlpine, A. 2000. The servant. London: Faber and Faber.

    Google Scholar 

  • McNulty, T., A. Pettigrew, G. Jobome, and C. Morris. 2011. The role, power and influence of company chairs. Journal of Management & Governance 15 (1): 91–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mikecz, R. 2012. Interviewing elites: Addressing methodological issues. Qualitative Inquiry 18 (6): 482–493.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, K.J. and D. McTavish. 2009. Leadership and the Political Administrative Change: Case of Scottish Local Authorities. Proceedings of the Political Association Annual Conference, 4–7 October 2009, Manchester, UK: Political Association.

  • Ministry of Reconstruction. 1918. Report of the Machinery of Government Committee, Civil Servant, http://www.civilservant.org.uk/library/1918_Haldane_Report.pdf. Accessed 20 July 2016.

  • Öhberg, P., P. Munk Christiansen, and B. Niklasson. 2017. Administrative politicisation or contestability? How political advisers affect neutral competence in policy processes. Public Administration 95 (1): 269–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, S.P. 2010. Introduction. The (new) public governance: A suitable case for treatment. In The New Public Governance: Emerging perspectives on the theory and practice of public governance, ed. S. Osborne, 1–16. London: Routledge and Taylor and Francis.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Page, E.C. 2006. How policy is really made. London: Public Management and Policy Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker, H. 1990. The company chairman: His role and responsibilities. Long Range Planning 23: 35–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • PASC. 2012a. Special Advisers in the Thick of It, House of Commons Public Administration Select Committee, Sixth Report of Session 2012–13, HC 134, para 16. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmpubadm/134/134.pdf. Accessed 12 September 2019.

  • PASC. 2012b. Change in Government: The Agenda for Leadership, Further Report with the Government Responses to the Committee’s Eleventh, Thirteenth and Fifteenth Reports of Session 2010–12, HC 1746. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmpubadm/1746/1746.pdf. Accessed 15 October 2019.

  • Peters, B.G., and J. Pierre. 2004. The politicisation of the civil service in comparative perspective: The quest for control. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pierson, P. 1993. When effect becomes cause: Policy feedback and political change. World Politics 45 (4): 595–628.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pollitt, C., and G. Bouckaert. 2017. Public management reform: A comparative analysis—into the age of austerity, 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollitt, C., S. Van Thiel, and V. Homburg. 2007. New public management in Europe. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Powell, J. 2010. The new Machiavelli. London: Bodley House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pressman, J.L., and A. Wildavsky. 1973. Implementation. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pressman, J. L., & Wildavsky, A. 1984. Implementation: How great expectations in Washington are dashed in Oakland: Or, why it’s amazing that federal programs work at all, this being a saga of the economic development administration as told by two sympathetic observers who seek to build morals on a foundation of ruined hopes (3rd ed.). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

  • Reich, D., I. Shapiro, and C. Cho. 2017. Trump budget’s deep cuts to block grants underscore danger of block‐granting, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. https://www.cbpp.org/sites/default/les/atoms/les/6‐20‐17bud.pdf. Accessed 12 August 2019.

  • Rhodes, R.A.W. 1997. Understanding governance: Policy networks, governance, reflexivity and accountability. Buckingham: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rhodes, R.A.W. 2007. Understanding governance: Ten years on. Organization Studies 28: 1243–1264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rhodes, R.A.W. 2013. Political anthropology and civil service reform: Prospects and limits. Policy & Politics 41 (4): 481–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rhodes, R.A. 2016. Recovering the craft of public administration. Public Administration Review 76 (4): 638–647.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rhodes, R.A.W., J. Wanna, and P. Weller. 2009. Comparing Westminster. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ribbins, P., and B. Sherratt. 2014. Reforming the Civil Service and revising the role of the Mandarin in Britain: A view from the perspective of a study of eight Permanent Secretaries at the Ministry of Education between 1976 and 2011. Public Policy and Administration 29 (1): 21–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richards, D., and M.J. Smith. 2002. Governance and public policy in the United Kingdom, 1st ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, J. 2002. Building the complementary board. The work of the plc chairman. Long Range Planning 35: 493–520.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sabatier, P.A. 1986. Top-down and bottom-up approaches to implementation research: A critical analysis and suggested synthesis. Journal of Public Policy 6 (1): 21–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sabatier, P. 2007. The need for better theories. In Theories of the policy process 2, ed. P. Sabatier, 3–20. Cambridge MA: Westview.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scharpf, F.W. 1978. Interorganizational policy studies: Issues, concepts and perspectives. In Interorganizational policy making: Limits to coordination and central control, ed. K.I. Hanf and F.W. Scharpf, 345–370. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaw, R., and C. Eichbaum. 2017. Politicians, political advisers and the vocabulary of public service bargains: Speaking in tongues? Public Administration 95 (2): 312–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shergold, P. 2010. Policy Implementation. Australian Government, Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. https://pmc.gov.au/government/policy-implementation. Accessed 8 November 2017.

  • Strömbäck, J. 2011. Mediatization and perceptions of the media’s political influence. Journalism Studies 12 (4): 423–439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Talbot, C. 2014. The British administrative elite: The art of changing without changing? Revue Française d’Administration Publique 151 (2): 741–761.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UK Parliament. 2018. The minister and the official: The fulcrum of Whitehall effectiveness – 5 departmental boards, UK Parliament. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmpubadm/497/49708.htm. Accessed 11 April 2019.

  • Van den Berg, C. 2018. The Netherlands: The emergence and encapsulation of ministerial advisers. In Ministers, minders and mandarins: An international study of relationship at the executive summit of parliamentary democracies, ed. R. Shaw and C. Eichbaum, 129–144. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Veit, S., T. Hustedt, and T. Bach. 2017. Dynamics of change in internal policy advisory systems: The hybridisation of advisory capacities in Germany. Policy Science 50 (1): 85–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waller, P. 2014. Special advisers and communications. In Special advisers: Who they are, what they do and why they matter, ed. B. Yong and R. Hazell, 87–109. London: Bloomsbury.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wicks, M. 2012. What ministers do. The Political Quarterly 83 (3): 585–598.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • YCA. 2014. Indicators of potential for Permanent Secretary roles, BBC News. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/07_07_14_permanentsecretary.pdf. Accessed 20 May 2019.

  • Young, J., L. Shaxson, H. Jones, S. Hearn, A. Datta, and C. Cassidy. 2014. ROMA: a guide to policy engagement and policy influence, ODI. https://www.odi.org/features/roma/what-is-roma. Accessed 29 December 2020.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Henley Business School, Henley‐on‐Thames, RG9 3AU, UK

    Andrew P. Kakabadse & Nada Kakabadse

Authors
  1. Andrew P. Kakabadse
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nada Kakabadse
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrew P. Kakabadse.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kakabadse, A.P., Kakabadse, N. Enhancing policy delivery: normalizing four critical contributions. Br Polit 18, 236–253 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41293-021-00161-z

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41293-021-00161-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation