Advertisement

Public Organization Review

, Volume 14, Issue 3, pp 419–438 | Cite as

Managing to Reinvent Strong Publicness in a Privatized World

  • Fabrice Hamelin
  • Vincent Spenlehauer
Article

Abstract

How can a specialized public organization, of which the operational sector has been brutally fragmented and privatized, maintain its unity and publicness? The paper looks at how the British Transport Police (BTP) has adapted to the fragmentation and privatization of British Rail since 1993. The fact that the BTP has remained public and national is all the more surprising since a return to the pre-World War II configuration, with each Train Operating Company (TOC) having and running its own police, could be technically envisaged. The answer to the initial question is quite simple. The police organization under examination has intelligently reinvented its publicness, with the negotiated assent of its referring political and economic authorities.

Keywords

Publicness Organizational change Security governance British Transport Police 

References

  1. ACPO (Association of Chief Police Officers of England, Wales and Northern Ireland). (2008). Co-ordinated policing protocol between the British transport police and Home Office police forces, memorandum 14 pp.Google Scholar
  2. AECOM. (2011). Rail value for money study: British transport police review, Report Commissioned by the DfT and the Office of Rail regulation (ORR), February 2011, 31 p.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, S. (2012). Public, private, neither, both? Publicness theory and the analysis of healthcare organizations. Social Science & Medicine, 74, 313–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Appleby, P. (1995). A force on the move: The story of the British Transport Police, 1825–1995. Worcestershire: Malvern Wells.Google Scholar
  5. Ayling, J., & Shearing, C. D. (2008). Taking care of business: public police as commercial security vendors. Criminology and Criminal Justice, 8(1), 27–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bailey, D., & Shearing, C. D. (1996). The future of policing. Law and Society Review, 30(3), 585–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bailey, D., & Shearing, C. D. (2001). The new structure of policing: Description, conceptualization and research agenda. Washington D.C: US Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.Google Scholar
  8. Bartunek, J. M., & Moch, M. K. (1987). First-order, second-order, and third-order change and organization development interventions: a cognitive approach. The Journal of Applied Behavioural Science, 23(4), 483–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Barzelay, M. (2001). The new public management: Improving research and policy dialogue. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  10. Barzelay, M., & Gallego, R. (2006). From ‘New Institutionalism’ to ‘Institutional Processualism’: advancing knowledge about public management policy change. Governance, 19(4), 531–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Blair, I. (2002). Patrol partnership. Police Review, 110, 30–31.Google Scholar
  12. Bozeman, B. (1987). All organizations are public: Bridging public and private organizational theories. San Francisco: Jossy-Bass.Google Scholar
  13. Bozeman, B. (2009). Public values theory: three big questions. International Journal of Public Policy, 4(5), 369–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bozeman, B. (2013). What organization theorists and public policy researchers can learn from one another: publicness theory as a case-in-point. Organization Studies, 34(2), 169–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bozeman, B., & Bretschneider, S. (1994). The “publicness puzzle” in organization theory: a test of alternative explanations of differences between public and private organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 4(2), 197–223.Google Scholar
  16. Department for Transport. (2002). Great Britain transport statistics bulletin, London.Google Scholar
  17. Department for Transport. (2004). Review of the British Transport Police, September, London.Google Scholar
  18. Departement for Transport. (2006). Review of the British Transport Police: Refocusing BTP, June, London.Google Scholar
  19. Departement for Transport. (2007). Great Britain transport statistics bulletin, London.Google Scholar
  20. Dunmore, G. (2006). Protecting passenger transport systems from the threat of terrorism. Public Transport International, 1, 8–11.Google Scholar
  21. Dupont, B. (2006). La sécurité intérieure au XXIe siècle: l’émergence des réseaux. In P. Zen-Ruffinen (Ed.), Mélanges dédiés au professeur Bolle (pp. 347–358). Neuchâtel: Helbing & Lichtenhahn.Google Scholar
  22. Edelman, M. (1964). The symbolic uses of politics. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  23. Ericson, R. V., & Haggerty, K. D. (1997). Policing the risk society. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  24. Ferret, J., & Spenlehauer, V. (2009). Does “policing the risk society” hold the road risk. British Journal of Criminology, 49(2), 150–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Freeman, R., & Shaw, J. (2000). All change: British rail privatisation. London: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  26. Gill, A., & Mamode, Ph. (2006). Safer ‘Transport for London’ through mapping, analysis and partnership. Slides presented at the 4th National Crime Mapping Conference 24th–25th May 2006, London.Google Scholar
  27. Goujon, S. (2004). La réforme du secteur ferroviaire en Grande-Bretagne. Notes de synthèse du SES, DAEI, Ministère de l’Equipement (France), juillet-août, no. 154, 29–38.Google Scholar
  28. Gourvish, T. R., & Anson, M. J. (2002). British Rail, 1974–1997: From integration to privatisation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Grabosky, P. (2007). Private sponsorship of public policing. Police Practice and Research, 8(1), 5–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Greenwood, R., & Hinings, C. R. (1996). Understanding radical organizational change: bringing together the old and new institutionalism. Academy of Management Review, 21(4), 1022–1054.Google Scholar
  31. Hall, P., & Taylor, R. (1996). Political science and the three institutionalisms. Political Studies, 44, 936–957.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hamelin, F. (2010). Renewal of public policy via instrumental innovation, the implementation of an automated speed enforcement system in France. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration and Institution, 23(3), 509–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hamelin, F. (ed.), Aust, J., Purenne, A.,Spenlehauer, V. (2007). La police des chemins de fer. Leçons d’une analyse comparée France/Angleterre. Final report on the research commissioned from INRETS by INHES, September, 165 pp.Google Scholar
  34. Her Majesty’s Inspectorate Constabulary. (2007). The British Transport Police. London: UK Home Office Inspection Report.Google Scholar
  35. Hood, C. (1983). Tools of Government. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  36. Hood, C. (1991). A public management for all seasons? Public Administration, 69, 3–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Johnston, L. (1992). The rebirth of private policing. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  38. Johnston, L. (2003). From pluralisation to the police extended family: discourses on the governance of community policing in Britain. International Journal of the Sociology of law, 31–3, 185–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Johnston, L., & Shearing, C. D. (2003). Governing security, explorations in policing and justice. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  40. Jones, T., & Newburn, T. (2002). The transformation of policing? Understanding current trends in policing systems. British Journal of Criminology, 42, 129–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kickert, W. (1995). Steering at a distance: a new paradigm of public governance in Dutch higher education. Governance, 8(1), 135–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kraska, P. B. (Ed.). (2001). Militarizing the american criminal justice system: the changing roles of the Armed Forces and the police. Boston: Northeastern University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Lampedusa, G. T. (1960). The Leopard. London: The Harvill Press.Google Scholar
  44. Le Gales, P., & Scott, A. (2008). Une révolution bureaucratique britannique ? Autonomie sans contrôle ou “freer markets, more rules”. Revue Française de Sociologie, 49(2), 301–330.Google Scholar
  45. Lodge, M. (2002). On different tracks: Designing railway regulation in Britain and Germany. Wesport/London: Praeger.Google Scholar
  46. Merton, R. K. (1968). Social theory and social structure. NewYork: Free Press.Google Scholar
  47. Mintzberg, H. (1979). The structuring of organizations. Englewood cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  48. Moulton, S. (2009). Putting together the publicness puzzle: a framework for realized publicness. Public Administration Review, 69(5), 889–900.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Pesch, U. (2005). The predicaments of publicness: An inquiry into the conceptual ambiguity of public administration. Delft: Eburon.Google Scholar
  50. Pressmann, J. L., & Wildavsky, A. (1973). Implementation: How great expectations in Washington DC are dashed in Oakland. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  51. Romanelli, E., & Tushman, M. L. (1994). Organizational transformation as punctuated equilibrium: an empirical test. Academy of Management Journal, 37(5), 1141–1166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Stewart, J., & O’Donnell, M. (2007). Implementing change in a public agency: leadership, learning and organisational resilience. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 20(3), 239–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Thoenig, J.-C., & Dupuy, F. (1979). Public transportation policy making in France as an implementation problem. Policy Science, 11(1), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Thoenig, J.-Cl. (2006). Modernizing sub-national government in France: Institutional creativity and systemic stability. In V. Hoffmann-Martinot, & H. Wollmann. State and local government reforms in France and Germany, divergence and convergence (pp. 39–58). VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar
  55. Trosa, S. (1995). Moderniser l’administration: comment font les autres ? Paris: Editions d’Organisation.Google Scholar
  56. Tushman, M., & Romanelli, E. (1985). Organizational evolution: a metamorphosis model of convergence and reorientation. Research on Organizational Behavior, 38, 1–23.Google Scholar
  57. United Kingdom Parliament. (2003). Standing Committee on Bills, Railways and Transport Safety Bill, 11 February (column 170) http://www.publications.parliament.the-stationery-office.com.
  58. Weick, K.E. (2001). Making sense of the organization. Blackwell.Google Scholar
  59. Zhong, L., & Grabosky, P. (2009). The pluralization of policing and the rise of private policing in China. Crime, Law and Social Change, 52(5), 433–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department for Planning, Mobility and EnvironmentUniversité Paris Est - IFSTTARMarne-la-Vallée Cedex 2France
  2. 2.Educative Division in Public Policy of the Ecole Nationale des Ponts et Chaussées - LATTS Research CenterEcole Nationale des Ponts et ChausséesMarne-la-Vallée Cedex 2France

Personalised recommendations