Advertisement

The Growth of Political Advisory Staff

  • Patrick Diamond
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter will examine the causes and consequences of recruiting an increasing number of political staff from outside the permanent civil service. The evidence is ‘politicisation’ has grown in recent decades as a consequence of the influx of appointees. The threat posed to the traditional Whitehall model from the escalation of partisanship is significant, upending the once sacred civil service ‘monopoly’ over policy advice. The debate is nevertheless more nuanced than depicted by images of shadowy special advisers. The nature of the policy process has changed radically over the last thirty years. The growth of policy-relevant research, the impact of new technology, and the demand for ‘user-driven’ public services led Ministers to seek varieties of specialist advice from outside the permanent bureaucracy. Politicisation ought not to be confused with the legitimate search for expertise.

Bibliography

  1. Aucoin, P. (2012). New Political Governance in Westminster Systems: Impartial Public Administration and Management Performance at Risk. Governance, 25(2), 177–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bakvis, H., & Jarvis, M. (Eds.). (2012). Introduction: Peter C. Aucoin: From New Public Management to New Political Governance. In From New Public Management to New Political Governance. McGill-Queens University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Balogh, T. (1959). The Apotheosis of the Dilettente. In H. Thomas (Ed.), Crisis in the Civil Service. London: Blond.Google Scholar
  4. Bentham, J. (2006). The IPPR and Demos: Think-Tanks of the New Social Democracy. Political Quarterly, 77(2), 166–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blick, A. (2004). People Who Live in the Dark: The History of the Special Adviser in British Politics. London: Politico’s.Google Scholar
  6. Burnham, P. (2002). New Labour and the Politics of Depoliticisation. British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 3(2), 127–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cairney, P. (2018). The UK Government’s Imaginative Use of Evidence to Make Policy. British Politics, Forthcoming.Google Scholar
  8. Clarke, J., & Newman, J. (1997). The Managerial State. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  9. Clegg, N. (2016). Politics: Between the Extremes. London: Bodley Head.Google Scholar
  10. Craft, J. (2013). Appointed Political Staffs and the Diversification of Policy Advisory Sources: Theory and Evidence from Canada. Policy and Society, 32(3), 211–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Craft, J., & Halligan, J. (2015, July 1–4). Looking Back and Thinking Ahead: 30 Years of Policy Advisory System Scholarship. Prepared for T08P06 Comparing Policy Advisory Systems. International Conference on Public Policy. Catholic University of Sacro Cuore, Milan.Google Scholar
  12. Craft, J., & Howlett, M. (2012). Policy Formulation, Governance Shifts and Policy Influence: Location and Content in Policy Advisory Systems. Journal of Public Policy, 32(2), 79–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Denham, A., & Garnett, M. (2006). What Works? British Think-Tanks and the ‘End of Ideology’. Political Quarterly, 77(2), 156–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Donnelly, M. (2014, June 30). Speech to the Institute of Government.Google Scholar
  15. Eichbaum, C., & Shaw, R. (2007). Ministerial Advisers and the Politics of Policy-Making: Bureaucratic Permanence and Popular Control. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 66(4), 453–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fraussen, B., & Halpin, D. (2016). Think Tanks and Strategic Policymaking: The Contribution of Think Tanks to Policy Advisory Systems. Policy Sciences, 50(1), 105–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gains, F., & Stoker, G. (2011). Special Advisers and the Transmission of Ideas from the Primeval Policy Soup. Policy and Politics, 39(4), 485–498(14).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gouglas, A. (2016). Paper Drafted for Internal Use in View of the Preparation for a KU Leuven OT Project on ‘Policy Advice Utilisation in European Policy Advisory Systems’. KU Leuven Public Management Institute.Google Scholar
  19. Gouglas, A., & Brans, M. (2016, February 9). UK Extended Ministerial Offices: On the Road to Cabinetisation? London: Constitution Unit Blog. https://constitution-unit.com/2016/02/09/uk-extended-ministerial-offices-on-the-road-to-cabinetisation/
  20. Grube, D. (2015). Responsibility to Be Enthusiastic? Public Servants and the Public Face of ‘Promiscuous Partisanship’. Governance, 28(3), 305–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gunter, H. M., Hall, D., & Mills, C. (2015). Consultants, Consultancy and Consultocracy in Education Policymaking in England. Journal of Education Policy, 30(4), 518–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Haddon, C. (2016). Developments in the Civil Service. In R. Heffernan, C. Hay, M. Russell, & P. Cowley (Eds.), Developments in British Politics 10. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  23. Halligan, J. (1995). Policy Advice and the Public Sector. In B. G. Peters & D. T. Savoie (Eds.), Governance in a Changing Environment (pp. 138–172). Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Hazell, R. (2012). How the Coalition Works at the Centre. In R. Hazell & B. Yong (Eds.), The Politics of Coalition: How the Conservative-Liberal Democrat Government Works. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  25. Her Majesty’s Government (HMG). (1968). The Civil Service: Report of the Committee Chaired by Lord Fulton. London: HMG.Google Scholar
  26. Her Majesty’s Government (HMG). (2012). Civil Service Reform Plan. London: HMG.Google Scholar
  27. Hillman, N. (2016). The Coalition’s Higher Education Reforms in England. Oxford Review of Education, 42(3), 330–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Letwin, O. (2012, September 17). Why Mandarins Matter: Keynote Speech. London: Institute for Government.Google Scholar
  29. Leys, C. (2006). The Cynical State. In The Socialist Register. London: Merlin Press.Google Scholar
  30. Morgan, G., & Sturdy, A. (2017). The Role of Large Management Consultancy Firms in Global Public Policy. In D. Stone & K. Maloney (Eds.), Oxford Handbook on Global Public Policy and Transnational Administration. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Mulgan, G. (2006). Thinking in Tanks: The Changing Ecology of Political Ideas. Political Quarterly, 77(2), 147–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Niskanen, W. A. (1994). Bureaucracy and Public Economics. Vermont: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
  33. O’Malley, M. (2017). Temporary Partisans, Tagged Officers or Impartial Professionals: Moving Between Ministerial Offices and Departments. Public Administration, 95(1), 407–420.Google Scholar
  34. Page, E. (2010). Has the Whitehall Model Survived? International Journal of Administrative Sciences, 76(3), 407–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Peters, B. G. (2000). The Future of Governing (2nd ed.). Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.Google Scholar
  36. Peters, G., & Pierre, J. (2004). Politicisation of the Civil Service in Comparative Perspective: The Quest for Control. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  37. Peters, G.-P., & Savoie, D. (1994). Civil Service Reform: Misdiagnosing the Patient. Public Administration Review, 54(5), 418–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Qvortrup, M. (2005). Memorandum to the Select Committee on Public Administration – Written Evidence. London: House of Commons.Google Scholar
  39. Rhodes, R. A. W. (2011a). Everyday Life in British Government. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Rhodes, R. A. W. (2011b). One-Way, Two-Way, or Dead-End Street: The British Influence on American Public Administration. Public Administration Review, 74(4), 559–571.Google Scholar
  41. Richards, D., & Smith, M. (2016). The Westminster Model and the ‘Indivisibility of the Political and Economic Elite’: A Convenient Myth Whose Time Is up? Governance, 29(4), 499–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Richardson, J. (2017). The Changing British Policy Style: From Governance to Government? British Politics, Forthcoming.Google Scholar
  43. Rutter, J. (2013, June 19). Ministers Should Commission IPPR and Civil Service Advice in Parallel. The Guardian.Google Scholar
  44. Saint-Martin, D. (1998). Les consultants et la réforme managérialiste de l’État en France et en Grande-Bretagne: vers l’émergence d’une ‘consultocratie’? Revue canadienne de science politique, 32(1), 41–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sausman, C., & Locke, R. (2004). The British Civil Service: Examining the Question of Politicisation. In G. B. Peters & J. Pierre (Eds.), Politicisation of the Civil Service in Comparative Perspective (pp. 101–124). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  46. Shaw, S. E., Russell, J., Parsons, W., & Greenhalgh, T. (2015). The View from Nowhere? How Think-Tanks Work to Shape Health Policy. Critical Policy Studies, 9(1), 58–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Stone, D. (2006). Think-Tanks and Policy Analysis. In F. Fischer, G. J. Miller, & M. S. Sidney (Eds.), Handbook of Public Policy Analysis: Theory, Methods and Politics (pp. 149–157). New York: Marcel Dekker Inc.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Van den Berg, C. (2016). Dynamics in the Dutch Policy Advisory System: Externalisation, Politicisation and the Legacy of Pillarisation. Policy Sciences, 50(1), 63–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Waller, P. (2012). Departments: Ministers and the Civil Service. In R. Hazell & B. Yong (Eds.), The Politics of Coalition: How the Conservative-Liberal Democrat Government Works. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  50. Wildavsky, A. (1979). Speaking Truth to Power: The Art and Craft of Policy Analysis. New York: Little Brown.Google Scholar
  51. Yong, B., & Hazell, R. (2014). Special Advisers: What They Do and Why They Matter. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Patrick Diamond
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Politics and International RelationsQueen Mary University of LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations