Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Local Government

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Public Service Accountability

  • 276 Accesses

Abstract

This is the first of four chapters that investigate each of the service areas that were the responsibility of the former Audit Commission. Local Government is the most obviously accountable public service because of the direct democratic interface between citizens and the governing mechanisms. It also has the most diverse and complex accountability arrangements. In this chapter, we distinguish between the period of the coalition government and that of the minority Conservative administration. We illustrate the development, or in the case of local government, the significant weakening of the regime between 2010 and 2015 by using the previous model and we use the new model for evaluating the changes in the regime since 2015.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 69.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 69.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Ahrens, T., & Ferry, L. (2018). Institutional Entrepreneurship, Practice Memory, and Cultural Memory: Choice and Creativity in the Pursuit of Endogenous Change of Local Authority Budgeting. Management Accounting Research, 38, 12–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ahrens, T., Ferry, L., & Khalifa, R. (2018). The Hybridising of Financial and Service Expertise in English Local Authority Budget Control: A Practice Perspective. Qualitative Research in Accounting and Management (Forthcoming).

    Google Scholar 

  • Alford, J., & O’Flynn, J. (Eds.). (2012). Rethinking Public Service Delivery: Managing with External Providers. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alford, J. (2016). Co-Production, Interdependence and Publicness: Extending Public Service-Dominant Logic. Public Management Review, 18, 673–691.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ashworth, R., Boyne, G., & Delbridge, R. (2007). Escape from the Iron Cage? Organizational Change and Isomorphic Pressures in the Public Sector. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19(1), 165–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Audit Commission. (2002).The Comprehensive Performance Assessment Framework for Single Tier and County Councils. London: Audit Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • Audit Commission. (2005). Comprehensive Performance Assessment: The Harder Test. London: Audit Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • Audit Commission. (2009). Comprehensive Area Assessment: The Framework. London: Audit Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ball, A., & Seal, W. (2005). Social Justice in a Cold Climate: Could Social Accounting Make a Difference? In Accounting Forum (Vol. 4, pp. 455–473). Elsevier.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Behn, R. D. (2001). Rethinking Democratic Accountability. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, M., Allen, T., Grace, C., & Martin, S. (2014). Self, Sector or Centre? Approaches to Turnaround. London: LGA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bevan, G., & Hood, C. (2006). What’s Measured Is What Matters: Targets and Gaming in the English Public Health Care System. Public Administration, 84(3), 517–538.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bovens, M., Goodin, R. E., & Schillemans, T. (2014). The Oxford Handbook of Public Accountability. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Broadbent, J. (2003). Comprehensive Performance Assessment: The Crock of Gold at the End of the Performance Rainbow? Public Money and Management, 23, 5–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cabinet Office. (2011). Open Public Services (White Paper). London: TSO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cabinet Office. (2014). Open Public Services 2014. London: TSO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Centre for Public Scrutiny. (2014). What Rotherham and Mid-Staffordshire Tell Us About Public Scrutiny and Where It Is Lacking. Centre for Public Scrutiny. Retrieved March 27, 2018, from http://www.cfps.org.uk/publications?item=11669&offset=0.

  • Centre for Public Scrutiny. (2015). Annual Review 2014–2015. Centre for Public Scrutiny. Retrieved March 26, 2018, from http://www.cfps.org.uk/publications?item=11649&offset=0.

  • Centre for Public Scrutiny. (2018). Local Public Accounts Committee Discussion Paper. Why Is It needed? What Will It Deliver? Centre for Public Scrutiny. Retrieved March 26, 2018, from https://www.cfps.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/CfPS-Local-Public-Accounts-Committees-v3.pdf.

  • Christensen, T., & Laegreid, P. (Eds.). (2011). The Ashgate Research Companion to New Public Management. Farnham: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • DCLG (2006). Strong and Prosperous Communities (White Paper). London: TSO.

    Google Scholar 

  • DCLG. (2007). Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act (2007). London: TSO.

    Google Scholar 

  • DCLG. (2008). Communities in Control: Real People, Real Power. London: TSO.

    Google Scholar 

  • DCLG. (2010). Pickles Outlines Plans to Abolish Regional Government. London: Department for Communities and Local Government.

    Google Scholar 

  • DCLG. (2011a). Armchair Auditors Are Here to Stay. London: TSO.

    Google Scholar 

  • DCLG. (2011b). Best Value Statutory Guidance. London: TSO.

    Google Scholar 

  • DCLG (2011c). Localism Act (2011). London: TSO.

    Google Scholar 

  • DCLG. (2012). Public Services (Social Value) Act (2012), C3. London: TSO.

    Google Scholar 

  • DCLG. (2014). Local Audit and Accountability Act (2014). London: TSO.

    Google Scholar 

  • DCLG. (2015a). Revised Best Value Statutory Guidance. London: TSO.

    Google Scholar 

  • DCLG. (2015b). Local Government Transparency Code. London: TSO.

    Google Scholar 

  • DETR. (1999). Best Value and Audit Commission Performance Indicators for 2000/2001: Volume One: The Performance Indicators. London: TSO.

    Google Scholar 

  • DTLR. (2000). Local Government Act (2000). London: TSO.

    Google Scholar 

  • DTLR. (2001). Strong Local Leadership-Quality Public Services. London: TSO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellwood, S. (2014). Debate: Autonomy, Governance, Accountability and a New Audit Regime. Public Money & Management, 34(2), 139–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Etzioni, A. (2014). The Limits of Transparency. Public Administration Review, 74(6), 687–688.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferry, L., Coombs, H., & Eckersley, P. (2017). Budgetary Stewardship, Innovation and Working Culture: Identifying the Missing inGredient in English and Welsh Local Authorities’ Recipes for Austerity Management. Financial Accountability & Management, 33(2), 220–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferry, L., & Eckersley, P. M. (2011). Budgeting and Governing for Deficit Reduction in the UK Public Sector: Act One ‘the Comprehensive Spending Review’. Journal of Finance and Management in Public Services, 10(1), 14–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferry, L., & Eckersley, P. (2012). Budgeting and Governing for Deficit Reduction in the UK Public Sector: Act 2 ‘the Annual Budget’. Public Money & Management, 32(2), 119–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferry, L., & Eckersley, P. (2015a). Accountability and Transparency: A Nuanced Response to Etzioni. Public Administration Review, 75(1), 11–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferry, L., & Eckersley, P. (2015b). Budgeting and Governing for Deficit Reduction in the UK Public Sector: Act Three ‘Accountability and Audit Arrangements’. Public Money Manage, 35(3), 203–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferry, L., Eckersley, P., & Van Dooren, W. (2015a). Local Taxation and Spending as a Share of GDP in Large Western European Countries. Environment and Planning A, 47(9), 1779–1780.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferry, L., Eckersley, P., & Zakaria, Z. (2015b). Accountability and Transparency in English Local Government: Moving From ‘Matching Parts’ to ‘Awkward Couple’? Financial Accountability & Management, 31(3), 345–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glennon, R. (2017). The ‘Death of Improvement’: An Exploration of the Legacy of Performance and Service Improvement Reform in English Local Authorities, 1997–2017. PhD, Loughborough University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glennon, R., Hodgkinson, I. R., Knowles, J., Radnor, Z., & Bateman, N. (2018). The Aftermath of Modernisation: Examining the Impact of a Change Agenda on Local Government Employees in the UK. Australian Journal of Public Administration (Forthcoming).

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldfinch, S., & Wallis, J. O. E. (2010). Two Myths of Convergence in Public Management Reform. Public Administration, 88(4), 1099–1115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grant Thornton. (2015). Local Government Governance Review. All Aboard? Slough: Grant Thornton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray, A., Jenkins, B. (1993). Codes of Accountability in the New Public Sector. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 6(3) 52–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hood, C. (2010). Accountability and Transparency: Siamese Twins, Matching Parts, Awkward Couple? West European Politics, 33, 989–1009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hodgkinson, I. R., Hughes, P., Hughes, M., & Glennon, R. (2017). Does Ownership Matter for Service Delivery Value? An Examination of Citizens’ Service Satisfaction. Public Management Review, 19(8), 1206–1220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hopwood, A. (1984). Accounting and the Pursuit of Efficiency. In A. Hopwood & C. Tomkins (Eds.), Issues in Public Sector Accounting. Oxford: Philip Allan.

    Google Scholar 

  • House of Commons Communities and Local Government Committee. (2011). Select Committee: Audit and Inspection of Local Authorities (Fourth Report of Session 2010–2012). London.

    Google Scholar 

  • House of Commons Public Accounts Committee. (2015). Financial Sustainability of Local Authorities, Thirty-Fourth Report of Session 2014–2015. Norwich: Public Accounts Committee.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leach, S. (2010). The Audit Commission’s View of Politics: A Critical Evaluation of the CPA Process. Local Government Studies, 36, 445–461.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Le Grand, J., Wood, A., & Gibb, M. (2013). Report to the Secretary of State for Education on Ways Forward for Children’s Services in Doncaster. Retrieved August 12, 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  • LGA. (2011). Taking the Lead: Self-Regulation and Improvement in Local Government. London: Local Government Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • LGA. (2014). Evaluation of Sector-Led Improvement. London: Local Government Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • LGA. (2015). Taking Stock: Where Next with Sector-Led Improvement? London: Local Government Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lowndes, V., & Pratchett, L. (2012). Local Governance Under the Coalition Government: Austerity, Localism and the ‘Big Society’. Local Government Studies, 38(1), 21–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Magd, H., & Curry, A., (2003). Benchmarking: Achieving Best Value in Public Sector Organisations. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 10(3), 261–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKevitt, D. (2015). Debate: Value for Money—In Search of a Definition. Public Money & Management, 35(2), 99–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mclean, I., Haubrich, D., & Gutiérrez-Romero, R. (2007). The Perils and Pitfalls of Performance Measurement: The CPA Regime for Local Authorities in England. Public Money and Management, 27, 111–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Micheli, P., & Neely, A. (2010). Performance Measurement in the Public Sector in England: Searching for the Golden Thread. Public Administration Review, 70(4), 591–600.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Molnár, M. (2008). The Accountability Paradigm: Standards of Excellence: Theory and Research Evidence from Hungary. Public Management Review, 10(1), 127–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moynihan, D. P. (2008). The Dynamics of Performance Management: Constructing Information and Reform. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mulgan, R. (2000). Comparing Accountability in the Public and Private Sectors. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 59(1), 87–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, P. (2014). 15 The Development of the Strategic State and the Performance Management of Local Authorities in England. Strategic Management in Public Organizations: European Practices and Perspectives, 243.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, P., & Jones, M. (2016). Building the Next Model for Intervention and Turnaround in Poorly Performing Local Authorities in England. Local Government Studies, 42(5), 698–716.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NAO. (2014a). Financial Sustainability of Local Authorities. London: National Audit Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • NAO. (2014b). The Impact of Funding Reductions on Local Authorities. London: National Audit Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, S. P. (2006). The New Public Governance? Public Management Review, 8, 377–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, S. P. (2010). Delivering Public Services: Time for a new theory? Public Management Review, 12, 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, S. P., Radnor, Z., & Strokosch, K. (2016). Co-Production and the Co-Creation of Value in Public Services: A suitable case for treatment? Public Management Review, 18, 639–653.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ospina, S., Cunill Grau, N., & Zaltsman, A. (2004). Performance Evaluation, Public Management Improvement and Democratic Accountability: Some Lessons from Latin America. Public Management Review, 6(2), 229–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pickles, E. (2013). Local Government Association Conference Speech. Local Government Association, 3 July 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  • Radnor, Z. (2011). Hitting the Target and Missing the Point? Developing an Understanding of Organizational Gaming. In W. Van Dooren & S. Van de Walle (Eds.), Performance Information in the Public Sector: How It Is Used (pp. 98–109). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Radnor, Z., Osborne, S., & Glennon, R. (2016). Public Management Theory. In C. Ansell & J. Torfing (Eds.), Handbook on Theories of Governance. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rashman, L., & Radnor, Z., (2005). Learning to Improve: Approaches to Improving Local Government Services. Public Money and Management, 25(1), 19–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raudla, R., Savi, R., & Randma-Liiv, T. (2013). Literature Review on Cutback Management.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rhodes, R. A. W. (1981). Control and Power in Central-Local Government Relations. Gower and Brookfield, VT: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seal, W. (2003). Modernity, Modernization and the Deinstitutionalization of Incremental Budgeting in Local Government. Financial Accountability & Management, 19, 93–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seal, W., & Ball, A. (2005). Regulating Corporate Performance and the Managerialization of Local Politics. International Public Management Review, 6(1), 117–138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seal, W., & Ball, A. (2011). Interpreting the Dynamics of Public Sector Budgeting: A Dialectic of Control Approach. Financial Accountability & Management, 27(4), 409–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaoul, J., Stafford, A., & Stapleton, P. (2012). Accountability and Corporate Governance of Public Private Partnerships. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 23(3), 213–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skelcher, C. (2004). The New Governance of Communities. In G. Stoker & D. Wilson (Eds.), British Local Government into the 21st Century. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Svara, J. H. (2001). The Myth of the Dichotomy: Complementarity of Politics and Administration in the Past and Future of Public Administration. Public Administration Review, 61(2), 176–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Timmins, N., & Gash, T. (2014). Dying to Improve: The Demise of the Audit Commission and Other Improvement Agencies. London: Institute for Government.

    Google Scholar 

  • Treasury, H. M. (2010). Budget 2010. London: HM Treasury.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Dooren, W., Bouckaert, G., & Halligan, J. (2015). Performance Management in the Public Sector. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warren, M. E. (2014). Accountability and Democracy. In M. Bovens, R. E. Goodin, & T. Schillemans (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Public Accountability (pp. 39–54). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wildavsky, A. (1975). Budgeting: A Comparative Theory of Budgetary Processes. Boston: Little, Brown.

    Google Scholar 

  • Willems, T., & Van Dooren, W. (2012). Coming to Terms with Accountability: Combining Multiple Forums and Functions. Public Management Review, 14(7), 1011–1036.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, J. (2004). Comprehensive Performance Assessment-Springboard or Dead-Weight? Public Money and Management, 24, 63–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, D., & Game, C. (2011). Local Government in the United Kingdom (5th ed.). London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Durham Business School, Durham University, Thornaby, UK

    Laurence Ferry

  2. Nottingham Business School, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, UK

    Russ Glennon

  3. Nottingham Business School, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, UK

    Peter Murphy

Authors
  1. Laurence Ferry
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Russ Glennon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Peter Murphy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Laurence Ferry .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Ferry, L., Glennon, R., Murphy, P. (2019). Local Government . In: Public Service Accountability. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93384-9_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation