Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T13:52:11.207Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Continuity and Change in British Central-Local Relations: ‘The Conservative Threat’, 1979–83

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2009

R. A. W. Rhodes
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The description ‘radical’ tends to invoke left-wing images in many people's heads: it has almost become the antonym of conservative. But in the sense of appealing to fundamental principles, the present Conservative Government certainly claims to be radical. Its policies purport to break with the immediate past in British politics and they are said to derive from the principles of monetarism. No area has been subject to a more radical reassessment than that of central-local relations. Conservative policies have been seen as a grave threat to local government. They are said to undermine its constitutional foundations and considerable concern has been expressed about the erosion of local autonomy. This paper attempts to evaluate the distinctiveness of present policies. But in order to assess recent changes, it is necessary to look to the immediate past and to identify any continuities as well as disjunctions in central government's policy. A decade is a short time in the life of a polity but, by insisting that current developments be located in even this confined context, it will become clear that there is, in fact, a large measure of continuity in the relationship between central and local government. Whether the government has been Conservative or Labour, the trend has been towards the increased control of the level and pattern of sub-national expenditure.

Type
Articles
Information
British Journal of Political Science , Volume 14 , Issue 3 , July 1984 , pp. 261 - 283
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1984

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See, for example, Stewart, J. D., Jones, G. W., Greenwood, R. and Raine, J. W., ‘In Defence of Local Government’ (Birmingham: Institute of Local Government Studies, 1981)Google Scholar; and Burgess, T. and Travers, T., Ten Billion Pounds: Whitehall's Takeover of the Town Halls (London: Grant McIntyre, 1980).Google Scholar

2 The phrase is from Dunleavy, P., The Politics of Mass Housing in Britain, 1945–1975 (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1981), p. 105.Google Scholar See also Stewart, J. D., Local Government: The Conditions of Local Choice (London: Allen & Unwin, 1983), pp. 65–7.Google Scholar

3 For more detailed information on local expenditure in this period see Foster, C. D., Jackman, R. and Perlman, M., Local Government Finance in a Unitary State (London: Allen & Unwin, 1980)Google Scholar; Bennett, R. J., Central Grants to Local Government (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982).Google Scholar

4 Rhodes, R. A. W., Control and Power in Central-Local Government Relations (Farnborough: Gower, 1981), Chap. 5.Google Scholar

5 Dunleavy, , The Politics of Mass Housing, p. 105.Google Scholar See also Dunleavy, P., Urban Political Analysis (London: Macmillan, 1980), p. 105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar For a full discussion of the disparate interests in central-local relations see: Dunleavy, P. and Rhodes, R. A. W., ‘Beyond Whitehall’ in Drucker, H. M., ed., Developments in British Politics (London: Macmillan, 1983), pp. 106–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

6 Heclo, H. and Wildavsky, A., The Private Government of Public Money (London: Macmillan, 1974), p. xv.Google Scholar See also Wildavsky, A., The Art and Craft of Policy Analysis (London: Macmillan, 1980), Chap. 3.Google Scholar

7 Rhodes, , Control and Power, p. 115.Google Scholar

8 For a more detailed discussion of policy communities (and citations) see Rhodes, R. A. W., Hardy, B. and Pudney, K., ‘Constraints on the National Community of Local Government: Members, ‘Other Governments’ and Policy Communities’ (Department of Government, University of Essex: SSRC Central-Local Government Relations Project, Discussion Paper No. 6, 07 1983) Chap. 4.Google Scholar

9 Alan Cawson has argued that ‘corporatism’ characterizes functional relationships in the welfare state. His picture is of a series of bargains between central departments, local councils and the professions who administer services within local authorities. The ‘policy communities’ or informal networks are seen as formalized bargains between different interest groupings. It is clear that corporatist-style relations – or strategies of incorporation – were important in central-local relations in the 1970s on structural, financial and manpower issues. However, corporatism is of limited help in understanding specific policy developments of a substantive kind. See Cawson, A., Corporatism and Welfare (London: Heinemann, 1982).Google Scholar For a critical appraisal of several approaches to the analysis of substantive policy areas see Dunleavy, , The Politics of Mass HousingGoogle Scholar; and Rhodes, R. A. W., Hardy, B. and Pudney, K., ‘“Power-Dependence” Theories of Central-Local Relations: A Critical Reassessment’ (Department of Government, University of Essex: SSRC Central-Local Relations Project, Discussion Paper No. 7, 07 1983).Google Scholar

10 For detailed evidence see Rhodes, et al. , ‘Constraints on the National Community of Local Governments’, Chaps, 1 and 2.Google Scholar

11 For a detailed description of the CCLGF see Rhodes, R. A. W., Hardy, B. and Pudney, K., ‘“Corporate Bias” in Central-Local Relations: A Case Study of the Consultative Council on Local Government Finance’ (University of Essex: SSRC Central-Local Relations Project: Discussion Paper No. 1, 03 1982).Google Scholar

12 Committee of Inquiry into Local Government Finance (Layfield), Report, Appendix I, ‘Evidence by Government Departments’ (London: HMSO, 1976), p. 327.Google Scholar

13 See Bramley, C. and Stewart, M., ‘Implementing Public Expenditure Cuts’ in Barrett, S. and Fudge, C., eds, Policy and Action (London: Methuen, 1981), pp. 39–63.Google Scholar

14 Wildavsky, A., Budgeting: A Comparative Theory of Budgetary Processes (Boston: Little, Brown, 1975), pp. 7–9.Google Scholar

15 See also Alexander, A., Local Government in Britain since Reorganisation (London: Allen & Unwin, 1982), Chap. 7.Google Scholar

16 Greenwood, R., ‘The Politics of Central-Local Relations in England and Wales, 1974–81’, West European Politics, v (1982), 253–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar On the effects of local expenditure on macro-economic management see: Jackson, P. M., ‘The Impact of Economic Theories on Local Government Finance’, Local Government Studies, VIII (1982), 21–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

17 For a more detailed account of all the financial terms used in this section see: Hepworth, N. P., The Finance of Local Government, 4th edn (London: Allen & Unwin, 1980).Google Scholar

18 For a compendious summary of Conservative policy on central-local relations between 1979 and 1982 see the speech by Michael Heseltine, Secretary of State for the Environment, at the Annual Conference of the National Housing and Town Planning Council, Brighton, 9 November 1982.

19 Jones, G. W. and Stewart, J. D., ‘The Layfield Analysis Applied to Central-Local Relations under the Conservative Government’, Local Government Studies, VIII (1982), 55–6.Google Scholar

20 For a survey of the extent of contracting-out (referred to as ‘privatization’) see Local Government Chronicle, 17 06 1983, 655–61.Google Scholar

21 Rhodes, et al. , ‘“Corporate Bias” in Central-Local Relations’, pp. 73–5.Google Scholar

22 The Times Law Report, 29 10 1981.Google Scholar

23 The Times Law Report, 18 12 1981.Google Scholar

24 The Times Law Report, 10 02 1982.Google Scholar

25 For many more examples see Davies, E. M., Gibson, J. G., Game, C. H. and Stewart, J. D., Grant Characteristics and Central-Local Relations (Report to the Social Science Research Council, 07 1983).Google Scholar

26 Bramley, G. and Evans, A., ‘Block Grant: Some Unresolved Issues’, Policy and Politics, IX (1981), 173–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

27 Cooper, N. and Stewart, J., ‘Local Authority Budgets 1982/83’, Public Finance and Accountancy, 06 1982, 17–21.Google Scholar

28 Smith, P. and Stewart, J., ‘Local Authority Spending 1983/84’, Public Finance and Accountancy, 06 1983, 35–9.Google Scholar

29 The major sources for the statistics in this section are the publications of the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, most notably ‘Local Government Trends’ and ‘Financial and General Statistics’.

30 Duke, V. and Edgell, S., ‘Public Expenditure Cuts in Britain and Local Authority Mediation’, paper to the PSA Urban Politics Group, University of Birmingham, 12 1981.Google Scholar

31 Stewart, et al. , ‘In Defence of Local Government’, p. 3.Google Scholar

32 B. Donoughue, Senior Policy Adviser to the Prime Minister 1974–79, quoted in Young, H. and Sloman, A., No, Minister: An Inquiry into the Civil Service (London: BBC Publications, 1982), pp. 33–4.Google Scholar

33 The characterization of recent commentaries is clearly illustrated by the references in fn. 1 and by many of the articles in the local government press. Turning from polemics and journalism, the self-same concerns can be seen in the academic literature. See Greenwood, R., ‘Pressures from Whitehall’ in Rose, R. and Page, E., eds, Fiscal Stress in Cities (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982), pp. 44–76Google Scholar; and Greenwood, , ‘The Politics of Central-Local Relations in England and Wales 1974–81’Google Scholar from which the phrase ‘the demise of local government’ is taken.

34 Griffith, J. A. G., Central Departments and Local Authorities (London: Allen & Unwin, 1966), pp. 506–7.Google Scholar

35 Page, E., ‘Central Government Instruments of Influence on Local Authorities’, University of Strathclyde, unpublished Ph.D. thesis, 1982.Google Scholar

36 The phrase is taken from Page, E., ‘The Marginalisation of Local Political Elites in Britain’ paper to the GRAL/CERVL Conference, University of Bordeaux, 12 1982.Google Scholar

37 See Binder, B. J. A., ‘Relations between Central and Local Government since 1975 – Are the Associations Failing?’, Local Government Studies, VIII, No. 1 (1982), 35–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Rhodes, R. A. W., ‘Can There Be a National Community of Local Government?’, Local Government Studies IX, No. 6 (1983), 17–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

38 See Department of the Environment/Welsh Office, Rates (London: HMSO, Cmnd 9008, 1983)Google Scholar; and Department of the Environment, Streamlining the Cities (London: HMSO, Cmnd 9063, 1983).Google Scholar