Search

In 2010 the Australian federal government fought and lost an intense and very public battle with the country's mining industry over the introduction of a new ‘super-profits’ tax. The proposed tax was withdrawn and the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, was removed from office. Why did the government lose this battle and what can this episode tell us about the nature and determinants of business power? We argue that business power is not an objective condition but is shaped subjectively and inter-subjectively. What counts in the power equation is not whether business investmentisessential for growth or whether businesswilldisinvest if a new tax is imposed, but whether actorsbelievethis to be the case. One reason why the structural power of business varies is because actors’ normative and causal ideas about the value and determinants of business investment vary. In the Australian case ministers did not believe that the introduction of a new tax would jeopardise investment. Ministers did however come to believe that the mining industry had successfully persuaded a large number of voters that the introduction of a new tax would jeopardise investment, employment and growth. This is why the tax was eventually abandoned. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Debates about governance and the relationship between governance and government have focused upon markets, hierarchies and networks as principal modes of governance. In this paper we argue that persuasion constitutes a further and distinctive mode of governance, albeit one which interpenetrates other modes of governance. In order to assess the nature, limitations and scope of persuasion and the complex relationships between markets, hierarchies, networks on the one hand and persuasion on the other, we interpret persuasion through the prism of two theoretical perspectives on governance. We argue that the society-centred perspective usefully draws our attention to the role played by non-state actors in the exercise of governance through persuasion but that a state-centric relational account can help us to better understand important facets of persuasion as a mode of governance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Government and governance are frequently treated as synonyms. Governing is what governments do in formulating and implementing policies. A burgeoning political science literature uses the term governance in a different way to describe the growing tendency of governments to govern in partnership with a range of non-state actors and, as a purported consequence, the marginalization of governments within policymaking processes. Here, some writers go so far as to talk about 'governance without government'. In a forthcoming book, Rethinking Governance: Bringing the State Back In, Stephen Bell and I argue that this dominant 'society-centred' perspective on governance is flawed. In our view whilst governments are indeed now more likely to forge relationships with a larger range of non-state actors, they nevertheless remain the central players in governance arrangements. Indeed we argue that governments have been strengthened through the relationships they have developed. This article reviews some of the extant literature on governance and specifies the basic terms of our 'state-centric relational' approach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

New Labour's political development has been punctuated by the appearance, endless repetition and eventual disappearance of a series of catch-phrases: 'stakeholding', 'the third way' and 'social exclusion' and, more recently, 'partnership', 'joined-up' governance and the 'opportunity society'. In 2004 the Prime Minister began to talk about the need to promote choice. This article looks ahead to a possible third term in office for New Labour by looking at the concept of choice. It examines the similarities and important differences between Blair's arguments about choice and those offered by the Conservatives. It looks at the ways in which the general principle of promoting choice has so far been spelled out in specific policy terms within health and education and at the ways in which Blair's choice agenda clashes with that favoured by Gordon Brown and the Treasury. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Public policy continued to happen during 2003, but for large parts of the time relatively few people seemed to notice: this was a year in which Iraq and the search for weapons of mass destruction grabbed the headlines and public policy was largely relegated to the sidelines. Yet important policy developments occurred. A White Paper on higher education was published in January 2003 proposing wider access to universities for those from poorer backgrounds and the introduction of top-up fees. A Health and Social Care Bill providing for the creation of foundation hospitals was pushed through the House of Commons in May 2003. Meanwhile, further measures deigned to curb anti-social behaviour were introduced and a debate about national identity cards stirred. The article examines these developments in a broader context and then briefly assesses the state of Conservative policies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The foundations of the government's second term were formally laid in July 2002 with the completion of the Treasury's Spending Review, Opportunity and Security for All. This sets out departments' spending limits and performance targets for the next four years. Given the likely determination of the Treasury in general and of the current Chancellor in particular not to countenance any revisions to it, the Spending Review is likely to set the basic parameters of public policy up to the next general election. This article reviews some of the key provisions of the Spending Review as they relate to the overall level of public expenditure and to expenditure on and performance targets for health, education and transport. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Focuses on the public policy in Great Britain. Review of the second-term policy agenda of the Labour Party; Priority of the government on public policy reforms in health and education; Summary on the objectives and specific measures on the reform process.

Discusses the progress made by the British government, in terms of public policy-making, in 1998-99 against the `early pledges' made by New Labor. Status of welfare reforms; Government efforts to improve the education sector; Modernization of the healthcare system; State of the economy.