Search

A key aim of this special issue is to demonstrate the enduring insights of public policy studies during periods of political crisis and significant policy change. This article establishes our ability to accumulate knowledge in a field often characterised by changing empirical circumstances and changing theories. Theoretical and conceptual advance may be necessary to capture new developments, but must also be balanced with the need to build on what we already know. Periods of crisis may encourage us to upset that balance. They often encourage the idea that political change and behaviour is unprecedented; that new policy making circumstances are unique, or at least so different from the past that it is difficult to learn lessons from history and current theories. In short, the usual rules do not apply and, by extension, we need new theories that account for new practices. However, new tools need to be judged against our existing collection.

The new context of coalition government and the ‘Big Society’ suggests that the UK government is moving towards a style of politics followed successfully in Scotland, extending a partnership approach from national to local forms of government. Yet the two arenas have never been as far apart as is commonly imagined. The majoritarian (UK) and consensus (Scottish) labels are misleading. British politics is not as exceptional as it is often made out to be, while Scottish politics retains many elements of its British counterpart. This article assesses the state of British politics in this light. It sets out a counter-exceptionalism thesis based on the theory and evidence from public policy. It then summarises the post-devolution evidence, producing insights on the British policy style when compared to the ‘new politics’ in Scotland.

Recent Mental Health Acts provide evidence of diverging UK and Scottish government policy styles. The UK legislative process lasted almost ten years following attempts by ministers to impose decisions and an unprecedented level of sustained opposition from interest groups. In contrast, the consultation process in Scotland was consensual, producing high levels of stakeholder ‘ownership’. This article considers two narratives on the generalisability of this experience. The first suggests that it confirms a ‘majoritarian’ British policy style, based on the centralisation of power afforded by a first-past-the-post electoral system (Lijphart, 1999). Diverging styles are likely because widespread hopes for consensus politics in the devolved territories have been underpinned by proportional representation. The second suggests that most policy-making is consensual, based on the diffusion of power across policy sectors and the ‘logic of consultation’ between governments and interest groups (Jordan and Richardson, 1982). The legislative process deviated temporarily from the ‘normal’ British policy style which is more apparent when we consider mental health policy as a whole. Overall, the evidence points to more than one picture of British styles; it suggests that broad conclusions on ‘majoritarian’ systems must be qualified by detailed empirical investigation.

The assumption of linear growth, Plan A, no longer works well, underpinned as it is by arguments deduced from the ‘normal’ sciences and their linear understanding of the world we are part of. Functionality, certainty and predictability have proven to be no longer trustworthy, with serious consequences for city planning. It is not easy to venture out beyond current paradigms, as these are entrenched deeply within us, framing our ideas, attitudes, behaviours and actions. Nevertheless, with this contribution we propose a Plan B and what some would call a ‘post normal’ science perspective, focusing on a non-linear understanding of our world. A non-linear understanding means we consider the world to be undergoing discontinuous change, which is and becomes manifest largely beyond our control. It will have far-reaching consequences for the institutional design used by planners, interacting with and influencing a city’s development. Despite this we believe there are strong arguments in support of a Plan B.