Showing papers by "Matthew Flinders published in 2021"
TL;DR: This paper explored the relationship between crises and democracy through a focus on the unfolding coronavirus pandemic and argued that to interpret the current pandemic purely in terms of its epidemiology and public health implications risks overlooking its potentially more significant socio-political consequences.
Abstract: This article explores the relationship between crises and democracy through a focus on the unfolding coronavirus pandemic Its central argument is that to interpret the current pandemic purely in terms of its epidemiology and public health implications risks overlooking its potentially more significant socio-political consequences This is because the challenges posed by the coronavirus crisis have themselves become overlaid or layered-upon a pre-existing set of concerns regarding the performance, efficiency and capacity of democratic political structures The aim of this article is to try and understand and warn against what might be termed a rather odd form of cross-contamination whereby the cynicism, negativity and frustration concerning politicians, political processes and political institutions that existed before the coronavirus outbreak is allowed to direct, define and automatically devalue how democratic structures are subsequently judged in terms of how they responded to the challenge As such, this article focuses on the link between the Coronavirus crisis and the democratic crisis; or, more precisely, the risk that the Coronavirus crisis may mutate into and fuel a broader crisis of democracy
41 citations
01 Jan 2021
TL;DR: It is argued that public governance scholarship would benefit from developing a self-conscious and cohesive strand of “positive” scholarship, akin to social science subfields like positive psychology, positive organizational studies, and positive evaluation.
Abstract: In this programmatic essay, we argue that public governance scholarship would benefit from developing a self-conscious and cohesive strand of “positive” scholarship, akin to social science subfields like positive psychology, positive organizational studies, and positive evaluation. We call for a program of research devoted to uncovering the factors and mechanisms that enable high performing public policies and public service delivery mechanisms; procedurally and distributively fair processes of tackling societal conflicts; and robust and resilient ways of coping with threats and risks. The core question driving positive public administration scholarship should be: Why is it that particular public policies, programs, organizations, networks, or partnerships manage do much better than others to produce widely valued societal outcomes, and how might knowledge of this be used to advance institutional learning from positives?.
32 citations
TL;DR: In this article, the authors focus on felt accountability, denoting the manager's expectation to have to explain substantive decisions to a parent department perceived to be (b) legitimate and (c) to have the expertise to evaluate those decisions.
Abstract: The literature on autonomous public agencies often adopts a top-down approach, focusing on the means with which those agencies can be steered and controlled. This article opens up the black box of the agencies and zooms in on their CEO's and their perceptions of hierarchical accountability. The article focuses on felt accountability, denoting the manager's (a) expectation to have to explain substantive decisions to a parent department perceived to be (b) legitimate and (c) to have the expertise to evaluate those decisions. We explore felt accountability of agency-CEO's and its institutional antecedents with a survey in seven countries combining insights from public administration and psychology. Our bottom-up perspective reveals close connections between de facto control practices rather than formal institutional characteristics and felt accountability of CEO's of agencies. We contend that felt accountability is a crucial cog aligning accountability holders' expectations and behaviors by CEO's.
17 citations
TL;DR: The authors argue that the Westminster model is "a concept stretched beyond repair" that deserves to be retired and suggest the concept is "stretched but not snapped" by developing a simple four-perspective broadening of the analytical lens.
Abstract: This article engages with Meg Russell and Ruxandra Serban’s (2020) argument that the Westminster model is ‘a concept stretched beyond repair’ that deserves ‘to be retired’. We examine the logic, theory and methods that led to such a powerful, potent and provocative argument. We suggest their approach may have inadvertently ‘muddied’ an already muddled concept. We assess the implications of ‘muddying’ for their conclusion that the Westminster model is, in essence, a dead concept in need of a decent funeral. We suggest the concept is ‘stretched but not snapped’ by developing a simple four-perspective broadening of the analytical lens. This approach aids understanding about what the concept covers, how it is operationalised and why it remains useful in comparative research.
10 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors explore how the growing focus on socio-economic impact as the assessment criterion of research funding shapes the discipline of political science itself and explore these broader trends through an in-depth analysis of the UK as an 'extreme case' and a blueprint for funding system reforms.
Abstract: Over the last 20 years, the notion of relevance vis-a-vis political science became not only a subject of academic debates but also a domain of practice, largely due to the developments in the research funding, increasingly referred to as the 'impact agenda'. In this article, we explore how the growing focus on socio-economic impact as the assessment criterion of research funding shapes the discipline of political science itself—its knowledge production, dissemination and the emergent forms of accountability of political scientists. The article presents the results of a major international study that has examined the emergence of ‘impact agendas’ across 33 countries. We report on the changing idea of relevance of political science through the lens of its strategic ambiguity and historical evolution. We then explore these broader trends through an in-depth analysis of the UK as an ‘extreme case’ and a blueprint for funding system reforms. These developments, we argue, are not a mere funding policy innovation but rather a paradigm-level change, reshaping the position of political science in society as well as the types of scholarship that are possible and incentivised.
7 citations
TL;DR: In contemporary public governance, leaders of public organizations are faced with multiple, and oftentimes conflictual, accountability claims as mentioned in this paper, drawing upon a survey of CEO's of agencies in seven different countries.
Abstract: In contemporary public governance, leaders of public organizations are faced with multiple, and oftentimes conflictual, accountability claims. Drawing upon a survey of CEO’s of agencies in seven co...
6 citations
01 Jan 2021
TL;DR: In this article, the authors reveal how an emphasis on relevance has not only become a central element of funding regimes but has also trickled down to influence political science more specifically, and find very little concern among academics about this shift.
Abstract: Based on the findings of an international research project, the chapter reveals how an emphasis on relevance—generally discussed through the notion of an ‘impact agenda’—has not only become a central element of funding regimes but has also trickled down to influence political science more specifically. The introduction of incentives to deliver demonstrable evidence of non-academic impact leads the authors to develop the concept of ‘New Public Research’ which resonates with a broader shift from scholarly selected to state-directed notions of relevance. Strikingly, the chapter finds very little concern among academics about this shift.
5 citations
TL;DR: The authors argue that although the lecture was given by Michael Gove, it was clearly floating ideas and themes that were taken, almost directly, from Dominic Cummings' website, and suggest that what they combine to offer is a dangerous blend of technocratic populism that is as intellectually splintered as it is politically naive.
Abstract: On 27 June 2020, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office, Michael Gove, gave the Ditchley Annual Lecture on the theme of ‘the privilege of public service’. Although the fact that it took place in the context of the broader Coronavirus crisis meant that it received relatively little publicity or attention, the central argument of this article is that the lecture provides great insight into the ideas shaping government policy, in general, and into the inner mind of Dominic Cummings, in particular. As such, we argue that although the lecture was given by Michael Gove, it was clearly floating ideas and themes that were taken, almost directly, from Dominic Cummings’ website. We draw out and explore these themes and suggest that what they combine to offer is a dangerous blend of technocratic populism that is as intellectually splintered as it is politically naive.
3 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors make three main arguments that the MPs' expenses scandal had a more significant impact in terms of institutional change than has generally been recognised within the existing research base and that the scandal also had a powerful cultural affect both within and beyond the Palace of Westminster.
Abstract: The main conclusion of the existing research base is that, despite the public anger it ignited, the MPs’ expenses scandal actually had little impact on British politics. This article questions this conclusion and suggests that the impact of the scandal was far more significant and multi-dimensional than has generally been recognised. This article uses research and interviews that were undertaken to coincide with the tenth anniversary of the MPs’ expenses scandal to reflect upon its long-term social, political and institutional consequences. Drawing upon a range of sources it makes three main arguments. The first is that the MPs’ expenses scandal had a more significant impact in terms of institutional change than has generally been recognised within the existing research base. It is also possible to suggest (our second argument) that the scandal also had a powerful cultural affect both within and beyond the Palace of Westminster. Our third and final argument is that our research suggests that parliament still exists in the shadow of the expenses scandal and that if a longer-term perspective reveals anything it is the failure of the scandal to stimulate a broad-ranging and balanced discussion about the inevitable cost of politics, and therefore of politicians.
2 citations
06 Jan 2021
TL;DR: In this article, the changing topography of the UK state is mapped through the analysis of two specific modes or "types" of multilevel governance which, in turn, offer empirical evidence that underpins concerns regarding unintended consequences, particularly around public values.
Abstract: The traditional account of political authority and policy-making in the United Kingdom offers a simplistic picture of governance. Under the ‘Westminster model’, governance capacity is seen to be centralised in a strong executive which dominates legislative and policy-making processes and exercises control through a unitary state. In recent decades, this model has come under strain due to the widespread delegation of tasks, functions and responsibilities away from the direct control of national politicians. In this chapter, the changing topography of the state is mapped through the analysis of two specific modes or ‘types’ of multilevel governance which, in turn, offer empirical evidence that underpins concerns regarding unintended consequences, particularly around public values, by highlighting control-dilemmas, complexity questions and confusion in relation to accountability. This chapter suggests that these unintended consequences have played a role in fuelling the emergence of populist pressures in ways that have generally not been acknowledged in analyses that have focused on economic and cultural rather than bureaucratic factors.
2 citations
Journal Article•
TL;DR: Putman's The Upswing as mentioned in this paper provides a powerful meta-analysis of American social, political, economic and cultural change throughout the twentieth century, focusing on women's roles in American social and political life.
Abstract: Robert Putman’s The Upswing (written with Shaylyn Romney Garrett) provides a powerful meta-analysis of American social, political, economic and cultural change throughout the twentieth century. Wha...
TL;DR: A comprehensive review of the framework of investigatory scrutiny committees in the House of Lords was carried out between 2017 and 2020 as mentioned in this paper, which led to a far-reaching set of recommendations an...
Abstract: Between 2017 and 2020 a comprehensive review of the framework of investigatory scrutiny committees in the House of Lords was undertaken. This process led to a far-reaching set of recommendations an...
01 Jan 2021
TL;DR: The authors distinguish between two types of research funding relevance: "scholarly selected" versus "politically selected" or "state-directed" by drawing upon the distinction between policy-oriented intellectuals working within the contours of a dominant paradigm and value-orientated intellectuals critical of established ideational frameworks.
Abstract: Providing an initial set of conceptual tools and insights, this chapter sets down a clear reference point by distinguishing between two types of research funding relevance: ‘scholarly selected ’ versus ‘politically selected ’/’state-directed ’. Charting the historical evolution of a delicate balance between notions of academic independence and existing patronage relationships with either church or state leads into a debate concerning the responsibility of intellectuals . This draws upon Chomsky’s distinction between policy-orientated intellectuals working within the contours of a dominant paradigm, as opposed to value-orientated intellectuals critical of established ideational frameworks. The benefits of that distinction for the present study are debated in this opening chapter.
01 Jan 2021
TL;DR: In the early twenty-first century, under the guise of modernization and the vaunted promotion of efficiency, the artful hand of the state has grasped for the governance of publicly funded research agendas, the lifeblood of universities and in so doing has increasingly restricted or redefined the scope of intellectual autonomy as discussed by the authors.
Abstract: When we started to envisage the present project by building an international team of authors and drafting our introductory texts, little did we foresee the extent to which a volume on university research and authority over academic knowledge production would evolve into a study of democratic erosion in the early twenty-first century. Under the guise of modernization and the vaunted promotion of efficiency, the artful hand of the state has grasped for the governance of publicly funded research agendas, the lifeblood of universities and in so doing has increasingly restricted or redefined the scope of intellectual autonomy. Intellectual freedom and the capacity without restraint (except the constraints of logic and falsification) in the sphere of ideas and through this to “speak truth unto power” is not just the lifeblood of universities, but also of democracies. The paradox we have attempted to bring to the fore is therefore the manner in which neoliberalism has furthered illiberalism. The result is a dangerous fraying at the borderline between democracy and authoritarianism.