Suchergebnisse

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to examine the way in which the UK Labour Government "framed" the policy and practice debate on social enterprise, the way in which "strategic" networks were (or were not) facilitated and the extent to which scale and geography shaped policy choices after 1997.Design/methodology/approachThe paper examines three phases of development through a series of examples/case studies all of which are based in the West Midlands in the UK. The paper draws upon the author's practice and experience as both a practitioner and researcher during this period. Interviews with other key individuals are undertaken to inform the author's reflections and analysis.FindingsThe paper suggests that there is a risk that experience, knowledge and understanding are at risk as there seems to be poorly developed processes and systems to "capture" informed understanding and that the importance of regional networks to promote practice and to protect innovation are often poorly developed and supported.Research limitations/implicationsThe paper is timely given the renewed focus by political parties in the UK on the role of the third sector in providing the "solution" for a number of public sector initiatives.Practical implicationsThe paper cuts across both the literature/debate on public policy as well as that on the role of networks and decision making within informal (as well as formal) organisations.Originality/valueThe paper is timely and will add to an awareness of policy choices and the importance of sustaining a "memory" of past (and current) programmes.

English
Community involvement has long been associated with measures to tackle the problems of deprived neighbourhoods, but government policies for modernising government and promoting democratic renewal have focused on the need to broaden citizen engagement and devolve decision making to local communities. Encouraging people to do things for themselves can be seen as a 'good' thing, but whether this participatory form of government can be achieved in England is uncertain. This article explores the rationale underpinning New Labour's commitment to devolved local governance and the challenges this brings for central government. We investigate the choices and the organisational and management implications for local authorities. We conclude by examining the inherent ambiguities in government policy, which need to be resolved if devolved solutions are to be implemented effectively.

The Government Offices for the English regions (GORs) were established in 1994 in response to mounting pressures for improved territorial coordination in the English regions. For the first time government departments with a regional presence were brought under the management control of a single senior civil servant, the Regional Director. The article explores the underlying pressures which led to their establishment, their role and functions within the regions and their relationship with Whitehall.
Against the background of the government's own stated objectives for the GORs and the expectations of others the article examines some of the problems which have emerged in the first two years of their operation. The article highlights the issue of the openness and accountability of the GORs to their regions. the extent of influence over government departments and agencies outside the immediate span of control of the GORs, and how far they have proved able to have an impact on policy making at the centre. It is concluded that from the perspective of a Conservative administration the GORs have proved successful in strengthening the presence of central government in the regions and should provide the administrative building blocks for a more devolved and democratically accountable regional tier of government in the event of a change in government.