Understanding Governance: Policy Networks, Governance, Reflexivity and Accountability by

R. A. W. Rhodes
Review by: Judy Johnston
Administrative Theory & Praxis, Vol. 20, No. 3 (Sep., 1998), pp. 394-396
Published by: M.E. Sharpe, Inc.
Stable URL: [Link] .
Accessed: 12/06/2014 13:56

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
[Link]

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@[Link].

M.E. Sharpe, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Administrative Theory
&Praxis.

[Link]

This content downloaded from [Link] on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 [Link] PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
R.A.W. Rhodes. (1997). Understanding Governance: Policy Networks, Governance, Reflexivity and Accountability.
Open University Press, Buckingham.

Reviewed by Judy Johnston, University of Technology, Sydney, Australia

Focussing on theory,methodology, applications and Nevertheless, as Rhodes suggests, the change

developments, Understanding Governance analyzes the process has left less public administration responsibility
changes thathave occurred inBritish Public Administra under government's direct control. Not unexpectedly,
tion, mostly since 1979 and up until 1995. Using the therewere also unintended and uncontrolled outcomes
four themes of the longer title of the book, Policy from thebroader agenda of reformbeyond government's
Networks, Governance, Reflexivity and Accountability, reach. Therefore, the traditionally delineated and
Rhodes examines theway and how Public Administra centralized role of government is less clear as shifts in
tion is studied within the wider context of global con provision from state to markets occur. Public and
cerns. In general, Rhodes argues that themore tradi private sectors are also not easily differentiated any
tional ways of understanding government and bureau more. While theories of pluralism and corporatism, for
cracy through conventional theories of political science example, assist to explain some of these trends, as
and Public Administration are no longer adequate to existing theories of the state they are not sufficiently
explain the shifts in relationships, structures, functions, meaningful when they stillportray thegovernment as the
processes and systems. central organizing institution (pp. 29-32).

This especially applies to theWestminster model of Consequently, descriptors, such as "intergovern

British government thatderives from the parliamentary mental relations" (p. 7) confine contemporary under
and bureaucratic traditionsof thenineteenth century and standingof the state. Rather, complex interdependencies
has served as the primary framework of analysis since existwhich are related topower, as resources, including
that time. While there is no oneWestminster model, as "constitutional-legal, organizational, financial, political
is evident in other Anglo polities, there is a broad set of or informational" power. The game is to gain control
underlying assumptions which can be used as a basis of over resources and to influence policy outcomes at the
understanding. However, these assumptions are only same time as minimizing the potential for dependence
useful as a starting point of current analysis. within the policy networks.

As an early proposition, Rhodes asserts thatgovern Network types and structures are diverse and are
mental centralism and prime ministerial leadership have categorized by Rhodes into five groups from "tightly
been largely overtaken by interdependence and policy integrated" intergovernmental or professional networks
networks in the "differentiatedpolity" (p. 4). A unitary along a spectrum to "loosely-integrated issue networks"
government with hierarchical control over local govern (p. 9). Calling on thework of Jordan (1990a cited in
ment and other institutions of government, as the Rhodes) based in political science and his own broader
traditional understanding, does not serve to explain the work, Rhodes indicates his use of sociological, psycho
contemporary complexities of theBritish polity. Others logical and anthropological concepts as well as political
(Kavanagh, 1990; Kingdom, 1991; Flynn 1993; Lawton science to interpret the many levels of relationship
& Rose, 1994; Hutton, 1995; Jenkins, 1995) who have within thepolicy networks. He explores the literature in
observed the same political and Public Administration some detail (Chapter 2) including theprimary influences
on the British literature, which he claims were not
phenomena in Britain over the last two decades might
disagree with Rhodes to some extent about whether American (p. 35).
governmental leadership, as for example inThatcher's
case, was significant as a strong centralising force. The Rhodes also presents the strengths and weaknesses
scope and depth of fundamental change, arguably, may of his own typology and indicates how his ideas can be
not have occurred to such an extentwithout a dominant differentiated from others in the field. The concepts of
political leader like Thatcher, as themajor catalyst and policy networks are, he suggests, an extension of
implementer of change. interestgroup theories because government and state are

394 Administrative Theory & Praxis September 1998, Vol. 20, No. 3

This content downloaded from [Link] on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 [Link] PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
not necessarily the locus of activity andmay be only one increasingly tenuous. While the material may have
of several key actors. Perhaps, tellingly, Rhodes indi relevance in a general sense and the analysis may be
cates that theChapter (2) "does not propose any theoret useful for exploring methodological approaches in the
ical innovations.. .anddoes not seek toprovide a detailed field, itdoes not, as such, advance theunderstanding of
rebuttal of my several critics" (p. 45). Rather the term governance to any great extent. Perhaps, differentiating
"policy networks" is used to explain the argument in the between qualitative analysis and case study analysis may
next Chapter (3) that there has been a "shift from be purposeful in leading into the final part of the book
government to governance" (p.45). but there is really no obvious, coherent or developing
theme.

Governance can be defined in numerous ways but,

in general terms, is not meant to be "a synonym for "Applications" (Chapters 5-7) provide an historical
government" (p.46), according toRhodes. Using Finer's and practical account of various administrative changes
(1970 cited inRhodes, p. 46) definition, as a foundation in the civil service in Britain between 1979 and 1995
for understanding government, governance "signifies a (basically, the period of Conservative government); the
change in themeaning of government, referring to a context of and impetus for change; and, the broader
process of governing; or a changed condition of ordered implications of Britain's membership of the European
rule; or the new method by which society is governed." Union. These issues are well documented, but similarly
The difficulty of understanding governance is in 'speci are the subject of comprehensive analysis in a range of
.
fying. .[the] new process, condition or method" (p. 46). other commentaries (Kavanagh, 1990; Kingdom, 1991;
These are identified as: "theminimal state;" "corporate Flynn, 1993; Lawton & Rose, 1994; Hutton, 1995;
governance;" "the new public management;" "good Jenkins, 1995). Nevertheless, the ideas of policy net
governance;" "a socio-cybernetic system;" and "self works and governance provide a meaningful and differ
organizing networks" (p. 47). While Rhodes goes into ent perspective and are furtherexplained by Rhodes in
some detail to explicate the various meanings of gover these Chapters.
nance from a theoretical perspective, whether this
advances understanding is perhaps a moot point. The final part of thebook, "Developments" (Chap
ters 8 and 9), examines how the changes outlined in the
For example, in terms of "self-organizing net previous section have impacted upon the study of the
works," Rhodes argues that the term "hollowing out of British government, especially Public Administration.
the state" involving privatization, limitingof government Recognizing that thefield of Public Administration as an
intervention, alternative approaches to service delivery, area of study has lost focus, currency and its academic
some functional transfer to theEuropean Union and the base inuniversities, Rhodes suggests that in spite of this
impact of public sector managerialism (accountability there are intellectual glimmers of hope. However,
and clearer delineation between government and the survival of Public Administration in Britain as a re
public service) helps to explain the new organizations spected discipline will, to a large extent, be dependent
(pp. 53-54). Some writers, on the other hand, explain upon "thequality of itsacademic contribution" (p. 177).
these changes using the more traditional analytical
frameworks located in political science and Public Rhodes then examines (Chapter 9) whether post
Administration (Kavanagh, 1990; Kingdom, 1991; modernism can provide a framework for furtheranalysis
Flynn, 1993; Lawton & Rose, 1994; Hutton, 1995; of British Public Administration. Using Fox andMiller's
Jenkins, 1995). While the criticisms in each approach (1995 cited in Rhodes, p. 184) ideas on "post-modern
seem equally valid from an academic and intellectual public administration," among others, Rhodes con
perspective, to some extent the analysis of Rhodes, at cludes:
times appears unnecessarily complicated in spite of his
implicit claims to reasonable clarity. Mainstream Public Administration may lack
direction, and itwas a bystander to the new
Moving from theory to methodology, the next public management revolution, but itdoes not
Chapter (4) assesses the political institutional approach need to adopt a post-modern epistemology to
as a way of analysing issues in political science and confront and interpretthe changes. Rather, we
Public Administration. The logical links between the need a reflexive Public Administration which
theoretical section and this part of the book seem confronts its own practices, traditions and

BOOK REVIEWS 395

This content downloaded from [Link] on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 [Link] PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 narratives through a process of local reasoning committed to print thematerial originated from discus
and reconfirmation. (Rhodes 1997, p. 198) sions related to an inaugural lecture given by Rhodes.

Overall, this book which was not intended to be a The use of liberal firstperson style with "I" and
book (p. x) brings together a series of separate and "we" mixed with thirdperson narrative, including the
previously published articles, which were written by rather amorphous thirdperson "Rhodes" who appears
Rhodes over a number of years, and presents them in thebook (forexampleChapter2)
throughout
regularly
Chapters, some of which are co-authored. This is both is both attracting and distracting. Beyond the nearly
a strengthof the book and a weakness. To some extent, thirty references to Rhodes which seem to serve to
thebook presents as a ramble of pertinent discourses but showcase his own prolific work over a period of years
a total narrative without an integrated, developed and (pp. 218-220), is evidence of comprehensive research
coherent theme. Nevertheless, in the seeding of ideas and analysis, reflected in the extensive listof References
and stimulating the reader with, for example, policy (pp. 221-205).
networks, governance and metaphorical images such as
"hollowing out the state," the book is highly readable. In general, by rebutting themore economistic and
However, the use of Osborne and Gaebler's ubiquitous managerialist interpretations of the process of reform
analogy of "steering" and "rowing" to explain the and using traditional Public Administration assumptions
modern state is probably over-emphasized (p. 49). and frameworks as a starting point, Rhodes provides a
somewhat lateral, distinctive and interestingview of the
Rhodes' writing style is distinctive but varies across contemporary British state. Further, he builds on these
and within chapters from, seemingly, a little obscure, traditional ideas and proposes a more eclectic approach
slightly eccentric and perhaps intellectually superior, to to analysis of the new Public Administration. However,
clear, ironic and humorous. Whether this is indicative of whether governance, as complex, contemporary theory
the oratorial rather than editorial style of thewriter, or and practice is more fully and better understood as a
is just related to individual quirkiness at different times result of this book is, perhaps, still open to debate.
of writing, is not apparent. However, before being

REFERENCES Kavanagh, D. (1990). British Politics (2nd edition).

Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Flynn, N. (1993). Public Sector Management (2nd Kingdom, J. (1991). Government and Politics inBritain.
edition). Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire, UK: Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Harvester Wheatsheaf. Lawton, A. and Rose, A. (1994 (2ndedition,). Organisa
Hutton. W. (1995). The State We're In. London: Jona tionandManagement in thePublic Sector. London:
thanCape. Pitman Publishing.
Jenkins, S. (1995). Accountable to None. London:
Penguin.

396 Administrative Theory & Praxis September 1998, Vol. 20, No. 3

This content downloaded from [Link] on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 [Link] PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions