重组英国中央政府--为什么 IfG 委员会的天真计划行不通?

Patrick Dunleavy
{"title":"重组英国中央政府--为什么 IfG 委员会的天真计划行不通?","authors":"Patrick Dunleavy","doi":"10.1111/1467-923x.13398","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"An Institute for Government (IfG) report on ‘government at the centre’ recommends creating new, rationalist policy machinery (including an inner cabinet) to manage the UK government's four‐year policy programmes—faithfully following how the Cameron‐Clegg coalition operated in 2010–15. That government's disastrous example shows how politically naïve this plan would be. This article draws out its complete infeasibility in late 2024 conditions. The IfG also proposes setting up a new Department for the Civil Service headed by a powerful minister as a counterweight to the Treasury (criticised only for being ‘too good’ and hence over‐dominant). Instead, this article sets out the case for a new and strong Department for Finance, Procurement and Productivity to take responsibility for spending control and other key public management roles, where the Treasury resource management has conspicuously failed in the last decade.","PeriodicalId":504210,"journal":{"name":"The Political Quarterly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Restructuring UK government at the Centre—Why the IfG Commission's Naïve Plan will not Work\",\"authors\":\"Patrick Dunleavy\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/1467-923x.13398\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"An Institute for Government (IfG) report on ‘government at the centre’ recommends creating new, rationalist policy machinery (including an inner cabinet) to manage the UK government's four‐year policy programmes—faithfully following how the Cameron‐Clegg coalition operated in 2010–15. That government's disastrous example shows how politically naïve this plan would be. This article draws out its complete infeasibility in late 2024 conditions. The IfG also proposes setting up a new Department for the Civil Service headed by a powerful minister as a counterweight to the Treasury (criticised only for being ‘too good’ and hence over‐dominant). Instead, this article sets out the case for a new and strong Department for Finance, Procurement and Productivity to take responsibility for spending control and other key public management roles, where the Treasury resource management has conspicuously failed in the last decade.\",\"PeriodicalId\":504210,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Political Quarterly\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Political Quarterly\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-923x.13398\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Political Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-923x.13398","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

英国政府研究所(IfG)的一份关于 "中央政府 "的报告建议创建新的、理性主义的政策机制(包括内阁),以管理英国政府的四年政策计划--这完全沿袭了卡梅伦-克莱格联盟在 2010-15 年的运作方式。卡梅伦-克莱格政府的灾难性例子表明,这一计划在政治上是多么幼稚。本文指出,在 2024 年末的条件下,该计划完全不可行。IfG 还建议成立一个新的公务员部,由一位大权在握的部长领导,以制衡财政部(只因其 "太优秀 "而受到批评,因此主导权过大)。相反,本文阐述了建立一个新的、强有力的财政、采购和生产力部的理由,该部将负责支出控制和其他关键的公共管理职责,而财政部的资源管理在过去十年中显然是失败的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Restructuring UK government at the Centre—Why the IfG Commission's Naïve Plan will not Work
An Institute for Government (IfG) report on ‘government at the centre’ recommends creating new, rationalist policy machinery (including an inner cabinet) to manage the UK government's four‐year policy programmes—faithfully following how the Cameron‐Clegg coalition operated in 2010–15. That government's disastrous example shows how politically naïve this plan would be. This article draws out its complete infeasibility in late 2024 conditions. The IfG also proposes setting up a new Department for the Civil Service headed by a powerful minister as a counterweight to the Treasury (criticised only for being ‘too good’ and hence over‐dominant). Instead, this article sets out the case for a new and strong Department for Finance, Procurement and Productivity to take responsibility for spending control and other key public management roles, where the Treasury resource management has conspicuously failed in the last decade.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信