No CrossRef data available.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 20 January 2009
This paper began by referring to assumptions of conflict. It seems inevitable and beneficial that two sets of values should run through organization. Conflict between control and dynamism, anxiety and uncertainty, constraint and freedom, relates to the sort of work that any organization has to perform – someone has to make the running while others have to count the cost. Such conflicts are similar to general human ambivalence and form part of the dynamics of change as well as of control. But the balance to be struck between development and control is a matter of choice, which can be reinforced by structural and training patterns. This does not dispose of the issue as to whether the civil service in fact does obstruct change. This essay has argued that there are concepts relating to those values that are particularly important to public organizations. But it is virtually impossible to argue, as some have done, as to whether our present breed of administrators, are friendly or inimical to change. Nor does it answer the question of where and how social policy values are formed.
In summary, my argument has been as follows:
(a) social policy values can be classified in several different ways. A classification used here is a distinction between basic values or ‘oughts’ and concepts concerned with the ‘hows’ or with the instruments and institutions with which values are pursued. There are reciprocal relationships between these concepts but they are usefully analysed as separate relata;
(b) the values of central government civil servants and ministers will tend to be instrumental in form, though not necessarily in conflict with social policy-values, because they control complex organizations in which non-operational abstractions have to be made over the whole range of public policies;
(c) policy formulation is becoming more sophisticated, but the functions of government concerned with development and value analysis are not adequately structured or legitimated. As a result disciplined enquiry, much of which is financed by government, has inadequate impact because there is no overriding change model in which training has a part.
3 I refer here mainly to the important articles by Myrdal, Gunnar, Marshall, T. H., Shorr, Alvin L., McGregor, O. R. and Donnison, David in the first two issues of the Journal of Social Policy.Google Scholar
4 This distinction emerged from seminars at Brunel University with postgraduate students. I am indebted to the following for their patient working through on this point with me: Mr M. M. Chenga, Mr J. de Barros, Miss J. du Boulay, Miss M. M. Evans, Miss K. Gold, Mr F. Hancock, Mr A. Jones, Miss M. Lenn, Mrs E. Mapstone.
5 Hume, David, A Treatise of Human Nature (Ed. Mossner, Ernest C.), Book 2, Part III, Section III, Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1969.Google Scholar
6 These distinctions derive from Brown, W., Exploration in Management, Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1965Google Scholar. They have been further expanded in research projects under Elliott Jaques’ direction at Brunel University. See, for example, Working Relationships within the British Hospital Service, Kogan, M., Cang, S. A., Dixon, M. and Tolliday, H., London: Bookstall Publications, 1971.Google Scholar
7 Shone, K., ‘Industrial Engineering Concepts and the Child Care Service’, Case Conference, 09 1966, Vol. XIII, p. 170.Google Scholar
9 Thomas, H., Crisis in the Civil Service, The Great Society Series, London: Anthony Blond, 1968.Google Scholar
10 For example Donnison, D. V., ‘Committees and Committee Men’, New Society, 18 04 1968.Google Scholar
12 Gunn, Lewis A., ‘Politicians and Officials: Who is Answerable?’, Political Quarterly, Vol. 43, No. 3.Google Scholar
13 Kogan, M., Boyle, E. and Crosland, A., Politics of Education, Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1971.Google Scholar
17 Bishop, A. S., ‘The Rise of a Central Authority for English Education’, London: C.U.P., 1971.Google Scholar
18 MacDonagh, Oliver, A Pattern of Government Growth, 1800–1860, London: MacGibbon and Kee, 1961.Google Scholar
19 Lambert, Royston, Sir John Simon and English Social Administration, 1816–1904, MacGibbon and Kee, 1961.Google Scholar
20 Roberts, David, Victorian Origins of the Welfare State, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1960.Google Scholar
22 Eide, K., ‘The Politics of Long Range Planning’ in Educational Planning in Perspective (ed. Green, Thomas), Futures, I.P.C. Science and Technology Press, 1971.Google Scholar
24 Chapman, R. A. and Dunsire, A., ‘Style in Administration’, London: George Allen & Unwin, 1971, p. 44.Google Scholar
25 A discussion of American pluralism is contained in O.E.C.D. Reviews of National Policies for Education, United States, Examiners’ Report, O.E.C.D., Paris, 1971.Google Scholar
26 ‘Professional Standards in the Public Service’, A Report by a Sub-Committee of the First Division Association, Public Administration, Summer 1972, Vol. 50.Google Scholar
28 Second Report from the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, Session 1970/71, London: HMSO, 513, p. 33.Google Scholar
29 Griffith, J. A. G., ‘Legislation’, in Hanson, A. H. and Crick, B., The Commons in Transition, London: Fontana Books, 1970.Google Scholar
30 Scase, R., ‘Social Policy and Social Justice: Some Comments on Recent Developments in England and Sweden’, Social Administration Association Conference, Nottingham, 1971.Google Scholar
31 Report from the Select Committee on Education and Science, Session 1967/68, London: HMSO, 400, 12 03 1968, p. 9.Google Scholar
32 Kogan, M. with van der Eyken, Willem, County Hall, Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1973Google Scholar (in which chief education officers discuss the alignment of their values with teachers).
33 ‘Professional Standards in the Public Service’, op. cit.
34 This was argued in the Introduction to Politics of Education, op. cit.
36 Self, P., ‘Nonsense on Stilts’: Cost Benefit Analysis and the Roskill Commission, Political Quarterly, 1970, Vol. 41, No. 3.Google Scholar
39 Proceedings of the Expenditure Committee (Public Expenditure General) Sub-Committee, Evidence given by MrJordan-Moss, M., 23 05 1972.Google Scholar
41 Estimates Committee (Sub-Committee B), Session 1969/70, Hospital Building in Britain, Great, 8 12 1969.Google Scholar
43 See the impressive statements in the evidence given to the Expenditure Committee (referred to in footnote 8).
44 This was written before the publication of Framework for Government Research and Development, 07 1972, London: HMSO, Cmnd. 5046. (The Rothschild Report.)Google Scholar
No CrossRef data available.