THE NEW RIGHT THINK TANKS AND POLICY CHANGE IN THE UK Andrew James Tesseyman

311 Pages·2008·16.21 MB·English

The Development of Prison Privatisation 221
Advocacy Coalition and Prison Privatisation 227
The Pro-Privatisation Coalition 228
The Anti-Privatisation Coalition 234
The Role of Ministers 240
The Context of Prison Privatisation 242
Ideological — The Ascendance of Privatisation 243
Political — Taming the Prison Officers' Association 244
Socioeconomic — The Problem of Overcrowding 246
The New Right Think Tanks and Prison Privatisation: An Assessment 247
The Role of the ASI 247
The ASI, Think Tanks, and Policy-Making 248
Conclusion 250
Notes 253
7. The Impact of the New Right Think Tanks 255
Assessing the New Right Think Tanks 255
The Role and Impact of the New Right Think Tanks in Policy Change 255
The Impact of the New Right Think Tanks on Policy-Making 260
The Impact of the New Right Think Tanks — A Summary 263
Think Tanks, Policy Networks, and Advocacy Coalitions 264
Policy Networks and Advocacy Coalitions 265
Resource Dependencies and Belief Systems 267
The Rhodes Model and the ACF — Understanding Continuity and
Change 269
Think Tanks, Policy Networks and Advocacy Coalitions - A Summary 273
Conclusion 273
Areas for Future Research 274
The Future of the New Right Think Tanks 276
Notes 280
Bibliography 281
iv
List of Tables
Table 1 "Scores on the Doors" 22
Table 2 "The Ideas Business" 22
Table 3 The Stone Typology of Policy Institutes 34
Table 4 A New Classification of Think Tanks 40
Table 5 Policy Community and Policy Network: The Rhodes Model 74
Table 6 The Advocacy Coalition Framework 88
Table 7 The Nine Hypotheses of the ACF 91
Table 8 Key Provisions of the Transport Act 1980 127
Table 9 The Transport Act 1985 131
Table 10 Overlap in the New Right Coalition 175
Table 11 Groups Attending the SCE Conference 189
Table 12 Prison Privatisation — Key Developments 1984-94 227
Table 13 The Penal Affairs Consortium 236
V
Abbreviations
ACC Association of County Councils
ACF Advocacy Coalition Framework
ADC Association of District Councils
AMA Association of Metropolitan Authorities
ASI Adam Smith Institute
BCC Bus and Coach Council
BSIA British Security Industry Association
CCO Conservative Central Office
CJCC Criminal Justice Consultative Council
COMA Committee on the Medical Aspects of Food Policy
CPS Centre for Policy Studies
CPSESG Centre for Policy Studies Education Study Group
CPRS Central Policy Review Staff
CLEA Council of Local Education Authorities
CNACE Conservative National Advisory Council on Education
CPPU Crime Policy Planning Unit
CRD Conservative Research Department
CTC City Technology College
DEmp Department of Employment
DES Department of Education and Science
DfEE Department of Education and Employment
DHS Deloitte, Hoskins and Sells
DOE Department of the Environment
DoH Department of Health
DTp Department of Transport
EPF European Policy Forum
ERA Education Reform Act (1988)
FEVER Friends of the Education Voucher in Experimental Regions
GLC Greater London Council
GMS Grant Maintained School
IEA Institute of Economic Affairs
IFS Institute for Fiscal Studies
IPPR Institute for Public Policy Research
IPT Informal Passenger Transport
ILEA Inner London Education Authority
LEA Local Education Authority
LMS Local Management of Schools
LSE London School of Economics
HASC Home Affairs Select Committee (House of Commons)
HMI Her Majesties Inspectorate
MSC Manpower Services Commission
NACRO National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders
NASUWT National Association of Schoolmasters / Union of Women Teachers
NAPO National Association of Probation Officers
NCC National Curriculum Council
NBC National Bus Company
NCES National Council of educational Standards
NIESR National Institute for Economic and Social Research
NTBG No Turning Back Group
NUT National Union of Teachers
PAC Penal Affairs Consortium
PAR Programme Analysis and Review
PGA Prison Governors Association
PNP Prisons are Not for Profit!
POA Prison Officers' Association
PPBS Planning-Programming-Budgeting System
PRT Prison Reform Trust
PTA Passenger Transport Authority
PTCG Public Transport Campaign Group
PTE Passenger Transport Executive
PTEG Passenger Transport Executive Group
RPTSG Road Passenger Transport Steering Group
SAU Social Affairs Unit
SBG Scottish Bus Group
SCE Standing Conference on Education
SEAC Schools Examination and Assessment Council
vii
SCAA Schools Curriculum and Assessment Authority
SMF Social Market Foundation
TES Times Educational Supplement
TSC Transport Select Committee (House of Commons)
TSG Transport Supplementary Grant
TVEI Technical and Vocational Educational Initiative
UKDS United Kingdom Detention Services
Acknowledgements
First of all I would like to thank the Politics Department of the University of York for
funding me for three years, and Professor Rod Rhodes for his early encouragement.
During the course of this thesis I have benefited from the comments and advice of a
number of people. In particular I would like to thank my supervisor, Dr Neil Carter, who
struck a masterly balance between enthusiasm and criticism throughout, and Dr Keith
Alderman whose comments have ensured a greater degree of consistency, clarity and
accuracy. Professor David Howell, Professor Alex Callinicos, Dr Mark Evans, Professor
Rod Morgan, Dr Bill Tyson, Professor John Hibbs and Dr John Marks have all
commented on draft chapters, and I thank them for their time and comments. I am also
indebted to all those who agreed to be interviewed, and for their time and hospitality.
Responsibility for any errors of fact or interpretation is mine alone.
Finally I would like to thank my parents for consistently having faith in me, and for
supporting me in everything I do.
ix
For my parents
One
The Parameters of Analysis
Over the last twenty years think tanks have become an integral part of the British political
landscape. During the 1980s, media and academic attention focused largely on the three
"new right" think tanks: the Institute of Economic Affairs (TEA); Centre for Policy Studies
(CPS); and the Adam Smith Institute (ASI). 1 The number of think tanks has grown steadily
in recent years. Since 1988 the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) and Demos
have been established on the left/centre-left, while the European Policy Forum (EPF) and
the (re-launched) Social Market Foundation (SMF) have been established on the
right/centre-right. In 1995 another new right think tank was formed, Politeia, "dedicated to
carving out a revolutionary new social policy agenda for the rest of the century" (The
Times 19.10.95).
Of course, think tanks are not recent innovations. The Fabian Society dates back to 1884,
Political and Economic Planning to 1931,2 and the IEA to 1957. Nor should think tanks be
seen as purely partisan or ideological organisations. The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS),
for example, specialises in the study of budgetary and taxation issues. However, it is the
work of the TEA, CPS, and ASI which deserves the closest scrutiny for it is widely
perceived that these three institutions played a significant role in defining and developing
"Thatcherism". The Times claimed that Mrs Thatcher had "three favourite boutiques", the
TEA, CPS, and ASI, from which she could "buy policies ready made off the shelf'
(17.02.89). According to The Sunday Times "think tank commanders were the SAS of
Toryism, working silently behind enemy lines, destroying outmoded policies, capturing the
hearts and minds of ministers in pursuit of national revival" (21.04.94). Some suggested
that policy-making had become privatised (The Spectator 23.04.88; The Times 17.02.91).
Moreover, the perceived success of the TEA, CPS, and ASI perhaps helps explain the
growth of think tanks since the late 1980s. Cockett argued that "the new generation of
I
think-tanks on the left has consciously taken its cue from the success of the free-market
think tanks that launched the Thatcherite revolution: the Institute of Economic Affairs, the
Centre for Policy Studies, the Adam Smith Institute et al" (The Times 08.08.94). In its
promotional literature the IPPR claims that, when it was founded in 1988, "its purpose was
to provide an alternative to the then-influential free-market think tanks".
The above observations raise two important issues which need to be disentangled. The first
is that the new right think tanks were influential in bringing about policy change. The
second is that they contributed to changes in the way in which policy is actually made. This
research addresses both these claims. It shows how the IEA, CPS, and ASI attempted to
influence policy, examines their relationship with other actors in the policy process, and
assesses their impact on policy change and policy-making in three policy areas. The
obvious limitations attached to any research such as this are acknowledged, namely the
difficulties of quantifying "impact", and "proving" causal links between the work of
specific policy actors and policy outcomes. However it is still possible to make a
qualitative judgement of the impact of the new right think tanks. This research adopts a
research framework, the "template", which attempts to incorporate the key factors which
influenced policy change. This allows the contribution of the new right think tanks to be
placed in its proper context. The template is then applied to three case studies: bus
deregulation and the Transport Act 1985; secondary education reform and the Education
Reform Act 1988; and finally prison privatisation, contained in the Criminal Justice Act
1991.
This introductory chapter has four sections. The first reviews the UK literature on think
tanks, and identifies a major gap in the literature. The second explains how this research
intends to fill that gap, and outlines its aims and the approach used. The third section
outlines the research strategy and methodology adopted. The final section provides a brief
outline of subsequent chapters.
?
THE THINK TANK LITERATURE IN THE UK
The study of think tanks in the UK has generated a growing body of literature in recent
years. Previously, the academic literature on the subject was said to be "underdeveloped"
(James, 1993: p.492) and "meagre" (Denham and Garnett, 1995: p.324). Prior to 1996,
there had been little produced on think tanks, other than Richard Cockett's Thinking the
Unthinkable (1994).3 However, four further books were published in 1996: Think Tanks of
the New Right by Andrew Denham;4 Capturing the Political Imagination by Diane Stone;
and a two-volume work entitled Ideas and Think Tanks in Contemporary Britain edited by
Michael David Kandiah and Anthony Seldon.5 This section first highlights the early
contributions of the study of think tanks from a number of articles prior to 1994. Second it
assesses the major strengths and weaknesses of the four substantive book-length studies
indicated above.
The academic study of think tanks in the UK began to develop momentum only in the late
1980s/early 1990s, with the appearance of a small number of articles. Some of these were
comparative. Gaffney (1991) compared the IEA, CPS, and ASI with ministerial cabinets in
France, while Stone (1991) examined how the respective constitutional, institutional,
cultural and legal environments helped explain differences in the number and type of think
tanks between the US, UK and Australia.6 Other articles addressed specific think tanks,
such as the IFS (Kay, 1989), the PSI (Daniel, 1989), and the IPPR (Cornford, 1990). Of
these three, only Cornford makes any broader observations about think tanks in the UK. He
questions some of the exaggerated claims made about think tank influence, calling them
"the performing fleas of the body politic, constantly seeking that critical moment when a
small sting may goad the beast in the right direction" (1990: p.22). Similarly, according to
James:
The impact of think tanks on Britain's policy-making system has been marginal
rather than structural. Just as it is no longer possible to dismiss think tanks as
irrelevant cranks, so it is unrealistic to claim (as some free market zealots have
done) that policy making has been snatched from the hands of Whitehall. Yet while
one can point to successful and unsuccessful bodies, it is difficult to draw any
general conclusions about think tanks as a class (1993: p.504).
3