Elite governance at the macro level: the statecraft approach

A more recent statist perspective is worthy of consideration here - the statecraft approach. Although this approach remains underdeveloped and in certain aspects lacking in conceptual clarity, it does provide a useful conceptual approach for understanding the approach of state elites to public policy-making.

So what does the statecraft approach involve? The approach was originally developed by the British political scientist Jim Bulpitt in 1986 and has subsequently been applied by writers such as Jim Buller (2000). It emerged in response to a number of authors who stressed the importance of the New Right ideological project as an understanding of the emergence and development of Thatcherism in the UK (see Hall and Jacques 1983). Bulpitt disagreed with writers such as Stuart Hall and Martin Jacques that the New Right project provided the grand design of the Thatcher project and shaped the nature of the policy agenda. He argued that ideas themselves were never that important. Instead he emphasized the importance of what he termed statecraft or the ‘politics of governing’.

The statecraft approach centres on the study of a political elite, which Bulpitt (1986 a and b; 1995) refers to as ‘the Centre’ or ‘the Court’, composed of party leaders and top civil servants and policy advisers. Bulpitt argues that this group has its own interests, which are distinct from the rest of society and can often successfully pursue these interests, even in the face of opposition from other actors. In other words, the statecraft approach is an elite theory of public policy-making. According to Bulpitt, there are three conditions of successful statecraft. Firstly, the Centre/Court needs to establish a set of governing objectives with the aim of winning elections and retaining office by achieving an image of governing competence. Secondly, in order to achieve these objectives it has to develop a governing code: a semi-secret set of principles, beliefs and practices.

This involves the preservation and promotion of domestic autonomy over what Bulpitt calls ‘High Politics’ and the devolution of responsibility to ‘Low Politics’. In practical terms, High Politics referred to all those policy issues, which the Centre considers to be vital to its chances of winning elections and achieving an image of governing competence. For Bulpitt, autonomy over High Politics was crucial to the achievement of governing competence. Low Politics was a residual category. It refers to all the other matters perceived by the Centre to be too mundane, difficult or time-consuming to handle. Thirdly, in trying to win elections and achieve some semblance of governing competence, the Centre/Court will employ a set of ‘political support mechanisms’ to assist the governing code. These mechanisms refer to the functions of party management and the achievement of political argument hegemony. As Bulpitt (1986: 22) puts it, this refers to ‘a winning rhetoric in a variety of locations, winning because either the framework of the party’s arguments becomes generally acceptable, or because its solutions to a particularly important political problem seem more plausible than its opponents’. In other words, it is about winning the war of political ideas.

In short then, statecraft is about the politics of governing. It involves short-term tactical manoeuvring - qualities which are essential to every successful electoral strategy. It is also concerned with longer-term strategic calculation and action. For Bulpitt, governments can think strategically - alter institutions and structures to help them achieve their political goals more easily. The most high-profile illustration of the application of the statecraft approach to state governance was Thatcherism in the UK (1979-90). It represented an elite strategy which achieved domestic autonomy and governing competence and with it, electoral dominance throughout the 1980s.

Although the statecraft approach remains theoretically underdeveloped, it does provide the contours for an elite theory of domestic statecraft that emphasizes the relatively autonomous role of the party political elite in forwarding a strategy for winning the war of political ideas and maintaining electoral success. However, a comprehensive theory would involve a detailed operational exposition of the concepts of political argument hegemony, governing competence, polity management and strategy (see Buller 1999 for a full critique).

<< | >>

↑

Source: Hay Colin, Lister Michael, Marsh David (eds.). The State: Theories and Issues. Palgrave,2005. — 336 p.. 2005

Elite governance at the macro level: the statecraft approach

More on the topic Elite governance at the macro level: the statecraft approach: