Shifting sands: the boundaries of the state

Delegated public bodies and 3Ps have arguably become an essential and integral part of the modern state. It is for this reason that the aim of this chapter has been to introduce the reader to the sphere of delegated govern­ance and highlight a number of related themes and issues, the intention being to shed light on the innate complexity of modern governance and encourage an expansive and sophisticated approach to how the state is empirically and conceptually understood.

The work of Hooghe and Marks (2003) on multi-level governance (MLG) and the ‘unravelling’ of state projects provide a valuable framework for conceptualizing recent trends and challenges. They identify two types of MLG. Type I MLG echoes federalist thought, conceiving the dispersion of authority as being restricted to a ‘limited number of non-overlapping juris­dictional boundaries at a limited number of levels’. In this view, authority is relatively stable and analysis is focused on individual levels of government rather than specific policies. Type II MLG provides a vision of governance that is ‘a complex, fluid, patchwork of innumerable, overlapping jurisdictions’.

The EU is transforming politics and government at the European and national levels into a system of multi-level, non-hierachichal, deliberative and apolitical governance via a complex web of public/private networks and quasi-autonomous agencies.

Reflecting on the notion of MLG also feeds into the related debate regarding state capacity - or what has been termed the ‘hollowing out’ of the state (Rhodes 1994; Milward and Provan 2000). The creation of delegated public bodies and 3Ps operating at one remove from the state executives may be cited as further evidence of the diminution of the power of the state. Conversely, the creation of new strategic autonomous bodies could be interpreted as an attempt at ‘filling in’ or empowering state capacity. The inference is that any analyses of delegated governance mechanisms must be located within an appreciation of broader debates concerning the transfer and location of power and the implications this may have for governing capacities.

These debates frequently hinge on perceived or actual trade-offs between certain state-related concepts that are commonly presented as zero-sum games in which an increase on one dimension leads to a direct and equal reduction on the other - for example, accountability versus efficiency, inde­pendence versus control, public service ethos versus private sector values, or simply ‘public’ versus ‘private’ - when in fact these concepts are far too diverse and multi-directional to be understood in such simplistic and normative terms.

It is also critical to appreciate that the shifting boundaries of the state and the increasingly blurred distinction between the public and private sectors is creating a fervent debate concerning the limits of delegation and whether certain core state functions exist. Fundamental questions are being asked about the limits of the state, the future role of the private sector and whether certain cultural norms or principles - the public service ethos - that to some extent formed a binding glue amongst state employees, thereby possibly protecting certain values (integrity, due process, fairness, probity, loyalty, etc.), has been eroded and whether this matters. Leitch and Motion (2003) suggest that a potential consequence of the blurring of the demarca­tion between the public and private sectors is the opening of a ‘legitimacy gap’. This gap is thought to occur when there is a perceptible difference between the expectations that are held by the public about the way an organization or partnership should behave and behaviour in practice. The problems surrounding the experience of several 3Ps (for example, the 2002 ‘Armstrong Affair’ in New Zealand) have particularly focused on a differ­ence in values or public morality especially in relation to the legitimate and acceptable role of the private sector in the decision-making processes of a democracy.

Understanding the role and extent of delegated governance not only, therefore, generates empirical questions about where ‘the state’ begins and ends, its institutional make-up and evolutionary developmental phases but it also provokes figurative and symbolic debates about the limits of the state, the public sphere and the fundamental nature of certain tasks or processes that may arguably need to be insulated for various reasons from the vagaries of the market and the profit motive. In essence, the state is a rapidly evolving organism within which a severe tension exists between the centrifugal pressures of management reform and the centripetal logic of political control. At the root of this tension lays a fundamental dilemma facing modern states; a dilemma regarding public expectations vis-à-vis the state and the capacity of political actors to control or suppress public expectations within a political marketplace. Higher public expectations and public resistance to paying higher taxes combined with factors such as longer-life expectancy are pressuring governments across the world into experimenting with innovative tools of governance in an attempt to maxi­mize efficiency within the public sector. This drive to ‘get more bang from each buck’ is increasingly based upon delegating responsibilities away from the core state and entering into 3Ps. As a result the relationship between state structures and democratic frameworks are becoming more opaque and this risk of disconnectedness becomes more pressing.

Indeed, the theme of disconnection unites the issues of complexity, accountability and depoliticization discussed above. The delegation of tasks beyond direct political control via para-statal organizations and P3s has never been successfully accommodated within the democratic framework of representative democracy. It may well be, therefore, that the increasingly inter-dependent polity and complex state structures necessitate alternative understandings regarding the nature and feasibility of democracy and the relationship between individuals and the state.

Further reading

Flinders, Matthew (2006) Walking Without Order: Delegated Governance and the British State (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

Gill, G. (2003) The Nature and Development of the Modern State (London: Palgrave).

Hodge, G. and Greve, C. (2005) The Challenge of Public-Private Partnerships (Cheltenham, Glos.: Edward Elgar).

Koppell, J. The Politics of Quasi-Government (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003).

Poggi, G. (1990) The State: Its Nature, Development and Prospects (Cambridge: Polity Press).

Pollitt, C. and Talbot, C. (2004) Unbundled Government: A Critical Analysis of the Global Trend to Agencies, Quangos and Contractualization (London: Routledge).