David Marsh

The new politics of British trade unionism : union power and the Thatcher legacy

Introduction - The Historical Background - Union Power Before 1979 - The Origins, Development and Effect of the Conservative Government, 1979-90 - Using the Legislation: An Employers Onslaught? - The Unions Political Role: Relations with the Conservative Government, 1979-90 - Trade Unions and the Labour Party - The Changing Economic Context - Shopfloor Industrial Relations: The Private Sector - Shopfloor Industrial Relations: The Public Sector - Thatcherism and Industrial Relations

Legislating for conflict

The breakdown of the Voluntarist Consensus (1) - Conservative Policy before 1979 The Employment Act 1980 trade union immunities - the debate 1980-1981 democracy in trade unions - the debate 1983 the Trade Union Act 1984 The Employment Act 1988 into the nineties the breakdown of the Voluntarist Consensus (2) - the challenge to voluntarism concluding assessment.

Beyond Mainstream Approaches to Political Participation: A Response to Aaron Martin

Aaron Martins (2012) recent article is the first to use survey data to compare the political participation of young people with that of older age groups in Australia. As such, it adds to our empirical knowledge of political participation, particularly by emphasising the changing focus of young peoples engagement. Yet, like most mainstream, and especially quantitative, political participation researchers, Martin does not engage adequately with the growing, more critical literature). This response raises some of the issues emphasised in this literature, relating them directly to Martins contribution. It has four sections: firstly, a brief consideration of Martins main conclusions; secondly, a discussion of putative reasons for the change in forms of participation; thirdly, a consideration of broader forms of political participation; and finally, a consideration of the relationship between identity and political participation, which is at the core of most broader discussions of the latter. 阿隆·马丁（2012）在最近的文章中首先使用调查资料对澳大利亚年轻人和更年长者的政治参与做了比较。他的研究，特别是关于年轻人参与焦点的转移那部分，丰富了关于政治参与的实证知识。但与从事政治参与的主流尤其是定量研究的学者一样，马丁对于正在出现的、批判性的文献缺乏足够的关注。本文根据这些文献提出跟马丁研究相关的问题。本文包括四个部分：1）简要评述马丁的主要结论；2）讨论参与形式变化的推定原因；3）思考更为宽广的政治参与形式；4）思考身份与政治参与之间的关系，那是在更大范围内讨论政治参与的核心问题。

Political participation and citizen engagement: beyond the mainstream

There is no doubt that the nature of political participation is changing in liberal democracy. At first, many researchers argued that the main feature of this change was an increase in political ap...

The Political Power of Big Business: A Response to Bell and Hindmoor

There has been a recent resurgence of interest in debates about the power of business (Culpepper 2011; Bell 2012) and Bell and Hindmoor (2013) make an important, theoretically informed, but empirically rooted, contribution to that debate. In this response, we address both aspects of their contribution, arguing that their treatment of Lindblom is partial and, consequently, so is their explanation of the case. As such, we largely rely on their narrative of the evolution of the Australian mining tax, focusing first on critically examining Bell and Hindmoors theoretical position, before turning to their analysis of the case.

The Australian mining tax and the political power of business

This article provides a detailed analysis of the Australian Labor governments mining tax, building on recent debates that critique Lindbloms Politics and markets. We argued that the case illustrates the power of big business, in particular the importance of the relative flexibility of large companies, especially in the form of ‘investment strikes’, although such a strategy is more constrained in the resource sector. We also explore two other key factors. First, we analyse Lindbloms argument that government has resources which big business needs, and suggest that this argument depends on governments being competent in negotiations with large companies. We find that the claim did not apply to the case of the mining tax. Second, we analyse his view that business power owes a great deal to the manipulation of citizens ‘volitions’. We find some evidence to support this claim, but again suggest that the failure of the government to effectively make the case for a mining tax helped business. 本文就最近有关林德·布罗姆《政治与市场》一书的辩论，对澳大利亚工党政府的矿业税做了详尽的分析。笔者指出，矿业税说明了大企业的力量，尤其是大公司的相对灵活性，特别是他们的“投资罢工”，尽管在资源部门这种策略受到了扼制。笔者还探讨了另外两个关键因素。第一个是林德·布罗姆观点，即政府有大企业所需的资源。此论的根据是政府有能力与大公司讨价还价。笔者认为，这种说法并不适用于矿业税。第二个是，林德·布罗姆认为企业力量很大程度要受公民“意志”的左右。此说有一定根据，但政府未能搞定矿业税则帮了企业。

In conclusion: localism in the present and the future

This two-part special issue on Understanding Localism indicates that this has become an increasingly important issue in a number of disciplines, although, as the introduction to the first issue highlighted, the focus on the ‘local’ is not new. It is perhaps unsurprising that Gentry, a Historian, and Clarke, a Geographer, particularly emphasise this point, although their concern is with locality and ‘the local’, rather than localism, which is a term that is much more recent and most closely associated with Public Policy research, and indeed practice. Here, we explore the disciplinary differences in approaches to the broad issues discussed here in a little more detail before turning to look specifically at developments in the public policy field in more detail. However, we begin by raising a question which is obvious on any reading of the articles in the two issues: the extent to which localism is a normative as well as an empirical issue.

Policy transfer: into the future, learning from the past

In our view, one clear conclusion emerges from this volume. Policy transfer research is alive and well and being pursued in a variety of ways, at different levels of governance, using insights from various disciplinary perspectives and sectors. McCann and Ward (2012) advocate a further move in the direction of interdisciplinarity, which would clearly be beneficial and, in a small way, we hope that the inclusion of a critical Geographer’s perspective in this issue will contribute to this process. However, as we argued in the introduction, we think they are too scathing about mainstream political science contributions; a response that, we suggest, the work in this volume supports. More broadly, and unsurprisingly, we would also reject McCann and Ward’s suggestion that the concept of policy transfer should be abandoned and replaced by a series of concepts, policy assemblages, mobilities and mutations, which highlight the complexities involved in the process. We, and the other contributors, recognise these complexities (in certain instances) and, certainly, McCann and Ward’s article provides an important outline of them. It should also be noted that different labels are often used for very similar concepts. For example, for assemblages, mobilities and mutations, read cognitive and elite mobilisation or transfer networks or epistemic communities or hybrids. We could go on. However, those contributors, and many others given that the two articles by Dolowitz and Marsh (1996, 2000) have attracted more than 2000 citations, still find the concept useful and would argue that there is little that McCann and Ward offer which cannot already be found within the generic concept of policy, given that it is already a very broad church. In the end this particular issue will be resolved by the decisions of other researchers and whether they find the concept of utility, even if like all concepts/heuristics it will remain in need of continual revision. We want to close by considering a few directions in which the policy transfer literature might usefully develop, although this is an issue that we have both considered separately before (Evans 2000, Dolowitz and Marsh 2012) and we recognise that everyone in the field would almost inevitably have different ideas about such putative new directions. With those provisos, we focus here on: the link between the literatures on policy transfer, governance and evidence-based policy-making; the importance of utilising a more sophisticated conception of ‘policy success’ when examining the role of policy transfer in policy-making; the need to concentrate more on the issue of learning/transfer from one’s own past and the emergence of new sources of policy learning. Policy Studies Vol. 33, No. 6, November 2012, 587 591

The British Political Tradition and the Material-Ideational Debate

This article: Critically discusses recent material on the British Political Tradition (BPT) using broader discussions of the relationship between material relations, institutions and ideas as a frame for that discussion. Argues that the BPT has played a key role in shaping the institutions and processes of British politics and that it provides a key element of the context in which any attempt at change occurs. Operates as a path-dependency which constrains, but does not prevent, change; Argues that there are three path-dependencies not one, an institutional one, a discursive one and a political-economic one. Makes significant contributions to our understanding of British politics and to debates about historical institutionalism and path dependency. Recently there has been a revival of interest in debates about the British political tradition. In part, this is a reflection of the ‘ideational turn’ in Anglophone comparative politics. However, this ideational turn immediately raises two of the most important meta-theoretical debates in social science; the relationships between institutions and ideas and the material and the ideational. In our view, anyone who suggests that political traditions shape political outcomes has to take a position on these debates, although they are rarely addressed. This article seeks to address that omission. We argue that, while the predominant ideas about democracy and political practice in the UK, what we term the British Political Tradition, do affect the institutions and processes of government, these ideas exist in a dialectical relationship with those institutions and, more broadly, with the material context within which the tradition, and indeed the institutions, operate(s).

Network Governance and the 2020 Summit

The idea that governance has replaced government, and that networks have replaced hierarchy as the dominant mode of governance, have become mainstream views in the public policy literature. In this article, we consider a key initiative of the Rudd government in Australia, the 2020 Summit, which, at first sight, seems like an example of network governance in action. Having considered the operation and outcomes of the Summit, however, we argue that it more accurately illustrates how governments, perhaps particularly in Westminster systems, attempt to preserve hierarchy, through a process of metagovernance.