Ian Bache

Europeanization and domestic change

‘Europeanization’ is not a new term, but the growing interest in the domestic consequences of European integration has raised its profile enormously in recent years making it something of a ‘hot topic’ (Bulmer and Radaelli, 2005: 632). In turn, this scholarly attention has generated a need for new theories, analytical frameworks and conceptual tools (Buller and Gamble, 2002; Hix and Goetz, 2000). The term ‘Europeanization’ broadly relates to the impact of the EU on its member states. Judging by the recent proliferation of books and articles bearing the word ‘Europeanization’ in their title (for empirical evidence, see Featherstone, 2003 and Mair, 2004), it is undoubtedly now one of the key themes in EU scholarship.

Governing through Governance: Education Policy Control under New Labour:

Central to the debates on governance is the extent to which this process erodes state power. This article looks at the control of education policy since 1997. Education has not been immune from the developing process of governance. Moreover, Labour government education policies have accelerated this process: there has been greater fragmentation of policy-making, with a proliferation of cross-sectoral and multi-level participation. However, in this case, central government has not only retained control over policy-making but has been able to achieve its policy goals more effectively. Two case studies: ‘New Labour and the Local Education Authorities’ and ‘New Labour and the Funding of Education’, demonstrate the advantages for the centre in voluntarily governing through governance.

Multi-Level Governance and the Study of the British State

The British State is currently being restructured through a process of constitutional and institutional reform. This process contributes to other changes that are creating an increasingly complex range of inter-governmental relationships of shifting and opaque jurisdictional boundaries together with a redefinition of state-society relations. In light of this, observers are increasingly making reference to an emergent system of ‘multi-level governance’ within Britain. The focus of this article is conceptual. The aim is to assess the value of multi-level governance as an analytical framework that can contribute to understanding the changing nature of the British State. In doing so, we identify and apply the two models or types of multi-level governance developed by Hooghe and Marks (2004). We conclude that while multi-level governance has its limitations, it has great potential as a contrastive concept when juxtaposed with the Westminster Model.

Government within Governance: Network Steering in Yorkshire and the Humber

This article considers whether the narrative of ‘governing without Government in a differentiated polity’ (Rhodes 1997, p. 200) provides an accurate description of the regeneration policy networks in Yorkshire and the Humber.1 In doing so, it considers the role of the recently created Government Office for Yorkshire and the Humber within policy networks for both UK and EU regeneration initiatives at regional and local levels. The case studies show that while Rhodes’ narrative has value in explaining the transformation of the institutions of the Westminster model, the role of Government Office in the region has ensured that the transformation to ‘governing without Government’ is far from complete in Yorkshire and the Humber.

Partnership as an EU Policy Instrument: A Political History

Partnership is an idea whose time has come. It has been a prominent instrument of EU regional policy since 1989, requiring as a condition of funding that member states establish partnerships in each assisted region to oversee spending decisions. Over time, the requirement has become more precise to ensure the participation not only of state actors from various territorial levels, but also non-state actors. Using the political sociology approach to policy instruments, this article considers the creation and development of the partnership instrument and analyses the key debates and issues that have informed its evolution. It argues that while partnership has been generally presented as a technical device aimed at improving decisional efficiency and policy effectiveness, it is a highly political instrument with very different purposes and effects in different contexts.

The Europeanization of British politics

In our opening chapter, we surveyed Britain’s relationship with the EU since the Treaty of Rome, and highlighted some of the popular characterizations of Britain as a ‘reluctant’, ‘semi-detached’ or ‘awkward’ partner in Europe. We also noted an imbalance in the literature on the broad topic of ‘Britain and Europe’. It tends either to look at the behaviour of Britain in Europe, or to treat British politics and policy making as processes in which the EU is a supranational body, disconnected from daily life in Westminster and Whitehall. Conspicuously missing from the existing literature is systematic analysis of the deepening interconnections between political processes at the national and EU levels. Our focus on the Europeanization of British politics brings these interconnections to the fore.

Europeanization and multi‐level governance: EU cohesion policy and pre‐accession aid in Southeast Europe

This opening contribution provides the framework for discussion for the case studies that follow. It outlines the key concepts employed – simple and compound polities, Europeanization and multi‐level governance – and explains the origins and development of EU cohesion policy and related pre‐accession instruments. It concludes by summarizing the main themes and issues addressed in the subsequent contributions.

Legitimacy through Partnership? : EU Policy Diffusion in Britain and Sweden

Partnership has become a central principle of European Union (EU) policies, particularly in relation to the structural funds. This article considers the diffusion of the partnership principle in th ...

Measuring quality of life for public policy: an idea whose time has come? Agenda-setting dynamics in the European Union

Measuring quality of life has recently risen rapidly up the political agenda in a range of political arenas. In the EU context this is indicated most clearly by a Commission communication to the Council and European Parliament in 2009, ‘GDP and Beyond’, which sets out a roadmap with five key actions to improve the indicators for measuring progress. This initiative, along with similar developments both nationally and internationally, signals discontent with the dominance of gross domestic product growth as the dominant measure of societal progress and suggest that in some respects at least, concern with measuring quality of life is an idea whose time has come. This article seeks to explain how and why this issue has risen up the EUs political agenda through this initiative, drawing on Kingdons (2011) multiple streams approach to agenda-setting and related contributions.

An Idea Whose Time has Come? Explaining the Rise of Well-Being in British Politics

Well-being has recently risen rapidly up the political agenda in Britain and beyond, signalled most clearly by Prime Minister Camerons announcement in 2010 that well-being measures developed by the Office for National Statistics would be used to guide public policies. Here we seek to explain why well-being has risen up the British political agenda, drawing on Kingdons multiple streams approach. While this approach has considerable merit, it does not acknowledge the complexity of multi-level governance in which policy, politics and problem streams can operate at different territorial levels. As such, we argue that the match between policy, politics and problem streams has to be not only temporal, but also spatial. The consequence is that, while in relation to measurement a paradigm shift may be taking place, in terms of decisive action there is some way to go before well-being can be described as ‘an idea whose time has come’.