Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Public Policy and Administration
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Barberis, P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

The Civil Service from Fulton to Next Steps and Beyond - Two Interpretations, Two Epistemologies

Peter Barberis

Manchester Metropolitan University

This paper examines the character and process of managerial reform in the British civil service since the Fulton Report of 1968. It considers two types of interpretation — 'grand strategy' and 'ad hoc'. These it links, for purely analytical purposes, to two epistemologies, macro-positivism and interpretivism respectively. Grand strategy interpretations have a good deal of plausibility. There appears to have been almost a seamless, progressive sequence of successive initiatives, unfolding like a great scroll, especially during the 1980s and 1990s. Many of the reforms are mutually reinforcing, giving the appearance of a coherent whole. Yet even within the canons of macro-positivism the evidence for grand strategy interpretations is ambiguous. And more fundamental questions arise from an application of interpretivist perspectives which deny many of the positivist assumptions with which grand strategy interpretations are implicated. Interpretivism has something to offer: its potential has scarcely been exploited. But it, too, has limitations and is unlikely on its own to satisfy Whitehall watchers. There is something to be said for a combined approach, though this may not be easy.

Public Policy and Administration, Vol. 10, No. 2, 34-51 (1995)
DOI: 10.1177/095207679501000204


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?