Public Policy and Administration

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
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
Right arrow Citation Map
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 HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Coaffee, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Public Policy and Administration, Vol. 20, No. 3, 23-41 (2005)
DOI: 10.1177/095207670502000304
© 2005 SAGE Publications and PAC

‘Shock of the New’: Complexity and Emerging Rationales for Partnership Working

Jon Coaffee

University of Manchester

This article argues that the meta-narrative of ‘newness’ promoted by the current New Labour government embodies numerous assumptions, or theories of change, which add to, rather than reduce, the complexity of working within public sector-led regeneration partnership structures. In particular, it will argue that embedded ways of working within the public sector are also fundamental in explaining the relative success of ‘new’ partnerships and that the overall aim of governance transformation is inherently beset by conflict and hidden power-relations and is not as easy to achieve as policy guidance suggests. Using this conceptualframe, and drawing on the experiences from a number of pieces of action research in England on regeneration partnerships, this paper offers a critical assessment of the rationale behind such implicit, or explicit, claims that such policy interventions are indeed ‘new’ or innovative in terms of facilitating the transfer of knowledge or collaboration within or between partnerships.


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


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Public Policy and AdministrationHome page
J. Coaffee and I. Deas
The Search for Policy Innovation in Urban Governance: Lessons from Community-led Regeneration Partnerships
Public Policy and Administration, April 1, 2008; 23(2): 167 - 187.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Public Policy and AdministrationHome page
G. Blakeley and B. Evans
`It's like Maintaining a Hedge': Constraints on Citizen Engagement in Community Regeneration in East Manchester
Public Policy and Administration, January 1, 2008; 23(1): 100 - 113.
[Abstract] [PDF]