OXFORD

Debating Governance
Anthority, Steer-inq, ¿rncl Denlocr¿ì cy

rditcd btl
J ort Pierre
 OXFORD
UNIVEI(SITY PRESS

Great Clarendon St¡eet, Oxford ox2 6Dp

Oxford University Press is a deparlment of the Universiry of Oxford.
It furlhers the University's objective of excellence in research, schoiarship,
and education by publishing wo¡ldwide in
Oxford New York
Auckland Bangkok BuenosAires CapeTown Chennai
Dar es Salaam Ðelhi Hong Kong Istanbul Karachi Kolkata This r,
Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Mumbai Nairobi Ross l
São Paulo Shanghai Singapore Taipei Toþo Toronto
by got
Oxford is a reg:istered trade mark of Oxford University Press
in the UK and in certain other countries Lomc
Pubiished in the United States frame
by Oxford University Fress Inc., New York Paul l
Jon Pierre 2000
@ confe
The moral rights of the author have been asserted Schm
Database right Oxford University Press (rnaker) wherr
First published 2oo0 Lar
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, at the
stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means,
without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, kindl
or as expressly permitted by law, or under terms agreed with the appropriate immr
reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction
outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, and I
Oxford University Press, at the address above ductr
You must not circulate this book in any other binding or cover hassl,
and you must impose this sarne condition on any acquirer
consl
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
proje
Data available
Peter
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
Debating governance: authenticity, steering, and democracy / edited byJon Pierre. tures
"Grew out ofa conference on the theories ofgovernance held at the Ross Priory outside Th
Glasgow in October 1997"-Acknowledgrnents. Econ
Includes bibliographical references and index.
1. Pubüc administration. 2. Democrary. 3. Political planning. gran
4, Regionalism. I. Pierre, Jon. T}
IF13s1.D432000 351-dc21 99-0489s9
ISBN 0-19-829772-6
ing r
s7910864
Typeset by Hope Services (Abingdon) Ltd. Glas;
Printed in Great Britain
on acid-free paper by
lular,
Biddles Ltd.,
Guildford and King's Lynn
 1

Introduction: Understanditg
Governance

ION PIERRE

perhaps the most significant development in the advanced industrialized

democracies over the past couple of decades has been the erosion of tradi-
tionalbases of political power. The institutional strength of the nation state
has been challenged from several different sources. The dereguiation of
financial markets and the subsequently increased volatility of international
capital has deprived the state much of its traditional capabilities to govern
the economy (Boyer and Drache, 1996; Camilleri and Falk, t992; but see
Hirst and Thompson, 1996; Weiss, 1998). Furthermore, subnational gov-
ernments have become more assertive vis-à-vis the state; cities and
regions-frequently propelled by ethnic and cultural identification-are
positioning themselves in the international arena, seemingly bypassing
state institutions and interests (Fr¡ L998; Hobbs, L994). Finall¡ the state's
capacity to impose its will on society has become challenged by cohesive
policy nefvvorks (Marsh and Rhodes, 1992; Smith, 1993).
The state has also been challenged from within, or, more correctl¡ its
ability to address salient societal problems has been strongly questioned by
the political elites in many western countries. The 1980s and 1990s saw the
rapid ascendance of neo-liberal regimes in several advanced dernocracies,
defining the state and its modus operandinot as the solution but rather as a
chief source of several problems in society but most distinctly the poor eco-
nomic performance (Savoie, 1994). For Reagan, Mrs Thatcher, Mulrone¡
and their ideological followers in several other countries the recipe to
alleviate these problems was a firm monetaristic economic policy coupled
with deregulation, privatízation, drastic reductions in the civil service, the
introduction of 'managerialism' in the public sector, and a profound
Guy Peters and Rod Rhodes have offered valuable critique on a previous draft of this
chapter.

i
í
I
i
1

I
 2 lon Pierre
institutional restructuring of the state creating semi-autonomous agencies form
to replace governmental centers of command and control functions, i.e" the lectir
creation of a minimalist state (Hood, L99l;Peters and Savoie, 1998; Pollitt, 1VE ll
1gg0; Rhodes, lgg4, 1997; seif, 1993). Thus, alongside the powerful gove:
changes in the state's external environment, the state itself has been restruc- ing r
turing in ways which seem to deprive it of many of its traditional sources of pr
of power, policy capacity, institutional capabilities, and legitimac¡ there
The outcome of all these changes has been a dramatically altered polit- ratht
ical landscape. The financial crisis of the state during the past 15-20 years cont.
has reversed the direction and objectives of the political project in many 1990
countries, from one of allocating growing public revenues towards one of envil
imposing losses on different constituencies in society. Moreover, we have
s€en an ideological and cultural shift from collective solutions towards
individualism and a Zeitgeistheralding private enterprise and'the market'
as the superior resource allocating rnechanism.
These developrnents pose a tremendous challenge to the state's ability to The
maintain some degree of control over its external environment and to gove
impose its will on societ¡ partly because voters are becoming iess willing the r
to pay the taxes which an active state requires, and partly because the legit- men
imacy of the state's predominant position in society is waning. What is at nanc
stake here is what new instruments and new forms of exchange between co-o
state and society can be developed to ensure political control and societal in th
support. As the state's traditional power bases seem to be losing much of into
their former strength, there has been a search for alternative strategies whal
through which the state can articulate and pursue the collective interest and'
without necessarily reþing on coercive instruments. Put slightly difier- 0my
entl¡ the overarching question is what significance or meaning remains of ities.
the liberal-democratic notion of the state as the undisputed centre of polit- the c
ical power and its self-evident monopoly of articulating and pursuing the privi
collective interest in an era of economic globalization, a 'hollowing out of Thur
the state' (Rhodes, Igg4), decreasing legitimacy for collective solutions, rese¿

and amarketization of the state itself (Pierre, 1995).Is it the decline of the tioni
state we are witnessing, or is it the transformation of the state to the new of o1
types of challenges it is facing at the turn of the millennium? cent.
This is the background against which we should assess the growing inter- feste
est in governance both as an emerging political strategy for states to rede- Ho.n
fine iti role in society and, subsequentþ a growing interest among social men
scientists in the process of state restructuring and transformation in light In
of the external and internal changes discussed earlier. These emerging ing

l.
 Introduction: Understanding Goyernance 3

rgencles
forms of governance should be seen as alternative expressions of the col-
, i.e. the
lective interest which do not replace but supplement the pursuit of collect-
Pollitt,
;
ive interests through traditional, institutional channels. Contemporary
owerfirl governance also sees formal authority being supplemented by an increas-
restruc- ingreliance on informal authoriry e.g. in the shape of negotiated patterns
sources
of public-private co-ordination. The emergence of governance should
therefore not, primø føcie, be taken as proof of the decline of the state but
:d polit- rather of the state's ability to adapt to external changes. Indeed, as several
20 years contributors to this volume argue, governance as it emerges during the
n many i990s could be seen as institutional responses to rapid changes in the state's
s one of environment.
we have
towards
market' WHAT IS GOVERNANCE?
ibility to The governance literature is slightly confusing in its conceptualization of
r and to governance. Governance has a dual meaning; on the one hand it refers to
s willing the empirical manifestations of state adaptation to its external environ-
.he legit- ment as it emerges in the late twentieth century. On the other hand, gover-
hat is at nance also denotes a conceptual or theoretical representation of
between co-ordination of social systems and, for the most part, the role of the state
I societal in that process. This latter meaning of governance, in turn, can be divided
much of into fwo categories (see Chapter 3 by B. Guy Peters). In the first category-
trategies what Peters refers to as 'old governance'-questions are asked about how
: interest and with what conceivable outcomes the state 'steers' society and the econ-
'.t

.y differ- omy through political brokerage and by defining goals and making prior-
mains of ities. The other theoretical view on governance looks more generically at
of polit- the co-ordination and various forms of formal or informal types of public-
;uing the private interaction, most predominantly on the role of policy networks.
ng out of Thus, in the first approach, which could be labelled state-centric, the main
olutions, research problem is to what extent the state has the political and institu-
ne of the tional capacity to 'steer' and how the role of the state relates to the interests
, the new of other influential actors; in the second approach, which is more society-
centred, the focus is on co-ordination and self-governance as such, mani-
inginter- fested in different tFpes of nerworks and partnerships (Rhodes, 1997).
; to rede- However; it should be noted that neither perspective makes any prejudge-
rng social ments about the locus of power.
n in light In much of the public and political debate, governance refers to sustain-
emerging ing co-ordination and cohei.n.. among ioid. variety of actors with
"
i,
t:

ì
4 lon' Pierre
efnAn(
different purposes and objectives such as political actors and institutionsn
What transr
corporatá inierests, civi-1 societ¡ and transnational organizations"
Trade
pr*oio,rrly were indisputably roies of government are now increasingly
can be resolved by (,A.SEl
seen as more .o**rnl generic, societal problems which
is that reviev
political institutions bot also by other actors. The main point here
exercise a monopoly of the orchestration of the de
þoHtical institutions no longer ofbot
could be said to be shorthand for
lor.rrrurr.e. In these ways, governance
ihe predominant view oi go*rnment in the Zeitgeist of the late twentieth
S€EfI}S
'steering' the er,
century. Governance, in this debate, is about how to maintain the
exists
,ol. of political institutions despite the internal and external challenges to
contrt
the state. It is also, presumabl¡ more palatable than 'government'which
Conte
has become a slightly pejorative concept'
obvio
This reorientaiion ãf'tn. debate on the role of the state in society
has
(see Pierre and Peters' of inl
been. propelled by several different developments
'over- natior
2000). For some time now govelnment has been believed to be
placed upon it and t]
loaded', that is, unable to resolve all the tasks and demands
and ers to
by society (Birch, I9|Z;Crozier et al., L975; King, L975).In the 1980s
to well,
tôgos these problems were exacerbated by another serious challenge
1

hit by a severe Thr

state authority; most advanced western democracies were
financial incen- state .
fiscal. crisis which meant that governments could not use
same extent as hith- terns
tives to ensure compliance among societal actors to the
or less Dracl
erto. The economic plight also iorced the state to cut back, more
on its ,.r.ri.""r; something which iltgn prompted a search for
a cCIn
ãrt what
"ri"*r¡
new strategies of public service production and delivery' Maintaining
pub-
and civil state
Iic service leveis tirro.ugh shared-responsibilities between the state
1

degre
society became one such strategY.
missi
An additional development which has driven the growing interest in Fir
governance has been inãreasing problems of co-ordination,
both in gor'-
projects to the s
ãrnment and also in order to ensure that public and private expe(
do not obstruct
some degree share the same objectives or, at the very least, The t
each other. The state has played a critical role in defining
regulatory
coun- quest
frameworks for markets. In addition, governments in most western publi
tries during the post-war period have intervened in markets in order
to
Th
promote pãnti.ut objectives and collective interests and also to
resolve
be kept form
m"rket fuior.r. While these two different roles of the state must and s
points out in
analytically separated from each other, as Andrew Gamble eral-,
and sup-
Chapter O, it ir equally important to acknowledge the facilitating impa
porting role of the state in the economy" of i¡r
yet another development which has helped increase the interest in gov-

:
_i:
 Introduction: Undrstanding Governønce 5

rtions, ernanceis the glabalizúion of the economy and the growing importance of
What ffansnational political institutions like the European Union (EU), World
rsingly Trade Organization (WTO), Association of South East Asian Nations
vedby (ASEANI), and North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). I wili not
is that review in full the now vast literature on globalization; suflfice it to say that
:ion of the deregulation of capital in the 1980s set in train a massive restructuring
nd for of both domestic economies and the international economic system. What
rntieth seems to be the main consequence of globaLizationin the present context is
:ering' the erosion of traditional, domestic political authority. Such authority still
to
rges exists but it confronts formidable challenges; the effective limits to political
which control have become increasingly evident over the past decade or so.
Contemporary macro-economic poüry-making, to take the perhaps most
:ty has obvious example, is conducted in the context of considerable uncertainty
Peters, of international economic development and the possibilities of inter-
'over- national speculation against the currency (see Hinnfors and Pierre, 1998
Lpon it and the literature cited there). However, g\obalization causes policy mak-
0s and ers to rethink their political strategies in a wide range of policy sectors as
nge to well, for example taxes and distributive policies.
severe Thus, the conventional, state-centric image of politics and the roie of
incen- state in society appears to account for less and less of contemporary pat-
s hith- terns of power and authority in an era of globalization (but see Boyer and
or less Drache, L996; Hirst and Thompson, L996; lVeiss, 199S). This, however, is
rch for a contested standpoint. The contributors to the present volume agree that
g Pub- what we are observing is less the decline of the state and more a process of
rd civil state transformation. While there are differences among the chapters in the
degree to which they underscore this perspective, we are still far from dis-
rest in missing the state as the center of political power and authority.
n gov- Finaily, governance has also gained ground as a result of the 'faüure' of
ects to the state. The state-centric view on political processes has helped raise
rstruct expectations on the state's capabilities beyond the state's ability to deliver.
rlatory The traditional 'tax-and-spend' model of public service delivery has been
coun- questioned, in part from the vantage point of the alleged inefficiency of the
rder to public sector compared to the corporate sector.
resolve The overarching question coming out of these developments is what new
re kept forms and shapes the pursuit of the collective interest (Peters, 1996) can
out in and should take and to what extent we need to rethink the traditional, lib-
rd sup- eral-democratic model of the state. If the. state's capacity to steer is
impaired by economic globalization, what other means does the state have
[n gov- of imposing its will on society and the economy? If the state is no longer
6 lon Pierre
able to produce extensive public services, does that mean that our image of mode
the state a.s a material provider should be reconsidered? If the state can no ateå a
longer steer, should elected officials be held accountable for societal devel- emerf
opments beyond their control? These issues show the need for students of tradit
governance to deyelop conceptual frameworks and theories,which will help clear t
structure our ways of thinking about governance and the future role of the Thr
state in soeiety. the 1c

These issues are at the very core of our traditional image of the liberal- Comtr
democratic state and democratic government. The pervasiveness of the main
governance debate, among social scientists and practitioners alfüe, is proof nanc€
of the saliency of these issues and the need to rethink many of our estab- envirt
lished notions and irnages of the state, of the articulation and pursuit of the
Proce
collective interest, and of democratic and accountable government" fields
tric a1

a con
THE CHAPTERS IN THIS BOOK comp
nanc(
much
The governance debate is compartmentalized, reflecting the growing spe- gover
cialization in political science. The development of governance as an ana- A(
l¡ical ftamework in different subfields of the discipline will gain from a by R,
critical comparison of the contribution which goveÍnance theory makes in servi<
different areas of political science. This volume brings together experts on devis:
governance in seyeral different subfields of political science and presents gover
the different strands in the governance debate to highlight both common rent ¡
and divergent approaches in governance research and theory. The remain- ernaf
der of the book is divided into two parts. Part I highlights the emergence of and c
li
governance domestically. Part II focuses on governance in an international gover
context. has ti
In Chapter Z,Paul}{irst addresses some of the key questions in the gov- Is go.
ernance debate such as what new channels and processes of political con- the fr
trol and democratic accountability the emerging forms of governance will govel
require. His point of departure is that the liberal-democratic image of the maní
state, particularly its notion of a sustained separation of state and societ¡ Ifr
no longer captures the nature of the modern advanced democracies. The differ
monopoly of govern ance capacity which liberal-democratic theory accords urba:
to the state is no longer a valid account. So, we must reconsider both the feren
role of the state in society and what other forms of governance seem to Morr
emerge as the state's capacity to govern is undermined. Hirst outlines a theor
 Introducti.on: Understanding Governance 7

eof in which governance can be gener-

model of 'associative self-governance'
.no networks. The
îrrdu*ons structures in civil society; that is, democratized
rethink some of our
f,Ã"rgrn , of new forms of governance forces us to
vel-
sof iradit-ional notions of democracy and the
role of the state in society. It is
relp
c1ear thatwe have
only taken the first few steps along this avenue of inquiry.
'the
The role of the state in governance and contending images of that role is
the leading theme in Chapter 3 by Guy Peters on 'Governance and
xaI- where the
Co,mparative Politics'. Peters identiûes'traditional' governarìce,
the mai¡-issue is the capacity of the state to steer and control, and'new'gover-
roof nance, where the question is how government interacts with its external
tab- environment to form decisions which arc agreeable to all parties. He then
f the proceeds to compare 'traditional' and 'new' governance in different sub-
helds of comparative politics. Peters argues convincingly that a state-cen-
tric approach is best suited to develop an understanding of governance in
a comparative perspective. A general problem in 'new' governance is that
comparison almost always has an institutional dimension but'new'gover-
nance maintains that formal institutional structures do not account for
much of what governments can do. It also seems to have little to say on
spe- government's societal role more generally.
arLa- A slightly different view on these problerns is presented in Chapter 4
oma by Rod Rhodes on 'Governance and Public Adrninistration'. The public
<es in service is in many ways the most intriguing arena of governance since
ts on devising new forms of public-private exchange has been a core theme of
tsents governance. For Rhodes, self-governing networks are at the heart of cur-
Lmon rent governance. The chapter first elaborates on different meanings of gov-
nain- ernance and raises some interesting questions about governance: Is it new
rce of and does it matter? How does one choose between different defrnitions of
tlonal governance? How can we explain the growth of governance? To what extent
has the centre been 'hollowed out'? How does the centre manage networks?
3 gov- Is governance failure inevitable? In this way Rhodes pinpoints accurately
I con- the frontier of governance research, not least by drawing our attention to
;e will governance failure as a distinct possibility and also by arguing that network
of the management is conflictual and embedded in a politically charged context.
rciet¡ If the public administration has been the sector of government where
s. The differenf models of governance has been most frequently launched, then
ccords urban politics is probably the institutional level of government where dif-
rth the frrent models of governance have been both discussed and implemented.
:em to More importantl¡ as Gerry Stoker points out in Chapter 5, urban political
lines a theory has for a long period of time been concerned with different mod.els

t.:
8 Jan Pierre
of public-private exchange and co-operation to compensate for urban tions, I
institutional fragmentation, for example 'urban regirnes' and 'growth ùis fie.
coalitions'. Stoker emphasizes that governance should be thought of as a InC
process and suggests that communication, monitoring, and structurai Anthol
reforms are different ways of steering in the urban political context. ical ecc
In Chapter 6, Andrew Gamble looks at governance in the ûeld of polit- of poli
ical economy. Governance has been a debated con.cept in this research area na.tionr
for some time; for example, the notion of corporate (or market) self- the rolt
governance and the roie of the state in economic governance. On closer modat
inspection, the state plays two separate roles in economic governance; it 'regiott
constitutes and defines rules and norms of the economic order and it can rather
be an interventionist agent in the econorny. Gamble outlines and compares nation
different'economic constitutions'; the traditional liberal economic consti- Cha
tution which accords the state only a rninimal function, and an economic efnanc
constitution in which the state is allowed to play an interventionist role gtvern
in order to pursue a broader, collective interest in the economy, EU res
Understanding the role of the state in economic governance ultim ately relatio
begs the questions of the extent to which the state can (that is, has the polit- constit
ical and institutional capabilities to) govern the economy; and the nature more c
of the state's 'embeddedness'in the economy (Evans, 1995). Sbragi,
chapter 7 presents the socio-cþernetic approach to governance. lan of EIJ I
Kooirnan's point of departure is the growing diversity, dynamics, and com- tutionr
plexity in society and the challenges these developments pose to steering. EU go'
Governance is seen as an interactive, iterative process between a wide vari- The
ety of actors, none of which enjoys effective authority over the others, or in the r

over society as a whole. From here, Kooiman outlines Ciffèrent types of us abo
governing such as selÊgovernance, 'co'-forms of gov. erning as well as more and o
traditional, hierarchical governing. This analysis is conceptually sophist- aPpeaI
icated and represents in rnany ways the most elaborate theoretical analysis ernan(
of governing. This approach to problems of governing and governance has
piayed a dorninant role in much of the Dutch research and it is one of the
leading contributions to governance research in Europe.
Complexity is also a Leitmotifin chapter I by James Rosenau, on govern-
ance in international relations. The problem of creating and sustaining Brncs,
gCIvernance has been a perennial problem in international relations. Not The¡
least globalization has triggered a number of problems for democratic gov- Boynn
ernance, partly because it changes the cast of actors on the international Glat
scene and partly because it has entailed an 'accountability deficit' which has C¡¡,ur,
yet to be resolved. Critical about state-cen.tric models of international rela- Elga
 Introduction: Understanding Governønce 9

rban dons, Rosenau sees governance as a theory which has strong potential in
rwth this fietd of research'
;as a In Chapter 9 on 'Globalization and Modes of Regionalist Governance',
tural Anthony Payne looks at patterns of governance in the international polit-
ical econorny. Regionalist governance refers to transnational arrangements
rolit- of political and economic co-ordination created to enhance the inter-
:ãfe? naiional competitiveness of the region. The analysis thus addresses both
self- the role of the state in the global economyand governance as wayof accom-
loser modating state interests in the international arena. Payne argues that
ce; it ,regionalist governance' does not indicate the 'decline of the state' but
t can ruth.t transformations of the state to respond to changes in the inter-
pares national p olitical economy.
rnsti- Chapter 10, finally, focuses on the European [Jnion and patterns of gov-
omic ernance in that institutional milieu. Governance, including multi-level
: role governance, as a conceptual framework has been embraced by many in the
.omy' EU research field since it offers a useful conceptualization of institutional
rately relationships which often tend to be negotiated arrangements rather than
rolit- constitutionally defined relationships and where policies are implemented
ature more on the basis of agreement and compliance than enforcement. Alberta
Sbragia argues that the myriad of networks, which are aprominent feature
:. Ian of EU politics, enhances the governing capacity of these transnational insti-
com- tutions; the core institutions of the European IJnion remain at the centre of
:ring. EIJ governance.
vari- The concluding chapter seeks to bring together the main commonalities
rs, or in the substantive chapters. The focus is on what the preceding analyses tell ,*

res of us about the role of political institutions in governance in different arenas

more and on different institutional levels. This chapter also identifies what
rhist- appears to be some of the key research questions in future studies on gov-
aþis ernance.
;e has
rf the
REFEREl\ICES
vern-
ining Btncu, A. H. (1982), 'Overload, Ungovernabilitf and Delegitimation: The
,. Not Theories and the British Case', British Journal of Political Science, 14: 135-60.
l gov- BoxeR, R., and Dnecue, D. (eds.) (1996), States Against Mørkets: The Limits of
tionai Glob alizatioø (London and New York Routledge).
:h has C¿MIrrenr, I. 4., and Fax, I. 0992), The End of Sovereignry (Aldershol Edward
Irela- Elgar).
10 Ion Pierre
CnozrEn, M., Hu¡,¡rlNGroN, S., and W¿reNuruï. 0975), The Crisis of Ðemocracy
(New York: New York Universit,v Press).
Ev¿Ns, P. (1995), Embedded Autonomy: States and Industriøl Transþrmation
(Princeton, Nj: Princeton University Press).
Fnv, E. H. (1998), The Expanding Role of State and Local Governments in US
Foreign Policy Affølrs (New York Counci-l on Foreign Reiations Press).
HlNNrons, J., and PrERnE, J. (1998), 'The Politics of Currency Crises in Sweden:
Poliry Choice in a Globalized Econofny', West Europeøn Politics, T: ß3-19.
Hrnst, P., and TuoprpsoN, G. (1996), Globalizøtion in Question (Cambridge:
Polity Press).
Hosss, H. H. (1994), Ctty HalI Goes Abroad: The Foreign Policy of Locøl Politics
(Thousand Oaks, Calif. and London: Sage).
Hooo, C. (1991), 'A Public Management for AII Seasons?', Public Administration,
69: 3-19.
Krwc, A. (1975), 'Overload: Problems of Governing in the 1970s', Political Studies,
23:28Ç96.
MensH, D., and RHooÉs, R. A. W. (eds.) (1992), Policy Networlc in British
G ov ernm enf (Oxford: Clarendon Press).
Prrnns, B. G. (1996), The Future of Governing Four Emerging Modek (Lawrence,
Kan.: University of Kansas Press)
and Sevon" D. J. (1998), Taking Stock: Assessing Public Sector Reþrm
(Montreai: McGilliQueens University Press).
PrrRRn, l. (1995), 'The Marketization of the State: Citizens, Customers and the
Emergence of the Public Market', in B. G. Peters and D. J. Savoie (eds.),
Gavernønce in a Changing Environment (Montreal and Kingston: McGill/
Queens University Press), 47-69.
and PEreRs, B. G. (2000), The New Governance: States, Marlcets, ønd
N etworlcs (London: Macmillan).
-PottIrr,
C. (1990), Managerialism in the Public Service (Oxford: Basil Blackwell).
Rr¡opss, R.,4,. \M. (1994), 'The Hollowing out of the State', PoliticølQuarterly,65:
138-51.
(1997), Understanding Governance: Policy Netwoflcs, Governance, Reflexivity s

and Accountability (Buckingham: Open University Press ).

-SevoIe, D"J.0994), Thatcher, Reagøn, Mulroney: In Seørch of øNew Bureaucracy
Iì
{
(Pittsburgh: University of Piusburgh Press). n
,l
i
Ser.r, P. (1993), Goyernment by the Mørlcst? (London: Macmillan). ,
Srlrrrr, M. t. (1993), Pressurq Power and Policy: Støte Autonomy ønd Policy
Netwarlcs in Britain and the United States (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh
Press).
Wnrss, L. (1998), The Myth of the Poweiless Støte (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press)"