In a recent article published in Policy & Politics, Martin B. Carstensen and Eva Sørensen explore how collaborative governance can be understood as a series of fluid, adaptive interactions—rather than as a stable, coherent and linear process. Drawing on bricolage theory and theories of robust governance, they propose a new way of thinking about how partnerships form, evolve, and sustain themselves in dynamic, unpredictable settings.
by Sam Warner, David Richards, Diane Coyle and Martin J. Smith
In our recent article published in Policy & Politics, we examine how centralised financial control and short-term political pressures have undermined the performance of the Prison Service in England and Wales. As successive governments grapple with the problem of overcrowded, poorly performing prisons, the effectiveness of prison governance and resource management is a live issue with significant political and policy implications. Drawing on extensive interviews and documentary analysis, our article highlights how governance structures intended to deliver efficiency have instead constrained local autonomy and eroded service outcomes.
A paradox of New Public Management
Despite New Public Management’s (NPM) long made promises of greater efficiency through devolved managerial discretion, we argue that, in practice, the UK’s central government frequently reasserts input controls—particularly through the Treasury’s dominance of budgeting frameworks. Existing literature explores this paradox through elite incentives structures, but we focus on the implications for public financial management beyond the centre. We argue that this paradox creates tensions for public managers who are held accountable for delivering outputs and outcomes but lack the financial flexibility to do so effectively.
Case study evidence from the Prison Service
Using the Prison Service as a detailed case study, the article shows how governance arrangements evolved from the 1990s onward. While initial reforms introduced managerial autonomy, a shift toward hyper-centralised control—especially post-2010—saw the Treasury and the Ministry of Justice exert increasing influence over financial management and other operational and commercial practices. As a result, prison governors are left with reduced authority in key areas of decision-making. Their job is made harder, and resource allocation is less efficient, as a result.
Short-termism and degraded outcomes
Our article illustrates how a focus on short-term fiscal targets led to cost-cutting measures that undermined service quality. This included staffing reductions, deteriorating prison conditions, and rising incidents of violence and self-harm. Interviewees repeatedly emphasised that innovation and local responsiveness were being crowded out by rigid, top-down control. We argue that these dynamics not only degrade service performance but also represent a long-term false economy.
A call for more strategic governance
Our article points to the importance of rebalancing the system—restoring autonomy at agency and local levels and embedding longer-term thinking into resource allocation and financial management. The UK’s current approach to performance budgeting continues to prioritise centralised control over outcomes. Addressing this imbalance is vital if public services are to meet complex, long-term challenges effectively.
The authors would like to thank the Nuffield Foundation for funding this research.
…
You can read the original research in Policy & Politics at
Warner, S., Richards, D., Coyle, D., and Smith, M. J. (2024). The inefficiency of centralised control and political short-termism: the case of the Prison Service in England and Wales. Policy & Politics (published online ahead of print 2024), available from: < https://doi.org/10.1332/03055736Y2024D000000053>
If you enjoyed this blog post, you may also be interested in reading
Wenzelburger, G. (2025). Policy windows and criminal justice reforms: a Multiple Streams Framework analysis. Policy & Politics 53, 2, 296-314, available from: < https://doi.org/10.1332/03055736Y2024D000000060>
Sloam, J., and Henn, M. (2025). How young people can shape environmental policy in urban spaces. Policy & Politics 53, 1, 65-86, available from: < https://doi.org/10.1332/03055736Y2024D000000039>
Bianchi, I. (2025). The democratising capacity of new municipalism: beyond direct democracy in public–common partnerships. Policy & Politics 53, 2, 403-422, available from: < https://doi.org/10.1332/03055736Y2024D000000033>
Asticher, L. (2025). How institutional legacies constrain reform during a favourable policy window: COVID-19 and the healthcare workforce shortage. Policy & Politics (published online ahead of print 2025), available from: < https://doi.org/10.1332/03055736Y2025D000000067>
In a recent article published in Policy & Politics, Georg Wenzelburger explores how a landmark criminal justice reform in Virginia during the 1990s combined apparently contradictory approaches to sentencing—and why that matters today.
The reform in question abolished parole and sharply increased sentences for violent offenders—hallmarks of a “tough on crime” agenda. But, surprisingly, it also introduced data-driven risk assessments to help divert non-violent offenders away from prison. This mix of punitive and preventative measures was unusual for the time and has since played a key role in the rise of more measured, evidence-informed criminal justice reforms in the United States.
COVID-19 opened the door to major healthcare reform—but old systems and social norms still held much of the power.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, healthcare systems around the world were pushed to the limit. In Switzerland, this sparked strong public support for nursing staff and even led to a popular vote backing major improvements to nursing care. With political will, public awareness, and a clear workforce crisis, it looked like the perfect moment for real change. But did that happen?
In a recent article published in Policy & Politics, Lisa Asticher investigates how institutional legacies—particularly those tied to economic liberalisation and gender inequality—shaped the reforms that followed. The findings are both fascinating and sobering.
New research highlights the subtle but persistent role of stigma in shaping public support for welfare benefits.
Public support for welfare benefits often hinges on perceptions of who is “deserving.” Are recipients viewed as victims of circumstance—or as somehow responsible for their own misfortune? A new Policy & Politics article by Kaila Witkowski and Stephen R. Neely asks how HIV stigma may influence these judgements, with important implications for social policy.
Welcome to this quarter’s highlights collection featuring a range of our most popular, recent research on different aspects relating to gender policy. Whether you’re preparing to teach a unit on gender policy or are interested in keeping up to date with the latest research in that area, we hope you will find the articles we’ve featured of interest!
Governments around the world undertake policy experiments – temporary, often micro-level interventions – to try new things and ‘learn what works.’ But what makes an experiment successful? This is the question I explore in my recent article published in Policy & Politics.
Discussions of success are surprisingly absent from the literature. We might think of success as a positive hypothesis: i.e. achieving an expected result. But this doesn’t capture all of the possible outcomes of experiments, and it also doesn’t consider the process of carrying them out.
by Janna Goijaerts, Natascha van der Zwan, Jet Bussemaker
Policies often set ambitious goals for social services, envisioning a welfare system that is preventative, tailored, and complementary. Yet, as middle managers in street-level organisations know all too well, reality frequently falls short of these ideals. In our recent research article, just published inPolicy & Politics, we explore the discrepancy between policy goals and actual service delivery, shedding light on the role of middle managers within this gap.
In public policy, target group constructions are crucial. Groups are granted additional rights, while rights from other groups are withdrawn, certain groups of people or other entities are regulated, while burdens elsewhere are lifted. As Anne Schneider and Helen Ingram’s work (1993) told us, such decisions are related to target groups’ power position, but also to their positive or negative construction.
But how do these social constructions work, and based on which criteria are target groups of public policy perceived as deserving or undeserving? These exact criteria guiding social constructions of groups have remained rather elusive in extant public policy research.
We are delighted to announce this year’s prizes for award winning papers published in Policy & Politics in 2024.
The Ken Young Prize for the best article judged to represent excellence in the field is awarded to Claire Dupont, Jeffrey Rosamond and Bishoy L. Zaki (University of Ghent, Belgium) for their article: Investigating the scientific knowledge–policy interface in EU climate policy. Well deserved, Claire, Jeffrey, and Bishoy!