What is it about?
In December 1999, the UK Civil Service Management Board agreed an internal reform programme, complementing the more externally-oriented ‘modernizing govern- ment’ programme, to bring about major changes in the functioning of the civil service – ‘step change’ rather than continuous improvement. This article suggests that the aims of the reform programme were only partially achieved. While some step changes did indeed occur, even such central elements of reform as ‘joined-up’ working with other public organizations were still only at an initial stage some three years later and others – for example, business planning and performance management systems – have taken 20 years to achieve acceptance within the civil service. It appears that examples of meteoric change are rare in the civil service – the reality of the changes are better characterized as ‘evolution’ and ‘continuous improvement’ than ‘revolution’ and ‘step change’.
Featured Image
Why is it important?
The Civil Service Reform Programme (CSR) in the UK was just one initiative in the public sector reform cycle, which had already lasted over 20 years in the UK and given it a reputation as one of the main pathfinders in both the rhetoric and practice of public sector reform. The findings in this article would suggest that this reputation was only partially justified, although the changes which occurred under the CSR Programme were real and important. The CSR Programme was presented as a means to achieve ‘step change’ in the UK public service. However, the reality, as mapped in the case studies here, was much more varied. There were indeed some instances, in specific organizations, of what might properly be regarded as ‘step change’ – for example, we found radical improvements in the way in which the Welsh Government managed the interface with its clients. Where previously there had been a deeply frustrating, time-consuming and loathed process of grant applica- tions, there was instead a quick, smoothly run and well-regarded set of predictable transactions. On the other hand, there were many aspects of the change programme which still appeared to be in their initial stages, even in respect of such a key issue as ‘joined-up’ working with the rest of government. Moreover, it was only in 2002, after 20 years of rhetoric, that some central elements of the reform programme (particularly business planning and performance management systems) were achieving a significant degree of acceptance and usage, and being regarded as valuable.
Perspectives
The long-standing rhetoric of ‘revolution’ and ‘step change’ in relation to the UK public sector is misplaced. ‘Evolution’ and ‘continuous improvement’ are much more appropriate terms to represent the reality of the changes which undoubtedly have occurred. Change generally appears to work best by the dissemination of good practice from ‘islands of innovation’ within the civil service itself. This is not to disparage what has been achieved or to suggest that the public sector should lower its sights in terms of what it wishes eventually to achieve. However, it is important that the civil service should pay attention to the evidence provided by its own ‘best practice’. The civil service knowledge base has few examples of meteoric changes. By constantly reiterating that only such changes are acceptable, the tangible and important achievements which are evident in many parts of the civil service tend to be undervalued at best and, at worst, dismissed as inadequate. Meteoric change in the UK civil service may be possible – even desirable – but experience suggests that it is rare and the insistence on it is likely to be counterproductive.
Professor Tony Bovaird
University of Birmingham
Read the Original
This page is a summary of: CIVIL SERVICE REFORM IN THE UK, 1999?2005: REVOLUTIONARY FAILURE OR EVOLUTIONARY SUCCESS?, Public Administration, June 2007, Wiley,
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9299.2007.00651.x.
You can read the full text:
Resources
Contributors
The following have contributed to this page
