No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Regional Decentralization of Government Departments in Britain
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 November 2014
Extract
Vast changes have been wrought in the British governmental machinery during the past quarter-century—alterations in scope, structure, and administrative procedures made necessary in part by the rigours of economic depression and war and further intensified by the demands of an emerging welfare state. Of these changes one of the more significant has been the development by the central government departments of a complex and intricate system of regional organization to decentralize many of their more important functions. Today “administrative regionalism” characterizes the administration of fifteen major government departments. On January 1, 1956, 16,318 non-industrial civil servants (the national total was 636,771) were stationed outside Whitehall in regional offices established in eleven “regional capitals” and were working (with minor exceptions) in uniform geographical areas in accordance with established government policy. Several hundreds of thousands of the other civil servants were employed in local offices, such as post offices, employment exchanges, national insurance offices, pensions offices, district works offices, and so on. Some departments have regional offices and local offices; others have regional offices only.
Decentralization of national programmes is unavoidable if governmental machinery is to function at all effectively. This is true not only in democracies, but also in countries under authoritarian rule, such as the Soviet Union. The administrative problems encountered in the decentralization of governmental functions are many. The purpose of this article is to examine Britain's experience in order to secure answers to a number of important questions. Why has it been necessary for the British to establish a system of regional administration? To what extent can the responsibilities of a national government be decentralized? What form does such decentralization take—policy formation, or administration and execution, or both? What type of administrative organization has been developed on the regional level? How is the work of a particular ministry in each of the eleven regions co-ordinated and to what degree have procedures been devised for standardizing work programmes throughout the country? Within a given region, how are matters that concern two or more departments dealt with?
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science/Revue canadienne de economiques et science politique , Volume 24 , Issue 1 , February 1958 , pp. 57 - 69
- Copyright
- Copyright © Canadian Political Science Association 1958
References
1 Data made available to the author by Mr. D. O'Donovan, Assistant Secretary, Organization and Methods Division, British Treasury. I should like to express appreciation to the senior civil servants in the various government departments who assisted me in the preparation of this study; their number is too great to permit specific acknowledgment.
2 Of the eleven “standard” regions the largest in size embraces the entire area of Scotland. The twelve counties in Wales plus Monmouthshire constitute another administrative region. The smallest in area is the Northwestern, and by far the most populous is the London and Southeastern region. The remaining regions are the Northern, the East and West Ridings of Yorkshire combined, North Midland, Midland, Eastern, Southern, and Southwestern. The capital towns of these standard regions are Edinburgh, Cardiff, Manchester, London, Newcastle, Leeds, Nottingham, Birmingham, Cambridge, Reading, and Bristol. Sixth Report from the Select Committee on Estimates (London: H.M.S.O., 1954), 154.Google Scholar
3 For a general discussion of the history of administrative decentralization prior to 1939 see Fairlie, John A., “Administrative Regions in Great Britain,” American Political Science Review, 10, 1937, 937–41Google Scholar; and Dhonau, May L., Decentralization in Government Departments (London: Institute of Public Administration, 1938).Google Scholar
4 Committee of Enquiry on the Post Office, 1932: Report, Cmd. 4149 (London: H.M.S.O., 1932), 35.Google Scholar A critical evaluation of post office organization together with detailed recommendations can be found in Departmental Working Party, Report on the Present System of Regionalization in the Post Office (London: G.P.O., 1951).Google Scholar
5 A full account of the civil-defence activities of the Home Office during the Second World War is contained in O'Brien, T. H., Civil Defence (London, 1955).Google Scholar See also SirNewsam, Frank, The Home Office (London, 1954), 56–63.Google Scholar
6 See Grove, J. W., Regional Administration (London, 1951), 10–12 Google Scholar; Hancock, W. K. and Gowing, M. M., British War Economy (London, 1950), 302–3.Google Scholar
7 In order to secure economies in common services and in administration the regional staffs of the Ministry of Supply were merged with those of the Board of Trade in 1955; the combined organization serves both departments.
8 Ex-Headquarters Offices of the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (London: The Ministry, 1955), 7–8.Google Scholar
9 A detailed treatment of British central inspection is found in Harris, John S., British Government Inspection as a Dynamic Process: The Local Services and the Central Departments (New York, London, 1955).Google Scholar See also Harris, John S., “Central Government Inspection of Local Services in Britain,” Public Administration Review, XV, winter, 1955, 26–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10 See Report of the Committee on Intermediaries, Cmd. 7904 (London: H.M.S.O., 1950), 5–39.Google Scholar
11 First Report from the Select Committee on Estimates (London: H.M.S.O., 1955), 124.Google Scholar
12 National Assistance Board (London: National Assistance Board, 1955), 2–5.Google Scholar
13 Report on the Present System of Regionalization in the Post Office (London: G.P.O., 1951), 16.Google Scholar
14 Sixth Report from the Select Committee on Estimates, 1–2.
15 Sixth Report from the Select Committee on Estimates, iv–v.