Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Appears in Collections:||History and Politics Journal Articles|
|Peer Review Status: ||Refereed|
|Title: ||The 'British Policy Style' and Mental Health: Beyond the Headlines|
|Authors: ||Cairney, Paul|
|Contact Email: ||firstname.lastname@example.org|
|Issue Date: ||Oct-2009|
|Publisher: ||Cambridge University Press|
|Citation: ||Cairney P (2009) The 'British Policy Style' and Mental Health: Beyond the Headlines, Journal of Social Policy, 38 (4), pp. 671-688.|
|Abstract: ||Recent Mental Health Acts provide evidence of diverging UK and Scottish government policy styles. The UK legislative process lasted almost ten years following attempts by ministers to impose decisions and an unprecedented level of sustained opposition from interest groups. In contrast, the consultation process in Scotland was consensual, producing high levels of stakeholder ‘ownership'. This article considers two narratives on the generalisability of this experience. The first suggests that it confirms a ‘majoritarian' British policy style, based on the centralisation of power afforded by a first-past-the-post electoral system (Lijphart, 1999). Diverging styles are likely because widespread hopes for consensus politics in the devolved territories have been underpinned by proportional representation. The second suggests that most policy-making is consensual, based on the diffusion of power across policy sectors and the ‘logic of consultation' between governments and interest groups (Jordan and Richardson, 1982). The legislative process deviated temporarily from the ‘normal' British policy style which is more apparent when we consider mental health policy as a whole. Overall, the evidence points to more than one picture of British styles; it suggests that broad conclusions on ‘majoritarian' systems must be qualified by detailed empirical investigation.|
|Type: ||Journal Article|
|DOI Link: ||http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0047279409003249|
|Rights: ||Publisher policy allows this work to be made available in this repository. Published in Journal of Social Policy / Volume 38 / Issue 04 / October 2009, pp 671-688 Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009 The original publication is available at DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0047279409003249.|
Items in the Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.
If you believe that any material held in STORRE infringes copyright, please contact email@example.com providing details and we will remove the Work from public display in STORRE and investigate your claim.