Representational democracy is at the heart of the UK’s political constitution, and the electoral system is central to achieving it. But is the first-past-the-post system used to elect the UK parliament truly representative? To answer that question requires an understanding of several factors: debates over the nature of representation; the evolution of the current electoral system; how first-past-the-post distorts electoral politics; and how else elections might be conducted. Running through all these debates are issues over the representation not only of people but also of places. The book examines all of these issues and focuses on the effect of geography on the operation of the electoral system.
The first chapter elaborates the problem of self-interest and sets out the approach of the book, arguing that most of us gain something from our political views. We are evolved animals and, consistent with the premises of several fields, tend to act in our self-interest. Though the link between self-interest and specific worldviews may often be indirect, associations become clearer if three influences are understood. Firstly, people sometimes express interests in non-material terms. Secondly, human cognition is limited, meaning that we fail to appreciate the extent to which our preferences benefit ourselves. Thirdly, individual worldviews have separate constituent parts, reflecting long-term historical development. The chapter introduces five worldviews (conservatism, national populism, liberalism, the new left and social democracy) with reference to these points and elaborates tenets of institutional theory, a crucial explanatory framework. Finally, the chapter argues that understanding of self-interest makes us more tolerant and improves the quality of politics.
This punchy and provocative book asks a simple but overlooked question: why do we have the political views that we do?
Offering a lively and original analysis of five worldviews – conservatism, national populism, liberalism, the new left and social democracy – Thomas Prosser argues that our views tend to satisfy self-interest, albeit indirectly, and that progressive worldviews are not as altruistic as their adherents believe.
But What’s in it for me? is far from pessimistic. Prosser contends that recognition of self-interest makes us more self-reflective, allowing us to see humanity in adversaries and countering the influence of echo chambers.
As populist parties rise and liberalism and social democracy decline, this timely intervention argues that to solve our political differences, we must first realise what we have in common.
The first part of the chapter summarizes the main findings of the book and
discuss their theoretical implications for network governance theory. A key
point is that political and administrative practices do not divide
themselves into any orderly distinction between government and governance.
Consequently, the author argues that the two categories should rather be
treated as conceptual metaphors that enable an analysis of the coexisting
institutional logics regulating municipal policy processes. The chapter
further addresses a number of key propositions from the network governance
literature, including the transformation thesis and metagovernance. While
the author nuances most of these propositions, the goal is not to provide a
new and comprehensive account of governance. Rather, the empirical
investigation in the book demonstrates how political practices are informed
by a contingent mix of different traditions and developments. The author
therefore provides a warning against uncritically transporting theoretical
conceptualizations as comprehensive explanatory devices across
contexts.
The author also summarizes the analysis of pragmatic policy
alliances, arguing that such alignments are made up of individual actors
mediating between organizational and individual goals, thereby operating in
tension with the hierarchical command chain of the municipal organization.
However, such alignments can also find an alternative source of legitimacy
rooted in a sense of pragmatism and egalitarian trust. This observation is
carried into the end of the chapter, where the author concludes the book
with a discussion of the historical and cultural conditions underpinning
relations in municipal policy development.
Based on the author´s experiences of a mismatch between the collaborative
governing practices encountered during fieldwork and their representations
in the network governance literature, the first part of the chapter develops
a critique of contemporary governance theory. The author argues that the
normative implications of the so-called “transformation thesis,” depicting a
transformation from government to governance, have led to several
problematic biases in the literature, including the tendency to
overemphasize government and governance as separate modes of governing.
Instead, the author argues that a mix of hierarchies and networks is
axiomatic to any system of governing and that changes to practices of
governance take more diverse forms and paths. In line with recent
perspectives from interpretive political science, the author argues a need
for ethnographic accounts of governance that can unveil this larger
diversity of practices, actions and strategies in play.
The second part
of the chapter details the multi-sited research strategy, ethnographic
methods and analytical perspectives applied in the study. The author argues
that doing interdisciplinary work entails an analytical reconstruction of
the research object itself and discusses how perspectives from political
anthropology inform the perspectives on political practices in the book.
Here the author also introduces F. G. Bailey´s classical game approach to
analyzing political struggle, which inspires the action-oriented analytical
approach applied throughout the book.
The chapter gives an introduction to the main themes addressed in the book
and the analytical perspectives applied. The author argues that the
Norwegian municipality provides a particularly interesting case for
exploring some key tensions and dilemmas in how actors in bureaucratic
organizations interact with their surroundings through both formal and
informal ties. The specific ways of resolving such these tensions and
dilemmas, as well as their consequences for political life, are introduced
as key topics for the ethnographic analysis developed in the book. Another
topic introduced is the relation between the political-science-derived
concepts of government and governance. By centering the focus on their
interconnectedness, the author argues, these two concepts enable analysis of
a central tension in the examples of political struggle and the policy
processes investigated: that is, the tension between adherence to the
hierarchical command chain of the municipal organization and alternative
alliances found both within and beyond the formal municipal
organization.
The chapter also provides a brief overview of the
ethnographic methods applied in the study and introduces some of the
analytical perspectives from political anthropology in the analysis. In the
final parts of the chapter, the author gives a brief overview of the book’s
structure and ends by addressing some of the limitations of the study
presented in the book.
The chapter is an introduction to the organizational landscape of the
municipal organization and some key features of municipal policy processes
that will be further analyzed and discussed in the succeeding chapters. In
the first part of the chapter, the reader is introduced to the ambiguous
borders of the municipal organization by visiting three different offices
and the persons occupying them in the municipal hall. The second part of the
chapter gives two examples of policy processes and associated political
struggles that will also be revisited in the subsequent chapters. The first
example describes the political and administrative process surrounding the
building of a sporting arena while the second example concerns a process of
centralizing healthcare services in one of the municipalities
studied.
The two examples illustrate three points related to the main
themes covered in the book. First, both cases entail a degree of controversy
and show how the political and administrative spheres of the municipal
organization become arenas of political struggle during policy processes.
Second, while demonstrating how both political and administrative actors can
become the prime movers of policy processes, they also show how successful
“municipal entrepreneurship” depends on a dialectic relationship between the
two roles. Third, and important to the ambition of exploring the
relationship between government and governance, the two cases display how
internal and external relations (and resources) are interwoven during policy
processes, and how external relations become an integral part of policy
struggles within the municipal organization.
The chapter is structured as a presentation of the dominating narratives
describing the development of local government, the municipal organization
and political culture in Norway. While these narratives inform the analysis
of policy processes in the later chapters of the book, their relevance is
also critically explored as their explanatory powers are put to the
test.
The chapter begins with a historical overview of the major
institutional developments that have given the Norwegian municipality its
present form and function. Thereafter, the author provides a brief
introduction to the multiple roles the present-day municipal organization is
working to fulfill (service provider, administrative machinery, democratic
body, local community developer and employer). The third part introduces
three interrelated narratives dominating the stories of recent developments
within municipal leadership. These are the introduction of New Public
Management reforms, the aforementioned shift toward (network) governance
and, finally, a narrative of local government being reduced to mere
implementers of national policy.
The final part of the chapter is
informed by the notion that political institutions neither develop nor
persist within a historical and cultural vacuum. Rather, their present-day
form and practices are profoundly shaped by their historical pathways and
the political culture informing them. Through past ethnographic accounts,
the reader is introduced to a discussion of political culture and the
configuration of “egalitarian individualism” claimed to characterize
Scandinavian culture. This discussion will form an important theoretical
background for the analysis of municipal policy processes presented in the
succeeding chapters.
During a municipal council meeting, a council member is met with strong
reactions after giving a speech concerning the sale of municipal-owned
property. In the heated debate, it is revealed that the councillor has been
in contact with the county governor concerning the sale, enquiring about the
relevant rules and regulations. This revelation prompts strong reactions
both from both the administrative and political actors present during the
meeting. This vignette provides a mystery to be solved in the chapter as the
author attempt to interpret the strong reactions through mapping the
normative rules at play during municipal policy processes.
Inspired by
F. G. Bailey’s (1969) game theory approach, the chapter develops an
understanding of the normative rules at play through observations and
numerous accounts from both administrative and political informants
discussing their roles during policy processes. The normative rules echo the
classical Weberian distinction between political and administrative roles,
and understanding the normative emphasis put on this distinction proves
essential to understanding the enactment of both government and
governance.
The empirical examples provided in the chapter show how
conforming to the normatively prescribed rules functions as a tool for
securing the legitimacy of policy processes by vesting them in the municipal
organization’s democratic and impartial legitimacy. However, the examples
also show how that the enactment and enforcement of prescribed roles can
sometimes seem arbitrary and, in some cases, even strategic. Revisiting the
vignette that opens the chapter reveals a telling intertwinement between
formal sanctions and more informal social control regulating political
behavior.
Drawing on the previous chapters, this chapter explores the more pragmatic
rules at play during municipal policy development. The chapter begins with a
short discussion of the dialectic relationship between political and
administrative roles in municipal policy development. A central point is the
paradoxical normative status of administrative entrepreneurship: that while
administrators are expected to propose new policy developments, they are
expected to await political initiatives before doing so and to refrain from
engaging in a political fight. Moreover, the empirical cases show how the
emphasis on conformity and consensus also puts normative constraints on the
politician’s ability to singlehandedly introduce political fights.
By
analyzing the tactics and strategies applied in municipal entrepreneurship,
the author shows how the normative rules of conduct were enacted in a
tension with the pragmatic rules of political struggle. Through a discussion
of how different forms of relations within, and stretching beyond, the
municipal organization were individualized, the author argues that municipal
policy processes are characterized by the creation of pragmatic policy
alliances. These alliances create a system of cross-cutting loyalties and
conflicts that exist in tension with the hierarchical command chain of the
municipal organization. Toward the end of the chapter, these findings are
related to the discussion of political culture in Chapter 3 in an effort to
advance not only the understanding of the political culture at play but also
some of its functions and consequences.