Additionally, many posts which were formerly in the Civil Service or
part of a nationalised industry are now in the private sector.
Although Labour in opposition opposed many of these develop-
ments, New Labour governments have endorsed ‘public private
partnerships’ as being a pragmatic way of ensuring the efficient
delivery of public services. In the White Paper ‘Modernising
Government’ (1999) and reforms of the NHS, they have placed more
emphasis on achieving user-centred targets and less on cut-throat
competition and financial economy. The mechanism of contractual
delivery of public services by private companies in collaboration with
public sector commissioning agencies has remained prominent.
Gordon Brown continued the project of reducing the size of the Civil
Service, announcing a reduction of 104,000 posts in July 2004.
Recent agreements by the World Trade Organisation require all
signatory states to open up the market for government services to
international tender. This, and the accession of the former Eastern
Bloc countries to the EU, has meant that privatisation and public
private partnerships have become a worldwide trend.
Evaluating public policy
Evaluation of the effect of decision-making processes on public policy
can concentrate on either procedural or substantive issues. From a
proceduralpoint of view, we can ask whether the process of making
the decision accords with the evaluative criteria to be applied (e.g. was
the decision taken in a democratic manner, or did the decision maker
consider all rational alternatives and cost them?). From a substantive
point of view we can ask was the result ‘correct’, set against
appropriate criteria in terms of its outcome? The criteria employed
may be many and various – ethical, economic, ecological, egalitarian,
etc. (e.g. Were the decision makers’ objectives achieved? Did the
decision promote justice?).
Assuming we have defined our values and specifying objectives,
using Lindblom’s terminology, it may be possible to assess decision
making in a less controversial way. Here we may offer some more
‘managerial’ concepts for evaluating policy making (Box 8.7)
POLICIES 231