Managerialism, Administrative Justice and Public service Reform in Britain

Abstract

This article has four objectives. The first is to survey a number of 'new public management' policy innovations introduced (or possibly pioneered) in Britain in the 1980s and 1990s which impinge directly on the relationship between the citizen and the state. The second is to develop an interpretation of these reforms as constituting, at least in part, a 'second wave' of administrative justice reforms based on techniques and principles opposed to traditional 'administrative law' concerns with court-like adjudication and legal remedies. The third objective is to undertake a preliminary evaluation of the success of these reforms in avoiding the administrative pathologies imputed by the authors of the reform programme to 'law-bound' approaches to administrative justice (Waldegrave, 1993). The final objective is to identify some remaining gaps in the British regime of administrative justice.The article is divided into three parts. The introductory part draws an analytical distinction between three 'ideal typical' models of administrative justice, understood as devices for resolving disputes between citizens and public bodies and for securing the redress of legitimate grievances. The second part traces the post-war evolution of the British 'regime' of administrative justice, charting developments concerning judicial review and tribunals, the ombudsman and the rise of internal complaints systems. The third part reviews the recent wave of managerially inspired reforms, including Next Steps agencies, the Citizen's Charter (1991) and the open government codes pertaining to central government (1994) and the National Health Service (1995), from the perspective of its impact on the balance of the contemporary administrative justice regime. It also examines the likely impact of legislative measures announced by the Blair government in the field of citizens' rights. Three models of administrative justiceThe discussion in this article rests on an analytical distinction between three models of administrative justice, understood as 'ideal type' mechanisms for resolving disputes between the citizen and the state. These are referred to as the