Search results

The process of public sector reform in the United Kingdom continues to provoke debate. Even among advocates of the reform process there is a concern that improvements in public service provision have not been as marked as originally intended, and that the process has produced a variety of unintended consequences. The purpose of this paper is to explore possible explanations for these unintended consequences, and discuss possible practical solutions for policy makers and service commissioners.

In this conceptual paper focus is in particular upon attempting to explain managerial behaviour from insights offered by two well‐established managerial theories – stakeholder theory and resource dependency theory. Insights from these theories are used to explain the possible causes of the unintended consequences of the reform process. The discussion is illustrated and set in context by reference to a continuum of service delivery modes from monopoly provision through to full competition.

Theory suggests that managers inevitably prioritise the interests of what they identify as their key stakeholders, and particularly those providing critical resources. In the case of public services this means that the interests of government, as the commissioner and funder of services, are prioritised rather than the end‐users of services. Examples of how this distorts the objectives of government are highlighted. It is argued that understanding this aspect of managerial decision‐making and stakeholder prioritising opens up the potential to resolve the problem.

This is the first paper to address the question of managerial behaviour from these theoretical perspectives in the area of the public sector reform process.

Even though many libraries now have sales counters where postcards (usually reproductions of old views) and some local histories (usually published by the library itself — like Northamptonshire Libraries' new, profusely illustrated and documented Waterways of Northamptonshire) are on sale, few if any have proper shops dispensing a full range of printed material on local topics (do send details if they exist).

It is often difficult to decide whether a value is a cathodic or an anodic potential, and the method of identification is described in some detail in this concluding article. In another section the author deals with interference to cathodic protection systems caused by stray currents, and provides some very interesting practical data regarding problems he has investigated. Other subjects covered include a detailed description of the ground wire method of taking potential measurements, and the use of solution potential measurements for plotting the direction of stray currents.

The topic of whistleblowing is achieving prominence as a question of social policy. Some influential voices are suggesting that far from whistleblowing — informing on organisations —, being socially undesirable, it may in certain circumstances be an activity deserving high praise. Inevitably it entails huge risks to the activist, and these risks need to be personally and carefully considered. John Banham, Director General of the Confederation of British Industry, wrote in support of the Social Audit report on the subject (Winfield 1990), and a committee established by the Speaker of the House of Commons has suggested the possibility of honouring whistleblowers in the British Honours system for their good corporate citizenship. There have also been landmark reports in America, Australia and Canada (Leahy 1978, Electoral and Administrative Review Commission 1990, Ontario Law Reform Commission 1986).

In the UK, the role of the state in accounting regulation has been ambivalent for some decades. On the one hand, confidence has been openly expressed in the system of private sector accounting regulation1 while accounting standards have been granted legitimacy through recognition in company law2. On the other hand government has introduced some detailed regulation through company law and has always been involved in both the institutions and processes of private sector regulation. This involvement has not necessarily been passive, and has often been covert leading to reports of threats of counter‐action by the government on some specific issues (Robson, 1988). Indeed, it is felt that fear of intervention by the government provides some of the rationale for private sector regulation (Bromwich, 1981, Sharp, 1971, Taylor and Turley, 1986). Providing a sharp contrast to the UK government’s actions towards the standard setting body, the sunshine policy of the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) in the US, means that governmental influence is overt whether in the area of a single issue or the future of the private sector standard setting (Beresford, 1993).

The authors investigate how COVID-19 has influenced the amount, type or topics of abuse that UK politicians receive when engaging with the public.

This work covers the first year of COVID-19 in the UK, from March 2020 to March 2021 and analyses Twitter abuse in replies to UK MPs. The authors collected and analysed 17.9 million reply tweets to the MPs. The authors present overall abuse levels during different key moments of the pandemic, analysing reactions to MPs by gender and the relationship between online abuse and topics such as Brexit, the government’s COVID-19 response and policies, and social issues.

The authors have found that abuse levels towards UK MPs were at an all-time high in December 2020. Women (particularly those from non-White backgrounds) receive unusual amounts of abuse, targeting their credibility and capacity to do their jobs. Similar to other large events like general elections and Brexit, COVID-19 has elevated abuse levels, at least temporarily.

Previous studies analysed abuse levels towards MPs in the run-up to the 2017 and 2019 UK General Elections and during the first four months of the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK. The authors compare previous findings with those of the first year of COVID-19, as the pandemic persisted, and Brexit was forthcoming. This research not only contributes to the longitudinal comparison of abuse trends against UK politicians but also presents new findings, corroborates, further clarifies and raises questions about the previous findings.

The peer review history for this article is available at: https://publons.com/publon/10.1108/OIR-07-2022-0392