Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-wxhwt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-13T17:29:42.207Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Jim Bulpitt's Territory and Power in the United Kingdom and Interpreting Political Development: Bringing the State and Temporal Analysis Back In

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2013

Jonathan Bradbury
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article addresses the relative neglect of Territory and Power in informing the study of general state political development, both as a theoretical approach and in its application to the UK. It locates Territory and Power as a distinct contribution to two major schools of comparative research. The first section argues that Territory and Power provided an approach that was part of the intellectual turn during the 1980s to bring the state back into the analysis of politics. The second part argues that Territory and Power should be seen also as a contribution to the intellectual turn since the 1980s towards temporal analysis of political development. On these bases future researchers may find Territory and Power more accessible as a work that they can incorporate in their own research.

Type
Articles
Information
Government and Opposition , Volume 45 , Special Issue 3: Territory and Power and the Study of UK and Comparative Politics , 2010 , pp. 318 - 344
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2010.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Bulpitt, J. G., Territory and Power in the United Kingdom: An Interpretation, Manchester, Manchester University Press, 1983 Google Scholar; and reissued edn, Colchester, ECPR Press, 2008.

2 P. John, ‘New Introduction’, in J. G. Bulpitt, Territory and Power (2008), pp. 1–16.

3 Bevir, M. and Rhodes, R. A. W., Interpreting British Governance, London, Routledge, 2003, p. 77 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 R. A. W. Rhodes, Beyond Westminster and Whitehall, London, Unwin and Hyman, 1988; Bradbury, J., ‘ Territory and Power Revisited: Theorising Territorial Politics in the United Kingdom After Devolution’, Political Studies, 54: 3 (2006), pp. 559–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar; A. Trench (ed.), Devolution and Power in the United Kingdom, Manchester, Manchester University Press, 2008.

5 J. Buller, National Statecraft and European Integration, the Conservative Government and the European Union, 1979–1997, London, Cassell, 2000; Buller, J. and Flinders, M., ‘The Domestic Origins of Depoliticisation in the Area of British Economic Policy’, British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 7 (2005), pp. 526–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

6 A. Gamble, ‘Theories of British Politics’, Political Studies, 38 (1990), pp. 404–20; Kerr, P. and Kettell, S., ‘In Defence of British Politics: The Past, Present and Future of the Discipline’, British Politics, 1: 1 (2006), pp. 3–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

7 Bulpitt, J., ‘The Discipline of the New Democracy: Mrs Thatcher's Domestic Statecraft’, Political Studies, 34: 1 (1986), pp. 19–39 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gamble, ‘Theories of British Politics’, p. 410; Bevir and Rhodes, Interpreting British Governance, pp. 110–11.

8 Bradbury, ‘Territory and Power Revisited’.

9 See P. Evans, D. Rueschemeyer and T. Skocpol (eds), Bringing the State Back In, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1985.

10 Pierson, P., Politics in Time: History, Institutions and Social Analysis, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 2004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11 P. Pierson and T. Skocpol (eds), The Transformation of American Politics: Activist Government and the Rise of Conservatism, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 2007.

12 T. Skocpol, ‘Bringing the State Back In: Strategies of Analysis in Current Research’, in Evans, Rueschemeyer and Skocpol, Bringing the State Back In, pp. 3–36.

13 Nordlinger, E., On the Autonomy of the Democratic State, Cambridge, MA, and London, Harvard University Press, 1981 Google Scholar.

14 See for example J. Haywood, B. Barry and A. Brown (eds), The British Study of Politics in the Twentieth Century, 2003.

15 See for example Hall, J. A. and Ikenberry, G. J., The State, Milton Keynes, Open University Press, 1989, pp. 1–2 Google Scholar; Lindley, R., Autonomy, London, Macmillan, 1986 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

16 Nordlinger, On the Autonomy of the Democratic State; M. Olson, The Rise and Decline of Nations, New Haven, CT, Yale University Press, 1982; M. Carnoy, The State and Political Theory, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1984; Jessop, B., ‘Recent Theories of the Capitalist State’, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 1 (1977), pp. 353–73Google Scholar; T. Bottomore, Elites and Society, Middlesex, Penguin, 1966; P. Dunleavy and B. O’Leary, Theories of the State, Basingstoke, Macmillan, 1987.

17 Mann, M., ‘The Autonomous Power of the State: Its Origins, Mechanisms and Results’, in Hall, J. A. (ed.), States in History, Oxford, Basil Blackwell, 1986, pp. 109–36Google Scholar.

18 P. Evans, D. Rueschemeyer and T. Skocpol, ‘On the Road Toward a More Adequate Understanding of the State’, in Evans, Rueschemeyer and Skocpol, Bringing the State Back In, pp. 347–66.

19 Mann, ‘The Autonomous Power of the State’, p. 111.

20 Cammack, P., ‘Bringing the State Back In?’, British Journal of Political Science, 19: 2 (1989), pp. 261–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

21 Gurr, T. and King, D., The State and the City, Basingstoke and London, Macmillan, 1987, pp. 1–28 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

22 Richardson, J. and Jordan, G., Governing Under Pressure: The Policy Process in a Post-Parliamentary Democracy, Oxford, Martin Robertson, 1979 Google Scholar; Rhodes, R. A. W., Understanding Governance, Buckingham, Open University Press, 1997 Google Scholar; Richards, D. and Smith, M., Governance and Public Policy in the UK, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2002 Google Scholar.

23 Bulpitt, Territory and Power (2008), pp. 59–60.

24 Gamble, ‘Theories of British Politics’, p. 410. See also Buller, J., ‘A Critical Reappraisal of the Statecraft Interpretation’, Public Administration, 77: 4 (1999), pp. 691–712 for a discussion of realism and the statecraft perspective.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

25 Bulpitt, Territory and Power (2008), p. 59, original emphasis.

26 Ibid., p. 61.

27 Ibid., pp. 181–5 and 197–8.

28 Ibid, pp. 65–8.

29 Ibid., p. 64.

30 Ibid., p. 64.

31 Ibid., pp. 56–70.

32 Hindess, B., ‘Bringing States Back In’, Political Science Review, 4: 2 (2006), p. 118.Google Scholar

33 Pierson, Politics in Time, pp. 4–7.

34 Thelen, K. and Steinmo, S., ‘Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Politics’, in Steinmo, S., Thelen, K. and Longstreth, F., Structuring Politics, Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Perspective, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1992, p. 2 Google Scholar.

35 See J. Elster, Solomonic Judgments, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1989, p. viii. Note Pierson ultimately sought to unite historical institutionalist and rational choice approaches in the development of the study of temporal mechanisms.

36 Pierson, Politics in Time, p. 10.

37 Ibid., pp. 10–14.

38 Ibid., pp. 13–14.

39 Ibid., p. 13.

40 P. Pierson and T. Skocpol, ‘American Politics in the Long Run’, in Pierson and Skocpol (eds), The Transformation of American Politics, p. 3.

41 Pierson and Skocpol, ‘American Politics in the Long Run’, pp. 3–4.

42 Ibid., p. 4.

43 Pierson, Politics in Time pp. 7–10; see F. Scharpf, Games Real Actors Play: Actor-Centred Institutionalism in Policy Research, Boulder, CO, Westview Press, 1997, p. 29.

44 Bradbury, ‘Territory and Power Revisited’; M. Bevir, ‘Interpreting Territory and Power’, in this issue.

45 Bulpitt, Territory and Power (2008), p. 61.

46 Ibid., pp. 78–83.

47 Ibid., p. 81.

48 Ibid., p. 82.

49 Ibid., pp. 83–6.

50 Ibid., p. 94.

51 Ibid., pp. 67–8.

52 Ibid., pp. 101–17.

53 Ibid., p. 98.

54 Ibid., pp. 116–17.

55 Ibid., p. 99.

56 Ibid., p. 99.

57 Ibid., pp. 120–39.

58 Ibid., p. 123.

59 Ibid., p. 136.

60 D. Kavanagh, Thatcherism and British Politics, 2nd edn, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1990; Kavanagh, D., ‘The Postwar Consensus’, Twentieth Century British History, 3: 2 (1992), pp. 175–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

61 See for example C. Webster, The National Health Service, A Political History, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1998; S. Brittan, Steering the Economy, London, Penguin, 1970; Ringe, A. and Rollings, N., ‘Responding to Relative Decline: The Creation of the National Economic Development Council’, Economic History Review, 53: 2 (2000), pp. 331–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

62 Marquand, D., The Unprincipled Society, New Demands and Old Politics, London, Jonathan Cape, 1988 Google Scholar.

63 Bulpitt, Territory and Power (2008), pp. 142–63.

64 Ibid., pp. 168–92; J. Bulpitt, ‘Walking Back to Happiness? Conservative Party Governments and Elected Local Authorities in the 1980s’, in C. Crouch and D. Marquand (eds), The New Centralism, Oxford, Blackwell, 1989.

65 Bulpitt, Territory and Power (2008), pp. 193–9.

66 See for example Smith, M., ‘Re-Centring British Government: Beliefs, Traditions and Dilemmas in Political Science’, Political Studies Review, 6 (2008), pp. 143–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar