Public management change and sex equality within the state.
Here we investigate what such changes mean for inclusion of women within the institutions of the state. Local authorities were among the leading innovators in equal opportunities policies in the 1980s. The central civil service has developed a reputation for good practice, although improvement at the highest echelons has been slow. Meanwhile a growing literature on state feminism is caught between the liberal feminist assumption that sex equality within the state will continue to improve and the radical feminist claim that the state apparatus is irredeemably gendered. Win the changes in public management, through the disaggregation of governmental bureaucracies, result in alternative organizational structures more conducive to women's inclusion, or will they erode the advances of sex equality policies made in the last fifteen years? The argument made here is that if the gains made so far are not to be lost, then it is necessary to recognise the substantial impacts of public management change and that the two divergent literatures of gender studies and public administration have something to learn from each other.
Sex equality policies in central and local government
A sex equality policy can contain a variety of elements, which may be summarised into three categories: formal elements which address discrimination in recruitment, promotion and grading; informal elements which address discriminatory features of an organisation's culture, such as continuous service requirements, a long-hours culture or a requirement for geographical mobility; and care-related elements which include maternity leave, child-care arrangements, jobshare and part-time working arrangements. These are not exhaustive aspects of a sex equality policy, but rather they are widely regarded to be an essential core. For all three elements, monitoring and review arrangements are crucial in ensuring that a policy is being carried out and is having the intended effect.
Until the 1990s, sex equality policies implemented across local authorities had, while varying widely across authorities, some measure of success. Local authorities were early innovators in equal opportunities, with most developing some form of equal opportunities policy covering race, gender, disability, recruitment, selection and training. Practice was sufficiently successful by 1989 for Joni Lovenduski to observe that local authorities had been in the front line of implementation and are the site of many instances of good practice.(2) While the media have concentrated on a small number of a typical incidents, the academic literature contains studies of good practices, innovative organizational mechanisms for implementing equal opportunities and a number of successful feminist interventions.(3) After `the tempestuous early years, marked by political controversy and extreme statements, both from supporters and opponents' had passed, Riley observed a `settling down period' and a `coming of age' of equal opportunities work in local authorities. Political and executive structures based around women's committees and equal opportunities units were developed in many local authorities, with improvements of nursery facilities and maternity leave. A Local Government Management Board survey in 1993 found that 82% of local authorities had adopted equal opportunities policies, almost all of which covered race, gender, disability and marital status, concluding that the high proportion of authorities with equal opportunities polices demonstrates the long standing commitment in local government to equal opportunities and being good employers. Sex equality policies alone are insufficient, however; implementation is crucial. So the mere fact that a high proportion have adopted policies masks wide variations across local authorities, across service sectors and across manual and white-collar staff. For example, the Equal Opportunities Commission has observed markedly more commitment towards equal opportunities in white collar services than manual services.(4) Manual services in some sectors are worse than others; in building cleaning, policies had not been systematically applied with any commitment. Notwithstanding these variations, however, many local authorities have been described as model employers, some even playing an important role in the local economy as a major (often the largest) local employer in terms of setting standards.
The central civil service built up a reputation as a reasonable equal opportunities employer during the 1970s and 1980s. Commentators have been observing for some time that the centralised recruitment procedures seem to operate without bias. In 1981 Elizabeth Brimelow observed that `we can accept ... that women are now - and have for some time been -- joining the service, at the levels which feed the higher grades, in numbers which reflect their representation among suitably qualified people' and further improvements to the procedure caused Sophie Watson to reach the same conclusion in 1995.(5) Informal and care-related elements of sex equality policies have also improved. In 1970 the Civil Service Department had established a committee, chaired by Mrs E. Kemp-Jones, to look at the employment of women in the civil service. This committee recommended changes in three main areas: increasing maternity leave and allowing unpaid leave for urgent domestic affairs; increasing opportunities for part-time work; and changes in the rules on reinstatement, to make it easier for women to return to suitable work when their children were older. All its recommendations were accepted and implemented. However, the impact of such policies on the numbers of women reaching the higher grades showed virtually no improvement during the 1970s. Elizabeth Brimelow observed in 1981 that ten years on, the results had been negligible. The civil service was still geared towards people who work continuously from recruitment to retirement. Promotion procedures involved informal procedures of assessment of long-term potential which were biased towards men. The Kemp-Jones committee had tried to overcome these obstacles, but implementation had been weak. For the most part, its recommendations were discretionary rather than mandatory, inviting departments to take up mental attitudes rather than asking for specific results.
Measures taken during the 1980s seem to have had more impact. A Programme of Action was first introduced by the Cabinet Office in 1984 and another in 1992. This identified lack of child-care as a continuing barrier to women's progression, recommending changes relating to conditions of service, including extending maternity leave from 44 to 52 weeks; special leave to care for sick children; and a three year right to apply for reappointment to a former grade position where an applicant had accepted a lower grade post because of absence of a vacancy. Government departments were urged to set up equality committees, appoint equality officers and introduce positive measures. By 1989 the overall ratio of male to female within the higher civil service was roughly 12:1 for the senior grades as a whole, with the ratio increasing to about 40:1 for the top two grades.(6) While the figures for 1994 shown below,(7) are not dramatic, they do represent a doubling of the proportion of women employed at senior levels since 1984. However, a 2% increase at Grade 4 is the only evidence of improvement between 1993 and 1994, undermining any confidence that the upwards trend will continue.
1984 1993 1994 Grade 1 (Permanent Secretary) 0 0% 2 5% 2 6% Grade 2 (Deputy, Secretary) 5 4% 10 8% 9 7% Grade 3 (Under Secretary) 25 5% 46 10% 48 10% Grade 4 (Deputy Under Secretary) 11 3% 28 7% 35 9% Grade 5 (Assistant Secretary) 173 7% 388 13% 379 13% Grade 6 (Senior Principal) 380 7% 672 13% 674 13%
Investigating the question whether continuing improvement in the highest grades was likely, Sophie Watson concluded in 1995 that the civil service is unusual in its combination of fairly progressive equal opportunity policies on the one hand and a more than usually exclusive culture on the other: `anyone who can disguise themselves as the "right sort of chap" can rise to the top of the civil service.' The right sort of chap was someone who exhibited the characteristics of a strong sense of duty and obligation, reflected in a willingness to be available at any time; the ability to manage feelings; the `right' class in terms of social background. The exclusionary culture was maintained through the continuing existence of old-boy networks with their origins in public schools, expectations of working late and the perception of part-time hours as denoting a lack of commitment. The type of women who were able to break through the barriers presented by this culture were `women who came from (upper) middle-class backgrounds, who can learn the codes, behave just like the chaps and who may deploy their sexuality as part of passage to the top'. Such a culture was more prevalent in some departments than others; Watson observed considerable variations in the impact of sex equality policies across departments, with the Home Office and Foreign Office especially resistant.
Local government and the central civil service differ in the extent to which feminist initiatives have provided impetus for the changes that have taken place. In contrast to the local level, there is little evidence at the central level that equal opportunity policy has been influenced by self-identified feminists. Gains have been achieved through liberal equal opportunities policies and a few successful female individuals. One central government official interviewed, when asked if she was a feminist, answered that she was, but not publicly: `because it sets you up as a target, it is like saying "I am a born again Christian". Neither is there any sign that women have been brought into the civil service because of an identified need for the development of women's policy areas.(8) While the community of the `Whitehall Village' described (and referred to as `he') by Heclo and Wildavsky in 1981 might underpin Watson's exclusionary culture, there is no evidence of the `bureaucratic kinship'(9) structures of feminists that Eisenstein and Watson identified at the central level in Australia, where the path followed by feminists has been reliant upon an alliance with the Labour Party and on a decision to take up bureaucratic positions within state and federal administration in order to further the interests of women using the power of the state'.(10) Local government women's initiatives, `set up largely as the result of pressure from feminist women organized in the Labour Party'(11) might be said to come into this category. In general, at the local level, there appears to have been a strong feminist impetus for policies aimed at improving sexual equality, accompanied by strong organizational resistance and opposition. In contrast, at the central level, Sophie Watson considered that equal opportunity policy was formulated with surprisingly little formal resistance, with respondents believing it merely reflected larger social shifts. Rather, the modest success at the central level has come from generous but non-radical, centrally-implemented liberal sex equality policies combined with the success of a few determined individuals in breaking through the exclusionary culture to the higher ranks.
It does seem that the top-down hierarchical structures of the traditional civil service allowed the top down implementation of sex equality policies during the 1980s, with limited success (in comparison with the private sector) in increasing the number of women at higher levels. It is difficult to generalise across sectors and companies, but from the literature on sex equality at management levels within the private sector it seems that women have penetrated middle-management levels but it remains extremely difficult to reach the top. For management and related occupations, the proportion of women has risen from 11.3% in 1975, to 17.4% in 1986 and 40% in 1991.(12) But there were no woman chief executives among Britain's top 100 companies in 1989 and only 21 out of the 200 largest industrial companies in the United Kingdom had women board members. In total, 24 women were appointed, but the majority, 18, were either part-time or non-executive directors; several of the appointed women had a family connection to the company or a title; and women often hold appointments on boards of a number of companies belonging to the same group or in similar sectors. Commentators identify many of the same obstructions to women's penetration of the highest levels as Watson observed in the highest echelons of the civil service.
The new public management
Since the end of the 1980s and 1990s, local government and the civil service have undergone a period of radical change, centrally directed in both cases. These changes fall within the now widely used term New Public Management. New Public Management changes have been usefully summarised into three broad categories by Patrick Dunleavy: incentivization, disaggregation and competition.(13)
Disaggregation changes involve breaking up public sector bureaucracies into deconcentrated or decentralized patterns of organization aimed at increasing executive autonomy, and a move away from multi-functional organizations to single issue agencies. At the local level, `provider' functions have been separated into Direct Service Organizations which operate as far as possible along private sector lines. At the central level, administrative functions originally carried out by the major government departments have been hived off into organizationally distinct Next Steps Agencies.
Competition changes are aimed at removing monopolies in the public sector, by opening up tranches of work for competitive tender. At the local level, through various Acts since 1980, Compulsory Competitive Tendering requires local authorities to offer public sector work to private bidders competing against in-house teams, in the form of the Direct Service Organizations. White collar or support services may also be offered for tender. In 1991 the value of work subject to CCT was set to increase by 6 billion [pounds string] a year. At the central government level, Market Testing was introduced in 1991, instituting a similar procedure for the 1994, 2.06 billion [pounds string] of activities had been reviewed, with 1.18 billion [pounds string] awarded to external suppliers. Market testing targets were introduced; these were lifted in 1995, but the process continues in an indirect manner; every Agency must carry out a Prior Options Review every five years, a review process during which the agency must first consider abolishing itself, then consider offering itself wholesale for privatization, and finally identify possible areas for contracting out.
Incentivization changes are those which attempt to replace the old public sector ethic by substitutes for the private sector profit motive. For example, in some local authorities performance pay schemes have been introduced. At the central level, the principal changes have been the introduction of performance pay for top officials and the destandardisation of pay, bargaining and personnel policies across departments and agencies. From April 1996 departments will have delegated responsibility for pay arrangements for grades up to and including Grade 6. Civil servants at Grade 5 and above will be offered individual contracts of employment, similar to the rolling contracts used in the private sector. Some 12% of appointments in this senior open structure are now made from outside and this figure is anticipated to rise to about 20%.
New Public Management-type changes are all aimed at running public sector organizations as far as possible along the lines of private sector companies. The emphasis is on increasing efficiency while maintaining quality, and on outcome rather than process, with performance indicators introduced to replace the old public service ethic emphasis on rules and procedures. The reforms are also aimed at reducing the size of local government and the civil service: at local level, local government employment fell by 5% between 1988 and 1993. A 1993 White Paper states that the civil service should number significantly below 500,000 within two years. Market Testing reviews led to a 26,900 reduction in posts (10,600 staff transferred to external suppliers, 3,300 redundancies, the remainder through natural wastage).
So what do these reforms mean for the presence of women in local government and the central civil service? Their full implication will not be known for many years, but there is sufficient initial evidence to make some preliminary predictions.
At local government level, disaggregation has taken lace n a variety of ways,(14) but the most important here is through the creation of Direct Service Organizations, which then compete for contracts tendered under Compulsory Competitive Tendering. Central personnel departments and equal opportunities units have far less influence over DSOs than they had over the more homogenous local authority workforces of the past. As one official put it, `Departments do not want a central unit overseeing their work@ they would rather just do it themselves.' Incentives for DSOs to introduce equal opportunities policies are small; better working conditions entail expenditure which can jeopardise an inhouse bid and equal opportunities policies are often be viewed as an expensive luxury when failure to win a bid means extensive job loss. In a major study of the gender impact of CCT, the Equal Opportunities Commission found that in only two out of 39 local authorities studied were equality targets set and progress of the DSOs regularly monitored.(15)
Moves towards disaggregation in central government have been implemented through the Next Steps programme. Executive Agencies are organizationally discrete units falling under the loose control of their parent ministry, and run as far as possible along private sector lines. Out of the 104 agencies created by 1994, only eight were headed by women (including the head of the beleagured Child Support Agency who subsequently resigned). The main effect of `agencification' seems likely to be an increase in discretion in the setting and implementation of sex equality policies, as Chief Executives are freer to control matters relating to personnel. Rather than setting up equal opportunities units, the trend appears to be toward identifying key staff responsible for implementing equal opportunities and including equal opportunities in the forward job plans of managers.
The creation of quasi-governmental bodies is another disaggregation change. Governmental functions previously carried out by central government departments or local authorities are divested to newly constituted semi-autonomous bodies. Sex equality policies within these organizations are entirely discretionary. Wider concerns over the accountability of their ruling boards suggest that there is little control over the extent to which women are represented on them. There have been targets for increasing representation of women members of public bodies, as membership seats come up for review, but the argument that there is a dearth of women to appoint, especially in the property world, is often used. In 1987, the Women's National Commission obtained agreement that details of some 50,000 public appointments should be published for the first time and the proportion of women receiving appointments did rise from 18.5% in 1987 to 23% in 1989. These figures mask a large variation across sectors, with public bodies attached to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food scoring only 3% in 1985 and 5% in 1989.
Changes geared towards increasing competition are having the greatest effect of all on issues of employment. Redundancies within local authorities through the first tranche of compulsory competitive tendering in manual and blue-collar sectors appear to have affected women more than men. There was a 21% fall in employment in manual services across the Equal Opportunities Commission 39 case study authorities between 1988 and 1993. Evidence from this survey, combined with previous surveys carried out by INLOGOV and the Public Services Privatization Research Unit, suggests that across cleaning building, school catering, refuse collection, and sports and leisure management, female employment declined by 22% while male employment declined by 12%. Overall, the greatest impact under CCT has been in cleaning and catering services. Productivity has increased but the profits achieved by Direct Services Organisations and private contractors have largely been at the expense of female part-time workers. In contrast, there has been a small increase in full-time employment for men in these services.(17) The extension of CCT to white-collar services is likely to have a further disproportional impact upon female employment. Areas identified as candidates for contracting out are finance, personnel, legal services, information technology, architecture, engineering, property services, housing management and libraries. The concentration of female employees in these areas is high, around 60% in finance, personnel and legal services, 50% in housing management and 80% in libraries.
Where work is contracted out to private sector providers, the only way that a local authority can influence the way that the staff carrying out the work are recruited, promoted or paid would be by specifying that the successful tenderer must operate a sex equality policy. However, equal opportunities are designated `non- commercial' matters in the Local Government Act of 1988 and restrictions are placed on their inclusion in the CCT process. There is only one way round the restrictions; local authorities are allowed to introduce `quality conditions, into contracts, specifying that contractors must be sensitive to their client group, in service delivery areas with high ethnic constituencies for example. In these cases, a limited form of `contract compliance' is possible,with contractors required in the terms of the contract to ensure that a certain proportion of their employees are of a specified group.
The implementation of equal opportunities policies in local authorities has traditionally rested with equal opportunities units and officers. However, the EOC found that the majority of equal opportunities officers did not initially participate in the compulsory competitive tendering process, the conclusion was that a combination of the legislative framework for CCT, a lack of understanding of the CCT process and the structure of local authorities accounted for this lack of involvement. These factors have combined to produce a situation where CCT officers responsible for the tendering process have usually not sought the involvement of equal opportunities officers; likewise, equal opportunities units have often chosen not to be involved in CCT. As a result, the EOC concluded that equal opportunities were accorded `no significance' in the preparation of contracts. Its findings suggested that local public service providing contractors tended to have equal opportunities statements but little commitment and did not monitor employment. Interviews since the EOC report suggest that some equal opportunities units are starting to become involved in contract specification by pressing for the `quality conditions' clause to be included in contracts, but this exception to the restrictions applies only to areas where the client group is largely women.
At the central government level, where Market Testing was introduced several years after CCT, the initial picture seems similar to that observed by the EOC locally (although no analyses have been carried out). Market Testing guidelines allow departments and agencies, subject to restrictions imposed by EC directives; `to give prospective contractors the opportunity to provide information on their employment practices, including equal opportunities, that such contractors may believe is relevant to their ability to fulfil the contract for which they are bidding', and this clause is deemed by the Office of Public Service and Science within the Cabinet Office to be adequate provision against any worsening of sex equality provision.(18) However, the majority of market testing awards are in areas where such information is unlikely to be regarded as relevant: central administrative tasks such as information technology development, legal services and financial management. For example, in the privatization of the information Technology Office of the Inland Revenue, in which 2,000 staff were transferred to the computer company Electronic Data Systems, equal opportunity policies are not mentioned in the National Audit Office report covering the sale. The same is true for the sale of the Information Technology arm of the Department of Transport, in which another 320 staff were transferred. Under the European Union's Transfer of Undertakings and Protection of Employment Directive (TUPE), staff who are transferred to a successful contractor retain previous terms and conditions, but in general transferred staff have little protection against redundancies after a period of time in the new company. This period is specified in the contract; only six months in the case of the transfer of Inland Revenue staff to Electronic Data Systems.
Market testing has had a severe effect on civil service morale. It is difficult to see in this organizational climate which individuals or organizational units within departments or agencies will be motivated to lobby for the inclusion of sex equality policies in contracts, whether they are won by private sector providers or by in-house teams. At Whitehall level, there was little of the culture of equal opportunities that existed at the local level. Such equal opportunities Initiatives as existed were managed centrally and Implemented at the level of whole departments or even the whole civil service. Contracts are managed by burgeoning contract and finance divisions, organizationally distinct from personnel departments and organizationally remote from the Equal Opportunities Unit of the Cabinet Office. There seems little incentive for managers who have equal opportunities monitoring built into their `forward job plans' to tackle the Issue of the equal opportunities policies of private sector providers, especially as this is not one of the issues that is monitored by the Cabinet Office.
The incentivization changes with the greatest impact for sex equality policies would seem to be the `deprivileging' of public sector workers, changing sheltered, pay structures, employment relations and pension rights to more flexible private sector forms which remunerate employees more directly in relation to local conditions and market scarcities. At local government level, there is evidence that Compulsory Competitive Tendering has engendered what the Equal Opportunities Commission termed a `contract culture', in which it is easier for hours or jobs to be cut and terms of service to be altered. Across all services there has been Increased use of part-time workers on short hours. Such changes seem to have affected women more than men, and previous differences in men's and women's pay have been exacerbated under CCT.
At the central level, incentivization changes are undermining the idea of what it means to be a civil servant, in terms of a unified civil service with respect to pay, promotion and grading. Destandardization of pay and bargaining means that existing differences across departments are likely to Increase. Previously the Cabinet Office was responsible for overseeing the implementation of the civil service's equal opportunities Programme of Action; now departments and agencies will be responsible for their own policies. The process of extended delegation may jeopardise the progress of future work on the programme, given that the Cabinet Office's influence over individual departments and agencies will be diminished. The new draft contract for top civil servants mentions `excessive additional hours' and `mobility' thereby institutionalising one element of the cultural barriers to sexual equality noted earlier. The Office of Public Service and Science has acknowledged that the implications of performance pay for sex equality would require close monitoring; some studies of performance pay in private sector organisations have indicated that `men were significantly more likely than women to receive awards'.(19)
The trend towards bringing top civil servants in from the private sector seems likely to affect the slow but steady increase n the number of women that have been making it through the civil service career structure to the highest echelons. In 1994 some 12% of appointments In the senior open structure were made from outside the civil service, and the White Paper anticipated that this figure would raise to around 20%. The inclusion of women in these appointments will depend upon availability, and therefore to a large extent on the number of women who have reached board level in the private sector; still extremely low, as noted earlier.
To summarise, changes at both local and central levels break up governmental bureaucracies and open them up as far as possible to competition from the market. At the local level, the most important effect seems likely to be the Introduction of a contract culture, which erodes the abilities of local authorities to operate sex equality policies within local authorities and leaves any form of regulation of contracts to equal opportunities units with seriously enfeebled legislative tools. In the central civil service, competition changes seem likely to have an even greater Impact than at the local level unless individuals are provided with the motivation to make equal opportunities an Issue in contract provision. Disaggregation of departments Increases the discretionary elements of sex equality policies, already noted as seriously weakening the impact of previous reforms in the 1970s. Incentivization changes seem likely to have most impact at the highest levels of the civil service, eroding previous efforts to overcome informal barriers to women's progression, while actually formalising some of the elements of the `exclusionary male culture'. As increasing amounts of work are put out to tender, it seems likely that the effect observed by an interviewee in one local authority will be seen in the central civil service: `the managerial elite stays untouched, and so therefore it is almost inevitable that you are going to end up with slimmer organisations with more men in them.'
Gender research and public administration research
The academic fields of gender studies and public administration remain almost entirely unintegrated, existing as analytically distinct specialisms and barely recognising each other's existence. The burgeoning literature on the New Public Management and administrative reform rarely considers the gender implications of change. Since a special edition on Equal Opportunities Policies in 1989, the journal Public Administration has accorded virtually no space to the subject, and a recent special issue on `Emerging Issues in Public Administration' in 1995 made no mention of sex equality Issues or feminist writing on the state, which has moved from a concentration on the effects of state policies on women to an emphasis on the gendered processes and structures that comprise state Institutions.
Similarly, the growing literature within the field of gender studies on state feminism has shown little consideration of public management change and the changing nature of the state. It concentrates on a number of disagreements and controversies(20) surrounding the extent to which feminists should engage with institutions of the state. Liberal feminists such as Moss Kanter argue that once women achieve organizational power, their gender pales into insignificance; thus the way forward must be sex equality policies geared at increasing the number of women at higher levels in organizations. Radical feminist writers such as Kathy Ferguson, argue that bureaucracy is intrinsically patriarchal, and that when women do enter bureaucracies they find themselves `caught between the instrumentality of male-dominated modes of public action and the expressive values of female-dominated modes of action in the private realm'. Catherine MacKinnon characterises the state as male. Such writers argue a case against bureaucracy and against women's participation in bureaucratic organizations. In contrast, Susan Halford argues that `feminist perspectives which view "the state" as a functional tool in the hands of patriarchal (and/or capitalist) interests paralyse our understanding of local government women's initiatives and, more widely, of the relationship between gender relations and the state in contemporary Western society'.(21) Those writers who have taken Halford's advice and carried out empirical research in the civil service, for example Cynthia Cockburn and Sophie Watson, have not yet investigated the Impact of public management change of the 1980s and 1990s.
Heedless to the intricacy of the state feminism debate, the subject under discussion is slipping away. As the institutions of the state become more and more fragmented, with an Increasing number of central and local government organizations existing mainly as contract writers and overseers, opportunities for any kind of centrally directed initiative towards attaining sex equality in the future are diminished. As redundancies continue at the lower and middle levels where women had gained a foothold, and a largely male dominated elite forms a higher proportion of civil servants that remain, the proportion of women penetrating the highest levels seems just as likely to worsen as to Improve. The site of action for moves towards sex equality within the state has now changed, with legislative change, regulation and increased monitoring the central areas on which to focus. Any future discussion of the extent to which state processes are gendered will need to take these changes into consideration. If this task is left to the field of UK public administration (which, perhaps not entirely coincidentally, is largely male-dominated), it is unlikely to happen.
(1) See C. Hood, `A Public Management for All Seasons', Public Administration, 1991/3. C. Hood, Explaining Economic Policy Reversals (Open University Press, 1994); Jones International Trends in New Public Management', LSE Public Policy Group Working Paper, 1994.
(2) J. Lovenduski, Implementing Equal Opportunities in the 1980s: An Overview', Public Administration, Spring 1989.
(3) K. Riley, `Equality for Women: The Role of Local Authorities', Local Government Studies, Jan./Feb. 1990. Also A. Coyle, `The Limits of Change: Local Government and Equal Opportunities for Women', Public Administration, Spring 1989 for some problems experienced in implementation of local authority opportunities policies.
(4) K. Escott and D. Whitfield, The Gender Impact of CCT in Local Government (Equal Opportunities Commission, 1995), p. 167.
(5) E. Brimelow, `Women in the Civil Service', Public Administration, Autumn 1981; S. Watson, `Producing the Right Sort of Chap: The Senior Civil Service as an Exclusionary Culture', Policy and Politics, July 1994.
(6) K. Dowding, `The Civil Service' in R. Maidment and G. Thompson (eds), Managing the United Kingdom (Sage, 1993), pp. 18-19.
(7) Data from Office of Public Service and Science, Equal Opportunities for Women in the Civil Service Progress Report 1992-1993 (HMSO, 1993); Equal Opportunities for Women in the Civil Service (HMSO, 1995).
(8) S. Watson, Playing the State (Verso, 1990).
(9) H. Heclo and A. Wildavsky, The Private Government of Public Money (Macmillan, 1981).
(10) See `The Uses of Power: A Case Study of Equal Employment Opportunity Implementation, in H. Eisenstein, Gender Shock: Practising Feminism on Two Continents (Allen and Unwin, 1994).
(11) S. Halford, `Women's Initiatives in Local Government: Where Do They Come From and Where Are They Going?' Policy and Politics, 1988/4; `Feminist Change in a Patriarchal Organisation: The Experience of Women's Initiatives in Local Government and Implications for Feminist Perspectives in State Institutions, in A Savage and M. Witz (eds), Gender and Bureaucracy (Blackwell, 1992).
(12) See V. Hammond and V. Holton, `The Scenario for Women Managers in Britain in the 1990s' in N. J. Adler and D. N. Izraeli (eds), Competitive Frontiers: Women Managers in a Global Economy (Blackwell, 1994).
(13) See P. Dunleavy, `The Globalization of Public Services Production: Can Government be "Best in World"?, Public Policy and Administration, 1994/2.
(14) For local government reform see S. Biggs and P. Dunleavy, Changing Organizational Patterns in Local Government: A Bureau-Shaping Analysis' in J. Lovenduski and J. Stanyer (eds), Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Political Studies Association 1995.
(15) K. Escott and D. Whitfield, op.cit., p. 21. (16) Office of Public Service and Science, Equal Opportunities for Women in the Civil Service: Progress Report 1992-1993.
(17) Cf. K. Escott and D. Whitfield, op.cit., ch. 8
(18) Reply from Minister for OPSS to Commission for Racial Equality.
(19) OPSS, 1993.
(20) For review of the literature see M. Savage and A. Witz (eds), Gender and Bureaucracy (Blackwells, 1992).
(21) S. Halford, op.cit., p. 156.
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Title Annotation:||Women in politics|
|Date:||Jan 1, 1996|
|Previous Article:||Women and change in the Labour Party, 1979-1995.|
|Next Article:||The privatisation of sex equality policy.|