User talk:Rahmansalim88/The core executive in Britain

 The core executive study is an approach attempts to understand the government as a complex system, depending on exchanging the resources between the different actors (Prime Minister, ministers, cabinet (government), and departments), not solely as one political actor, or one institution that dominates the government. The core executive shall include key institutions and actors concerned with policy development, coordination of government activities and the provision of the necessary resources for the delivery of public goods. The idea of the 'core executive' as part of the so-called 'anglo-governance school of research' has arisen as part of the 'new orthodoxy'. . the ‘core executive’ is the functional apex (or the brains/heart) of state decision-making. .

Definition
R. A. W. Rhodes and Patrick Dunleavy had defined the core executive as "those organisations and procedures which coordinate central government, and act as final arbiters of conflict between different parts of the government machine. Professor Martin J. Smith has added departments to this definition beside the organisations and procedures".

The origins of the approach
Many studies in British politics in the past were focusing significantly on studying the traditional constitutional and institutional approaches. Bruce-Gardyne and Lawson by studying a number of cases, in 1976, illustrated the strength of departments, and thus the limited role of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. Later on, R. A. W. Rhodes and Patrick Dunleavy had published more methodical research on core executive, demanding the necessity of widening the focus of central government studies.. By 1999, Professor Martin J. Smith has published his book “the core executive in Britain”, which more analyses the core executive conceptually, historically, and practically. . Hay and Richards (2000) discussed the development and evolution of strategic policy networks in the core executive.

The actors in the core executive
there are several actors sharing their resources in order to achieve the proper coordinating in the core executive.
 * Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and his or her office
 * Cabinet of the United Kingdom, Cabinet Office and United Kingdom cabinet committee
 * HM Treasury
 * Foreign and Commonwealth Office
 * Central government law offices
 * Offices managing the governing party’s parliamentary and mass support bases.
 * Bank of England
 * the intelligence services
 * Ministry of Defence (United Kingdom)
 * 10 Downing Street
 * senior MPs
 * pressure groups

key characteristics

 * A shift from bureaucratic management towards decentralised and delayered management;
 * A tendency to set the overall direction of policy rather than the detail of policy- a lack of detailed intervention;
 * Control of a much smaller public sector;
 * The exclusion of economic groups from the policy process;
 * Less consensus between official and politicians;
 * Concern with managing networks rather than directing state bureaucracies.

The core executive and the power of the prime minister
The networks in the core executive are hierarchical and that some actors have more authority and power than others. The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom can be more powerful than the Cabinet of the United Kingdom. It all depends on how significantly more advanced the power resources of each may be. Prime Minister's power and leadership ability are based on institutional and personal resource variables such as reputation, political context, achievement, visibility, and image. Such resources are, in effect, calculated by factors such as parliamentary majority; legislative record; backbench rating and popularity; frontbench rating and popularity; news media profile and ranking.. Heffernan, R., 2000. Presidentialization in the United Kingdom: Prime Ministerial Power and Parliamentary Democracy. In delivery at the 28th Joint Sessions of Workshops of the European Consortium of Political Research, Copenhagen.Page text. . The “closed decision-making” approach to Brexit in the Theresa May' government has led to divisions within the Conservative Party (UK) itself, which is a shift to tripartite divisions within the government, after being a duo between the Prime Minister on the one hand, and one of the four players in the cabinet (Chancellor, Foreign Secretary, Home Secretary and sometimes Defence Minister) on the other.. At its height, for instance, the instinctively autocratic Margaret Thatcher had more power than the more emollient John Major, Tony Blair is more assertive than Jim Callaghan. However, In a political quarterly paper on the hollowing out of the state in 1994, R. A. W. Rhodes not only refers to fragmentation, as mentioned in the core executive, but also to the loss of central capacity.

Criticisms

 * Policies remained mainly the responsibility of departments and thus undermined collective decision making and accountability;
 * Weakness of coordination and strategic direction at the top. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:5012:A000:51D9:2E24:BEA1:4081 (talk) 14:56, 3 December 2019 (UTC)