Managerialism vs technocracy

The ongoing shambles at the Home Office raises a a question: why do I call New Labour a managerialist party, if it's so terrible at managing?
Simple. Managerialism is distinct from management. The latter is a practice, the former an ideology. What's more, this ideology is distinct from technocracy, in several ways:
1. Managerialism is a faith. It says that a centralized organization, however complex or inept, can be well run with the right leadership. Hence the belief that Reid is the man to turn around the Home Office. Technocrats, however, ask: how, exactly, is it possible to run an organization?
2. Managerialists manipulate  symbols and image - hence the importance of spin. Technocrats believe they can and should manipulate reality. Robert Protherough and John Pick, in their superb Managing Britannia say (p32-33):

The achievement of modern managerial goals generally involves a high degree of mental abstraction, but little direct contact with the organization's workers, with the production of its goods or services, or with its customers...when managers are 'creating a range' they are pursuing a conceptual notion rather than producing useful things.

Contrast this with the scientific management of Frederick Winslow Taylor. He believed in the minute management of reality, not imagery. He was a technocrat.
This aspect of managerialism explains the tendency deplored by Paulie:

When a headline keeps [ministers] awake, they arrive at work the next morning ready to add yet another ropey patch to bad legislation. Instead of fewer, better, bills, before Parliament, we get more and more worthless legislation.

New Labour uses laws not to change reality, as a technocrat would, but as symbols, to show who's in charge.
3. Managerialists don't learn from history. Technocrats do. To a managerialist, a failure is not something to learn from, but something to move on from, to draw a line under.
4. Managerialists are generalists. They believe that, if you can manage one organization well, you can manage any. Hence John Reid's shuffle from department to department. Technocrats, though, believe  in mastering one aera of expertise. Clive Woodward is a managerialist, Arsene Wenger is a technocrat.
5. Managerialists believe in judgment, technocrats believe in following rules, inferred from empirical analysis. When I sold shares three weeks ago, it was a technocratic decision, not a managerialist one.
6. Managerialists have limitless faith in their ability; technocrats can have doubts. Here are Protherough and Pick again:

In the modern world, there are no bounds to what governments think they can shape and manage. Modern governments now affect to be able to manage everything, from how ambitious we are, to how fat women should be.

7. Managerialists don't acknowledge trade-offs; technocrats do. For me, the defining feature of New Labour is, in Blair's words, the effort to "marry together a well-run economy and a just and fair society." 
For me, the fundamental political question is: just how wrong (if at all) is managerialism? (I have problems with technocracy too, but that's a separate issue.) Before asking: who should govern us? we should ask: what can government do?
In this respect, Paulie and I agree on what the question should be, even though I guess we differ on the answers. The problem is, the managerialist class lacks the self-awareness to even ask the question.

Comments

[dearieme]

Nice one. But may I quibble? "can be well run with the right leadership": surely they also believe that you need appropriate benchmarking in place, within a modernised...........zzzzz.

[The Moai]

Great post.

I would add that it is easier to be a managerialist than a technocrat; as you say, managerialists manipulate brands, not reality, which is much harder; technocrats accept doubt, which is harder than blindly maintaining ideological faith. Therefore, there are always going to be more managerialists at all levels of society, as it just easier to be one, and requires less brainpower.

[Igor Belanov]

As an NHS worker, I can safely claim 'managerialism' as the cause of most problems besetting the NHS. Very little attention is placed on work processes and what there is tends to be placed on areas with stringent targets. Where there are no targets, ie. admin, things are especially inefficient. The high management considers 'policies', 'cure all' computer systems and short term cuts to be more appropriate than any real study of how things operate.

[James Hamilton]

It's an absolutely miniscule point, but aren't you being a bit unfair to Clive Woodward, a man famed for his obsession with minutiae and detail? "..little direct contact with the organization's workers, with the production of its goods or services, or with its customers..." sounds like the complete opposite of his approach.
But as I say, utterly unimportant point.

[Innocent Abroad]

Many years ago I remember asking a New Labourite avant de la lettre whether they'd sooner lead a Council which got most things right but was forever being b*ll*cked by an educated, engaged and vigilant - even pernickety - electorate, or one which got most things wrong but was almost never criticised, because people were too lazy and/or frightened to do so.

Of course, you know the answer already - and it would've been the same whatever Party that political wannabe had been in.

If politics could be reduced to economics, it would've been - at least as an academic subject - by now.

Last night, whilst discussing Reid's approach to his new job with a friend, he asked me which (Western) country had the most efficient interior ministry - I had to say I didn't have a clue. Any offers?

And wasn't there an opinion poll just this week which found, inter alia an inverse correlation between the degree of trust that Blair and Brown evoked in its pollees and their intention to vote Labour if GB replaced TB?

[chris y]

Congratulations, one of your best (and most on point) posts. You should email a link to every MP and ask for their comments to help us decide who not to vote for.

[chris y]

"... which (Western) country had the most efficient interior ministry..."

Does Belarus count as western?

[Andrew Zalotocky]

In practice, the managerialist's faith in judgement translates into the "right" leader being free to make entirely arbitrary decisions. What you are describing is basically a cult of personality. Therefore a managerialist government will inevitably become as authoritarian as political and constitutional constraints allow. If those constraints are extensive, you get something like Blairism. If they are weak or non-existent, you get something like China under Mao.

[Jameel]

Hello ! This is very [url=http://www.google.com/bb497]good[/url] site !!

[generic propecia]

Someone mentioned being swathed in mink. When I was a kid, I was in an
elevator in NYC in winter. Two women got in swathed in furs, maybe
mink, maybe chinchilla, maybe sable ... who knows. But it was the
complete package that did it! The coiffures, the makeup, the jewelry
and permeating all ... the PERFUME! Sixty years later I can still
smell it, and it for me it still epitomizes great and beautiful
WEALTH.