| 000 -LEADER |
|---|
| fixed length control field |
01430pab a2200157 454500 |
| 008 - FIXED-LENGTH DATA ELEMENTS--GENERAL INFORMATION |
|---|
| fixed length control field |
180718b2016 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d |
| 100 ## - MAIN ENTRY--PERSONAL NAME |
|---|
| Personal name |
Laffin, Martin |
| 245 ## - TITLE STATEMENT |
|---|
| Title |
Planning in England: new public management, network governance or post-democracy? |
| 260 ## - PUBLICATION, DISTRIBUTION, ETC. |
|---|
| Date of publication, distribution, etc. |
2016 |
| 300 ## - PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION |
|---|
| Extent |
p.354-372. |
| 362 ## - DATES OF PUBLICATION AND/OR SEQUENTIAL DESIGNATION |
|---|
| Dates of publication and/or sequential designation |
Jun |
| 520 ## - SUMMARY, ETC. |
|---|
| Summary, etc. |
Three frameworks-New Public Management, Network Governance and Post-Democracy-are applied to identify and explain the direction of institutional travel in the field of land-use planning in England. These frameworks are used to assess the extent to which land-use planning has been centralized or decentralized over the last 20 years. The last Labour government (1997ﾖ2010) is contrasted with the Conservative-led Coalition government (2010ﾖ2015). Labour introduced planning policies and an underpinning regional administrative machinery that the latter has replaced with a 'localist' planning system and sub-regional Local Enterprise Partnerships. The article concludes that both Labour and the Conservative-led Coalition embarked on policies that involved increased centralization, but that the centralization took different forms, though both parties denied sub-state institutions the political or other resources to challenge the central government in Westminster. - Reprodu |
| 650 ## - SUBJECT ADDED ENTRY--TOPICAL TERM |
|---|
| Topical term or geographic name entry element |
Public administration |
| 773 ## - HOST ITEM ENTRY |
|---|
| Main entry heading |
International Review of Administrative Sciences |
| 909 ## - |
|---|
| -- |
111552 |
