Search results

Neutrality has traditionally been considered a key trait of the civil service in Western democracies. The conception of the neutral bureaucracy is closely linked to the notion of the prominent politics–administration dichotomy of the two spheres of politics and administration, as advocated by Max Weber (1980) and Woodrow Wilson (1887). According to conventional wisdom, the firm and encompassing implementation of the merit principle realises the idea of a neutral bureaucracy. In that respect, neutrality and merit-based recruitments are often considered the opposite of politicisation. Conventionally, a neutral bureaucracy is considered to assure competence and immunity against opportunistic ideas brought in by volatile, sometimes erratic political leadership. Because elected politicians come and go with elections, they cannot ensure that political decisions are carried out based on the ‘best’ available knowledge. In that sense, bureaucrats are conceived as neutral, obedient servants that subordinate their behaviour to the will of political masters, to the law and the common good. However, there is no strict politics–administration dichotomy in contemporary politico-administrative systems. Empirical findings from the late 1970s onwards demonstrated that bureaucrats are by no means as neutral and ‘apolitical’ as assumed, but rather remarkably involved in political processes. This chapter discusses the literature on neutral competence and presents an empirical analysis of Danish and British civil servants’ accounts of neutrality. This chapter concludes by suggesting the concept of competent neutrality and discussing implications for our understanding of bureaucratic neutrality.

As a variation on our ‘Day in the life’ section we asked two well‐known user consultants, Viv Lindow and Peter Campbell, to write about a book that has changed each of their lives. To our great surprise they chose the same one — Judi Chamberlin's On our Own. Quite a recommendation! First here is what Viv wrote.

Veterans of the user‐survivor movement, Peter Campbell and Andrew Roberts, profile the Survivors' History Group, a network of approximately 100 members across the UK and Ireland, who believe that the history of individual and collective action by service users/survivors is both interesting and important, and worthy of preservation.

Peter Campbell is a mental health system survivor. This article is based on a presentation given at the conference User Empowerment: Ten Years On, in Nottingham in March 1996.

Money ‐ not only lack of it but also getting it, banking it, saving and investing it ‐ is a central part of most people's lives. From drawing benefits through a bank account to buying a house, people with mental health problems have a need and right to access financial services at various levels. Peter Campbell explores the issues, including the discrimination reported by respondents to a survey conducted by the campaign group Loonscape, and the possible solutions they suggested.

Introduction The demolition industry has traditionally been regarded as the poor relation of the construction industry, characterised by the brute force of the demolition ball — a wholly unrealistic view in the latter part of the 20th century.

EARL (Electronic Access to Resources in Libraries) is a collaborative approach to establishing a national networked information and resource sharing service for public libraries in the UK. This paper provides information on the early stages of EARL during 1994 and 1995 which resulted in a pilot demonstration service being developed as a result of a scoping study. The achievements to date are then outlined and these include membership of EARL by 120 library authorities who use it to provide e‐mail facilities, creation of web pages, access to databases and the development of EARLweb which provides a gateway to a number of Internet resources likely to be of use in public libraries. The current work is described including the British Library funded project, Readiness, the work of the Task Groups and collaboration with European partners. In conclusion the challenges presented to EARL members in the future are included.

In this chapter, we consider how the character of Rob Titchener has been developed in The Archers, moving him from hero of the hour to villain of the piece. We draw on a critical disability studies’ perspective to argue that ability and disability have been crucial in turning the character of Rob from the desirable and attractive man who first arrived in the village into a national hate figure, despised by all. We begin this analysis by introducing critical disability studies and studies of ableism as fields of academic inquiry. We then draw on these resources to offer an analysis of the ways in which ability and disability were used as a narrative device to develop Rob’s character. We question the ways in which ability and disability are used to denote ‘good’ and ‘evil’ in the development of characters in cultural texts like The Archers, and end with a plea to scriptwriters to engage differently with dis/ability and to consider the impact of the stories we tell on the everyday lives of disabled people.