The Development of Prison Privatisation 221 Advocacy Coalition and Prison Privatisation 227 The Pro-Privatisation Coalition 228 The Anti-Privatisation Coalition 234 The Role of Ministers 240 The Context of Prison Privatisation 242 Ideological — The Ascendance of Privatisation 243 Political — Taming the Prison Officers' Association 244 Socioeconomic — The Problem of Overcrowding 246 The New Right Think Tanks and Prison Privatisation: An Assessment 247 The Role of the ASI 247 The ASI, Think Tanks, and Policy-Making 248 Conclusion 250 Notes 253 7. The Impact of the New Right Think Tanks 255 Assessing the New Right Think Tanks 255 The Role and Impact of the New Right Think Tanks in Policy Change 255 The Impact of the New Right Think Tanks on Policy-Making 260 The Impact of the New Right Think Tanks — A Summary 263 Think Tanks, Policy Networks, and Advocacy Coalitions 264 Policy Networks and Advocacy Coalitions 265 Resource Dependencies and Belief Systems 267 The Rhodes Model and the ACF — Understanding Continuity and Change 269 Think Tanks, Policy Networks and Advocacy Coalitions - A Summary 273 Conclusion 273 Areas for Future Research 274 The Future of the New Right Think Tanks 276 Notes 280 Bibliography 281 iv List of Tables Table 1 "Scores on the Doors" 22 Table 2 "The Ideas Business" 22 Table 3 The Stone Typology of Policy Institutes 34 Table 4 A New Classification of Think Tanks 40 Table 5 Policy Community and Policy Network: The Rhodes Model 74 Table 6 The Advocacy Coalition Framework 88 Table 7 The Nine Hypotheses of the ACF 91 Table 8 Key Provisions of the Transport Act 1980 127 Table 9 The Transport Act 1985 131 Table 10 Overlap in the New Right Coalition 175 Table 11 Groups Attending the SCE Conference 189 Table 12 Prison Privatisation — Key Developments 1984-94 227 Table 13 The Penal Affairs Consortium 236 V Abbreviations ACC Association of County Councils ACF Advocacy Coalition Framework ADC Association of District Councils AMA Association of Metropolitan Authorities ASI Adam Smith Institute BCC Bus and Coach Council BSIA British Security Industry Association CCO Conservative Central Office CJCC Criminal Justice Consultative Council COMA Committee on the Medical Aspects of Food Policy CPS Centre for Policy Studies CPSESG Centre for Policy Studies Education Study Group CPRS Central Policy Review Staff CLEA Council of Local Education Authorities CNACE Conservative National Advisory Council on Education CPPU Crime Policy Planning Unit CRD Conservative Research Department CTC City Technology College DEmp Department of Employment DES Department of Education and Science DfEE Department of Education and Employment DHS Deloitte, Hoskins and Sells DOE Department of the Environment DoH Department of Health DTp Department of Transport EPF European Policy Forum ERA Education Reform Act (1988) FEVER Friends of the Education Voucher in Experimental Regions GLC Greater London Council GMS Grant Maintained School IEA Institute of Economic Affairs IFS Institute for Fiscal Studies IPPR Institute for Public Policy Research IPT Informal Passenger Transport ILEA Inner London Education Authority LEA Local Education Authority LMS Local Management of Schools LSE London School of Economics HASC Home Affairs Select Committee (House of Commons) HMI Her Majesties Inspectorate MSC Manpower Services Commission NACRO National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders NASUWT National Association of Schoolmasters / Union of Women Teachers NAPO National Association of Probation Officers NCC National Curriculum Council NBC National Bus Company NCES National Council of educational Standards NIESR National Institute for Economic and Social Research NTBG No Turning Back Group NUT National Union of Teachers PAC Penal Affairs Consortium PAR Programme Analysis and Review PGA Prison Governors Association PNP Prisons are Not for Profit! POA Prison Officers' Association PPBS Planning-Programming-Budgeting System PRT Prison Reform Trust PTA Passenger Transport Authority PTCG Public Transport Campaign Group PTE Passenger Transport Executive PTEG Passenger Transport Executive Group RPTSG Road Passenger Transport Steering Group SAU Social Affairs Unit SBG Scottish Bus Group SCE Standing Conference on Education SEAC Schools Examination and Assessment Council vii SCAA Schools Curriculum and Assessment Authority SMF Social Market Foundation TES Times Educational Supplement TSC Transport Select Committee (House of Commons) TSG Transport Supplementary Grant TVEI Technical and Vocational Educational Initiative UKDS United Kingdom Detention Services Acknowledgements First of all I would like to thank the Politics Department of the University of York for funding me for three years, and Professor Rod Rhodes for his early encouragement. During the course of this thesis I have benefited from the comments and advice of a number of people. In particular I would like to thank my supervisor, Dr Neil Carter, who struck a masterly balance between enthusiasm and criticism throughout, and Dr Keith Alderman whose comments have ensured a greater degree of consistency, clarity and accuracy. Professor David Howell, Professor Alex Callinicos, Dr Mark Evans, Professor Rod Morgan, Dr Bill Tyson, Professor John Hibbs and Dr John Marks have all commented on draft chapters, and I thank them for their time and comments. I am also indebted to all those who agreed to be interviewed, and for their time and hospitality. Responsibility for any errors of fact or interpretation is mine alone. Finally I would like to thank my parents for consistently having faith in me, and for supporting me in everything I do. ix For my parents One The Parameters of Analysis Over the last twenty years think tanks have become an integral part of the British political landscape. During the 1980s, media and academic attention focused largely on the three "new right" think tanks: the Institute of Economic Affairs (TEA); Centre for Policy Studies (CPS); and the Adam Smith Institute (ASI). 1 The number of think tanks has grown steadily in recent years. Since 1988 the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) and Demos have been established on the left/centre-left, while the European Policy Forum (EPF) and the (re-launched) Social Market Foundation (SMF) have been established on the right/centre-right. In 1995 another new right think tank was formed, Politeia, "dedicated to carving out a revolutionary new social policy agenda for the rest of the century" (The Times 19.10.95). Of course, think tanks are not recent innovations. The Fabian Society dates back to 1884, Political and Economic Planning to 1931,2 and the IEA to 1957. Nor should think tanks be seen as purely partisan or ideological organisations. The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), for example, specialises in the study of budgetary and taxation issues. However, it is the work of the TEA, CPS, and ASI which deserves the closest scrutiny for it is widely perceived that these three institutions played a significant role in defining and developing "Thatcherism". The Times claimed that Mrs Thatcher had "three favourite boutiques", the TEA, CPS, and ASI, from which she could "buy policies ready made off the shelf' (17.02.89). According to The Sunday Times "think tank commanders were the SAS of Toryism, working silently behind enemy lines, destroying outmoded policies, capturing the hearts and minds of ministers in pursuit of national revival" (21.04.94). Some suggested that policy-making had become privatised (The Spectator 23.04.88; The Times 17.02.91). Moreover, the perceived success of the TEA, CPS, and ASI perhaps helps explain the growth of think tanks since the late 1980s. Cockett argued that "the new generation of I think-tanks on the left has consciously taken its cue from the success of the free-market think tanks that launched the Thatcherite revolution: the Institute of Economic Affairs, the Centre for Policy Studies, the Adam Smith Institute et al" (The Times 08.08.94). In its promotional literature the IPPR claims that, when it was founded in 1988, "its purpose was to provide an alternative to the then-influential free-market think tanks". The above observations raise two important issues which need to be disentangled. The first is that the new right think tanks were influential in bringing about policy change. The second is that they contributed to changes in the way in which policy is actually made. This research addresses both these claims. It shows how the IEA, CPS, and ASI attempted to influence policy, examines their relationship with other actors in the policy process, and assesses their impact on policy change and policy-making in three policy areas. The obvious limitations attached to any research such as this are acknowledged, namely the difficulties of quantifying "impact", and "proving" causal links between the work of specific policy actors and policy outcomes. However it is still possible to make a qualitative judgement of the impact of the new right think tanks. This research adopts a research framework, the "template", which attempts to incorporate the key factors which influenced policy change. This allows the contribution of the new right think tanks to be placed in its proper context. The template is then applied to three case studies: bus deregulation and the Transport Act 1985; secondary education reform and the Education Reform Act 1988; and finally prison privatisation, contained in the Criminal Justice Act 1991. This introductory chapter has four sections. The first reviews the UK literature on think tanks, and identifies a major gap in the literature. The second explains how this research intends to fill that gap, and outlines its aims and the approach used. The third section outlines the research strategy and methodology adopted. The final section provides a brief outline of subsequent chapters. ? THE THINK TANK LITERATURE IN THE UK The study of think tanks in the UK has generated a growing body of literature in recent years. Previously, the academic literature on the subject was said to be "underdeveloped" (James, 1993: p.492) and "meagre" (Denham and Garnett, 1995: p.324). Prior to 1996, there had been little produced on think tanks, other than Richard Cockett's Thinking the Unthinkable (1994).3 However, four further books were published in 1996: Think Tanks of the New Right by Andrew Denham;4 Capturing the Political Imagination by Diane Stone; and a two-volume work entitled Ideas and Think Tanks in Contemporary Britain edited by Michael David Kandiah and Anthony Seldon.5 This section first highlights the early contributions of the study of think tanks from a number of articles prior to 1994. Second it assesses the major strengths and weaknesses of the four substantive book-length studies indicated above. The academic study of think tanks in the UK began to develop momentum only in the late 1980s/early 1990s, with the appearance of a small number of articles. Some of these were comparative. Gaffney (1991) compared the IEA, CPS, and ASI with ministerial cabinets in France, while Stone (1991) examined how the respective constitutional, institutional, cultural and legal environments helped explain differences in the number and type of think tanks between the US, UK and Australia.6 Other articles addressed specific think tanks, such as the IFS (Kay, 1989), the PSI (Daniel, 1989), and the IPPR (Cornford, 1990). Of these three, only Cornford makes any broader observations about think tanks in the UK. He questions some of the exaggerated claims made about think tank influence, calling them "the performing fleas of the body politic, constantly seeking that critical moment when a small sting may goad the beast in the right direction" (1990: p.22). Similarly, according to James: The impact of think tanks on Britain's policy-making system has been marginal rather than structural. Just as it is no longer possible to dismiss think tanks as irrelevant cranks, so it is unrealistic to claim (as some free market zealots have done) that policy making has been snatched from the hands of Whitehall. Yet while one can point to successful and unsuccessful bodies, it is difficult to draw any general conclusions about think tanks as a class (1993: p.504). 3