The creation of the new Greater London Authority (GLA), with effect from June 2000, has provoked considerable interest in policy and academic circles. It stands as an innovation in London governance, an experiment with the mayoral system in British politics and another example of the New Labour programme of modernisation. For all these reasons, the GLA provides an interesting focus of study. The particular focus of this paper concerns the internal dynamics of the GLA as it strove to establish its policy agenda and modus operandi. We were not so much concerned with policy outcomes in terms of documentation and its orientation, but rather the developing nature of the GLA as an emerging organisation. To this end we analyse the first year of the GLA's operation using the perspective of cultural theory, emphasising the nature of the GLA as a set of overlapping institutions. Developing Hood's and Coyle's applications of cultural theory enables us to comment on the tensions apparent within the GLA in its first year and the prospects for integration across the GLA. It also enables a reassessment of the value of such a cultural theory framework in contexts of organisational evolution.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AdamsJ, 1995Risk (UCL Press, London)
2.
BrooksJ, 2000, “Labour's modernization of local government”Public Administration78593–612
3.
CoyleD, 1997, “A cultural theory of organisations”, in Culture Matters: Essays in Honour of Aaron Wildavsky Eds EllisRThompsonM (Westview Press, Boulder, CO) pp 59–78
4.
DETR, 1998A Mayor and Assembly for London Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions (The Stationery Office, London)
5.
DouglasM, 1986How Institutions Think (Syracuse University Press, Syracuse, NY)
6.
DouglasMWildavskyA A, 1982Risk and Culture: An Essay on the Selection of Technological and Environmental Dangers (University of California Press, Berkeley, CA)
7.
DunleavyP, 1991Democracy Bureaucracy and Public Choice (Harvester Wheatsheaf, Hemel Hempstead, Herts)
Evening Standard2001, “Battle lines in sky as Mayor and assembly square up”, 5 March
10.
Evening Standard2002, “Livingstone ‘rides roughshod over opponents’”, 22 April
11.
GLA, Greater London Authority, City Hall, The Queen's Walk, London SE1 2AA
12.
2000aSchedule of Sustainable Development Principles: Draft
13.
2000bReport to Mayor's Management Board 18 December
14.
2000cDraft Economic Development Strategy July
15.
2001aSchedule of Sustainable Development Principles for Use by the GLA and Functional Bodies in the Development of the Mayor's Strategies
16.
2001bDraft Economic Development Strategy February
17.
2001cThe London Plan: The Mayor's Spatial Development Strategy
18.
2001dTowards the London Plan: Initial Proposals for the Mayor's Spatial Development Strategy
19.
2002aScrutiny of ‘Towards the London Plan: Initial Proposals for the Mayor's Spatial Development Strategy’ Final Report of the SDS Investigative Committee of the London Assembly
20.
2002bSustainability Appraisal of the Draft London Plan prepared by Entec for GLA
21.
Greater London Authority Act, 1999Public General Acts—Elizabeth II chapter 29 (The Stationery Office, London)
22.
HoodC, 1998The Art of the State (Oxford University Press, Oxford)
23.
JohnPColeA, 1999, “Political leadership in the new urban governance: Britain and France compared”Local Government Studies2598–115
24.
LaumannEKnokeD, 1987The Organisational State (University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, WI)
LivingstoneK, 2000, “Budget paper to the GLA Cabinet Meeting”, 12 September, Greater London Authority, City Hall, The Queen's Walk, London SE1 2AA
27.
Local Government Act, 2000Public General Acts—Elizabeth II chapter 22 (The Stationery Office, London)
28.
LowndesV, 2000, “Management change in local governance”, in The New Management of British Local Government (Macmillan, London) pp 22–39
29.
McNeillD, 2002, “Livingstone's London: Left politics and the World City”Regional Studies3675–80
30.
MarchJOlsenJ, 1989Rediscovering Institutions: The Organizational Basis of Politics (Free Press, New York)
31.
NewmanPThornleyA, 1997, “Fragmentation and centralisation in the governance of London: Influencing the urban policy and planning agenda”Urban Studies34967–988
32.
OstromE, 1999, “Institutional rational choice: An assessment of the institutional analysis and development framework”, in Theories of the Policy Process Ed. SabatierP (Westview Press, Boulder, CO) pp 35–72
33.
PimlottBRaoN, 2002Governing London (Oxford University Press, Oxford)
34.
RhodesR, 1997Understanding Governance (Open University Press, Milton Keynes, Bucks)
35.
RossJ, 2001, “Management philosophy of the Greater London Authority”Public Money and Management October–December, pp 35–41
36.
StokerG (Ed.), 2000aThe New Politics of British Local Governance (Macmillan, London)
37.
StokerG (Ed.), 2000bThe New Management of British Local Government (Macmillan, London)
38.
StokerG, 2001, “Governance by lottery? New Labour's strategy for reforming local and devolved public institutions in Britain”, paper presented to Multi-Level Governance Conference at the Political Economy Research Centre, University of Sheffield, 28–30 June
39.
StoneC, 1989Regime Politics: Governing Atlanta 1946–1967 (University of Kansas Press, Lawrence, KS)
40.
SweetingD, 2002, “Leadership in urban governance: The Mayor of London”Local Government Studies28(1)3–20
41.
ThornleyARydinYScanlonKWestK, 2002, “The Greater London Authority: interest representation and the strategic agenda”, London DP 8, London School of Economics, London
42.
Transition Team, 1999The Shape of Things to ComeMayor and Assembly for London, Transition Team, London
43.
WestKScanlonKThornleyARydinY, 2003“The Greater London Authority: Problems of strategy co-ordination”Policy and Politics in press
44.
WilsonDGameC, 2002Local Government in the United Kingdom (Palgrave, Basingstoke, Hants)
45.
YatesD, 1977The Ungovernable City: The Politics of Urban Problems and Policy-making (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA)
