Premium
ENGINEERING A CONSENSUS: FROM THE FINNISTON REPORT TO THE ENGINEERING COUNCIL
Author(s) -
JORDAN A. G.,
RICHARDSON J. J.
Publication year - 1984
Publication title -
public administration
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.313
H-Index - 93
eISSN - 1467-9299
pISSN - 0033-3298
DOI - 10.1111/j.1467-9299.1984.tb00571.x
Subject(s) - intervention (counseling) , state (computer science) , power (physics) , political science , test (biology) , outcome (game theory) , process (computing) , public administration , engineering ethics , engineering , medicine , computer science , economics , paleontology , physics , algorithm , quantum mechanics , psychiatry , biology , mathematical economics , operating system
It is now widely accepted that British governments find radical policy change difficult to Secure – especially where such change threatens to disturb a well‐developed interest group network. The Report of the Committee of Inquiry into the Engineering Profession (19801, chaired by Sir Monty Finniston, Engineering Our Future, was interesting because it proposed a very radical change in the way in which the engineering profession was organized and regulated. In essence, Sir Monty wished to displace the established engineering institutions. A study of the long and complex saga following the publication of the Finniston report is a good test of the system's capacity for policy innovation as well as an illustration of the common conflict between state intervention and professional self‐regulation. What finally emerged, The Engineering Council, can be seen as the outcome of a process of bargaining, which preserved the power of the professional institutions.