Cranfield University Ian Richardson
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
CRANFIELD UNIVERSITY IAN RICHARDSON The dynamics of third dimensional power in determining a pre-orientation to policymaking: an exploratory study of transnational elite interactions in the post-Cold War period SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT PhD THESIS Academic year 2008-2009 Supervisor: Professor Andrew Kakabadse February 2009 CRANFIELD UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT PhD Thesis Academic year 2008-2009 Ian Richardson The dynamics of third dimensional power in determining a pre-orientation to policymaking: an exploratory study of transnational elite interactions in the post-Cold War period Supervisor: Professor Andrew P. Kakabadse February 2009 This thesis is submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy ©Cranfield University, 2009. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced without the written permission of the copyright holder. ABSTRACT In the contemporary political setting, the emergence of transnationalism represents a significant challenge to traditional state-centred depictions of international relations and raises many questions concerning its purpose, legitimacy and effects. This study is concerned with one aspect of the transnational debate: the dynamics of power that drive consensus formation within informal, and collaborative, elite transnational networks. Situated in debates related to international relations, political economy, policy science, political sociology and social network theory, this study identifies the role played by transnational elites in articulating, as well as interpreting, structural determinants of policy. In short, transnational elite interactions are responsible, often unconsciously, for the legitimisation of pervasive social constructs within the wider elite community. The process of legitimisation within such settings is highly contested and, as a consequence, power relations are critical to our understanding of eventual consensus. Utilising Steven Lukes’s (1974) third dimensional form of power, this study considers the discrete mechanisms of preference formation at play within transnational elite networks. Exploring processes of socialisation, acculturation, familiarisation and fraternisation within such communities, the complex, and highly personal, demands of elite membership are revealed. The study suggests that these demands have a considerable bearing upon the nature and substance of consensus formation activity within elite networks. It also makes clear, however, that any resulting consensus is far from absolute and highly idiosyncratic. This qualitative study is the first of its kind concerned with the interactions of transnational elites. It reports the findings of interviews conducted with sixteen members of the Atlantic transnational network – arguably the most powerful and interconnected of all transnational networks. In presenting an analysis of the first-hand accounts of these individuals, and exploring the dynamics of power within such a context, this study represents an original contribution to knowledge in the field. i ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The completion of this PhD thesis represents the realisation of a goal that has involved considerable personal sacrifice and endless soul searching. No matter how strong my own desire to see it through, it would not have been possible without the help and support of some amazing people. First, I thank the Economic and Social Research Council which kindly granted me a full-time studentship. Aside from the significant affirmation that such an award bestows, the funding also enabled me to continue with my life outside of Cranfield without having to make too many difficult choices. Second, I am grateful to Cranfield University, and the School of Management in particular, for providing a remarkably supportive environment throughout the course of my studies. Special thanks go to Wendy Habgood and Audrey Dunmall in the Research Office who have been patient and helpful no matter how onerous my requests, and Heather Woodfield, Joanna Darmody and Sharon Hinton in the Library, who have not only kept me sane through the experience of Procite and Athens, but furnished me with a never ending supply of inter-library loans. I’d also extend a big thank-you to Sheena Darby and Madeleine Fleure for their ongoing and invaluable support as well as the many other friends and colleagues who have helped me with advice and feedback during my time at Cranfield. They include, in no particular order, James Collins, Ian Speakman, Siri Terjesen, Dan Nunan, Ruth Sealy, Deidre Anderson, Aurora Chen, Phil Klaus and Bassil Yaghi. Third, I thank my review panel who have assessed my work at various stages in the course of its development. I’m extremely grateful for the invaluable advice and assistance of Paul Baines, Joe Nellis and Colin Pilbeam who have helped me to refine the scope and quality of my work. For the breadth of their experience and knowledge, and the humour and humility with which they have conveyed it, I am genuinely indebted. I’d like to thank Paul Baines, in particular, for opening my eyes to the world of public affairs and political marketing. I might not ever be sympathetic to the field, iii but I’ve very much enjoyed meeting so many of his colleagues and friends. His generous support and introductions have been critical to the development of this research. Fourth, I extend gratitude to the people who have helped me to gain access to members of one of the world’s most exclusive elite networks. It is not appropriate for me to mention each by name since, in some cases, this might risk identifying interview participants and, possibly, discrediting those involved; but I am hugely grateful for the time and effort these people have invested on my behalf. Despite a background in business, I don’t believe I’ve ever truly understood the value of personal relationships until now. To those who have helped me to understand how some of these mystical processes work, I express my genuine appreciation. Finally, I thank a small group of people who have supported my efforts through all the “highs and lows” of the PhD experience. It is not an exaggeration to say that I simply would not have been able to get through this process without the help of my supervisor and his wife, Andrew and Nada Kakabadse. Throughout the development of my research, they have provided unwavering support and encouragement and have always had the time and patience to indulge my sometimes protracted process of learning. They have been there for me in my darkest moments and have helped me to adjust to the demands and rigours of an entirely different culture. They have shown confidence in me at times when I have been most critical of myself and have never hesitated to open doors on my behalf. Most importantly, they have enabled me to gradually come to understand the things that really interest me and, crucially, to have the confidence to articulate them. For their great personal sensitivity, and their infectious enthusiasm for learning, I am genuinely in awe and forever grateful. Last, I would never have given serious thought to pursuing a PhD had it not been for my wife, Valerie. Over the past four years she has not only been a constant source of encouragement, but has made many personal sacrifices on my behalf. In between the financial burden of supporting a student husband and the emotional burden of carrying a PhD “work-in-progress”, she has somehow managed to hold things together and even iv become a mother of two children. Without her love and support, and the help of my mother-in-law, it is difficult to imagine how this thesis might ever have seen the light of day. To them both, and Valerie most especially, thank you for everything. v vi “There is really no reason for supposing that the powerful always threaten, rather than sometimes advance, the interests of others; sometimes, indeed, the use of power can benefit all, albeit usually unequally” (Steven Lukes, 2005a) vii viii OUTPUTS AND DISSEMINATION Refereed book chapter "The creation of shared understanding: political and economic consensus and the role of the market in transformational policy discourse". Richardson, I. N., Kakabadse, A. P. & Kakabadse, N. K. Awaiting publication in “Public Administration” (provisional title), Ed. Columbus, F. Nova Publishers: US. Journal manuscripts under review “Corporate social responsibility and the triumph of voluntarism: the role of university business schools in the legitimization of collaborative ideology”. Richardson, I. N., Kakabadse A. P. & Kakabadse N. K. Under review with Business and Society. Refereed conference papers Richardson, I. N., Kakabadse A. P. & Kakabadse N. K. “Corporate social responsibility and the triumph of voluntarism: the role of university business schools in the legitimization of collaborative ideology”. 7th EABIS Annual Colloquium, Cranfield, UK, 11-12th September 2008. Richardson, I. N. “The creation of shared understanding: the function of political and economic elite consensus in transformational policy discourse. An exploratory study”. Doctoral Colloquium, 5th International Political Marketing Conference, Manchester, UK. 27-29th March 2008. Richardson, I. N., Kakabadse A. P. & Kakabadse N. K. "Business schools and collaborative discourse: bridging the legitimacy gap". The World Universities Forum, Davos, Switzerland, 31st January - 2nd February 2008. ix Richardson, I. N., Kakabadse A. P. & Kakabadse N. K. "The creation of shared understanding: political and economic consensus and the role of the market