The Contribution of Le Grands Knights, Knaves, Pawns and Queens Framework to Our Understanding of Relationships - Essay Example

al Affiliation) CRITICALLY APPRAISE THE CONTRIBUTION OF LE GRAND’S “KNIGHTS, KNAVES, PAWNS AND QUEENS” FRAMEWORK TO OUR UNDERSTANDING OF RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN PUBLIC AUTHORITIES AND ORGANIZATIONS WHICH PROVIDE PUBLIC SERVICES PAID FOR UNDER CONTRACT OR BY VOUCHERS Abstract To begin with, it is important to understand what the knights, knaves, pawns and queens concept implies. According to Le Grand, the period between 1945 and 1979 provided some of the best examples of this concept and how it switched between the four aspects that form the concept (knights, knaves, pawns and queens). Le Grand states that public servants and taxpayers were initially viewed as knights who did their best to deliver services to people and reduce the burden placed on others. Those who were offered these services (and who were beneficiaries of welfare) became known as pawns, primarily because they were seen as passive participants in the whole process. They did not actively influence any happenings, and instead sat and waited for the knights to do everything for them. With time, however, (Le Grand mentions the period after 1979) this scenario changed after pawns realized that there were some knights who were not really knights at all (Le Grand 1995, pg. 151). They were more interested in their self-interests than the benefit of pawns, and therefore morphed into knaves. In addition to this, there was little that was knightly about paying taxes and supporting the less fortunate in the society. On the other hand, pawns came to be viewed as “queens”; they were supposed to be treated better since in any market consumers are usually kings. In this paper, I will discuss and dissect Le Grand’s concept and weigh it against arguments which have been against it by the likes of Welshman and others. I will also explore the influence that Le Grand’s framework has had on relationships between public authorities and organizations which provide public services paid for under contract or by vouchers. Key words; Knights, knaves, pawns, queens, Le Grand, Welshman. Analysis Welshman presented an argument that fell a little short of being labeled as an attack on Le Grand’s ideas. He (Welshman) argued that the concept of a cycle of deprivation (or transmitted deprivation) provided sufficient foundation for a demolition job on the knights, knave, pawns and queens notion. In his article, he presented important researches by Joseph, Coffield and others that supported his propositions. In truth, the whole point of Welshman’s argument was a firm grounding in the ability to provide viable alternate arguments against Le Grand’s ideas. For example, using Coffield’s research, a new concept of web deprivation was coined as a replacement for cycle of deprivation (Coffield, Robinson & Sarsby 1980, pg. 48). In essence, Welshman used the loopholes he identified in Le Grand’s arguments to develop an entirely new concept. A closer look at his article also reveals that he viewed Le Grand’s definition of people under welfare was too shallow and simplistic (although Le Grand had also suggested this in his proposition) (Welshman 2007, pg. 95) It is important to note that the knights, knaves, pawns and queens framework borrowed heavily from theories about public management (or organization studies, or political science, or indeed social science quite generally). In a traditional sense, public management was seen as more of calling than just a normal activity with the exception of being directly involved in public affairs. In the past, public servants were held in very high regard, and this is because they were considered to be custodians and trustees of public interests. This thought was supported by a reliance on the scholarly approaches to organizational studies, social science and political science. Over the years, this traditional perspective has been overtaken by other feasible approaches that have proved to be more than just alternatives (Berthoud 1976, pg. 103). These new approaches have supplanted the traditional ones that Le Grand’s concept used, thereby creating opportunities for new ideas to flourish. During the whole knights and knaves conundrum, Kendall introduced a new category known as “merchants”. This category of people was not made up of public servants and somehow fell between knights and knaves. They did not want to be bogged down by the feudal duties and obligations associated with public servants, and therefore decided to explore new ways of being independent without relying on public service (Kendall 2001, pg. 362). The new ways were found in business and, according to Kendall, created a new path which could be exploited by those who were daring enough to follow it. Merchants have since gone on to become key components of the development of strategic welfare policy framework, and play a key role in crafting policies that impact welfare in one way or the other. For example, providers of social welfare can be seen as knights, but what we may not always be told is the supporting cast behind welfare programs and services. Merchants are basically everywhere, and they look for ways to advance their interests by taking advantage of opportunities that are to be found in the development and implementation of social welfare services. Contribution of Le Grand’s “knights, knaves, pawns and queens” framework to our understanding of relationships between public authorities and organizations which provide public services paid for under contract or by vouchers Just like in the period between 1945 and 1979, public authorities are meant to serve people (Deacon 2002, pg. 37). They are created in order to make it easier for government programs and benefits to reach people. Although times have changed, public authorities are still expected to be “knightly” in the way they operate and how they treat the public. Public authorities and their employees (public servants) are still considered to be servants of the people. Consequently, we still have queens (the term pawns is no longer applicable because consumers are kings in this day and age, regardless of their social status). These are the people for whom public authorities are formed and services rendered, and who are viewed as passive recipients. In addition to this we have knaves (Rutter & Madge 1976, pg. 56). These are people who are entrusted to provide public service to the populace, but who focus on advancing their self-interests. They mismanage public funds, engage in corrupt activities and go about their duties with a poor attitude and approach. The only aspect of Le Grand’s framework that appears to be missing from today’s public service sector is pawns, and this is only because of major transformations in viewpoints about the role of consumers. It is clear that although it has undergone some changes, Le Grand’s framework of knights, knaves, pawns and queens is still here with us. Organizations which provide public services paid for under contract or by vouchers have placed a lot of emphasis on the satisfaction of their customers (Crilly & Le Grand 2004, pg. 1815). They have continued being knightly, treating their customers like queens because of the considerable power and influence wielded by consumers today. The crafting, implementation and evaluation of public policy is being driven by the need to satisfy consumers, and this is testament to the influence that Le Grand’s framework continues to have. Motivation has been a key ingredient of public policy formulation and social welfare services (Grand 2003, pg. 19). What these two entities aim to achieve is the ability satisfy consumers at all times; not being able to do this is enough to put a company out of business and make it irrelevant. Public authorities and organizations which provide public services paid for under contract or by vouchers have developed a type of relationship which aims to maximize their ability satisfy consumers. These two entities have had to come up with a way of meeting consumer demands and obtaining financial rewards at the same time (Joseph 1966, pg. 49). It could be retrogressive if one interest was to totally supplant the other, therefore financial benefits and consumer satisfaction have to be balanced and played out the right way in order to bring out the knightliness of public service while retaining financial benefits that are usually highly rewarding. Conclusion Although it has been discredited, criticized and attacked by different scholars since its conceptualization, the Le Grand framework remains one of the pillars of social policy and public service. Le Grand did an amazing job of classifying public servants and consumers as either being knights, knaves, pawns or queens at a particular time, and this classification paved the way for more constructive and integrative formulation of public policy. Criticism and contributions by scholars like Welshman and Kendall have to be appreciated because they have helped improve service delivery as envisioned by Le Grand’s framework. I was particularly impressed by Kendall’s logic that necessitated consideration of his merchant category. Merchants have been influential since their emergence in post-war Europe, and they are not showing signs of waning or letting up. I also think that some of Welshman’s criticism was too harsh and unfounded. I mean, from the beginning of his article, one acquires the impression that he is carrying out some type of demolition job on Le Grand’s framework. This is not to say that his article was also shallow, but he that he could have done better in some areas. As a matter of fact, he is still one of the most (if not the most) recognized critics of Le Grand. References Berthoud, R. 1976, The disadvantages of inequality: a study of social deprivation, London: Macdonald and Janes. Coffield, F., Robinson, P. E., & Sarsby, J. 1980, A cycle of deprivation? a case study of four families, Heinemann Educational, London. Crilly, Tessa, & Le Grand, Julian 2004, ‘The motivation and behavior of hospital trusts’, Social Science and Medicine, vol. 58, pp. 1809-1823. Deacon, A. 2002, Perspectives on welfare: ideas, ideologies, and policy debates, Open University Press, Buckingham. Grand, J. 2003, Motivation, agency, and public policy: of knights and knaves, pawns and queens, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Joseph, K. 1966, Social security: the new priorities, Conservative Political Centre, London. Kendall, J. 2001, ‘Of knights, knaves and merchants: the case of residential care for older people in England in the late 1990s, Social Policy & Administration, vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 360-375. Le Grand, J. 1995, Knights, knaves or pawns? Human behavior and social policy, Journal of Social Policy, vol. 26, pp. 149-169. Rutter, M., & Madge, N. 1976, Cycles of disadvantage: a review of research, Heinemann, London. Welshman, J. 2007, ‘Public health past and present’, J Epidemial Community Health, vol. 61, pp. 95-97. Read More