This book explores the relationship between governance and government. A unifying thread in the discussion is a critical assessment of the role of experts and expertise in contemporary systems of government. The book's main theme is to question recent attempts to remake the state that rely still on old concepts of representative democracy. Instead, it urges thinking about ways to renew democracy without appealing to expertise and nonmajoritarian institutions (p. 4). It suggests a form of “local reasoning” (local to a web of beliefs, rather than to geography) as a way of revitalizing participatory democracy (p. 262).

Mark Bevir starts (Chapter 1) with a discussion of his approach to the subject and promotes what he describes as an “interpretive theory of governance” (p. 3). Bevir defines interpretive social science as “philosophical rather than methodological,” about the logic of arguments used, the meanings used to explain actions, the social construction of policy networks, and the contingencies involved (reasoning and action could have gone in a different way). It involves a shift away from the traditional preoccupation of political scientists with institutions and organizations (p. 85). Essentially, the unit of analysis is the meaning ascribed to their actions by the relevant policymakers. Following this approach, case studies are used as illustrative of patterns, rather than as systematic evidence of formal theories. The author characterizes this approach as “postmodernist,” in contrast to the neo-classical economics and rational choice theorizing of the social sciences that dominated in the second half of the twentieth century and that he classifies as “modernist” (p. 258).

The ensuing discussion is divided into three parts. The first part looks at how policy actors have responded to the new governance by bolstering representative democracy with expertise; the second looks at the challenges posed to representative democracy by the new governance and uses case studies to illustrate a constitutional perspective; and the third uses case studies to illustrate a public administration perspective.

In Part I, governance is discussed in terms of a new form of knowledge production that challenged the way the postwar state embedded expertise and bureaucratic professionalism within the state and supplanted it with the informal authority of markets, networks, and actors outside the formal authority of government (Chaps. 2, 3, and 4). The chapters cover the familiar ground of the new public management and formation of policy networks, but they aim to clarify the challenges posed to traditional concepts of representative government. According to the author, under the impact of governance reforms, the state has become both more fragmented and less open to citizen participation. At the same time, it is exercising, partly through the growth of regulation, more extensive patterns of control over its citizens. These are the challenges posed to democracy (p. 91).

In Part II, the constitutional challenge of the new governance is illustrated in relation to the Westminster model of representative democracy with its tradition of a strong centralized executive. Chapter 5 discusses what is understood by “good governance” and the responses it has evoked. The book asserts that many governments have initiated reforms that aim to empower citizens but that these have formed technocratic responses mainly concerned with the effectiveness of governance, rather than with participatory politics (p. 118). Recent constitutional changes to the Westminster model are then described. They are assessed as falling within an old model of representative democracy and failing to look at alternatives (Chap. 6). A further chapter looks at changes to the role and structure of the judiciary in the UK, ending also with an appeal for consideration of alternatives to juridification as a response to the new governance.

In Part III, the new governance is looked at through the lens of public administration. Chapter 8 discusses the formation of public policy under the predilection of the new governance for networks of experts, and this is followed by a discussion of the move in the UK to “joined up government” as an administrative response. Before concluding, the book takes a look at the case of police reform and, in particular, at community-oriented approaches to policing as an example of the need for more “bottom up” policymaking.

This book can be seen as in a line of discussion about the uneasy fit between democratic theories of government and expertise (see, for example, Robert Dahl, After the Revolution? 1990), as well as in a line that questions the possibly exaggerated claims of theories of governance to provide a normatively superior account of democratic functioning (see, for example, Beate Kohler Koch, ed., European Multi-Level Governance, 2009). The method of “interpretive social science” is useful for supplementing other political science approaches and provides a different perspective. The tables that summarize the narratives and approaches used by key actors to justify changes in political, administrative, and policymaking structures are particularly helpful.

It is perhaps a limitation of the analysis that the Westminster model is taken as the benchmark for assessing the challenge to representative democracy. A more nuanced account of representative government, for example that advanced by Eric Schattschneider in The Semisovereign People (1975) for which there remains empirical backing, might have provided a more robust template. (See Benjamin I. Page, “The Semi-Sovereign Public,” in Navigating Public Opinion, ed. Jeff Manza et al., 2002). In addition, Schattschneider's use of theories of bounded rationality as applied to political participation might also have tempered Bevir's rather too dismissive treatment of rational choice theory (pp. 41–42). Principal/agent theory, given short shrift by the author (pp. 68–69), also cannot be set aside quite so quickly in any democratic system of government where there is a separation of powers and congressional oversight of the executive branch.

The message of the book—that much more attention should be given to local reasoning as a way to revive participatory government—is an important one. However, it is essential to distinguish between the varieties of localism —as a form of knowledge or belief, as a form of political participation, and as a form of community activism that may or may not link to politics. (For a questioning of the link, see William A. Maloney and Jan W. van Deth, eds., Civil Society and Activism in Europe, 2010). In the UK, David Cameron's “Big Society” initiative is in part an appeal to localism and has quickly encountered difficulties in implementation. Community activists do not necessarily want to participate in politics; state funding of local initiatives may foster a client relationship with central government rather than participation; local activists may represent myopic views and beliefs, and local knowledge as a form of knowledge production is a contested concept (for a definition and positive view, see L. Failing, R. Gregory, and M. Harstone, “Integrating Science and Local Knowledge in Environmental Risk Management: A Decision-Focused Approach,” Ecological Economics 64 [October 2007]: 47–60). The discussion in this book, based largely on the one case study of policing, is far too slender a basis to support the message of local reasoning as a way of revitalizing democracy.

Not everyone will agree with Bevir's diagnosis of the challenges facing traditional styles of representative democracy. The prescription in favor of local reasoning also needs much fuller treatment. More important, however, is the way in which he demonstrates that interpretive social science can supplement other ways of analyzing the strains placed on old styles of representative government by new forms of governance. It is to be hoped that the book will encourage others to make use of such an approach.