A Very British National Security State: Formal and informal institutions in the design of UK security policy

Catarina P Thomson,David Blagden

doi:10.1177/1369148118784722

Catarina P Thomson, David Blagden

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.1177/1369148118784722

Copy DOI

Abstract

What are the roles of government institutions in the design and implementation of effective national security policy? Using the case of post-2010 reform to Britain’s central government security policy machinery, we find that formal institutions can help the informal strategy-making institutions on their periphery to function better. Through interviews with 25 senior officials, we find that Britain’s National Security Council and quinquennial Strategic Defence and Security Reviews – both instituted in 2010 with the intention of improving UK security policymaking – remain limited as formal makers of national strategy. But the networks of individuals and ideas they support, by absolving some decision-makers of audience costs while immersing others in creative yet coherent strategy-development communities, have improved the overall quality of UK security policymaking compared to its pre-2010 condition. This finding also carries implications for other contexts and thus represents a promising avenue for future research. (Final version accepted 20 June 2018.)

Highlights

The article first describes the pre-existing complex of UK security policy institutions upon which the post-2008 formalisation built
Throughout our interviews with British security elites, we find that focusing on the interactions that take place between formal and informal institutions allows for a better understanding of the effects of recent innovations, such as the National Security Council (NSC) and the fixed-term Strategic Defence and Security Reviews (SDSR), on the UK security system
The general election of 8 June 2017 was a departure from the Fixed Term Parliaments Act (FTPA)’s previous commitment to 5-year-long Parliaments, and subsequent developments have necessitated a reappraisal of SDSR 2015’s capability commitments via the 2017–2018 National Security Capabilities Review’ (NSCR)/Modernising Defence Programme’ (MDP), Britain’s NSC and regularised SDSRs are here to stay

Summary

Introduction

The article first describes the pre-existing complex of UK security policy institutions upon which the post-2008 formalisation built. Improvised, extemporaneous security policy coordination endured throughout the 19th century (Hamilton, 2011: 23, 123), until the formation in 1902 – gaining an official supporting Secretariat in 1904 – of the Committee of Imperial Defence (CID): an attempt to produce more coherent national strategy in the wake of post–Boer War military reductions (Devaney and Harris, 2014: 7–8). Cabinet – the formal locus of government policymaking/coordination – had a National Security Committee, bringing together relevant Secretaries of State under PM chairmanship.. Cabinet – the formal locus of government policymaking/coordination – had a National Security Committee, bringing together relevant Secretaries of State under PM chairmanship.5 The JIC held regular meetings to coordinate intelligence and security risk assessments, COBR met to respond to emerging security contingencies, and the Defence Council (embodied mainly in its subsidiaries, the Defence Board and the CSC) met to coordinate military activity

Objectives

Findings

Conclusion