Acceso usuarios
This article assesses Bulpitt's treatment of the centre or central state. It begins by reviewing Bulpitt's argument that the UK centre elite developed a detached style of territorial management and recognized the limits to the state's power. The argument is that the elite at the centre sought to avoid the costs of intervention in the periphery so it could retain its autonomy over decisions affecting the economy and international affairs. The article then assesses Bulpitt's claims against extant evidence from the study of UK politics. It concludes that, in spite of Bulpitt's failure to appreciate the interest of the centre in the detail of local administration, the account holds up surprisingly well and could be adopted as a comparative framework for analysing how central elites seek to keep their grip on power by managing territorial politics successfully.
