In the earlier chapters we set out patterns in the care contexts, policies (or mechanisms) and outcomes in the four nations of the UK, discussing convergence and divergence. This is the first of two chapters in which we explain the patterns that we found. Here the lens is on the ‘territorial policy communities’ (Keating et al, 2009) in the four nations, which we use to explain some of the similarities and differences in their care policy development. Earlier chapters have examined each nation's approach to social care policy-making over 25 years. At the end of Chapter 4 we summarised these approaches as, in the case of Scotland ‘active’, in Wales ‘emergent’, in England ‘symbolic’ and in Northern Ireland ‘stalled’. This chapter considers the institutional design and approaches to policy-making in the territorial policy communities in the four nations. We look at how the scale, style and scope of policy has made it easier for Scotland to go furthest on care policy reform, making the most of a relatively consensual policy environment, with limited veto players. England has been hampered by its larger and more siloed institutions, influential veto players and an overloaded agenda. Wales and Northern Ireland have had constitutional factors to deal with throughout the period, which have delayed (Wales) or inhibited (Northern Ireland) their capacity to be active policy makers on social care. The chapter begins by setting out the concept of ‘territorial policy communities’, and then looks in turn at scale, style and scope.

Territorial policy communities

Keating et al (2009) propose the concept of ‘territorial policy communities’ to explore the ‘rescaling’ of policy that has accompanied devolution in many countries. They argue that the emergence of new policy communities is not an inevitable consequence of devolution: it will depend on the strength of devolution and the extent to which issues are part of the policy competencies of the new institutions. While their focus is particularly on interest group activity in devolved settings, Keating et al (2009) highlight how once a policy domain becomes the jurisdiction of a new institution, it is likely to gather momentum and legitimacy over time. In the case of social care, for example, this has been an area of competence for the newly created institutions in Scotland and Northern Ireland, and, to a more limited extent, Wales, since 1998.