Reverting to the almost equally enduring but much less inspiring subject of bureaucracy, the mix of rules and judgements has changed since Weber’s day. Bureaucracies are all less rule-bound. I guess that this is simply the result of more bureaucrats being better educated; at least in the middle to lower ranks. That is why imposing more rules from the top may improve bureaucratic performance temporarily by a sort of Hawthorne effect - the lower ranks feel that someone is noticing them for a change - but runs hideously against the grain of the potential for lasting improvement.

With educated and able lower ranks, the way to get the results you want is to say “Carry on” just as soon as you feel sure that the bureaucracy has grasped the outcomes that are aimed at, and shows a grip on how they can be delivered (and not before). These are the lessons Churchill learned from Gallipoli. Blair’s sofa government never took them in; they felt it was enough to proclaim the goal several times over, and to say that it would and must be reached. The Cameronians seem to groping in the right direction; but perhaps more by chance than through informed intent.