{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.020368574199806012, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.490566037735849, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE BRITISH CENTRAL STATE. PART II: EMPIRICAL FINDINGS

Part I of this paper (autumn issue) explained the need to improve existing research into the British central state, outlined the bureau-shaping model, and tackled a number of methodological issues involved in applying this framework. Part II demonstrates that the bureau-shaping model is highly effective in systematizing and extending our knowledge of how Whitehall and directly attached agencies are structured. The main types of organizations identified share many similarities, so that the model's categories have a clear intuitive meaning. As a result the bureau-shaping model can effectively cope with analytic problems that have constrained previous ‘bureaumetric’ research, such as the extreme variations in the size of central state agencies. The model also illuminates both the distribution of bureau-types across policy sectors, and the effects of different patterns of administration on public expenditure trends under the Thatcher government.