The differentiated polity is Rhodes' alternative to the conventional Westminster model of British government. Instead of a unified, hierarchical system dominated by cabinet and Parliament, it presents a fragmented policy-making landscape characterized by functional and territorial divisions. The model highlights how power is dispersed among a range of intergovernmental and policy networks which have become increasingly autonomous from central control. Managing these networks requires diplomatic skills rather than top-down command [citation:6][citation:11].

Working with David Marsh, Rhodes developed a continuum to classify the relationship between government and interest groups. At one end is the 'policy community': a tightly integrated, stable network with restricted membership, shared values, and significant resource dependency between actors, often leading to a 'private government' insulated from public scrutiny. At the other end is the 'issue network': a loose, unstable grouping with many participants and limited interdependence, characterized by fluctuating involvement and weaker consensus [citation:8][citation:15].

Rhodes introduced this concept to describe the erosion of the central state's capacity in the UK during the late 20th century. He argued that the British state was being hollowed out in three directions: upward to international institutions like the European Union; downward to local and regional governments; and outward to executive agencies, quangos, and private sector contractors. This process, driven by privatization and managerial reforms, fragmented service delivery and made central government increasingly reliant on negotiating with autonomous networks rather than commanding them [citation:1][citation:5].

In his later work with Mark Bevir, Rhodes shifted from a structural analysis of institutions to a more ethnographic and interpretive approach. This method 'decentres' governance, meaning it unpacks institutional practices into the diverse beliefs and traditions of the actors involved. They argue that governance is not a fixed structure but a set of narratives and cultural practices shaped by historical traditions and the dilemmas actors face. This led him to conduct observational fieldwork on government elites, moving beyond formal models to understand politics 'up close and personal' [citation:4][citation:11].

In his influential 1996 article, Rhodes argued that governance is distinct from government, referring to 'self-organizing, interorganizational networks' that allocate resources and exercise coordination. He stipulated that these networks are a governing structure that complements markets and hierarchies. They are characterized by mutual adjustment and trust, and they pose a challenge to governability because they can become autonomous and resist central guidance. This concept has become central to the scholarly understanding of governance [citation:1][citation:7].