Date post: | 07-Apr-2015 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | amrith-vardhan |
View: | 23 times |
Download: | 1 times |
1
New Localism, Participation and Networked Community Governance
Gerry Stoker
University of Manchester, UK
www.ipeg.org.uk
This paper argues that effective local governance has a vital role to play in tackling
social, economic and environmental problems. It calls for a new localism- a strategic
approach to devolution- to allow local communities and governments to involve
themselves in the decisions that effective their social, economic and political
environment. In a global world and one where national governments continue to have a
key role a nested but powerful role for local governance remains the most attractive
option. The first section of the paper sets out the arguments for a new localism.
The second section of the paper argues that if localism is going to be powerful and
meaningful it needs to be constructed in a way that enables, if they wish, local citizens to
actively engage in decision-making. The local level is one of the most accessible levels of
governance for all citizens but we know there are also barriers to public participation. The
second section of the paper sets out to establish what the main obstacles are and suggest
how they might be overcome.
An effective new localism when combined with a realised practice of public engagement
and participation lays the foundations for a new form of networked community
governance. This form of governance goes beyond traditional public administration and
new public management-inspired forms of local governance to provide a focus for both
integrated service and programme delivery and the capacity to engage and involve a large
number of stakeholders in influencing policy. The final section of the paper outlines this
vision of networked community governance.
2
A brief concluding section outlines the virtues and also some potential pitfalls of
networked community governance.
1. New Localism: an emerging governance principle
New Localism can be characterised as a strategy aimed at devolving power and
resources away from central control and towards front-line managers, local democratic
structures and local consumers and communities, within an agreed framework of national
minimum standards and policy priorities (Corry and Stoker, 2002; Corry et al, 2004). In
short it represents a practical response to a significant practical challenge: how to manage
a substantial variety of state service provision and interventions in a world that defies
the application of simple rule-driven solutions and where the recipient of the service has
to be actively engaged if the intervention is going to work. Building a road or providing
electricity is a task that requires of level of state capacity in building a better
environment for citizens. Creating the conditions for a damaged child or community to
achieve their potential requires a rather different and more subtle capacity
The case for New Localism rests on three grounds. First it is a realistic response to the
complexity of modern governance. Second it meets the need for a more engaging form
of democracy appropriate to the 21st century. Third New Localism enables the
dimensions of trust, empathy and social capital to be fostered and as such encourages
civil renewal. The case New Localism against rests around concerns about local decision-
making either failing in some way or leading to more inequitable outcomes. These
arguments for and against New Localism will be explored further below.
1.1 Complexity
There are very few problems confronting communities today that have simple solutions.
Protecting the environment, creating a sound economy, sustaining healthy communities
3
or helping to prevent crime all require a complex set of actions from people and agencies
at different spatial levels and from different sectors. It would be nice to argue that we
should stop doing complexity and instead think about simplicity. That might wash in a
self improvement book but when it comes to running the business of a modern society the
attraction of simplicity is false. As the saying goes ‘to every complex problem there is a
simple answer and it is always wrong’.
We need to find ways of living with complexity. We need to understand any problem or
issue in its multiple dimensions and find mechanisms that enable us to not get swamped
by complexity but to deal with it effectively. That is where the message of New Localism
has got something to offer. The path to reform is not to allow local institutions complete
autonomy or equally to imagine that the centre can steer the whole of the government
system. We need a form of central-local relations that allows scope for all institutions to
play an active role and we need to find ways of involving a wider range of people in the
oversight of the services that are provided through public funds and in the search for
solutions to complex problems.
Complexity comes in a range of forms: structural, technical or over the allocation of
responsibilities. Indeed as Saward (2003: 98) note ‘one of the key challenges to
democracy today lies precisely in the sheer complexity of modern government and
governance’.
Complexity is inevitable because of the range of activities that governments and public
services are now engaged in. There are as a result a lot of organisations involved in
delivery. Governing operates a range of levels and through a range of organisations.
Complexity also results from the sheer technical difficulty of what we now attempt to do
in the public sphere. We have moved from hard-wiring challenges to a concern with soft-
wiring society. It was enough of a challenge to build schools, roads and hospitals and
4
ensure the supply of clean water, gas, electricity and all the requirements of modern life.
As recent (late 2003) events in the USA and Canada with major power failures remind us
that even hard wiring can still go wrong big time! But so much of what we are trying to do
now is about soft wiring, getting healthier communities, ensuring that children from their
early years get the right stimulation and the right environment in which to grow and
develop, trying to find ways in which our economy can grow in a way that meets the
challenges of globalisation and the need for sustainability. Soft wiring challenges are
complex.
Complexity is also reflected is that there is a boundary problem in a lot of public policy
arenas. Who is responsible for keeping us healthy? Is it the citizen who should eat and
drink appropriately, the state that should provide good advice or companies that should
sell healthier food? We know it unfair to ask the police, on their own, to solve the
problem of crime. We know that for our children to become educated needs more than
better schools. In short, complexity comes from the fact that the boundaries between
sectors of life and different institutions have become increasingly blurred.
So complexity of function, scale, purpose and responsibility are part of the modern
condition. What does New Localism deliver in the light of complexity? New Localism is
attractive because it is only through giving scope for local capacity building and the
development of local solutions, in the context of a national framework, which we can
hope to meet the challenge posed by these complexities. The solution to complexity is
networked community governance because it is only through such an approach that local
knowledge and action can be connected a wider network of support and learning. In that
way we can get solutions designed for diverse and complex circumstances.
5
1.2 Democracy: Engaging Participants
To commit to New Localism means recognising that conventional understandings of
democracy are valuable but limited. We can agree that several of the features of
conventional vision of democracy remain essential: the protection of fundamental citizen
rights and freedom of organisation and assembly for groups and individuals. But we need
we need different answers to two fundamental questions: what are the building blocks of
democracy and what is the nature of accountability. The conventional answer to these
two questions sees the nation state, national assemblies and central government as the
ultimate and indeed prime building blocks of democracy and accountability as led by
elected representatives being held to account by their electorates. This top down view of
democracy is not appropriate when we think about making democracy work in our
complex societies.
New Localism draws in broad terms from the ideas of associative democracy advocated by
the late Paul Hirst, although it should be said straight away that our approach is a good
deal more piecemeal and partial than the vision set out by Hirst. However, we take from
his writings (in particular Hirst, 2000) four essential insights.
First, that democracy must have a strong local dimension; the core institution of
democracy is not the nation state. Democracy is made real through its practice at local,
regional and international levels as well as the level of the nation state. More than that
central government should be an enabler, regulator and maybe a standard setter but not a
direct provider nor the level for coming to judgements about detailed directions or the
substance of services. Second, that provision itself must be plural through a variety of
organisations and associations so that everyday citizens have an opportunity to be
involved in decisions about services and judge the capacity of different institutions to
deliver. Third, democracy can be organised through functional as well as territorial forms.
Users of a particular service, those concerned with a particular policy issue, form as
6
legitimate a political community as those that come from a particular territorial base.
Finally, this understanding of democracy sees accountability as a more rounded process.
The electorate choosing their representatives remains important but people should have
more opportunities to be involved in direct discussion with service providers and be in a
position to judge their performance. In short accountability involves reason-giving,
questioning and a continuous exchange between the provider and the relevant public. The
service providers will also have accountability to the centre in terms of the minimum
standards. The lines of accountability are multiple and overlapping.
1.3 Building social capital and the capacity for civil renewal
One key area where this new vision of democracy has the potential to deliver is with
respect to the hidden social fabric of trust, social capital and citizenship that make a key
contribution to tackling the complex service and policy issues that we now face (Putnam,
2000). We need to find ways in which these resources among ordinary citizens can be
fostered and replenished. A New Localist policy has the potential to be centrally
important in developing these resources.
We know that involvement and exchange are the crucial ways in which trust and social
capital are created and sustained. A democracy of strangers loses these dimensions yet
both trust and social capital are essential for encouraging the commitment and providing
the glue that allows solutions to complex problems to be identified and followed through.
Trust and the sense of shared values, norms and citizenship that is encouraged through
social capital can make people willing to go the extra mile in the search for solutions; it
can enable agreements and collective action. A local dimension to governance can draw
particularly effectively on these social dimensions of decision-making.
The essential insight of social capitalists is that the quality of social relations makes a
difference to the achievement of effective outcomes when it comes to activities that
7
involve complex exchange of ideas and the co-ordination of a variety of actors. To buy a
loaf of bread requires little in the way of intensity of social relations but to come to a
judgement about the use of open space in a community or to take on the commitment
for a project to clean up the local environment does require effective networks of
information flow, trust and some shared norms. Local or community governance can
deliver that capacity and help to meet challenges that top-down government simply lacks
the strength of social relations to deliver.
The social capital debate is driven by the values of solidarity, mutuality and democratic
self-determination. That ethos in turn leads to strategic interventions by the state, in
partnership with civil society, in three areas: the promotion of active citizenship (
through better understanding of what works, education and providing new opportunities),
the strengthening of communities( through community development and cohesion
strategies) and the practice of partnership in meeting public need ( in service delivery).
This active intervention-which could be characterised as a strategy of civil renewal- is
required because the forces of globalisation and technological change have challenged
traditional forms of community and participation and in part contributed to the
development of a thin, consumerist civic realm that is undermining the relationship
between government and citizens ( Stoker and Greasley, 2004).
Civil renewal is about giving people a stronger sense of involvement in their communities
and a greater say over their lives. The greater sense of efficacy and autonomy it offers
people combines rights and responsibilities. People have rights to: respect for
themselves, a quality of life, decent public services and the opportunity to influence their
environment. But equally they have responsibilities to respect others, make a
contribution to supporting their environment and their fellow citizens and to engaging in
and accepting as legitimate the outcomes of the democratic process.
8
The dual character of the civil renewal agenda makes it ultimately a philosophy of
community governance. Governance arrangements are very familiar to us in public,
commercial and voluntary settings. They are the rules and procedures that explain and
justify the making of collective decisions in the institutions or communities to which
they apply. The rules of decision making present to the relevant stakeholders certain
rights, but at the same time also certain obligations. They set out procedures for resolving
disputes and getting to a legitimate decision. Civil renewal in the light of this insight is
not just there to enable people to participate more rather it demands participation with a
purpose. That purpose is to engage people in making their communities better places
both for themselves and for those around them. To make these governance rules real and
capable of being achieved in practice may require active intervention, support, training
and resources from government and other agencies.
The ultimate goal of civil renewal should not then be confused with simple community
engagement or empowerment. Nor is about encouraging people to live in tolerance with
others or feel a greater sense of neighbourliness, although such ambitions may be achieved
through civil renewal. The aim is both more specific and more profound. It is to establish
and make workable a set of rules about the way in which communities make decisions
about public services, the operation of the justice system and the condition of their
physical, social and ecological environment. This set of rules is about establishing for
citizens and public officials (elected and unelected) the ways in which relationships should
be reconstructed in the making of collective decisions in the public realm.
The civil renewal agenda then is about achieving a shift in the focus and operation of
decision making. It means more decisions taken locally and more community
involvement in making decisions in the public interest. It does not mean an end to
decision making responsibility at other levels or of other forms. It is about a shift in the
balance between, respectively, national and local, representative and participative and
self-regarding and other-regarding politics.
9
1.4 Addressing Competence and Equity Concerns
There are two common grounds for objecting to local decision-making. One line of
argument is that the perspective of communities is inherently limited and limiting. The
danger of too much local decision-making is that it opens up too much decision making
to the parochial concerns of narrow-minded individuals and threatens the ideas and
practice of a wider welfare politics. Behind the romantic notions of community lurks a
real world of insular, ‘not in my own back yard’ politics. Most forms of progressive
politics need a wider canvass than local politics can provide, it is argued.
The second objection is that if the problems faced by communities are going to be
addressed there is a need for interventions to address the inequalities faced by particular
communities. To tackle inequality requires national or even international intervention
and creating more scope for local decision-making simply helps to foster or even
reinforce existing inequalities. Rich areas will stay rich and poor areas will be allowed the
freedom spend non-existent resources on addressing the problems they confront.
It is precisely because of recognition of these concerns that ‘new’ is added to the localism
advocated outlined in this paper. New Localism is crucially set in the context of national
framework setting and funding. Indeed the localism that is advocated is part of a wider
system of multi-level governance. Moreover there is nothing in New Localism that
means that is simply assumes that local politics is automatically devoid of the tensions
that characterise politics at other levels. Conflict between interests and the resolution of
those conflicts remain at the heart of politics wherever it is conducted. Localism does
not imply a sort of romantic faith in communities to come up with solutions for the
common good. Nor it incompatible with a redistribution of resources provided through
the power of higher levels of government.
10
The argument for New Localism is an argument for a shift in the balance of governance,
one that allows more scope for local decision making and local communities. It is
premised on the idea that involving people in the hard, rationing choices of politics in
the context of a shared sense of citizenship is a way of delivering a more mature and
sustainable democracy. It is also based on the idea that meeting the challenge of equity
does not mean treating all communities or individuals the same but rather it involves
tailoring solutions to meet particular needs. That proposition would be widely accepted
and localism can play as part in ensuring the tailoring process succeeds and is responsive
to local needs and circumstances.
1.5 Summary and review
The complexity of what the modern state is trying to achieve, the need for a more
engaging form of politics and a recognition of the importance of issues of empathy and
feelings of involvement to enable social and political mobilisation make the case for a
New Localism because it is at the local level that some of these challenges can best be
met. The point is not that all social and political action and decision should be local but
rather that more of it should be.
The vision of New Localism needs to be carefully specified in a way that recognises
diversity in communities and a concern with equity issues. The argument is not for a
romantic return to community decision making or a rampant ‘beggar by neighbour’
localism. It is about a key and growing role for local involvement in decision making
about the public services and the public realm as part of a wider system of multi-level
governance.
2. Developing a framework for participatory governance
11
New Localism requires not the simple passing down of powers to formal local government
but the active engagement of local citizens in the governance of their communities. But
achieving participatory governance is not a straight-forward or easy task. This section of
the paper reinforces the case made already for citizen participation and then moves on to
examine how some of the barriers to public participation can be identified and
overcome.
2.1 Participatory governance
Why is participatory governance an attractive option? One answer is that there is
intrinsic value in participation. It is good that people as citizens are actively involved in
decision making in their communities. To be a full citizen means to be involved in the
decisions that affect yourself and your neighbours. Some argue further that governments
at all levels should seek active citizen endorsement rather than acquiescence to their
policies and programmes. Good governance is not just a matter of delivering good
outcomes. At least as important is the manner in which it is done, and involving citizens
on an active basis is desirable. It gives a positive perspective on what democracy should be
like as a living practice in the twenty first century. These were the arguments for
participation presented in the first part of the paper.
Other arguments emphasize the knock-on benefits of participation. These
consequential arguments come in a range of shapes and forms. Participation can be
seen as the tool to deliver accountability. Participation is also crucial in helping to
sustain the legitimacy of decisions. It could be argued that local municipalities would
not be able to act as effective community leaders if they lacked a base of popular
support. More generally there is a need to rebuild public confidence in political
institutions and the most powerful way to do that is to seek active citizen
endorsement of the policies and practices of public bodies.
12
Another key argument for finding new ways to engage with people is that
government needs to listen and learn to design better policies and services. How
would you know that your public services are meeting people’s needs unless you had
asked them in a coordinated and sustained way? Effective channels of
communication are also essential to achieving many wider social and economic
outcomes of concern to local public bodies. For example, to launch a waste recycling
scheme or change vehicle driving habits requires an intensive dialogue and high levels
of trust between the public and authorities.
Not all forms of participation carry equal value or share the same purpose. A broad
distinction can be drawn between electoral and non-electoral forms. A special honour
needs to be given to electoral participation. It provides the most equal form of
participation, with the same weight given to each vote. Elections are a key moments
when a nation or a community decides the way it wants to move forward and who it
wants to lead it. The vote casts a long shadow and acts as a guide to policy makers in
an array of decisions they face in the future. Participation between elections
stimulated by various forms of consultation offers a different dynamic to democracy.
It provides a way of allowing people to influence decisions that they are particularly
concerned about and allows for a more focused and specific input into the decision-
making process than electoral participation would normally allow. It may be that
the issues addressed in non-electoral forms of participation may be more mundane
and narrow. Participation will certainly be more piecemeal and cannot be expected to
match the exacting representative standards of electoral participation but it adds a
different and valuable dimension to local decision-making processes. The local level
is in many respects the ideal setting to engage the public beyond the ballot box as
the immediacy and closeness of the setting enables a more intensive and developed
exchange between governors and governed to develop.
13
The challenge is to find ways of engaging people on their own terms. Voting can be
made more meaningful and deliverable in a variety of forms. Participation beyond
the ballot box can be obtained through various methods of public consultation and
deliberation. New information and communication technologies may offer a range of
further opportunities to get people’s participation in a way that is flexible, attractive
to them and not too time-consuming. The barriers confronting the participation of
particular groups also need to be addressed. We need to make sure that more
participation means opportunity to influence for all rather than just the organized
few.
2.2 The factors that determine the prospects for public participation
Understanding what drives participation among their citizens will enable
municipalities to develop more appropriate mixes of intervention and the right range
of opportunities and encouragements. Social science research identifies a number of
factors as to why people participate in local civic life ( for an extended discussion of
the C.L.E.A.R model see Lowndes et al, 2002; Stoker et al , 2003) . People
participate when they can. People participate when they have the resources
necessary to organise, mobilize and make their argument. People participate when
they think they are part of something, they like to participate because the arena of
participation is central to their sense of identity and their lifestyle. They participate
when they are enabled and encouraged by an infrastructure of good civic
organisations that provided different pathways to participation. People participate
when they are directly mobilized or asked for their opinion. Finally people
participate when they experience the system which they are seeking to influence as
responsive. Table 1 below that outlines the C.L.E.A.R framework of factors driving
participation identifies some of the policy measures that may be appropriate in
responding to and addressing that factor.
14
Table 1: Factors promoting participation: it’s C.L.E.A.R Factor affecting participation
How it works Associated Policy Target
Can do The individual resources that people have to mobilise and organise (speaking, writing and technical skills, as well as confidence to use them) make a difference in their capacity to participate
Capacity Building: specific support measures or targeted development
Like to To commit to participation requires a sense of involvement with the public entity that it the focus of engagement
Sense of community, civic engagement, social capital and citizenship
Enabled to The civic infrastructure of groups and umbrella organisations makes a difference because it creates or blocks an opportunity structure for participation
To build the civic infrastructure so that there are groups and organisations around to channel and facilitate participation
Asked to Mobilising people into participation by asking for their input can make a big difference
Public participation schemes that are diverse, engaging and reflexive
Responded to When asked people say they will participate if they are listened to, not necessarily agreed with, but able to see a response
A public policy system that can show a capacity to respond
The C.L.E.A.R model brings together a range of evidence about the ways in which
participation is institutionally framed. It provides a framework against which politicians,
officials, community representatives and members of the public can assess the
participation and consultation efforts of local authorities.
Getting people to participate is not a simple task. There are blocks that stem from lack
of capacity to participate or a lack of engagement with political organisations or issues.
Long term measures can address these blocks, but building community capacity or a sense
of citizenship are not challenges from which policy makers can expect easy or quick
results. Deep-seated structural factors are clearly at work in shaping people’s resources
and attitudes. But the behaviour of local politicians and managers is also important – and
here change is more straight-forwardly in the hands of policy makers. If they ask
people to participate in a committed and consistent manner and respond effectively to
their participative inputs, they are far more likely to engage.
15
The C.L.E.A.R model suggests to policy makers that, if they wish to increase local
participation, the solution is to a substantial extent in their own hands: all of the key
factors that drive up participation in a locality are open to their influence. They cannot
expect immediate results but policy levers are available to tackle every concern as Table
1 shows. Activity levels rise where people can participate, like to participate, are enabled
to do so, are asked to get involved, and also responded to. It is C.L.E.A.R what are the
key factors driving participation.
It is worth considering each of the factors in a little more detail. Broadly, the higher the
socio-economic status of the residents of a locality, the more likely they can engage in
participation. The ‘can do’ factor rests on the argument that, having the skills,
competences and confidence to engage in political participation, is a significant factor in
stimulating participation. There is plenty of evidence to support the impact of the ‘can
do’ factor through socio-economic effects, defined in terms of people’s income, skills
and time. Almost all systematic studies of participation regard these factors as central to
explaining why people participate. A policy response is equally possible in terms of
building the capacity of groups through community development, training and
development and practical support through the provision of community centres and
resources targeted at those groups or communities that may need help to find their voice.
The ‘like to’ factor, in contrast, rests upon a sense of attachment to the political entity
where participation is at stake and relates to the debate about social capital. Evidence
from many studies confirms that where people feel a sense of togetherness or shared
commitment they are more willing to participate. People’s positive psychological
disposition towards the object of participation can make a difference. Here the policy
response rests on trying to build a sense of community or neighbourliness. People have to
feel part of a community to be comfortable with participation; so strategies of building
16
social or community cohesion may be an important part in creating the right
environment for participation.
Some studies of social capital favour a more organisational or social network
understanding of its impact. Research suggests that it is access to networks that enable
people to participate that is crucial . Where organisations in civil society (non-
governmental organisations, charities, the voluntary sector, not-for –profits) that co-
ordinate or promote participation are strong then participation is also likely to be strong.
Strong civic institutions can give people the framework in which to develop their
participation skills and the confidence to express their views. They can also provide a
crucial lever for encouraging participation by providing a route or path for people to
follow. Like all networks these civic organisation if they are going to form an element in
a municipalities’ participation strategy may need to be monitored, challenged and
managed so that they provide channels for the representation of a wide range of interests
rather than a privileged position for a few.
People’s readiness to participate is also, unsurprisingly perhaps, affected by whether they
are ‘asked to’ engage. Mobilisation can come from a range of sources- as suggested above
civic institutions can play at key role- but much of the evidence from researchers suggests
that it is public authorities directly that make a big difference. In particular it appears that
if the call to establish participation has sustained and deep routes in the political and/or
management leadership within a municipality it can make a significant impact on
people’s willingness to participate. If participation is taking seriously by the leaders on
local authorities then the public will respond. They may not universally admire their
governors, they may indeed remain highly critical, but they will think that participation
is worth doing if they are asked. The sense that their opinions are wanted can be the
crucial catalyst in encouraging participation.
17
This observation leads us to the final element of the C.L.E.A.R model. For people to
participate they have to believe that they are going to be listened to and, if not always
agreed with, at least in a position to see that their view have been taken into account. In
the language of the C.L.E.A.R model they have to be ‘responded to’. Research using
focus groups reveals the importance of this factor. As Lowndes et al (2001) and her
colleagues conclude:
Succinctly stated in their own words, citizens’ core criteria were: (a) ‘Has anything
happened?’ (b) ‘Has it been worth the money?’ and (c) ‘Have they carried on talking to
the public?
Consultation works, then, when it is sensitive to the environment in which it operates
and is seen to have delivered some shift in the frame of decision-making. Feedback on
consultation exercises would appear the crucial policy response in making sure they
people feel they are being listened to.
The C.L.E.A.R model provides a way of examining what the key blockages and under-
used -instruments for encouraging local participation might be by bringing together and
synthesizing much of available research material on the factors that drive political
participation. The use of the tool and the nature of appropriate policy responses will
depend on the circumstances of different member states and localities. However as Table
1 indicates there are positive responses that public authorities can make to each of the
participation challenges to be addressed.
3. Beyond New Management: The Emergence of Networked Local
Governance
Networked community governance sets as its over-arching goal the meeting of
community needs as defined by the community within the context of the demands of a
complex system of multi-level governance (Stoker, 2004). The model demands a diverse
set of relationships with ‘higher’ tier government, local organisations and stakeholders.
18
The relationships are intertwined and the systems of accountability are multiple. The
political process is about identifying problems, designing solutions and assessing their
impact. Success is not a simple matter of efficient service delivery but rather the complex
challenge of whether an outcome favourable to the community has been achieved. The
responsibility ids not just to deliver certain services well but steer a community to meet
the full range of its needs. The model takes up the challenge of holistic working which is
achieving ‘greater effectiveness in tackling the problems that the public most care about’
(Perri 6 et al, 2002:46).
Table 2 sets out in an abstract form three eras for the governing of local affairs. In
the post war Second world war period for large parts of the developed world local
government played its part in the establishment of the core services of the welfare
state and along with that role in the welfare state role went certain assumptions about
how local services should be governed. A period of in which local government
adopted a traditional public administration form gave way under pressure from a New
Public Management wave carried first by the local government reorganization in the
early 1970s. The consequent model of enabling local governance on offer was driven
by a different set of ideas about the way those public services should be governed,
with efficiency and customer care as the watch words. We are moving at the
beginning of the 21st century towards another set of ideas about the governance of
local public services. This is a vision of networked community governance that could
provide the basis for a new role for local government.
19
Table 2: Eras of local governing 1
Elected local government in post war setting
Local government
Under New Public
Management
Networked Community
Governance
Key objectives
of the governance system
Managing inputs, delivering services in the context of a national welfare state
Managing inputs and outputs in a way that ensures economy and responsiveness to consumers
The overarching goal is greater effectiveness in tackling the problems that the public most care about
Dominant ideologies
Professionalism and party partisanship
Managerialism and Consumerism
Managerialism and localism
Definition of Public
interest
By politicians / experts. Little in the way of public input
Aggregation of individual preferences, demonstrated by customer choice
Individual and public preferences produced through a complex process of interaction
Dominant model of account-
ability
Overhead democracy: voting in elections, mandated party politicians, tasks achieved through control over the bureaucracy
Separation of politics and management, politics to give direction but not hands on control , managers to manage, additional loop of consumer assessment built into the system
Elected leaders, managers and key stakeholders involved in search for solutions to community problems and effective delivery mechanisms. System in turn subject to challenge through elections, referendums, deliberative forums, scrutiny functions and shifts in public opinion
Preferred system for service delivery
Hierarchical department or self-regulating profession
Private sector or tightly defined arms-length public agency
Menu of alternatives selected pragmatically
Approach to public service ethos
Public sector has monopoly on service ethos, and all public bodies have it.
Sceptical of public sector ethos (leads to inefficiency and empire building) – favours customer service
No one sector has a monopoly on public service ethos. Maintaining relationships through shared values is seen essential
Relation-ship with ‘higher’ tiers of government
Partnership relationship with central government over delivery
Upwards through performance contracts and key performance indicators
Complex and multiple: regional, national, European.
Negotiated and flexible.
Under the traditional public administration model the key task for local
government was delivering a set of public services. The assumption was that what
was required was largely known. It was to build better schools, housing, sewerage,
roads, welfare provision and that we could rely on expert officers and politicians
to define what was precisely needed in any one locality. Within its role as
provider of services in the welfare state local government was in some countries a
dominant and rather domineering player. It raised local taxes and managed central
1 Adapted from cabinet office ( 2002)
20
government grants in order to deliver and develop services. It managed service
delivery largely in-house and was confident that its actions were imbued with a
special public sector of ethos and mandated through the legitimacy provided by
the operation of local elections. Professionalism and confident partisan politics
were to the fore. In other counties local government remained weak and under
developed. The lack of resources and capacity held back the creation of an
effective set of institutions.
The first attack on this world view came from the New Public Management. Here
the stress was initially on keeping down the cost of providing public services
through stronger management disciplines such as across the board ‘efficiency’
savings, performance targets and the use of competition to select the cheapest
service producer. Increasingly as part of a growing consumerist orientation in
local government the debate about reinventing government called for
responsiveness and choice in public services alongside the narrow focus on cost
savings. Better management meant putting the customer first.
This ideology saw political leadership as important in setting direction but beyond
that a potential source of inefficiency. Politicians were to set goals but should
not dictate the means to achieve them. The key to managerialism is its emphasis
on the rights of managers to manage against inappropriate interference from
politicians, or for that matter, the special pleading of professional groups.
Managerialism focuses on running ‘what is’, more effectively. The perspective of
this era is that the welfare state is established but expensive and demanding in
terms of tax payers’ money so the key challenge is to make service delivery more
efficient. The idea of an exclusive public sector ethos to guide providers is rejected
in favour of a more open competition between producers from a variety of
sectors to keep down costs and in order to encourage responsiveness to users. In
21
some formations a particular additional role is given to consumers in defining the
purposes of public services and even more strongly in assessing whether public
services have provided satisfaction. The key to good management is clear goals
that meet consumer needs, solid contractual relations between service
commissioners and service producers and effective monitoring of service
delivery. It is at this final stage that including some measure of consumer
satisfaction is seen as appropriate.
A third model of networked community governance began to take shape from
the mid 1990s onwards. It takes it main inspiration from the perspective of new
localism, outlined in the first section of this paper.. In that sense it places far
more emphasis than either the post war model or the New Public Management
approaches on the search for what are the issues and what might be the solutions.
Its reach is beyond the delivery of services. It over-arching goal is the meeting of
community needs as defined by the community within the context of the demands
of a complex system of multi-level governance Its aim is to achieve not narrow
efficiency but Public Value, defined as the achievement of favoured outcomes by
the use of public resources in the most effective manner available (Moore, 1995,
Goss, 2001). Given such a goal is not surprising that no particular place is given to
a public sector ethos but rather there is a broader commitment to maintaining
system relationships in general. The choice of which sector or organisation should
be involved in provision is also a pragmatic one.
The model demands a complex set of relationships with ‘higher’ tier government,
local organisations and stakeholders. The relationships are intertwined and the
systems of accountability are multiple. The political process is about the search
for identifying problems, designing solutions and assesses their impact on the
underlying problem. Beyond service delivery there is a focus on the purpose of
22
services and their impact on the problems they are addressing. Success is not a
simple matter of efficient service delivery but rather the complex challenge of
whether an outcome favourable to the community has been achieved. The model
retains a strong commitment to managerialism in order to join up and steer a
complex set of processes. This is a managerialism that goes beyond search for
efficiency gains or a customer orientation to take on the challenge of working
across boundaries( Sullivan and Skelcher, 2002) and to take up the goal of holistic
working which is ‘ greater effectiveness in tackling the problems that the public
most care about’ ( Perri 6 et al, 2002:46).
Conclusions
Governing is concerned with the processes that create the conditions for ordered
rule and collective action within the political realm. What is it that enables
complex tasks to be managed, priorities set and decisions made? How in a
complex environment with a vast range of actors can a sense of order and
direction be established? How in the context of conflict over goal definitions and
the practice of implementation is some capacity to act collectively maintained?
These challenges and issues central to governing in any time period and the
Weberian paradigm – so long dominant in public administration – has provided a
particular set of solutions to the challenges posed. In Weber’s political thought
three institutions are seen as essential to coping with the complexity of
modernity and for delivering order to the governance process. They are political
leadership, party and bureaucracy (Held, 1987: 148-160). Each of these
institutions forces finds itself challenged in the new era. The Weberian
perspective rested on viewing governing as a tight cluster of connected
institutions the networked community governance perspective offers a
23
contrasting organising framework of wider, looser organisations joined through a
complex mix of inter-dependencies. Advocates of networked community
governance make a virtue out of these features.
Networked community governance frames issues by recognizing the complex
architecture of government. In practice there are many centres and diverse links
between many agencies of government at neighbourhood, local, regional and
national and supranational levels. In turn each level has a diverse range of
horizontal relationships with other government agencies, privatized utilities,
private companies, voluntary organisations and interest groups. There is nothing
to suggest that networked community governance should be any less susceptible to
conflict regarding goal definitions and defining priorities than the traditional views
of governing. Governance does not wish away conflict but it does recognise that
there are a variety of ways in which it can be managed other than through a tight
core of institutions such as bureaucracy and political party and a limited elite form
of democracy.
Network governance tells us we can have democracy and management. Indeed
that they are partners. The paradigm places its faith in a system of dialogue and
exchange through networks. It is through the construction, modification,
correction and adaptability of that system that democracy and management are
reconciled. . Butt here are problems. Network partnerships can become ‘talking
shops’ rather a focus for intervention. Networks can be closed and unaccountable
rather than open and deliberative. Vigilance by all the partners in the system is
central to ensuring that the promise of both democracy and management is
delivered.
24
Networked community governance needs to be supported by a strategy of New
Localism so that local partners have something meaningful to decide and organise
around. It also needs an active policy of civic engagement so that the barriers of
the participation of all available to all can be addressed.
Networked local governance rests on a fuller and rounder vision of humanity than
either traditional public administration of New public management. People are, it
suggests, motivated by their involvement in networks and partnerships; that is by
their relationships with others formed in the context of equal status and mutual
learning. Some will find its vision attractive but self-styled realists or cynics may
prefer to stick established systems. But networked community governance is an
achievable goal. However it requires a radical a break from traditional public
administration and New Public Management in its vision of the role of local
government and its understanding of the context for governing and the core
processes of governance.
References
Corry, D and Stoker, G (2002) New Localism: refashioning the centre-local relationship
(London: NLGN) www.nlgn.org.uk
Corry, D et al (2004) Joining-Up Local Democracy. Governance Systems fro the New
Localism (London: NLGN) www.nlgn.org.uk
Held, D (1987) Models of Democracy (Cambridge: Polity)
Hirst, P (2000) ‘Democracy and Governance’ in J.Pierre (ed) Debating Governance
(Oxford: OUP)
Lowndes, V., Pratchett, L and Stoker, G. (2001) ‘Trends in public participation: part 2 –
citizens’ perspectives’, Public Administration, 79 (2), pp 445-455
25
Lowndes, V., Pratchett, L and Stoker, G. (2002) Social capital and political
participation: how do local institutions constrain or enable the mobilisation of social
capital? Cambridge social capital seminar , November 19th , University of Cambridge,
UK. Available from : www.ipeg.org.uk
Perri 6 et al (2002) Towards Holistic Governance (Basingstoke: Palgrave)
Putnam, R (2000) Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of North American
Community (New York: Simon Schuster)
Saward, M (2003) Democracy (Cambridge: Polity)
Stoker, G (2003) (eds) Barnes, M; Stoker, G; Whiteley, P. Delivering Civil Renewal:
some lessons from research London: ESRC. Available from : www.ipeg.org.uk
Stoker, G (2004) Transforming Local Governance (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan)
Stoker, G and Greasley, S (2004) Research strategies for civil renewal, paper for the
Home Office, Civil Renewal Unit, UK. Available from www.ipeg.org.uk
Sullivan, H and Skelcher, C (2002) Working Across Boundaries (Basingstoke: Palgrave)