Urban Policy Program

Exploring the Institutional Dimensions of Local Governance and Community Strengthening: Linking Empirical and Theoretical Debates

Tim Reddel

Research Paper 2 December 2004

Exploring the Institutional Dimensions of Local Governance and Community Strengthening: Linking Empirical and

Theoretical Debates

Tim Reddel

Urban Policy Program Research Paper 2 December 2004

ii

The Urban Policy Program acknowledges the generous support provided by Brisbane City Council for production of

the Program’s Issues and Research Papers.

This paper represents the author's personal views and does not necessarily reflect the policies of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet or the Queensland Government.

ISBN 1 920952 22 5

© Urban Policy ProgramGriffith University

Brisbane, QLD 4111www.griffith.edu.au/centre/upp

iii

iv

URBAN POLICY PROGRAM The Urban Policy Program (UPP) was established in 2003 as strategic research and community engagement initiative of Griffith University. The strategic foci of the Urban Policy Program are research and advocacy in an urban regional context. The Urban Policy Program seeks to improve understanding of, and develop innovative responses to Australia’s urban challenges and opportunities by conducting and disseminating research, advocating new policy directions, and by providing training assistance. We aim to make the results of our research and advocacy work available as freely and widely as possible.

UPP ISSUES PAPERS UPP Issues Papers tackle current problems and challenges, and advocate potential new directions in Australian urban policy. UPP Research Papers impart findings and conclusions from our research program. The Issues Papers and Research Papers are edited by Jago Dodson, Research Fellow in the Urban Policy Program. Email j.dodson@griffith.edu.au Both Issues Papers and Research Papers may be downloaded from our website free of charge:

www.griffith.edu.au/centre/upp Hard copies are available for purchase. Contact Ms. Rebecca Sibley, Email: r.sibley@griffith.edu.au

THE AUTHOR OF THIS ISSUES PAPER Tim Reddel is a Director of Social Policy in the Policy Division of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, Queensland and Adjunct Fellow in the Urban Policy Program, Griffith University. Email: tim.reddel@premiers.qld.gov.au

v

Summary of the Paper This paper explores the institutional design of community strengthening and local governance using empirical and theoretical perspectives. Too often, this task has been conceived as a stereotypical contest between ‘top-down’ state institutions and supposedly ‘participatory’ expressions of civil society. The paper discusses these debates drawing on empirical research of place-based initiatives and ideas from a merging of new institutionalism and participatory governance theory. Empirical analysis, while limited, draws on key policy moments. Of particular historical interest is the Whitlam Commonwealth government’s decision in 1973 to establish the Australian Assistance Plan (AAP) as an experimental regional social program. The primary focus of the AAP was locally-determined social programs based on citizen participation in decision-making and service integration and regional councils for social development as spatial institutional change agents. Thirty years on, the AAP’s legacy is evident in contemporary Australian public policy and governance; particularly recent place-based and community strengthening strategies of State and local governments. Drawing on this experience, a theoretical approach based on a strategic ensemble of devolved community, administrative and political structures; centralised supervision and coordination which connect local institutions to higher order structures; and authoritative state leadership to mobilise and legitimise deliberative and democratic action is suggested as a means to integrate the institutional and participatory dimensions of local governance and community strengthening. The paper concludes with a discussion of future policy directions for local governance within the Australian federal system.

vi

CONTENTS

Introduction..........................................................................................................................................1

Theory and practice: participatory governance and new institutionalism ...................................1

Participatory governance, the state and community .................................................................................1 New Institutionalism............................................................................................................................3 Social governance: localism, participation and Australian federalism ......................................................4 The Whitlam years and the Australian Assistance Plan.......................................................................5 The AAP: regionalised and participatory social governance....................................................................6 The outcomes of the AAP: policy confusion and governance uncertainty? ................................................7 Rediscovering community and joined-up government?..............................................................................8

Understanding the institutional dimension of participatory governance...................................10

Implementation strategies: networks and partnerships but confrontation when appropriate.....................10 Skills: stakeholder analysis, diplomacy and communication strategies ...................................................12 Infrastructure: devolved and centralised institutions ..............................................................................12 Culture ..............................................................................................................................................13

Conclusion ..........................................................................................................................................13

References ...........................................................................................................................................15

1

Introduction

There has been a resurgence of international policy interest in more engaged and community focused public policy and service delivery. In response to social exclusion the Blair government in the United Kingdom has popularised reforms centred on supposedly new ideas of ‘devolution’, ‘partnership’ and ‘community’. Recent policy interest by Australian governments and community organisations in social capital, community strengthening, citizen engagement and joined up-government reflect this broader context. Historical debates in Australia about social governance and the nature of state and civil society relations anticipate contemporary international politics, policy and theoretical concerns. Of particular relevance to this discussion is the Australian Assistance Plan’s (AAP): a short-lived, 1970s experimental social program. Mainstream welfare programs and broader economic policies marginalised the impact of the AAP’s local participatory ethos. An over-reliance on process and unauthoritative governance structures was a further limitation. Despite these important caveats, decentralised social policy institutions have a significant legacy in Australian public policy. The AAP’s regional councils for social development provided an institutional platform for much local policy development and action. Contemporary analysis highlights the ongoing role of these bodies and their successors in many of the current community strengthening and place-based policy initiatives (Reddel 2002). At a broader level the development of a sustainable and participatory institutional framework remains a critical and unresolved issue. Thus, local social governance systems must ensure an institutional balance between state and civil society. The state has a critical governance role in facilitating, arbitrating and managing the plurality of networks and other associational activity. New institutional theory gives some conceptual direction for the forms of networked governance first suggested in Granovetter’s (1973) notion of ‘the strength of weak ties’ that bind disparate actors together across organisational boundaries. This paper uses these ideas, together with concepts of more participatory forms of localised democratic organisation that complement and extend liberal representative democracy, to critically examine historical and contemporary governance practice. This analysis deepens an understanding of the contested nature of state and civil society relations within the Australian federal context.

Theory and practice: participatory governance and new institutionalism

Participatory governance, the state and community Traditional consultative models for defining state-civil society relations are no longer viable. Building on the classical critique of Sherry Arnstein, Leonie Sandercock (1978:117) argues there are inherent limits to traditional technical consultative approaches and, in addressing the needs of disadvantaged peoples, these should not be ‘a substitute for planning or for regular government.’ Conventional governance systems are also seen to have resulted in fragmented service delivery, role confusion between policy makers, purchasers and providers

2

and concerns about accountability (Davis & Rhodes 2000). A new form of participatory governance, based on the socio-political interactions of the public, private and civil sectors, has been promoted as an alternative model. This new mode of governance promotes management by negotiation, horizontal networks, policy learning and flexible organisational form in preference to both traditional hierarchical command and control, and market models (see Rhodes 1997; Jessop 1999; Davis & Rhodes 2000; Considine 2001). In recent years the term governance has enjoyed a revival in both interest and usage. A key factor in this revival has been the distinction between ‘governance’ and ‘government’. Jessop (1998:30) defines governance as the modes and manner of governing, and government as the institutions and agents charged with governing. A range of other definitions is evident in the literature. Edwards (2002) and Rhodes (1997:15) see governance as concerned with the processes and structures necessary for an organisation to achieve its goals. This includes the capacity of organisational actors to relate to each other and to its stakeholders or citizens. Kooiman (1993:2) largely agrees with Rhodes and sees governance as the patterns that emerge from the activities of social, political and administrative actors and their purposeful efforts to guide, steer, control or manage aspects of society. Lowndes and Skelcher (1998:318-319) argue governance is both a political and administrative concept and propose a three-part typology of market, hierarchical and network modes of governance. Considine (2001) amends this typology by proposing four ideal governance types: procedural, corporate, market and network. An OECD definition summarises many of these themes:

In the OECD context, governance is defined in terms of relationships, and thus includes more than public administration and the institutions, methods and instruments of governing. It also encompasses the set of relationships between governments and citizens, acting as both individuals and as part of or through institutions, e.g. political parties, productive enterprises, special interest groups, and the media (OECD, 1999 quoted in Edwards, 2002).

The network dimensions of governance have been promoted by R.A.W Rhodes. He lists a number of shared characteristics of governance, including: reconfiguring the boundaries of the state to promote interdependence between public, private and civil sectors; ongoing interactions between governance actors based on trust, resource exchange, and negotiated processes and shared outcomes; and autonomy from, but connection to, the state reflected in the self organising nature of networks and the capacity of the state to steer and manage (Rhodes 1997:53). Lowndes and Skelcher (1998) argue, however, that Rhodes over-emphasises the consensual nature of networks without giving enough weight to the competitive aspects of network activity. There are dangers in establishing an ideal type of network governance as mutually exclusive to other modes based on markets or hierarchies. Political, social and economic life are characterised by a mix of hierarchical, market and network based processes. Building on these debates, ‘local governance’ has been popularly badged with the local partnership and community discourse of Third Way politics. Multi-organisational and community-based partnerships have become dominant social inclusion and exclusion methodologies, particularly in promoting urban regeneration and more ‘joined-up’ strategies to address cross-cutting community issues (Atkinson 1999; Lowndes & Skelcher 1998). Such partnerships, as enacted in urban regeneration programs, local action zones and

3

regional development initiatives, reflect a confusing mix of market and collaborative principles. Lowndes and Skelcher (1998) argue that ‘partnership’ should be seen as an organisational form that can operate across different modes of governance based on markets, hierarchies or networks. Dangers, therefore, exist in uncritically focusing on technical constructs such as partnership without a systemic analysis of underlying governance modes and outcomes. It is implicit in current ‘Third Way’ expressions of local governance that the ‘big-state’, of large public bureaucracies, publicly owned enterprises and broadly based welfare, is redundant in a new environment of competition, privatisation and global capitalism (Botsman & Latham 2001). The implications of these accounts of the state are concerning, leading to a passive acceptance of market or community centred governance arrangements. A balance between the various institutions of the state and the civil society is of critical importance. The state is a fundamental strategic agent of participatory local governance (Amin & Hausner 1997). Participatory governance builds on general governance. The state is not merely a collection of disaggregated and autonomous policy networks and communities, markets or hierarchies. State institutions have a primary role in coordinating, integrating and supporting the complexity and plurality of social, economic and political life. As Jessop (1998:43) argues, ‘the exchange of information and moral suasion [have] become key sources of legitimation and the state’s influence depends as much on its role as a prime source and mediator of collective intelligence as on its command over economic resources or legitimate coercion’. The vital contribution to local governance of non-state actors, including citizens and the various manifestations of civil society and ‘community’, is critical but should not diminish the role of an active state. There are significant dangers in the promotion of passive community solutions that minimise the state’s role and fail to adequately analyse both the macro structural and micro process dimensions of governance. New Institutionalism New institutionalism emerged in the 1980s as a reaction to the anti-social prescriptions of rational choice theory based on the individual consumer. Rather than continuing the descriptive and atheoretical approach of traditional public administration writings, new institutionalists canvassed a broad range of theoretical ideas. These included informal conventions as well as formal structures and rules, the role of values and power relations or structures and, importantly, the interactions between individuals and institutions (Lowndes 2001:1953). Granovetter’s (1973) concept of ‘the strength of weak ties’ was critical in understanding the nature and form of new inter-organisational partnerships and networks involving often dispersed groups and individuals. These discursive flows are seen as opening up previously closed networks or cliques and facilitating improved information flows which promote greater participation and engagement between policy actors across organisational fields (see Davies 2004). Building on these ideas, a more integrated and authoritative institutional framework for participatory governance can be suggested. Jessop’s (1997) coordinated ‘institutional ensemble’ and Fung and Wright’s (2001) institutional design properties are important theoretical resources. New institutional theory provides further insights particularly in understanding the relationship between ideals, values, structure and organisation (see March & Olsen 1989; Goodin 1996; Bogason 2000; Lowndes & Wilson 2001). Institutions are not

4

simply administrative and political organisations. They comprise a set of networks, interrelated norms, routines and incentives that have the capacity to generate order and promote a collective understanding of meaning (March & Olsen 1989:160; Bogason 2000:110; Lowndes & Wilson 2001:632). At a more practical level, Lowndes and Wilson (2001) use a new institutional design framework to analyse the role of local government, in the United Kingdom, in developing social capital and renewing democracy. They argue the state is crucial in shaping the institutional conditions for social capital development and can facilitate the active promotion of the ‘virtuous combination of civic engagement and good governance’ (2001:631). Institutional design is not constant and should proceed via ‘a creative combination of recollection and innovation and a serious engagement with both values and context’ (Goodin 1996:31, 32). From these perspectives, participatory governance requires institutions and infrastructure, which: combine ‘civic engagement with good governance’; articulate a set of values and routines based on dialogue, deliberation and association; appreciate historical and contemporary contexts; and have the capacity for variability and reform.

A ‘local-state’ that fosters such network forms (or ‘weak ties’) is critical, but should not be seen as a substitute for the welfare state, the mainstream economy or authoritative central governance systems (Amin, Cameron & Hudson 2002:125). A diverse ‘institutional ensemble’ of state, market and civil society structures and networks is required to negotiate the complexity of political, social and economic life (Jessop 1999). This paper explores the strategic mix of:

devolved community, administrative and political structures; centralised supervision and coordination which connect local institutions to

higher order structures; and authoritative state leadership to mobilise and legitimise deliberative and

democratic action necessary to integrate the more institutional and participatory dimensions of local governance.

The Australian federation, particularly in the post-war era, contains a number of key policy episodes which illustrate the political, administrative and community dimensions of these complex themes.

Social governance: localism, participation and Australian federalism Whether or not globalisation has 'hollowed out the nation state', it is certainly true that there has been a resurgence of localised social policy in Australia oriented towards addressing the spatial dimensions of disadvantage (see Smyth, Reddel & Jones 2004). In response to the rise of 'Hansonism' Queensland witnessed the hasty birth of ‘place management' and a plethora of policy initiatives designed to address both economic and social exclusion. Spatially

5

sensitive policy approaches, involving public, private and civil sectors, are increasingly evident in contemporary State, regional and local governance. From a historical perspective, public policy at the state or regional level is a neglected research area in Australia. Writing of the period from Federation to the Second World War, Roe (1976:12) notes the fragmentation of the nation-state was a significant feature of Australian policy debates:

The powers of six self-governing colonies of the nineteenth century were modified by the creation of the Commonwealth, but each carried over into the twentieth century constitutional responsibilities and historical loyalties which have continued to fragment the idea of the state and to scatter its functions very widely.

While there have been occasional state policy writings, overall the concentration in Canberra of economic and social policy powers in the Keynesian period brought a near exclusive preoccupation with the national policy regime. However state-based policy is attracting new attention with, in the context of globalisation, the world wide trend to decentralisation and devolution in forms of governance (Spoehr & Broomhill 1999; Jessop 1997). Galligan, Roberts and Trifiletti (2001) remind us of the diverse ways in which the rights of citizenship have been exercised historically in Australia. In particular, the States have been significant political communities offering sources of citizenship both different and parallel to those grounded in the nation-state. The localised and the community dimensions of public policy and governance have some lineage in the Australian context. There has been a significant, if intermittent, policy interest by Australian governments in community. Major initiatives include the local participation and regional planning ideas of the Commonwealth Housing Commission during post-war reconstruction in the 1940s, the Australian Assistance Plan and Department of Urban and Regional Development in the 1970s, and regional development and locational disadvantage initiatives (such as the Building Better Cities program) of the early 1990s (Reddel 2002). The influence of this policy agenda, however, was limited given the dominance of a market based approach to public policy that separated economic and social development and gave little credence to notions such as equity, social justice and locational disadvantage (Alexander 1994). This paper selects two public policy periods in Australia’ post war history for particular attention: the 1970s and the election of the Whitlam Labour government with a promise to

democratise public policy in Australia; and the current era where States and local governments are tentatively testing new

approaches to community strengthening and joined-up governance. The Whitlam years and the Australian Assistance Plan The 1950s and 1960s saw a diminution of any Commonwealth government role in spatial public policies. Canberra’s preference was for laissez-faire and the promotion of individual home ownership rather than any broader social democratic policy intervention (Lloyd & Troy 1978:21). State and local governments argued that the introduction of statutory land use planning processes would regulate the excesses of unfettered capitalism. The limitations

6

of these planning arrangements, however, were significant. They tended to reinforce the entrenched power of private property investors, while doing little to address emerging transport and infrastructure problems, the shortage of community services and the lack of affordable housing in Australian cities (Berry & Sandercock 1983:51). The Whitlam government, elected in 1972, promised to revitalise Commonwealth leadership in spatial and more participatory policy making through initiatives such as the Department of Urban and Regional Development (DURD) and the Australian Assistance Plan (AAP). DURD was established in 1972 with a dual focus. It both attended to big city problems, notably declining access for low-income earners to housing, infrastructure and other services; and initiated a major program of decentralisation by directing urban settlement growth into newly designated regional centers (Gleeson & Low 2000). This program of decentralisation was aimed at improving employment opportunities in disadvantaged areas. DURD’s effectiveness was undermined by the opposition of many State governments to the Commonwealth’s policy of decentralisation (Harris 1989). Much of this opposition reflected more generalised tensions associated with Commonwealth/State relations within Australian federalism.

The AAP: regionalised and participatory social governance Of particular relevance to this paper’s examination of state/civil society relations is the AAP, established by the Whitlam government on an experimental basis in 1973. The objective of the AAP was to assist ‘in the development at a regional level within a nationally co-ordinated framework, of integrated patterns of welfare services, complementary to income support programs’ (Australian Government Social Welfare Commission 1973:3). The major focus of the AAP was the development of locally determined welfare programs, combining the key aims of regional participation in decision making with control over the administration of social welfare budgets (Hayden 1996:186). The central institutional platform for the AAP was the regional council for social development (RCSD). It comprised representatives from government (elected members and officials), trade unions, employer groups, welfare consumers and community organisations. RCSDs were the key social planning, evaluative and advisory body for the region thus ‘form[ing] a link with the Australian government and the State government in connection with the social development needs of the region’ (Australia Government Social Welfare Commission 1973:4). The AAP represented a shift in government’s approach to social policy. Social policy was no longer seen purely in terms of pensions and residual welfare services, but included the complementary roles of community planning and participatory processes (Roper 1993:195). The links between the AAP’s social development and participatory intent, and mainstream social welfare programs was a major theme in early policy pronouncements:

[The AAP is] an attempt to bring together the threads of planning, regionalism, true democratic participation, community development and regular critical evaluation of the performance of programs to ensure their continued relevance and satisfactory operation (Hayden 1973:667).

7

By 1975, thirty four regions had been approved to implement this experimental program. In 1977 the AAP was disbanded by the Fraser Coalition Federal government (Higgins & Zagorski 1989:110). The outcomes of the AAP: policy confusion and governance uncertainty? Given its experimental nature it is not surprising that the implementation of the AAP was variable across different regions and States. Halliwell, Toohey and Campbell (1974:48) in their evaluation report emphasised a locality based, community development and participatory philosophy for Queensland contrasted by more centralised social planning approaches from other States. More fundamentally, there was debate about the primary purpose of the AAP. There was tension between a concerted attack on poverty and a more developmental approach that involved the participation of the whole community (O’Brien 1975:144-145; Halliwell 1975:136). The mixture of value-laden concepts such as ‘community development’ and ‘social planning’ added to the philosophical and methodological confusion of the AAP. The work of Adam Graycar, primary evaluator of the AAP, highlighted many of these tensions in the Plan's key themes of regionalism, participation and the alleviation of poverty. Poverty was seen not just as a lack of material advantage but also related to powerlessness. In order to overcome powerlessness (and therefore poverty), social programs should facilitate greater participation by the disadvantaged in shaping their social environment (Graycar 1977). In reflecting on the AAP’s philosophy and methodology he argues that the Plan’s use of the discourse of ‘citizen power’ became diluted by the reality and limits of traditional government program structures (Graycar & Davis 1979:59). The participatory ethos of the AAP required a more strategic interface with political reality to deliver social development outcomes. These sentiments are illustrated in Evaluation Report No. 2 (Graycar & Davis 1979:60-61):

Participation alone cannot deliver program effectiveness. Expertise alone cannot deliver program effectiveness. Community leadership alone cannot deliver program effectiveness. These three values are invariably in competition and it is the task of those responsible for program development to ensure some sort of balance among these three variables if they want their program to be regarded as containing an element of social justice.

Given this call for a more strategic interface between a participatory values and public administration, Graycar argued that there were four major barriers to the successful implementation of the AAP: the quirks of Australia's federal system creating ongoing structural tension between

national, state, regional and local policies and organisations; manufactured structures such as RCSD did not have the local legitimacy or capacity

to co-ordinate established community and government agencies; poor implementation skills; and insufficient understanding of citizen participation and the lack of an Australian

‘participatory culture’. (Graycar 1979:468)

8

The AAP’s governance capacity relied on the planning, decision making and resource allocation processes of RCSDs to challenge existing political, bureaucratic and community sector power arrangements. Elected representatives from local and State governments, however, questioned the legitimacy of RCSDs’ non-elected community leaders and the authority of its decision making processes. The belief that regional administration and political decision making could prosper within the framework of Australia's federal system was seen as unrealistic given the structural confusion existing between the spheres of government regarding the planning and delivery of social services (Hayden 1996:191). Despite these limitations, the AAP remains an important episode in the development of alternative forms of local governance (see Wiseman 1998:142). Almost thirty years on from its abolition, remnants of the AAP are still evident in current Australian regional policy and debates about the relationship between state institutions and civil society. An in-depth study of a ‘surviving’ regional council for social development from the Mackay region in Queensland (MRCSD) highlights many of the broader themes and dilemmas for the AAP (Reddel 2003). Of relevance to contemporary debates is the capacity of organisations such as RCSDs to engage a diverse range of state and civil society actors at the regional level whilst also influencing policy development at a more central level. The MRCSD had a longstanding commitment to localised decision making and control. Such values must be linked with governance and policy systems. The necessary political and administrative resources such as mandate, authority, legitimacy and funding must support organisational or structural responses based on principles such as citizen participation. The challenge for such forms of spatial governance is to both complement existing liberal democratic political and administrative institutions, whilst ensuring that they are informed by a participatory ethos that includes all regional actors and their voices.

Rediscovering community and joined-up government? The election of the Howard Coalition Commonwealth government in 1996 saw the demise of any substantial spatial or place policy agenda. Indeed, one of the early expenditure savings exercises of the new Coalition Commonwealth Government in 1996 was to abolish the Commonwealth Department of Regional Development and its associated regional development funding programs. A Regional Australia Strategy was established in its place. This Strategy focused on a relatively small number of service-based initiatives spread across a range of portfolios (Gleeson & Low 2000). In more recent times, political imperatives, including the influence of the One Nation political movement, coupled with broader concern about the consequences of regional socio-economic disparities for national solidarity and political stability, have placed the themes of ‘regions’ and ‘regionalism’ back on the Commonwealth policy agenda (Pritchard & McManus 2000). Spatial policy, however, remains largely the prerogative of State and local governments. Complementing the partial rebirth of regional policy in Australia has been a growing interest by the current Commonwealth government in notions of social capital, community and participation as important, if largely undefined, components of family and social welfare policy (McClure et al, 2000). As a number of commentators have noted, the

9

Commonwealth appears to argue that social capital and community association is best left alone without unwanted interference from governments, their bureaucracies or indeed their resources (Everingham 2001). Despite some limited attempts by the Commonwealth to develop more institutionalised approaches to community association and social capital in rural and regional policy (see Beer et al, 2003), disinterested neo-liberal governance remains in the ascendancy at the national level. At the State level, however, there has been significant policy development around the themes of local governance and community strengthening (see IPPA 2002). South Australia and Victoria have recently established, respectively, a Social Inclusion Unit and a Department of Victorian Communities to provide improved political and bureaucratic focus for a range of community building and ‘joined-up’ strategies. In 2000 the Tasmanian government initiated ‘Tasmania Together’. It tasks a community leaders’ group with developing a comprehensive state-wide consultative process into a series of specific goals and outcomes that, over time, will guide the State budget process (McCall 2001:297). The New South Wales government has also implemented an engagement strategy that includes the trialing of place management initiatives, together with more generic polices and programs. The strategy has been the subject of preliminary evaluation (see Mant 2002). In Queensland, the Beattie Labour government which was elected in June 1998 promised a more community responsive policy development and program delivery (Smyth & Reddel 1999). Specific initiatives based on spatial and people-centred policies have been implemented together with a community engagement agenda aimed at providing public sector leadership for a citizen engagement agenda (see Queensland Department of the Premier and Cabinet 2001). These policy and program initiatives have been complemented by a regular schedule of Community Cabinet meetings focused on rebuilding the relationship between executive government and local communities. To date, the analysis of these initiatives has been limited to insider accounts and preliminary evaluation (see Mant 2002; Davis 2001; Walsh & Butler 2001). Key themes and issues evident from these analyses include: the identification of a discrete and definable ‘place’; the multi-factored nature of the

local problems; the critical need for effective and meaningful partnerships between local and State

government and non-government stakeholders in each place; clear definition and delineation from the outset of roles and responsibilities between

all key agencies (especially between local and State governments); the limitations of place based strategies especially in responding to complex issues

such as employment and wicked social problems such as community safety and community breakdown.

Local governments have become more attuned to a broader (but perhaps less defined) set of responsibilities beyond the traditional management of ‘rates, roads and rubbish’. Human service planning and coordination, community development activities and citizen participation in land use planning are increasingly seen to be important for local government (Cuthill 2001). This reflects both the devolution of service provision responsibility from state to local governments in some instances, and the increasing need for governance mechanisms

10

which operate effectively at the local level. A number of place management initiatives and projects are now underway in local government areas in several states. These include the Redfern Waterloo Place Project in NSW and the Brisbane City Council’s Brisbane place project in Queensland. In addition to government-led programmes, a number of community based organisations have identified local oriented approaches as a means of better integrating the services available to the people they serve whilst simultaneously achieving empowerment outcomes for disadvantaged communities. This episodic scan of post-war Australian local governance and community strengthening activity is necessarily incomplete. It does, however, highlight the lack of consensus regarding key theoretical and methodological challenges. Current modes of social governance appear to be struggling with the challenges of building authoritative democratic state capacity, in the face of public sector reforms based on a ‘recipe’ of competition and neo-liberalism, citizen disengagement, and a ‘retreat from the state’. In response to these challenges, the ‘partnership’ discourse has become the key governance principle in the United Kingdom. The research literature identifies major limitations to local partnerships, particularly the significant neo-liberal tendencies in New Labour’s political project. Fundamental to neo-liberal politics is a diminution of state power and a shift of policy responsibilities and risk to under-resourced local communities (Geddes 2000). The remainder of this paper will suggest some pathways for responding to these challenges and enhancing the linkages between the participatory and institutional dimensions of local governance. Understanding the institutional dimension of participatory governance

Based on the theoretical linkages between participatory governance and new institutionalism, discussed in the first part of this paper, and indicative trends seen in historical and more recent policy practice, a number of key dimensions or technologies emerge as the basis for building viable forms of social governance. These include: networks and partnerships as critical implementation strategies; a new skills base of stakeholder analysis and diplomacy; new forms of infrastructure based on devolved and centralised institutions; and critically, cultural change which underpins the above largely structural approaches.

This mix of micro and macro approaches is consistent with both new institutionalism’s interest in norms, routines and power relations and participatory governance’s focus on the role of an active state in relation to an engaged civil society.

Implementation strategies: networks and partnerships but confrontation when appropriate Networks and partnerships provide a strategic discourse for the implementation of participatory governance. The inherent complexity and differentiation of politics and policy making, suggest networks of individuals, groups, organisations and interests as the best foci for effective and inclusive coordination strategy, especially in implementing solutions to local

11

and grounded problems (Peters 1998). Despite concerns about their organisational and technical predilections, partnerships are seen to have a complementary potential in developing a flexible, citizen centred and outcome focused form of governance (Lowndes & Skelcher 1998; Benington 2001). Implementation strategies based on confrontation, coercion and closure and commonly found in hierarchical and market forms of governance have a place in networks and partnerships. However, these approaches are secondary to the collaborative, pragmatic and negotiative character of networks and partnerships (Marsh 1995). Networks and partnerships are seen to be important alternatives to traditional notions of consultation and agency coordination. Reflecting on deficiencies in both the AAP and the consultative and policy making approach of more contemporary community strengthening initiatives, it is evident hierarchical modes of governance tend to overwhelm tentative attempts to develop more inclusive, diverse and horizontal relationships and action. Networks and partnerships are discussed largely in terms of their processes and structures. The problem solving and outcome orientation of networks and partnerships are not fully explored. There is a diversity of perspectives evident in network literature and theory (see Marsh & Rhodes 1992; Rhodes 1997; Bogason & Toonen 1998). Much of this work can appear overly generalised and uncritical of power differentials, differences between state and civil society networks and the diversity of network properties (Bogason & Toonen 1998). Similarly, recent critiques of the partnership initiatives in the United Kingdom (such as the various Action Zones) have highlighted an insufficient attention to power, undifferentiated notions of citizenship, and the dominance of professional cultures. Such critique, in the end, questions the capacity of network and partnership arrangements to resolve complex economic and social problems (Newman 2001; Geddes 2000). Networks and partnerships as effective policy implementation methodologies require elaboration. In general terms, network theorists such as Rhodes (1997) and Marsh and Smith (2000) argue for a differentiated analysis based on relative power, structure and resource exchange within and between networks. Five ideal types of policy network have been described: tightly integrated policy communities, professional, inter-governmental, producer and loosely integrated issue based networks (Marsh & Rhodes 1992). From this tradition, Grantham (2001) has differentiated between three types of implementation networks: policy, administrative and opportunity. A policy network (or community) is characterised by closed and stable networks with considerable legal-constitutional resources. Administrative networks operationalise the outputs of policy networks and control important organisational and expert resources. Opportunity networks, often taking the form of civil society actors (e.g., social movements), have more informal resources, such as local knowledge, and engage in the policy process to secure additional resources (such as finance and influence) (Grantham, 2001:854-855). Policy implementation occurs through the patterns of social relations (actions) between actors within these interdependent networks. Notwithstanding the dangers of over-categorisation and simplification in this typology, some differentiation is necessary in explaining networks and partnerships as forms of participatory governance. Without an analysis of their differing relationships, structures and intent, networks and partnerships may become purely descriptive or normative. Implementing

12

participatory governance through networks and partnerships requires a capacity to engage the diversity of policy actors and environments across the state and civil society. Skills: stakeholder analysis, diplomacy and communication strategies A skills base is necessary to support implementation of participatory governance through networks and partnerships. Diplomacy, management by negotiation, analysis of stakeholder interest, problem solving and transformative learning are central elements of this skills base. Traditional forms of management expertise and technical knowledge are still relevant, but supplement rather than dominate policy making and governance practice. Skills such as diplomacy, negotiation and innovative problem solving are increasingly highlighted as critical policy attributes. Davis and Rhodes (2000:96) describe this as the capacity to ‘put oneself in another person’s shoes and to build trust’. Despite the promise of these ideas, a more systemic understanding of how such policy skills are developed and sustained is necessary. Given the pre-existing dominance of rational and technocratic systems there is a tendency for skills such as analysing local knowledge and diplomacy to be commodified into expert driven practices. This is exemplified by the recent interest in evidenced-based policy making erected on a mantra of “what works” (see Parsons 2001:104). Developing and maintaining the skills base for participatory governance requires leadership and policy systems which embrace networks and partnerships. Policy making has been described as the craft of network management based not on the personal attributes of any individual or group but on a “system of strategic interactions” which integrates and creates opportunities for dialogue and deliberation. (Agranoff and McGuire 2001:314) Infrastructure: devolved and centralised institutions An ‘institutional ensemble’ comprising a mix of policy, discourse, negotiation and arbitration is required to negotiate the complexity of political, social and economic life (Jessop 1997). This institutional ensemble is based on design properties such as administrative and political devolution; centralised supervision and coordination which connect local institutions to higher order structures; and authoritative state leadership to mobilise and legitimise deliberative and democratic action (Fung & Wright 2001). Embedded in this institutional ensemble is the unresolved tension between liberal representative and direct, participatory forms of democracy. Two overarching themes are evident from this preliminary analysis. First, the role of central authority, supervision and support is of critical importance to participatory governance. Recent academic and policy discussion has emphasised localism and community as key elements of governance reform (see Adams & Hess 2001; Botsman & Latham 2001). Centralised bureaucracies and political institutions are seen to be either antagonistic or, at least worst, an interference to (as the current Australian Commonwealth government argues) the ‘ability of people to generate their own solutions to their own problems’ (quoted in Harris 2000:287). The privileging of localism and community, at the expense of central authority, has important implications for the infrastructure and institutional arrangements of participatory governance. The distance between the dominating political, policy and administrative centre and more localised and participatory processes remains substantial.

13

There appears no authoritative framework for participatory policy making (Reddel 2002:53). This results in a lack of institutional capacity and central supervision to give authority and leadership to localised participatory processes. The second theme relates to the limited capacity of participatory institutions. Attempts have been made to foster and legitimise the role of less formalised groups, associations and networks in the policy process. However, given a lack of resources and the paucity of models available, institutional development is constrained. Traditional modes of corporatist representation, consultation, advice and agency coordination remain in the ascendancy. Institutional models such as mediating structures, deliberative arrangements, including citizen forums or juries, and partnership agreements between policy actors are possible alternatives to traditional political, policy and administrative frameworks (Smith & Wales 2000)

Culture Marsh’s (1995:238) argument that cultural change promoting participation and openness is a necessary support of a reframed policy making process, reasserts the multi-dimensional character of participatory governance technologies and the limitations of technical “menu” frameworks. Absolute definitions of ‘culture’ are problematic. Healey (1997) makes an important contribution, noting that participatory culture is fostered when governance institutions are ‘surrounded by requirements which encourage inclusionary responsiveness to the diverse ways of living, ways of doing business, and systems of relevant political communities’ (1997:292). Sullivan (2001:43) argues for a culture of “ongoing learning” based on capacity building and prescience. In contrast hierarchical and market modes of governance tend to promote closed and self interested political and policy making cultures based on the assumptions that executive government and the bureaucracy are the exclusive custodians of the public interest (Alford & O’Neill 1994; Marsh 1995:238). The state does have a fundamental role in articulating the public interest. This task should, however, be seen in the context of cultural pluralism and local sensitivity, and be underpinned by the principles of justice and democracy (Gleeson & Low 2000:230). Developing and maintaining such an approach is less a technocratic or structural endeavour than one interested in process and behaviour (Parsons 2001:106). The focus should be on relationship building and the creation of a climate of trust and joint problem solving. The technologies of participatory governance must actively foster such a culture across the political, policy making and organisational domains. Leadership and commitment is necessary at all levels of the state and civil society.

Conclusion

This paper has attempted to capture an eclectic mix of theory and practice. Mapping and analysing the linkages between the new institutionalism and participatory governance requires more in-depth work. The translation of values, norms and routines into authoritative governance mechanisms that link representative and participatory democratic organisation has not been addressed in any sustainable way. For instance, the assumption

14

that networks and partnerships are inherently participatory is questionable. Lowndes and Skelcher (1998), Geddes (2001) and Considine (2001) argue there are a variety of network and partnership forms which describe a wide array of relationships and meanings including hierarchies and markets. At a broader level the role and form of the central, regional and local state in this process also seems unclear. The increasing focus on the localised and devolved dimensions of the state, which has paralleled the rediscovery of community, should not exclude analysis of regional, national and global influences on the capacity of networked social governance systems to deliver community outcomes (see Amin et al, 2002: 81-82). Managerial government, however, remains dominant and appears incapable of addressing many of these complexities. The fragmentation of Australian federalism mirrors these concerns. Notwithstanding the limited efforts of national political institutions such as the Council of Australian Governments and related bodies, the disjuncture between national, regional, local and community governance systems is considerable. Despite its well documented shortcomings the AAP did represent a national program which attempted to bring some coherence to these different governance systems and engaged diverse policy actors in delivering improved community outcomes. The contemporary challenge is to learn for this experience and use the emerging theoretical directions highlighted in this paper to build a sustainable institutional program of local governance and community strengthening.

15

References

Adams, D & M Hess 2001 ‘Community in public policy: fad or foundation?’ Australian Journal of Public Administration, 60(2), 13-23. Alexander, I 1994 ‘DURD revisited? Federal policy initiatives for urban and regional planning 1991-1994.’ Urban Policy and Research, 12(1), 6-26. Alford, J & D O’Neill (eds) 1994 The Contract State: Public Management and the Kennett Government. Melbourne, Centre for Applied Social Research, Deakin University. Amin, A, A Cameron & R Hudson 2002 Placing the Social Economy. New York, Routledge. Amin, A & J Hausner 1997 (eds) Beyond Market and Hierarchy: Interactive Governance and Social Complexity. Cheltenham, UK, Edward Elgar. Agranoff, R & M McGuire 2001 ‘Big questions in public network management research.’ Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 11(3), 295-326. Atkinson, R 1999 ‘Discourses of partnership and empowerment in contemporary British urban regeneration.’ Urban Studies, 36(1), 59-72 Australia Government Social Welfare Commission 1973 Australian Assistance Plan Discussion Paper No. 1. Canberra, A.G.P.S. Beer, A, A Maude & B Pritchard 2003 Developing Australia’s Regions: Theory and Practice. Sydney, UNSW Press. Benington, J 2001 ‘Partnerships as networked governance: legitimation, innovation, problem-solving and co-ordination’ in M Geddes & J Benington (eds) Local Partnerships and Social Exclusion in the European Union: New forms of local social governance? London, Routledge. Berry, M & L Sandercock 1983 Urban Political Economy. Sydney, Allen and Unwin. Botsman, P & M Latham. (eds) The Enabling State: People before bureaucracy. Annandale NSW, Pluto Press. Bogason, P 2000 Public Policy and Local Governance: Institutions in Postmodern Society. Cheltenham UK, Edward and Elgar. Bogason, P & T.A Toonen 1998 ‘Introduction: networks in public administration.’ Public Administration, 76(2), 205-227. Considine, M 2001 Enterprising States: The Public Management of Welfare-to-Work. Cambridge UK, Cambridge University Press. Cuthill, M 2001 ‘Developing local government policy and processes for community consultation and participation.’ Urban Policy and Research, 19(2), 183-202. Davies, J 2004 ‘Conjuncture or disjuncture? An institutionalist analysis of local regeneration partnerships in the UK.’ International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 28(3):570-585. Davis, G & R A W Rhodes 2000 ‘From hierarchy to contracts and back again: reforming the Australian public service’ in M. Keating, J Wanna & P Weller. (eds) Institutions on the Edge: Capacity for Governance. St Leonards, NSW, Allen and Unwin. Davis, G 2001 ‘Government by discussion’ in P Botsman and M Latham. (eds) The Enabling State: People before bureaucracy. Annandale NSW, Pluto Press.

16

Edwards, M 2002 ‘Public sector governance – future issues for Australia.’ Australian Journal of Public Administration, 61(2), 51-61. Everingham, C 2001 ‘Reconstituting community: social justice, social order and the politics of community.’ Australian Journal of Social Issues, 36(2), 105-122. Fung, A & E O Wright 2001 ‘Deepening democracy: innovations in empowered participatory governance.’ Politics and Society, 29(1), 5-41. Galligan B, W. Roberts & G. Trifiletti 2001 Australians and globalisation: the experience of two centuries. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Geddes, M 2000 ‘Tackling social exclusion in the European Union? The limits to the new orthodoxy of local partnership.’ International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 24(4), 782-800. Gleeson, B & N Low 2000 Australian Urban Planning: New Challenges, New Agendas. St Leonards, NSW, Allen and Unwin. Goodin, R 1996 ‘Institutions and their Design’ in R Goodin (ed) The Theory of Institutional Design. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Granovetter M 1973 ‘The strength of weak ties.’ American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1360-1380. Grantham, A 2001 ‘How networks explain unintended policy implementation outcomes: the case of UK rail privatization.’ Public Administration, 79(4), 851-870. Graycar, A 1977 ‘The relevance of community involvement to social welfare and public administration.’ Australian Journal of Public Administration, 36(3), 238-248. Graycar, A 1979 ‘Consultative arrangements in social policy: the second Bailey report.’ Politics 13(2), 326-328. Graycar, A & J Davis 1979 The Australian Assistance Plan Evaluation Report No. 2. Canberra, A.G.P.S. Halliwell, L 1975 ‘Correspondence: Australian Assistance Plan’ Australian Journal of Social Issues, 10(2), 135-136. Halliwell, L, J Toohey & J Campbell 1974 The Australian Assistance Plan in Queensland: Evaluation Report. Brisbane, Social Work Department, University of Queensland. Harris, CP 1989 ‘Local government and regional planning’ in Higgins, B & K Zagorski (eds) 1989 Australian Regional Developments: Readings in Regional Experiences, Policies and Prospects. Canberra, A.G.P.S. Harris, P 2000 ‘Participation and the new welfare.’ Australian Journal of Social Issues, 35(4), 279-301. Hayden, W 1996 Hayden: an autobiography. Pymble, New South Wales, Angus and Robertson. Healey, P 1997 Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies. London., Macmillan Press Higgins, B & K Zagorski (eds) 1989 Australian Regional Developments: Readings in Regional Experiences, Policies and Prospects. Canberra, A.G.P.S. IPAA 2002 Working Together: Integrated Governance. Brisbane, Institute for Public Administration Australia. Jessop, B 1997 ‘The governance of complexity and the complexity of governance: Preliminary remarks on some problems and the limits of economic guidance’ in A Amin & J Hausner (eds) Beyond Market and Hierarchy: Interactive Governance and Social Complexity. Cheltenham, UK, Edward Elgar.

17

Jessop, B 1998 ‘The rise of governance and the risks of failure: the case of economic development.’ International Social Science Journal, 50(155), 29-46. Jessop, B 1999 ‘The changing governance of welfare: recent trends in its primary functions, scale and modes of coordination.’ Social Policy and Administration, 33(4), 348-359. Kooiman, J 1993 ‘Governance and Governability: Using Complexity, Dynamics and Diversity’ in J Kooiman (ed) Modern Governance. London, Sage. Lloyd, C & P Troy 1978 ‘A history of federal intervention’ in P Troy (ed) Federal Power in Australia’s Cities. Sydney, Hale and Iremonger. Lowndes, V 2001 ‘Rescuing Aunt Sally: taking institutional theory seriously in urban politics.’ Urban Studies, 38(11), 1953-1971. Lowndes, V & C Skelcher 1998 ‘The dynamics of multi-organizational partnerships: an analysis of changing modes of governance.’ Public Administration, 76(2), 313-333. Lowndes, V & D Wilson 2001 ‘Social capital and local governance: exploring the institutional design variable.’ Political Studies, 49(4), 629-647. Mant, J 2002 ‘Place management as an inherent part of real change; a rejoinder to Walsh.’ Australian Journal of Public Administration, 61(3), 111-116. March, J & J Olsen 1989 Rediscovering Institutions: The Organisational Basis of Politics. New York, Free Press. Marsh, I 1995 Beyond the Two Party System. Melbourne, Cambridge University Press. Marsh, D & R.A.W Rhodes (eds) 1992 Policy Networks in British Government. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Marsh, D & M Smith 2000 ‘Understanding policy networks: towards a dialectical approach.’ Political Studies, 48(1), 4-21. McCall, T 2001 ‘Political chronicles: Tasmania.’ Australian Journal of Politics and History, 47(2), 293-300. McClure, P et al 2000 Participation Support for a More Equitable Society: The Report of the Reference Group on Welfare Reform. http://www.facs.gov.au/internet/facsinternet.nsf/aboutfacs/programs/esp-welfare_reform_final.htm Newman J 2001 Modernising Governance: New Labour, Policy and Society. London, Sage Publications. O’Brien, T 1975 ‘ Social philosophy of the Australian Assistance Plan.’ Australian Journal of Social Issues, 10(2), 137-146. Parsons, W 2001’Modernising policy-making for the twenty first century: the professional model.’ Public Policy and Administration, 16(3), 93-110. Peters, B.G 1998 ‘Managing horizontal government: the politics of coordination.’ Public Administration 76(2), 295-311. Pritchard B & P McManus (eds) 2000 Land of Discontent: the Dynamics of Change in Rural and Regional Australia. Sydney, UNSW Press. Queensland Department of the Premier and Cabinet 2001 Community Engagement Division: Directions Statement Brisbane. Department of the Premier and Cabinet.

18

Reddel, T 2002 ‘Beyond participation, hierarchies management and markets: ‘new governance’ and place policies.’ Australian Journal of Public Administration, 61(1), 50-63. Reddel, T 2003 Toward Participatory Governance: An Exploration of the Role of Citizen Participation in Policy Making and Governance in Queensland. Unpublished PhD Thesis (Brisbane, University of Queensland). Reddel, T & G Woolcock 2004 ‘From consultation to participatory governance? A critical review of citizen engagement strategies in Queensland.’ Australian Journal of Public Administration, 63(3), 75-87. Rhodes, R.A.W 1997 Understanding Governance: Policy Networks, Governance, Reflexivity and Accountability. Buckingham, Philadelphia Open University Press. Roe J (ed) 1976 Social policy in Australia: some perspectives, 1901-1975. Stanmore NSW, Cassell. Roper, T 1993 ‘Social Welfare’ in H Emy, O Hughes &R Mathews (eds), Whitlam Revisited: Policy Development, Policies and Outcomes. Sydney, Pluto Press. Sandercock, L 1978 ‘Citizen Participation: The New Conservatism’ in P Troy (ed) Federal Power in Australia's Cities. Sydney, Hale and Iremonger. Smith, G & C Wales 2000 ‘Citizen juries and deliberative democracy.’ Political Studies, 48(1), 51-65. Smyth P & T Reddel 1999 ‘Place management: a new way forward in redressing social exclusion?’ National Housing Action, 14(2), 9-14. Smyth, P, T Reddel & A Jones 2004 ‘Associational governance: towards a new social policy regime in Queensland?’ International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 28(3), 601-615 Spoehr, J & R Broomhill 1999 Beyond the contract state: ideas for social and economic renewal in South Australia. Adelaide, Wakefield Press. Sullivan, H 2001 ‘Maximising the contribution of neighbourhoods – the role of community governance.’ Public Policy and Administration, 16(2), 29-48. Walsh, P & K Butler 2001 Transforming Places, Engaging People: Summary Report Community Renewal Evaluation. Brisbane, Queensland Department of Housing.. Wiseman, J 1998 Global Nation? Australia and the Politics of Globalisation. Melbourne, Cambridge University Press.