catherinedurose

Performing governance

Aug 042011

I have spent recent years researching various aspects of collaboration in public and social policy and have been struck by a number of observations which seem puzzling. Partnership, collaboration, integration (or whatever we currently call it) seems to continue to be a central aspect of policy reform across a range of different areas (health and social care, education, regeneration, child protection, criminal justice…) regardless of the fact that we have little evidence that these ways of working improve outcomes for service users. Collaboration has long been seen as a kind of public good that is beyond criticism and individuals, institutions and organisations still continue to engage in collaborative activities despite often being bruised from previous attempts. What is it then that is so compelling about collaboration?

In an attempt to get to the bottom of this mystery I started to think about the nature of performance. Collaboration is often predicated on the notion that it should improve performance; yet what isn’t always clear is what types of performance it should improve. Generally it is supposed that collaboration will make things quicker, safer, more innovative and a number of other rather abstracted and optimistic aims but with little specificity of what or how or why. Yet we also accept that collaboration changes working practices, organisational structures, roles, patterns of communication, rules of engagement etc, meaning that it has a wide range of impacts beyond these broad types of aims across a number of different domains.

Therefore in thinking about the performance of partnerships we need to go beyond traditional measures of organisational performance such as efficiency and effectiveness and also delve into issues of identity, legitimacy and prevailing norms and rules. The sorts of measures which have traditionally been used to evaluate the performance(s) of partnership seemed to be incapable of capturing the complexity and the dynamism of a number of the collaborative initiatives that I had researched. Nor did any of them manage to explain the enduring appeal of collaboration in its broadest sense.

At this point I came across the work of an English professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison (USA) called Jon McKenzie. Jon has broad research interests encompassing performance theory, new media, and civil disobedience. He also heads a major initiative in digital humanities involving media studies, studio-based practices, digital learning, and quantitative humanities research. In 2001 Jon wrote a book called Perform or Else: From Discipline to Performance and this really resonated with me in thinking about performance and partnerships.

Jon argues that in addition to more traditional measures of performance, cultural performance (efficacy) has emerged as an important force within contemporary society. Cultural performance incorporates a whole field of human activity; in all cases a performance act, interactional in nature and involving symbolic forms and live bodies, provides a way to constitute meaning and affirm individual and cultural values. McKenzie argues that a focus on cultural performance allows us to go beyond rationalist models of policy analysis, to consider policies as more than instruments for bringing about particular ends, but rather to explore their social and cultural impacts. This is particularly important when applied to the field of public policy where policies are made in relation to some sort of notion of the “public good”.

With this in mind, Helen Sullivan and myself decided to put together a seminar and invite Jon McKenzie to address the assorted collection of academics who had gathered together at the Health Services Management Centre, University of Birmingham. We invited Jon to set out his thesis about cultural performance and then followed up Jon’s paper with our own attempt to apply these notions to collaboration in health and social care. McKenzie defines performance as the ‘embodied enactment of cultural forces’. As such it offers a new way of examining the enactment of policy and identifying the “additional value” of particular policy terms. This can tell us much about why policies do – or do not – work and how these might be developed more effectively so that they influence practice. Not only does this provide value in terms of a new theoretical perspective on policy analysis but there are also practical implications which may be transferred across a range of different policy domains.

This certainly seemed to be borne out by the experience of the participants who provided a number of fascinating contributions and insights during the course of the day. Some of the conversations focused on the operationalisation of the notion of performance. So, for example, if we understand performance in a wider sense then is everything a performance? Is there anything outside of performance? Should we only look at what is being performed or should we look at what isn’t being performed? The issue of emotion and the affective realm was also a core component of conversations and the how emotions interplay with performance in policy enactment was of interest to a number of contributors. Although most present agreed that a different type of performance that goes beyond the traditional efficiency and effectiveness was a helpful analysis there was less agreement over whether this “additionality” was efficacy as outlined in McKenzie’s work. Many of the discussions centred around how we might define what these other types of performance are, whether this is one type of performance and whether it is appropriate to intervene in these types of performance.

Although we didn’t find any definitive answers to the puzzles set out above we did seem to get closer to the issues during the day and this type of theoretical framework seemed to have resonance with others. So much so that we hope to organise another event building on the success of this first meeting, a second seminar will be held at DMU in early 2012, if you are interested in the seminar please get in touch with me (h.e.dickinson@bham.ac.uk) or Catherine Durose (cdurose@dmu.ac.uk).

Helen Dickinson, Lecturer at the Health Services Management Centre at the University of Birmingham.

The future for citizen-run services

Big Society, Citizen Engagement, Community Action No Responses »

Jun 202011

Researchers and practitioners met at the University of Birmingham on 9-10 June 2011 for the first seminar of series funded by the Economic and Social Research Council on ‘third party government’. A slightly ambiguous term which nonetheless draws the attention to an often neglected but major plank of public policy over the last two to three decades, the location of public policy making at arm’s length from the institutions of representative democracy. A discussion of ‘third party government’ opens up questions democracy, delegation of authority, transparency, and autonomy in the contemporary state. ‘Third party government’ is also a focus which allows discussion across public, private, voluntary and community spaces where public policy is being shaped and delivered. Core themes of discussion included:

Who are the actors and stakeholders who ‘fill’ these ‘spaces’ of third party government?
How do these different actors interact and co-ordinate?
How can third party government be considered in a comparative perspective particularly between the US and UK?

Discussions included a number of highly policy relevant topics from the commissioning of public services to the role of the third sector in delivering public services to the potential for citizen-run services.

Citizen run services have been central to the current Coalition government’s policy agenda of the ‘Big Society’. ‘Big Society’ builds upon but also challenges the role for citizens outlined by the previous New Labour government. The challenge comes in the shift from citizens ‘influencing’ or shaping decisions which affect their everyday lives and the public services they receive to actively ‘doing’ and becoming involved in the delivery and even running public services. The ‘Big Society’ has been relentlessly (arguably deservedly) critiqued since its emergence in the run up to the 2010 General Election and is now somewhat of a beleaguered brand (it was recently re-launched for the fourth time), but what does it mean for the future of public services?

There are some initial concerns that the ‘Big Society’ raises for looking at citizen-run services. ‘Big Society’ has been pitched as a response or correction for the ‘big State’ associated with the previous government. However, delivering on the ‘Big Society’ cannot mean the ‘small State’ espoused by many. Extensive and varied evidence shows that the community action demanded by the ‘Big Society’ is importantly catalysed by state intervention and sustained through state support, advocacy and brokerage. This ongoing role for the state is particularly important in disadvantaged areas to ensure that the Big Society is not something which only includes those with the existing skills and opportunity to get involved.

This is an argument that citizen-run services should not be about citizens delivering services on their own, but in collaboration. But it is not about apologising for the current role of the state. Demands for citizen engagement have long been swimming against the tide of a managerial revolution in public services. Indeed, opportunities for citizens to get involved have often been structured to allow the ticking of a box rather than reflecting what citizens are interested in and informed about. There are often mismatches between citizens’ needs and priorities and what they are assumed to be. Public bodies can often be narrow and inflexible. Innumerable policies have been developed with the aim of engaging citizens, but rather than looking at citizens in the round, such policies have often caricatured citizens, focusing only on ‘real’ or ‘ordinary’ people. Such measures have also often been set in a context of contradictory measures which have pathologised or ignored some citizens whilst seeking to ‘activate’ or ‘empower’ others.

So, where do we go from here? Well let’s not under-estimate or assume that the state, notably in its local form doesn’t have the capacity to respond to the challenge of the ‘Big Society’. Many public sector staff, notably those who engage regularly with citizens in their communities, have the expert ‘local knowledge’ to inspire and catalyse action in those communities. In order to deliver the ‘Big Society’ we should be encouraging these skilled public sector staff to collaborate with citizens, communities and organisations of the third sector to shape and deliver services that best meet the needs of communities. But, these individuals who ‘work’ the spaces of third party government are the same people being targeted by current cuts to public spending. The Government should be cautious that it is not losing the very people who can deliver on their policy ambitions.

More bang for your green buck: green income generation for local government

Uncategorized 1 Response »

Mar 082011

The outlook for the public sector at the end of 2010 was not good: the UK has slid into a serious recession, which combined with the banking crisis, has led to a budgetary crisis in the public finances not seen for many years. This has caused morale in local government to dip: people worry about their jobs, the services they provide and the potential to continue to deal with an ever-increasing workload. There is very much a need for some light at the end of the tunnel.

Climate change is a pressing new agenda. It has existed for some time but has come to the fore because of increasing greenhouse gas emissions targets (both nationally and internationally) and the creation of new financial incentives by the Government. Local authorities need to be part of this agenda but few chief officers in local authorities seem to have switched on to its significance. One of the reasons why it is so important is that it offers huge local opportunities, as well as new burdens. To be well organized, each local authority should develop a holistic climate change strategy, setting targets and goals, building a route map towards them, and coming up with projects that form the steps on that path. A corporate approach is vital.

Solar photovoltaic panels to generate electricity are now one of the leading areas of renewable technology and this solution has been proved commercially successful around the world. Solar PV works in the UK, despite its cooler climate than Europe. The government has introduced new financial incentives for qualifying PV schemes, whether public or private sector. Local authorities have everything that they need to make the most of this agenda: buildings to convert, workforces to undertake the work and the capacity to borrow money to fund such works. This is a chance to create a new opportunity and make changes that benefit your areas and are self -funding. It is literally a ‘once in a lifetime’ opportunity.

In any major renewable energy project, the two major risks are obtaining planning permission and achieving a connection to the National Grid. Fortunately, a grid connection is not a problem with buildings; although planning permission is likely to be required.

Smaller PV schemes are also subject to the Microgeneration Certification Scheme (MCS), which is an internationally recognized quality assurance scheme that demonstrates to customers that companies engaged in PV installation work are committed to meeting rigorous and tested standards. Obviously for a local authority direct services team to undertake this work, it needs to become an MCS certificated installer and to use products also certificated under the MCS.

None of these hurdles should present a problem to a local authority team already undertaking substantial building maintenance work. It was mentioned above that there are significant benefits to any local authority that engages in renewable energy generation. These include:

Community leadership;
Energy security;
Carbon benefits;
Effectiveness and efficiency;
Economic benefits;
Income generation;

The best way of doing it is the ‘DIY option’ where the authority literally does it itself. This means it recruits and trains the people who will do the work, both preparatory and delivery; obtains the supplies and equipment itself, using its existing sustainable procurement processes; and gives active consideration to how the local economy can benefit at every stage.

But even so, the authority still wants to get the maximum value out of its project. To achieve this, it needs to create a revolving fund, where the original capital investment is recycled time after time to achieve maximum effect. Here is how such a project might be structured:

The Council starts the revolving fund by depositing an amount of capital into the new buildings PV account. It is up to the authority how much this is;
The Council would recruit a manual workforce and get it trained to the MCS Accreditation standards;
The Council needs to develop a schedule of its buildings and work plan;
Arrangements need to be put in place to procure the solar panel kits and other equipment necessary for the work to go ahead;
The work plan needs to determine the priority of buildings, although this is up to the authority;
As installations are completed and linked to the grid, the feed in tariff income would start to accrue to the Council’s PV account. The occupants of the buildings (whether the Council’s officers or members, schools or tenants) would get the electricity created by the PV panels free;
As some stage, the income coming into the revolving fund will be sufficient to continue to fund the operation of the team moving forwards; in other words, the operation becomes self sustainable;
Calculations need to be undertaken as to the value of the initial capital investment, as opposed to the size and speed at which the teams would exist and operate;
Once the operation becomes self sustainable, it can simply carry on until all the Council’s buildings have been fitted with solar PV installations and thereafter offer services to other public bodies and to the public at large. In this way work for a number of additional years may be obtained for the highly trained, skilled and experienced workforce that has been created;

It is mentioned above that this is a ‘once in a lifetime opportunity’. I have been involved in direct services for 25 years and, most of that time, those services have been under threat. It is a very long time indeed, since an opportunity to create some new ‘family silver’ has come along. An opportunity to enjoy growth as opposed to cuts; to create new skills, as opposed to a skills drain; to have a wider and wholly positive impact on other areas of the Council’s operation, rather than being just a recharged central cost. This proposal offers all of those things.

Stephen Cirell is a Consultant with the Association for Public Service Excellence

Contact: stephencirell@me.com

Community action works! Levenshulme Baths saved!

Big Society, Citizen Engagement, Spending cuts 2 Responses »

Mar 032011

As part of the current Coalition government’s deficit reduction strategy, October’s Comprehensive Spending Review handed local government the toughest financial settlements across the public sector. This budget cut was passed down to local authorities with Manchester City Council receiving one of the harshest and unfair financial settlements - compounded by the loss of substantial additional funding which reflected the level of deprivation in the city - resulting in a front-loaded budget cut of 25%.

Manchester City Council recently announced a plan to make these savings - £109 million in the next financial year and £170 million in the following year- proposing: the cutting of 2000 jobs, 17% of the current workforce; a cut in children’s services of 26%; 21% in adult services; along with the closure of public toilets, libraries, leisure centres and swimming pools. The council has been attacked by central government, for making party politics by targeting front line services. The council has responded by saying that this level of cuts simply cannot be absorbed through efficiency savings.

One of the swimming pools under threat of closure is in Levenshulme, a diverse and deprived area of south Manchester. Levenshulme is also the place where I live. I have used the baths two or three times a week since I moved to the area nearly three years ago. The baths are always busy and act as a social hub for the area, being well used by a wide cross-section of the community including local primary schools.

On 9 February, following the announcement of the proposed closure, over 150 people gathered outside the baths in a spontaneous protest which received national media coverage. A community email list, Facebook group and online petition were quickly organised. On the Friday of that week, a meeting – attended by over 200 people – was held at the local community centre, Levenshulme Inspire to plan action to save the baths. This action meeting was followed by a protest the following day where over 500 people marched along the high street to the baths. Regular action meetings have been held weekly, other protest and fundraising events have included a ‘swim in’, a banner making workshop, a beacon event which made the link between the closure of the baths and the Olympic legacy pledge. A local youth group is now making a documentary about the campaign.

The campaign has been by the community and for the community and particular mention should be made about the activities of the children from local primary schools which regularly use the baths. Pupils made banners, signs – many saying ‘I learnt to swim at Levenshulme Baths’! – but most impressively, several spoke at meetings and presented about the importance of the baths to them and why they should be saved.

This campaign is undeniably political. But there has been a strong consensus amongst campaigners that it should not be party political. Indeed all three of the main parties have received criticism about the proposed closure. Councillors and local MPs have had an opportunity here to really be champions of the communities they espouse to represent and it is one that shouldn’t be squandered by political point scoring which only angers the community further. Councillors have however listened to this strong campaign from the community and made a u-turn and have now asked officers to find funds for a modern, most cost-effective facility for Levenshulme and to keep the existing baths open until this replacement is available.

The decision to save Levenshulme Baths has been met with a degree of surprise and a great deal of relief and happiness in the community. Moreover, it has given confidence that community action can work even in the seemingly most difficult of economic situations. Being involved in this protest has been inspiring not only for its impact, but for the energy, organisation and enthusiasm of the campaign. The lessons I will take from this campaign are: believe you can succeed, act quickly, get organised, be inclusive and try and make it fun.

The wider campaign against the cuts in Manchester continues with the real concern that whilst Levenshulme Baths may be saved, it is likely that another public service in Manchester will be hit. For all its espoused enthusiasm for community organising and action in the so-called ”Big Society’, the Coalition government is likely to find that much of this action is likely to be resistance to its policies as cuts begin to impact on the lives of ordinary people.

Reflections on the Localism Bill: Putting the ‘government’ back into in Local Government?

Localism No Responses »

Feb 162011

The Bill hasn’t been around for long, but it is already time to take a step back and look at the big picture. Is the Localism Bill a refreshing, new approach by government based on trust and confidence in local government’s ability and skill to lead communities through troubled times; or, is the Bill little more than the continuation of the centralising approach governments have depressingly taken over the decades?

Those arguing for the former can point to section one and the general power of competence. General competence – if that is to be the same as the ‘general power of competence’ and let’s assume for the sake of argument that it is, would give councils the power to do anything that is not prohibited by law, rather than councils only being able to do those things expressly allowed in law. It is a complete reversal of the current standing of local government. General competence is a power which has the potential to fundamentally alter the relationship between local government and the centre and local government and just about anything else. But, the reaction to this new power has been strangely muted whilst concerns are loudly voiced about what the effect on councils would be of community right to challenge and community expressions of interest; changes to the planning regime with the abolition of regional spatial strategies and the Infrastructure Planning Commission and the introduction of new forms of neighbourhood planning; the housing and finance changes; the claw-back of EU imposed fines; and, almost every other point of detail in the Bill.

So what is the big picture? The potential embedded in the general power of competence can change the way in which local government goes about its business and will free-up councils to start emphasising the ‘government’ in local government. The power means a reappraisal of the relationship between the centre and the localities and a rebalancing of the relationship between Westminster / Whitehall and local government by making a localist presumption in central / local relationships. Central government would be faced with alternative centres of governing capacity that could act on their own merits. But, will councils do so? Already the reaction from many local government lawyers is cautious and guarded – that’s their job, of course – but, this is a political power which councillors should be courageous and imaginative in using because it doesn’t only rest on central government willingness to cede some power – it rests on councils using that power. General Competence should be seen as a liberating power not a restraining factor to be argued over and interpreted. Across Europe, general competence, based on a presumption of devolution and localism, provides councils with a strong position within constitutional arrangements. The challenge of general competence is that of a shift in attitudes and practices at both the centre and local government. Not forgetting, of course, the courts – we wait to see if they are willing to let ultra vires slip into the history books, without a fight.

Referendums are also part of the big picture – the injection into a local representative system of democracy of a dose of direct democracy. But, unfortunately, these local votes will be non-binding and therefore largely pointless and potentially a massive disappointment for any communities active and hard-working enough to get the 5% support from local citizens required to trigger a referendum in the first place. Let’s hope an amendment to the Bill makes the results of local referendum binding. After all, we elect our councillors by a public vote and no one demands that the outcome of the local election should be non-binding.

Now the downside: there are 142 references, so far, in the Bill to ministerial power, which if taken with the way in which ministers – of all governments – like to dictate to councils what they should be doing and how, is a worrying contradiction to the principle of localism. It shows that central government still doesn’t trust local government. On top of this there is the depth and detail within the Bill – like all others – which stifles proper consideration of principle and practice and sets up a lawyers’ paradise of interpretation and potential court action – back to ultra vires. Joshua Toulmin Smith [C1], in his rallying cry against centralisation called for legislation to only set out basic principles within which we could act and avoid the centralising and litigious tendencies of detail, instruction and guidance: he was right. If central government really is to localise, it will take more than one Bill to achieve it: it will take a massive change in attitudes centrally and locally and across the political spectrum.

Post by Colin Copus, Professor of Local Politics, Local Governance Research Unit, De Montfort University

[C1]There isn’t one, but you could refer to his book: Toulmin-Smtih, J., Local Government and Centralisation: The Characteristics of Each; and its Practical Tendencies, As affecting Social, Moral and political Welfare and Progress, Including Comprehensive Outlines of the English Constitution, Elibron Classics Series, 2005.

Is regeneration dead?

Big Society 1 Response »

Feb 142011

In the recent financial settlement for local government, many urban authorities have been hard hit by the removal of specific grants for regeneration. The tail end of the New Labour administration saw an erosion of faith in holistic regeneration initiatives at the neighbourhood level, as evidence emerged of the limited impact of policies such as New Deal for Communities. Has the time of holistic regeneration strategies now passed? Does this matter? What will we see in the future?

The early period of the New Labour government saw a proliferation of targeted policy initiatives aimed at ‘narrowing the gap’ between the most deprived places and the national average, with interventions across sectors including health, education and economic development. As evaluation evidence on these initiatives began to emerge, central government seemed to have a crisis of confidence in their ability to deliver. In a context of widening social inequality and slowing social mobility, evaluation evidence seemed to suggest limited lasting value of these resource-intensive interventions with positive change in the physical environment being coupled with limited change on social indicators such as worklessness.

Many commentators have framed New Labour’s neighbourhood regeneration policies as part of a ‘roll out’ of a wider neo-liberal project aiming to open up new market possibilities, for example the Housing Market Renewal initiative. Our take is that New Labour’s neighbourhood policies implied, certainly towards the end of its reign the opposite: a government in disarray without a clear strategic agenda. Neighbourhood policies seem to have addressed some of the symptoms of poverty in disadvantaged areas but have been reluctant to address some of the underlying structural problems. For all the criticism, from the standpoint of crushing cuts to local authority budgets and by extension to voluntary and community organisations it seems now that this period may seem a ‘golden age’ . The current Tory-led Coalition government seem ‘intensely relaxed’ about the potential for widening inequalities in all areas of social policy representing a radical break from New Labour’s paranoia about the so-called ‘postcode lottery’ but also a move away from targeted interventions in disadvantaged communities. Whilst ‘neighbourhood’ is a theme in the ‘Big Society’, it is not clear what will happen to existing structures or what new structure may be needed to deliver on this agenda.

Does the shift in economic context and a change of government herald a death knell for regeneration? Or does the current policy agenda create space for ‘localist’ neighbourhood regeneration? Can localist approaches develop and flourish in the context of a financial settlement for local government, particularly where urban deprived authorities have received the worst deal?

Catherine Durose is Senior Research Fellow in the Local Governance Research Unit at De Montfort University

James Rees is Research Fellow at the Third Sector Research Centre, University of Birmingham

‘Big Society’: over before it begins?

Big Society, Citizen Engagement 3 Responses »

Feb 072011

In the last week, three incidents have highlighted the precarious state of the Tory-led Coalition government’s aspiration for the ‘Big Society’:

First, Lord Wei – a life peer with an unpaid role in the Cabinet Office as ‘Big Society Tsar’ tasked with encouraging volunteering – resigned citing the incompatibility of working for free three days a week, earning an income to support his family and spending time with them.

Then, Liverpool City Council, selected as one of four ‘vanguard’ areas for the Big Society’, has withdrawn from the initiative arguing that spending cuts have undermined funding of hundreds of voluntary sector organisations in the city, perceived as vital to delivering ‘Big Society’ objectives.

Speaking today on Radio 4′s, Dame Elisabeth Hoodless, retiring head of the Community Service Volunteers (CSV) - named in the Guardian last year as the ‘Mother of the Big Society’ - has criticised the government for a lack of a strategic approach to delivering the ‘Big Society’ arguing that cuts to public spending are undermining efforts to encourage volunteering and community action.

The ‘Big Society’ is a flagship agenda for the Coalition government, one which Cameron has personally aligned himself to, but it is one that has come in for significant scrutiny and criticism. These recent events seem to dispel the myth that cuts in public spending will act as a catalyst rather than a barrier for the achievement of the Big Society, particularly in areas of social disadvantage where capacity in the voluntary sector may be more limited and where individuals already juggle work and family commitments.

Opening up politics: diversity in representation

Uncategorized 1 Response »

Feb 072011

Despite some progress over the last thirty years, following the 2010 General Election, national politics remains highly unrepresentative of the population with only 22 per cent of MPs are women and 4 per cent from an ethnic minority. The ‘archetype’ of a politician remains a white, middle class, middle aged man.

Recent research commissioned by the Equality and Human Rights Commission conducted by De Montfort University and the University of Manchester has considered why diversity is so limited in national politics, questioned why this matters and explored what can be done to make national politics more representative.

The research looked across UK national political institutions from the House of Commons to the devolved assemblies considering the shared and different experiences of individuals from a wide range of under-represented groups looking at factors such as age, ethnicity, gender, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, age and social class; and including those who were selected by political parties, elected andalso those who failed to achieve these goals.

The research found that certain groups are disproportionately disenfranchised through a series of mutually reinforcing factors: ‘prevent’ factors which serve to exclude individuals through discriminatory practices or prejudice; an absence of ‘push’ factors facilitating access to politics, for example university education and transferable professional skills; and a lack of action from political parties and institutions to ‘pull’ individuals into politics, for example through positive action or mentoring.

The researchers identified three implications which came from these findings. The first implication highlights the need to re-frame the debate about diversity; the second, emphasises opening up politics to encourage a wider range of candidates; the third, the need for radical debate.

The recent Speaker’s Conference on Parliamentary Representation argued that the case for widening representation of diverse groups in national political institutions was a matter of urgent concern for reasons of justice, to encourage greater effectiveness and legitimacy in decision making and to connect politics to a wider constituency. However, the purchase of these arguments in UK politics, which is dominated by party and most importantly, electoral concerns, needs to be questioned. A potentially more effective framing of the arguments about diversity would explore the potential electoral advantage - for example, through looking more progressive, relevant or modern - of fielding more diverse candidates and supporting under-represented groups.

For those individuals from under-represented groups who try to get involved in national politics, the barriers to difference are high, the pathways available are narrow, and the support they receive from institutions is limited. Significant change is needed to have an impact. While the composition of the House of Commons has become more diverse, those elected still conform closely to the model of the ‘archetypal’ politician. In order to encourage a more diverse range of candidates which will subsequently provide more diverse representation, it is important to widen the tolerance or acceptability of difference. One important way of doing this is to draw in candidates from a wider pool and encourage civic and issue-based activists into politics.

The recommendations put forward by the Speaker’s Conference focus on altering the existing political culture rather than transforming the structures which facilitate and perpetuate it. But the political system needs to be perceived as a whole in order for transformational change to take place. A debate about the scope and pace of change is required; arguably radical political change is needed to kick-start improvements in diversity.

Unfortunately the current proposals for electoral reform put forward by the Coalition government continue to neglect an explicit focus on diversity proposing a referendum on the electoral system and equalising of constituencies, but ignoring many of the reform options suggested by the Speaker’s Conference around opening up politics and supporting under-represented groups to become involved in politics and arguably more radical options, such as equality guarantees.

This research was commissioned by the Equality and Human Rights Commission and is published here and conducted by Catherine Durose (DMU), Francesca Gains (University of Manchester), Liz Richardson (UoM), Christina Eason (University of Sheffield), Ryan Combs (UoM) and Karl Broome.

Citizen participation: building consensus or facilitating conflict?

Big Society No Responses »

Feb 022011

Involving the community as a means of resolving seemingly intractable ‘wicked’ policy problems is now a long-standing pre-occupation of government not only in the UK, but across developed democracies. These objectives are underpinned by a positive view of community as holding some sort of resource, mutual trust and shared values which government can tap into and employ for its own policy agenda. The challenge of engaging citizens formed the basis of a recent workshop held in Amsterdam involving researchers and practitioners from across Europe and funded by the UK-Netherlands Partnership Programme in Science. One of the themes in a wide ranging debate focused on a key dynamic of citizen participation initiatives and activities that of consensus – often assumed in policy design and sought in practice – and conflict, which can emerge within communities where divergent interests, values and identities can come to the fore.

In the New Labour period, citizens were variously ‘activated, empowered and made the subjects of responsibilities as well as rights’ (Clarke 2005, 447). The New Labour period can be in part characterised by a tidal wave of initiatives, funding streams, governance structures and good practice guidance aiming to engage with citizens and encourage their participation in decision making and governance; as a means of addressing concerns about social exclusion and the democratic deficit. A series of criticisms have emerged about this activity:

Agenda setting: the ‘top down’ funding of many initiatives and the perception of community as a resource in delivering policy objectives, has meant that in numerous initiatives, government has set the agenda for participation without input from the community
‘Big tent’ politics: New Labour’s attempt to forge an electoral consensus is mirrored in the design of its participation initiatives which have been seen to privilege consensus and marginalise dissent
Contradictions: whilst some policies engaged positively with citizens, in other policies however, for example around anti-social behaviour and access to welfare, citizens were ignored, neglected and pathologised. The language and rhetoric of citizen participation is often about seeking the engagement of ‘real’ or ‘ordinary’ citizens and at the same time, dismissing those awkward citizens or ‘usual citizens’ who do not share the government’s agenda. These contradictions mean that no clear role for citizens or view of what citizen participation should look like has emerged from this period
Impact: uncomfortable evidence for the New Labour government emerged at the latter end of their administration, showing slowing social mobility, growing residential segregation and widening inequality and the limited lasting impact of many initiative

The new Tory-led Coalition government in the UK, formed in the aftermath of the May 2010 General Election, has continued to encourage citizens to get involved not only in decision making which affects their everyday lives but also in social action and in delivering services which they use. Perhaps the major shift though is in the economic context of citizen participation. In the New Labour period, citizen participation was often held together by the ‘glue’ of public funding, citizens could get involved in spending money allocated to their local communities for regeneration, health, education and so on. Now in a context of radical localist austerity that we now find ourselves in, the New Labour period is likely represent a high water mark of funding for citizen participation.

The lack of funding and the rhetoric of localism employed by the current government may mean however, that they are less able to structure the opportunities for citizen engagement. In the absence of government as an ‘honest’ broker and with the impact of the government’s deficit reduction strategy, will the ‘consensus’ which has been sought in citizen participation, the resources of social capital and trust perceived to be held in ‘communities’ which government is interested in, break down? Will citizen participation decline, become less representative of the wider community, be open to the few rather than the many?

Or is the opportunity to voice greater dissent within communities and between communities and government not necessarily a bad thing? We are starting to see increased action from citizens around the government’s agenda of cuts in public spending, from the student anti-fees protests to the recent TUC day of action. If participation is more ad hoc, less controlled by government and increasingly explicitly related to issues which citizens feel are important to their everyday lives, is this not more attractive and what government’s have – rhetorically at least- been trying to achieve for a number of years? Is this sort of action, a threat to democracy or a re-vivification of mass participation that democracy needs?

NHS reform: the gloves are off!

Commissioning, Spending cuts 1 Response »

Jan 312011

The Coalition government’s health reforms are moving ahead at speed, despite the reservations of NHS staff, trade unions and academics. Make no mistake, these are large scale reforms, and compare with the great (and very unsuccessful) reorganisation of 1974, the internal market reforms of the 1990s, and New Labour’s reforms in the aftermath of the NHS plan of 2000. However, the current reforms are in many respects a continuation of recent policy trends – increased use of the private sector and social enterprise, more competition and use of market forces, a greater emphasis on choice and personalisation, a stronger voice for patients and more accountability, greater responsibilities and autonomy for health organisations and professionals at local level and less interference from politicians, a focus on improved health outcomes, better joint working between health care, social care and public health bodies.

No one could disagree with the expressed desire to improve outcomes and create a service that is more responsive to patients. But as ever the devil is in the detail. And there is going to be a lot of detail. The Health and Social Care Bill, at almost 370 pages long, is four times longer than the Act of 1946 that created the NHS. Furthermore, it will spawn plenty of secondary legislation. The key question is how will it be implemented? NHS reform rarely goes to plan. History teaches us that reforms tend to hit problems and further changes are then required. The government has set a timetable for axing the very bodies that implement its NHS policies, while limiting the formal powers of central bodies, including the Department of Health. The key words are going to be capacity, accountability, and fragmentation.

There are already concerns about possible lack of capacity among the new GP commissioning bodies at a time when Strategic Health Authorities (SHAs) and Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) are going to be abolished. There are also worries about the capacity of the three central bodies – Monitor, the National Commissioning Board, and the Care Quality Commission – to regulate the NHS. Despite what ministers say, the temptation to intervene will be strong. The fragmentation of the system, local variations in service and individual service failures that arise will stimulate intervention from central policy makers and regulators.

Politically, the government has dug itself in a hole here. The announcement of health reforms in July was like pulling a rabbit from a hat. No one foresaw their magnitude. The Conservative leadership had worked hard to neutralise the NHS as a political issue and had successfully built up public trust in its health policies. The coalition with the Liberal Democrats made widespread reform even less likely, as they too had no plans for root and branch reorganisation. The result of this U-turn is that the NHS is back on the front pages providing plenty of ammunition for the government’s opponents. The spectre of large scale privatisation has been raised, amid greater suspicion about competition and markets, particular in the light of the banking crisis. One might ask: why should markets work in health care when they demonstrably failed in the financial sector?

The key tests for the reforms are: will they improve health outcomes, reduce health inequalities, improve partnership working, strengthen accountability and responsiveness to patients and the public, and improve efficiency (and in particular, achieve the £20 billion demanded in savings)? There are strong reasons for arguing that such a massive organisational reform will jeopardise all these objectives. It will cause major structural turbulence and will be expensive. It is also likely to distract from the urgent business of improving and protecting and promoting public health, which could be sidetracked as ministers concentrate on the organisational detail of NHS structural reform.

Post by Professor Rob Baggott, Director of the Health Policy Research Unit, De Montfort University

Older Entries

DMU Policy Exchanges