Partnerships
A debate has emerged in the scholarly literature over the efficacy of partnerships as forms of governance dialogue – particularly in the United Kingdom where the Labour government’s modernization and democratic renewal agenda has put a great emphasis on these kind of fora. They have been particularly emphasized as part of the project to democratize local government. As of 2004, there were at least 5,500 such partnerships at the local level, spending approximately £4.3 billion a year and involving around 7500 people as partnership board members. Furthermore, each U.K. local authority uses an average of 10.5 different partnership initiatives, and it is estimated that 14 million people took part in such exercises during 2001. The debate, though, hasn’t been over the quantity of activity but the quality. Some have observed that, not only does partnership not in itself deliver enhanced public participation, but it may make it particularly difficult to secure citizen involvement. This has led for calls to have governance dialogue processes explicitly designed-in, not assumed-in, to the process. Toward that end, the following suggestions have been made:
1) Policymakers need to pay more attention to the development and evaluation of partnership specific modes of deliberation and decision-making, including opportunities for the remaking of the procedures and conventions, in the process. This is necessary to ensure effective public and community participation in the face of numerous structural factors that discourage equal participation.
2) It is necessary to mix a variety of participation methods to ensure widespread public perspectives being heard and to maximize public representatives’ accountability and legitimacy.
3) To avoid overload and fatigue, local partnerships should coordinate their efforts to recruit from, and engage with, the general public.
4) Local partnerships have to be conscious of, and act upon, the need to both maintain the experience of “old hands” and bring in “new talent.” Public partners are usually at a deficit in the skill department compared to business, professional and government partners. Their effective participation needs both memory and continual skill renewal.
Pessimistic observers have criticized what they consider the unexamined contradictions in the current political fashion that presumes an unproblematic marriage of public participation and service provision model integration. While one of the most widely acknowledged needs in partnerships – given the absence of an enforceable chain-of-command – is strong (e.g., creative, persuasive) leadership, this can actively militate against effective participation. Broadly participative governance and strong leadership are incompatible, because they imply the concentration of decision-making power in different hands. Additionally, there is a contradiction between the aversion to conflict, on the part of government officials, in partnership-oriented models and the reliance upon such conflict as the lifeblood of deliberative democratic models of government dialogue.
Partnerships have also played an important role in health care service in the United Kingdom. These partnerships have received mixed reviews. Some believe that they have failed to provide adequate impact on decision-making on the part of the local populations and patients that they were meant to empower.
On a more general level, some have criticized such partnerships as threatening community and voluntary sectors with forms of co-optation and para-state sclerosis. However, such forms of public participation do have those who defend them as legitimate modes of governance dialogue. Rather than simply becoming extensions of the very state bureaucracy their inclusion was meant to mitigate, some argue, such partnerships provide an optimal opportunity for the emergence of new forms of governance. Achieving these potentials, however, do require considerable cultural change at central and local levels of government.
Taylor, Marilyn , et al. "Co-option or empowerment? The changing relationship between the state and the voluntary and community sectors," Local Governance, 28(1) Spring 2002, 1-11
The authors address the concern raised by some observers, such as Ralf Dahrendorf, that the high level of involvement between the community and voluntary sectors and the state in processes of citizen engagement threatens the former with forms of co-optation and para-state sclerosis. The authors argue in contrast that, rather than simply becoming extensions of the very state bureaucracy their inclusion was meant to mitigate, such partnerships provide an optimal opportunity for the emergence of new forms of governance. Achieving these potentials, however, require considerable cultural change at central and local levels of government.
Abram, Simone, and Richard Cowell, "Dilemmas of implementation: ‘Integration’ and ‘participation’ in Norwegian and Scottish local government," Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 22(5) October 2004, 701-19
They address the problem of partnership in their analysis of the unexamined contradictions within the current political fashion that presumes an unproblematic marriage of public participation and service provision model integration. They point out that, while one of the most widely acknowledged needs in partnerships – given the absence of an enforceable vertical chain-of-command – is strong (e.g. creative, influential) leadership, this can actively militate against effective participation: broadly participative government and strong leadership are incompatible, because they imply the concentration of decision-making power in different hands. Additionally, they point-out – following the analysis of Chantal Mouffe – that the integration-orientation to focusing on “what works” militates against the vital role of conflict in modern democracy. So the effort to marry these perspectives leads to the situation where people are invited to participate in a process with a built-in aversion to conflict and confrontation, in the interest of rationalizing technical efficiency. Consequently, the invited people become apathetic and disaffected with an ineffectual participation.
Dobbs, Lynn, and Craig Moore, "Engaging communities in area-based regeneration: The role of participatory evaluation", Policy Studies,23(3/4) September-December 2002, 157-71
Stoll-Kleemann, Susanne , and Timothy O’Riordan, "From participation to partnership in biodiversity protection: Experience from Germany and South Africa," Society and Natural Resources, 15(2) February 2002, 161-77
Basing themselves on case studies from South Africa and Germany, the authors claim that threats to biodiversity are often not adequately addressed in processes of community participation. They argue that the financial stability and cultural change necessary to reform practices in the interest of sustainability require that participation be regarded as a prelude to formal partnerships that bind government agencies and communities through coordinated funding and sustained collaborative dialogue.
Sherlock, Kirsty L., et al. "Just the usual suspects? Partnerships and environmental regulation," Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 22(5) October 2004, 651-66
Based on an ethnography of the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, the authors explore how the new collaborative approach to environmental regulatory governance rooted in partnership challenges technocratic policy making. Partnerships, they find, are pursued to improve understanding; to develop resource-efficient solutions; improve implementation of those solutions; and and enhance trust and communication in policy networks. However, in practice they find decision making remains technocratic, with most participants not benefitting from the discursive democratic virtues attributed to such partnerships. They propose a system of incentives, supports and trust cultivation as remedies to the current limitations experienced in environmental management partnerships. This, they argue, is essential to extend network participation beyond the usual suspects and nurture broad based participatory democracy.
Lowndes, Vivien , and Helen Sullivan, "Like a horse and carriage or a fish on a bicycle: How well do local partnerships and public participation go together?," Local Government Studies, 30(1) Spring 2004, 51-73
The authors argue that the U.K. Labour Party’s approach to modernization and democratic renewal with its emphasis on the co-evolution of partnership and participation is more problematic than the government acknowledges. They claim that not only does a partnership-orientation not in itself deliver enhanced public participation, but it may make it particularly difficult to secure citizen involvement. This synergy, they argue, can only work if public participation needs are designed-in, not assumed-in. Their suggestions for making partnership and participation work better together: • Policy makers need to pay more attention to the development and evaluation of partnership specific modes of deliberation and decision-making, including opportunities for remaking the procedures and conventions, in the process. This is necessary to ensure effective public and community participation in face of numerous structural factors that discourage equal participation. • It is necessary to mix a variety of participation methods to ensure widespread public perspectives being heard and to maximize public representatives’ accountability and legitimacy. • To avoid overload and fatigue, local partnerships should coordinate their efforts to recruit from and engage with the public. • Local partnerships have to be conscious of, and act upon, the need to both maintain the experience of “old hands” and bring in “new talent.” Public partners are usually at a deficit in the still department compared to business, professional and government partners. Their effective participation needs both memory and continued skill renewal.
Milewa, Timothy , et al. "Partnerships, power and the “new” politics of community participation in British health care," Social Policy & Administration, 36(7) December 2002, 796-809
The authors examine the impact of primary care groups (PCG) and primary care trusts (PCT) in the UK under Labour’s new partnership oriented approach to health care. The new approach is intended to stress a multi-faceted approach to health care, addressing associated issues such as deprivation and unemployment. The partnerships involve the PCG and PCT in cooperation with NHS hospital trusts, local elected authorities, academic and research interests, voluntary organizations and the local community. The partnerships can bid for funds targeted to specific problems. The integrity of the partnership is an important part of the assessment criteria. The authors’ primary concern is with whether these new partnerships are contributing to a reworking and re-imagining of the relationships between the traditional medical experts and the community and user interests they’re now joined-up with. They argue that early research confirms the continued predominance of managers and professionals in decision-making, at the expense of local populations and patients at whom such participatory exercises had been aimed.
IPAC Events
