Reconciling the ‘hard’ & ‘soft’ dimensions of social governance

1. Reconciling the ‘hard’ & ‘soft’ dimensions of social governance Complex Clients & Joined-Up Government Forum Centre for Public Policy University of Melbourne 17 May 2005 Tim Reddel

2. Introduction • Acceptance of ‘Joined-Up’ as good policy • Governance response to complexity & fragmentation of individual, family & community problems • Spread of policy/service arenas – neighbourhood renewal to child protection • Promise/Aspiration? Innovative Top-down Service Responses [‘HARD’] & Community Engagement [‘SOFT’] brought together

3. But!Contested Policy Context • Contested relationship between spheres/institutions of the state, market & civil society • International resurgence (or re-emergence?) in ideas/values of community, localism and participation • Contested policy discourses – greater responsiveness by government to community needs/aspirations, social exclusion and economic reforms

4. Contested Policy Context …. • ‘NPM’ & competitive market solutions in public policy are under [some] scrutiny • Impacts of globalisation & economic restructuring - ‘hollowing out’ of the state • Community alienation & disengagement from traditional political/policy institutions

5. Key Themes/Debates • Spatial, network & associational dimensions of governance • Third Way solutions [slogans?] – joined up solutions to joined up problems • Citizen engagement/participatory governance popularised • Policy integration? social, economic & environment domains

6. Key Themes/Debates … • State capacity questioned– authority & influence of local governance institutions • Promise of participatory & devolved governance BUT proliferation of political, social & economic elites • Social democratic approaches? Neo-liberal agenda remains dominant • Initiatives based on social/community economy marginal to macro-economy

7. Questions - Policy • What difference does ‘joining up’ make – process & outcomes? • Evidence of change is patchy - Over-reliance on localism, coordination & process? • What are the institutions & processes to build & sustain social governance – political, bureaucratic, community [&individual} ?

8. Questions –Theory • Institutional & participatory dimensions of social governance underdeveloped • Institutional balance between the state & civil society uncertain • New institutionalism [strength of weak ties] & participatory governance offers direction?

9. Participatory Governance • Critiques of traditional & technical consultative models • Governance – reaction to increasing fragmentation of policy/service delivery • Focus on the interactions of public, private & civil sectors • Recognise the diversity of civil society – social movements, politics of identity, community & place

10. New Institutionalism • Emerged as a reaction to rational choice, individualism & classical public admin. • ‘The strength of weak ties’ [Granovetter] • Institutions – not only structures but networks, relations, ideals, values & collective norms • The state, esp. the ‘local state’ is critical

11. Case Study - Spatial Governance & Australia Federalism 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 (Roe 1976)

12. Spatial governance & Australian federalism – key policy episodes • 1940s: Commonwealth Housing Commission & post war reconstruction • 1970s: Whitlam government’s democratic public policy ‘adventure’– DURD & AAP • 1990s: urban & regional experiments – Building Better Cities • 2000s: community, social capital, participation, local disadvantage [but where is the state?]

13. AAP: regionalized & participatory social governance? • AAP initiated as an ‘experiment’ in regionalized social planning & development • AAP was an ‘attempt to bring together the threads of planning, regionalism, true democratic participation, community development and regular critical evaluation of the performance of programs ..’ (Hayden 1973) • Seen as critical to developing new responses to spatial dimensions of poverty & disadvantage within a social democratic framework

14. AAP’s legacy – Spatial Policy & Governance Confusion? • Regional Councils comprising a mix of regional actors (bureaucratic, elected officials, community) did not have legitimacy & capacity to coordinate or cut through existing institutions & sector interests • Untried community organisational structure without roots, tradition, proven design features or record of achievement; a structure which by nature, is likely to sit ill at ease in the company of the older government and non-government agencies’ (Council on Ageing 1975)

15. Spatial Policy & Governance Confusion? • Legitimacy & Authority – linked to be federalism & local/regional power relations • However remnants of the AAP & RCSD remain & have been important platforms for urban/regional social development (eg Mackay RCSD in central Qld)

16. 1990s -: Reports & Experiments, but little Policy • Regional development, metropolitan planning & [some] social democracy during the 1990s • National Initiatives & Reports • Better Cities Program signaled a return to Commonwealth leadership following the 1980s (but was it really ‘crisis management’?)

17. 2000s: Rediscovering community & joined-up government? • Rediscovery of ‘Community & Place’ in the late 1990s? • Social capital & ‘community’ rediscovered but neo-liberal economics & governance systems remain in ascendancy • States & local govts experimenting with community strengthening & joined-up place management strategies

18. Rediscovering community & joined-up government? …. • Current governance models struggling to cope with neo-liberalism & retreat from the state • Emergence of ‘partnership’ as a new governance principle • Significant dangers in local partnership discourse – diminished role for the state & uncritical mix of engagement models (markets, hierarchies, corporatism)

19. Networks, Institutions & Participatory Governance • Scan highlights lack of theoretical & methodological consensus re state/civil society relations • Recent focus by States on citizen engagement/community strengthening suggest that ‘old’ models of top-down consultation & service delivery are no longer viable

20. Institutional dimensions of participatory governance • Implementation strategies: networks & partnerships • Skills: stakeholder analysis & diplomacy • Infrastructure: devolved & centralized institutions • Culture: participation & openness

21. Implementation Strategies • Role of & capacity of networks • Sustainable institutional ‘ensemble’ of negotiation/mediation structures & discourses • identify key design properties (eg. devolution & central supervision)

22. Skills: stakeholders & diplomacy • Stakeholder analysis, negotiation, innovative problem solving • Diplomacy – ‘put oneself in another person's shoes’ • Dangers in these skills being commodified into another forms of technocratic & expert driven practice • ‘Craft’ of network management

23. Infrastructure: devolved & centralised institutions • ‘Institutional ensemble’ – mix of policy direction, discourse & structure based on design properties of devolution & centralised supervision • Areas for resolution: • Role of central authority & ‘localism’ • Limited capacity of existing participatory institutions

24. Culture • Developing a participatory culture amongst policy/institutional actors • Openness to change & ongoing learning • Focus on process, relationships & behavior rather than structure or technique • Political & institutional leadership is critical

25. Future Directions • Fragmentation of Australian federalism • Building an institutional balance between state & civil society • What is the institutional ensemble [ie the ‘hard’ & ‘soft’] for participatory forms of social governance?

26. Future Directions .… • Map linkages between institutions, civil society & representative democracy • Micro Challenges: test participatory assumptions of networks/partnerships • Macro Challenges: local/regional state is critical but not sufficient in face of international/national forces • National comparative research project to assess the impacts of spatial polices & programs on sustainable social governance