From the delivery state to the relational state

1. From the delivery state to the relational state • Rick Muir • Associate Director, IPPR

2. 1. Introduction • Why is government so bad at tackling problems such as obesity, long term worklessness and anti-social behaviour? Why, despite objective improvements in outcomes, do the public often remain dissatisfied with the services they receive? • We want public services to do two things – to tackle the big social problems we face and to deliver a high quality service to their users. They are not doing either of these things as well as they should.

3. 2. The rise of complexity

4. 2. The rise of complexity • Examples of tame problems: hospital waits, improving basic levels of numeracy and literacy • Examples of complex problems: anti social behaviour, chronic illness, reoffending, long term unemployment, young people not in employment, education or training.

5. 3. The delivery state is not very good at dealing with complex problems • ‘New Public Management’ sought to make public services more effective and efficient through the use of bureaucratic performance management and market competition • Bureaucracy – the exercise of hierarchical authority – is good at dealing with tame problems where causality is linear and the problem can be dealt with in delivery silos • Markets – optimal outcomes achieved via competition – are good at dealing with problems where consumers will respond predictably to market incentives

6. 3. The delivery state is not very good at dealing with complex problems • There are two characteristics of complex problems that bureaucracy and markets cannot adequately respond to: • Non-linearity – one thing does not necessarily lead to another • Interconnectedness – causal factors are interconnected across different social domains

7. 4. Complexity demands a more relational state • A state that does things with its people rather than simply for or to its people (Mulgan 2012). • To tackle complex problems we require public services that are more connected at the macro level and that provide for deeper relationships at the micro level.

8. 4. Complexity demands a more relational state • Connect: at the macro level managing public services as interconnected systems in which actors and institutions interact in multiple and unpredictable ways, there are complicated feedback loops and big effects can be generated by unplanned micro behaviours. • It is impossible for the state to guarantee particular outcomes and so the role of government changes from manager to enabler: setting rules and incentives, ensuring learning, monitoring performance, supporting innovation.

9. 4. Complexity demands a more relational state • Deepen: at the micro level of individuals, institutions and communities the relational state is characterised by ‘deep relationships’, rather than shallow transactions. Where individuals and communities suffer from complex problems, such as chronic health conditions, poor educational attainment, worklessness and crime and anti-social behaviour, we require much more intensive and personalised engagement between professionals and service users and among citizens themselves.

10. 5. The public want deeper relationships • There are too many examples of public services where what people want is a deep relationship, but what they get is a shallow transaction. • Although quick and efficient exchanges are desirable in areas such as refuse or tax collection, many services are inherently relational in that the quality of the service as experienced by the user depends on the depth of the relationships formed.

11. 6. Two qualifications • There is a role for bureaucracy and markets – but they will not work and are not desired everywhere • Sometimes people want shallow transactions

12. 7. Challenges • Politics: is our politics mature enough for the relational state? • Money: is the relational state too expensive? • Agency: are the public up for it?

13. Questions? • r.muir@ippr.org • www.ippr.org