New Localism, Participation and Networked Commu nity Governance

Gerry Stoker

University of Manchester, UK

www.ipeg.org.uk

This paper argues that effective local governance has a vital role to play in tackling

social, economic and environmental problems. It calls for a new localism- a strategic

approach to devolution- to allow local communities and governments to involve

themselves in the decisions that effective their social, economic and political

environment. In a global world and one where national governments continue to have a

key role a nested but powerful role for local governance remains the most attractive

option. The first section of the paper sets out the arguments for a new localism.

The second section of the paper argues that if localism is going to be powerful and

meaningful it needs to be constructed in a way that enables, if they wish, local citizens to

actively engage in decision-making. The local level is one of the most accessible levels of

governance for all citizens but we know there are also barriers to public participation. The

second section of the paper sets out to establish what the main obstacles are and suggest

how they might be overcome.

An effective new localism when combined with a realised practice of public engagement

and participation lays the foundations for a new form of networked community

governance. This form of governance goes beyond traditional public administration and

new public management-inspired forms of local governance to provide a focus for both

integrated service and programme delivery and the capacity to engage and involve a large

number of stakeholders in influencing policy. The final section of the paper outlines this

vision of networked community governance.

1
A brief concluding section outlines the virtues and also some potential pitfalls of

networked community governance.

1. New Localism: an em erging governance principle

New Localism can be characterised as a strategy aimed at devolving power and

resources away from central control and towards front-line managers, local democratic

structures and local consumers and communities, within an agreed framework of national

minimum standards and policy priorities (Corry and Stoker, 2002; Corry et al, 2004). In

short it represents a practical response to a significant practical challenge: how to manage

a substantial variety of state service provision and interventions in a world that defies

the application of simple rule-driven solutions and where the recipient of the service has

to be actively engaged if the intervention is going to work. Building a road or providing

electricity is a task that requires of level of state capacity in building a better

environment for citizens. Creating the conditions for a damaged child or community to

achieve their potential requires a rather different and more subtle capacity

The case for New Localism rests on three grounds. First it is a realistic response to the

complexity of modern governance. Second it meets the need for a more engaging form

of democracy appropriate to the 21 st century. Third New Localism enables the

dimensions of trust, empathy and social capital to be fostered and as such encourages

civil renewal. The case New Localism against rests around concerns about local decision-

making either failing in some way or leading to more inequitable outcomes. These

arguments for and against New Localism will be explored further below.

1.1 Complexity

There are very few problems confronting communities today that have simple solutions.

Protecting the environment, creating a sound economy, sustaining healthy communities

2
or helping to prevent crime all require a complex set of actions from people and agencies

at different spatial levels and from different sectors. It would be nice to argue that we

should stop doing complexity and instead think about simplicity. That might wash in a

self improvement book but when it comes to running the business of a modern society the

attraction of simplicity is false. As the saying goes ‘to every complex problem there is a

simple answer and it is always wrong’.

We need to find ways of living with complexity. We need to understand any problem or

issue in its multiple dimensions and find mechanisms that enable us to not get swamped

by complexity but to deal with it effectively. That is where the message of New Localism

has got something to offer. The path to reform is not to allow local institutions complete

autonomy or equally to imagine that the centre can steer the whole of the government

system. We need a form of central-local relations that allows scope for all institutions to

play an active role and we need to find ways of involving a wider range of people in the

oversight of the services that are provided through public funds and in the search for

solutions to complex problems.

Complexity comes in a range of forms: structural, technical or over the allocation of

responsibilities. Indeed as Saward (2003: 98) note ‘one of the key challenges to

democracy today lies precisely in the sheer complexity of modern government and

governance’.

Complexity is inevitable because of the range of activities that governments and public

services are now engaged in. There are as a result a lot of organisations involved in

delivery. Governing operates a range of levels and through a range of organisations.

Complexity also results from the sheer technical difficulty of what we now attempt to do

in the public sphere. We have moved from hard-wiring challenges to a concern with soft-

wiring society. It was enough of a challenge to build schools, roads and hospitals and

3
ensure the supply of clean water, gas, electricity and all the requirements of modern life.

As recent (late 2003) events in the USA and Canada with major power failures remind us

that even hard wiring can still go wrong big time! But so much of what we are trying to do

now is about soft wiring, getting healthier communities, ensuring that children from their

early years get the right stimulation and the right environment in which to grow and

develop, trying to find ways in which our economy can grow in a way that meets the

challenges of globalisation and the need for sustainability. Soft wiring challenges are

complex.

Complexity is also reflected is that there is a boundary problem in a lot of public policy

arenas. Who is responsible for keeping us healthy? Is it the citizen who should eat and

drink appropriately, the state that should provide good advice or companies that should

sell healthier food? We know it unfair to ask the police, on their own, to solve the

problem of crime. We know that for our children to become educated needs more than

better schools. In short, complexity comes from the fact that the boundaries between

sectors of life and different institutions have become increasingly blurred.

So complexity of function, scale, purpose and responsibility are part of the modern

condition. What does New Localism deliver in the light of complexity? New Localism is

attractive because it is only through giving scope for local capacity building and the

development of local solutions, in the context of a national framework, which we can

hope to meet the challenge posed by these complexities. The solution to complexity is

networked community governance because it is only through such an approach that local

knowledge and action can be connected a wider network of support and learning. In that

way we can get solutions designed for diverse and complex circumstances.

4
1.2 Democracy: Engaging Participants

To commit to New Localism means recognising that conventional understandings of

democracy are valuable but limited. We can agree that several of the features of

conventional vision of democracy remain essential: the protection of fundamental citizen

rights and freedom of organisation and assembly for groups and individuals. But we need

we need different answers to two fundamental questions: what are the building blocks of

democracy and what is the nature of accountability. The conventional answer to these

two questions sees the nation state, national assemblies and central government as the

ultimate and indeed prime building blocks of democracy and accountability as led by

elected representatives being held to account by their electorates. This top down view of

democracy is not appropriate when we think about making democracy work in our

complex societies.

New Localism draws in broad terms from the ideas of associative democracy advocated by

the late Paul Hirst, although it should be said straight away that our approach is a good

deal more piecemeal and partial than the vision set out by Hirst. However, we take from

his writings (in particular Hirst, 2000) four essential insights.

First, that democracy must have a strong local dimension; the core institution of

democracy is not the nation state. Democracy is made real through its practice at local,

regional and international levels as well as the level of the nation state. More than that

central government should be an enabler, regulator and maybe a standard setter but not a

direct provider nor the level for coming to judgements about detailed directions or the

substance of services. Second, that provision itself must be plural through a variety of

organisations and associations so that everyday citizens have an opportunity to be

involved in decisions about services and judge the capacity of different institutions to

deliver. Third, democracy can be organised through functional as well as territorial forms.

Users of a particular service, those concerned with a particular policy issue, form as

5
legitimate a political community as those that come from a particular territorial base.

Finally, this understanding of democracy sees accountability as a more rounded process.

The electorate choosing their representatives remains important but people should have

more opportunities to be involved in direct discussion with service providers and be in a

position to judge their performance. In short accountability involves reason-giving,

questioning and a continuous exchange between the provider and the relevant public. The

service providers will also have accountability to the centre in terms of the minimum

standards. The lines of accountability are multiple and overlapping.

1.3 Building social capital and the capacity for civil renewal

One key area where this new vision of democracy has the potential to deliver is with

respect to the hidden social fabric of trust, social capital and citizenship that make a key

contribution to tackling the complex service and policy issues that we now face (Putnam,

2000). We need to find ways in which these resources among ordinary citizens can be

fostered and replenished. A New Localist policy has the potential to be centrally

important in developing these resources.

We know that involvement and exchange are the crucial ways in which trust and social

capital are created and sustained. A democracy of strangers loses these dimensions yet

both trust and social capital are essential for encouraging the commitment and providing

the glue that allows solutions to complex problems to be identified and followed through.

Trust and the sense of shared values, norms and citizenship that is encouraged through

social capital can make people willing to go the extra mile in the search for solutions; it

can enable agreements and collective action. A local dimension to governance can draw

particularly effectively on these social dimensions of decision-making.

The essential insight of social capitalists is that the quality of social relations makes a

difference to the achievement of effective outcomes when it comes to activities that

6
involve complex exchange of ideas and the co-ordination of a variety of actors. To buy a

loaf of bread requires little in the way of intensity of social relations but to come to a

judgement about the use of open space in a community or to take on the commitment

for a project to clean up the local environment does require effective networks of

information flow, trust and some shared norms. Local or community governance can

deliver that capacity and help to meet challenges that top-down government simply lacks

the strength of social relations to deliver.

The social capital debate is driven by the values of solidarity, mutuality and democratic

self-determination. That ethos in turn leads to strategic interventions by the state, in

partnership with civil society, in three areas: the promotion of active citizenship (

through better understanding of what works, education and providing new opportunities),

the strengthening of communities( through community development and cohesion

strategies) and the practice of partnership in meeting public need ( in service delivery).

This active intervention-which could be characterised as a strategy of civil renewal- is

required because the forces of globalisation and technological change have challenged

traditional forms of community and participation and in part contributed to the

development of a thin, consumerist civic realm that is undermining the relationship

between government and citizens ( Stoker and Greasley, 2004).

Civil renewal is about giving people a stronger sense of involvement in their communities

and a greater say over their lives. The greater sense of efficacy and autonomy it offers

people combines rights and responsibilities. People have rights to: respect for

themselves, a quality of life, decent public services and the opportunity to influence their

environment. But equally they have responsibilities to respect others, make a

contribution to supporting their environment and their fellow citizens and to engaging in

and accepting as legitimate the outcomes of the democratic process.

7
The dual character of the civil renewal agenda makes it ultimately a philosophy of

community governance. Governance arrangements are very familiar to us in public,

commercial and voluntary settings. They are the rules and procedures that explain and

justify the making of collective decisions in the institutions or communities to which

they apply. The rules of decision making present to the relevant stakeholders certain

rights, but at the same time also certain obligations. They set out procedures for resolving

disputes and getting to a legitimate decision. Civil renewal in the light of this insight is

not just there to enable people to participate more rather it demands participation with a

purpose. That purpose is to engage people in making their communities better places

both for themselves and for those around them. To make these governance rules real and

capable of being achieved in practice may require active intervention, support, training

and resources from government and other agencies.

The ultimate goal of civil renewal should not then be confused with simple community

engagement or empowerment. Nor is about encouraging people to live in tolerance with

others or feel a greater sense of neighbourliness, although such ambitions may be achieved

through civil renewal. The aim is both more specific and more profound. It is to establish

and make workable a set of rules about the way in which communities make decisions

about public services, the operation of the justice system and the condition of their

physical, social and ecological environment. This set of rules is about establishing for

citizens and public officials (elected and unelected) the ways in which relationships should

be reconstructed in the making of collective decisions in the public realm.

The civil renewal agenda then is about achieving a shift in the focus and operation of

decision making. It means more decisions taken locally and more community

involvement in making decisions in the public interest. It does not mean an end to

decision making responsibility at other levels or of other forms. It is about a shift in the

balance between, respectively, national and local, representative and participative and

self-regarding and other-regarding politics.

8
1.4 Addressing Competence and Equity Concerns

There are two common grounds for objecting to local decision-making. One line of

argument is that the perspective of communities is inherently limited and limiting. The

danger of too much local decision-making is that it opens up too much decision making

to the parochial concerns of narrow-minded individuals and threatens the ideas and

practice of a wider welfare politics. Behind the romantic notions of community lurks a

real world of insular, ‘not in my own back yard’ politics. Most forms of progressive

politics need a wider canvass than local politics can provide, it is argued.

The second objection is that if the problems faced by communities are going to be

addressed there is a need for interventions to address the inequalities faced by particular

communities. To tackle inequality requires national or even international intervention

and creating more scope for local decision-making simply helps to foster or even

reinforce existing inequalities. Rich areas will stay rich and poor areas will be allowed the

freedom spend non-existent resources on addressing the problems they confront.

It is precisely because of recognition of these concerns that ‘new’ is added to the localism

advocated outlined in this paper. New Localism is crucially set in the context of national

framework setting and funding. Indeed the localism that is advocated is part of a wider

system of multi-level governance. Moreover there is nothing in New Localism that

means that is simply assumes that local politics is automatically devoid of the tensions

that characterise politics at other levels. Conflict between interests and the resolution of

those conflicts remain at the heart of politics wherever it is conducted. Localism does

not imply a sort of romantic faith in communities to come up with solutions for the

common good. Nor it incompatible with a redistribution of resources provided through

the power of higher levels of government.

9
The argument for New Localism is an argument for a shift in the balance of governance,

one that allows more scope for local decision making and local communities. It is

premised on the idea that involving people in the hard, rationing choices of politics in

the context of a shared sense of citizenship is a way of delivering a more mature and

sustainable democracy. It is also based on the idea that meeting the challenge of equity

does not mean treating all communities or individuals the same but rather it involves

tailoring solutions to meet particular needs. That proposition would be widely accepted

and localism can play as part in ensuring the tailoring process succeeds and is responsive

to local needs and circumstances.

1.5 Sum mary and review

The complexity of what the modern state is trying to achieve, the need for a more

engaging form of politics and a recognition of the importance of issues of empathy and

feelings of involvement to enable social and political mobilisation make the case for a

New Localism because it is at the local level that some of these challenges can best be

met. The point is not that all social and political action and decision should be local but

rather that more of it should be.

The vision of New Localism needs to be carefully specified in a way that recognises

diversity in communities and a concern with equity issues. The argument is not for a

romantic return to community decision making or a rampant ‘beggar by neighbour’

localism. It is about a key and growing role for local involvement in decision making

about the public services and the public realm as part of a wider system of multi-level

governance.

2. Developing a framework for participatory governance

10
New Localism requires not the simple passing down of powers to formal local government

but the active engagement of local citizens in the governance of their communities. But

achieving participatory governance is not a straight-forward or easy task. This section of

the paper reinforces the case made already for citizen participation and then moves on to

examine how some of the barriers to public participation can be identified and

overcome.

2.1 Participatory governance

Why is participatory governance an attractive option? One answer is that there is

intrinsic value in participation. It is good that people as citizens are actively involved in

decision making in their communities. To be a full citizen means to be involved in the

decisions that affect yourself and your neighbours. Some argue further that governments

at all levels should seek active citizen endorsement rather than acquiescence to their

policies and programmes. Good governance is not just a matter of delivering good

outcomes. At least as important is the manner in which it is done, and involving citizens

on an active basis is desirable. It gives a positive perspective on what democracy should be

like as a living practice in the twenty first century. T hese were the arguments for

participation presented in the first part of the paper.

Other arguments emphasize the knock-on benefits of participation. These

consequential arguments come in a range of shapes and forms. Participation can be

seen as the tool to deliver accountability. Participation is also crucial in helping to

sustain the legitimacy of decisions. It could be argued that local municipalities would

not be able to act as effective community leaders if they lacked a base of popular

support. More generally there is a need to rebuild public confidence in political

institutions and the most powerful way to do that is to seek active citizen

endorsement of the policies and practices of public bodies.

11
Another key argument for finding new ways to engage with people is that

government needs to listen and learn to design better policies and services. How

would you know that your public services are meeting people’s needs unless you had

asked them in a coordinated and sustained way? Effective channels of

communication are also essential to achieving many wider social and economic

outcomes of concern to local public bodies. For example, to launch a waste recycling

scheme or change vehicle driving habits requires an intensive dialogue and high levels

of trust between the public and authorities.

Not all forms of participation carry equal value or share the same purpose. A broad

distinction can be drawn between electoral and non-electoral forms. A special honour

needs to be given to electoral participation. It provides the most equal form of

participation, with the same weight given to each vote. Elections are a key moments

when a nation or a community decides the way it wants to move forward and who it

wants to lead it. The vote casts a long shadow and acts as a guide to policy makers in

an array of decisions they face in the future. Participation between elections

stimulated by various forms of consultation offers a different dynamic to democracy.

It provides a way of allowing people to influence decisions that they are particularly

concerned about and allows for a more focused and specific input into the decision-

making process than electoral participation would normally allow. It may be that

the issues addressed in non-electoral forms of participation may be more mundane

and narrow. Participation will certainly be more piecemeal and cannot be expected to

match the exacting representative standards of electoral participation but it adds a

different and valuable dimension to local decision-making processes. The local level

is in many respects the ideal setting to engage the public beyond the ballot box as

the immediacy and closeness of the setting enables a more intensive and developed

exchange between governors and governed to develop.

12
The challenge is to find ways of engaging people on their own terms. Voting can be

made more meaningful and deliverable in a variety of forms. Participation beyond

the ballot box can be obtained through various methods of public consultation and

deliberation. New information and communication technologies may offer a range of

further opportunities to get people’s participation in a way that is flexible, attractive

to them and not too time-consuming. The barriers confronting the participation of

particular groups also need to be addressed. We need to make sure that more

participation means opportunity to influence for all rather than just the organized

few.

2.2 The factors that determine the prospects for public participation

Understanding what drives participation among their citizens will enable

municipalities to develop more appropriate mixes of intervention and the right range

of opportunities and encouragements. Social science research identifies a number of

factors as to why people participate in local civic life ( for an extended discussion of

the C.L.E.A.R model see Lowndes et al, 2002; Stoker et al , 2003) . People

participate when they can. People participate when they have the resources

necessary to organise, mobilize and make their argument. People participate when

they think they are part of something, they like to participate because the arena of

participation is central to their sense of identity and their lifestyle. They participate

when they are enabled and encouraged by an infrastructure of good civic

organisations that provided different pathways to participation. People participate

when they are directly mobilized or asked for their opinion. Finally people

participate when they experience the system which they are seeking to influence as

responsive. Table 1 below that outlines the C.L.E.A.R framework of factors driving

participation identifies some of the policy measures that may be appropriate in

responding to and addressing that factor.

13
Table 1: Factors promoting participation: it’s C.L.E.A.R

Factor affecting How it works Associated Policy Target

participation
Can do The individual resources that Capacity Building: specific
people have to mobilise and support measures or targeted
organise development
(speaking, writing and technical
skills, as well as confidence to
use them) make a difference in
their capacity to participate
Like to To commit to participation Sense of community, civic
requires a sense of involvement engagement, social capital and
with the public entity that it the citizenship
focus of engagement
Enabled to The civic infrastructure of To build the civic infrastructure
groups and umbrella so that there are groups and
organisations makes a difference organisations around to channel
because it creates or blocks an and facilitate participation
opportunity structure for
participation
Asked to Mobilising people into Public participation schemes
participation by asking for their that are diverse, engaging and
input can make a big difference reflexive
Responded to When asked people say they A public policy system that can
will participate if they are show a capacity to respond
listened to, not necessarily
agreed with, but able to see a
response
The C.L.E.A.R model brings together a range of evidence about the ways in which

participation is institutionally framed. It provides a framework against which politicians,

officials, community representatives and members of the public can assess the

participation and consultation efforts of local authorities.

Getting people to participate is not a simple task. There are blocks that stem from lack

of capacity to participate or a lack of engagement with political organisations or issues.

Long term measures can address these blocks, but building community capacity or a sense

of citizenship are not challenges from which policy makers can expect easy or quick

results. Deep-seated structural factors are clearly at work in shaping people’s resources

and attitudes. But the behaviour of local politicians and managers is also important – and

here change is more straight-forwardly in the hands of policy makers. If they ask

people to participate in a committed and consistent manner and respond effectively to

their participative inputs, they are far more likely to engage.

14
The C.L.E.A.R model suggests to policy makers that, if they wish to increase local

participation, the solution is to a substantial extent in their own hands: all of the key

factors that drive up participation in a locality are open to their influence. They cannot

expect immediate results but policy levers are available to tackle every concern as Table

1 shows. Activity levels rise where people can participate, like to participate, are enabled

to do so, are asked to get involved, and also responded to. It is C.L.E.A.R what are the

key factors driving participation.

It is worth considering each of the factors in a little more detail. Broadly, the higher the

socio-economic status of the residents of a locality, the more likely they can engage in

participation. The ‘can do’ factor rests on the argument that, having the skills,

competences and confidence to engage in political participation, is a significant factor in

stimulating participation. There is plenty of evidence to support the impact of the ‘can

do’ factor through socio-economic effects, defined in terms of people’s income, skills

and time. Almost all systematic studies of participation regard these factors as central to

explaining why people participate. A policy response is equally possible in terms of

building the capacity of groups through community development, training and

development and practical support through the provision of community centres and

resources targeted at those groups or communities that may need help to find their voice.

The ‘like to’ factor, in contrast, rests upon a sense of attachment to the political entity

where participation is at stake and relates to the debate about social capital. Evidence

from many studies confirms that where people feel a sense of togetherness or shared

commitment they are more willing to participate. People’s positive psychological

disposition towards the object of participation can make a difference. Here the policy

response rests on trying to build a sense of community or neighbourliness. People have to

feel part of a community to be comfortable with participation; so strategies of building

15
social or community cohesion may be an important part in creating the right

environment for participation.

Some studies of social capital favour a more organisational or social network

understanding of its impact. Research suggests that it is access to networks that enable

people to participate that is crucial . Where organisations in civil society (non-

governmental organisations, charities, the voluntary sector, not-for –profits) that co-

ordinate or promote participation are strong then participation is also likely to be strong.

Strong civic institutions can give people the framework in which to develop their

participation skills and the confidence to express their views. They can also provide a

crucial lever for encouraging participation by providing a route or path for people to

follow. Like all networks these civic organisation if they are going to form an element in

a municipalities’ participation strategy may need to be monitored, challenged and

managed so that they provide channels for the representation of a wide range of interests

rather than a privileged position for a few.

People’s readiness to participate is also, unsurprisingly perhaps, affected by whether they

are ‘asked to’ engage. Mobilisation can come from a range of sources- as suggested above

civic institutions can play at key role- but much of the evidence from researchers suggests

that it is public authorities directly that make a big difference. In particular it appears that

if the call to establish participation has sustained and deep routes in the political and/or

management leadership within a municipality it can make a significant impact on

people’s willingness to participate. If participation is taking seriously by the leaders on

local authorities then the public will respond. They may not universally admire their

governors, they may indeed remain highly critical, but they will think that participation

is worth doing if they are asked. The sense that their opinions are wanted can be the

crucial catalyst in encouraging participation.

16
This observation leads us to the final element of the C.L.E.A.R model. For people to

participate they have to believe that they are going to be listened to and, if not always

agreed with, at least in a position to see that their view have been taken into account. In

the language of the C.L.E.A.R model they have to be ‘responded to’. Research using

focus groups reveals the importance of this factor. As Lowndes et al (2001) and her

colleagues conclude:

Succinctly stated in their own words, citizens’ core criteria were: (a) ‘Has anything

happened?’ (b) ‘Has it been worth the money?’ and (c) ‘Have they carried on talking to

the public?

Consultation works, then, when it is sensitive to the environment in which it operates

and is seen to have delivered some shift in the frame of decision-making. Feedback on

consultation exercises would appear the crucial policy response in making sure they

people feel they are being listened to.

The C.L.E.A.R model provides a way of examining what the key blockages and under-

used -instruments for encouraging local participation might be by bringing together and

synthesizing much of available research material on the factors that drive political

participation. The use of the tool and the nature of appropriate policy responses will

depend on the circumstances of different member states and localities. However as Table

1 indicates there are positive responses that public authorities can make to each of the

participation challenges to be addressed.

3. Beyond New Managem ent: The Emerg ence of Networked Local

Governance

Networked community governance sets as its over-arching goal the meeting of

community needs as defined by the community within the context of the demands of a

complex system of multi-level governance (Stoker, 2004). The model demands a diverse

set of relationships with ‘higher’ tier government, local organisations and stakeholders.

17
The relationships are intertwined and the systems of accountability are multiple. The

political process is about identifying problems, designing solutions and assessing their

impact. Success is not a simple matter of efficient service delivery but rather the complex

challenge of whether an outcome favourable to the community has been achieved. The

responsibility ids not just to deliver certain services well but steer a community to meet

the full range of its needs. The model takes up the challenge of holistic working which is

achieving ‘greater effectiveness in tackling the problems that the public most care about’

(Perri 6 et al, 2002:46).

Table 2 sets out in an abstract form three eras for the governing of local affairs. In

the post war Second world war period for large parts of the developed world local

government played its part in the establishment of the core services of the welfare

state and along with that role in the welfare state role went certain assumptions about

how local services should be governed. A period of in which local government

adopted a traditional public administration form gave way under pressure from a New

Public Management wave carried first by the local government reorganization in the

early 1970s. The consequent model of enabling local governance on offer was driven

by a different set of ideas about the way those public services should be governed,

with efficiency and customer care as the watch words. We are moving at the

beginning of the 21 st century towards another set of ideas about the governance of

local public services. This is a vision of networked community governance that could

provide the basis for a new role for local government.

18
 1
Table 2: Eras of local governing

Elected local Local government Networked Community

government in
post war Under New Public Governance
setting Management
Key objectives Managing inputs, Managing inputs and The overarching goal is greater
delivering services outputs in a way that effectiveness in tackling the
of the in the context of a ensures economy and problems that the public most
governance national welfare responsiveness to care about
system state consumers

Dominant Professionalism and Managerialism and Managerialism and localism

ideologies party partisanship Consumerism
Definition of By politicians / Aggregation of Individual and public
Public experts. Little in the individual preferences produced through
way of public input preferences, a complex process of
interest demonstrated by interaction
customer choice

Dominant Overhead Separation of politics Elected leaders, managers and

model of democracy: voting and management, key stakeholders involved in
account- in elections, politics to give search for solutions to
mandated party direction but not hands community problems and
ability politicians, tasks on control , managers effective delivery
achieved through to manage, additional mechanisms. System in turn
control over the loop of consumer subject to challenge through
bureaucracy assessment built into elections, referendums,
the system deliberative forums, scrutiny
functions and shifts in public
opinion
Preferred Hierarchical Private sector or Menu of alternatives selected
system for department or self- tightly defined arms- pragmatically
service regulating length public agency
delivery profession

Approach to Public sector has Sceptical of public No one sector has a monopoly
public service monopoly on sector ethos (leads to on public service ethos.
ethos service ethos, and inefficiency and Maintaining relationships
all public bodies empire building) – through shared values is seen
have it. favours customer essential
service
Relation-ship Partnership Upwards through Complex and multiple: regional,
with ‘higher’ relationship with performance national, European.
tiers of central government contracts and key
government over delivery performance Negotiated and flexible.
indicators

Under the traditional public administration model the key task for local

government was delivering a set of public services. The assumption was that what

was required was largely known. It was to build better schools, housing, sewerage,

roads, welfare provision and that we could rely on expert officers and politicians

to define what was precisely needed in any one locality. Within its role as

provider of services in the welfare state local government was in some countries a

dominant and rather domineering player. It raised local taxes and managed central

1
Adapted from cabinet office ( 2002)

19
government grants in order to deliver and develop services. It managed service

delivery largely in-house and was confident that its actions were imbued with a

special public sector of ethos and mandated through the legitimacy provided by

the operation of local elections. Professionalism and confident partisan politics

were to the fore. In other counties local government remained weak and under

developed. The lack of resources and capacity held back the creation of an

effective set of institutions.

The first attack on this world view came from the New Public Management. Here

the stress was initially on keeping down the cost of providing public services

through stronger management disciplines such as across the board ‘efficiency’

savings, performance targets and the use of competition to select the cheapest

service producer. Increasingly as part of a growing consumerist orientation in

local government the debate about reinventing government called for

responsiveness and choice in public services alongside the narrow focus on cost

savings. Better management meant putting the customer first.

This ideology saw political leadership as important in setting direction but beyond

that a potential source of inefficiency. Politicians were to set goals but should

not dictate the means to achieve them. The key to managerialism is its emphasis

on the rights of managers to manage against inappropriate interference from

politicians, or for that matter, the special pleading of professional groups.

Managerialism focuses on running ‘what is’, more effectively. The perspective of

this era is that the welfare state is established but expensive and demanding in

terms of tax payers’ money so the key challenge is to make service delivery more

efficient. The idea of an exclusive public sector ethos to guide providers is rejected

in favour of a more open competition between producers from a variety of

sectors to keep down costs and in order to encourage responsiveness to users. In

20
some formations a particular additional role is given to consumers in defining the

purposes of public services and even more strongly in assessing whether public

services have provided satisfaction. The key to good management is clear goals

that meet consumer needs, solid contractual relations between service

commissioners and service producers and effective monitoring of service

delivery. It is at this final stage that including some measure of consumer

satisfaction is seen as appropriate.

A third model of networked community governance began to take shape from

the mid 1990s onwards. It takes it main inspiration from the perspective of new

localism, outlined in the first section of this paper.. In that sense it places far

more emphasis than either the post war model or the New Public Management

approaches on the search for what are the issues and what might be the solutions.

Its reach is beyond the delivery of services. It over-arching goal is the meeting of

community needs as defined by the community within the context of the demands

of a complex system of multi-level governance Its aim is to achieve not narrow

efficiency but Public Value, defined as the achievement of favoured outcomes by

the use of public resources in the most effective manner available (Moore, 1995,

Goss, 2001). Given such a goal is not surprising that no particular place is given to

a public sector ethos but rather there is a broader commitment to maintaining

system relationships in general. The choice of which sector or organisation should

be involved in provision is also a pragmatic one.

The model demands a complex set of relationships with ‘higher’ tier government,

local organisations and stakeholders. The relationships are intertwined and the

systems of accountability are multiple. The political process is about the search

for identifying problems, designing solutions and assesses their impact on the

underlying problem. Beyond service delivery there is a focus on the purpose of

21
services and their impact on the problems they are addressing. Success is not a

simple matter of efficient service delivery but rather the complex challenge of

whether an outcome favourable to the community has been achieved. The model

retains a strong commitment to managerialism in order to join up and steer a

complex set of processes. This is a managerialism that goes beyond search for

efficiency gains or a customer orientation to take on the challenge of working

across boundaries( Sullivan and Skelcher, 2002) and to take up the goal of holistic

working which is ‘ greater effectiveness in tackling the problems that the public

most care about’ ( Perri 6 et al, 2002:46).

Conclusions

Governing is concerned with the processes that create the conditions for ordered

rule and collective action within the political realm. What is it that enables

complex tasks to be managed, priorities set and decisions made? How in a

complex environment with a vast range of actors can a sense of order and

direction be established? How in the context of conflict over goal definitions and

the practice of implementation is some capacity to act collectively maintained?

These challenges and issues central to governing in any time period and the

Weberian paradigm – so long dominant in public administration – has provided a

particular set of solutions to the challenges posed. In Weber’s political thought

three institutions are seen as essential to coping with the complexity of

modernity and for delivering order to the governance process. They are political

leadership, party and bureaucracy (Held, 1987: 148-160). Each of these

institutions forces finds itself challenged in the new era. The Weberian

perspective rested on viewing governing as a tight cluster of connected

institutions the networked community governance perspective offers a

22
contrasting organising framework of wider, looser organisations joined through a

complex mix of inter-dependencies. Advocates of networked community

governance make a virtue out of these features.

Networked community governance frames issues by recognizing the complex

architecture of government. In practice there are many centres and diverse links

between many agencies of government at neighbourhood, local, regional and

national and supranational levels. In turn each level has a diverse range of

horizontal relationships with other government agencies, privatized utilities,

private companies, voluntary organisations and interest groups. There is nothing

to suggest that networked community governance should be any less susceptible to

conflict regarding goal definitions and defining priorities than the traditional views

of governing. Governance does not wish away conflict but it does recognise that

there are a variety of ways in which it can be managed other than through a tight

core of institutions such as bureaucracy and political party and a limited elite form

of democracy.

Network governance tells us we can have democracy and management. Indeed

that they are partners. The paradigm places its faith in a system of dialogue and

exchange through networks. It is through the construction, modification,

correction and adaptability of that system that democracy and management are

reconciled. . Butt here are problems. Network partnerships can become ‘talking

shops’ rather a focus for intervention. Networks can be closed and unaccountable

rather than open and deliberative. Vigilance by all the partners in the system is

central to ensuring that the promise of both democracy and management is

delivered.

23
 Networked community governance needs to be supported by a strategy of New

Localism so that local partners have something meaningful to decide and organise

around. It also needs an active policy of civic engagement so that the barriers of

the participation of all available to all can be addressed.

Networked local governance rests on a fuller and rounder vision of humanity than

either traditional public administration of New public management. People are, it

suggests, motivated by their involvement in networks and partnerships; that is by

their relationships with others formed in the context of equal status and mutual

learning. Some will find its vision attractive but self-styled realists or cynics may

prefer to stick established systems. But networked community governance is an

achievable goal. However it requires a radical a break from traditional public

administration and New Public Management in its vision of the role of local

government and its understanding of the context for governing and the core

processes of governance.

References

Corry, D and Stoker, G (2002) New Localism: refashioning the centre-local relationship

(London: NLGN) www.nlgn.org.uk

Corry, D et al (2004) Joining-Up Local Democracy. Governance Systems fro the New

Localism (London: NLGN) www.nlgn.org.uk

Held, D (1987) Models of Democracy (Cambridge: Polity)

Hirst, P (2000) ‘Democracy and Governance’ in J.Pierre (ed) Debating Governance

(Oxford: OUP)

Lowndes, V., Pratchett, L and Stoker, G. (2001) ‘Trends in public participation: part 2 –

citizens’ perspectives’, Public Administration, 79 (2), pp 445-455

24
Lowndes, V., Pratchett, L and Stoker, G. (2002) Social capital and political

participation: how do local institutions constrain or enable the mobilisation of social

capital? Cambridge social capital seminar , November 19 th , University of Cambridge,

UK. Available from : www.ipeg.org.uk

Perri 6 et al (2002) Towards Holistic Governance (Basingstoke: Palgrave)

Putnam, R (2000) Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of North American

Community (New York: Simon Schuster)

Saward, M (2003) Democracy (Cambridge: Polity)

Stoker, G (2003) (eds) Barnes, M; Stoker, G; Whiteley, P. Delivering Civil Renewal:

some lessons from research London: ESRC. Available from : www.ipeg.org.uk

Stoker, G (2004) Transforming Local Governance (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan)

Stoker, G and Greasley, S (2004) Research strategies for civil renewal, paper for the

Home Office, Civil Renewal Unit, UK. Available from www.ipeg.org.uk

Sullivan, H and Skelcher, C (2002) Working Across Boundaries (Basingstoke: Palgrave)

25