Governing the social: rules, control or trust

1
Governing the social rules, control or trust?

• Australian Social Policy Conference
• July 2005
• Tim Reddel
• Commission for Children Young People Child
  Guardian, Qld

2
Introduction

• Community ideas popular again
• Community embedded in debates discourses -
  sustainable economies\ending poverty promoting
  social inclusion\community engagement
  democratic governance
• Partnership joining-up popularised as modes
  of social governance which promote community
  ideas
• But where is the State? Dominance of neo-liberal
  conservative communitarian agendas
• Technology of competition ascendant, but at what
  cost?

3
Key Issues Questions

• Governance of social policies/programs confused
  fragmented
• Current debates about state community
  relations highlight contested nature of social
  governance
• Need to develop a historical more critical
  understanding of nature of community, partnership
  joining-up
• COMMUNITY still the spray on solution
  Bryson Mowbray, 1981 2005
• There is more than one COMMUNITY
• Governance systems are not unitary or integrated

4
Contested Policy Context

• Relationship between spheres/institutions of the
  state, market civil society is ill defined
• International resurgence (or re-emergence?) in
  ideas/values of community, localism partnership
• Contested policy discourses greater
  responsiveness by government to community
  needs/aspirations, social exclusion and economic
  reforms, evidenced based policy

5
Contested Policy Context

• NPM competitive market solutions in public
  policy are under some scrutiny
• Hollowing Out of the state searching for
  non-state devolved solutions
• Community alienation disengagement from
  traditional political/policy institutions
• PARTNERHSIP Accepted public policy discourse
  eg. Community renewal, Child protection,Public-pri
  vate partnerships for economic development
• Searching for new policy tools as old models of
  consultation agency coordination questioned

6
Social Governance Directions
7
Social governance policy dimensions

• Spatial modes of social governance joining-up
  policy response to poverty promoting social
  inclusion
• International directions - Geddes (2005) scan of
  national welfare regimes social governance
  (local partnership) models, esp. Europe
• Neo-liberal tendency in local partnerships, but
  national and local politics can make a difference

8
(No Transcript)
9
Theoretical Dimensions

• 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?

10
Participatory Governance

• Participatory democracy - 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 build on the diversity of civil
  society social movements, politics of identity,
  community place BUT engage with political
  policy institutions

11
New Institutionalism

• Emerged as a reaction to rational choice,
  individualism classical public administration
• Eclectic literature Institutions matter in
  explaining political policy activity
• BUT, institutions can enable/constrain political
  action
• The strength of weak ties i.e. trust,
  understanding Granovetter some linkage with
  social capital theory

12
New Institutionalism ...

• Strong ties can lead to closed networks
• Tendency for partnerships other expressions of
  social governance, once established to limit
  policy change
• Institutions not only structures but networks,
  relations, ideals, values, collective norms
  informal rules
• The state, esp. the local state is critical
  balance strong weak ties

13
Social Governance

• Structural issues
• Power and accountability in social partnerships
  and the implications for governance more widely
  (Democratic Aspirations)
• Capacity, fitness for purpose and potential
  governance failure (Product/Outcomes)

14
Social governance - success or failure?

• Cross-sectoral collaboration between actors from
  the three spheres of state, market and civil
  society
• Co-ordinated institutional and organisational
  change
• Co-ordinated multi-level processes
• Measuring performance process, product
  outcomes

15
Social governance in practice

• Australian scan of recent social governance
  events initiatives over reliance on social
  capital as organising principle
• Notions of trust, co-operation, joint problem
  solving, shared risks secondary to corporate
  management, markets competition

16
Queensland social governance initiatives

• Queensland is different Recent history of
  populist and conflictual government policy making
  with citizen participation limited to reactive
  public protest and suppression of other basic
  civil liberties
• Reform from the 1990s based on the nexus of
  policy coordination and public administration
  reform powerful central agencies
• A government of routines - process,
  co-ordination, management and control
• Partnerships not an explicit policy direction

17
Queensland social governance initiatives

• Recent Government initiatives capacity
  building, engagement joined-up aspirations
• Community Cabinets, Cape York Partnerships,
  Regional Engagement, Early Intervention
  Prevention, Community Renewal, Place Management,
  Community Sector development, Child Safety
  partnerships

18
Case Study- Indigenous governance policies in
Queensland

• Regional focus Cape York - to address community
  violence alcohol abuse in areas of exclusion
  Meeting the Challenges, Making Choices
• New engagement models Negotiation Tables,
  Regional Budgets, Government Champions,
  Performance Measurement Systems still
  developing
• Partnerships Queensland - Strategic approach
  across the State

19
Case Study - Community Services Strategy in
Queensland governance principles

• Statement of partnership between Government and
  community services (Qld)
• Interdependence
• State and Local Government, and non-government
  Community service providers have distinct but
  complementary roles and responsibilities in
  developing public policy and delivering community
  services.
•  
• Independence and autonomy
• The role of community service providers in
  activities outside those funded by State
  Government, includes the development of
  innovative service responses and the right,
  within the law, to publicly comment on, or
  challenge State Government policy and practice,
  and lobby when necessary.
• (Queensland government 2000)
• BUT, THEN WHAT?
• Current project Strengthening NGOS - focus
  on tangible changes eg. Funding reform, capacity
  building for the sector, community service
  outcomes (2005)

20
Case study place management in Brisbane

• Brisbane Place project- Initiative by Brisbane
  City Council State Govt in a number of
  localities to respond to identified problems eg.
  community safety, local amenity, engagement
• Limited resources, planning and networking focus
  (relationship building)
• Governance capacity accountability undeveloped
• Good will but lack of clear strategic approach
  rules of engagement between sectors

21
Case study public housing management

• Research into factors impacting on success or
  failure of public housing tenancies in Qld
• Relationships between local public housing
  officials, other govt agencies, community groups
  tenants critical in addressing key issues such
  as neighbourhood disputes, rent arrears,
  identifying at risk tenancies managing
  evictions
• Local governance systems were ad hoc based on
  specific relationships within between Area
  offices, tenant groups community agencies but
  not necessarily sustainable

22
Case study child protection

• From residual marginal in policy debates to gt
  focus on holism partnerships forensic
  preventative responses need to be linked
• Local partnerships promoted as critical success
  factor, esp. in planning plus gt central
  supervision
• BUT - Agency territorialism remains present
  underlying policy model is still developing
  retreat of the state, capacity of service system,
  roles responsibilities

23
Key Findings Themes

• Paradox some evidence of innovation but often
  easy revision to caution control
• Over-reliance on organised interests
• Policy outcomes rational technical approach
  (managerialist)
• Fragmentation of state institutions civil
  society policy distance/overlapping multiple
  relationships
• Aspiration (of integration) vs. Reality (of
  divergence compromise)

24
Key Findings Themes

• Need for gt understanding of social governance
  properties dimensions (eg. trust, resource
  exchange, negotiation etc)
• Develop strength of networks, infrastructure,
  resources policy intent
• Legitimacy Authority link hierarchical state
  centric dispersed forms of democratic authority

25
Developing social governance technologies

• Policy focus is political shared ownership of
  local strategic vision, problems
• Culture that builds ad hoc coalitions for change
  plus openness closure when needed
• Implementation partnerships based on trust that
  allow for confrontation when needed

26
Developing social governance technologies

• Skills stakeholder analysis diplomacy
• Infrastructure ensemble of devolved
  centralised institutions
• Resources strategic mix of public, private
  community resources
• Accountablities clear rules that promote
  deliberation dialogue

27
Future Directions - Policy?

• Reaffirm citizenship universal diverse
• Strategic policy clarity, direction
  leadership Whose partnership and for what?
• Balance local, regional central interests
• Build institutional architecture at all levels
  place, civil society, central government
• Public sector/policy process reform community
  sector infrastructure e.g. role of peak bodies,
  service delivery agencies localized
  associations funding reform

28
Future Directions - Research?

• 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
• Comparative research to assess the impacts of
  spatial polices programs on sustainable social
  governance