Emerging and Potential Trends in Public Management : An Age of Austerity 9780857249982, 9780857249975

Citation preview

EMERGING AND POTENTIAL TRENDS IN PUBLIC MANAGEMENT: AN AGE OF AUSTERITY

CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC SECTOR MANAGEMENT Series Editors: John Diamond and Joyce Liddle

CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC SECTOR MANAGEMENT VOLUME 1

EMERGING AND POTENTIAL TRENDS IN PUBLIC MANAGEMENT: AN AGE OF AUSTERITY EDITED BY

JOHN DIAMOND Edge Hill Business School, Edge Hill University, Ormskirk, UK

JOYCE LIDDLE Teesside University Business School, Teesside University, Middlesbrough, UK

United Kingdom – North America – Japan India – Malaysia – China

Emerald Group Publishing Limited Howard House, Wagon Lane, Bingley BD16 1WA, UK First edition 2012 Copyright r 2012 Emerald Group Publishing Limited Reprints and permission service Contact: [email protected] No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, transmitted in any form or by any means electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without either the prior written permission of the publisher or a licence permitting restricted copying issued in the UK by The Copyright Licensing Agency and in the USA by The Copyright Clearance Center. No responsibility is accepted for the accuracy of information contained in the text, illustrations or advertisements. The opinions expressed in these chapters are not necessarily those of the Editor or the publisher. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN: 978-0-85724-997-5 ISSN: 2045-7944 (Series)

CONTENTS LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS

vii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

ix

INTRODUCTION

xi

CHAPTER 1 THE FUTURE OF THE DISCIPLINE: TRENDS IN PUBLIC SECTOR MANAGEMENT Karen Johnston Miller

1

CHAPTER 2 BUSINESS AND MANAGEMENT SCHOOLS IN TIMES OF CRISIS AND AUSTERITY: CHOICES AND DILEMMAS Joyce Liddle and John Diamond

25

CHAPTER 3 MAINSTREAMING EQUALITY: CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR PUBLIC MANAGEMENT Stuart Speeden

47

CHAPTER 4 PUBLIC SECTOR MANAGEMENT TRENDS IN BRAZIL Ricardo C. Gomes and Humberto Falca˜o-Martins

73

CHAPTER 5 FROM RELUCTANT TO COMPELLED REFORMERS? REFLECTIONS ON THREE DECADES OF PUBLIC MANAGEMENT REFORM IN FRANCE, GREECE, ITALY, PORTUGAL, AND SPAIN Edoardo Ongaro

v

105

vi

CONTENTS

CHAPTER 6 DOUBLE DEVOLUTION AT THE CROSSROADS? LESSONS IN DELIVERING SUSTAINABLE AREA DECENTRALIZATION Lorraine Johnston

129

CHAPTER 7 LEADERSHIP, WTO, COMMERCE, AND NEW STRATEGIES FOR CORPORATIZATION OF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS: A TOP INDIAN BUREAUCRAT’S TAKE Guru Prakash Prabhakar and Pankaj Saran

161

CHAPTER 8 PUBLIC SECTOR TRENDS IN AUSTRALIA Owen E. Hughes

173

CHAPTER 9 NEW PROFESSIONALISM AND PUBLIC SECTOR MANAGEMENT: A REFLECTION ON COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE IN UK TEACHER EDUCATION Linda Rush and John Diamond

195

CONCLUSION: REFLECTING UPON THE PAST AND ANTICIPATING THE IMMEDIATE John Diamond and Joyce Liddle

215

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS John Diamond

Edge Hill Business School, Edge Hill University, Ormskirk, UK

Humberto Falca˜o-Martins

Instituto Publix, Brası´ lia, Brazil

Ricardo C. Gomes

Department of Business, University of Brası´ lia, Brazil

Owen E. Hughes

RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia

Lorraine Johnston

Newcastle Business School, Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK

Joyce Liddle

Teesside University Business School, Teesside University, Middlesbrough, UK

Karen Johnston Miller

Glasgow School for Business and Society, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, UK

Edoardo Ongaro

Department of Social Sciences, School of Arts and Social Sciences, Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK

Guru Prakash Prabhakar

Bristol Business School, The University of the West of England, Bristol, UK

Linda Rush

Faculty of Education, Liverpool Hope University, Liverpool, UK

Pankaj Saran

EMPI Business School, New Delhi, India

Stuart Speeden

Centre for Local Policy Studies, Edge Hill University, Ormskirk, UK vii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Over the past 10 years, we have become acutely aware that books are not just the work of the authors alone. We have, since we started working together, relied upon and been supported by a number of colleagues and friends. In particular, we owe a huge debt of thanks to Carole Brocken (Edge Hill University) who has been so supportive of both of us as well as patient too. The support we have received from Emerald has enabled us to take an idea through to an annual series and we are very aware of the demands we have placed on both Stephanie Hull and Emma Bruun and are hugely appreciative of their support. Some of the thinking behind this edited collection was first discussed at a seminar in Birmingham City University in the spring of 2009. We want to say thank you to Veronica Coatham who hosted that day for her support and friendship. The Regeneration Management Research Network (set up in 1999 at Durham University by Joyce and Alan Southern) has offered us a ‘‘home’’ to explore ideas and to reflect upon our practice. We owe all of those who have been involved a massive thank you. Finally, we would like to thank those who have contributed papers to this first edition. We are really aware of the pressures colleagues are under to meet many different deadlines. The request to join this series came with the invitation to be speculative as well as interesting. We hope that you enjoy what follows.

ix

INTRODUCTION

The scale and depth of the financial crisis across the advanced economies in Europe and North America have already led to changes in government in Ireland, Iceland, Greece, Italy and the United Kingdom. It may yet lead to further changes in other European states and it has certainly destabilised the European Union. Arguably, it was also a key factor in the election of Barack Obama in 2008. These political crises may appear, at times, to be short-term and parochial to the broader social and economic changes which the collapse of the financial markets in 2007 through to 2008 created. In part, we think that it is important not to become preoccupied by the domestic and internal political disputes which these changes have led to within nation states or between nations, especially within the European Union or those who are part of the Euro Zone. But, we are acutely aware that these economic and political crises have consequences too for the ways in which we think of the relationships between the political institutions of nation states, their functions and their role in social and welfare services and individuals and communities who directly benefit from the public services and agencies which the state supports. In short, it seemed to us that the economic crises of 2007/2008 were part of a much broader restructuring of public and welfare capitalism which has been in play for nearly 30 years. The symbolism of the financial crash, the end of Lehman Brothers, can be seen to be part of a much larger mosaic of changes and reforms introduced across advanced Western economies from the mid-1970s onwards. These social and economic changes, particularly in the United States and the United Kingdom, promoted by the New Right can be seen as part of a broader set of processes which encompassed a redefinition of the role of the state in public and welfare policy. Whilst, the changes introduced in the United Kingdom did not, in themselves, reduce significantly the percentage of state funding as a proportion of GDP, the language and political conversation and context changed significantly. The impact of these changes, in language, assumptions and the way in which policy choices were framed is still evident in terms of both understanding the aims and policies of New Labour after 1997 and the xi

xii

INTRODUCTION

Coalition after 2010 in the United Kingdom. We can see evidence of a shared discourse and assumptions. The differences between UK mainstream political parties from the late 1980s onwards became marginal. There were some important differences between the two key parties in some policy areas – regional development, urban regeneration, a desire for more pluralist politics, an enfranchised voluntary and community sector, and a more explicit and direct intervention into early years of education for children under 5 years. But, there were also some key overlapping assumptions and these included scepticism over the Euro Zone initiative and the integration of the European Union into more than a trading and labour market project, a wish to deregulate health and welfare services and open them up to the private and not for profit providers, a commitment to introduce work fare schemes to reduce long-term unemployment and to reduce welfare costs too, and a wish to reduce over time the proportion of GDP spent on social and welfare provision. Across North America and within the European Union, these policy and political questions were, themselves, reflected in both domestic and international politics. The tensions between the ‘Old World’ and the ‘New World’ which were expressed through international conflicts in Iraq and through the rise of globalisation were sometimes read at a simplistic level as a conflict between North Atlantic neo-liberalism and European social democracy. But such categorisations are an oversimplification of much more complex social, political and economic changes. However, they do point to some of the broader and more challenging changes which have taken place over the last 30 years in terms of our conceptualisation of ‘public sector management’ and how we think about the impact of the current crisis. This edited series, of which this is volume 1, draws together a range of different perspectives to explore some of these changes and developments and to anticipate their implications for practitioners and researchers within the field of public sector management. We intend to create a model of thinking and analysis which would facilitate greater critical self-reflection than is sometimes possible through conventional publishing or dissemination approaches. We are aware that in some countries the growth of performance measurement of research outputs and publications can lead to a more cautious and less challenging approach to enquiry. We hope this series will explicitly encourage contributors to take ideas for a walk to offer new and innovative ways of sharing their ideas and interpretations and to welcome contributions which offer different insights and ways of seeing and framing the research and practice agendas. We also draw together contributions

Introduction

xiii

which are less Euro-centric or US-centric in their approach and outlook, and we hope that subsequent volumes will reflect this intention.

THINKING ABOUT THE SCALE OF CHANGE There is an important intellectual and conceptual challenge for many of us working across the broad field of public sector management. Part of this challenge stems from the observation that there are three connected but separate profound policy and political changes taking place. Firstly, there is the impact of neo-liberalism as an ideological project and as a model(s) of managing national economies and social and welfare policy. We recognise that there are competing definitions of neo-liberalism and that we need to be careful about over-generalising its effect and its coherence. But, it does seem to us that by taking a longer term view we can see how the language and ideas of the primacy of markets and, in particular, markets in social and welfare policy have become dominant. This is not to say that in some places there is no resistance to these ideas and we can observe in the European Union how for a long time there was very explicit resistance to the ideas of the New Right. But the desire to weaken the role of the state as funder and provider of welfare services and the emergence of a counterview that markets and the privatisation of the welfare sector is the most appropriate choice is a demonstration of an ideological shift. Secondly, the power and challenge of globalisation to the relative autonomy of nation states to develop independent or quasi-independent economic choices are linked to the ideological shift to the right expressed through neo-liberalism. Why does this matter? It seems that it matters in a number of important ways not least because as we look to make sense of changes within nation states and localities or regions, we need to understand the economic choices political leaders can make or are able to make. The European Union provides a model of pooling or sharing decision-making between nation states, but what are the political and policy choices which get ruled because they are seen as difficult or not within the gift of political elites? We can see this too in the rise of economic blocs outside the European Union or North America. The old assumptions upon which the IMF or the WTO were set up post-1945 no longer hold sway. And in that sense we are seeing competing centres of economic growth and influence, and these are not just about China. Alongside and embedded within these new economies are questions of the relationship(s) between the state and civil society as well as the state and the market.

xiv

INTRODUCTION

Thirdly, and for us the most significant, there is the impact of the financial crash. We think that this was and remains a transformative event or ‘process’. We also think that at the level of political elites and governing elites too (and here we include senior public administrators or public sector leaders), the full consequences of what has happened is only emerging. We do think that this event or process is like the oil crisis of 1973. It is much more profound and has the potential to destabilise governments across the globe in a way that 1973 did not do. The implications or consequences of the financial crash for those of us involved in analysing the field of public sector management includes reconceptualising the underpinning intellectual and discipline base of the field; revisiting or reimagining the way in which we might develop the field as a focus of study and reflection for practitioners as well as researchers; examining the shifts in the existing paradigm upon which we think about public policy and its administration, development, implementation and evaluation; and looking and listening to voices and experiences beyond North America and Europe.

ANTICIPATING THESE DEBATES What follows is an attempt to draw together some of these themes and questions. We do not examine all of them in volume one. We hope that in subsequent volumes we will draw in additional contributors and explore different questions and ideas. We have asked colleagues to be speculative and thought-provoking as well as seeking to link their questions with practice and research. We really value the synergies that come from linking together practice with research. We are sceptical about keeping these two worlds apart and we hope that what follows will be received as a taking a lot of ideas ‘for a walk’. In Chapter 1, Karen Johnston Miller examines the traditions and assumptions which have informed contemporary debates within public administration and public management. Her contribution is really valuable and important for a number of reasons: firstly, as she argues, we need to internationalise the debate over the future of the discipline; she sets out some important arguments which focus our thinking on what sense do we make of the current crisis if we do not imagine that how we frame the debate on the state and civil society is not mediated through the particularities of place and time. Secondly, she looks at the underpinning intellectual and academic base for public administration/public management, and thirdly, she very skilfully explores and reflects upon its changes over the past 20–30 years.

Introduction

xv

In Chapter 2, we look at the changing role of Business and Management Schools. We are interested in exploring what different models of organising and structuring research and teaching would look like. We think that the conventional model of business and management education ignores (to a large extent) the potential of the not for profit sector and we try to set out our ideas as to what an alternative might look like. We think that we need to integrate more explicitly our discussions on teaching and learning with those of broad public policy. Indeed, we welcome more contributions on this theme. Chapter 3 by Stuart Speeden, Chapter 6 by Lorraine Johnston and Chapter 9 by Linda Rush and John Diamond are concerned with different public policy initiatives which are, themselves, informed by a recognition that existing structures or models of practice are failing. Stuart Speeden examines the relationship between public sector management and equalities and human rights – whilst locating some of his empirical work in the United Kingdom he sets these relationships in a broader context. The tension between the rights of individuals and the state and how those rights are secured and protected is examined in this chapter. We think that is one area of public policy where there has been a focus on legislation and regulation but little attempt to set the equalities and human rights agenda in a public management frame. Lorraine Johnston looks at different approaches to decentralising decision-making within local government in the United Kingdom. Her analysis of the challenges and difficulties remind us of the need to look at the political context within which public managers are located and the extent to which they are supported and prepared for changes and challenges to their roles and perceived legitimacy. Linda Rush and John Diamond reflect upon one initiative to promote the idea and practice of ‘partnership learning’ across a complex initiative which brought together a university and schools. They place this initiative within the broader discussion of ‘new professionalism’ – the need to revisit the ways in which traditional public sector professionals are taught and mentored. ‘New Professionalism’ has been associated with the New Right and this chapter draws upon work which has been informed by an alternative model of learning and thinking. Chapter 4 by Ricardo C. Gomes and Humberto Falca˜o-Martins, Chapter 5 by Edoardo Ongaro, Chapter 7 by Guru Prakash Prabhakar and Pankaj Saran, and Chapter 8 by Owen E. Hughes draw together experience, knowledge and insights on Brazil, Greece, India and Australia. In each of their chapters, they focus upon the patterns of change and development across the public sector. In each of their chapters, they raise questions about

xvi

INTRODUCTION

the ways in which we make sense of the relationships between the state and civil society. Across Latin America, as Ricardo C. Gomes argues, we need to reimagine our understanding of the relationships within nation states and between the key civic and public institutions of the state, universities, political institutions, commerce and public welfare. It’s in these relationships that we can observe how power is understood, exercised and challenged. As Guru Prakash Prabhakar suggests, we do need to reflect upon the social and intellectual relationships which inform the public administration discourse. In this chapter, he draws upon interviews with key civil servants to inform his analysis. Edoardo Ongaro looks at the ways in which Greece and other Southern European counties have developed their model and practice of public sector management. In each of these chapters, the impact of the crash and the consequences it poses for the state and civil society are explored and discussed. We hope that this series will stimulate debate and discussion. We are aware that the context we all work in is unpredictable and in a period of change and transition. We think that this series will add to the debate and to our own reflections on practice and research. John Diamond Joyce Liddle Editors

CHAPTER 1 THE FUTURE OF THE DISCIPLINE: TRENDS IN PUBLIC SECTOR MANAGEMENT Karen Johnston Miller ABSTRACT Purpose – The chapter provides a review of the debates about the discipline of public administration and public management as art, craft, and science. Thus, the chapter includes a conceptualization of public administration and a discussion of public administration and public management research, scholarship, and practice. The review of the discipline includes a historical perspective and contemporary debates of public administration, new public management (NPM), public sector management, and governance in order to discuss the future trajectories and trends of the discipline. Design/Methodology/Approach – A range of historical, seminal, and recently published scholarly works are reviewed and discussed, including also an analysis based on primary and secondary research of journal databases, conference proceedings, academic schools, and websites relevant to the discipline. Findings – The study of government in various guises – whether public administration, public management, governance, public policy – will

Emerging and Potential Trends in Public Management: An Age of Austerity Critical Perspectives on International Public Sector Management, Volume 1, 1–24 Copyright r 2012 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 2045-7944/doi:10.1108/S2045-7944(2012)0000001004

1

2

KAREN JOHNSTON MILLER

continue to develop, evolve, and fascinate scholars and practitioners. There will be a continued interest and study of the business of government with three possible trends: (1) a narrow focus on technocratic, managerial approaches in an attempt to provide solutions for more effective and efficient government; (2) a multidisciplinary approach to addressing complex social problems or ‘‘wicked policy’’ problems across narrow specialized interests for ‘‘greater principles’’ of society; and (3) methodological pluralism in the study of government, which may add to the depth or fragmentation of the discipline. Research limitations/Implications – The research is limited to a review with some primary and secondary research. It provides scholars and practitioners with the conceptualization of public administration, public management and governance. The chapter provides a critical perspective of the state of research and scholarship with an argument that academics need to move beyond parochial debates within the discipline and provide practitioners with empirically based solutions to increasingly complex social and ‘‘wicked policy’’ problems. Practical implications – This chapter provides scholars, students, and practitioners with (1) a conceptual understanding of public administration, public management, NPM and governance; (2) a historical and contemporary perspective of the discipline; and (3) a critical perspective of research and scholarship that will provide a debate on the state of discipline. Originality/Value – The chapter is a synthesis and review of the discipline in terms of research and scholarship drawing upon international perspectives to provide a critical debate for scholars and practitioners. Keywords: Public administration; new public management (NPM); public sector management; government; policy; governance

INTRODUCTION Over the past two decades there has been much debate and critical discussion on the future of public administration and public management as a discipline (Chandler, 1991; Hood, 1999; Pollitt, 2010; Rhodes, 1996a). These debates often center on scenarios about public administration as a discipline in decline and fragmented, particularly in response to the rise of

The Future of the Discipline: Trends in Public Sector Management

3

new public management (NPM) and themes of governance (Hood, 2011). This book chapter provides a critical perspective of these debates by first outlining the discipline of public administration, the emergence of public sector management and various public administration guises such as governance. Second, the chapter provides a critical perspective of public administration and public management research and scholarship, and concludes with future trends and trajectories of the discipline. The chapter argues that debates about the discipline of public administration are not contemporary, but ongoing from its emergence as discipline. It is a debate primarily within the United States (US) and United Kingdom (UK) academic communities, but it is of relevance to the broader international academic community – latter chapters of this volume explore public sector management in other parts of the world – since there has been a global transfer and isomorphism of public sector reforms, and there are lessons to be learned with regards to trends in public sector management. There are aspects of the public administration as art, craft, and/or science (Raadschelders, 2011) that grow in interest while others lose their fascination in academic and practitioner communities. What is indeed a truism of public administration, public management or the study of government is its resilience in whatever guise. This is a feature of the multidisciplinarity of the field of study – arguably its strength. If we took an Occam’s razor1 approach to this debate, the simplest explanation is that whatever form or guise the discipline takes, it is the study of government, and this will continue, but with most scholarly endeavors there are arguments and counterarguments.

PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION: THE DISCIPLINE AND THE DEBATE It is the objective of administrative study to discover, first, what government can properly and successfully do, and secondly, how it can do these proper things with utmost possible efficiency and at least possible cost either of money and energy. (Woodrow Wilson, 1887, p. 197)

The quote from Woodrow Wilson’s (1887) seminal paper, ‘‘The Study of Administration,’’ started a debate on the study of public administration as a discipline. In this debate, Wilson (1887) contrasts public administration with politics. He goes further, in a normative sense, arguing that public administration should be concerned about administrative efficiency and effectiveness – a concern still with us today. His paper nonetheless started

4

KAREN JOHNSTON MILLER

the debate of public administration as a separate field of study from that of politics. A read of Wilson’s paper leaves one with the impression that in attempting to define the discipline, Wilson draws upon other disciplines to define what public administration is and is not. For example, Wilson (1887, pp. 209–210) describes public administration: The field of public administration is a field of business. It is removed from the hurry and strife of politics; it at most points stands apart even from the debatable grounds of constitutional study. It is a part of political life only as the methods of the countinghouse are a part of the life of society; only as machinery is part of the manufactured product. But it is, at the same time, raised very far above the dull level of mere technical detail by the fact that through its greater principles it is directly connected with the lasting maximums of political wisdom, the permanent truths of political progress.

Wilson (1887) therefore distinguished public administration as a discipline, although distinct in its concern with the business of government, nonetheless concerned with aspects of government such as politics, law, regulation, society, etc. Wilson nonetheless in terms of attempting to define the discipline gave rise to the dichotomous disciplinary paradigm between politics and administration. This over the decades had become a focus of debate about the discipline, mostly in the US academic community (see Peters & Pierre, 2005; Khodr, 2005; Meier, 2007; Raadschelders, 2008). Public administration is not merely about the technical details of government business but Wilson (1887) normatively argued, public administration ought to be concerned with greater principles of society. In this sense, Wilson was referring to how government could better serve society and how government could improve society. Similarly, other seminal works by renowned scholars such as Waldo, Simon, and Goodnow provide a conceptual discussion of public administration and in addition provide a historical context to the discipline. The review of this literature provides a rich nuance of the field of study and indeed its struggle as a distinct discipline from political science. In one of the more foremost published works in the area, The Administrative State written by Dwight Waldo in 1948, a proponent of public administration as a distinct discipline, he attempts to reconcile the debate on public administration. Waldo (1948) famously stated that public administration is ‘‘a subject matter in search of a discipline’’ and suffers from an ‘‘identity crisis’’ (Waldo, 1968), but is concerned with the ‘‘business of government’’ (Waldo, 1948). Although public administration is concerned with the business of government, the business of government takes place within a political context and hence public administration is embedded in various fields of study, particularly political science. Goodnow (1900), for example, argued that politics cannot

The Future of the Discipline: Trends in Public Sector Management

5

be separated from the administration of government. Many of the foremost scholars in the study of public administration were political theorists (Miller, 2007; Svara, 2001). Indeed, public administration as a field of study is often discussed in relation to political studies. For example, Wilson (1887, pp. 210–212) argued that: y administration lies outside the proper sphere of politics. Administrative questions are not political questions. Although politics sets the task for administration, it should not be suffered to manipulate its offices y Public administration is the detailed and systematic execution of public law. Every particular application of general law is an act of administration. The assessment and raising of taxes, for instance, the hanging of a criminal, the transportation and delivery of the mails, the equipment and recruitment of the army and navy, etc., are all obviously acts of administration, but the general laws which direct these things to be done are as obviously outside of and above administration. The broad plans of governmental action are not administrative; the detailed execution of such plans is administrative.

Wilson and many others were proponents of a political and administrative dichotomy in practice and as a field of study (see Aberbach, Putnam, & Rockman, 1981). In the study of public administration one cannot ignore the political context, and indeed in practice, many civil servants are keenly aware of the political environment in which they function (Miller, 2005; Page & Wright, 1999; Peters, Rhodes, & Wright, 2000). The dichotomy is largely a myth (Svara, 2001). Public administration has and continues to straddle the fields of study vis-a`-vis political studies and that of business and management in an attempt to understand the business of government. Furthermore, the study of public administration can be characterized as art, craft, and science (Raadschelders, 2011). The art of public administration is its philosophical approach (Raadschelders, 2011) drawing upon social and humanities disciplines (Samier, 2005). It is here that the discipline has its connectivity to disciplines such as political science and philosophy about ideas of the ‘‘greater principles’’ of how society ought to be governed and served. The craft of public administration is its practical utility (Raadschelders, 2011) and it links to technocratic processes of government. This resonates with professional disciplines such as economics, accounting, and managerial studies where approaches such as cost–benefit analysis, performance management, audits, etc. have a practical if not technocratic applicability to the business of government. Finally, as a science, public administration involves the systematic investigation of reality for theory (Raadschelders, 2011, 2005). This latter aspect of public administration involves academic research, and the ‘‘science’’ of public administration has itself been a subject of debate (see section ‘‘Public Administration and

6

KAREN JOHNSTON MILLER

Public Management Research’’). Public administration is therefore multifaceted, and the art, craft, and science of public administration are attempts to understand government in society and the complex relationships between those who govern and the governed (Raadschelders, 2011). Similarly, Dunsire (1999) in a comprehensive review of public administration as a discipline defines public administration as a ‘‘field’’ that is concerned with the practical activity of creating and delivering public services and the structures and people through which that is achieved – a craft. As an academic discipline, public administration is both the scholarly teaching and research, based mostly in universities and colleges, of the public administration ‘‘field’’ (ibid.) – a science and an art. The multifaceted nature of public administration lies in its multidisciplinarity. Beyond the contributions from political and business sciences other fields of study have been drawn upon to provide explanations for the business of government. These include, for example, the field of law which has placed an importance on enforcing bureaucratic accountability, the formulation, and implementation of legislation; contributions from philosophy, which emphasizes the need for ethical conduct of public officials; economics, which has contributed to understanding taxation, expenditure, and bureaucratic behavior (e.g., public choice theory); sociology, which has provided theoretical perspectives on state and social organizations; etc. (see Peters & Pierre, 2005). This is what Wilson (1887) perhaps described public administration as – being concerned with various aspects of government not merely technical processes of government, but latterly with the rise of public sector management scholars became more concerned with technocratic approaches to government. In summary, public administration as a field of study involves a number of debates as a discipline in relation to other disciplines and whether it is art, craft, or science (Dunsire, 1999; Kettl, 1999; Miller, 2007; Raadschelders, 2011). Arguably, its distinction as a discipline is its focus on the study of bureaucracy (Peters & Pierre, 2005). But by the 1970s, bureaucracy became synonymous with inefficiency, red tape, and pathologies of organizational structure and behavior, and ideas about markets, business principles, competition, private sector organizational structures, and values gained traction as more efficient and effective ways of conducting the business of government (see Thompson & Miller, 2003). Thus, the debate on public administration as a discipline vis-a`-vis other disciplines was superseded by the reforms of the public sector along a neoliberal agenda and the rise of NPM.

The Future of the Discipline: Trends in Public Sector Management

7

DECLINE OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION AND THE RISE OF PUBLIC SECTOR MANAGEMENT? It is not the intention of this section to provide a comprehensive historical review of NPM and public sector management – suffice to outline some of the main themes and debates to contextualize a discussion on future trends and trajectories in the field. Thus, in short, neoliberalism gained momentum with the reform of the public sector along principles and techniques borrowed from the market and private sector to increase public sector efficiency and effectiveness. This was described as a new way of managing the public sector – NPM (Dunleavy & Hood, 1994; Flynn, 2007; Greenwood, Pyper, & Wilson, 2002; Hood, 1991, 1998; Hughes, 1998; Massey & Pyper, 2005; Peters & Savoie, 1998; Pollitt, 1990). Some scholars argued that this was the withering or decline of public administration (Chandler, 1991; Hood, 1999). From the 1980s onwards, governments, in particular in the UK under Thatcher’s Conservative government, began to scale back government by releasing public sector activity to the private sector, introducing markets in the public sector, embracing private sector practices with the notion of reducing public expenditure and attempting to improve public sector efficiency in the delivery of services. Thus, governments embraced the privatization of public services; the introduction of marketization and competition in the public sector such as the tendering of public services to private or best value providers; the adoption of private sector management practices such as total quality management; the decentralization and fragmentation of large public sector bureaucracies into single purpose agencies; the focus on the citizen as a ‘‘customer’’ in an effort to improve responsiveness, an emphasis on choice, and greater value to individual citizens rather than as a collective electorate; and exploring new structures of government and service delivery based on best practice in the private sector (Massey & Pyper, 2005, p. 5). Prior to these type of public sector reforms, the manner in which the public sector was organized – with the provision of public services as the domain and responsibility of a single public body; public service provided on a uniform basis; operational functions decided upon and controlled by the public organization’s central headquarters and then carried out through an unbroken hierarchy; employment practices standardized throughout the public service organizations; and accountability of public servants to the public through elected political representation – became eroded with NPM (Stewart & Walsh, 1992, p. 509). As the business-like ethos gained

8

KAREN JOHNSTON MILLER

momentum in the public sector, there was an elaboration of the market model such as the development of quasi-markets within the public sector (Ferlie, Ashburner, Fitzgerald, & Pettigrew, 1996). The debureaucratization of the public sector went further with the fragmentation of public organizations into agencies in an attempt to increase responsiveness and efficiency gains (Ferlie et al., 1996; Massey & Pyper, 2005). By the late 1980s, contracting out of non-strategic functions became the norm with the consequent downsizing of government activity and staff (Ferlie et al., 1996). A new generation of managerialist practices arose with an emphasis on partnership working, innovative methods of management, and flexible and collaborative service delivery (Ferlie et al., 1996). Internationally, public sector management gained momentum with governments adopting the ideas from the UK and US experience, and from scholars such as Osborne and Gaebler (1992), with the publication of their book Reinventing Government. Osborne and Gaebler (1992) called for entrepreneurial government, one that promotes competition between providers, empowers citizens to push control of bureaucracy into the community, and focuses on the performance measurement of government activity. Thus, the focus became result-orientated public services, which was consistent with political objectives of responsiveness and public sector accountability. The public sector was by now emulating private sector management practices with a focus on continuous quality improvement, strategic management, performance management, and entrepreneurial leadership. Ferlie et al. (1996) characterized this emulation as the integration of charismatic private sector leadership role models for new style public sector leadership and management, training programs fashioned on private sector practices, the growth of vision and mission statements, and assertive and strategic human resource management. Public sector management could be summarized as a focus on financial controls and savings with consequent efficiency savings; a preference for privatization and/or the integration of private sector values and practices into the public sector; an emphasis on managerialism in terms of performance and results orientation; a mode of practice that includes financial and performance audits; the integration of markets and competition to ensure efficiency and a customer orientation; the deregulation of the labor market with the introduction of pay-performance contracts and fixed-term contracts; a shift from professions to general management, the debureaucratization of the public sector with the aim of encouraging entrepreneurial management practices; and the marginalization of trade unions and collectivism (Ferlie et al., 1996; Hughes, 1998; Massey & Pyper, 2005).

The Future of the Discipline: Trends in Public Sector Management

9

Thus, by the 1990s, scholars such as Hood (1991) and Rhodes (1995, 1997) observed that this new form of management saw an ideological shift from the idea of public administration concerns for social collectivism to market-based notions of self-sufficiency. Consequently, the academic community shifted their analysis to NPM and the public sector management (see Boyne, Farrell, Law, Powell, & Walker, 2003; Dunsire, 1999; Ferlie et al., 1996; Hughes, 1998; Massey, 1993; Peters & Savoie, 1998; Pollitt, 1990; Rhodes, 1995; Savoie, 1994). Thus, a whole body of academic research and literature began to focus on the technical aspects of the business of government. The focus was often on the effects of marketization and debureaucratization of public services; the impact of public sector reforms on employees; the relevance of the private sector managerial practices to the public sector context, and the technocratic approaches such as performance management, auditing, budgeting, etc. Thus, in terms of research and scholarly activity we see the focus on the business of government as a technical process of managing the public sector. Contemporary attention on the business of government has concentrated on themes of governance. Scholars, particularly Rod Rhodes, observed the changing nature in which government conducted its business with a host of stakeholders and through networks. Rhodes (1996b, 1997) argued that there were new ways in which governing was taking place – through various interactions of network actors. He described this as ‘‘governance’’: These networks are characterised, first, by interdependence between organisations. Governance is broader than government, covering non-state actors y Second, there are continuing interactions between network members, caused by the need to exchange resources and negotiate a shared purpose. Third, these interactions are game-like, rooted in trust and regulated by rules of the game y Finally, the networks have significant degree of autonomy from the state. Networks are not accountable to the state; they are self-organising (Rhodes, 2000, p. 61).

Once again the academic community pursued another theme of the business of government with studies and publications on governance, multilevel governance, the ‘‘differentiated polity,’’ ‘‘hollowing out’’ of the state, etc. A continuing, bourgeoning volume of research and literature explores this theme in various guises such as coproduction, networks, cogovernance, public–private–third sector interactions, etc. (see Tenbensel, 2005). Was this a decline in public administration and rise of public sector management? To answer this question one has to understand the conflation of arguments in the academic community. Some would argue that research activity with a focus on management and the technical processes of government is supportive of their arguments that public administration is in

10

KAREN JOHNSTON MILLER

decline – more concerned with the craft of the business of government than the art and science. Others would argue that the decline in public administration undergraduate and postgraduate programs is indicative of the decline of the discipline. Thus, to answer the posed question, the next section will attempt to disaggregate the debates in public administration and public management scholarship and research.

PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION AND PUBLIC MANAGEMENT SCHOLARSHIP Public administration with the contributory balance of political and business studies have seen the latter gain prominence. The retraction from the realm of political studies and other social sciences with a focus on the technical aspects or management of government has resulted in concerns over the discipline (e.g., see Meier, 2007; Samier, 2005). As a consequence, the contemporary debate in academic circles is more about what makes public administration distinct from the study of business and management (e.g., see Boyne, 2002). The focus of academic scholarship is the business of government as a technical process – the management of government or public sector management (Raadschelders, 2011). Thus, we saw the emergence of public management with tools, techniques, and processes borrowed from private sector managerial studies. This has become embedded in much of the curriculum of public administration programs and research (see Miller & McTavish, 2011). Many would argue that the neoliberal public sector reform agenda has eroded the discipline and that there is now no distinction between private and public sector management. Some point to the decline in institutional offerings of public administration programs as a ‘‘hollowing out’’ of public administration to other disciplines, in particular business and management studies. Dunsire (1999), for example, argues that the public administration curriculum and research activity have reflected a multidisciplinary approach but with the increasing integration of private sector or business management practices. Similarly, Pollitt (2010) argues that the multidisciplinary nature of public administration enhances a feeling of diversity or ‘‘centerlessness’’ within the academic community with disciplines such as management studies gaining prominence in the field of study. An analysis of undergraduate programs in UK higher education institutions revealed that there were 24 offering public administration, public policy, public management, and/or public services programs (data

The Future of the Discipline: Trends in Public Sector Management

11

obtained from Universities and Colleges Admission Service (UCAS), 2010). This, out of a total of 165 higher education institutions represents 14 percent of institutional offerings of the discipline. It is difficult to provide a comparison or benchmark with other program offerings, but arguably this is a low representation of the discipline in UK higher education institutions. In the UK, most of the programs appear to be located in business schools. Similarly, in the US there is a trend for public administration programs to be located outwith social and political science departments (Raadschelders, 2011). An analysis of postgraduate programs, specifically Masters in Public Administration (MPAs), in 2008, revealed that there were 17 such programs in the UK (Miller & McTavish, 2011). Internationally, there appears to be an increasing number of postgraduate programs in public administration and public policy (see Geva-May, Nasi, Turrini, Scott, & Eller, 2006). In the US, for example, there are 161 public administration programs that have National Association for Schools of Public Affairs and Administration (NASPAA) accreditation (Raadschelders, 2011). According to Raadschelders (2011, p. 141), the number of public administration programs is numerous, and in addition to accredited programs, there are various other public affairs programs such as social work, criminal justice, urban, and regional planning, public transportation, etc. In Europe, there are similarly numerous public administration programs, most with a basis in law (Gyorgy & Karoly, 2008; Raadschelders, 2011). Furthermore, there appears to be a growth in professional development programs with academics acting as consultants and trainers to various public sector organizations. The global extent of this is hard to quantify, but within the UK there are a number of such consultancies, for example, the Institute of Government, ProGov, Public Sector Consultants, to name but a few, and in the US this appears to be part of academic activity (see Kettl, 1999). Nonetheless, there is a decline in public administration programs in the UK. This may partly be explained by the rise of public sector management and the location of the programs in business schools. Thus, general management with a focus on technical processes of management such as performance management supersedes ideas of greater principles and the multidisciplinarity of public administration. Thus, instead of a breadth of disciplinary approaches such as law, economics, political science, etc. being taught, students are exposed to narrow technical management practices (borrowed from the private sector) as applied to the public sector. In addition to the emphasis of general management skills and the location of programs, there are other explanations for the decline in public administration programs in the UK – and if this is a trend then these explanations

12

KAREN JOHNSTON MILLER

may bode as a lesson for other academic communities. First, there is a lack of accreditation of public administration from a learned society. Consequently, the discipline does not have a ‘‘voice’’ and a professional status, and is not recognized as a necessary or valued qualification in a public service career in the UK. The idea being that management is not fundamentally different (see Allison, 1986) whether applied to the public or private sector, and therefore a specific qualification in public administration or public sector management is not considered worthwhile. This of course is different in the US and other European countries with accreditation from peer-respected organizations such as NASPAA and the European Association for Public Administration Accreditation (EAPAA), respectively. Second, the demography of the UK academic community is aging with little concern for succession and career development of early career researchers (Hood, 2011). A third and related explanation is that there are increasingly few students in the UK who are interested in the business of government or the study of bureaucracy. They do not perceive the study of government as an attractive career option despite increasing levels of governance – the EU, devolution, etc. The demand for public administration and public management programs is decreasing, which is perhaps related to the first explanation. A final explanation for the decline of the discipline in the UK is that much of the academic research is applied or focused on the craft with the art and the science of the discipline being neglected and therefore cannot necessarily address ideas of ‘‘greater principles.’’ This latter explanation is further discussed in the next section. Suffice to state that internationally there is no waning of interest nor decline in public administration and public management scholarship. There is however in the UK a concern with regards to a decline in named public administration and public management programs at academic institutions. One could argue that in the UK, although there is evidence for this decline, there is still a vibrancy of scholarship, consultancy and training on aspects of public administration and public management in various guises: either embedded in programs such as Masters of Business Administration (MBAs), in sector-specific studies such as health management, local government, urban planning, etc., and/or training programs for public officials’ continuous professional development. Indeed internationally, there is a hive of public administration and public management scholarship, practitioner engagement, research, and activity – see United Nations Public Administration Network (UNPAN), but if research underpins this scholarly activities, what is the nature and quality of the research?

The Future of the Discipline: Trends in Public Sector Management

13

PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION AND PUBLIC MANAGEMENT RESEARCH The basis of scholarship is research and the science of public administration is important as an evidence base of the craft and art of the discipline. Anthropological and empirical observations of public administration and public management research activity show a voluminous number of publications with a multiplicity of research approaches. A frequency analysis of academic journals by accessing publishing companies’ databases, website journal search engines, documents such as the Association of Business Schools (ABS) and Harzing journal listings reveal that there are at least 36 top-rated academic journals by quality and impact factor in the field of public administration and public management. This excludes sector-specific journals such as health, education, policing, urban studies, etc. These journals are of course located in the US and UK. If one were to add journals in the field from other countries such as the Australian Journal of Public Administration, the Canadian Journal of Public Administration, or indeed non-English journals (there are at least 26 such journals in Europe – see European Group for Public Administration website), then the number of public administration and public management academic journals increases exponentially. There is a wealth of activity and richness to public administration, public policy, and public management research. The top 20 journals (by impact factor) in this field from 2007 to 2009 published 1917 articles. In addition, there are many books and textbooks published on the subject each year – an analysis of the major publishing companies’ (e.g., SAGE, Routledge, Taylor & Francis, Oxford University Press, etc.) catalogues reveals a number of publications in this area per annum. An attempt to quantify the number of publications per year becomes an arduous task in itself and it is hard to argue that public administration and public management research is in decline. Arguably, there is much research activity in the academic community if the quantity of publications in the field is a measure of research output. But what are the nature and the quality of research? First, we turn our attention to research traditions or perspectives within the discipline of public administration and public management. This chapter draws upon the work of Raadschelders (2005, 2008, 2010, 2011), Raadschelders and Lee (2011), Kettl (1999), Samier (2005), a special edition of Public Administration Review, titled ‘‘The Future of Public Administration as a Scholarly Field,’’ published in December 2010, and the authors

14

KAREN JOHNSTON MILLER

cited therein. According to Raadschelders (2005, 2008), there are a number of traditions and perspectives in public administration and public management research. These can be summarized into four distinguishable traditions: 1. A study for the development of practical wisdom with a focus on political theory and attention to areas such as the relationship between politicians and civil servants, public morality, and ethics, relationships with citizens and the development of ‘‘grand theory.’’ 2. A study for the development of practical experience with a focus on technocratic approaches to government and attention to instruments and techniques into the day-to-day, operational matters of government. 3. A study for the development of scientific knowledge with attention focused on scientific, positivistic approaches to the study of government with the aim of developing unifying theory. 4. A study of relativistic perspectives or postmodernism with a focus on interpretation of the business of government and subjectivity (Raadschelders, 2008). The first tradition resonates more with the art of the discipline, the second tradition with craft and the latter two traditions speak more to the science of the discipline. Yet, even within the traditions, there has been an ongoing debate not merely about the identity of public administration as a discipline but the research methods and approaches to the study of government. A read of the Public Administration Review special edition (December 2010) reveals that these various traditions have often been at odds. For example, in the US there has been a long-standing debate about research approaches to the discipline. Scientists such as Simon and more contemporary scholars such as Meier advocate for more rigorous, scientific approaches with the aim of developing public administration as a distinct academic discipline focusing on positivist research methods in relation to specific problems and/topics of government (Raadschelders, 2008). Others such as Waldo and contemporary scholars such as Samier call for a more holistic approach to the study of government in attempting to understand government as a whole in relation to society, politics, etc. (Raadschelders, 2008, 2011; Samier, 2005). The prominence of NPM has seen an increase in research focused on the technical processes of government. Raadschelders and Lee’s (2011) review of Public Administration Review topics from 2000 to 2009 reveal a high prevalence of management research being published in the journal. These findings are consistent with other reviews of public administration and

The Future of the Discipline: Trends in Public Sector Management

15

public management research (see Adams & White, 1994; Bingham & Bowen, 1994; Samier, 2005). There appears in research terms to be more of a focus on the craft of public administration with attention to the managerial and technical practical utility for government. Samier (2005, p. 14) critically argues that: y driven largely by neo-liberalism, the New Public Management (NPM) has developed as a newly entrenched managerialism, bolstered by a large body of promotional literature, the leadership fad, and ‘‘how-to’’ manuals promoted by management ‘‘gurus’’ masquerading as well-grounded academics y

Samier (2005) and Raadschelders (2008, 2010) call for a more holistic research approach to public administration and public management rather than focusing on narrow methods and topics. Indeed, Samier (2005) and Raadschelders (2008) argue for more interdisciplinary perspectives to public administration and public management research drawing upon humanities and social sciences rather than narrow technocratic approaches. Kettl (1999) also argues for academics to look beyond the narrow field of study and methods for answers to government management problems. Kettl (1999) goes on to argue that the narrow focus by academics on technical processes has resulted in a growth industry of consultants that has driven much of the change in government along attractive private sector concepts. Pollitt (2006) similarly argues that many public administration academics spend a significant amount of time providing advice as consultants to public authorities and not exercised or concerned with philosophical questions. Furthermore, that research and public administration academic work are concerned with solving management problems often providing solutions for public organizations (Pollitt, 2010). He argues that public administration academics ‘‘y find themselves trailing conceptual agendas largely derived from management consultancies’’ (Pollitt, 2010, p. 293). Thus, in embracing the NPM mantra, public administration academics became more concerned with providing technical solutions rather than the ‘‘greater principles.’’ There is a further point to make about the nature of public administration and public management research: much of the methodological approaches appear to be empirical, specifically quantitative (Raadschelders & Lee, 2011). This is most prominent in US journals, less so in European journals, but increasingly academics outwith the US are incentivized to publish in US journals. For example, in the UK higher education sector, performance metrics such as the Research Excellence Framework (REF) ranks US journals higher in quality listings with academic careers and promotion de facto dependent on publishing in these higher-ranked journals with

16

KAREN JOHNSTON MILLER

the emphasis on scientific rigor, positivism is motivated by the desire to develop public administration as a discipline (see Dodge, Ospina, & Foldy, 2005; Raadschelders & Lee, 2011). The consequence is on over-specialization and narrowing of public administration and public management research (Raadschelders & Lee, 2011; Samier, 2005). Public administration and public management academics’ overfocus on technical managerial process of government using quantitative methods ‘‘risk losing sight of big questions about issues that do not allow for measurement’’ (Raadschelders & Lee, 2011, p. 28). Funding for research also provides an incentive for this type of scientific research. For example, the UK 2000s ESRC Public Services Research Programme funded research that was mostly of a quantitative nature often focusing on public sector performance management (see Massey, 2004). Furthermore, it provides an evidence base for policy makers. However, this approach to research risks losing the art of public administration, the development of ‘‘grand theory’’ and addressing issues of ‘‘greater principles.’’ Moreover, Kettl (1999) argues that this overly focused research on management per se, mostly observational and at best deductive (Kettl, 1999), does not necessarily develop theory. Thus, rather than contributing to the discipline in terms of developing theoretical approaches and thereby advancing the discipline, public administration and public management scholars provide explanations for improving public service delivery. The outcome is a subject matter that in a sense has become an applied one, rather than a distinct discipline that offers theoretical approaches to the business of government (see Dodge et al., 2005; Golembiewski, 1996; Kettl, 1999). Where some pioneered others followed and a whole academic endeavor developed around NPM and governance issues. Indeed, this trajectory continues with a cacophony of new ways to improve public service delivery through technocratic means. These have included performance management, network analysis, cogovernance and coproduction interactions, and public service innovation (see Pollitt, 2010). Observations at academic conferences and a review of journals in the field reveal the focus on technical managerial processes in the form of empirical case studies or the metaanalysis of government datasets. The findings of the research are often used as an illustration of empirical ‘‘evidence’’ to support managerial solutions to the business of government describing public sector efficiency gains and various technical processes. The research often involves case studies of public service delivery improvement, and at best an attempt to extrapolate lessons to be learned, occasionally referring to other lessons based on extant

The Future of the Discipline: Trends in Public Sector Management

17

research and theory, but mostly the research involves descriptive case study analysis. Seldom is there an attempt to offer explanations found in theory or to further develop theory, and the research seldom offers solutions to complex social problems. The repetitious use of government datasets also does not add to the development of theory nor address broader societal concerns, rather these studies mostly provide verification of government planning, performance, budgeting, and management. Raadschelders (2008, p. 147), for example, argues that ‘‘milking a dataset for all it’s worth, that is getting as many publications out of it as possible, seems to guarantee a good career start y.’’ These academic research fascinations, fads, and ‘‘magic concepts’’ wax and wane quickly, and their value as instruments for promoting either long-term theoretical coherence or specific operational advances within the field is doubtful (Pollitt, 2010). There is a need for academics to move beyond the debate of public and private management distinction, the transferability of management techniques, examining public sector reforms, performance management, public sector efficiency, and effectiveness, or the latest fascinations – all of which denigrates the public sector and appears as if there is some pathology in the delivery of services. Perhaps public choice theorists would have something to say about bureau-shaping behavior in ‘‘identifying problems’’ and building careers. Rather, scholars of public administration and public management should move beyond these issues and debates and respond to calls for new research where academics draw upon the multidisciplinary strengths of the discipline (Kettl, 1999; Raadschelders, 2005, 2008, 2010, 2011; Samier, 2005). As society faces increasingly complex, seemingly insurmountable social problems – wicked policy problems (see Coyne, 2005; Rittel & Webber, 1973) – the narrowness of public administration and public management research in approach and methods cannot address these societal concerns. Raadschelders (2011, p. 152), for example, argues that scholars are losing a comprehensive understanding and that academics should reach across boundaries of their own specialization and take society’s complexity as the cue for designing studies in handling the complexity. Governments do not deal with simple problems but deal with the complexities of society and therefore require inputs from various disciplines (Raadschelders, 2011) to provide ‘‘wisdoms’’ to address ‘‘greater principles of society’’ (see Wilson, 1887). According to Raadschelders (2011, p. 144), ‘‘Few, if any, social problems can be solved on the basis of one perspective and/or one disciplinary angle. Most social challenges must be met through interdisciplinary effort.’’ This view is similarly shared with an increasing number of

18

KAREN JOHNSTON MILLER

scholars (see Kettl, 1999; Pollitt, 2010; Raadschelders, 2010; Samier, 2005). Public administration as a discipline is unique in this respect as it is one of the few disciplines that draws upon other disciplines – its multidisciplinary nature is indeed its strength in addressing complex social problems or issues of ‘‘greater principles’’ to society.

FUTURE TRENDS IN PUBLIC SECTOR MANAGEMENT: OCCAM’S RAZOR? The positivists would welcome an empirical, quantitative approach to the analysis of the discipline and thus if we took the scientific theory of Occam’s razor there is a simple conclusion that one can draw from the academic debates and arguments: public administration, public management, governance, or whatever term the academic community concocts, the discipline is the study of the business of government. This study will continue, for as a society we will always organize ourselves into a system of government. This will always provide endless fascination and study – there will be no decline in this endeavor. The study of government may be in various guises – governance, public administration, public management, public policy – but it will continue to grow as a discipline. However, the phenomenologists among us will argue that things are never that simple and indeed quantification will not provide the fullness of explanations. There are three possible trajectories for the future of the discipline. First, the study of government will continue with a focus on the business of government offering, at best an empirical basis to technocratic approaches or at worst offering ‘‘solutions’’ or ‘‘magic concepts’’ as ways to improve government – borrowing the latest fads from private and/or the third sector with little empiricism on the applicability of these approaches to the public sector. As discussed above, the origins of public management with its private sector connectivity provides contestability around its applicability to the public sector because of different environments with much of academic research focused in this area (see Boyne, 2002). Nonetheless, there is some functionality and utility to public sector management techniques adopted by the public sector. As others have argued, this academic emphasis offers career and consultancy opportunities, is studied and focuses primarily on public sector reforms in descriptive terms. Public management offers tools and techniques in terms of service delivery improvements such as performance management, partnership working, and efficiency gains and were integrated into the public sector, although there is a body of scholarly

The Future of the Discipline: Trends in Public Sector Management

19

research that reveals problems, limitations and unintended outcomes (see e.g. Amann, 2006; Savoie, 1998). The search is now to other sectors of the economy to provide solutions to public sector ‘‘inefficiencies,’’ hence the current predilection for third sector collaboration and partnerships. This type of research has its utility at the micro levels of government. The best public administration and public management can offer at this level of research focus is ways in which to improve public services, but no real functionality at macro level particularly how to solve complex societal problems or wicked public policy areas. Its utility will remain at the craft of the discipline attempting to integrate science. Research at this level does not address complex societal policy problems that require multidisciplinary perspectives. A balance in the discipline needs to be struck between microand macro-level concerns or the art and craft of the discipline in addition to scientific approaches. Otherwise, the discipline will quagmire in narrow specializations. The risk of this unbalanced trajectory is that the discipline loses its relevance to society and government. Management will be seen as management in any other guise – as is the case in the UK – and cannot offer solutions to complex social problems. Nonetheless, the study of government in terms of a craft will continue with its practical utility at best integrating empiricism, offering ways in which to improve the business of government. A second trajectory is that academics draw upon the multidisciplinary nature of the discipline to address complex social problems and become concerned with questions of ‘‘greater principles’’ above the ‘‘dull level of mere technical detail’’ of government. There are emergent developments in this area, not least some the scholarly arguments presented in this chapter, but there are increasing incentives. The current global financial crisis and consequent period of austerity has seen government search for solutions from the academic community and there are already emerging research funding streams supporting multidisciplinary perspectives to address societal concerns such as social cohesion, poverty, climate change, etc. (see European Commission FP7 framework). Technology and new media will also facilitate the exchange of multidisciplinary perspectives, and indeed conferences such as the Transatlantic Dialogue Conference – an engagement between European and American public administration and public management academic communities – provide useful platforms for multidisciplinary and multinational perspectives to address complex social problems. Indeed, funding or perhaps the lack thereof during a period of austerity may incentivize academics to collaborate beyond their narrow specialized interests and across institutional, national, and disciplinary boundaries. Thus, a second trajectory will be a focus on the art in the study of

20

KAREN JOHNSTON MILLER

government drawing upon empirical approaches to philosophize about ways in which to improve the business of government for the ‘‘greater principles’’ of society. The third trajectory relates to the manner or approach in which both the art and craft of the discipline provides evidence to develop theory or provide practical solutions for government and society. This trajectory is one where academics continue to debate about the science of the discipline and the multiplicity of research methods (Raadschelders, 2010). According to Pollitt (2010, p. 293) in his analysis of the discipline and discussion of future trajectories, ‘‘Public administration scholars will work in their silos, with case study people talking to other case study people, and number crunchers ditto.’’ This academically parochial and tedious debate will continue as to which are the better approaches and research methods in developing theory and solutions in the study of government. The debate will continue and it may add to the wealth of the discipline in terms of analysis or may lead to its fragmentation. The trend in public administration and public management as a discipline will be a continued research and scholarship of the study of government – perhaps in many guises. The quality and incentives that shape research and scholarship in the field of study have to be critically reflected upon and discussed in academia where there are global lessons to be learned – hence this volume. To this regard, one can observe three possible trajectories in the nature and approaches to the study of the business of government: (1) a continued pursuit of narrow, specialized research that focuses on managerialist and technical processes of government, (2) research concerned with more complex social problems or wicked policies, and (3) continued methodological pluralism in the study of government, which may add to the depth or fragmentation of the discipline. This chapter has outlined the trends and debates of public administration and public management as art, craft, and science: from the conceptualization of public administration; the development of public management and governance; the relationship vis-a`-vis other disciplines or indeed drawing upon various disciplines – its multidisciplinarity; and to contemporary debates about the nature and approaches of the public administration and public management. To this regard, the chapter has provided various perspectives that lend to the central argument that public administration, public management, or whatever guise, the focus is and will continue to be on the study of the business of government. Thus in the future, far from the discipline declining, it is evolving, drawing upon a plurality of disciplines and research approaches to study ‘‘y what government can properly and

The Future of the Discipline: Trends in Public Sector Management

21

successfully do, and y how it can do these proper things with utmost possible efficiency y’’ (Wilson, 1887, p. 197).

NOTE 1. Occam’s razor was formulated by William of Occam in the late Middle Ages as a criticism of scholastic endeavours by academics whose theories and concepts grew ever more elaborate without much predictive power (Domingos, 1999). Occam’s razor is defined as, ‘‘Nunquam ponenda est pluralitas sin necessitate,’’ which translated means ‘‘Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity’’ (ibid).

REFERENCES Aberbach, J. D., Putnam, R. D., & Rockman, B. A. (1981). Bureaucrats and politicians in western democracies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Adams, G. B., & White, J. D. (1994). Dissertation research in public administration and cognate fields: An assessment of methods and quality. Public Administration Review, 54(6), 565–576. Allison, G. T. (1986). Public and private management: Are they fundamentally alike in all unimportant respects? In T. J. Sergiovanni & J. E. Corablly (Eds.), Leadership and organisational culture: New perspectives on administrative theory and practice. Urbana: Board of Trustee of the University of Illinois. Amann, R. (2006). The circumlocution office: A snapshot of civil service reform. The Political Quarterly, 77(3), 334–359. Bingham, R. D., & Bowen, W. M. (1994). ‘‘Mainstream’’ public administration over time: A topical content analysis of public administration review. Public Administration Review, 54(2), 204–208. Boyne, G. A. (2002). Public and private management: What’s the difference? Journal of Management Studies, 39(1), 97–122. Boyne, G. A., Farrell, C., Law, J., Powell, M., & Walker, R. (2003). Evaluating public management reforms. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. Chandler, J. A. (1991). Public administration: A discipline in decline. Teaching Public Administration, 11(1), 39–45. Coyne, R. (2005). Wicked problems revisited. Design Studies, 26(1), 5–17. Dodge, J., Ospina, S. M., & Foldy, E. G. (2005). Integrating rigor and relevance in public administration scholarship: The contribution of narrative inquiry. Public Administration Review, 65(3), 286–300. Domingos, P. (1999). The role of Occam’s razor in knowledge discovery. Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, 3(4), 409–425. Dunleavy, P., & Hood, C. (1994). From old public administration to new public management. Public Money & Management, 14(3) (July–September), 9–16. Dunsire, A. (1999). Then and now public administration, 1953–1999. Political Studies, XLVII, 360–378.

22

KAREN JOHNSTON MILLER

European Group for Public Administration (EGPA). (2011). Retrieved from http://www.iias-iisa. org/egpa/e/Pages/default.aspx. Accessed on May 2011. Ferlie, E., Ashburner, L., Fitzgerald, L., & Pettigrew, A. (1996). The new public management in action. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Flynn, N. (2007). Public sector management (5th ed). London: Sage Publishing. Geva-May, I., Nasi, G., Turrini, A., Scott, C. & Eller, W. (2006). MPP Programs Emerging Around the World, 2006 APPAM Spring Conference, Charting the Next Twenty Years of Public Policy and Management Education, 15–17 June 2006, Park City, Utah. Golembiewski, R. T. (1996). The future of public administration: End of a short stay in the sun? Or a new day a-dawning? Public Administration Review, 56(2), 139–148. Goodnow, F. (1900). Politics and administration: A study in government. New York, NY: Macmillan. Greenwood, J., Pyper, R., & Wilson, D. (2002). New public administration in Britain. Oxford, UK: Routledge. Gyorgy, J., & Karoly, M. (2008). Public administration and public policy degree programmes in Europe: The road map from Bologna. Bratislava: NISPAcee Press. Hood, C. (1991). Public management for all seasons? Public Administration, 69(Spring), 3–19. Hood, C. (1998). The art of the state: Culture, rhetoric, and public management. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Hood, C. (1999). British public administration: Dodo, Phoenix or Chameleon? In J. E. S. Hayward, B. Barry, & A. Brown (Eds.), The British study of politics in the twentieth century (pp. 287–311). Oxford, UK: British Academy/Oxford University Press. Hood, C. (2011). Its public administration, rod, but maybe not as we know it: British public administration in the 2000s. Public Administration, 89(1), 128–139. Hughes, O. E. (1998). Public management and administration. Basingstoke, UK: Macmillan Press. Kettl, D. F. (1999). The future of public administration. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 5(2), 127–134. Khodr, H. (2005). Public administration and political science: An historical analysis of the relation between the two academic disciplines. PhD Thesis, Publication Number 3198229, Florida State University. Massey, A. (1993). Managing the public sector: A comparative analysis of the United Kingdom and the United States. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. Massey, A. (2004). Mapping the future: research into public policy, administration and management in Britain. An ESRC funded workshop. Public Policy and Administration, 19(2), 64–76. Massey, A., & Pyper, R. (2005). Public management and modernisation in Britain. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Meier, K. J. (2007). Public administration of politics, or what political science could learn from public administration. Political Science and Politics, 40(1), 3–9. Miller, H. T. (2007). The administrative state: A study of political theory of American public administration. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. Miller, K. (2005). Public sector reform: Governance in South Africa. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate. Miller, K., & McTavish, D. (2011). Women in UK public administration scholarship. Public Administration, 89(2), 681–697. Osborne, D., & Gaebler, T. (1992). Reinventing government: How the entrepreneurial spirit is transforming the public sector. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

The Future of the Discipline: Trends in Public Sector Management

23

Page, E., & Wright, V. (1999). Bureaucratic Elite’s in Western European States: A comparative analysis of top officials. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Peters, B. G., & Pierre, J. (2005). Introduction: The role of public administration in governing. In B. G. Peters & J. Pierre (Eds.), Handbook of public administration. London: Sage. Peters, B. G., Rhodes, R. A. W., & Wright, V. (2000). Administering the summit: Administration of the core executive in developed countries. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Peters, B. G., & Savoie, D. (Eds.). (1998). Taking stock: Assessing public sector reforms. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press. Pollitt, C. (1990). Managerialism and the Public Services: the Anglo-American Experience. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell. Pollitt, C. (2006). Academic advice to practitioners – what is its nature, place and value within academia? Public Money and Management, 26(4), 257–264. Pollitt, C. (2010). Envisioning public administration as a scholarly field 2020. Public Administration Review, December, Special Issue, pp. 292–294. Raadschelders, J. C. N. (2005). Government and public administration: Challenges to and need for connecting knowledge. Administration Theory & Praxis, 27(4), 602–627. Raadschelders, J. C. N. (2008). Understanding government: Four intellectual traditions in the study of public administration. Public Administration, 86(4), 925–949. Raadschelders, J. C. N. (2010). Identity without boundaries: Public administration’s Cannon(s) of integration. Administration & Society, 42(2), 131–159. Raadschelders, J. C. N. (2011). The study of public administration in the United States. Public Administration, 89(1), 140–155. Raadschelders, J. C. N., & Lee, K.-H. (2011). Trends in the study of public administration: empirical and qualitative observations from public administration review 2000–2009. Public Administration Review, 71(1), 19–33. Rhodes, R. A. W. (1995). The state of public administration: a professional history, 1970–1995. Public Administration, 73(1), 1–16. Rhodes, R. A. W. (1996a). From institutions to Dogma: Traditions, electicism and ideology in the study of British Public Administration. Public Administration Review, 56(6), 507–516. Rhodes, R. A. W. (1996b). The new governance: Governing without government. Political Studies, 44(4), 652–667. Rhodes, R. A. W. (1997). Understanding governance: Policy networks, governance, reflexivity and accountability. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. Rhodes, R. A. W. (2000). Governance in public administration. In J. Pierre (Ed.), Debating governance: Authority, steering and democracy. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(1), 155–169. Samier, E. (2005). Towards public administration as a humanities discipline: A humanistic manifesto. Halduskultuur, 6, 6–59. Savoie, D. (1994). Thatcher, Reagan & Mulroney: In search of a new bureaucracy. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press. Savoie, D. (1998). Fifteen years of reform: What have we learned? In B. G. Peters & D. Savoie (Eds.), Taking stock: Assessing public sector reforms. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press. Stewart, J., & Walsh, K. (1992). Change in the management of public services. Public Administration, 70(4), 499–518.

24

KAREN JOHNSTON MILLER

Svara, J. H. (2001). The myth of the dichotomy: Complementarity of politics and administration in the past and the future of public administration. Public Administration Review, 61(2), 176–183. Tenbensel, T. (2005). Multiple modes of governance. Public Management Review, 7(2), 267–288. Thompson, F., & Miller, H. T. (2003). New public management and bureaucracy versus business values and bureaucracy. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 23(4), 328–343. United Nations Public Administration Network (UNPAN). (2011). Retrieved from http:// www.unpan.org/. Accessed on May 2011. Universities and Colleges Admission Service (UCAS). (2010). Retrieved from http:// www.ucas.ac.uk/students/coursesearch/. Accessed on September 2010. Waldo, D. (1948). The administrative state. New York, NY: Ronald Press Co. Waldo, D. (1968). Public administration. The Journal of Politics, 30(2), 443–479. Wilson, W. (1887). The study of administration. American Political Science Quarterly, 2(2), 197–222.

CHAPTER 2 BUSINESS AND MANAGEMENT SCHOOLS IN TIMES OF CRISIS AND AUSTERITY: CHOICES AND DILEMMAS Joyce Liddle and John Diamond ABSTRACT Purpose – The primary purpose of this chapter is to explore the potential implications of the 2008 banking crisis for university business and management schools and to reflect upon the organizational and pedagogic possibilities highlighted by the changes discussed. Design/Approach – The chapter draws upon an extensive literature review. Findings – The chapter argues that the crisis has long-term, profound implications for practitioners, policymakers, and political elites as well as those working in higher education business and management education. The authors suggest that these changes have yet to be clearly understood or appreciated across the sector and that they represent a severe test for elites working in universities.

Emerging and Potential Trends in Public Management: An Age of Austerity Critical Perspectives on International Public Sector Management, Volume 1, 25–45 Copyright r 2012 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 2045-7944/doi:10.1108/S2045-7944(2012)0000001005

25

26

JOYCE LIDDLE AND JOHN DIAMOND

Research implications – The chapter describes a possible organizational model for business schools and explores a different paradigm for public management education in universities. Originality – The chapter is intentionally speculative. Keywords: Management education; policymaking; pedagogy; reflective practice; multi-disciplinary working

INTRODUCTION The scale of the crisis across the advanced economies has varied in intensity and consequence. It is possible to view the period from 2007–2008 to the present (spring 2012) as reflecting quite different patterns of development and change. We recognize that there has not been a uniform or consistent pattern to the form and scale of the banking and financial crisis since the collapse of Lehman Brothers. It has been possible to observe really quite distinct and different consequences to the changes in global banking and finance. In very broad terms we can say that the pattern of change in North America and Europe has been profoundly destabilizing for business and economic interests and for the political and social elites. As unemployment has risen across these advanced economies, the political responses of nation states to the crisis have taken a similar response. This response has included the desire to maintain the confidence of the markets and global institutions (such as the World Bank and the IMF) and to reduce national debt through a combination of measures including reducing public spending. The decisions made by political elites within the European Union (EU) and in combination with the IMF (International Monetary Fund) and the World Bank have, themselves, been unevenly implemented. Thus, the financial and banking crises of the nation states within the EU have led to quite profound and serious questions about the political stability of the governments of Ireland, Italy, Spain, and Greece. In three of these countries, governments have been removed and only in Ireland through the democratic processes of elections. In Spain the sustainability of the present government is being called into question through street demonstrations and civil disorder. Across the EU there appears to be a quite fragile set of relationships that bring together political institutions, the banking and financial sectors, and civil society. The changes agreed by different national governments and promoted and expected by the global institutions as well as the markets

Business and Management Schools in Times of Crisis and Austerity

27

have severe consequences for social and welfare spending and the role of the ‘‘public sector’’ in the management and distribution of resources within the state. This period of change is, we suggest, different from the impact of the oil crisis of 1973. It is, we think, likely to be much more disruptive and to have a much longer term impact on the role and place of the ‘‘public’’ in the relationships between the state, the market, and civil society. We discuss below why we think this is the case and explore what we think are the implications for those of us working in business or management schools. But we need to recognize that these patterns of disruptive change are not uniform across the world. Indeed, part of the difficulty in locating these patterns of change into a context is that there is no consistency. The banking and finance crises of North America and Europe are not shared in Latin America or Australia, nor are they shared in India or China. We do not think that this uneven and inconsistent approach calls into question our assertion that this crisis is more significant than the 1970s for global capitalism but rather the way it is experienced or felt will be different. And that over the medium term the decisions to cut infrastructure spending or social and welfare spending in Europe are, themselves, likely to have consequences elsewhere. We do think that in the immediate short term we need to reflect upon what these changes might mean for those working in the university sector with professionals or practitioners based within the ‘‘public sector.’’ As part of this discussion we set out below what we think the implications are (in the short term) of the present crisis and we then go onto sketch out what we think a new or re-imagined conceptual framework for public management.

A NEW CONTEXT: CRISIS-LED OR PARADIGM SHIFT? We think that in reflecting upon the scale and impact of the economic crises on civil society institutions and agencies we need to think about how such relationships between state institutions, the markets, and civil society are, themselves, shaped and re-formed. We want to suggest that an important consequence of these re-formed relationships directly impacts on the role and nature of university-based management/business schools. We would argue that we think such relationships are in a process of being re-formed and remade or restructured. In a very real sense while these processes of change are, inevitably, part of the transition from a period pre the crisis to

28

JOYCE LIDDLE AND JOHN DIAMOND

post the crisis, we think that they represent quite a profound shift in the relationships within civil society and between the market and the state. As we outline above we want to situate this discussion in the context of the organizational and disciplinary home for business or management education in the university sector. We see this approach as providing a framework both for analysis and for reflection on the model(s) of provision, organization, and curriculum design and approval. We think that the scale and depth of the crisis has real implications for the ways in which we imagine the teaching, learning, assessment, and accreditation of business/management education. In addition this set of crises raise important implications too for how we design, commission, and validate research and scholarly activity. There are, also, a set of different but interrelated questions for practitioners and scholars to explore and this includes the ways in which we make sense of the crisis and how we use it to inform our teaching and research but also how we draw lessons from the crisis. At one level there are important ethical and moral questions that are explicit in the nature and depth of the crisis. While these ethical issues can be explored through the lense of traditional ways of thinking about corporate social responsibility, there are other more fundamental questions too that are present in this analysis. The broader and deeper questions include how we define and mark out the disciplinary boundaries within which we situate public management education. On the one hand we can draw upon traditional models and ways of conceptualizing the discipline and devise an architecture that defines the boundaries quite clearly. On the other hand, we can see the relationships within and between subject disciplines as fluid and open to new ways of setting research and teaching agendas. We have been attracted to this way of thinking by the work of Erica McMillian (2012) where she talks of: y Put bluntly, faculty/disciplinary boundaries are still proving to be relatively impenetrable in many universities, and so the invitation to transdisciplinary knowledge building is not as easy to take up as it is to make as a rhetorical flourish in marketing materials. (p. xvii)

She goes onto make the following point about the relationships between higher education, social and economic change, and the opportunities this might present for those interested in innovation and collaborative practice: y the risky learning challenges in the twenty-first century demand an ability to select, re-shuffle, combine or synthesise already existing facts, ideas, faculties and skills in original ways. Meanwhile the hegemony of Western knowledge systems is being challenged on many fronts through the increasing influence of Asia in world affairs, the

Business and Management Schools in Times of Crisis and Austerity

29

resurgent interest in Indigenous and community knowledges and through competing perspectives of multiple modernities y. (p. xvii–xviii)

We like the ways in which McMillian frames the discourse of the role and potential of higher education, and it is important to note that she is locating this discussion within (what might seem a quite narrow setting) an exploration of the nature of doctoral education. She ends her essay by observing that ‘‘What all this means for doctoral education is that it is ripe for reshaping.’’ (p. xviii). And this is our view too of the place and shape of public management or public administration (Boud & Lee, 2009; Costley & Stephenson, 2009; Danby & Lee, 2012). We have argued elsewhere (Diamond & Liddle, 2012) that both the sector and the discipline have been challenged by the rise of neoliberalism. Part of this challenge (over a generation of scholars, students, and practitioners) in the West has been to undermine the legitimacy of the idea of a public realm or a public sector. In looking at this challenge and contest of ideas we can say that: A key starting point for exploring the ways in which these ideas disrupt existing power relationships and governance structures/systems is to examine the relationships between institutions of higher education and particular policy or practice developments which might be illustrative or pre-figurative of these relationships. We have discussed elsewhere (Diamond & Liddle, 2005, 2009; Hagen & Liddle, 2007; Liddle & Diamond, 2007, 2008) that the relationship between HEIs and practitioners is undervalued within the dominant higher education discourse in the UK and as a consequence maintains professional, intellectual and economic barriers against closer working and co-operation. These barriers are also reflected within peer review and esteem indicators awarded to journals or to researchers and their departments. The allocation of resources via research grants or funding councils reinforce these separations and divisions. In a sense there is an inherent bias against understanding of structures, systems and organisations which claim to promote greater transparency and understanding of policy and practice. During times of economic and political stability it may be possible for this environment to remain stable and functioning. Indeed, we can argue that it was through a period of change (in the UK) from the Labour Government of the 1970s to the Thatcher – New Right-Government of the 1980s that an era of ‘new public management’ was identified and researched. (Diamond & Liddle, 2012) One of the consequences of the rise of neoliberalism has been its impact on the relative certainties of the public sector and the relationships between

30

JOYCE LIDDLE AND JOHN DIAMOND

the state, political institutions, and civil society. We think that the disruptions to these settled relationships have consequences too for how we think or frame public management education. As we have commented: These potential uncertainties or disruptions include the following: the way we think of knowledge and the disciplinary boundaries we create and the extent to which these constructions facilitate or inhibit thinking across boundaries; the ways in which we create, develop and plan the curriculum and teaching and learning approaches within higher education to develop and support the current and next generation of managers; the place of research and critical enquiry within our disciplines and how research cultures are fostered and nurtured across disciplinary and organisational boundaries; the extent to which the distinctions between public, private and not for profit are fixed and unchanging; the relationship(s) between and within these different categorisations and the teaching, learning and research implications these relationships have for managers, researchers and professionals; the ways in which the concept and practice of public administration [are] understood across different professional disciplines; and the extent to which teaching, learning and research practice encourages critical self-reflection. (See Boud & Middleton, 2003; Claxton, 2006; Huxham & Vangan, 2005; Karlsson, Anderberg, Booth, Odenrick, & Christmansson, 2008). (Diamond & Liddle, 2012) It seems to us that this exploration of how we might re-frame our definition of public management/administration and where it might sit within a university setting invites a broader examination of the idea of the ‘‘public’’ and the role of universities in the promotion of a civic or social good. The focus of this edited collection is on the ways in which our shared understanding, assumptions, or expectations of public management/ administration have been contested or are being contested. In one sense we accept that the focus of the discussion on the organizational or institutional home of such provision is at best marginal to the more significant discussions about the relationships between the state and civil society but we think it is important for the following reasons:  Organizational structures do matter – they confer legitimacy on the activity and they ascribe roles and validate those who have status and power within such structures;  Multi- or interdisciplinary work while valued (at times) still represents a challenge to conventional ways of organizing subject categories and disciplines;

Business and Management Schools in Times of Crisis and Austerity

31

 Transdisciplinary work (at all levels) can be seen to challenge received ways of thinking and working and can challenge existing structures and organizational working;  Intra-organizational change as well as inter-organizational innovation can be destabilizing for existing systems and modes of practice;  Analyzing the organizational structures and boundaries within which public management education is configured is revealing of its status, legitimacy, and potential for development within its home agency.  Organizational structures do matter – they confer legitimacy on the activity and they ascribe roles and validate those who have status and power within such structures We understand that structures matter. We do recognize that they can provide support and supervision for those working in difficult or challenging areas. But part of our concern is to try to avoid the institutionalization of such structures such that they inhibit innovation and change. We would welcome the acceptance of more flexible structures so that they have little impact on shaping and influencing decision-makers and decision-making.  Multi- or interdisciplinary work while valued (at times) still represents a challenge to conventional ways of organizing subject categories and disciplines There are many ways in which the categorization of knowledge and subject disciplines restricts different or alternative ways of thinking and working. We want to promote multi- or interdisciplinary work as ways of framing the knowledge/subject discipline discourse. We think we would observe high levels of resistance to such an approach but also observe individuals looking to take the opportunity for their development. These boundaries that act as inhibitors to change are very evident in professional settings and thus challenging them within the university sector has real implications for change outside (Burns, 2007; Hess & Adam, 2002; Jones & Morris, 2008; Kaban & Smith, 2010; Lee & Danby, 2012a, 2012b).  Transdisciplinary work (at all levels) can be seen to challenge received ways of thinking and working and can challenge existing structures and organizational working Working across organizational and subject boundaries will challenge existing ways of working. It will be experienced by many as a threat and

32

JOYCE LIDDLE AND JOHN DIAMOND

challenge to their status and security. But part of our critique is based upon the fact that working within existing boundaries or without clear models of governance and accountability have been key elements in the crisis. These different ways of thinking are informed by looking and thinking about the broader intellectual and practice debate on how we promote independent, self-confident learners, and practitioners (Amin & Roberts, 2008; Gordon & Whitchurch, 2010).  Intra-organizational change as well as inter-organizational innovation can be destabilizing for existing systems and modes of practice Thinking about the internal worlds of organizations or agencies is only part of the new curriculum for management education across the public sector it needs to draw on how innovation and change can be used to effect different ways of thinking. We have experienced organizational or institutional change as disruptive and challenging and we think that such approaches need to be informed by a wider set of questions including ethical factors, models of governance and accountability, and a sense of how to support long-term cultural change (Let’s Hear Those Ideas, 2010; McQuaid, 2010; Mulgan, 2007; Starkey & Tempest, 2008).  Analyzing the organizational structures and boundaries within which public management education is configured is revealing of its status, legitimacy, and potential for development within its home agency The home base of management education reveals the extent to which it is rooted in existing ways of working and thinking. We accept that thinking differently about the organizational home may be seen as peripheral to a broader set of questions. But we are attracted to the idea of framing such provision quite deliberately in a context that does bring together practice (and practitioners), knowledge (and how we frame it), and a sense of independent but supported learning, teaching, and thinking (Wenger, 1998; Vangen & Huxham, 2003). We think that such a model turns the existing ways on working on their head by promoting the links between the external worlds of practice and the internal worlds of the university. In a sense it is this idea of valuing ‘‘borderless enquiry’’ that we want to promote (Diamond & Roberts, 2006; Fook, 2010). We think that these questions and ideas can be encapsulated in Table 1. But these conceptual and curriculum issues are, themselves, bound up in a deeper and more political or philosophical discussion surrounding the nature of state, market, and civil society relationships.

Business and Management Schools in Times of Crisis and Austerity

33

Table 1. Reimagining a New Public Management Curriculum.  The ‘‘knowledge’’ debate – how we define, categorize and value different forms of knowledge, from abstract propositional knowledge to embedded knowledge (Gilbert, 2009).  The value of ‘‘critical reflective practice’’ – how it is defined, understood, experienced and analyzed, and the significance of embedding the idea of criticality into reflective practice (Bradbury, Frost, Kilminster, & Zukas, 2010).  The necessity of examining and learning from ‘‘collaborative’’ or ‘‘cross-boundary’’ working – using the discourse of cross-boundary working to explore the ways in which individuals working in organisations are able (or not) to develop and sustain ways of working which cut across the boundaries of disciplines or professional knowledge (Benneworth, 2007; Walsh & Kahn, 2010; Whitchurch, 2008; Williams, 2002).  The extent to which the academy values learning from professional practice and in so doing organizes the learning and the supervision so that it is seen as valuable and legitimate (Brew & Peseta 2009).

QUESTIONING THE ROLE OF BUSINESS AND MANAGEMENT SCHOOLS The educational, intellectual, and even moral collapse of the conventional business school has been heralded and various models have been advocated in response to the critics and to the current economic crisis (Pfeffer & Fong, 2002, 2004; Grey, 2004; Starkey & Tiratsoo, 2007). Ferlie suggests four main reasons why business schools have been criticized: (i) business schools have detached themselves from management practice and developed a pseudo-scientific research base, dominated by natural sciences and economics research paradigms, (ii) the rise of economics and finance has led to technical, quantitative research methods and specialist publications, (iii) current research leads to career building of academics, with publications in peer-reviewed journals that few people read, and (iv) management research becomes esoteric rather than imaginative. Clearly the economic crisis gives us a good opportunity to reflect on the future health and potential of business and management schools, and especially the discipline of public management within them, in the medium to long term. We need to ask the question on whether or not they are producing what students, managers and wider society require for the future. There has been a healthy expansion in journals and books on public administration and management, but a lack of PhD students in the field presents a worrying trend (PAC, 2010). Nevertheless, as societal problems escalate, the multi-, interdisciplinary, and international focus of the public management topic demands ever greater attention and concern.

34

JOYCE LIDDLE AND JOHN DIAMOND

We need a clearer understanding of the exact role of a business/ management school, more especially how they are contributing to knowledge production and transfer beyond the academy, principally into management networks and professional bodies. What these schools offer must be relevant and applied to problems, despite the fact that this knowledge will be contested. In educating modern public managers, there needs to be a movement away from narrow and technically appropriate curriculum design to more critical awareness and the building of a long-term knowledge base. Public management scholars, due to their complex and diverse disciplinary knowledge bases, are very well placed to work with students, professionals, organizations, and agencies in developing new knowledge that is appropriate and applicable to modern-day problems. Knowledge for its own sake is still very valued, but knowledge that improves organizational performance is of equal validity; both have relevance. Starkey and Tiratsoo (2007) commented on how catastrophic it would be to have nations of technically competent people who have lost their ability to think critically, to examine themselves and to respect the humanity and diversity of others. In the advent of stringent funding cuts in the future, business courses should be more than a technical training and more akin to broad social science and humanities offerings that do not satisfy business organizations but that are of relevance to not-for-profit and third-sector organizations. Ferlie advocates more practice-connected schools and a rebalancing of MBA curriculum to include awareness of humanities and ethical questions. He calls for outward facing business schools engaged with broader themes that reflect the public interest. A recent special edition of the British Journal of Management carried a range of articles about the potential demise of university business schools due to their incapacity to respond to a complex mix of stakeholders. Ferlie, McGiven, and De Moraes (2010), in the same issue, suggested that public managers/leaders are facing huge future challenges, and existing research, teaching, and consultancy offerings in higher education institutions (HEIs) and business schools should better reflect societal needs, be more aligned to ‘‘public interest’’ and the realities of broader societal forces. Moreover, an increase in multi-cultural societies, health, criminal justice, security, and resilience, and environmental concerns are increasingly shaping specific ‘‘organizational forms’’ and different ‘‘places,’’ meaning that consensual strategies for transforming localities and places will be essential. These seismic shifts will alter social and economic attitudes, and force multi-agency leaders to rethink strategies. Writing in 2005, Eric Cornuel, of the European Foundation of Management Development, argued that the future legitimacy of these organizations

Business and Management Schools in Times of Crisis and Austerity

35

would no longer be questioned because there was general agreement that they had become legitimate parts of society with a clear role (Cornuel, 2005). However, in the intervening period and as the aforementioned global downturn took hold, scholars and the media began to view the predominant model as suspect (Currie, Knights, & Starkey, 2010). Cornuel (2010) later reflected on whether or not management education was then responsible, in part at least, for unknowingly producing a limited number of crooks among tens of thousands of honest, incorruptible managers. Some scholars argued that business and management schools had become complicit in the financial crisis (Currie et al., 2010), and Podonly (2009) went as far as to claim that academics in business and management schools preferred to develop obscure theoretical models, with limited criticality and insufficient potential for clarifying how organizations work (or don’t work). Others have suggested that business and management schools have reached a plateau in their extraordinary growth trajectory and in clear danger of impending decline in response to the economic realities since 2007 (Wilson & McKiernan, 2011).

PHILOSOPHY, POLITICS, AND PRACTICE: RESHAPING PUBLIC MANAGEMENT EDUCATION? A legacy of neoliberalism has been the profound ideological challenge it presented to the idea or the concept of a ‘‘public realm’’ or the notion of a ‘‘public sector.’’ While we accept that these are two slightly different sets of ideas, we think that they sit together because of the challenge to their legitimacy as organizing principles for civil society. It seems important to observe that the attack on the idea of a public sector and a social/welfare state within the United Kingdom but also across other advanced capitalist economies is one that has had a significant impact and one that over the longer term will still have consequences for how we imagine our model of public management education to develop. The implications for universities of the neoliberal legacy and the ways in which we organize, structure, and manage research, teaching, and relationships with the worlds of business, commerce, and public/not-for-profit agencies have been very significant. The critiques that are offered tend to focus on the compliance between business and management schools and corporate/global financial interests. According to Locke and Spender (2011), US led management or business schools offered models of education

36

JOYCE LIDDLE AND JOHN DIAMOND

and practice based upon a highly limited idea of education. In a real sense, they argue, the US model was anti-intellectual and anti-critical and reflective thinking. As a consequence as different traditions developed within US university schools of management or business, they took for granted the model of capitalism that developed in the states and, over time, sought to prepare managers for that particular model. In their analysis they argue that the US approach was itself a reflection of a broader academic or disciplinary debate – where to draw the disciplinary boundaries – and drew in a diverse group of scholars, researchers, and practitioners (from organizational psychology to the social sciences to new forms of knowledge in marketing and business). Boundary questions of what constitutes not just a program or a curriculum but also how do we structure and configure our groupings of scholars in unit or department represent significant organizational and intellectual or pedagogic questions. But, they are, also, questions about the value and purpose of the curriculum and the teaching and learning and research which goes onto inform such developments. In a way the weakness of the Locke and Spender analysis is that they overstate their critique of the US model of management/business education by undervaluing the pedagogic questions. As we suggested above, part of this discussion brings together not just the issues of ideology and politics but also philosophy and practice too. The work of both Callinicos (1999) and Harvey (2010) provide important and very contrasting views to those of Locke and Spender. Callinicos’ essay explores the relative merits of Anthony Giddens and Pierre Bourdieu in seeking to reflect upon the relationships of social democracy and neoliberalism and their understandings of these relationships. The analysis offered by Callinicos is relevant to our discussions because he is looking at the ways in which they define, clarify, and reflect upon the links between social change, social action (by an individual or group), and the role of the state. It is these competing interpretations that are important to think about which point to the ways in which we locate individual action and choice (or some abstract concept of choice) and the role of the state in regulating such actions or enabling them. In the context of advanced capitalist economies, as Callinicos argues, experience suggests that the state has withdrawn from its regulatory role in both protecting the weak and managing private/corporate interests. For Callinicos the questions are about whether this model of behavior is here for the long term or whether by organizing group or collective action it is possible to shift the balance of power toward individual or more vulnerable groups in society. He suggests that the prospects (even in 1999) are not positive.

Business and Management Schools in Times of Crisis and Austerity

37

Harvey (2010) writing nearly a decade later but from a shared perspective locates this discussion in a broader (global) context. Callinicos was examining how different philosophers framed the relationships between individuals and society, whereas Harvey attempts to sketch out much broader sets of relationships. He makes the point that one of the consequences of the ideological shift from social democracy to a neoliberalism has been the dominance of market-based solutions to the problems of civil society. He draws from this that, over time, the institutions of the state (political, social, and welfare as well as education) reflect these values and ways of seeing the world. In this context, he argues, universities (and by implication business and management schools) reflect these dominant social and commercial values. His primary point (for our purposes) is that – despite internal as well as individual differences within and between academics and scholars – the development of a shared frame of reference is the significant development to reflect upon. The extent to which we can observe a loss of critical thinking and reflection across the sector as a whole is a theme taken up by Stefan Collini’s book What Are Universities For? (2012). In a very real sense it is possible to read Collini’s analysis of what has happened to the UK higher education system over the past 30 years as an entertaining and thought-provoking polemic. We think that, while it is both of these things, it would be an underestimation of the thoughtfulness of his approach to marginalize it in this way. What Collini does is to bring together a number of important but separate discussions: the demand and supply of higher education places within the United Kingdom and how they are to be paid for; the competing claims for academic legitimacy within disciplines/between disciplines and between universities; and the globalization of higher education as a product and how it is sold internationally. He makes a strong case for suggesting that each of these different, separate but connected strands of his analysis has in their different ways weakened the intellectual autonomy and standing of UK HEIs. But for our purpose they raise again the relationships between the wider society, the academy and the ways in which we frame our discipline. Perhaps we need to reposition our understanding of the models of public management or the public sector by placing the discussion in a much broader context. There is a case, we think, for restating the case for the concept of public management education and at the same time we feel quite relaxed about the organizational or structural home that would sit in. We might label such structures as management schools but they could be institutes or centers. It seems to us that we might want to remain flexible and

38

JOYCE LIDDLE AND JOHN DIAMOND

open on the language ad settings we decide upon. But we do recognize that there is an important intellectual as well as a pedagogical set of questions to address and to discuss. The intellectual case is well made (in very different ways) by Hind (2010) and Davies (2011). Dan Hind’s The Return of the Public is a thoughtful book that restates the case for a civil society which has legitimacy, rights, and political authority to hold governments as well as business to account. It is an analysis of why we need to reinvent our notion of a civil society supported by and supporting vibrant civic institutions and leaders. In a way the case is made here for developing programs that value, promote (as well as critically reflect upon), and analyze the nature of power and decisionmaking locally, regionally, as well as nationally and internationally. By placing such activity (or encouraging it to be located) within management schools or schools for civil society, we start to think differently about the organizational as well as the disciplinary boundaries within which such activity might be located. Hind is making a number of important points and in his book he outlines the case for greater access to knowledge and describes his model of civil society as a new commonwealth. It seems to us that these are quite different ways of framing the discussion than by sticking to ones that are defined by some abstract idea of subject field or discipline. The work of Jonathan Davies (2011) takes a very different intellectual and ideological stance but there is a shared discourse. Essentially, Davies is arguing for an empowered and politicized civil society or sets of institutions or agencies that are able to challenge existing structures. He makes this case based upon his analysis of the dominance of neoliberalism both as a set of ideas and also of being able to shape the organization and institutions of civil society. As he suggests, the very organizations (networks or partnerships between the state, the third sector and not-for-profit organizations) that are claimed to be politically neutral or see themselves as representing excluded interests are part of the state infrastructure. As a consequence we need to see such relationships as existing on condition that they meet the needs of the state. In a way we can see such relationships or agencies as existing as a result of permission being granted rather than through the individuals or groups creating their own spaces for change or dialogue. The scale of the debate raises a number of important but separate questions for us to reflect upon. They bring together different ways of defining and analyzing society – its structures, institutions, modes and forms of governance as well as how we organize, develop, promote, and reward scholars working in the field. We are attracted to the ideas of creating schools for, or of civil society and we are interested in how these might be

Business and Management Schools in Times of Crisis and Austerity

39

organized. The schools for social entrepreneurs established by Michael Young in the late 1990s offer a model for us to think about. We think that one way of imagining how they might work is to start from the premise that they are about bringing in and developing relationships that cut across organizational/institutional boundaries as well as forms of knowledge. We discuss what these might be like below.

SCHOOLS FOR CIVIL SOCIETY: RISKY LEARNING? This chapter is a contribution to what, we think, is an important debate bringing together different strands of thinking and practice in teaching, learning, and researching public management and administration. Our starting point has been the scale and impact of the global economic crisis. We think that this represents one of those profound moments of social, political, and economic change. Thus, while the full consequences of the changes experienced since 2007 are still not evident, we can be sure that they will affect political institutions and the relationships between the state, civil society, and the market (Coote, 2010; Notes from Nowhere 2003; Pearce, 2010). The ways in which these relationships are reconstructed and contested have significant implications for those existing institutions of governance and administration present within liberal capitalist economies. We think, as a consequence of the impact of the crisis on the relationships between the state and civil society, we can anticipate a restructuring of existing systems and processes of governance (including ideas of democratic oversight and representation). These changes have implications too for the recruitment, selection, education, training, and management of public managers and associated ‘‘public sector’’ professionals. We have touched on one aspect of these processes, namely the possible model of teaching and learning we might adopt in response to the crises. We suggest that a core proposition represented by our model above is the stress we place on the ideas of collaborative learning through enquiry as well as through the co-construction/ co-production of a curriculum to inform such enquiry. We are not suggesting that there is a natural organizational ‘‘home’’ for such a model of learning, rather that it is contingent upon a recognition of the necessity to bring together a multi-disciplinary approach that, in turn, promotes, encourages, and values self-reflection rooted in a critical analysis of the state and its political and administrative institutions.

40

JOYCE LIDDLE AND JOHN DIAMOND

The key question then is ‘‘Are business and management schools still ‘fit for purpose’?’’ Clearly the whole public sector system, including university business and management schools as an integral element, is undergoing profound changes in organization, management, funding, and operations. A recent report from the Global Foundation for Management Education entitled ‘‘From Challenge to Change: Business Schools in the Wake of the Financial Crisis’’ included essays from accomplished business academicians and eminent thinkers and commentators on the exact shape of management education for the future. The general view, however, was that business and management schools would benefit from a period of reflection on what they do, and how they have done things in the past, to inform future priorities. Overall, they call for more social responsibility and ethical practices (Cornuel, 2010), warn against the danger of homogeneity and a ‘‘one size fits all’’ mentality (Kozminski, 2010), and propose more importance given to ‘‘finding the voice of practice’’ (Thomas & Wilson, 2010). We want to offer the following way of thinking about how we might promote, encourage learning and reflection in our ‘‘imagined’’ School for/of Civil Society. We have been struck by the different ways in which individuals and groups promote and share their learning. Paul Mason (2012) talks of how one of his reports on the global crisis has become an online discussion/learning board over which he has no control but has been taken up by bloggers. The book We Are Everywhere: The Irresistible Rise of Global Anti-Capitalism (2003), published at the height of the antiglobalization struggles in Seattle, is now used in classrooms in a number of countries (including the United States). The unexpected potential of the net opens up a number of possibilities that we need to think about and reflect upon. It seems to us that framing such schools as places where individuals and groups can learn from each other as well as share their ideas across different agencies and ways of working offers a number of possibilities. The shifts in civil unrest in North Africa as well as across Europe and Latin America and China in the wake of global changes provide us with a range of fascinating possibilities. We have reviewed this literature because we think that it offers a possible counterpoint to some of the dominant literature and thinking across management education. In particular, we think that it captures three key propositions examined above. Firstly, the scale of the crisis requires to think about the examples or models of practice we present to students, and this includes the underlying concepts and organizational structures present across management/business education. Secondly, we think that there is a

Business and Management Schools in Times of Crisis and Austerity

41

link between framing the discussion in terms of the ideas of ‘‘borderless enquiry’’ or cross-boundary working because that helps to frame our thinking beyond the known and familiar. It invites us to think in a much more reflective way. We are, in a sense, forced to bring together different ways of seeing and thinking and to make the connections between such different discourses. Finally, it makes the connections real on a global scale. And it is the connections between the local and the global that need to be at the center of public sector/management/administration education.

CONCLUSION In this chapter we have attempted to re-imagine what business or management schools might look like as they engage with the complexities of the global economic downturn. While we may have over-stressed the challenges such schools face, we do think that revisiting of both the content and the teaching and learning approaches is necessary. We offer this critique as part of a more reflective and nuanced approach to the future of public sector/ management/administration learning and thinking that is present in this collection. We do recognize that researchers, academics and practitioners occupy different intellectual and professional spaces and that it is when these spaces touch or overlap that we can observe creative and thoughtful thinking and doing. But we think too that such potential to be creative is also linked to (or sometimes contingent upon) the extent to which these connecting and overlapping spaces can be stretched. There is, too, a sense of how such cross-boundary work is valued and given legitimacy within the academy. It is the tensions both within the sector as well as the tensions outside and with potential partners that we need to acknowledge. For these reasons we remain cautious about the extent to which the existing models of learning and organizations will be able to anticipate new ways of working that challenge the status quo. If we had to think of a list of necessary but not sufficient factors, it would include the ones below. But we do accept that they represent a challenge to accepted ways of thinking.  Promoting transdisciplinary knowledge  Supporting and valuing collaboration across boundaries of place/space and nation  Celebrating what Willetts, Mitchell, Abeysuriya, and Fam (2012) describes as ‘‘borderless enquiry’’

42

JOYCE LIDDLE AND JOHN DIAMOND

 Business and management schools as part of the messy milieu between consultants, journalists, media, and public relations; they could bridge the gaps more effectively and leverage these bodies to work alongside on societal problems  Strengthening the voice of public sector academics in business and management schools in national and international arenas where decisions are made on curriculum, accreditation AACSB, AMBA, EFMD, or on journal ranking panels such as ABS, and research monitoring and measuring panels such as the REF (Research Excellence Framework)  Engaging in public debates outside of the academy, being more outward facing and less insular  Being part of the broader value chains in inter-departmental linkages and other university wide channels (e.g., science and technology)  Enhancing knowledge transfer activities (working alongside sociologists, politicians, economists, and other disciplines)  Broadening out the curricula to encapsulate broader socioeconomic and politically relevant topics  Promoting ethics and corporate social responsibility – Engaging with scientific innovation, and looking for ways of applying them to societal problems – Promoting relevance in research and teaching, and ensuring that the messiness between academic research, policy and practice are valued and promoted as part of a broader engagement with civil society.

REFERENCES Amin, A., & Roberts, J. (Eds.). (2008). Community, economic creativity and organization. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Benneworth, P. (2007, December). Leading innovation: Building effective regional coalitions for innovation. NESTA Research Report. National Endowment for Science, Technology and Arts, London, UK. Boud, D., & Lee, A. (Eds.). (2009). Changing practices of doctoral education. London, UK: Routledge. Boud, D., & Middleton, H. (2003). Learning from others at work: Communities of practice and informal learning. Journal of Workplace Learning, 15(5), 194–202. Bradbury, H., Frost, N., Kilminster, S., & Zukas, M. (2010). Beyond reflective practice. London, UK: Routledge. Brew, A., & Peseta, T. (2009). Supervision development and recognition in a reflective space. In D. Boud & A. Lee (Eds.) Changing practices of doctoral education (pp. 126–140). London, UK: Routledge. Burns, D. (2007). Systemic action research. Bristol, UK: The Policy Press.

Business and Management Schools in Times of Crisis and Austerity

43

Callinicos, A. (1999). Social theory: A historical introduction. Cambridge: Polity Press. Claxton, G. (2006). Expanding the capacity to learn: A new end for education? Paper presented at British Educational Research Association annual conference, September, 2006, Warwick University, Coventry, UK. Collini, S. (2012). What are universities for? London, UK: Penguin. Coote, A. (2010). Cutting it: The big society and the new austerity. London, UK: New Economics Foundation. Cornuel, E. (2005). The role of the business school in society. Journal of Management Development, 24(9), 819–829. Cornuel, E. (2010). Are business schools to blame for the current economic crisis? In From challenge to change: Business schools in the wake of financial crisis (pp. 31–32). Tampa, FL: Global Foundation for Management Education; Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing. Costley, C., & Stephenson, J. (2009). Building doctorates around individual candidates’ professional experience. In D. Boud & A. Lee (Eds.), Changing practice of doctoral education. London, UK: Routledge. Currie, G., Knights, D., & Starkey, K. (2010). Introduction: A post-crisis critical reflection on business schools. British Journal of Management, 21, 1–5. Danby, S., & Lee, A. (2012). Framing doctoral pedagogy as design and action. In A. Lee & S. Danby (Eds.), Reshaping doctoral education: International approaches and pedagogies (pp. 3–11). London, UK: Routledge. Davies, J. (2011). Challenging governance theory. Bristol, UK: The Policy Press. Diamond, J., & Liddle, J. (2005). Management of regeneration. London, UK: Routledge. Diamond, J., & Liddle, J. (2009). Regeneration management and globalisation: Developing a synthesis? Local Government Studies, 35(3), 293–298. Diamond, J., & Liddle, J. (2012). Reflections and speculations on teaching and learning in public administration. Public Policy and Administration, 27(3), 265–277. Diamond, J., & Roberts, S. (2006). Intra-organisational collaboration: A story of gains and losses. Teaching Public Administration, 26(2), 28–36. Ferlie, E., McGiven, G., & De Moraes, A. (2010). Developing a public interest school of management. British Journal of Management, 21(1), 60–70. Fook, J. (2010). Beyond reflective practice: reworking the ‘critical’ in critical reflection. In H. Bradbury, N. Frost, S. Kliminster & M. Zukas (Eds.), Beyond reflective practice: New approaches to professional lifelong learning. London, UK: Routledge. Gilbert, R. (2009). The doctorate as curriculum: A perspective on goals and outcomes of doctoral education. In D. Boud & A. Lee (Eds.), Changing practice of doctoral education (pp. 54–68). London, UK: Routledge. Gordon, G., & Whitchurch, C. (Eds.). (2010). Academic and professional identities in higher education. London, UK: Routledge. Grey, C. (2004). Reinventing business schools: The contribution of critical management education. Academy of Management, Learning & Education, 3, 178–186. Hagen, R., & Liddle, J. (2007). Changing strategic direction for executive development in the public sector. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 20(4), 325–340. Harvey, D. (2010). The enigma of capital and the crises of capitalism. London, UK: Profile Books. Hess, M., & Adams, D. (2002). Knowing and skilling in contemporary public administration. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 61(4), 68–79. Hind, D. (2010). The return of the public. London, UK: Verso Books.

44

JOYCE LIDDLE AND JOHN DIAMOND

Huxham, C., & Vangan, S. (2005). Managing to collaborate. London, UK: Routledge. Jones, A., & Morris, K. (2008). Can collaboration help places respond to the changing economy? London, UK: The Work Foundation. Kaban, K., & Smith, S. (2010). Developing critical reflection within an inter-professional learning programme. In H. Bradbury, N. Frost, S. Kilminster & M. Zukas (Eds.), Beyond reflective practice. London, UK: Routledge. Karlsson, J., Anderberg, E., Booth, S., Odenrick, P., & Christmansson, M. (2008). Reaching beyond disciplines through collaboration. Journal of Work Place Learning, 20(2), 98–113. Kozminski, A. K. (2010). The new revolution in management education? In From challenge to change: Business schools in the wake of financial crisis (pp. 14–17). Tampa, FL: Global Foundation for Management Education; Emerald Group Publishing. Lee, A., & Danby, S. (2012a). Preface. In A. Lee & S. Danby (Eds.), Reshaping doctoral education: International approaches and pedagogies (pp. xxiii–vvvii). London, UK: Routledge. Lee, A., & Danby, S. (Eds.). (2012b). Reshaping doctoral education. London, UK: Routledge. Liddle, J., & Diamond, J. (2007). Reflections on regeneration management skills research. Public Money and Management, 27(3), 189–192. Liddle, J., & Diamond, J. (2008). Neighbourhood management in the UK: New forms of government, institutions and networks. In A. Bissessar (Ed.), Governance and institutional re-engineering (pp. 20–37). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Scholars Press. Locke, R., & Spender, J. C. (2011). Confronting managerialism: How the business elite and their schools threw our lives out of balance. London, UK: Zed Books. Mason, P. (2012). Why it’s kicking off everywhere: The new global revolutions. London: Verso Books. McMillian, E. (2012). Foreward. In A. Lee & S. Danby (Eds.), Reshaping doctoral education: International approaches and pedagogies (pp. xvii–xxii). London, UK: Routledge. McQuaid, R. W. (2010). Theory of organisational partnerships: Partnerships advantages, disadvantages and success factors. In S. Osborne (Ed.), The new public governance. London, UK: Routledge. Mulgan, G. (2007). Ready or not: Taking innovation in the public sector seriously. London, UK: NESTA Provocation 03. Notes from Nowhere (Ed.). (2003). We are everywhere: The irresistible rise of global anti-capitalism. London, UK: Verso. Pearce, J. (2010). Co-producing knowledge: Critical reflections on researching participation. In J. Pearce (Ed.), Participation and democracy in the 21st century (pp. 34–50). Basingstoke, Hampshire, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Pfeffer, J., & Fong, C. (2002). The end of business schools? Less success than meets the eye. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 1(1), 78–95. Podonly, J. (2009). The buck stops (and starts) at business schools. Harvard Business Review, June, 906–915. Public Administration Committee (PAC). (2010). Debate on the future of Public Management. Nottingham Trent University annual conference, September 5–7, Nottingham, UK. Starkey, K., & Tempest, S. (2008). A clear sense of purpose? The evolving role of the business school. Journal of Management Development, 27, 379–390. Starkey, K., & Tiratsoo, N. (2007). The business school and the bottom line. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Business and Management Schools in Times of Crisis and Austerity

45

The Economist. (2010). Let’s hear those ideas. The Economist August 12, pp. 55–57. Retrieved from http://www.economist.com/node/16789766 Thomas, H., & Wilson, A. (2010). Impactful management research: The importance of finding the voice of practice in management research. In From challenge to change: business schools in the wake of financial crisis. Tampa, FL: Global Foundation for Management Education; Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing. Vangen, S., & Huxham, C. (2003). Managing trust in inter-organisational collaboration: Conceptualisations and tools. In P. Hibbert (Ed.), Co-creating emergent insights. Glasgow, UK: University of Strathclyde. Walsh, L., & Kahn, P. (2010). Theoretical perspectives: Collaborative cocktail. In L. Walsh & P. Khan (Eds.), Collaborative working in higher education (pp. 27–52). London, UK: Routledge. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Whitchurch, C. (2008). Beyond administration and management: Reconstructing the identities of professional staff in the UK higher education. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 30(4), 375–386. Willetts, J., Mitchell, C., Abeysuriya, K., & Fam, D. (2012). The creative tensions of the transdisciplinary discourse. In A. Lee & S. Danby (Eds.), Reshaping doctoral education: International approaches and pedagogies (pp. 128–143). London, UK: Routledge. Williams, P. (2002). The competent boundary spanner. Public Administration, 80(1), 103–124. Wilson, D., & McKiernan, P. (2011). Global mimicry: Putting strategic choices back on the business school agenda. British Journal of Management, 22, 457–469.

CHAPTER 3 MAINSTREAMING EQUALITY: CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR PUBLIC MANAGEMENT Stuart Speeden ABSTRACT Purpose – The purpose of this chapter is to consider ‘‘equality mainstreaming’’ as an international policy and to explore some of the implications this raises for public management. Design/Methodology/Approach – The methodology is based on literature review looking at the way gender mainstreaming practices have developed a wider application to equality mainstreaming. Examining the relationship between mainstreaming and evidence-based management, it comments on the challenges this poses for public management. Findings – Equality mainstreaming and its implications have been largely absent from public management discourse despite the growth of equality mainstreaming in international policy. Research limitations/Implications – Research in public management should address mainstreaming and its potential for social change.

Emerging and Potential Trends in Public Management: An Age of Austerity Critical Perspectives on International Public Sector Management, Volume 1, 47–72 Copyright r 2012 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 2045-7944/doi:10.1108/S2045-7944(2012)0000001006

47

48

STUART SPEEDEN

Practical implications – This chapter brings this issue to the forefront in an effort to engage academics and public managers. Social implications – This chapter raises theoretical questions about mainstreaming and social change in favor of equality. It is a starting point for further research on public management as a tool for shifting organizational and societal values. Originality/Value – The chapter provides an overview of previous literature and policy development in this area and then moves on to explore the implications of extending mainstreaming as a concept to other policy areas and examines both challenges and opportunities raised by this approach for the management of values in public services. Keywords: Public services; equality mainstreaming; public management; public sector; policy-making; evidence-based management

INTRODUCTION This chapter is concerned with public management and its relationship with equality and human rights. Developments in global and national institutions over the past two decades have significantly placed equality and human rights on the policy agenda. It is far from a universal commitment to those principles, but from the UN downward, there has been gradual growth in the number of organizations who pledge through their aims and policy statements a commitment to work toward equality. To a large degree the engagement with equality focuses on gender equality, but in a number of countries, including European countries, Canada, South Africa, Australia, and the United States, this commitment has embraced a wider range of equality strands: race and ethnicity, gender, disability, sexual orientation, age, and religious belief. In those countries that have embraced a strong political commitment to equality, there has been an emphasis on the law as a means for reducing disadvantage by outlawing forms of discrimination. Alongside these legal measures, there has been a growing movement in support of ‘‘equality mainstreaming’’ as a means for delivering a wider societal change that works toward the elimination of structural disadvantage. Mainstreaming as an approach has developed through the women’s movement as a way of

Mainstreaming Equality

49

addressing gender inequality. It is in the field of gender equality that we find its application most widespread and where its intellectual foundations lie. The extension of the principles to a wider range of equality issues has been an important development in recent years, and these developments have extended the scope of thinking around the policy process. Through this work, thought about the policy process and its relationship to mainstreaming has become more advanced and raises significant issues about how gender equality (and other equality issues) can be embedded as values within all aspects of public policy and public service delivery (Bacchi & Eveline, 2010; Lombardo, Meier, & Verloo, 2009). The growing importance of gender mainstreaming and the development of an associated human rights agenda have had an influence on policy in global and international institutions, particularly the UN, and this in turn has brought both gender mainstreaming and human rights into public policy and management. Policy initiatives can be seen widely across countries ranging from Bolivia to India and South Africa, from Canada to Australia and the 27 countries of the European Union. To explore the implications of these policies, the chapter focuses mainly on Europe where the relationship between gender mainstreaming and human rights has been evolving into a wider ‘‘equality’’ agenda that seeks to mainstream ‘‘equality’’ as a wider approach to anti-discrimination and human rights to address race and ethnicity, disability, sexual orientation, age, and religious and political belief as well as sex and gender. This pattern is not exclusive to Europe and developments can be seen in a number of countries; however, Europe provides a strong example of the way this policy agenda is developing and is an illustration of its growing relevance for public management. The aim, here, is to consider the importance of equality mainstreaming for practitioners and managers involved in the policy process by providing an overview of the development of equality mainstreaming showing both its importance and its theoretical underpinnings. The purpose here is to demonstrate how mainstreaming seeks to move ‘‘equality’’ from its position as a broad policy goal into all aspects of policy and management so that it is embedded as a core value throughout the policy and administrative processes, its professions, and its education. A mainstreamed approach relies heavily on the functioning of the policy process. The global growth in the principle of mainstreaming equality and human rights should make it a matter of concern to those involved in policy, politics, law, and public management. It, however, remains largely a specialist interest and has not yet become part of the ‘‘mainstream’’

50

STUART SPEEDEN

for public management. The methodology involved in mainstreaming has developed alongside developments in new public management (NPM) and, in particular, evidence-based policy and practice (Bacchi & Eveline, 2004). This means that it relies heavily on public managers’ understanding and interpretation of evidence that, in turn, presupposes their knowledge of equality issues. There are weaknesses in these underlying assumptions, especially the reliance on public managers to construct and apply knowledge about equality. In part this may be addressed by a ‘‘mainstreamed’’ approach to equality within public management, but more important, it is argued, is the importance of moving from a top-down vision of mainstreaming to one that is grounded in the knowledge and experience of those experiencing inequality and discrimination. This poses some challenging questions for evidence-based policy-making and places greater emphasis on involvement, engagement and deliberation with stakeholders as a precondition both for understanding inequality and the development of policies that may change outcomes. A top-down vision of mainstreaming relies on the expectation that evidence-based management can effectively embed equality across institutions. This idea rests on the assumption that managers ‘‘know’’ through ‘‘evidence’’ but in an area of public policy that has contested interpretations and meanings and where policy may often lead to unintended outcomes; the idea of equality mainstreaming poses a serious challenge for public managers and for evidence-based approaches. It is suggested here that evidence and knowledge rooted in ‘‘bottom-up’’ policy development through deliberative engagement with stakeholders hold greater promise than ‘‘top-down’’ managerial methods and that process is as important as outcome in the delivery of a mainstreamed approach. Although the discussion focuses on equality mainstreaming, the issues raised here have a broader relevance for the mainstreaming of values, such as environmental sustainability or anti-poverty through policy and public management.

GENDER MAINSTREAMING In the past two decades there has been a significant growth in the development of anti-discrimination and human rights legislation globally. While there have been a number of local factors involved in these developments, such as the ending of apartheid in South Africa and power-sharing in Northern Ireland, a powerful influence has been the combined discourse of gender mainstreaming and human rights (Engle, 1992). Gender mainstreaming

Mainstreaming Equality

51

has grown in its influence on international political bodies over the last 15 years (Beveridge, Nott, & Stephen, 2000; Woodward, 2001; Danish National Centre for Gender Mainstreaming, 2002a, 2002b; True, 2003; Nickel, 2008). In September 1995, representatives from 192 countries meeting in Beijing for the Fourth World Congress on Women adopted a ‘‘platform for action’’ that called on the UN and its signatory states to ‘mainstream’ gender issues across the policy process, ‘‘so that, before decisions are taken, an analysis is made on the effects on women and men, respectively’’ (UN, 1995). Although the notion of mainstreaming gender issues across the policy process had antecedents in the previous two decades, the official recognition and endorsement of mainstreaming are a formal goal for all UN member states. Importantly, this resolution provided an impetus for change at a national and international level. In 1997, the United Nations Economic and Social Council agreed to adopt the principle of gender mainstreaming: Mainstreaming a gender perspective is the process of assessing the implications for women and men of any planned action, including legislation, policies, and programs in all areas and at all levels. It is a strategy for making women’s as well as men’s concerns and experiences an integral dimension of the design, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of policies and programs in all political, economic, and societal spheres. The ultimate goal is to achieve gender equality (United nations, 1997). Since the Beijing conference, most major international organizations have made some form of commitment to gender mainstreaming through resolutions or through working strategies for gender equality. The principles of gender mainstreaming have been increasingly adopted by national governments, in nonprofit and development organizations and through local governance as a way of delivering equality for women. The relationship between feminism and human rights is well established. The demand for equal rights between men and women has been central to the women’s movement since the emergence of the Suffragette movement and has been described as first wave feminism. Alongside the rise of international human rights law, following World War II, a second wave of feminism focused on discrimination and oppression and inequality through demands for substantive rights. During this period, starting in the United States, the women’s movement, alongside the black civil rights movement, brought about the introduction of anti-discrimination legislation, which was soon followed within the United Kingdom and other countries in Europe. Along with anti-discrimination laws the movements brought with them a deeper challenge to public institutions and public services, often through the

52

STUART SPEEDEN

self-organization of activity such as rape crisis, women’s aid (dealing with domestic violence) and black-led community organization. The challenges that emerged during this period had both a political and a cultural dimension as activists and academics addressed a wider agenda for social change. Young (1990) has identified common currents emerging ‘‘insurgent’’ social movements: a questioning of the accountability of government and corporate officials in relation to the public interest balanced against private interests; efforts to ‘‘decolonize’’ service provision and the meeting of needs by establishing autonomous organizations of self-help; a focus on the politicization of culture where ‘‘culture’’ refers to all aspects of social life, bringing about conscious reflection on language, gestures, habits, desires, norms, and practices. The idea of gender mainstreaming finds its roots within these practices but has emerged with a strong focus on policy and institutions. The way in which gender mainstreaming differs from other approaches to gender equality was described by Teresa Rees (2002), where she distinguishes between three approaches to gender equality: equal treatment, positive action, and mainstreaming. The earliest and most common approach is equal treatment, which pursues the principle that no individual should have fewer human rights or opportunities than any other. The application of such a policy involves the creation and enforcement of formally equal rights for men and women, such as the right to equal pay for equal work. Rees argues that equal treatment is an essential element in equal opportunity policy but that is limited in its scope by focusing exclusively on the formal rights of women in the workplace and therefore falls short by not addressing a range of informal, and therefore failing to address other fundamental causes of sexual inequality between men and women (ibid.). In contrast to the equal treatment approach, Rees posits a second approach, called positive action, in which ‘‘the emphasis shifts from equality of access to creating conditions more likely to result in equality of outcome’’ (ibid.). More concretely, positive action involves the adoption of specific actions on behalf of women to overcome their unequal starting positions in a male-dominated or patriarchal society. At the extreme, positive action may also take the form of positive discrimination, which seeks to increase the participation of women (or other under-represented groups) through the use of affirmative-action, preferences or quotas. Positive discrimination finds many supporters among women’s rights activists – most notably in France, which recently adopted a constitutional amendment to promote parity, or equal representation of women and men, among candidates for political office – but throughout most of the world it is seen to be a

Mainstreaming Equality

53

controversial and divisive approach, raising questions about fairness and the individual rights of men who are thus discriminated against. The third and most promising approach identified by Rees is gender mainstreaming. The idea of gender mainstreaming calls for the systematic incorporation of gender issues throughout all governmental institutions and policies. As defined by an expert group commissioned by the Council of Europe (1998), ‘‘Gender mainstreaming is the (re)organization, improvement, development and evaluation of policy processes, so that a gender equality perspective is incorporated in all policies at all levels and at all stages, by the actors normally involved in policy-making.’’ Thus defined, gender mainstreaming is a potentially revolutionary concept, which promises to bring a gender dimension into all international governance. Yet, gender mainstreaming is also an extraordinarily demanding concept, which requires the adoption of a gender perspective by all the central actors in the policy process – some of whom may have little experience or interest in gender issues. This raises two central questions: why and how did the international community adopt a policy of gender mainstreaming at Beijing, and how has it been implemented in practice? In this description of gender mainstreaming, the idea of a ‘‘top-down’’ approach is centrally important to the gender mainstreaming project, and it is this ‘‘top-down’’ vision that has shaped the way in which it has been adopted and implemented internationally. The superficiality of commitment to gender mainstreaming has been criticized as weakness in strategy because institutions were seen to make declarations and high-level commitment without a corresponding strategy for implementation. Charlesworth (2005) describes it as a mantra that is expected to achieve equality without effort or conscious thought. Such criticisms have been taken up within an emerging gender mainstreaming discourse that has sought to address such issues (Rees, 2002; Walby, 2004) and, as we will explore these debates, have led to an implementation strategy that has taken on both legal and managerial characteristics. The implementation of gender mainstreaming has, through these developments, been seen by its supporters as a means for overcoming the barriers and obstacles that prevent women from achieving equality.

GENDER MAINSTREAMING AND HUMAN RIGHTS An important element within the development of gender mainstreaming has been its association with emerging ideas about human rights. At a global level this influence of has had the effect of ‘‘gendering’’ human rights by

54

STUART SPEEDEN

focusing on the continued prevalence of gender inequalities despite the formal existence of civil rights (Engle, 1992). In the first wave of the feminist movement, there had been a realization of formal rights, mainly suffrage, transforming the law to be more inclusive of women. This emerging discourse, embracing human rights and drawing together a number of equality strands (gender, race, disability, sexual orientation, age, faith), has created a new policy agenda that has far reaching implications. The emergence of a new form of equality law based on the ideas of mainstreaming and positive duties has been one outcome of these developments. With the rise of international human rights law in the post–World War II era, feminist theory began a shift into a second wave that focused on those inequalities that persisted despite formal gains. The second wave of feminism can be characterized by a recognition of substantive, de facto forms of inequality and consequently by advocacy against discrimination and oppression. It was between the activism of the movement and the developments in second wave feminist theory that the idea of gender mainstreaming began to take shape. By the 1970s, feminist demands for women’s rights had evolved into specialized ‘‘women in development’’ programs that focused attention on the particular ways in which women experienced and were affected by development processes (Jahan, 1995). This brought to the surface what has been considered one of the more basic tensions in feminism: ‘‘whether women’s rights are best protected through general norms or through specific norms applicable only to women’’ (Charlesworth, 2005, p. 1). Thus, when separate programs for women were viewed by some to be isolating women’s concerns from those of ordinary development discourse, mainstreaming entered the scene. As third generation or ‘‘third wave’’ of rights has been identified in the post–cold war era (Klug, Starmer, & Weir, 1996; Klug, 2000; Fredman, 2008; Carpenter, 2009), Klug argues that while this third wave of rights recognizes the importance of rights gained in the first and second wave, the third wave of rights places a growing emphasis on ‘‘participation and mutuality.’’ The argument here is that substantive rights in complex societies are not only constructed in relation to the state but also in relation to other parts of corporate and civil society. In this view, power within modern societies is held not only by the state, but also by other bodies, particularly large private corporations, and therefore rights can only be upheld if legal obligations apply and are uphold across those broader institutions. In legal terms, therefore, the net of liability for upholding rights is spreading wider and embrace international institutions, corporations, charities, and sometimes private individuals. Significantly, there is

Mainstreaming Equality

55

a new emphasis on seeking to uphold fundamental human rights through ‘‘trade agreements, education, and persuasion as well as through litigation.’’ It can be seen that the idea of mainstreaming that has emerged through the gender mainstreaming discourse is reflected strongly within this notion of the third wave and through it the principle of mainstreaming is extended to human rights.

FROM GENDER MAINSTREAMING TO ‘‘EQUALITIES’’ MAINSTREAMING The European Convention on Human Rights has been of fundamental importance in the development of a broader equalities agenda within Europe. The Amsterdam Treaty (implemented in 1999) sought to bring aspects of the convention into European law under Article 13, giving it authority to require that the 25 EU member states ensure their equality legislation was updated to incorporate the following specific grounds of discrimination: race and ethnic origin, religion and belief, age, disability, and sexual orientation (Ellis, 2005). Under the terms of this chapter, four anti-discrimination directives have been issued: one relating to discrimination based on racial or ethnic origin, both within and outside the labor market, one on discrimination on the labor market, one on equal treatment between men and women regarding access to employment, and one on equal treatment between men and women as regards access to and supply of goods and services. In effect the directives required anti-discrimination laws to cover in employment and the provision of goods and services in six areas: race, gender, disability age, sexual orientation, religion or belief, and disability. A further directive on equal treatment remains under discussion and, if adopted, would provide for protection from discrimination on grounds of age, disability, sexual orientation, and religion or belief beyond the workplace. This new directive would ensure equal treatment in the areas of social protection, including social security and health care, education, and access to and supply of goods and services that are commercially available to the public, including housing (Equinet, 2007). The effect of these directives has meant that across Europe there has been a move to adopt anti-discrimination legislation. By November 2009, most member states had complied with the directives (Chopin & Gounari, 2009). Member states had chosen a number of different transposition methods. Overall, the directives have brought about a fairly comprehensive pattern of anti-discrimination law complying with the directives (Table 1).

56

STUART SPEEDEN

Table 1.

Anti-Discrimination Laws in Europe, 2011.

States with anti-discrimination legislation that exceed the EU anti-discrimination directives

States with anti-discrimination laws that more or less conform the anti-discrimination directives Combination of multi-ground anti-discrimination legislation Anti-discrimination legislation only in the field of employment

Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Hungary, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, and United Kingdom Cyprus, Greece, Italy, Luxembourg, and Sweden Denmark and Netherlands Estonia, France, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Portugal, and Slovenia

The relationship between human rights law and the development of antidiscrimination legislation and equal treatment law is very clear in the case of Europe and, elsewhere, in Canada and South Africa. This relationship has been carried further in the case of Britain where successive legislation since 2000, starting with an amendment to the Race Relations Act 1976, introduced a positive duty to promote race equality. This principle of a positive equality duty has become the basis of the Equality Act 2010, which extends the positive duty to nine protected characteristics including the six categories for anti-discrimination established in European directives. These positive duties in British law provide a framework that is consistent with ideas of gender mainstreaming creating a framework for mainstreaming equality. In the proposals for the 2010 Act, mainstreaming would be achieved through a general equality duty applying to all organizations and specific equality duties that promote equality through the policy process. While this model of positive equality duties has not been adopted across Europe, it is evident that the idea of mainstreaming equality has been pursued as policy that sits alongside the legal frameworks for antidiscrimination (Rees, 2005; Verloo, 2005). Gender mainstreaming became established in Europe following the 1997 agreement to include equal opportunities between men and women as a fourth pillar of its employment guidelines, alongside those of employability, adaptability, and entrepreneurship. Advice to the European Commission through Equinet widens the scope of equality/anti-discrimination mainstreaming as an important part of the policy process.

Mainstreaming Equality

57

y an important policy process that needs to accompany the effective implementation of equality legislation. Equinet also sets out that equality mainstreaming can only be sustained through making it a requirement through equality legislation and through regulations and guidelines that govern key policy processes. (Equinet, 2006, p. 5)

These developments within Europe and elsewhere point to the growing importance of equality mainstreaming in policy and policy development (Lombardo & Meier, 2006). The commitment of the UN to human rights and gender mainstreaming means that there are growing implications for managers in the public sector and international development for both policy development and in management.

PUBLIC MANAGEMENT AND EQUALITY MAINSTREAMING Equality and diversity management has predominantly been positioned within public management literature as a matter largely for human resource management and it has fallen outside the mainstream of public management discourse. The idea of ‘‘mainstreaming’’ raises a question about the marginal status of equality in public management. The relevance of equality and diversity to public administration has been discussed by Fredrickson (2005) in which he draws upon his earlier work in the 1970s to establish social equity as a ‘‘third pillar’’ of public administration (1974). More recently, and in response to the emergence of EU equality policy, we have seen some attempt to relate public management to equality through the teaching of diversity to public sector managers (Page, Oldfield, & Urstad, 2008). Other work has explored some of the relationships between public management and equality mainstreaming (Bacchi & Eveline, 2010; Lombardo et al., 2009), but, significantly, equalities and the mainstreaming of equality have remained on the margins of academic debate. By contrast, the development of gender mainstreaming has led to a growing policy literature on equality mainstreaming, coming from national and international organizations that advocate embedding equality through the instruments of policy development and implementation. This synthesis of equality as a social goal with public policy and management raises a wide range of issues. From a feminist perspective, it raises issues about the appropriateness of placing equality within a framework of managerialism; for public management, it raises issues about the position of equality as a value and how such a value can be interpreted throughout the policy process (Benschop & Verloo, 2006; Austrian Women’s Shelter Network, 2011).

58

STUART SPEEDEN

The relationship between mainstreaming and public management is illustrated in a publication from Equinet, the European Network of Equality Bodies. In this report the objectives of mainstreaming are defined as ‘‘cultural change among policy-makers and programme planners’’; ‘‘institutional change within institutions that make and deliver policies and programmes’’; and ‘‘societal change in terms of changing the experiences of groups experiencing inequality across the grounds of age, disability, gender, race, religion, and sexual orientation’’ (Equinet, 2006). This comprehensive agenda for change has far-reaching implications for governance, policy development and implementation, and for professional development. Equinet recommendations imply a reliance upon public management practices while seeking to reshape them. The overall aims of mainstreaming as an approach proposed by Equinet are that mainstreaming would be  guided by a shared ambition for equality that is holistic in seeking equality;  evidence based in assembling relevant quantitative and qualitative data about the identity, experience, and situation of each of the groups’ experiencing inequality;  integrated into existing legislative development, policy-making, and decision-making processes within institutions;  anticipatory in being applied at the point of design of legislation, policies and programs when it is still possible to alter the thrust and content of the policy or program if this is found to be necessary;  participative in including the representative organizations of those who experience inequality in the legislative development, policy-making, and decision-making processes;  monitored through measuring and reporting on tangible outcomes from the equality mainstreaming process so that the equality and business benefits are seen and shared by all. (Equinet, 2006, pp. 9–10) Success, the authors argue, depends upon the effective implementation of all the elements in delivering the ‘‘societal’’ change referred to above. That means if there is an identifiable ‘‘gender pay gap’’ there will be evidence over a period that this pay gap has closed. If there are measured differences in employment between different ethnic groups, then there should be an improvement in those employment differentials over time. Overall, equality mainstreaming aims to provide a comprehensive system for cultural and social change and the ability to manage equality over time. Equality mainstreaming seeks to place equality as a core value in governance and public management, employing evidence-based management and the participation of those who experience inequality as the basis of achieving

Mainstreaming Equality

59

change. The expectation of equality mainstreaming is that these methods can effect change in policy and practice within organizations and this change can be transmitted between organizations and effect societal change. The management methods that have emerged to support equality mainstreaming are closely associated with the canon of NPM (Hood, 1991). Seven key doctrines have been identified that characterize NPM: entrepreneurial management; standards and measures of performance; measurement and control of outputs, disaggregation and decentralization of services; promotion of competition; private sector style management; discipline in financial and resource management with an eighth suggested by McLaughlin, Osborne, and Ferlie, 2002; the separation of political decision-making from the direct management of public services. Equality mainstreaming has developed alongside the development of these methods in the public sector and has closely tied itself to principles of performance measurement and evidence-based management. The relationship between the two doctrines of ‘‘managerialism’’ and ‘‘equality mainstreaming’’ is most advanced in the United Kingdom, Europe, and other countries that have adopted equality and human rights agendas but there is evidence that these principles have wider application in development work globally. The growth of evidence-based methods may be understood in a number of ways. They can be seen as essentially managerial and technocratic (Sanderson, 2002) tools for top-down government; they may be understood as tools for coordination in increasingly complex systems of governance that involve different organizations, stakeholders, and interests (Bache & Flinders, 2005; Kooiman, 2000); they may be used as tools to further collaboration; or the may be directed toward the development of participative and deliberative democracy in which evidence is subject to more open forms of interpretation (Cohen, 1989; Dryzek, 2002; Fung, 2010). Different narratives of governance and public management mean that notion of evidence is contested both in its application and in its construction. Clearly, this presents a problem for equality mainstreaming because it raises the question of where it is positioned within these narratives. Following this line of argument, mainstreaming can take on a number of forms, ranging from managerial through to collaborative and democratic. Arguing from the perspective of gender mainstreaming, Bacchi and Eveline (2010) demonstrates how these different perspectives shape mainstreaming initiatives and influence their potential for progressive change. The top-down model of mainstreaming that emerged in Beijing placed importance on the law and the authority of the state as a means for pushing the goal of gender equality through institutions to produce societal change.

60

STUART SPEEDEN

The dominant model of mainstreaming that has emerged (Bacchi & Eveline, 2010) is one that is consistent with a neoliberal approaches to governance based on a complex set of relations between government, private sector, and civil society. These developments lead to systems of accountability and surveillance for public policy that are based on regulation, audit, partnership, and stakeholder relations. Mainstreaming in this context depends on the commitment at an organizational level to the principle of equality mainstreaming, but it also depends on the internal systems and processes that can turn public policy into equality outcomes. Although gender mainstreaming has been closely associated with the managerial methods of NPM, the project contests neoliberal values of individualism through its definition of equality and its aim to overcome patterns of structural disadvantage. A redefinition of equality that goes beyond ‘‘equality of opportunity’’ is a defining feature of Gender Mainstreaming (GM), and an understanding of equality concepts within the policy process among managers, decision-makers, and stakeholders is important for the effectiveness of the evidence-based methods that it employs. For public service managers and politicians, mainstreaming equality presents two distinct challenges: (i) the development of a common understanding of equality principles within the organization that will support shared understanding and interpretation of evidence; (ii) the development of management and decision-making processes that are effective for mainstreaming the principles of equality throughout the organization.

UNDERSTANDING AND INTERPRETING EQUALITY IN THE POLICY PROCESS The contested meaning of equality has led to a range of different approaches within gender mainstreaming that has driven different approaches. Bacchi & Eveline (2010) demonstrates how ‘‘gender analysis’’ can lead to a form of mainstreaming that is directed toward women as consumers within a business model that directs the focus of analysis toward niche markets. This approach constructs ‘‘women as customers’’ rather than women as a ‘‘protected equity group.’’ Mainstreaming is not focused on this business model of diversity management but is concerned with government and the way in which public policy and practice can change structural disadvantage. The model depends on an understanding of equality that goes beyond equality of opportunity by addressing underlying structural causes for

Mainstreaming Equality

61

inequality. In her argument for gender mainstreaming, Rees (1998) has argued for three dimensions to equality as the basis for mainstreaming: equality of opportunity, equality of treatment, and equality of outcome. Rees challenges the limitations of equal opportunities and equality of treatment with the argument that they fail to tackle the systematic disadvantage experienced by women. ‘‘Equality of treatment policies fail to achieve equal outcomes because they lack an analysis of the causes of segregation, be it along race, gender or any other dimension y. The equal treatment approach suggests that people should be treated as individuals without recognizing the importance of group membership in the implications of this for cultural reproduction.’’ Equality of outcome is therefore one of the defining characteristics of mainstreaming. Taken together, the principles of equality of opportunity and access are qualified by the notion of equality of outcome. Managers and policy-makers are required, in effect, to look beyond equal treatment in relation to opportunity and access to arrive at policies and programs that would secure equal outcomes. A further dimension in the debate on equality taken up by Rees (ibid.) is the question of ‘‘difference.’’ The argument here focuses on whether difference should be taken into account in developing strategies to overcome disadvantage – ‘‘the attempt to overcome disadvantage without denying difference’’ (Squires, 2005). From this perspective, organizations and institutions are seen to be male-centered in culture and organization and the focus of change shifts from simply looking at the disadvantage of women in a male-orientated society toward changes that adapt the institutions to fit the needs of women. The notion of ‘‘equal but different’’ introduces the concept of diversity into the equality debate that has been influential in the development of equality policy, particularly within Europe. Equal opportunities initiatives typically occur because the law has compelled organisations to create a ‘level playing field’ in the workplace or to ensure equal access to services. They aim to ensure that individuals, irrespective of their race, national or ethnic origin, gender, sexual orientation, religion or belief, age or disability can have equal access to employment and educational opportunities and the different services that organisations provide. y Diversity initiatives go further: they aim to take people’s diverse characteristics fully into account to gain maximum benefit from their uniqueness as individuals. Consequently, it makes sense that treating everyone in the same way is not necessarily going to work. Different people will have different aspirations, expectations, opportunities, responsibilities and needs. Therefore, treating people fairly means recognising their differences, respecting them and acting accordingly. In short, diversity is about valuing difference and respect for people.

62

STUART SPEEDEN

The acceptance of difference within equality mainstreaming means that the systems for interpreting and measuring outcomes have to reflect the notion of difference. The strength in this approach is the recognition that equality of access in relation to a service may be differentiated by physical, biological, or cultural determinants that limit access for specific social groups defined by race, gender, disability, sexual orientation, or other factors. Theoretical debates on the politics of difference have drawn a distinction between positional difference and cultural difference as determinants of structural disadvantage. In addressing gender inequality, ‘‘positional differences’’ refer to those differences that place men and women in different structural ‘‘positions’’ based on assumptions about the sexual division of labor, heterosexuality, or that ‘‘normal’’ bodies are male and therefore female bodies are deviant from the norm. Cultural difference, it has been argued (Kymlicka, 1995), is distinct from positional difference and rests on the differences between societal cultures. It raises the question of disadvantage arising from different cultural practices and norms in a society where there is more than one culture. In addressing structural disadvantage, differences between positional difference and cultural difference intersect because women, gays, lesbians, and disabled people may have cultural differences and vice versa. From the perspective of mainstreaming, the politics of difference raises complex questions about what is being mainstreamed and what outcomes would look like. One concern, again from a gender perspective, is that difference is not seen as difference between social groups (men/women, able/ disabled) but as difference from the norm, where the norm is defined by male, heterosexual, able-bodied, etc. This construction of difference applied to the policy process would serve to reinforce existing structural disadvantages rather than eliminating them (Bacchi & Eveline, 2010). Much of the theoretical underpinning for equality mainstreaming has emerged through feminist discourses applied more generally to a range of different equality strands. A further contribution to theory and the application of equality within the policy process has come through the ‘‘capability approach’’ to equality. Based on the work of Amartya Sen (1999), capability theory has been developed as a framework for equality that the attraction of the capability approach is that it is focused on ‘‘ends rather than means,’’ which means that the success of equality policies is judged on the what they have enabled people to do rather than measuring the resources that have been allocated to the task (Burchardt, 2008). This model has been developed in the United Kingdom to provide a capability measurement framework for monitoring

Mainstreaming Equality

63

and evaluating progress toward equality across the equality strands. The capability approach has provided a promising foundation for a unified theoretical foundation for working across multiple equality strands. Capability theory is already widely used in development work globally and therefore may find support within the international community as a basis for measurement and evaluation. While the capability approach has been developed into a measurement tool within the United Kingdom, its current strength lies in measurement against equality objectives. Although it is clear that equality objectives and a framework for measurement are important in evidencing change and focusing action, they do not provide any easy answers to how the objectives will be realized. To develop policies and strategies that deliver the desired change, the route that has developed has been through the use of assessment tools, commonly described as impact assessments. These assessment tools are designed to explore the impact of policy on the different equality strands and use this information to inform policy and practice in ways that steer the cumulative effects of public policy in the direction of equality objectives set either at national or local level. The extent to which these ‘‘impact assessments’’ can deliver the kind of change that is desired depends on the judgments and actions taken by a wide range of decision-makers in the policy process. The exact responsibility for decisions varies across different States but there is an important responsibility resting on public managers across a wide range of policy areas who will be involved in assessing equality impact; identifying and collecting appropriate data; evaluating the evidence and making decisions that affect policy and services, with the aim of moving forward with actions that will meet the equality objectives. Engaging with this process requires both an understanding of equality concepts, including theories of structural disadvantage across the equality strands, and understanding of the methods and limitations of evidence-based methods and a commitment to equality through the elimination of structural disadvantage. The success of equality mainstream therefore requires a high level of education and engagement among professionals and politicians involved in the policy process for the approach to have viable outcomes. Policy professionals and service managers would require not just a knowledge and understanding of equality and evidence-based methods, but also a willingness to work with those concepts and methods to develop improve systems and processes that can achieve the desired outcomes. Although evidence-based methods seem to offer, through equality mainstreaming, a route toward progressive change, the challenge of moving from

64

STUART SPEEDEN

equality based assessment to effective societal change presents considerable difficulties (Walby, 2005). Eveline and Bacchi (2005) illustrates this in her discussion of tools used for gender analysis. Her argument is that in ‘‘gender mainstreaming’’ there is a tendency to see the location of ‘‘difference’’ in women, focusing, often on biological characteristics. By constructing ‘‘difference’’ in this way, gender mainstreaming is criticized for inadequately dealing with the power relations that allocate women into positions of ‘‘difference’’ and ‘‘disadvantage’’ (Bacchi & Eveline, 2010). Bacchi and Eveline (2010) goes on to argue that while the focus of gender analysis is based on differences located in biology, the underlying social and economic relations between genders are inadequately understood and remain unchallenged. The broadening of the mainstreaming agenda to include race, disability, and sexual orientation means that a different set of discourses around power and exclusion come into play. As with gender, an emphasis on diversity and difference can marginalize the importance of social relations that give rise to exclusion and disadvantage as ongoing expressions of power in contemporary societies. Those power relations are made explicit in the discourses arising within social movements: in relation to disability, through the social model of disability; in relation to race and ethnicity, through the concept of institutional racism; in relation to sexual orientation, through queer theory. These theories and their variants provide ways of understanding the dynamic processes that produce disadvantage rather than through a static model of categories defined by biology or cultural inheritance. This is not the place to explore these theories in detail, but it is necessary to acknowledge the contested theoretical terrain of equality and recognize that dominant discourses may be insufficient in developing policies to address patterns of persistent disadvantage. As gender mainstreaming has broadened into a more generic ‘‘equality mainstreaming,’’ there is a tendency to develop models for interpreting evidence that are common across the equality strands rather than exploring the underlying power relations that shape different strands. A generic approach to equality may have its benefits in making the policy agenda manageable and in making the intersection between equality strands more explicit, but it also displaces important theoretical discourses from the policy mainstream. The developing relationship between equality mainstreaming and evidence-based policy has meant that equality mainstreaming has become subject to the influence NPM and its neoliberal underpinnings. This Bacchi and Eveline (2010) can lead to the hegemony of diversity discourses or those

Mainstreaming Equality

65

discourses that reduce questions of equality to individual needs through the language of consumers and markets is clearly one direction of travel for equality mainstreaming but there are alternative ways of analyzing and understanding equality that can inform the policy process. The tendency to ‘fix’ certain meanings of ‘things’, people [and] concepts (such as gender analysis and gender mainstreaming) leaves the impression that ‘things’, people and concepts can be understood only in one way, that they are readily understood and their content and value are clear and indisputable. The process of ‘fixing’ meanings in this way, however, detracts attention from (and hence denies) the effort that goes into meaning – making activities y (Bacchi & Eveline, 2010, p. 4)

Making sense of evidence lies at the core of evidence-based policy, and equality mainstreaming depends on the presumption that these interpretations can direct political/managerial decisions (Davies, Nutley, & Smith, 2000; Fischer, 2003; Hill, 2005; Weick, Sutcliffe, & Obstfeld, 2005). The ability to make sense of evidence requires the engagement of policy-makers and administrators in the sense-making process. The tendency to create tools, toolkits, and toolboxes for equality analysis often disguises the fact that these tools embed particular ways of seeing and interpreting evidence. There is a strong case therefore for policy professionals to have a critical understanding of these tools and have the capacity to engage in informed deliberation on the meaning of evidence. There is need for policy-makers to understand the way in which gender and other equality discourses shape the underlying methodologies and interpretations of evidence as part of the policy process. The understanding and interpretation of equality by policy communities is one important dimension of equality mainstreaming; however, the interpretation of equality evidence raises issues about the policy process itself. Who is involved in the process and how decisions are made? The questions are not unique to equality mainstreaming, but it is important to raise them in this context because the evidence-based approach that is fundamental to mainstreaming relies on certain assumptions about the way in which evidence can lead to social action through the policy process. Three broad types of knowledge have been suggested as being central to the development and implementation of policies (Head, 2008). These depend, on what Head describes, on three lenses of policy-relevant knowledge that influence policy-making but do not determine it. These lenses are described as political knowledge – based on the analysis and judgment of political actors, research-based knowledge – based on systematic

66

STUART SPEEDEN

analysis of data and the identification of trends and causal relationships, and practical implementation knowledge, coming from the experience and knowledge of professionals engaged in the delivery of policies and programs. Applied to equality mainstreaming, it is important to recognize that interpretation is conducted through these different lenses, and these lenses may incorporate different fundamental assumptions about the meaning of equality. For mainstreaming to occur, the alignment between meaning and interpretation of equality across these lenses is important. Head (2008) points to three challenges to the rational outcome of an evidence-based approach. The first lies in the field of political decisionmaking where decisions tend to be based on politics, ideology, and judgment, rather than being deduced primarily from the facts. The second lies in the collection, interpretation, application, and importance given to evidence from different sources and the weight given to different actors in the policy process. The final challenge arises because of complex arrangements of governance that are emerging, which depend on partnership, networks, and collaboration in the decision-making process. All these factors make a rational approach to evidence-based policy-making difficult to achieve. In any policy regime, the domains of knowledge described here relate also to domains of power and authority that have different effects on mainstreaming outcomes. In order for equality to be ‘‘mainstreamed’’ in this policy environment, the fundamental challenge is how to create effective policy in a context where a common aim – equality – is informed by different ways of seeing and understanding evidence. One approach to this is to move toward a more deliberative approach to decision-making that draws together political actors across these domains. Over the past decade, deliberative democracy as an idea has developed through a body of theory and through the development of a range of practices that include citizen’s juries, deliberative polling, and people’s parliaments. Deliberative democracy offers up a number of possible solutions to some of the challenges posed by mainstreaming. In one sense, deliberative methods offer a way of negotiating and interpreting evidence across the different domains within the policy process to reach a common understanding in the development of policy. The adoption of deliberative processes can be seen within some of the developing practices for mainstreaming. Burchardt (2008), for instance, has used deliberative consultation in the development of the equality measurement framework for the Equality and Human Rights Commission in Britain. Deliberative practices have also formed part of the guidance for equality impact assessment in Britain where there has been some emphasis

Mainstreaming Equality

67

on consultation and involvement of equality stakeholders (EHRC, 2011). The guidance states: y involvement is an ongoing and sustained process of collaboration and information sharing between a public body and people with an interest in their work. It is incorporated by the public body as an inherent part of their decision-making processes. (EHRC, 2011)

The benefit of a deliberative practice for mainstreaming equality is that the process can be informed by stakeholders in a number of ways: in the scoping and development of the research process; in the development of qualitative analysis; and in the development of appropriate policy. In an area as complex as equality mainstreaming, the processes of deliberation at each stage in the process offer the basis for policy-making to be informed by stakeholders in a way that can make policy more inclusive and responsive. Although some of the practices involved in mainstreaming may have encouraged consultation and involvement through applied social research, the foundations of policy-making practice that have been adopted rest largely on a technocratic approach to knowledge formation within the policy process. Despite there being some support for stakeholder engagement in the process, these ideas remain underdeveloped. The attraction of a technocratic and managerialist approach to equality mainstreaming may rest in a sense of urgency to mobilize social change. A method built on deliberative democracy appears fraught with problems. There are assumptions within government that managers and professionals involved in the policy process can deliver services and implement programs efficiently through their technical skills. For those public sector managers involved in the process, control over design and implementation is often perceived as essential in situations where efficiency is paramount and public services are subject to scrutiny, accountability, and contract. Deliberation under these circumstances may appear inefficient and risky, but these risks have to be balanced against the advantages of more deliberative and democratic approaches that inform both the research process and the decision-making process. In a complex area of decision-making such as equalities where there are multiple equality strands to consider, an understanding of the nature of problems and their solutions will differ according to whether it is seen through a gender, race disability, or sexual orientation perspective. The intersectionality between these perspectives in developing an understanding both of social barriers to equality and policy solutions rests upon the policy process to interpolate between these different perspectives making sense of competing and sometimes conflicting perspectives. There is a need,

68

STUART SPEEDEN

therefore, for processes that are capable of both sense-making and policymaking in this complex environment. The emphasis here on ‘‘processes’’ as an important part of mainstreaming runs counter to the recent emphasis given to outcome in the equality mainstreaming debate. Developments in the United Kingdom between 2001 and 2007 placed a strong emphasis on processes that were aimed at embedding an understanding of equality throughout the policy process. Frustration with this approach led to criticism of this emphasis on process because of the lack of progress on real-world measures of equality such as equal pay, ethnic minority representation, etc. This has led to a retreat from the policy process as the focus for mainstreaming in favor of clear measurable objectives and outcomes. While outcomes are key to the mainstreaming project, there is a danger that this will lead to a neglect of process. It suggests that process and outcome are in some sense separable and outcomes can be achieved regardless of process. In practice, this would mean an uncritical acceptance of the NPM as the means through which equality mainstreaming would deliver outcomes. This proposition seems to run counter to feminist thought, which has emphasized discourse and power in social processes as being the source of unequal outcomes within society.

CONCLUSION The chapter has argued that the development of equality mainstreaming within Europe is part of a broader movement to embed anti-discrimination and human rights measures within global and national institutions. The developments of this broad policy framework has been integral with, and strongly influenced by, gender mainstreaming as a global policy initiative coming out of the women’s movement. As gender mainstreaming has developed both as an idea and as a framework for action, it has shaped not only gender policy, but also policy more broadly relating to equality and anti-discrimination. The impact of these developments can be seen in a number of countries that have led on equality and human rights issues, but this influence has been particularly strong within Europe and in particular Britain and Northern Ireland where mainstreaming, as an approach, has been adopted as part of the legal framework for equality. Gender and, more generally, equality mainstreaming are rooted in rational, evidence-based policy analysis and development that have been, broadly syncretic with the NPM. The top-down vision of change that is envisaged relies on a managerialist approach. There has been some

Mainstreaming Equality

69

recognition of the need for involvement, but this has not developed as a clear model of the policy process and equality mainstreaming therefore rests largely on a technocratic model of knowledge formation and decisionmaking. The emphasis on equality outcomes over process moves attention from the policy process itself and therefore accepts the methods and practices of NPM for the delivery of outcomes rather than seeking new practices that reflect different approaches to knowledge and power in the development of policy. Some feminist writers have questioned the relationship between gender mainstreaming and NPM (Bacchi & Eveline, 2010) and this opens up the possibility of a more critical examination of the policy process and its effectiveness for equality mainstreaming. Although equality mainstreaming seeks to influence the policy process, the debate has been largely restricted to a debate within feminism and the implications have not become part of the wider debate about NPM and the policy process. In part this arises from the limited critique offered through gender/equality mainstreaming in relation to evidence-based policy, the development and use of knowledge and the power relations that exist within the decision-making process. While positive equality outcomes remain the purpose of equality mainstreaming, the forms of evidence-based policy and decision-making have a potential importance in the achievement of those outcomes. Rethinking the policy process and the role of evidence-based policy is not solely the task of feminist theorists; however, it requires public managers to engage with equality mainstreaming as a theoretical challenge to the way in which evidence and decision-making are undertaken in a complex policy environment that involves equality stakeholders and is managed in partnership between a range of organizations. The involvement of managers and policy-makers in thinking about equality mainstreaming is therefore critically important. The issues raised by equality mainstreaming are not uniquely questions of equality. In researching public sector management, a senior manager once confided, ‘‘If we could mainstream anything then we would mainstream equality.’’ The idea of mainstreaming a public service value, whether it is equality, anti-poverty, environmental sustainability, or some other value that is in contestation with financial efficiency, requires systems and methods that go beyond the limited perspectives of NPM. A critical approach to equality mainstreaming may therefore provide a route to exploring the role of evidence in the policy process. Deliberation and democratic practice as explored here may provide one useful way of rethinking mainstreaming and evidence-based practice from the bottom-up and that can inform efforts to mainstream public service values.

70

STUART SPEEDEN

REFERENCES Austrian Women’s Shelter Network. (2011). Gender mainstreaming: Does gender mainstreaming improve women’s chances to participate in decision-making processes? An expertise. Retrieved from http://www.sister-cities-going-gender.org/SISTERS/(4)%20Annex%20 III%20%20(AoeF%20-%20GENDER%20MAINSTREAMING%20%20AN%20 EXPERTISE.pdf. Accessed on November 14, 2011. Bacchi, C., & Eveline, J. (2004). Mainstreaming and neoliberalism: A contested relationship. Policy and Society: Journal of Public, Foreign and Global Policy, 22(2), 98–118. Bacchi, C., & Eveline, J. (Eds.). (2010). Mainstreaming politics: Gendering practices and feminist theory. Adelaide, Australia: University of Adelaide Press. http://www.adelaide.edu.au/ press/titles/mainstreaming/Mainstreaming-Ebook-final.pdf Bache, I., & Flinders, M. (2005). Multi-level governance. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Benschop, Y., & Verloo, M. (2006). Sisyphus’ sisters: Can gender mainstreaming escape the genderedness of organizations? Journal of Gender Studies, 15(1), 19–33. Beveridge, F., Nott, S., & Stephen, K. (2000). Mainstreaming and the engendering of policy making: A means to an end? Journal of European Public Policy, 7(3), 385–405. Burchardt, T. (2008). Monitoring inequality: Putting the capability approach to work. In G. Craig, T. Burchardt & D. Gordon (Eds.), Social justice and public policy: Seeking fairness in diverse societies. Bristol, UK: Policy Press. Carpenter, M. (2009). A third wave, not a third way? New labour, human rights and mental health in historical context. Social Policy and Society, 8, 215–230. Charlesworth, H. (2005). Not waving but drowning: Gender mainstreaming and human rights in the United Nations. Harvard Human Rights Journal, 18, 1–18. Chopin, I., & Gounari, E.-M. (2009). Developing anti-discrimination law in Europe: 27 member states compared, November 2009, European Commission, D-G Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion. Retrieved from http://www.migpolgroup.com/public/docs/ 180.DevelopingAntiDiscinEurope_Comparativeanalysis_IV_EN_11.09.pdf Cohen, J. (1989). Deliberative democracy and democratic legitimacy. In A. Hamlin & P. Pettit (Eds.), The good polity (pp. 17–34). Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Communities and Local Government. (2007). Fairness and freedom: The final report of the equalities review. Communities and Local Government Publications, Wetherby, Leeds, UK. Council of Europe. (1998). Recommendation No. R (98) 14. Retrieved from https://wcd.coe.int/ com.instranet.InstraServlet?command¼com.instranet.CmdBlobGet&InstranetImage¼ 1497046&SecMode¼1&DocId¼491098&Usage¼2 Danish National Centre for Gender Mainstreaming. (2002a, March). Methods for gender mainstreaming, Denmark. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/equal/ products/sup/pro-112-gm.pdf Danish National Centre for Gender Mainstreaming. (2002b, March). Mainstreaming – Examples of good practice, Denmark. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/employment_ social/equal/products/sup/pro-112-bp.pdf Davies, T. O., Nutley, S. M., & Smith, P. C. (Eds.). (2000). What works: Evidence-based policy and practice in public services. Bristol, UK: Policy Press. Dryzek, J. S. (2002). Deliberative democracy and beyond: Liberals, critics and contestations. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Ellis, E. (2005). EU anti-discrimination law. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Mainstreaming Equality

71

Engle, K. (1992). International human rights and feminism: When discourses meet. Michigan Journal of International Law, 13, 517–610. Equality and Human Rights Commission. (2011). Equality impact assessment tool. Retrieved from http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/search-results/index.html?page¼_ijf2s5h51& section¼index&q¼impact%2Bassessment&type¼file. Accessed on May 30, 2011. Equinet. (2006). Equality mainstreaming: A perspective from the equality bodies. Equinet, the European Network of Equality Bodies, Brussels, Belgium. Retrieved from http:// www.equineteurope.org/59.html Equinet. (2007). Report on the proposal for a Council directive on implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation (COM(2008)0426 – C6 0291/2008 – 2008/0140(CNS)). Retrieved from http:// www.equineteurope.org/equality_mainstreaming_uk_toprint_1.pdf Eveline, J., & Bacchi, C. (2005). What are we mainstreaming when we mainstreaming gender? International Feminist Journal of Politics, 7(4), 496–512. Fischer, F. (2003). Reframing public policy: Discursive politics and deliberative practices. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Fredman, S. (2008). Human rights transformed: Positive rights and positive duties. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Fredrickson, H. G. (2005). Public administration and social equity. In J. Beckett & H. O. Koenig (Eds.), Public administration and law. New York, NY: American Society for Public Administration. Fung, A. (2010). Empowered participation: Reinventing urban democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Head, B. W. (2008). Three lenses of evidence-based policy. The Australian Journal of Public Administration, 67(1), 1–11. Hill, M. (2005). The public policy process. Harlow, UK: Pearson Education. Hood, C. (1991). A public management for all seasons. Public Administration, 69(1), 3–19. Jahan, R. (1995). The elusive agenda: Mainstreaming women in development. New York, NY: St. Martins Press. Klug, F. (2000). Values for a godless age. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin. Klug, F., Starmer, K., & Weir, S. (1996). The three pillars of liberty: Political rights and freedoms in the United Kingdom. London, UK: Routledge. Kooiman, J. (2000). Societal governance. In J. Pierre (Ed.), Debating governance: Authority, Steering and Democracy (pp. 138–164). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Kymlicka, W. (Ed.). (1995). The rights of minority cultures. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Lombardo, E., & Meier, P. (2006). Gender mainstreaming in the EU: Incorporating a feminist reading? European Journal of Women’s Studies, 13(2), 151–166. Lombardo, E., Meier, P., & Verloo, M. (Eds.). (2009). The discursive politics of gender equality: Stretching, bending and policy-making. London, UK: Routledge. McLaughlin, K., Osborne, S. P., & Ferlie, E. (2002). New public management. London, UK: Routledge. Nickel, A. (2008). Gender mainstreaming. Working paper in governing difference. A challenge for new democracies in central and south eastern European countries. Retrieved from http:// typo3.univie.ac.at/index.php?id¼20396. Accessed on March 2, 2008. Page, M., Oldfield, C., & Urstad, B. (2008). Why not teach ‘‘diversity’’ to public sector managers? International Journal of Public Sector Management, 21(4), 368–382.

72

STUART SPEEDEN

Rees, T. (1998). Social exclusion and equal opportunities. International Planning Studies, 3(1), 15–34. Rees, T. (2002). Gender mainstreaming: Misappropriated and misunderstood? Lecture at Department of Sociology, University of Stockholm, February 2002. Retrieved from http://www.sociology.su.se/cgs/workshop.html. Accessed on October 12, 2011. Rees, T. (2005). Reflections on the uneven development of gender mainstreaming in Europe. International Feminist Journal of Politics, 7(4), 555–574. Sanderson, I. (2002). Evaluation, policy learning and evidence-based policy making. Public Administration, 80, 1–22. doi:10.1111/1467-9299.00292 Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Squires, J. (2005). Is mainstreaming transformative? Theorizing mainstreaming in the context of diversity and deliberation. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society, 12(3), 366–388. True, J. (2003). Mainstreaming gender in global public policy. International Feminist Journal and Policy, 5(3), 368–396. United Nations. (1995). Report of the Fourth World Congress on Women, Beijing, September 4–15. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/beijing/pdf/Beijing%20full% 20report%20E.pdf United Nations. (1997). Gender mainstreaming. Extract from Report of the Economic and Social Council for 1997 (A/52/3, September 18). Retrieved from http://www.un.org/ womenwatch/daw/csw/GMS.PDF Verloo, M. (2005). Displacement and empowerment: Reflections on the concept and practice of the council of Europe approach to gender mainstreaming and gender equality. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society, 12(3), 344–365. Walby, S. (2004). The European Union and gender equality: Emergent varieties of gender regime. Social Politics, 11(1), 4–29. Walby, S. (2005). Gender mainstreaming: Productive tensions in theory and practice. Social Politics, 12(3), 321–343, Oxford Journals. Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organization Science, 16(4), 1526–5455. Woodward, A. (2001). Gender mainstreaming in European policy: Innovation or deception? Discussion Paper No. FS101-103. Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin fur Sozialforschung, Berlin, Germany. Young, I. M. (1990). Justice and the politics of difference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

CHAPTER 4 PUBLIC SECTOR MANAGEMENT TRENDS IN BRAZIL Ricardo C. Gomes and Humberto Falca˜o-Martins ABSTRACT Purpose – This chapter aims to provide an overview of public administration practices in Brazil for the last 200 years, highlighting its main characteristics and the relationship between state and society. The chapter begins with the arrival of the Portuguese Crown in Brazil in 1808 and describes the main events up to the end of the President Lula’s period of government. Design/Methodology/Approach – The ideas presented in this essay originate from a review of extant literature as well as from the testimony of the authors who have researched and participated as active actors in the process in the last 20 years. Practical implications – A source of information for those studying the evolution of the Brazilian public administration. The essay presents several phases of how political ideology has influenced public services delivery, pinpointing the impact of patrimonialism, bureaucracy, and managerialism on the government’s daily activities. Originality/Value – This is an original chapter that discusses recent Brazilian political and administrative history in order to ascertain a comprehensive picture of the main events and achievements that have led to Emerging and Potential Trends in Public Management: An Age of Austerity Critical Perspectives on International Public Sector Management, Volume 1, 73–103 Copyright r 2012 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 2045-7944/doi:10.1108/S2045-7944(2012)0000001007

73

74

RICARDO C. GOMES AND HUMBERTO FALCA˜O-MARTINS

the current state of affairs. The chapter is a valuable source of reference for analysis of the different periods of public administration in Brazil. Keywords: Public sector management in Brazil; patrimonialism; bureaucracy; managerialism

INTRODUCTION The Federal Republic of Brazil is composed of 26 states, a federal district (the capital Brası´ lia), and 5,565 municipalities spread over 8.5 million square kilometers (the fifth biggest area around the world). The Brazilian population is the result of miscegenation of European, indigenous, and African people, and today it totals 190 million. Brazil is the seventh economy in the world, whose GDP totals US$ 2.2 trillion, and its GDP per capita is US$ 11,300. The country was discovered in 1500, and it remained a Portuguese and Spanish colony up to 1808, when it became the seat of the Portuguese Empire. In 1822, Brazil achieved its independence from Portugal, becoming an empire until 1889, when the country became a republic. The republican phase can be split into seven periods that represent the development of a national construction process (demonstrated in Table 1) toward a social and democratic state. This chapter aims to present the Brazilian public administration (BPA) in the light of past, present, and future issues. The chapter is structured as follows: In this introduction section, we present the timeline of the creation and construction of the state. Second section focuses on the past, attempting to describe the path of transformations experienced by BPA; we started with the colonial period, ending with the advent of the new republic, which represents a period in which development and national construction reached a new stage. The timeline reveals a pattern of transformation based on forward and backward movements in a struggle to reconcile democracy and bureaucracy (as an expression of administrative rationality). Third section deals with the recent period (i.e., Fernando Henrique Cardoso (FHC) and Lula’s administrations), trying to identify the transformations that public management has been going through (How have structures/institutions, configurations of states, processes, and personnel changed?). In spite of representing a new pattern for the BPA, it has not advanced in the integration between democracy and bureaucracy, nor has it generated impact on development and national

Democracy with fragile elections and instability (risks of new coupes)

Getulio Vargas’s dictatorship Strong hand over the Congress and the Judiciary

Universal elections Restriction of (with the political and exception of civil rights Intervention illiterates) Repression Labor, social security institutes (health and education)

Coffee and milk: alternation between agrarian elites Instability: coupes Patronage Colonels

Basic, nonuniversal elections (only literate males could vote) Nonexistent

Politics

Civil and Political Rights

Social rights

First Democracy, 1945–1964

New State, 1930–1945 Dictatorship Bipartisanship Control of the Congress and, partially, of the Judiciary Demise of authoritarian regime (Abertura) Restriction of political and civil rights Intervention Repression Beginning of equitable access to health, education, and social security

Military Regime, 1964–1985

FHC’s Period, 1995–2002

Lula’s Period, 2003–2010

Federal Constitution ensures equitable access to health and education

Equitable access, but middle class migrates to private health care Equitable access to low-quality basic education Defence and affirmative actions of diffuse rights

Universal elections Increased civil and political rights

Equitable access, but middle class migrates to private health care Equitable access to low-quality basic education Defence and affirmative actions of diffuse rights Cash transfer programs

Democracy Presidential coalition Patronage Independent Judiciary and mechanisms of control

New Republic, 1985–1990

Summary of the Project of National Construction.

Old Republic, 1889–1930

Table 1.

Incipient and controlled Patrimonialism Formalism Bachelorism

Incipient

Exportation of agriculture products

Media

Bureaucracy

Civil society

Legacy

First Democracy, 1945–1964

Military Regime, 1964–1985

Free and concentrated Patrimonialism Patronage

Administrative state Rationalization and universalism of procedures (DASP) Meritocratic (public service examination) Sparse in terms of engagement (assistance) Growth and Industrialization industrialization and social protection

Developmental Debts Censure

Fiscal adjustment and monetary stability

Democracy and citizenship

Security and development

Growth and inclusion

Expansion of public organization (departments and civil servants) Participation Rigging

Accelerated growth Macroeconomic stability

External crises Moderate growth Macroeconomic stability

State reform Fiscal adjustment and managerial reform (NPM) Regulation

Lula’s Period, 2003–2010

FHC’s Period, 1995–2002

Organized plural groups

Standardization, control, expansion (CF 88)

Free and plural

Crisis (inflation, recession, bankruptcy) Commercial opening

New Republic, 1985–1990

Popular movements

Management to development (DL 200) Technocracy

Censure

Industrialization to replace importation of goods State capitalism

New State, 1930–1945

DASP, Administrative Department of Public Service; NPM, new public management.

Agriculture – exportation of primary products Liberal

Economy

Old Republic, 1889–1930

Table 1. (Continued )

Public Sector Management Trends in Brazil

77

construction due to its fragmentary character (inconsistencies and lack of coordination). Fourth section puts forward considerations about present and future, namely opportunities, challenges, international/global dimensions of changes, recognition of country specific changes, and how generalizable they are to other states. We also speculate on future trends in public service management.

BPA’s PATH OF TRANSFORMATIONS1 In this section, we present the path of transformations that BPA has experienced along the last two centuries as an expression of the national construction process, as presented in Table 1. This path represents an attempt to replace the patrimonialistic administration (with great emphasis on the appropriation of public property by private interests) with a bureaucratic administration (in the Weberian sense of administration based on rational-legal and impersonal precepts). According to this perspective, this process turned into a difficult reconciliation between politics and administration and between bureaucracy and democracy. First, the government tried to consolidate the bureaucracy by making administration more rational at the expense of politics and democracy, then it tried to discredit the rational character of the bureaucracy in the name of democracy, which was at times hindered, at times stimulated by state agents and by national politics. According to Schwartzman (1987), this situation was a very difficult dilemma that placed on different sides the rational and technical administration associated with strong and authoritarian regimes in opposition to the politicized administration regarded as inefficient and demoralized as associated to democracy and popular participation. In the seven periods presented in Table 1, the first five represent some moments of this path starting from the patrimonial administration inherited from Portugal up to the new republic after the military dictatorship. The Brazilian State and public administration were born with the sign of patrimonialism. Besides a birthmark characteristic of this first period of government that took place far before any attempt to put bureaucracy into practice as a main orientation of the state, patrimonialism accompanied the practice of government on other even more bureaucratic forms of administration. The patrimonialism ethos was present even before Brazil was discovered. The Portuguese society, as early as the sixteenth century, showed signs of transformation of its customs: aversion to work, obsession

78

RICARDO C. GOMES AND HUMBERTO FALCA˜O-MARTINS

with nobility, family decay, predation, and scavenging (Zancanaro, 1994). This Lusitanian ethics was responsible for the degeneration of the Portuguese State from its very institutions, with special regard to monarchy. As a result, the administration of the Brazilian colony for about three centuries reproduced the vices of the Portuguese State: centralization; scrambled regulations; strong influence of the Catholic Church; complex, confuse, tumultuous and fluid hierarchy; and poorly defined competences (Faoro, 1984). The arrival of the crown in 1808 helped to consolidate a government based on the tradition of the Luso-French administrative law, but also based on an old and withered privilege system imported from across seas. In the empire, anchored in the old framework of conservative politics, was the emperor himself, a bureaucrat-dilettante absorbed in administrative minutiae and literary obsessions, incapable of an overview of the state, living with parallel powers that held the reins of the empire in different periods of centralization and decentralization. Paternalism prevailed in the administration, and nepotism employed useless scholars in the practice of bachelorism (young law bachelor from rich families) whose selection criteria and provision ranged from status, kinship, and favoritism. Finally, the advent of the Republic of the United States of Brazil brought significant policy and institutional changes to the public administration inherited from the empire. The legislative bodies of the empire were abolished and the provisional government replaced the council of the imperial state until the development of a new constitution that clearly demarcated the legislative, executive, and judiciary (Haddock-Lobo, 1965). There was ministerial restructuring and the implementation of a sort of decentralized federalism of the old republic. The states became independent; they created their own structures of government, legislative chambers, and constitutions. Amid these changes, the politics of governors supported by colonels (landlords) began to exert more political influence with the central government and defined the relations between state and society based on patronage that tended to extend beyond the limits of local relatives and become institutionalized in the political system. Second, the implementation of the interventionist state of the Vargas era marks the advent of an administrative state in Brazil (Nascimento, 1967). The Administrative Department of Public Service (DASP) was created in 1938 from the Federal Public Service Council in order to be the main agent of modernization. DASP promoted a revolution in the public administration, employing cutting-edge administrative technology and professionalizing public service according to merit. This process was reflected on the

Public Sector Management Trends in Brazil

79

differentiation of bodies, on the establishment of regulating standards of the state and businesses, as well as on significant organizational changes, actions, and rules for rationalizing administrative processes and methods according to the typical bureaucratic standards in vogue in the American management literature (Wahrlich, 1983), which inspired the 1936 reform. The DASP was insulated, and unrestricted, which caused its hypertrophy. Its operation went far beyond the role of a central body of administration, which is able to create norms and regulations and is the central agency of government with legislative and executive powers. Indeed, it was established as the decision-making infrastructure of the new state regime (Wahrlich, 1983). As a result, DASP’s actions created a divorce between management and social and economic issues, without political expression through democratic means (Cunha, 1963). The DASP modernization implemented an administrative state separate from politics, although the regime resorted to system of expedients employed by typical old-fashioned politics, such as patronage (Schwartzman, 1987). The progress that this initiative represented in relation to the reversal of the patrimonial nature of the previous time was therefore biased. Not because it focused exclusively on the means, in terms of efficiency, but mainly because the traditional forces of a patrimonial nature remained latent and prevalent both in government and in politics, becoming a time bomb in the post-Vargas period. The third phase covers the period between 1945 and 1964 and represents the unfolding of the institutional structures of the state with the backdrop of the return to democracy. The institutional dismantling of the state in Dutra’s period, an attempt to reintroduce the guidance of the state and an attempt to rebuild DASP in the new Vargas administration, the advancement of government planning, the creation of flexible executive structures to implement the strategies of development and the efforts to simplify bureaucracy in the Juscelino Kubitschek’s administration, and the crises and inability to carry out structural reforms, including administrative reforms, in Janio Quadros and Joa˜o Goulart’s administrations, have in common the inability or difficulty to increase the level of rationality in public administration guided predominantly by clientelistic purposes. Fundamentally, the dynamics of national politics during this period, in the full exercise of democracy, opened space for instrumental bargaining, complying with political expediency of employing and appointing people to compose and to make coalitions. Such practices resulted in growth of bodies and staffs and the obliteration of the system of merit, making the rationale of political bargaining patronage dominate politics (Lambert, 1970). This period represents three kinds of initiatives: disrupting the bureaucratic

80

RICARDO C. GOMES AND HUMBERTO FALCA˜O-MARTINS

rationale mentioned earlier; structuring new patterns of bureaucratic rationale isolated in restricted areas of the administrative action; the economic motivation, especially, and frustrating attempts at resuming the structural modernization of public administration. The political environment took over the national power, dismantling an administrative system in order to put into practice its own rationale. Decree Law No. 200/1967 is the starting point of the fourth movement, establishing a radical restructuring in the federal government, which was based on principles such as planning, organization, and the centralization of decision and rules, and decentralization (functional decentralization), especially by enlarging the indirect administration (public organizations, such as foundations, autarchies, and mixed capital enterprises), which was enabled to act in the productive sectors of the economy, and also to help perform, with far more flexibility, the typical functions of state. The reforms were intended to secure the model of management for the development, based on the consolidation of a strong bureaucracy, focused on economic development, whose main characteristic was the predominance of technical rationality, rather than (political), emanating from the technostructure and the sprawl of the indirect government bureaucracy (Bertero, 1984; Ramos, 1981) – whose increased autonomy would lead to control problems (Lima Jr. & Abranches, 1987). If the technocratic institutional design implemented by the military regime on the one hand insulated the state from the paternalism generated by politics, on the other hand it failed to preserve the technocratic patrimonial influence, which through strategies of increasing self-oriented gains (rent seeking) kept the flame of the patrimonial culture alight. The fifth movement begins with the new republic, which inherited a technocratic public administration model that was already exhausted. The challenges were to rescue the public bureaucracy’s ability to formulate and implement social policies, and in addition, direct the government toward democracy. The imperative was to make government an instrument of governability, by distributing areas and offices in exchange for political support needed to overcome the difficulties of the transition’s political instability. Moreover, the progression of the economic crisis imposed a fiscal adjustment model based on linear reduction of expenditures, in spite of the modernization of the fiscal institutions and mechanisms. But the vast majority of the departments suffered crippling budget constraints and progressive regulatory rigidities. The inability or inconvenience to reform the administration was mainly political, aggravated by the imposition of casuistic constitutional rules definitely disrupted the career system, the

Public Sector Management Trends in Brazil

81

welfare of the public service, its structure, and working arrangements. In parallel, there was a harmful politicization of public service, generating corporatism. The effects of so-called administrative reform in the public administration led Collor’s administration to collapse in the sense of paralysis and inability to develop and implement structural policies. The impetus of modernization was more a marketing strategy rather than actual accomplishments. We took a step back toward a government for democracy, without any guarantee of efficiency. The administrative reform implemented in the wake of the Fernando Collor’s Plan was sui generis because they tried to combine economic adjustment, privatization, deregulation and reorganization of the public sector with democracy. Regarding the operation of the public sector, a combined macro-rearrangement government reduced from 27 to 12 the number of ministries and the eventual extinction of several departments from both direct and indirect administration drastically altered the structure of positions in commission – especially gratified functions – and resulted in the reduction of permanent and temporary staff. It was a reform that aimed to ‘interfere less and to govern better’ (Nunes, 1992, p. 223 – translated by the authors).

The efforts of the Itamar Franco administration with respect to the state of deterioration of the public administration were twofold: reversing Collor’s reforms and the adoption of a policy to rebuild the public sector wage system based on populist criteria, decoupled from structural problems of human resources management in the public sector. The promises and the ineffectual attempts at reforming public administration, in a period of institution weaknesses, uncertainty, and, above all, political immaturity, fell to the ground. The challenge of making government responsive to social demands (the new republic’s paramount argument against the technocratic model) and capable of promoting the development and rationalizing public spending had a questionable effect. There was a greater relative weight of social policies in government action and a reasonable rationalization of federal financial management, but there were, however, heavy effects of the financial crisis of the state, and especially the mostly political use of public resources, riddled with mistakes, waste, inefficiency, and corruption. Besides the difficult compatibility between politics and administration, between democracy and bureaucracy, the path of changes in the BPA revealed a model of change with its own characteristics, among which we can point out:  Dualism, or the coexistence of archaic organizational forms with other modern, hybrid forms of patrimonial bureaucracy that combined features

82











RICARDO C. GOMES AND HUMBERTO FALCA˜O-MARTINS

of both models and cultural traits that, in essence, resisted modernization, but, on the other hand, shaped its modern form; Planned organizational changes, without excluding emerging changes, but revealing plans or more comprehensive public management reform programs; Authoritarian form, insulated – detachment from the mentors of modernizing solutions, the method for doing to, rather than doing with – and technocratic deployment, where the prevailing rule is modernizing by law, decentralizing technical and moralizing discourse, but whose outcome is centralization; Procedural, reform initiatives not aimed at modifying cultural administration variables, but restricted to standards, methods, and processes in a mechanical way, devoid of commitment and functional responsibility; Nominalism, restructuring based on mere substitution of labels; however, incoherent with organizational objectives, public agencies, both in the direct and indirect administration, do not disappear. They were absorbed by others, or have their responsibilities changed; and Mimicry, or uncritical transposition of techniques and concepts. Solutions adopted in developed countries tend to be valued and applied uncritically, despite their social, environmental, and energy costs.

The path of change of BPA is part of a nation-building process that has, at least, one peculiarity in regard to the more advanced democracies: Brazil was given a state already corrupted even before setting up a society. Brazilian society was forged under the sign of paternalism. The peculiarity of the Brazilian historical process is the challenge of overcoming gaps and incompleteness of this process and overcoming the heritage of the patrimonial state (making it residual, as in other consolidated democracies), consolidating the rule of law and social state (the guarantor of rights without significant exclusion also as in democracies). It is expected that the rise of democracy in the political sphere and in bureaucratic development, at the government level, even if they don’t get along and have tensions with one another, can in many ways reduce gaps and incompleteness and move toward a robust social democratic state of law. On the one hand, it is expected that democracy will favor, and at the same time reflect a more conscious, mature, engaged, autonomous, and endowed society, with organizational skills. Also, it is expected that this will lead to the improvement of political institutions (elections, parties, legislative process, etc.). On the other hand, it is expected that the advent of new paradigms of public management can help improve the rationality of the administrative state

Public Sector Management Trends in Brazil

83

in a more integrated way with democracy. Therefore, in the recent past, present, and future, the main questions posed are as follows: To what extent the FHC and Lula’s administrations positively altered the path or to what extent the status quo remained? What are the advances, setbacks, gaps, incompleteness, challenges, and opportunities?

RECENT TRANSFORMATIONS: OLD OR NEW PATHS? In this section, we seek to characterize public administration transformation initiatives in the current period, with a focus on the FHC and Lula’s administrations. Information on how and what happened (How have structures/institutions, configurations of states, processes, and personnel changed?) is required to seek evidence to answer the questions proposed in the previous section. The (FHC) Age of State Reform: Diversity and Fragmentation2 As an inertial motion of departure, the president’s management strategy has three main elements: (a) transforming the role of the state and the development strategies, (b) the vital functions of the public bureaucracy, and (c) the institutional differentiation models. The first element deals with the transformation of Economic Commission for Latin America and Caribe (ECLAC) notions from 60 years ago – autonomous development and the belief that outside the state there is no solution – to the ideas resulting from globalization, according to which development depends on inclusion, openness, and interdependence, based on a reordering of state functions, market, and emerging civil society. In short, the president’s vision that the state should change its profile of action, becoming more of a regulator and less a producer, was clear. Regarding the second element, the vital functions of the bureaucracy, there are two fundamental issues in the presidential perspective: the belief that effective bureaucratic administration does not require structural changes, a paradigm shift requiring only fine adjustments and specific improvements, and the belief that vital bodies of the federal bureaucracy (such as the Central Bank, Finance Ministry, and Foreign Ministry) had already been optimized (good staff and well-defined institutional frameworks). The third element of the presidential management strategy points toward the need for only one differentiation model: public

84

RICARDO C. GOMES AND HUMBERTO FALCA˜O-MARTINS

enterprises and joint stock companies, public corporations in the presidential rhetoric, which would require special management rules to operate in dynamic markets. This starting position, which, in principle, would suggest predominantly privatizing public management policies, exploded in six strong autonomous public management policies, because they are anchored in different entrepreneurs, problems, solutions, and coalitions: (a) institutional reform (restructuring of ministries, improving management and institutional implementation of models such as social organizations and executive agencies); (b) management of supporting activities (human resources and information technology); (c) strategic management (development axis and multi-year plan); (d) regulatory apparatus (building regulatory institutions); (e) social management (mobilization, capacity building, and partnership models with the third sector); and (f) fiscal management (budget, privatization, renegotiation of the federal states’ debts and the fiscal responsibility law). Table 2 summarizes the different perspectives of the state reform components, which are analyzed in order to clarify the plurality of problem, solutions, and values, through different coalitions and entrepreneurs. The institutional reform component comprises a set of policy initiatives in public management aimed at improving management, with special emphasis on strengthening the capacity of the central executive management to formulate and implement public policy through the application of institutional models, organizational optimization approaches (such as quality management), and/or directed processes of organizational transformation. In understanding the path of institutional reform, the set of problems that plague the state administration has to do, ultimately, with the lag of the classic bureaucratic administration in face of the emerging scenario of globalization and the crisis of the state. As a solution to overcome this situation, the strategy is based on the proclamation of a new public management, based on managerialism and entrepreneurial public management. The main results of this trend are as follows: the Master Plan for the Reform of the State Apparatus, launched by the Ministry of Federal Administration and State Reform (Mare) in 1995, Constitutional Amendment 19, regarding the inclusion of paragraph 8th in Article 37 of the Constitution, which allowed the expansion of a sort of managerial autonomy through management contracts, Laws 9637 (social organizations) and 9.648/98 (executive agencies) and Decree Laws 2487 and 2488/1998 regarding management contracts and the enactment of executive agencies. The principles underlying the design of public management policies in this path are related to the general principles of so-called new public

Master Plans, Constitutional Amendment 19, Provisional Measure 2.200/01

Master Plans, 9.637e 9.648/98 Acts, Decrees 2.487/88

Policy aims

Need to attract investment for privatization, establishment of new regulatory frameworks in social markets, and achieving autonomy and flexibility

Regulatory Apparatus

Pluri-Annual Plan (PPA) (9.989/2000 Act)

9.782/99, 9.961/00, 9.427/96, 9.472/97, 9.478/97, 9.984/00, 10.233/01 Acts, and PM 2.228/01

Program based on Implementation long-term planning, of regulatory government action agencies based on programs

Reorientation of the HR policy Modernization of human resource management and procurement Implementation of e-government

Introduction of the new public management

Solutions

Strategic Management

Instability and lack of Lack of orientation of government tools and resources actions, lack of to formulate and implement public entrepreneurial attitude to achieve policies Precariousness of results controls and information

Management of Supporting Activities

Need to maintain economic policy in order to ensure primary surplus and spending reduction

Lack of instruments to promote association and development of local capacities to seek autonomy and participation in sustainable development solutions

9.970/01 Act

Complementary Act 104/2000

Training of social Establishing managers mechanisms for Training of local controlling public actors spending at federal, regional, Implementation of and local levels institutional models Fiscal repression of public-private cut-offs partnership

Fiscal Management

Social Management

The State Reform’s Main Components (Martins, 2003).

The problem Overcoming bureaucratic administration in view of emerging scenarios and proved dysfunctions (State crisis)

Institutional Reform

Table 2.

86

RICARDO C. GOMES AND HUMBERTO FALCA˜O-MARTINS

management: flexibility, orientation toward results, customer focus, and accountability/social control. The main institutional loci of this trajectory are the Secretariat for State Reform (subordinated to MARE) and the Secretariat of Management (subordinated to the Ministry of Planning, Budget and Management – MP). The component of management of support activities included a set of public management policies geared to the management of organizational resources, including human, logistical, and informational resources. This pathway stands out from others because it contains a peculiar view about the problem under intervention, namely, the imperative need to reverse the trend of payroll inertial growth (due to the imminent fiscal strangulation), poor controls and ineffective information on human resources, and the scarcity of tools and resources to formulate and implement public policies as a requirement and support to the institutional reform. As the solution consisted of the revision of the civil servants legal framework (by constitutional amendments, among other measures, so that costly rights and prerogatives could lead to more flexibility in the staff composition, in their own careers, and HR management), HR policy reorientation according to new public management principles (restoration of policymaker and regulator staff composition according to planned staff recruitment, more horizontal careers, differentiated salary recomposition, performance pay, redefining the structure of commissioned positions, etc.), modernization of centralized management of human resources and procurement through massive application of IT, and implementation of electronic government with respect to the information infrastructure to optimize processes – mainly decision-making processes – and the provision of information services based on remote platforms. The main results of this trajectory are the HR and IT Master Plan itself, which produces a diagnosis and provides guidance for the main policies, the Constitutional Amendment 19, which allows multiple legal civil service regimes, the dismissal of civil services due to surplus of staff or lack of performance and the policy of differentiated adjustments (ending wage equality), and Provisional Measure 2.200/01, which regulates an IT policy item, namely, the infrastructure of public keys. The guiding principles of this trajectory are centralization, control, containment, efficiency, customer focus, and transparency, a blend of principles from the new public management with other principles embodied in the classic bureaucratic command and control concept. This path contains a number of institutional loci, the Secretariat of Human Resources and the Secretariat of Logistics and Information Technology, which already belonged to MARE.

Public Sector Management Trends in Brazil

87

The component of strategic management consists of a set of public management policies aimed at prospecting and strategy formulation at the national level, in order to set up a development plan, as well as the management of government programs, a set of actions linked to prior definition of outcomes that should guide public administration. The problems that this course of action aimed to solve were the lack of precise purposive guidance of the government action and the absence of an entrepreneurial attitude to achieve results on the part of public officials. Such problems demand systemic solutions to the extent that the Master Plan, in the midst of the paths of institutional reform and management of support activities, turned to the transformation of the state apparatus without pointing at a strategic direction (although it pointed at how to get it). The solution was to prepare a development plan that would serve as a global reference to the whole public administration (and also to the private sector), from which the multi-year plan could be developed, providing government action in the form of programs. Such solutions conformed to the rescue of the government plan from the 1990, and were made possible by the application of IT in the planning and monitoring of government action. The main results are the study of the axes, which is based on development axes based on the identification of productive clusters, 9.989/2000 Act, which established the multi-year plan for the period of 2000–2003, its amendments, and regulatory decrees. Strategic management principles are focused on results and entrepreneurship, based on principles of the project management approach, according to the doctrine of the Project Management Institute–PMI, whose main emphasis was placed on the responsibility of a program manager. The institutional locus of this endeavor was the Ministry of Planning, Budget and Management. Another vector of the policy comprised a set of public management policies aimed at the creation of regulatory institutions, including the definition of regulation and implementation of regulatory agencies. There are three core problems that justify the intervention in the trajectory: (a) the need to attract investments for privatization due to the rearrangement of some state functions, especially with respect to meeting the requirement of rules for stability, (b) the need to establish new regulatory frameworks in social markets of great impact, such as pharmaceuticals and private health care, high political sensitivity, and a history of severe dysfunction (fake medicines and health care fraud), and (c) operational difficulties for the alleged exercise of regulatory functions (in a broad sense, standard setting and oversight activities in any field of state activity) in various bodies and government entities, which would require differentiated

88

RICARDO C. GOMES AND HUMBERTO FALCA˜O-MARTINS

autonomy and flexibility. The solution for the three categories of problems that intersect differently in different cases would be the implementation of regulatory agencies. According to the solutions, the principles of this trajectory are rules’ stability, autonomy, and flexibility. The main results are related to the agencies created in 1995–2002: 9.782/99 Act (Anvisa), 9.961/00 (ANS), 9.427/96 (Aneel), 9472/97 (Anatel), 9478/97 (ANP), 9.984/00 (ANA), 10.233/01 (Antaq and ANTT), and MP 2.228/01 (Ancine). This path involved a multiplicity of institutional loci: Ministries of Health, Communications, Energy and Mines, Transport, and Culture. This component comprises a set of public management policies focused on training and coordination of organized civil society in order to help develop local capacities for the promotion of sustainable development and the provision of public goods through partnerships with the government. The vision of the problem has two elements: (a) the role of NGOs as a dynamic capability of the contemporary Brazilian society, and (b) the misappropriation of models that foster social capital formation (such as utility bonds and philanthropy). Hence, it was necessary to develop appropriate instruments to promote the association and development of local capacities to seek autonomy and participation in sustainable development solutions. The solution would be accomplished by training of social state managers, training of local stakeholders, and by implementing institutional models of public-private partnership with nongovernmental organizations. The main results are Decree Law 1366/1995 establishing the community solidarity program, the Alvorada Project, and the 9.970/01 Act, from which the figure of the Civil Society Organization of Public Interest (OSCIP) was created. The key values of this trajectory are partnerships, mobilization, coordination, learning, local sustainable development, and citizenship. This component consists of a series of public management policies, notably on budgeting, finance, and assets, which are intended, ultimately, to promote fiscal adjustment. In this sense, these policies became accessories of economic policy and, therefore, were vital to government. In general, the view of the problem in this path is related to the need for maintenance of the economic policy, which implies the generation of significant primary surpluses and the consequent need to cut spending. The solution is as follows: (a) reducing spending in a structural manner, through some form of civil service pension reform, or as in an emergency measure, through the practice of so-called fiscal repression (budget and financial cut-offs); (b) increasing revenue by streamlining actions within the Secretariat of Revenue, and (c) establishing control mechanisms of public finances at federal, regional, and local government levels, including the renegotiation of

Public Sector Management Trends in Brazil

89

the state government debts with the federal government. Among many outcomes, ranging from measures relating to privatization to contingency budget and tax collection, there is Complementary Act 104/2000, the so-called Fiscal Responsibility Act. Austerity, control, and containment were the core values of the fiscal trajectory. The FHC era produced a complex set of management policy episodes. Martins (2003) argued that these trajectories followed relatively autonomous and fragmentary directions. Autonomous because they were driven by very different views of the problems and the solutions resulted from different actions of entrepreneurs who competed with each other to form different coalitions. Fragmentary because they were not guided by a common ideal, they had flaws in terms of articulation and they took, in many ways, contradictory positions, self-negating their effects or incurring in synergistic opportunity costs. The fragmentary picture can be depicted by six elements. First, the president adopted an executive leadership style characterized by a relatively strong political position (which can be corroborated by the two FHC elections), but he chose, in view of external conditions (global economic shocks, physiological pressures, etc.), and personality (composition), or both, to undertake the focused projects (e.g., fiscal adjustment rather than a comprehensive development agenda). Regarding public administration, the initial vision of the president was based on the belief that the ‘‘essentiality’’ of the state was working quite well (economic area), that states were changing the profile of their activities (less direct execution and more regulation through privatization), and that the only different institutional model would be public companies, and it already was in place. This meant two things: active public management policies were not in question, and the central coordination of government would be exercised by central structures (General Secretariat of the Presidency, Office of the Chief of Staff, and Ministry of Finance). In the absence of a clear vision by the president (which, in principle, might or might not appear explicitly in his government program), the unifying effect of executive leadership was dissolved by trifurcated delegated coordination. There were three clearly identifiable biases in the structure of delegated executive coordination: the pragmaticnegative (what matters is fiscal adjustment, policies that were not aligned to it should be disqualified), the conservative view (orthodox bureaucracy has not exhausted its optimizing potential), and micro-organizational vision (what matters is to improve the quality of public service). Second, the strategy failed to agglutinate management views. There was a divorce between strategy, the usual domain of planning, structure, or the conditions for its accomplishment, commonly called ‘‘management.’’

90

RICARDO C. GOMES AND HUMBERTO FALCA˜O-MARTINS

The first Cardoso administration had a management plan (the Master Plan) without a teleological dimension that was not a specific strategic project and did not seek to implement one. In the second Cardoso administration, a development strategy was produced (the Multi-Year Plan 2000–2003, based on programs and development axes) in which the implementing structure was not properly bound (it meant that programs should be executed by the interaction of program managers within government structures). The programs failed to become the strategic anchor of the organizations, guided by their own agendas; even their managers were not able to provide the required operational base for the achievement of the programmatic outcomes (entangling themselves, most of the times, within monitoring rituals). Therefore, problems of program design, the gap between programs and organizations, resulted in implementation failures. Third, not counting formal incentives for cooperation (through hierarchical supervision and other forms of integration related to structure and processes), the main actors involved in policy management, in their different institutional domains (Ministries of Finance, Planning, Administration, Civil, etc.), played the fragmentation game. Fundamentally, there was a tiny perception about cooperation and distribution of its results. A climate of competition and distrust prevailed among the key players (for attention from and access to the president and the central levels of government so as to enable their own agendas). Fourth, the structure (the arrangement of organizations and intraministerial arrangements) was fragmentary. Multiple institutional domains were allocated in different ministries and even within the Ministry of Planning, Budget and Management, in the second presidential term, in different secretariat. The inter-ministerial coordination at the top was tri-folded (General Secretariat of the Presidency and Office of the Chief of Staff) and lateral (Ministry of Finance). Intra-ministerial coordination was more critical within the Ministry of Planning during the second term, due to the amount of secretariat absorbed by MARE (in which there was already tension between the areas of support and modernization) and the technical profile of the ministers. Moreover, the collegiate bodies that should have served as integration mechanisms, such as the State Reform Board, served as mechanisms of supervision in the first term and collapsed in the second term. Fifth, there weren’t, in relation to work processes, operating agreements that could generate consensus around the solutions proposed by different agencies responsible for proposing and implementing management policies. Both central agencies and other organizations that were supposed to follow

Public Sector Management Trends in Brazil

91

their guidelines adopted an autonomous behavior in regulating or enforcing rules. This fact hindered the achievement of operating agreements, which would have been beneficial to a set of processes (typical case of the authorization for job provision and the achievement of improved management goals). Sixth, the institutional bodies responsible for formulating and implementing management policies embodied epistemic communities (closely associated, in turn, to certain careers with very specific training and capacity in specific areas of government). Epistemic communities have entrenched views about common problems and solutions, but the inability to exchange information and perspectives prevents the sharing of mental models and the building of more comprehensive and integrated strategies for management policies. The transition between governments raised the assumptions that changes in fragmentary factors could cause changes in the fragmentary picture of management policies in the sense that its dynamics would follow a logic of less autonomy and more coherent, coordinated, and consistent logic. Minimally, some elements of the new government agenda and of the transition would suggest that the prioritization of development could result in an active cycle of management policies, consolidating a strategic reference presumably based on reinvigorated government planning, and executive leadership under intense delegation of the Office of the Chief of Staff (occupied by a stronger government minister), which would require, in theory, a more integrated action of the Ministry of Planning, Budget and Management. Otherwise, see the next section. An Inventory of Management Policy Initiatives in the Lula Administration3 In the period of 2003–2010, one observes the continuity of the public policy management paths started with FHC, and no path that can be qualified as new. Table 3 seeks to summarize them and, in Table 4, we try to characterize the main paths and policy initiatives of President Lula’s administration. There is evidence that during the Lula years these paths continue to follow relatively autonomous and fragmentary directions, to the extent that they still are governed by very different views of problems and solutions, resulting from different actions of entrepreneurs who compete with each other to form different coalitions, or because they are governed by a common ideal, with coherence, coordination, and consistency flaws.

RICARDO C. GOMES AND HUMBERTO FALCA˜O-MARTINS

92

Table 3.

Major Management Policy Initiatives and Paths in Lula’s Government (2003–2010).

Path Institutional Reform

Management support activities

Strategic management Regulatory apparatus

Social management Fiscal management Control

Initiatives Restructuring ministries, reorganization for government installation and pressure for the creation/differentiation of departments and entities GesPu´blica: merging of quality programs and reorganization Casuistic institutional models: ApexBrasil (Autonomous Social Service created to promote exportation); Agevap (Paraiba do Sul River Agency); EBE (Public Company for Energy Planning) Human resources: public sector pension system reform, staff replacement; replacement of contractor; wage recomposition, assets recomposition, and pressures for the creation of vertical career (via National Negotiation table – Trade Unions) E-Government: free software, digital inclusion, rationalization of the communication system Public Procurement System: strict control over procured goods and services Pluri-Annual Plan: participation in the program formulation process Review and regulation of the regulatory model Creation of regulatory careers Regulatory oversight Unification of income transfer social programs Fiscal repression Corruption fighting initiatives Strengthening of the Office of the Comptroller General – CGU

Source: Martins (2005).

First, the executive leadership pattern has not changed significantly. The visions of change and development, which in electoral platform evoked vigorous and comprehensive schedules, usually associated with activist management policies, have become a focused agenda, pragmatic around the maintenance of the previous economic policy. There was, on the government agenda (although there were converging elements in discussions and documents of the Workers’ Party, PT), a consistent view on management policy guidelines and institutional strengthening prevailing in practice, a guideline according to which the occupation of the main government jobs, the interventionism of the Office of the Chief of Staff, and the exercise of political will would be the engines of government. Nevertheless, differences of views on institutional development and possible disputes over areas (the eventual re-creation of the Ministry of Administration or a department

Source: Martins (2005).

Integration of the cash transfer program Articulation among federal, regional, and local programs

Establishing public finance control mechanisms for federal, regional, and local governments Fiscal repression Reform of the Public Sector Pension System

Negotiation boards Recognition and replacement of liabilities Hiring policies Managerial training Free software Rationalization costs Restoration of the estate and collection registration

Proposal of public organizations’ legal framework ActCasuistic flexible legal frameworks

Solutions

Creation of regulatory agencies’ careers Definition of regulatory governance

Need to maintain the economic policy by generating primary surplus and therefore the reduction of expenditures Fragmentation of cash transfer programs

Need to consolidate the regulatory institutions (staff, roles, and the legal framework)

Deficit of the participation in the formulation of the long-term plan programs

Restricting hiring policies and wage recomposition E-Government costs (communication and software) Difficulties in controlling operating expenses Lack of control of capital revenues

Lack of managerial autonomy and flexibility of public organizations’ legal framework

Vision of the problem

National participation and dialogue mechanisms

Fiscal Management

Social Management

Regulatory Apparatus

Strategic Management

Managing Support Activities

Characterization of the Main Trajectories of President Lula’s Policy Management (2003–2004).

Institutional Reform

Table 4.

94

RICARDO C. GOMES AND HUMBERTO FALCA˜O-MARTINS

with similar functions) ended with the keeping of the previous arrangement, even under intense supervision of the Office of the Chief of Staff. The political will, in turn, collided with more complex issues inherent in the exercise of the executive power, such as the installation of the government (the strong presence of staff in managerial positions based on the criterion of party affiliation did not ensure the ‘‘dominance of the machine,’’ on the contrary, it promoted a brutal disorder that has spread from strategic to the operational level and paralyzed many ministries), communication, and government coordination. In relation to the government central coordination, there is a pattern of sub-delegated coordination with fragmentary effects. The government central executive coordination moved from a hard core (formed by the Office of the Chief of Staff, General Secretariat, Secretariat of Government Communication and Strategic Management, and Ministry of Finance) to the Office of the Chief of Staff (despite the creation of the Secretariat of Political Coordination and Institutional Affairs). As the president was unable to directly exercise an active government coordination (due to accumulation of his own functions, especially those of political representation as head of state) and considering the drain on the agenda of the Office of the Chief of Staff Minister, aimed at coordinating nongovernmental issues (mainly with Congress and the government party) and managing crisis, the technical bodies of the Office of the Chief of Staff became stronger as sub-delegated coordination bodies (the offices of the subchiefs of staff, especially the Deputy Chief Executive and the Deputy Chief of Government Action Monitoring) acting in a way that was not always harmonious. Nevertheless, the central coordination of government, even though focused on the Office of the Chief of Staff, did not prevent deadlocks and conflicts from ebbing or flowing directly to the president and receiving a more conciliatory and fragmentary treatment. In summary, despite the technical conditions, delegated coordination of the second tier had smaller effects than if coordination had been exercised directly by the chief of staff himself with direct and explicit delegation by the president. The second set of fragmenting factors underlying the management policies were related to the lack of a strategy that could combine results and the institutional means to attaining them. The 2004–2007 PPA was intended be the government’s strategic agenda in line with a new more inclusive and sustainable concept of development in content and more participatory and legitimate in its process. Thus, the PPA was designed to contain definitions both on the state’s role for promoting development and on the

Public Sector Management Trends in Brazil

95

conditions for this emerging role to be exercised properly. The 2004 PPA made progress in participation and programmatic alignment in relation to development goals, but failed to overcome the vices of the previous model. The divorce between planning and ‘‘management’’ was maintained and the potential for convergence of the PPA toward other management policies (notably in the context of institutional reform and management of support activities) was lost. On one hand, the proposed construction of a management plan, itself the other side of the same coin (the side of achieving the required state to achieve program outcomes), and that contained as one of its essential elements a program management model, was postponed, rejected, and finally discarded by the leadership of Ministry of Planning (causing the dismissal of the Secretary of Administration). On the other hand, the PPA’s newly established management model advanced the treatment of crosscutting issues, but left aside the interaction among programs-managers-organizations, reproducing, with minor modifications, the schemes and shortcomings of previous approaches. The strategy failed to mobilize to the extent that the PPA management arrangements reproduced their autonomous logic (assuming that programs are self-executing and organizations are results-oriented), and did not integrate management policies in other domains. In the third set of factors, the fragmentation game continued intense, exacerbated by internal divisions within the ruling party and with the interactions with other parties installed within the bureaucracy and segments of the bureaucracy itself. New actors did not increase the possibility of cooperative win-win games, but led to a framework for greater competition, distrust, sectarianism, and partisanship. Cooperation was impossible in a context of divergent interests and mutual distrust. The fourth set of factors, the structure, also contributed to increasing fragmentation. The macrostructure became more fragmented due to the increase of the first level departments, challenging central coordination’s ability to monitor and control the government’s actions, although the policy management areas remained unharmed. It also thwarted the effect of councils and other units of integration for the treatment of lateral crosscutting issues (whose proliferation tended to generate sometimes excessive lateral interactions that increased the need for central coordination). On the other hand, the intra-Ministry of Planning coordination reached critical levels. The technical profile of the minister (whose comfort zone in budget issues departed from the rest of his extensive list of responsibilities, draining his agenda) and the intensification of the differences in profile and vision of the secretaries took the integrated ministry model (planning and

96

RICARDO C. GOMES AND HUMBERTO FALCA˜O-MARTINS

management) to the critical limit. The internal interdepartmental conflicts on issues concerning areas of expertise, ideas, formulation, and implementation became critical and paralyzing, especially between the Secretariat of Management and Human Resources on HR policy issues. Attempts to set up governing bodies for structural integration (policy management and human resource management chambers) failed. With respect to working processes, the fifth fragmentary factor, the lack of operating agreements that could generate consensus around the solutions, proposed by different agencies responsible for proposing and implementing management policies remained. Under the Ministry of Planning, the processes of structure management, hiring authorization, management improvement (through quality program and cutting red tape and the promotion of organizational transformation), program management, human resource management, information technology management, central government procurement management, asset management, and outside the Ministry of Planning, the processes of fiscal management, social management (unification of income transfer programs), and management of the regulatory apparatus have slight lateral integrations, prevailing the logic of operational autonomy in each of the operational areas. The sixth fragmentary factor, epistemic communities, revealed an even greater gap between the communities of different public management policies. Above all, they remained very tight and unable to share mental models to share common views about problems and solutions, but less in terms of shared values and visions, which happened due to a fragmenting effect of the engagement of people from political parties in the epistemic community. The introduction of politicians in established and entrenched epistemic communities generated, with rare exceptions (which can be the case of traditionally insular areas such as the Ministries of Treasury, Defence, and Foreign Affairs), identity crises in these expanding communities, enlarging the gap between them (because there is not a such homogeneity of thought among the politicians from the government party, which, in turn and by itself, is a complex set of different epistemic communities).

Toward a New Model of Transformation The components and the fragmentary picture in both Cardoso and Lula’s administrations reveal a new dynamic for change in the public sector, noticeable by new internal and external connections and new demands from a more complex society, a more complex public administration, and the

Public Sector Management Trends in Brazil

97

abdication of big comprehensive plans. Although fragmentary, this is perhaps the dynamics of management policies in a democracy. The fragmentary picture worsened in the transition from FHC to Lula. Although fragmentary features can be explained as government transition problems (Burke, 2001), the changes in the fragmentation factors are likely to be of a more structural order. Table 5 seeks to illustrate these fragmentary features comparatively. The question is to what extent have the policies of recent years reproduced the bureaucracy-democracy struggle? To what extent have they yielded positive effects, reducing gaps, incompleteness of the welfare state, and the rule of law? Briefly, in relation to the first question, there are three possible answers. First, politics and bureaucracy have been strengthened, but this does not mean that relations between the two are reciprocally functional. The coalition-based presidentialism was strengthened and, with this, the entries of predatory policy in the bureaucracy – particularly from within the ruling party, PT, through the process of political machinery imposed upon the administration. Second, and aligned with the first, the machinery is more about capture than a new level of bureaucratic insulation. Third, the capture effect seems to be more robust than the professionalization effect, which is characteristic of the expansion of staffs and careers on meritocratic bases. In short, the predatory relationship between politics and administration continued. The second question already has two answers. First, yes, the gap decreased and the social state and rule of law were strengthened at the end of the FHC and Lula’s administrations. The country grew, inequality decreased, and well-being increased. Second, the contribution of public management policies to this process seems to have little significance, except perhaps the part of the fiscal adjustment and social management. But the main point is that the fragmentary context prevented the advent of more effective management policies, with greater contribution to development. Indeed, the risks and opportunity costs of fragmentation are high. The worsening of fragmentation may be of interest to specific segments because it opens up spaces apparently outside the control of management policies encapsulated in specific institutional domains, generating four major categories of risk. The first is an ‘‘orthodox turn’’ and it is likely to satisfy ideological interests by rejecting the innovations connected to the New Public Management and the adoption of solutions inspired by orthodox bureaucratic management. The second is ‘‘a series of incremental casuistic strategies,’’ which satisfies pragmatic interests. Instead of seeking to review

FHC (1995–2002)

Autonomous orientation: low systemic integrations and impossibility of operational agreements Different epistemic communities (people and careers linked to organizations), unable to dialogue each other, not sharing the same mental models

Tripartite delegated coordination: Office of the Chief of Staff, General Secretariat of the Presidency, Ministry of Treasury Divorce between planning and management: management plan without any strategic orientation (Master Plan) and strategic plan (PPA 2000–2003) without satisfactory management arrangements Fragmentation game: cooperation products and their distribution are not apparent; competition to draw the attention of the president; distrust Macrostructure: fragmentation of the political domains Union MARE-MP: defeat of management; overload of secretaries; limitation of intra-MP coordination; technical ministerial profiles Integration mechanisms: collapse of State Reform Chamber

Fragmentation game: cooperation products and their distribution are not apparent; increase of competition to draw the attention of the president; distrust Macrostructure: fragmentation of the political domains MP: overload of secretaries; collapse of intra-MP coordination; technical ministerial profiles; draining of the agenda by the budget Integration mechanisms: failure to create integration instances Autonomous orientation: low systemic integrations and impossibility of operational agreements Different epistemic communities (people and careers linked to organizations plus interacting with people appointed by the Workers Party) suffering identity crisis, unable to dialogue each other, not sharing the same mental models

Divorce between planning and management: management plan anchored on the 2004–2007 PPA versus management model of the PPA

Style: political brokerage, focused agenda (maintenance of the economic policy) versus comprehensive development model Coordination transferred to the Office of the Chief of Staff

Vision: social development, political will

Lula (2003–2004)

Fragmentation Factors in FHC and Lula’s Administrations.

Vision: economic stabilization, regulatory state, strengthened economic area, differentiated management for public enterprises Style: political brokerage, focused agenda (fiscal adjustment) versus comprehensive development model

Source: Martins (2005).

People

Process

Structure

Mutual adjustment

Strategy

Executive leadership

Table 5.

98 RICARDO C. GOMES AND HUMBERTO FALCA˜O-MARTINS

Public Sector Management Trends in Brazil

99

and improve the management innovations underway, it promotes plasticity beyond tolerable limits. The third category of risks is capture, which satisfies corporate or party interests and can operate in niches where the degree of autonomy loses the reference to the recipient and insulate itself. The fourth category is the risk of ‘‘inefficiency,’’ which meets interests apparently aligned with governance, but open room to management investments (e.g., replacement of staff) of low return and low quality. These findings do not validate the possibility (or desirability) of materialization from now on of a more integrated, coherent, coordinated, and consistent pattern of changes, such as was once the modernization attempted by DASP to develop public administration and anchored in the Decree Law 200. Such initiatives, although more ordered, occurred in an authoritarian and mechanistic conception depending on government management (predominantly in the case of DASP). A pattern of integration or authoritarian ways for promoting a single management thinking are not consistent with democracy, nor with the complex nature of contemporary social and political organizations. A fundamental challenge of the contemporary transformations of public administration is the implementation of management models in organic and democratic environments in line with the concepts of indeed, the advent of an organizational bureaucracy and even the ‘‘State-Net’’ require a minimum degree of convergence and efficiency of management policies. The advent of a new cycle of policy management based on that fragmentary structure increases the complexity of changes in management processes, to the extent that the complexity of the engineering of the typical institutional process needs to be followed by the inseparable and concomitant construction of a strategic architecture in order to alter the structures that produce management policies.

FINAL THOUGHTS The challenge of improving public management is immense. The result we are seeking is to change management practices to transform public management to generate more welfare and more development for citizens and economic actors. Achieving the vision of citizenship set down in the 1988 federal constitution and taking advantage of development opportunities in the current external and internal scenarios (pre-salt, mega-events (World Football Cup and Olympic Games), international prestige, economic strength, social mobility, etc.) require a new set of public administration

100

RICARDO C. GOMES AND HUMBERTO FALCA˜O-MARTINS

improvement efforts in order to satisfactorily consider two critical factors: time and scale. Brazil has spent the last 15 years arguing whether the ‘‘management reform’’ was good or if it could work, applying it in small doses. Although today there is more clarity about the relevance of the topic (public management is increasingly a matter of public policy), the direction to be followed, and success stories, in general, the concrete results collected so far are largely insufficient for the necessary quality leap. The emerging patterns of public policy management network in all sectors of government intervention require integrated efforts to improve comprehensive management and in multiple levels across private sector in a coordinated manner involving the federal, regional, local governments, the three powers, participatory mechanisms, and government partners. This involves more than 5,000 municipal governments, 100,000 public organizations, 54,000 policy councils, over about 40 issues, 500,000 public officials, 8 million civil servants, and a countless number of partners. Virtually all policies and programs nationwide crosscut this universe. Some cases, mainly health and education, crosscut this entire universe. Focused, fragmented, incremental, and episodic initiatives have their importance and need, but, on the whole, they generate residual and insignificant effects or lack proper sustainability. The Brazilian State, with such a vast and complex organizational set, remains predominantly a combination of orthodox patrimonial bureaucracy of low-performance, limiting citizenship, imposing a high tax burden and hindering development. Despite the advances we experienced in the last 20 years or so, public management is still narrow-minded, rigid, procedural, and misaligned with the recipient (citizens and society). Although we acknowledge the existence of islands of excellence, public organizations have, in most cases, significant structural deficits in capacity and performance. The complexity of the public governance problem in Brazil requires integrated immediate and significant performance, mobilization, and a national effort to improve public management. Some significant steps have been taken in this direction. These are some initiatives to improve public management that can and should integrate and enhance its effects. Among others, three categories stand out. The Ministry of Planning has been developing programs and tools focused on the theme, such as the GesPu´blica Program, which has the merit of engineering an extensive mobilization network, branched in the three spheres of government, and made up of practitioners from a wide range of public organizations, able to offer instruments aiming to assess public management and to improved customer service. Since 2009, the logic of the program has shifted from a quality management view to approaches geared .

Public Sector Management Trends in Brazil

101

to managing by results. Another program, the PNAGE, has the intrinsic merit of mobilizing the states around the issue, raising awareness and interests and seeking to improve its requirements regarding the timescale and transaction costs. The program’s main focus is on the states. The initial diagnosis needs to be upgraded, and improvements in the processes of hiring, maintenance of equipment, and resource availability should be introduced. Similarly, the federal agenda driven by the Ministry of Planning has programs – such as Brazil municipalities – and initiatives geared to the use of automated solutions and free public management tools, to be used by municipalities, such as the applications available on the Brazilian Public Software Portal e-City. The Movement for a Competitive Brazil (MBC) was regarded as an organization that gathered a significant number of efforts to improve governance at the national level, covering all spheres and using private sector–financed models of intervention, fast and effective, which started out being too focused on fiscal issues (expense reduction and revenue growth) and is now seeking to expand into more comprehensive interventions. A third model of management improvement has been the direct intervention of governments and public organizations, which have been guided by a sort of diversity of coverage (government as a whole or focused on sectors or organizations) and objects of interventions. The recent Brazilian experience reveals, finally, activity and learning. All these initiatives are positive and have generated positive results, but results are still far below what is needed and therefore need to be increased. We must not only exploit and expand the complementarities, but also improve the efficiency of these initiatives. We need, above all, to integrate and to expand them, making them more robust, improving and reinvigorating the critical mass that they produced in order to promote a reaction chain on a larger scale and generate relevant transformation. The whole process of improving management (and on a more general perspective, the construction of the state) requires a critical review in order to overcome the fragmented paradigm and operate according to a holistic logic. A quantum leap is needed. There are some basic conditions already established, such as resources and the recognition of the relevance of the issue by politicians, the media, and even citizens at a smaller scale. But appropriate solutions to the complexity and scale of the problem need to be modeled. Above all, a new cycle of innovation in public management is a new attitude. Although there are some appealing signs, it is too early to draw some conclusions or prospects from President Dilma’s administration so far. New attitude means first to reject the surrendering attitude, fueled

102

RICARDO C. GOMES AND HUMBERTO FALCA˜O-MARTINS

by impotence or accommodation, and by discomfort and aversion to complexity, by accepting the conspiracy theories (political forces opposing and obstructing factors), the inferiority complex (the cultural fatalism, the political culture, etc.). Being fully satisfied with small steps that do not change reality, but only patch up omission and failure, we must break the mediocrity cycle and act with more boldness and courage for changing the whole rather than focusing on the pieces. There will never be ideal conditions – they need to be created, building, with good results, an increasingly favorable strategic architecture.

NOTES 1. Contains excerpts from Martins (1995). 2. Contains excerpts from Martins (2003). 3. Contains excerpts from Martins (2005) and data from Marini (2009).

REFERENCES Bertero, C. O. (1984). O Estado Brasileiro e a Evoluc- a˜o da Administrac- a˜o Pu´blica: Esboc- o Histo´rico. Brası´ lia, Brazil: FUNCEP, mimeo. Burke, J. (2001). Lessons from past presidential transitions: Organization, management, and decision making. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 31(1), 5. Cunha, M. W. V. (1963). O Sistema Administrativo Brasileiro. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: CEBRAPE. Faoro, R. (1984). Os Donos do Poder. A Formac- a˜o do Patronato Polı´tico Brasileiro. Porto Alegre, Brazil: Globo. Haddock-Lobo, R. (1965). Histo´ria Econoˆmica e Administrativa do Brasil. Sa˜o Paulo, Brazil: Atlas. Lambert, F. (1970). Tendeˆncias da reforma administrativa no Brasil. Revista de Administrac- a˜o Pu´blica, 4(1), p. 15, janeiro/junho. Lima, Jr., O. B., & Abranches, S. H. H. (1987). As Origens da Crise. Estado Autorita´rio e Planejamento no Brasil. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: Ve´rtice-IUPERJ. Marini, C. (2009). Inventa´rio das Principais Medidas para Melhoria da Gesta˜o Pu´blica no Governo Federal Brasileiro. Brası´ lia, Brazil: Ministe´rio do Planejamento, Orc- amento e Gesta˜o. Martins, H. F. (1995). A Modernizac- a˜o da Administrac- a˜o Pu´blica Brasileira no Contexto do Estado. Masters dissertation, Escola Brasileira de Administrac- a˜o Pu´blica e de Empresas da Fundac- a˜o Getulio Vargas-EBAPE/FGV. Martins, H. F. (2003). Uma teoria da fragmentac- a˜o de polı´ticas – desenvolvimento e aplicac- a˜o na ana´lise de 3 casos de polı´ticas de gesta˜o pu´blica. Doctoral dissertation, Escola Brasileira de Administrac- a˜o Pu´blica e de Empresas da Fundac- a˜o Getulio Vargas-EBAPE/FGV.

Public Sector Management Trends in Brazil

103

Martins, H. F. (2005). Polı´ticas de Gesta˜o Pu´blica no Governo Lula: um campo ainda fragmentado. XXIX Encontro da ANPAD. Brası´ lia, Brazil. Nascimento, K. T. (1967). Reflexo˜es sobre a Estrate´gia de Reforma Administrativa: A Experieˆncia Brasileira. Revista de Administrac- a˜o Pu´blica: 11 semestre. Nunes, E. (1992). Modernizac- a˜o, Desenvolvimento e Servic- o Pu´blico: Notas sobre a Reforma Administrativa no Brasil. Perspectivas da Economia Brasileira. Compilado pelo IPEA. Brası´ lia, Brazil: IPEA. Ramos, N. M. (1981). Modernizac- a˜o Administrativa e Estrate´gias de Mudanc- a: Algumas Reflexo˜es sobre o Caso Brasileiro. (15th ed., pp. 168–190) (extra). FGV: Revista de Administrac- a˜o Pu´blica. Schwartzman, S. (1987). A Abertura Polı´tica e a Dignificac- a˜o da Func- a˜o Pu´blica. O Estado e a Administrac- a˜o Pu´blica. FUNCEP. Brası´ lia, Brazil: FUNCEP. Wahrlich, B. M. S. (1983). A Reforma Administrativa da Era de Vargas. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: Fundac- a˜o Getulio Vargas. Zancanaro, A. F. (1994). Corrupc- a˜o Administrativa no Brasil. Sa˜o Paulo, Brazil: Acadeˆmica.

CHAPTER 5 FROM RELUCTANT TO COMPELLED REFORMERS? REFLECTIONS ON THREE DECADES OF PUBLIC MANAGEMENT REFORM IN FRANCE, GREECE, ITALY, PORTUGAL, AND SPAIN Edoardo Ongaro ABSTRACT Purpose – This chapter addresses a range of questions about public management reform in ‘Napoleonic’ administrative systems. It starts by addressing the descriptive question about what trajectories of reform occurred, and then explores what has been the fundamental stance toward new public management (NPM) (rejected, imported and implemented, or filtered and translated). I also discuss how reforms have changed the relative power base and role interpretation of the main actors in public management reform, and analyze the strategic approaches employed toward the reform of public management in these countries. Finally,

Emerging and Potential Trends in Public Management: An Age of Austerity Critical Perspectives on International Public Sector Management, Volume 1, 105–127 Copyright r 2012 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 2045-7944/doi:10.1108/S2045-7944(2012)0000001008

105

106

EDOARDO ONGARO

I assess some key strategic alternatives for policy-makers as regards the reform of public management in the face of the long-term effects of the fiscal crisis that has struck these countries since 2010. Design/Methodology/Approach – This chapter is based on a combination of literature reviews and opinions from the experts in the field who are surveyed – selected experts are all renowned scholars or leading practitioners, knowledgeable of public sector reform in the countries subject to investigation. Findings – The chapter concludes that NPM-inspired reforms have to some extent been attempted; particularly, the role of tenured officials seems to have changed substantially, especially in their relationship with elected officials. However, NPM doctrines have been mainly filtered and translated into the local politico-administrative dynamics and codes of interpretation, and quite often they have been hollowed out. Particularly, the role of tenured officials seems to have changed substantially, especially in their relationship with elected officials. In terms of strategic approaches, there seems to have been much ‘‘maintaining’’ and some ‘‘modernizing,’’ although with important differences between countries (Italy being an especially difficult case to classify). The fiscal crisis and the changes in European governance might lead to a profoundly different state of affairs in which the interconnection between changes in European Union (EU) governance and public sector reform might become more closely interconnected than they used to be. Research limitations/Implications – The contribution is mainly speculative, and urges for empirical research to be undertaken, particularly on the issue of the interconnection between changes in EU governance and public sector reform. Originality/Value – The contribution provides a distinctive and critical perspective on public sector reform in an underinvestigated cluster of countries. Keywords: New public management; public management reform; EV governance; reform; strategy; fiscal crisis

INTRODUCTION This chapter addresses a range of issues and research questions – mainly descriptive in nature – about the reform of public management in five

From Reluctant to Compelled Reformers?

107

countries that have sometimes been categorized as belonging to a common ‘‘Napoleonic’’ administrative tradition (Painter & Peters, 2010; Ongaro, 2010). They can be summarized as follows:  What have been the trajectories of reform?  What has been the fundamental stance toward new public management (NPM): rejected, imported and implemented, or filtered and translated?  How have reforms changed the relative position/power base and role interpretation of the main actors in public management reform: elected officials (the ‘‘politicians’’ in executive positions), tenured officials (the ‘‘bureaucrats’’), market forces (consultancy firms engaged in public management reform included), citizens, and the academia?  What have been the strategic approaches by key actors toward the reform of public management in these countries?  And speculatively, what are some key strategic alternatives/options for policy-makers as regards the reform of public management in the face of the long-term effects of the financial crisis and specifically the fiscal crisis that has struck these countries since 2010? Can the crisis be an opportunity, and under what conditions? Or is the eventual destiny of Southern countries one of lower levels of public services for a long time to come? There are a number of substantive and methodological limitations in what this chapter may contribute: first, as already noted, in substantive terms this chapter is mostly descriptive, rather than explanatory; second, from a methodological point of view this chapter relies, next to a review of literature (and a fundamentally speculative component), on a collection of expert opinions. Although questionable as a research methodology in general, such approach seemed appropriate for a speculative chapter in a book aimed at offering critical perspectives to the study of public management. The experts are all highly knowledgeable of the public sector of their own country as well as in a number of cases also of the others in the cluster; however, for obvious limitations of time and resources, what they could provide has been a necessarily quite synthetic answer to a range of broad, sometimes eminently speculative questions (see Appendix); nonetheless, their contribution has been fundamental for the preparation of this chapter1 (while responsibility for errors is all mine). The basic framework adopted is that of the ‘‘trajectories of reform,’’ as introduced by Pollitt and Bouckaert in the 2000 edition of their highly cited volume (Pollitt & Bouckaert, 2004/2011), refined in the light of recent scholarship (Bezes, 2009; Parrado, 2008; and ongoing works by the same

108

EDOARDO ONGARO

authors), that aptly points to issues of timing, sequencing, and interactions in the analysis of trajectories. Common wisdom has it that certain fundamental features of the administrative systems of these countries hinder ‘‘managerial’’ reforms; as a matter of fact, it may be observed a less massive ‘‘managerialization’’ than has occurred elsewhere (e.g., in the ‘‘NPM countries’’: Australia, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom), but this is not exclusive of these countries. One preliminary clarification appears pertinent: the term ‘‘reluctant’’ might, implicitly or explicitly, convey the message that there is ‘‘one best way,’’ or at least one common way to change and reform the public sector. This is not our position: we consider a more proper picture to be one in which ‘‘Modernisation is context dependent’’ (Christopher Pollitt, 2009 – preface in Ongaro, 2009 – citing OECD, 2005); we fully agree with and share a ‘‘context dependent’’ approach; nonetheless, there is evidence of a more limited development of managerial instruments in the cluster of countries examined in this chapter (although with important exceptions: e.g., the budgetary reform named LOLF carried out in France over the period 2001–2006), of a much less systematic and continued reform effort, and in this respect the term ‘‘reluctant’’ may to some extent depict some traits of the stance of the administrative elite toward global NPM recipes. Whatever the degree of adequacy of that picture, however, things may have changed – or being on the way of changing – during the period this chapter is being prepared, which is one of financial crisis whose epicenter seems to be the common currency of these five countries: the euro. The fiscal crisis of these countries (atleast some of them) might represent a watershed event also as regards the broad frame in which public management reform takes place, surely not just for these countries, but these countries might perhaps represent the first manifestation, and possibly the paroxysm, of a novel phenomenon (another effect of globalization plus Europeanization?) whereby public management reform ceases to be mainly a ‘‘national competence’’ and interconnects more and more with dynamics occurring in global and supranational governance.

A CLUSTER OF COUNTRIES A number of analytical problems are raised every time ‘‘administrative traditions’’ are evoked and attempts at clustering countries are pursued. The very notion of the ‘‘family’’ of countries is certainly questionable, depending on whether the emphasis is on the common traits in the administrative

From Reluctant to Compelled Reformers?

109

inheritance or on idiosyncratic features. Following mainstream works (Painter & Peters, 2010), we here highlight commonalities and cluster the five investigated countries under the umbrella of the ‘‘Napoleonic’’ administrative tradition. It is a tradition characterized by, among the most prominent features, an organic conception of the state in its relationship with society; the predominance of law (vs. management) to define the fundamental tasks of the administration (‘‘the principal role of the public administrator is to consider him or her as charged with administering public law’’); and a role for the bureaucracy to provide, at least potentially, a general-purpose elite for the state, with fewer barriers than in other systems for bureaucrats to fill elective positions (‘‘administrators have political careers, both as active politicians and as appointees to positions in ministerial cabinets and similar structures that are linked to political leaders’’), while the civil service tends to be distinctive from general employment, and uniformity of administrative action figures prominently as a core administrative value (see Peters (2008) – citations are from pp. 122 and 124, respectively). An elaboration of the main characteristics of the Napoleonic administrative2 tradition is in Chevalier (1996), Ongaro (2009, 2010), Painter and Peters (2010, chapter 2), Peters (2008), and Wunder (1995). Administrative traditions are not immutable (Painter & Peters, 2010), and transformations occurred to the Napoleonic administrative tradition in its concrete embodiments are illustrated by Ongaro (2009). Do traditions affect public management reform? The broad answer drawn from a study of traditions throughout most of the world (Painter & Peters, 2010, chapter 17) is ‘‘to a certain extent, and not an irrelevant one, yes’’ (critics of the ‘‘tradition argument’’ may well put emphasis on the half empty glass and consider that other factors are of course important). The subsequent answer is much more difficult: how do traditions affect administrative reform? Debating this topic is outside the scope of this chapter (but see, e.g., Yesilkagit, 2010); interestingly, however, a recent stream of scholarship investigating some of the countries in the cluster (Bezes, 2009; Parrado, 2008; and ongoing research works) points out that the influence of the administrative tradition cannot be intended statically: it has to be set in time (Pierson, 2004; see also Pollitt, 2008), and timing, sequencing, and contents of trajectories do matter in determining what causal mechanisms will be triggered and how the concatenation of mechanisms will affect the trajectory in the context of a given administrative tradition.3 Next to a historical perspective, other theoretical perspectives may be employed for justifying (or criticizing) the clustering of the five countries. A very interesting one is the cultural perspective adopted by Bouckaert

110

EDOARDO ONGARO

(2007), drawing on Hofstede’s research on work-related values in different countries (Hofstede, 2001). Drawing on that work, it has been observed that the five countries in the cluster (plus Belgium) tend to fall in the same quadrant and to be distinguished from all the other countries (in a mapping of 21 countries) according to most combinations of different cultural dimensions (Ongaro, 2008). A common culture (or at least commonalities in work-related cultural characteristics) may thus provide another basis for the clustering of such countries.

CHANGE AND CONTINUITY IN PUBLIC MANAGEMENT In this section, we briefly outline the trajectories of reform of the five countries considered. Given the limits of space, what can here be provided is just a snapshot: the reader will find a set of references to recent writings that may provide a more complete and nuanced picture (Alba & Navarro, 2011; Bezes, 2009; Corte-real, 2008; Kickert, 2011b; Lafarge, 2011; Magone, 2011; Ongaro, 2008, 2009, 2011; Parrado, 2008, 2011; Rouban, 2008; Ongaro, Galli, Barbieri, & Fedele, 2011; Ongaro, Parrado, &Verhoest, 2011; Spanou, 2008; Spanou & Sotiropoulos, 2011). The main objective of this section is to set the scene, mainly in order to introduce the backdrop against which the perspective of the changes occurred to the actors in the reform of public management, and the strategic approaches to the reform of public management in these countries may be introduced and discussed (in the two subsequent sections), and to provide some grounding for speculating about the future (a task undertaken in the final section). Recent as well as ongoing research work by scholars deeply engaged in the study of the trajectory of reform in two of the countries considered, namely France and Spain, has focused the central issue of the timing and the sequencing of reforms as an indispensible characteristic for the understanding of the dynamics of a given trajectory: they rightly (in our opinion) argue that the influence of the ‘‘context’’ – the politico-administrative context of a given country case – cannot be interpreted assuming a static perspective, as if its influence were independent of the contents of the reforms under consideration, their timing, their sequencing, their interactions (see Bezes, 2009; Parrado, 2008, 2011, see also with a different epistemological basis, the study of public management policy change in France, Italy, and Spain by Barzelay & Gallego, 2010a, 2010b; Corbett, 2010; Gallego & Barzelay, 2010; Mele, 2010).

From Reluctant to Compelled Reformers?

111

Based also on the highly valuable input we received from the panel of experts that have been willing to contribute to the preparatory work for this chapter (see the section ‘‘Acknowledgments’’), we can outline (indeed just sketch) the trajectories of reform of the five countries over the last two decades of the twentieth century and the first one of the twenty-first century.

France Decentralization of functions and tasks to regional and local government has come first, at the very beginning of the 1980s, triggering reactive effects both in the organization of the state (reinforced role of the prefects at the territorial level, development of field offices of the central government) and in other areas of public management, like personnel regulation (reforms undertaken in 1983–1984 had a strong thrust toward ensuring uniformity of treatment, hence in a certain sense ‘‘cohesion’’ in the civil service across the levels of government); decentralization has been symmetric across the country, centered more on local than regional governments, and not financial: characteristics that set it as different from the kind of decentralization that occurred in Italy (more centered on regional governments) and, to a much more profound extent, Spain (in which the financial/fiscal dimension had a central position); however, it did represent a discontinuity with the past administrative model (Bezes & Le Lidec, 2010). During the two other decades of the last century, a series of reforms have occurred, especially in the area of performance measurement, none of which appears however to have produced any disruption along the path: incrementalism is probably the apt interpretive key here. We need to wait the turn of the millennium for another path-breaking event (Bezes, 2010a): the introduction of the LOLF – Loi Organique relative aux Lois des Finances – that has had effects on the very underlying logic of the budgeting process, the relative influence of actors on it, and the running of public sector organization (Bezes, 2009). The ‘‘exceptional’’ context of the Sarkozy 2007–2012 presidency (a non-enarque by background, i.e., he reached the top political position without having graduated at the Ecole Nationale d’Administration, quite an exception in the Fifth Republic since the Giscard D’Estaing presidency, who could count on a strong parliamentary majority during the period 1997–2012, and who acted in a period of turmoil due to the financial crisis that might possibly contribute to the opening of windows of opportunity for radical, wide-scope changes) is too recent at the time this book goes to press for its potential for path-breaking reforms to be

112

EDOARDO ONGARO

assessed. However, two changes that occurred in this period have been assessed by beholders (Dreyfus, Fouchet, Rouban) as changes with a significant remit and potential impact: first, the Re´vision Ge´ne´rale des Politiques Publiques (RGPP) – General Revision of Public Policies4 – that authors like Robert Fouchet interpret as ensuing from the visibility that the LOLF gives to economic performance of public policies: according to this interpretation, the LOLF appears as a path-breaking, hence a pathestablishing event that makes feasible and/or more convenient (‘‘increasing returns’’ logic) reform interventions previously difficult to achieve (Bezes, 2010b); second, the reorganization of the public sector through mergers, occurred at both the local (Bezes & Le Lidec, 2010) and the central government levels (the merger of ministries into mega-administrations is quite in countertendency with the ‘‘NPM’’ prescriptions about the virtues of disaggregation and specialization).

Greece The trajectory of reform in Greece has been characterized as ‘‘institutional rather than managerial’’ in its focus and core concerns (a feature that has been deemed to apply to all the four southern countries of the cluster; see Kickert, 2011a, 2011b): changes have occurred to the architecture of the state, e.g., through the introduction of an elective regional tier, or to its regulatory role, with the establishment of ‘‘Independent Regulatory Agencies’’ (IRAs) and other institutions aimed at ensuring the proper functioning of the industrial and financial markets, or at ensuring citizen’s rights in the relationship with the public administration (ombudsman), rather than focusing on management systems (see Spanou, 2008 and Spanou & Sotiropoulos, 2011). It is questionable whether such reforms represented a break in the path, or whether within-path (limited, incremental, transformative) change is the only form that can be detected in the Greek trajectory – at least before the 2010–2011 state budget crisis.

Italy This is the only country to have undergone a regime crisis during the period under consideration. The collapse of the party system over the years 1992–1994 has triggered an uninterrupted chain of partial changes that have led to qualify Italy as a case of ‘‘context in motion’’ (Ongaro, 2009) and

From Reluctant to Compelled Reformers?

113

a contested polity that cannot be explained through the model ‘‘from crisis to a new order via a transition’’ but has more properly to be considered as a case of negotiated change via institutional layering (Bull & Rhodes, 2007). Changes have occurred, however: the ‘‘first move’’ regarded the area of personnel regulation and management, profoundly modified by a reform in 1993, that triggered a number of subsequent interventions that have eventually left personnel regulation, and specifically the formal and informal ‘‘rules of the game’’ in the interaction between executive politicians and bureaucrats (Cassese, 2002; Ongaro, 2009) significantly different from the initial state of affairs.5 Other path-breaking events have been the decentralization reforms of 1992–1993 (in the healthcare sector) and 1997 (in a range of other sectors) that triggered successive events, both reinforcing and reactive, layered in partly inconsistent ways (Ongaro, 2006). The Napoleonic features of the country had provided the central government with powerful tools (both ‘‘hard’’ and ‘‘soft’’ powers entrusted to the prefects as representatives of the central state on the territory; a range of practice and routines through which the center used to steer regional and local governments; the centralized financial system) whereby the decentralization trend was subsequently for a significant part hollowed out or accommodated into more traditional, consolidated practices, also due to an ambiguous design of the decentralization reform (based on the criterion of ‘‘shared competences’’ between central and regional governments) and the ‘‘chance event’’ of the financial crisis (public debt crisis) started in 2008 that was exploited also to further centralize the control over public finances. A third set of reforms are more clearly NPM-type; they range from the introduction of performance measures to the development of organisational forms like that of the executive agencies: a set of potentially transformative interventions that according to many commentators (e.g., D’Alessio & Di Lascio, 2009) were later reabsorbed or hollowed out, leading to little change at least when the broad picture is considered (at the level of individual public sector organisations, specifically in sectors like healthcare or local government, cumulative, radical changes have occurred).

Portugal Although a number of reforms have occurred, in different waves (Corte-real identifies five of them, starting from the 1970s right after the fall of the Salazar regime), it appears that continuity has been the main trait. Transition to democracy and post-decolonization brought with them issues

114

EDOARDO ONGARO

of ‘‘democratic loyalty’’ of civil servants, hence issues of personnel regulation, and issues of size of the civil service (partly counterbalanced by a limited expansion of the welfare state, not a priority of the dictatorship). Differently from other countries in the cluster, an attempt to decentralization (in the direction of establishing regional governments) did not have the chance to get into the implementation phase, as it was foundered by a referendum, leaving Portugal a quite strongly unitary state. Country experts identify, in broad terms, a phase characterized by the introduction of managerial tools, one that broadly speaking may be labeled as ‘‘NPM,’’ followed by a phase qualified as focused on governance approaches (Corte-Real, 2008; Magone, 2011). Beholders point to external events like access to the European Union (EU) or to Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) as having had a potential for inducing change. Like for other countries in the cluster, the financial crisis has bitten in depth – although its effects in terms of public sector change (apart from its likely shrinkage) are difficult to decipher so far (we return on this point, in a speculative fashion, in the final section).

Spain Decentralization, or devolution, toward the Estado de las Autonomı´as has been the first move, and definitely a path-breaking one, in the revamping of the public sector in Spain in the aftermath of the transition to democracy. Its features of being asymmetric (centered on the regional governments, and marked by a differential degree of ‘‘autonomy’’ for certain regions) and having in the fiscal/financial dimension, a key element, have contributed to making such reform an event with long-lasting effects also in other areas of public sector reform (like the reorganization of the territorial services of the central state; see Parrado, 2011). Attempts have been made to reform the system of cuerpos (corps, a trait in common with the French and the Italian administration), both during the 1980s and in 2007, apparently with limited effects. During the 2000s, emphasis has been on organisational interventions, first of all the introduction of the ‘‘executive agency’’ model, according to a modality that puts emphasis on structural design to the exclusion of substantive modifications in the management systems and routines (like performance contracting), an approach that, ill-timed with the occurrence of the financial crisis and the deployment of its effects in terms of harsh budgetary cuts, has led to continuity by far prevailing on administrative change.

From Reluctant to Compelled Reformers?

115

Asked the ‘‘undoable’’ question about whether NPM has been rejected, imported, and implemented, or filtered and translated in the countries considered, the contacted scholars appear to add confidence to what seems to have become common wisdom on this issue (Bezes, 2010b; Corte-Real, 2008; Kickert, 2011a, 2011b; Magone, 2011; Ongaro, 2009; Rouban, 2008; Spanou, 2008; Spanou & Sotiropoulos, 2011): NPM-inspired reforms have to some extent been attempted, they have been mainly filtered and translated into the local politico-administrative dynamics and codes of interpretation, and have often been hollowed out, although certain reforms have found their way into the system, likely with path-breaking effect (e.g., the LOLF in France as a form of ‘‘management by objectives’’ originally conceived for the commercial sector, on the trail of Drucker’s thought); however, public sector change has occurred mainly at the institutional level, in the redesign of the structure of the state on regional bases, or in the regulation of public personnel in the relationship with elected officials – the trigger of such reforms lying probably more in endogenous dynamics than in global NPM pressures (Gallego, 2003; Mele, 2008).

ACTORS IN PUBLIC MANAGEMENT REFORMS The subsequent question we address concerns how reforms have changed the relative position/power base and role interpretation of the main actors in public management reform. This is obviously an overly ambitious research question: what we propose in this and the next section are some elements of reflection about some of the main changes (or absence of change) that seem to have occurred to these actors in the ‘‘strategic games’’ they play in and around the reform of public management. In this analysis, we widely follow the patterns outlined by Pollitt and Bouckaert in the final chapter of their 2004 edition of Public Management Reform: A Comparative Analysis (and see also Bouckaert, 2003), in conceiving public management reform as a kind of strategic decision making. We can identify five main categories of actors potentially active in forming the strategic approach toward the reform of public management: elected officials (the ‘‘politicians’’ in executive positions), tenured officials (the ‘‘bureaucrats’’ at the top of the hierarchy), private sector actors (included consultancy firms engaged in public management reform), citizens, and the academia. In this section, we sketch some traits of the role they have had in the reform of

116

EDOARDO ONGARO

public management, and the changes that have occurred to their relative position. In the next section, we try to identify some ‘‘strategies’’ that seem to have characterized the reform of public management in the countries considered. Regarding elected officials, there seems to be consensus among the experts ‘‘interviewed’ for the preparation of this chapter, and in literature, on the point that their ‘‘job’’ has not changed as a result of administrative reforms.6 This is striking, if we consider that NPM recipes7 assign a well-specified role to elected officials: to ‘‘steer at a distance’’ and identify goals, i.e., to define priorities and allocate the resources, while remaining detached from ordinary administration and the decisions on the combination of production factors (pertinence of the ‘‘managers’’). Although, at least in some countries of the cluster, reforms inspired by these ideas have been attempted (e.g. France and Italy), zooming in on the ground in these five countries, it seems that the ‘‘new elected official’’ as conceived by NPM-doctrines has never appeared. The way elected officials interpret their role (in relation to the bureaucracy) has not changed, surely not in the direction assumed by NPM doctrines. More nuanced and multifaceted are the appreciations of the changes in the conditions of tenured officials and the way they interpret their role. Changes have occurred as a consequence of successive reforms, more in some countries (e.g., Italy) than in others. Different theoretical lenses have been applied to interpret such changes, like the Public Service Bargain framework elaborated by Hood and Lodge (2006) and applied in Ongaro (2009; see also Borgonovi & Ongaro, 2011) to outline what appears to be a new fundamental shift in the basic bargain between elected and tenured officials in Italy as a consequence of a succession of reforms in the area of civil service (see also Rouban, 2007 on the case of France). NPM has also been associated with a penetration of ‘‘private sector, market-oriented’’ values into the public sector (associated mainly with the ‘‘marketize strategy’’; see below). The interviewed experts are quite divided on this: certain point quite neatly to an enhanced role of private sector, commercial more than not-for-profit actors, to have enhanced their grasp over the public sector, due to privatizations, contracting out, opening up of public services to private providers, and more generally a presumption (widely held, at least until the 2008 financial crisis) of ‘‘better management’’ associated with the private sector (the picture is obviously far more nuanced, as also surveys on trust in institutions show; see Pollitt and Bouckaert, 2004/2011); others do not share the same orientation and emphasize

From Reluctant to Compelled Reformers?

117

persistent ‘‘separation of spheres’’ between the public and the commercial sector. As regards academics, both the responses by the experts and a review of recent accounts in scientific literature on the dynamics of public management policy processes (among the most effective of such accounts are Gallego, 2003 on Spain and Mele, 2008 on Italy) seem to outline a picture in which it does not emerge a prominent role for the academia, intended as national scholarly production providing ‘‘guiding ideas’’ and full-fledged models for the reform of the public sector, in such processes – although a role may have been played by the public management scholarly community in mediating, translating, and communicating to national public officials ideas that had previously been circulating in international fora, and individual academics have at times played influential roles. Further qualifications are also required: a number of academics-turned-politicians have been influential in the area of public sector reform, but rarely did they come from the public management scholarly community; more often they came from disciplines like public law/administrative law or economics. Investigating the relative influence of different ‘‘epistemic communities’’ is well beyond the scope of this chapter, but maybe a reflection should be made on the quality of what the scholarly community in public management produces. Taking the case of Italy, in the disciplinary field of public management some pioneering works (e.g., Borgonovi, 1973, 1984, who is also the author of a highly significant four-decade scientific production in public management,8) have engendered a veritable school of thought. However, the larger community in public management presents a more nuanced picture, displaying certain quite interesting empirically rich works (e.g., Anselmi, 2006), while others unfortunately appear to be wanting (Anselmi, 1995, 2003; Mulazzani, 2006). As regards citizens, assessing changes for the citizens intermingles with the highly complex issue of the impacts of reforms (at all levels: input, process, outputs, and outcomes). Suffice here to say that authors have detected, in a patchy way, some changes more in the direction of empowering citizens that previously were in a position of relative subordination vis–a`-vis the public administration (from administre´ to citizen) than an emphasis on transforming citizens into customers – to put it another way: the five countries considered have surely not observed any excess in the citizenas-customer conception, rather the patchy introduction of elements of customer-orientation (like experiments with one-stop shops; Ongaro, 2004) next to some basic orientation toward empowering citizens in their rights (Spanou, 2008).

118

EDOARDO ONGARO

SOME ‘‘STRATEGIC’’ STANCES Four basic strategies for the administrative elite to deal with the pressures on the state apparatus have been identified by Pollitt and Bouckaert9 (2004/ 2011, pp. 183–194): 1. Maintain strategy: mainly based on the tightening up of traditional controls (‘‘restrict expenditures, freeze new hiring, run campaigns against waste and corruption, and generally ‘squeeze’ the system of administration’’ (Pollitt & Bouckaert, 2004, p. 186). 2. Modernize strategy: modernize the administration by ‘‘bringing in faster, more flexible ways of budgeting, managing, accounting, and delivering services to their users’’ (ibid., p. 187). The authors, relying especially on previous work by Guy Peters (2001), further distinguish two subvarieties in this approach, one emphasizing more the orientation to ‘‘letting managers manage’’, and empowering and freeing public servants from constraints in order for them to be more effective in delivery (top-down, or push approach: the thrust in this approach originates from within the public sector and it then directs itself toward citizens); the other one stressing the engagement of citizens and service users in a variety of participatory processes (the basic orientation is here from the citizens to the public sector, pulled from the outside rather than pushed from within the public sector). 3. Marketize strategy: by instituting as many market-type mechanisms as possible within the public sector. As the authors observe, ‘‘This represents a penetration of the administrative system by the culture and values and practices of the market sector – a lowering of ‘group’ in this respect’’ (Pollitt & Bouckaert, 2004, p. 187 – the reference is to grid-group cultural theory as applied by Hood to interpret fundamental shifts in the public sector; Hood, 1998). 4. Minimize strategy: by handing over as many tasks as possible to the private sector (through privatization and contracting out), in such a scenario ‘‘the public administrative system dwindles to a shadow of its former self’’ (ibid., p.188). To these ones, the ‘‘distancing and blaming’’ approach may be added: the public sector is depicted by politicians as ‘‘part of the problem’’ and almost a scapegoat for whatever goes wrong, bureaucracy is evil, and some form of consensus may be gained exploiting the unpopularity of the ‘‘bureaucracy’’ among the wider public. The ‘‘distancing and blaming’’ strategy, however, may help gain time and harvest short-term increases,

From Reluctant to Compelled Reformers?

119

for its champions, in the popularity as measured by the opinion polls, but is devoid of contents, hence in the longer term one or a combination of the four other strategies is needed to cope with pressures to change the public sector. Considering the five countries examined, it appears that France has gone mainly for the modernize strategy. A number of qualifications are required, however, and finer-grained analyses have revealed how the top circle of civil servants has placed itself above the burden of responding to measurable objectives, while the rest of the managerial cadres has to play the management by objectives game (Rouban, 2008). Moreover, beholders consider the Sarkozy presidency to have introduced a novel, unprecedented alliance (in the Fifth Republic) between political elites and business circles to the detriment of the higher civil service, something that might perhaps have paved the way for a shift in the strategic orientation in public management reforms toward the marketize strategy. In Greece, Portugal, and Spain, a combination of the modernize and, apparently to a more significant extent, the maintain strategy seems to be the main note, within a frame in which, as properly noted by Kickert (2011a), institutional reforms (decentralization and regionalization, new equilibria between politics and administration also through reforms of personnel regulation) are central stage, and ‘‘managerial’’ reforms have less centrality, in both the public discourse and the formal authoritative decisions and courses of actions that have been undertaken. Italy appears a bit of a maverick in this set of countries, and it seems to have swung more than once over the period since the political crisis of 1992, which triggered the ‘‘season of reforms’’: from mainly a modernize strategy during the 1990s – hybridized with elements of the maintain strategy (e.g., the tightening of expenditure controls to cope with the 1992 financial and currency crisis), elements of the minimize strategy through massive privatizations, and with the marketize strategy applied in one sector only (but a central one: the healthcare sector) – to mainly a maintain strategy during the first decade of the 2000s, to a turn to the ‘‘distancing and blaming’’ (short term) strategy during the end of the 2000s, followed up by a combination of measures broadly ascribable to the modernize approach but that have been for the most part hollowed out by the reinstatement of a maintain strategy under pressure to manage cuts as a consequence of the financial crisis started in 2008. It is to speculating about the consequences of the public debt crisis, ultimately a crisis of European governance, that we turn in the final section of this chapter.

120

EDOARDO ONGARO

SPECULATING ABOUT THE FUTURE: PMR IN AN ERA OF FISCAL CRISIS AND SEARCH FOR A NEW GOVERNANCE It is difficult to assess whether the financial and debt crisis and the related search for a new EU and global governance may provide a truly different frame into which public sector reform will occur in the future, or whether at the opposite the consolidated schemes remain fully applicable. Undoubtedly, since 2008, supranational and international (EU, global) fora and financial arenas (rating agencies, IMF) have gained a prominence that has limited parallels with past circumstances for the five countries examined (possibly the accession period for Greece, Portugal, and Spain may have some resemblance, limitedly to EU institutions). Indeed, in these countries, like in a host of others, cutback management and policy termination seem to be the frameworks to look at. And cutback management may well lead to ruling out reform approaches (changing the form of a system requires time and sustained efforts, ingredients that may well be missing in such circumstances) and to put emphasis on purely reducing the size of public sector: a concrete scenario being that of a destiny of lower levels of public services for a long time to come. However, the alternative scenario of a new wave of massive public management reform cannot a priori be ruled out, although its occurrence appears to require quite restrictive conditions. What we here highlight, in a book aiming at providing new and critical perspectives in public management, is that seen from the South of Europe the bundle of opportunities and constraints for the restructuring of the public sector appears to be interconnected in a closer and closer way with the new (not necessarily effective) forms of supranational and international governance that are being sought (in dire straits and under circumstances that future studies might interpret according to models like the ‘‘joint decision trap’’ and ‘‘muddling through’’ in a frame of weak governance ambitions ill-matched with the huge governance challenges). Tentatively, we might state that in the future public management reform will likely be less and less an almost exclusively ‘‘national competence’’ (although performed under global pressures and deploying ‘‘patterns of change somewhat analogous to the causes of institutional isomorphism identified by Dimaggio and Powell’ as pointed out by Painter and Peters, 2010, p. 235) and more and more a phenomenon that requires for its understanding to shed light on the dynamic interactions it has with adjustments in EU and global financial and fiscal governance.10

From Reluctant to Compelled Reformers?

121

NOTES 1. I also benefited in the preparation of this chapter from presentations I delivered in Latin America (Brazil) in 2010 and a range of feedback, gratefully acknowledged, that I received from scholars and reflective practitioners from countries in this region. I would argue that a striking combination of similarities and dissimilarities between the cluster of countries studied in this chapter and Latin American countries makes it worth pursuing a research agenda in public management centered on a more systematic comparison between these two clusters. 2. Incidentally, it may be noted that the omission of the central part of a citation may have caused a misunderstanding that has affected the whole of a review recently appeared in a journal; the citation reads (Raadschelders, 2011, p. 507): [the expression Napoleonic state] is intended as just a way of referring to the five countries investigated [omissis] while of course the expression does not entail that there is any kind of ‘Napoleonic’ heritage affecting the broader form of the state.

The full sentence instead reads: [the expression Napoleonic state] is intended as just a way of referring to the five countries investigated – what we make reference to is the public administration of such countries, whilst of course the expression does not entail that there is any kind of ‘Napoleonic’ heritage affecting the broader form of the state. (first italic in original, second one added)

Thus, with the notion of ‘‘Napoleonic administrative (i.e., public administration) tradition,’’ we refer to some basic traits of the administration, which we assume these countries have in common, to a certain degree. The extent to which ‘‘commonalities’’ are larger than dissimilarities is debatable, of course, and the explanatory power and limitations of the tradition notion have been discussed elsewhere (Painter & Peters, 2010) and recalled briefly here in text. We do not refer to the form of the state, and in this sense Napoleonic state is just a label for pointing to the five countries (that may of course have other traits in common – cultural or otherwise – beyond features of the administrative system); it is thus not at all clear why the author of such a review states that in my 2009 book I should claim that the notion of a common administrative tradition is a stereotype: I simply do not claim that. The other claim I do not make is that the administrative tradition should explain everything – indeed reforms like regionalization (in France, Italy, Spain) challenge the Napoleonic characteristics of the system, like its centralizing feature, and are not explained by it (contrarily to what stated in the same book review (Raadschelders, 2011, p. 509), but as perfectly understood in about a dozen other reviews of the same book that have appeared in various academic journals). Administrative change is change, and traditions matter in explaining change (or the absence of change: what paths of reproduction as well as change may be more or less easily undertaken), as much as administrative changes – however generated (and other factors are surely influential too) – do matter in affecting and sometimes transforming the inherited administrative system (the point is very well summarized in the concluding chapter

122

EDOARDO ONGARO

‘‘Administrative traditions in an era of administrative change’’ of the Painter and Peters (2010) book). 3. By ‘‘causal mechanisms’’ we mean a whole range of causal explanations for social phenomena ranging from the social mechanisms strand (Hedstrom, 2005; Hedstrom & Swedberg, 1998) and, possibly with a different underlying epistemology (Streeck & Thelen, 2005), to organization theory (feedback mechanism, organizational learning, and the like) to economics (transaction costs, hierarchy vs. market vs. network-type of mechanisms, etc.). 4. A special issue of the Revue Franc- aise d’Administration Publique has been devoted to this reform (no. 136, 2010: special issue editors: Franc- ois Lafarge and Michele Le Clainche). 5. It appears however as a minimum highly problematic to lump together the 1993 administrative reform with the quest for a renewed party-political class, on the one hand, and the fight against organized crime (the mafia) and its interconnections with the political sphere conducted by magistrates like Giovanni Falcone, on the other hand, as it is done in the commentary on administrative reform in Italy by Raadschelders (2011). 6. Although changes may have occurred driven by other dynamics: e.g., beholders like Luc Rouban have reported a salient feature of the Sarkozy presidency that it seems to be characterized by a concentration of power in the Elyse´e palace and an enhanced prominence of personal interactions and trust as a major dimension of the French political life than it used to be the case in the past. 7. Here represented as a consistent set of doctrines, which is of course, at least in part, mainly a useful fiction. 8. The reason for the awarding of an honorary doctorate, on the 16th of September 2011, by the Institut de Management Public et Gouvernance Territoriale de l’Universite´ Aix-Marseille, for his pioneering role in public management studies in Italy and beyond. 9. We here employ the framework of analysis developed by Pollitt and Bouckaert in the first and second edition of their seminal work. Other Authors (Jones, Schedler, & Mussari, 2004) more generically refer with the term ‘strategy’ to the basic direction or thrust of the reform in a given country. In this chapter we do not draw on the strategic management literature to explore the dynamics of the strategy process (strategy formation) in public sector organisations, a path that might perhaps be beneficial also for the study of the reform of the public sector at the macro-level, as it is for the study of the organisational behavior of individual public sector organisations. 10. Frameworks to explain public management under such circumstances may well be looked for in streams of literature like policy transfer (Dolowitz & Marsh 1996, 2000) applied to the field of public management, especially coercive policy transfer in the presence of external donors – but possibly the two-way interactions between adjustments in EU governance and the dynamics of member states public sector reform require to integrate such framework into a partly different one. Also, the Europeanization literature (Featherstone & Radaelli, 2003), especially Europeanization in administration, appears to be central stage in this perspective of analysis, but in this case too the dynamic interactions between adjustments in EU governance and adjustments in public management may possibly require to revisit in a new light

From Reluctant to Compelled Reformers?

123

such stream of literature A research agenda for the advancement of knowledge on the topic is sketched in Ongaro (2012).

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The preparation of this chapter benefited from the active contribution, through their precious answers to the set of questions reported in Appendix and/or in various other ways, that has been given by Philippe Bezes, Isabel Corte-Real, Mauricio Dussague-Laguna; Franc- oise Dreyfus, Paolo Fedele, Robert Fouchet, Francisco Gaetani, Raquel Gallego, Didier Georgakakis, Ricardo Gomes, Franc- ois Lafarge, Jose´ Magone, Luc Rouban, Enrique Saravia, Dimitri Sotiropoulos, and Calliope Spanou.

REFERENCES Alba, C. R., & Navarro, C. (2011). Administrative tradition and reform in Spain: Adaptation vs. innovation. Public Administration, 89(3), 783–800. Anselmi, L. (1995). Il processo di trasformazione della pubblica amministrazione : il percorso aziendale. Turin, Italy: Giappichelli. Anselmi, L. (2003). Percorsi aziendali per le pubbliche amministrazioni. Turin, Italy: Giappichelli. Anselmi, L. (Ed.). (2006). Modelli economico-patrimoniali per il bilancio e la contabilita` di Stato. Milan, Italy: Giuffre`. Barzelay, M., & Gallego, R. (2010a). The comparative historical analysis of public management policy cycles in France, Italy, and Spain: Symposium introduction. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions, 23(2), 209–223. Barzelay, M., & Gallego, R. (2010b). The comparative historical analysis of public management policy cycles in France, Italy, and Spain: Symposium conclusions. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions, 23(2), 297–307. Bezes, P. (2009). Re´inventer l’Etat. Les re´formes de l’administration franc- aise. Paris, France: Presses Universitaires de France. Bezes, P. (2010a). Path-dependent and path-breaking changes in the French administrative system: The weight of legacy explanations. In M. Painter & G. Peters (Eds.), Tradition and public administration (pp. 158–174). New York, NY: Palgrave-Macmillan. Bezes, P. (2010b). Morphologie de la RGPP: Une mise en perspective historique et comparative. Revue franc- aise d’administration publique, 2010/4(136), 775–802. Bezes, P., & Le Lidec, P. (2010). L’hybridation du mode`le territorial franc- ais. La re´organisation de l’administration territoriale de l’Etat et la Re´vision ge´ne´rale des politiques publiques. Revue franc- aise d’administration publique, 4, 881–904. Borgonovi, E. (1973). L’Economia aziendale negli istituti pubblici territoriali. Milan, Italy: Giuffre`.

124

EDOARDO ONGARO

Borgonovi, E. (Ed.). (1984). Introduzione all’Economia delle Amministrazioni Pubbliche. Milan, Italy: Giuffre`. Borgonovi, E., Fattore, G., & Longo, F. (2008). Management delle Istituzioni Pubbliche. Milan, Italy: EGEA. Borgonovi, E., & Ongaro, E. (2011). The civil service in Italy. In A. Massey (Ed.), The International handbook on civil service systems. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. Bouckaert, G. (2003). La Re´forme de la Gestion Publique: Change-t-elle les Syste`mes Administratifs? Revue Franc- aise d’Administration Publique, 2003/1(105/106), 39–54. Bouckaert, G. (2007). Cultural characteristics from public management reforms worldwide. In K. Schedler & I. Proeller (Eds.), Cultural aspects of public management reforms. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Elsevier. Bull, M., & Rhodes, M. (2007). Italy: A contested polity. West European Politics, 30(4), 657–669. Cassese, S. (2002). Le Nouveau Re´gime de la Haute Fonction Publique en Italie: Une Modification Constitutionelle. Revue Franc- ais d’Administration Publique, 104, 677–688. Chevalier, T. B. J. (1996). Public administration in statist France. Public Administration Review, 56(1), 67–73. Corbett, A. (2010). Public management policymaking in France: Legislating the organic law on laws of finance (LOLF), 1998–2001. Governance, 23(2), 225–249. Corte-Real, I. (2008). Public management reform in Portugal: Successes and failures. The International Journal of Public Sector Management, 21(2), 205–229. D’Alessio, G., & Di Lascio, F. (Eds.). (2009). Il Sistema Amministrativo a Dieci Anni dalla Riforma Bassanini. Turin, Italy: Giappichelli. Dolowitz, D., & Marsh, D. (1996). Who learns what from whom: A review of the policy transfer literature. Political Studies, XLIV, 343–357. Dolowitz, D., & Marsh, D. (2000). Learning from abroad: The role of policy transfer in contemporary policy-making. Governance, 13(1), 5–24. Featherstone, K., & Radaelli, C. M. (2003). The politics of Europeanization. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Gallego, R. (2003). Public management policy making in Spain 1982–1996: Policy entrepreneurship and (in)opportunity windows. International Public Management Journal, 6(3), 283–307. Gallego, R., & Barzelay, M. (2010). Public management policymaking in Spain: The politics of legislative reform of administrative structures, 1991–1997. Governance, 23(2), 277–296. Hedstrom, P. (2005). Dissecting the social: On the principles of analytical sociology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Hedstrom, P., & Swedberg, R. (Eds.). (1998). Social mechanisms: An analytical approach to social theory. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hood, C. (1998). The art of the state. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Hood, C., & Lodge, M. (2006). Politics of the public service bargain. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Jones, L. R., Schedler, K., & Mussari, R. (Eds.). (2004). Strategies for public management reform. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Elsevier. Kickert, W. (2011a). Introduction: Administrative reform in Greece, Italy, Portugal, Spain. Public Administration, 89(3), 721–722.

From Reluctant to Compelled Reformers?

125

Kickert, W. (2011b). Distinctiveness of administrative reform in Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain. Common characteristics of context, administrations and reforms. Public Administration, 89(3), 801–818. Lafarge, F. (2011). France. In K. Verhoest, S. Van Thiel, G. Bouckaert & P. Lagreid (Eds.), A global compendium on agencification. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave. Lafarge, F., & Le Clainche, M. (Eds.), (2010). La Re´vision Ge´ne´rale des Politiques Publiques. Revue Franc- aise d’Administration Publique, n. 136, pp. 751–754. Magone, J. M. (2011). The difficult transformation of state and public administration in Portugal: Europeanization and the persistence of neo-patrimonialism. Public Administration, 89(3), 756–782. Mele, V. (2008). Explaining programmes for change: Electronic government policy in Italy (1993–2003). Public Management Review, 10(1). Mele, V. (2010). Innovation policy in Italy (1993–2002): Understanding the invention and persistence of a public management reform. Governance, 23(2), 251–276. Mulazzani, M. (2006). Economia delle Aziende e delle Amministrazioni Pubbliche. Padua, Italy: CEDAM. OECD. (2005). Modernising government: The way forward. Paris, France: OECD. Ongaro, E. (2004). Process management in the public sector: The experience of one-stop shops in Italy. The International Journal of Public Sector Management, 17(1), 81–107. Ongaro, E. (2006). The dynamics of devolution processes in legalistic countries: Organisational change in the Italian public sector. Public Administration, 84(3), 737–770. Ongaro, E. (2008). Editorial Introduction: Public management reform in France, Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain. The International Journal of Public Sector Management, 21(2), 101–117. Ongaro, E. (2009). Public management reform and modernization: Trajectories of administrative change in Italy, France, Greece, Portugal and Spain. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. Ongaro, E. (2010). The Napoleonic administrative tradition and public management reform in France, Greece, Italy, Portugal, Spain. In M. Painter & B. G. Peters (Eds.), Tradition and public administration. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave MacMillan. Ongaro, E. (2011). The role of politics and institutions in the Italian administrative reform trajectory. Public Administration, 89(3), 738–755. Ongaro, E. (2012). L’influence de la nouvelle gouvernance europe´enne sur la re´forme de l’administration publique dans les E´tats de tradition administrative napole´onienne – Plaidoyer pour l’adoption d’un nouvel agenda de recherche´. Revue Franc- aise d’Administration Publique, 141, 239–246. Ongaro, E., Galli, D., Barbieri, D., & Fedele, P. (2011). Italy. In K. Verhoest, S. Van Thiel, G. Bouckaert & P. Lagreid (Eds.), A global compendium on agencification. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave. Ongaro, E., Parrado, S., & Verhoest, K. (2011). Agencification trends in Latin countries. In K. Verhoest, S. Van Thiel, G. Bouckaert & P. Lagreid (Eds.), A global compendium on agencification. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave. Painter, M., & Peters, B. G. (Eds.). (2010). Tradition and public administration. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Parrado, S. (2008). Failed policies but institutional innovation through ‘‘layering’’ and ‘‘diffusion’’ in Spanish Central Administration. The International Journal of Public Sector Management, 21(2), 230–252.

126

EDOARDO ONGARO

Parrado, S. (2011). Spain. In K. Verhoest, S. Van Thiel, G. Bouckaert & P. Lagreid (Eds.), A global compendium on agencification. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave. Peters, B. G. (2008). The Napoleonic tradition. The International Journal of Public Sector Management, 21(2), 118–132. Peters, B. G. (2001). The future of governing: Four emerging models. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas. Pierson, P. (2004). Politics in time: History, institutions, and social analysis. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Pollitt, C. (2008). Time, policy, management: Governing with the past. Oxford: OUP. Pollitt, C. (2009). Preface. In E. Ongaro (Ed.), Public management reform and modernization: trajectories of administrative change in Italy and France, Greece, Portugal and Spain (pp. vii–ix). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. Pollitt, C., & Bouckaert, G. (2004/2011). Public management reform: A comparative analysis (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press (1st ed., 2000; 3rd ed., 2011). Raadschelders, J. (2011). Public sector reform in comparative perspective? The Italian case and some afterthoughts – Book review of Ongaro, E. (2009). Public management reform and modernization: Trajectories of administrative change in Italy, France, Greece, Portugal and Spain. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, Public Administration Review, 71(3), 507–510. Rouban, L. (2007). Public management and politics: Senior bureaucrats in France. Public Administration, 85(2), 473–501. Rouban, L. (2008). Reform without doctrine: Public management in France. The International Journal of Public Sector Management, 21(2), 133–149. Spanou, C. (2008). State reform in Greece: Responding to old and new challenges. The International Journal of Public Sector Management, 21(2), 150–173. Spanou, C., & Sotiropoulos, D. (2011). The odyssey of administrative reform in Greece, 1981–2009: A Tale of two reform paths. Public Administration, 89(3), 723–737. Streeck, W., & Thelen, K. (2005). Introduction. In W. Streeck & K. Thelen (Eds.), Institutional change in advanced political economies (pp. 1–40). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Wunder, B. (1995). Les influences du mode`le Napoleonien d’administration sur l’organisation administrative des autres pays. Brussels, Belgium: IIAS, Cahiers d’Histoire de l’Administration. Yesilkagit, K. (2010). The future of administrative tradition: Tradition as ideas and structure. In M. Painter & B. G. Peters (Eds.), Tradition and public administration. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave MacMillan.

From Reluctant to Compelled Reformers?

127

APPENDIX: OPEN QUESTIONS FOR HIGH-LEVEL EXPERTS 1. What reforms have occurred in your country/the five countries considered, what doctrines did they refer to, and what implementation dynamics and effects have occurred? 2. What theories can explain change or continuity in these countries: historical (neo-)institutionalism is the received doctrine, but does it account for all? 3. Is NPM still alive? At the level of talk, decision, or action? 4. Why and in what sense this cluster of countries is a ‘‘hard case’’ for NPM doctrines? Discuss the issue of context. 5. How has the job of elected officials changed, and what are the implications? 6. How has the job of tenured officials changed, and what are the implications? 7. What has the academia contributed as regards public sector management, and did it matter (or was it without influence on PSM)? 8. Have market forces been the winners (or losers) of public management reform, and what are the implications, especially for citizens: subordinates (administre´s) or citizens after three decades of reform? Citizens or customers? 9. What have been the strategic games? 10. Can the 2008 financial crisis and the ensuing cutback political dynamics provide an opportunity (window) for public management reform? Under what conditions, and in what sense? Or is this an age of ‘‘cutback politics’’?

CHAPTER 6 DOUBLE DEVOLUTION AT THE CROSSROADS? LESSONS IN DELIVERING SUSTAINABLE AREA DECENTRALIZATION Lorraine Johnston ABSTRACT Purpose – This chapter reviews the approaches to the decentralization of services and the devolution of decision-making to local structures outlined by the New Labour government in the United Kingdom. The chapter draws upon earlier attempts by Town Halls in urban areas to introduce new forms of governance and decision-making as a way of providing a context to New Labour’s plans. Methodology/Approach – The chapter provides a detailed review and analysis of the literature and discusses the different models of governance and concepts of power and uses this analysis to identify 10 key lessons for policymakers. Findings – The 10 key lessons for policymakers and practitioners that are identified and discussed include the role of local political leaders; the convergence of political and managerial leadership; defining the level and pace of community participation; and stressing the importance of continual training, learning, and evaluation. Emerging and Potential Trends in Public Management: An Age of Austerity Critical Perspectives on International Public Sector Management, Volume 1, 129–159 Copyright r 2012 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 2045-7944/doi:10.1108/S2045-7944(2012)0000001009

129

130

LORRAINE JOHNSTON

Research implications – The chapter sets out a possible framework for review, research, and evaluation including cultural change, civil renewal, policy connectivity, and commitment and pace of change. The chapter defines these terms and the terms offer a way of looking at different initiatives and approaches at the level of City Hall. Originality/Value of the chapter – The chapter sets the framework for a conceptual and empirical study of different approaches to double devolution within the United Kingdom and also outside of it. Keywords: Decentralization; double devolution; learning; sustainable place making; regeneration

CONTEXT Decentralizing and/or devolving service delivery and regeneration activities to sub-local structures have become key ideas in the rhetoric of ‘‘double devolution’’ in England. These ideas were introduced into policy by former Communities and Local Government Minister, David Miliband and subsequently given prominence in the Local Government White Paper (LGWP) (2006), which has raised local authorities’ expectations about becoming ‘‘strategic leaders’’ and ‘‘place shapers’’ of their communities. As will be shown, giving up or transferring power and responsibility below the Town Hall is not exclusive of complications. This chapter addresses the key question of how expected decentralization initiatives can learn from the previous episodes of governance with a view to influencing future policy directions. The focus underpinning these new enabling models was the notion that local authorities could shed their bureaucratic and paternalistic ways of working to become more radical facilitators of community-focused service delivery and civil renewal.1 The chapter argues that the ideas underpinning the so-called double devolution form as yet an ill-defined concept, which remains at the crossroads of local government reform. This is perhaps relevant on two counts for regeneration managers. First, managers require clarification, in meaningful terms, from central government as to how the ideas of double devolution can be translated into a force for change, that is, creating the right environment for change to occur. Second, managers remain uncertain about the devolutionary potential of complex area decentralization strategies per se. Such skepticism often stems from

Double Devolution at the Crossroads?

131

the historical experience of previous ‘‘going local’’ decentralization experiments, which have taken place since the 1970s. Such practices have struggled to gain a foothold in contemporary local governance regimes, and, in broad terms, have endured a series of institutional failings. It is within this context that this chapter offers a series of tentative lessons for change managers tasked with implementing the place shaping agenda to achieve the ambitious imaginings of double devolution.

INTRODUCTION Despite decentralising rhetoric, central government refuses to devolve powers because of its perception (sometimes justified) that local government is incompetent and not fully accountable y. The only way of breaking out of this is a clear y commitment to devolution from Whitehall and from town halls, along with a series of staged steps to spread power and build confidence. With such a consensus in place, a genuine renewal of local government can at last move from the realms of rhetoric to reality (Mulgan & James, 2006, p. 22).

The ‘‘decentralization’’ and ‘‘devolution’’ of service delivery and regeneration activities to sub-local governance structures have become linked to the latest rhetoric of ‘‘double devolution.’’2 These ideas were taken forward in an attempt to modernize local government in the United Kingdom and to solve the ongoing tensions between central and local government and between local government and its communities. Headline-grabbing pronouncements have primarily been championed by the former communities and local government minister, David Miliband and given prominence in the long overdue LGWP published in October 2006. The White Paper and subsequent legislation have raised English local authorities’ expectations that they will become strategic ‘‘place shapers’’ of their communities, handing down a range of powers and responsibilities to self-governing, active and confident citizens below the Town Hall. Decentralizing and devolving policies to sub-local scales below the Town Hall is not unique in local government. For example, significant experimental area decentralization activity took place in the late 1970s and early 1980s and again in the early 2000s (Coaffee & Healey, 2003; Johnston, 2006; Taylor & Gastor, 2001).3 This chapter argues that these experiments provide a catalogue of tangible institutional memory of less than successful decentralized sub-local working experiments. Importantly, those leading the last of the area decentralization initiatives promoted by the New Labour government since 2000 appear to have reflected little upon previous initiatives nor considered the reasons why they failed to embed in local

132

LORRAINE JOHNSTON

government. For example, recent rounds of local government modernization in England have highlighted that Town Halls have struggled to shed their paternalistic image, rejecting innovative ways of doing government. Within the context of current ideas of ‘‘double devolution,’’ this chapter argues that past unsuccessful policy experiments provide important lessons that can inform and influence more innovative attempts for Town Halls that are embracing sub-local working today. The latest round of decentralization is occurring against a backdrop of attempts to create strategic and entrepreneurial local governance structures, alongside responsive decentralized decision-making at the local level. This includes the facilitation of greater community governance as a strategy for excellence in public service delivery. In this sense, learning from past experience can inspire the self-confidence factor that national government is pushing local government to acquire. Of importance is moving beyond spanning institutional boundaries toward creating shared repertoires and knowledges with communities for partnership working and collaborative advantages (Healey, 1998; Wenger, 2000). The COP literature tends to offer such hope (Wenger, 1998). Importantly, this chapter draws on a detailed case study conducted between 2002 and 2007 to develop a number of important lessons for local authorities undertaking more pragmatic and nuanced approaches to local and sub-local governance. This chapter is divided into four main sections. First, it briefly analyses the historical motivations behind local government in adopting area decentralized governance structures. Second, the chapter explores past, and often unsuccessful, attempts at area decentralization that, it is argued, contains a number of important lessons that might inform current thinking in setting up innovative decentralized structures. Third, the author focuses upon New Labour government’s most recent attempts, in their third term of government, to push forward innovative decentralization initiatives under the banner of ‘‘double devolution.’’ This section also critiques the value of this policy rhetoric and the likelihood of policy success. The chapter concludes by highlighting the more recent proposals on ‘‘double devolution’’ and what this might look like in practice below the Town Hall. Importantly, this section offers some ‘‘good practice’’ lessons for sub-local working, which can be learnt, shared, and transferred into the current climate while stressing that these lessons are subject to local context. Finally, the chapter argues that the current drive toward ‘‘real’’ localism, in practice, is likely to be constrained by two competing pressures, namely the balance between strategic and area focus in local government management.

Double Devolution at the Crossroads?

133

THE RATIONALE FOR AREA DECENTRALIZED WORKING In the management literature, ‘‘decentralization’’ is synonymous with ‘‘local self-governing community’’ and ideas of devolving power and responsibility to the lower levels of an organization – often referred to as ‘‘subsidiarity’’ (Drucker, 1946).4 For example, Heller (2001, p. 843) described decentralization as ‘‘y giving smaller units of an organisation more responsibility and autonomy.’’ In local government and public administration terms, decentralization is also often likened to collective democratic ideals: ‘‘that decision-making is more legitimate and more trustworthy, if done at the local level’’ (Guardian Editorial, 2007, p. 36). In the post-war period, decentralization, or more accurately area decentralization, approaches have been applied in relation to attempts to reform the machinery of local government. The implementation of area decentralization and its associated governance arrangements is often connected with aspirations to ‘‘join-up’’ local service delivery to meet local need, improve public engagement in local decision-making, empower citizens and facilitate democratic renewal, enhance community leadership, and think ‘‘outside the box’’ both innovatively and creatively in an attempt to find solutions to persistent local issues (Johnston, 2006). For example, Chandler (2001, p. 162) argued that: y decentralisation schemes are in reality, devices to aid local politicians and officers overcome political or managerial difficulties than genuine attempts at deconcentration of power.

Decentralization ideas have been recycled and re-emerge at different times and in different eras in local government. Predominantly, they are driven forward by a combination of managerial and political decentralization principles (Burns, Hambleton, & Hoggett, 1994; Diamond & Liddle, 2005). Despite this, the basic premises of area decentralization action have remained relatively constant. Although the power of both these aforementioned drivers have varied over time, the rationale for area decentralization in the context of local government reform contains distinct advantages for both management and politicized working and is synonymous with more effective, efficient, and inclusive local working. As this chapter will go on to highlight, recent soundings coming from the Brown government (and previously New Labour) in the United Kingdom are toward greater devolved partnership working at the very local level. The way forward is an attempt to create sustainable communities, self-directing and enterprising

134

LORRAINE JOHNSTON

local government through the double-devolution of the locus of power and decision-making responsibility to and from the Town Hall (Johnston, 2005). In such a context, it would now seem appropriate to analyze the merit and rationale of this promising policy dynamic in the light of the comparable earlier failed historic experiences.

Early Attempts at Area Decentralization Since the late 1960s in the United Kingdom, local area decentralization initiatives have been seen at various times as integral to innovative patterns of urban governance and partnership working, as well as to overall projects of citywide restructuring (Diamond, 1988; Johnston, 2005). For example, in the late 1960s and early 1970s, local authorities began experimenting with area working in a bid to link area regeneration issues with community participation. In this era, neighborhood councils emerged (Hampton & Chapman, 1971a, 1971b) and begun to draw attention to some of the difficulties with sub-local working. In particular, such initiatives highlighted the inability of area structures to ‘‘plug’’ into conventional decision-making. For example, Burns et al. (1994, p. 168) commented that neighborhood committees were relatively cut off from mainstream council decisionmaking: The main problems with these structures were that they were not very well plugged into the main council committees. Not only did they not have many formal powers, they also had little influence. Many would argue that they often functioned as a mechanism for channelling people’s anger away from the heart of the council.

Following these initial experiments, more revolutionary ‘‘going local’’ (Burns et al., 1994; Diamond, 2004) also known as ‘‘local socialism’’ (Boddy & Fudge, 1984) decentralization initiatives began to emerge in the 1980s. The focus on locality became a controversial ideological battleground that began to transform local government in some parts of the United Kingdom. For example, Boddy and Fudge (1984, p. 249) in Local Socialism cite the then leader of Sheffield City Council and later key architect of the New Labour project, David Blunkett who highlighted how such experiments sought to change local neighborhoods: Changing people’s awareness, changing structures to make things possible, opening up the political process to people down the ladder, all those things are taking place. And at the same time we are trying to delegate, to decentralise services into the community, to bring the community into the process with tenants, works department shop stewards and

Double Devolution at the Crossroads?

135

councillors, for example, meeting together and forming working groups, trying to get people involved in the running of social services at local level. All this is happening at once and that is a very difficult process to manage. There is a danger of it collapsing under its own momentum. But it has its benefits. If you are challenging people then you bring them alive. You are increasing the potential for dynamic change, and people will begin to respond.

Similar initiatives were developed in numerous left wing local authorities at this time, perhaps most notably in Birmingham, Walsall, Manchester, East Sussex, and a number of London boroughs – Basildon, Camden, Southwark, Hackney, Greenwich, Lambeth, Islington, and Tower Hamlets (Diamond, 1988; Gyford, 1991; Morphet, 1987; Stewart, 1987; Stoker, Baine, Carlyle, Charters, & Du Sautoy, 1991; Sullivan, 2000). Importantly, neighborhood experiments, cloaked in the ethos of community development and decentralization, emerged against a backdrop of the rise of the New Right, Thatcherism, and an increase in central government control and direction (Chandler, 2001; Gyford, 1976; Saunders, 1984). These decentralization attempts were therefore largely driven by political concerns, as a reaction to prevailing neoliberal market ideology. In short, neighborhood experiments attempted to develop alternative management models to decentralize the power of local government to local neighborhoods, and are perhaps the starkest historical examples of attempts to go local. The neighborhood approach intended to empower local communities and local councillors in decision-making processes and to defend the collective provision of services in the face of public expenditure cuts. In addition, this was a reaction against increased central government control and direction where local government was marginalized and mistrusted, giving councillors a much reduced role and decreasing the political space between council and citizen. Evaluations of local socialism-type experiments commonly noted a number of key issues and tensions that were responsible for explaining why such experiments ‘‘failed’’ to transform into real and meaningful decentralized localism.5 The decentralized structures were often poorly resourced (in part linked to the general economic crisis of the day and the resultant fiscal constraints at local government level) and were often run by officers and local politicians who were reluctant to ‘‘let go.’’ This meant that innovative structures could not embed themselves into the mainstream council structures. For example, Elcock (1988, p. 45), commenting on the Newcastle-upon-Tyne experience in the 1980s, highlighted that ‘‘above all y decentralisation will succeed only if it changes attitudes and working practices within the local authority, both at the neighbourhood level and at

136

LORRAINE JOHNSTON

the centre.’’ Diamond and Liddle (2005, p. 20) also noted that ‘‘these decentralisation initiatives were also restricted by the imposition of ‘new managerialism’ with the enhanced role given to professionalized officers to deliver services increasingly efficiently with the role of citizen engagement morphing into ‘‘customer care.’’ The argument here is that decentralization initiatives were naively conceived without sufficient attention paid to the change required within public sector agencies to allow transformation to proceed, especially with regard to advanced levels of community engagement and the often entrenched attitudes of professionals who were not prepared to cede power and responsibility (Elcock, 1988; Harrop, Mason, Vielba, & Webster, 1978). Diamond (1988) goes further by suggesting that many of the ‘‘going local’’ experiments were self-contradictory, aiming for both managerial autonomy at the neighbourhood level, as well as increases in citizen engagement. The great interest that the ‘‘going local’’ experiments generated, left an indelible imprint on the history of local government management – one that was to remerge in the late 1990s as Tony Blair’s New Labour government sought solutions to the intractable problems of local government modernization, social exclusion, and civil renewal.

Area Devolution and the Search for Community Voice Post-1997, ‘‘New’’ Labour embraced a host of complex policies aimed at reshaping the relationships between national and local government and between local government and its communities. Throughout this period, the way in which decentralization was viewed changed from a highly political project to a far greater concern with managerial measures and local government modernization. Such tensions often prevail in local government modernization (Diamond, 1988). The drive toward decentralization was particularly pronounced after the Local Government Act (2000) that focused on ‘‘what devolution to neighborhoods’’ means in practice and how local authorities can define a fresh and innovative approach that responds to the needs of local communities (Corrigan, 2000). This Act articulated a need for, and the development possibilities of, sub-local structures within local government areas in order to streamline decision-making processes and make services more responsive (Sullivan, Smith, Root, & Moran, 2001). The Local Government Act (2000) guidance allowed for decentralization of limited power and responsibility from the ‘‘executive’’ of the local

Double Devolution at the Crossroads?

137

authority to ‘‘area structures’’ in order to carry out a range of functions. The structures were an attempt to provide a role for non-executive (Backbench) councillors as community leaders and scrutinizers of local services, and be a vehicle for community-led governance and participation in delivering joined-up thinking with decentralized service delivery (Johnston & Coaffee, 2004, 2005, 2007). These roles were intended to allow area committees to-strategically link city-wide and area-based concerns, facilitate partnership working among key stakeholders, complement local strategic partnership (LSP) structures and the development of community strategies, work with other regeneration partnerships or service delivery structures, and assist overall local government modernization. Taylor and Gastor (2001, p. 1) captured the essence of what area structures were envisaged to be: As sub committees of cabinet, the area committees [structures] would have decision making powers to ‘discharge any of the functions’ over selected and non-executive functions (for example licensing and planning). Area committees would prove to be ‘a potentially significant vehicle’ for councillors to make decisions in all aspects of the modernisation agenda at the very local level y they have a potentially important role to play in policy development, enabling corporate policy to reflect local needs, concerns and priorities.

No prescriptive prototype or blueprint in the way area structures should operate was given by central government. Instead, local government was advised to use flexibility, creativity, and innovation in interpreting and adopting guidance in order to fit local agendas and policies. In practice however, many local authorities interpreted area structure policies in a straightforward and prescriptive way, while other authorities took their time implementing area structures in order to learn lessons from others (Johnston, 2006). For example, in 2004 under the historical banner of ‘‘going local,’’ Birmingham city council adopted ‘‘mini councils’’ as a ‘‘revolutionary effort at localization’’ aimed at replacing ‘‘the bureaucracy of centralization’’ in order to better link civil renewal and improvements in public services (Walker, 2003). At the time of the 2000 Local Government Act, a number of commentators, argued that local government managers should be aware of previous experiences of decentralization and make attempts to ensure that this time round such initiatives could ‘‘stick’’ and become embedded within the mainstream culture of local government working (Sullivan et al., 2001). For example, Taylor and Gastor (2001) writing on behalf of the Local Government Association argued that those working in local government should not be wary of the often-failed 1980s decentralization initiatives that became highly politicized and characterized by high degrees of managerial control.

138

LORRAINE JOHNSTON

Instead, they argued that ‘‘lessons from the past need to be applied’’ (p. 2). In short, they were arguing for more innovative and entrepreneurial ways of working to become embedded in the culture of local government and for this to become a sustainable part of a council’s overall approach and not just another fragmented short-term fix. There is however little evidence to suggest that councils, which introduced area decentralized structures in the early-mid 2000s, took heed of or learnt the aforementioned lessons. In addition, there was an inability of local government policymakers to ‘‘learn’’ or indeed ‘‘acknowledge’’ such failure (Johnston, 2006). Analysis of decentralized structures since 2000 illustrates that they are still poorly resourced and controlled overtly by domineering councillors (some became known as ‘‘councillor committees’’ or ‘‘mini-town halls’’) with little attempt to set up inclusive community governance (Johnston, 2006). Equally, and in many cases, these structures failed to achieve a prominent place within the infrastructure of local government and were largely ignored by senior local authority officers (Coaffee & Johnston, 2005). The decentralized structures also failed to generate linkages to major strategic policy (such as LSPs) in any concerted way. On reflection, in many localities, area structures remain an ill-defined part of the local governance network. Myerson (2005) writing in the Guardian newspaper argued that decentralized area structures was one of the best ways to waste a councillor’s time without succeeding in engaging the community as intended: Through the brainchild of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, these have been embraced enthusiastically by the Lib Dems. ‘Give power back to the people!’ they shout. Unfortunately, they do not give power to the committees let alone a genuine budget. No administration is ever going to grant them this kind of power, so all area committee decisions have to be referred back to the executive. I use the time to do my paperwork and catch up with old friends. There are never any new faces to be seen.

Furthermore, a senior councillor from Trafford Borough council argued in her address to the ‘‘Futures’’ conference held in the city of Manchester in October 2005, that the reality of area panels in Salford were that people who attended them were: ‘‘MAD, BAD and SAD-mad to attend, bad, as people think that they can get some money out of it, and sad as people have nothing better to do with their time.’’6 These were not dissimilar experiences to those associated with decentralization initiatives in the 1970s and 1980s although it is important to note the differences and linkages between these and current (post-1997) local government management experience where broader ideas of ‘‘partnership, collaboration, and integration’’ have been reintroduced with force

Double Devolution at the Crossroads?

139

(Diamond & Liddle, 2005, p. 103). Moreover, Diamond and Liddle (2005, p. 102) distinguished that the emphasis of local government management change under the new Labour reforms was that: 1. The ‘‘going local’’ model was explicitly a political project and implicitly about managerial change. 2. The ‘‘partnership’’ model is explicitly a managerialist development and implicitly about political change. As the following section will highlight, if the latest round of proposed decentralization initiatives are to be successful then lessons from previous decentralization initiatives must be reflected upon with caution. Importantly, it will also be highlighted that the ‘‘double devolution’’ push appears to be focused less on managerial concerns and more upon demonstrating civil renaissance, representing a ‘‘new’’ area decentralization logic.

THE TOWN HALL AND BELOW – TOWARD A LOCAL VISION In July 2004, the UK government launched a series of ‘‘local:vision’’ documents, which aimed to secure continuous improvement in public services and to achieve better outcomes for people and their place. These followed on from the 2003 Local Government Act and formed the initial consultation basis of the LGWP published in 2006. The ‘‘local:vision’’ documents, like many before them, recognized that partnership between central and local government is vital for the future success of local government and that the relationship must change in order to meet the challenges ahead. At the sub-local level, such documents highlighted a paradoxical situation that has emerged within the overall local government modernization program, where on one hand, localized practice is encouraged, while, on the other hand, local government are being driven by national government funding regimes. ‘‘Local:vision’’ envisaged a long-term 10-year strategy for change with clear roles and responsibilities, vibrant local leadership (both political and managerial), enhanced levels of trust and choice for citizen engagement and participation, greater satisfaction of service delivery for users, and appropriate performance frameworks. This message was reaffirmed in the ODPMs five-year plan People, Places and Prosperity (2005a, 2005b) and in parallel documents, most notably Vibrant Local Leadership (ODPM, 2005a,

140

LORRAINE JOHNSTON

2005b) that explored the future of effective local leadership and the implications for local councils, including elected members and council managers. The local:vision ideas fed into the discussions around how localism might be advanced, and in particular, informed the emerging debates on ‘‘double devolution.’’ Double Devolution and Place Shaping – Going Local – Mark 2? During 2005, the then local government and communities minister David Miliband, MP, set about developing a vision for ‘‘double devolution,’’ which focused upon devolution of power and responsibility to local government, and devolution from local government to communities and neighborhoods. This decentralizing agenda argued that: Local government has a key role in building the new community infrastructure. A strategic local authority will ensure that institutions and activities do not just take place in the community but are of the community. A strategic local authority therefore seeks to shift the balance of power towards communities, through neighbourhood management and governance, through individual voice and choice, and through partnership with the voluntary sector (Miliband, 2005).7

As such, double devolution creates a ‘‘double tension’’ (Coaffee, 2004; Johnston, 2006) as it struggles to connect two contradictory governance agendas – Tension 1 (Center to Local) and Tension 2 (Local to Sub-local). In this chapter, and for those interested in area decentralization, it is the latter of these devolutionary efforts – that is, devolution below the Town Hall – which is of greatest importance here. A subsequent document published in February 2006, Empowerment and the Deal for Devolution (ODPM, 2006a) set out the challenges and benefits that might be gained from enhanced sub-local devolution. This document focused upon the ‘‘politics and practice of empowerment’’ (ibid., p. 7–8) with a promise that ‘‘the driving principle of reform should be subsidiarity’’ where local people would be empowered and resourced through participatory budgets to utilize their local knowledge in finding solutions to area problems and in an attempt to boost local democracy/civil renewal (ibid., p. 8; see also, Bullard, 2007, p. 16; Potts, 2005). It also cited the example of Staffordshire ward councillors who are given d10,000 per year to spend on locally based projects in consultation with citizens and of the increased use of neighbourhood charters, which set out the roles and responsibilities of service providers (ibid., p. 15). This approach was also influenced by the French commune model of ‘‘communities of communes,’’ which is seen to

Double Devolution at the Crossroads?

141

have high levels of citizen involvement (in elections 70–80%), throughout the different scales of local government and has been successful at transforming service delivery at the sub-local level (Coulson, 1998; Howes, 1998, 2006). The overall reaction to the ‘‘double devolution’’ concept has been mixed. Those in favor have argued that it would allow for fewer targets and more money for frontline services and would cut bureaucratic red tape, which has been shown to hinder innovation and flexibility (Golding, 2006b; Mulgan & Bury, 2006; Vize, 2006). However, there is also a noticeable lack of clarification coming from central government over how ‘‘double devolution’’ of power to and from the town hall would work in practice.8 The confusion over the detail of double devolution has also created fears that it might become an ‘‘expensive fantasy land’’ that runs the risk of becoming yet another hollow promise where rhetoric does not flourish in practice (Travers, 2006, p. 5). Importantly, the former local government minister, Nick Raynsford also argued that such a devolution agenda must be handled with ‘‘care’’ given historical experiences of decentralization initiatives in the 1980s that led to a number of battles over control of resources between local and central government thus: Is localism ultimately about empowering councils, or bypassing them and transferring their powers down to alternative structures at a neighbourhood level? The ideal solution must embrace confident local authorities and devolution of certain services to neighbourhoods where communities want to take greater responsibility (Raynsford, 2006).9

The concept of double devolution was also intimately linked to another emerging local government priority – that of place shaping – a term that has become associated with Sir Michael Lyons.10 In May 2006, the Lyons inquiry into the future of local government, published National Prosperity, local choice and civic engagement: a new partnership between central and local government for the 21st century (2006), which stressed a series of stepchanges. In particular, he argued for strengthening the relationships between a more self-assured, empowered, and connected citizenry that are fully engaged in making individual choices and shaping their communities and own destiny steered by a self-confident local government as ‘‘strategic leader’’ and ‘‘place-shaper’’ of their communities. Lyons also reaffirmed Miliband’s earlier sentiments of the ‘‘double devolution’’ objective to expand robust sub-local neighbourhood governance structures, including highlighted the importance of parish councils and local tenants and

142

LORRAINE JOHNSTON

residents groups to deliver ‘‘genuine’’ decentralization. In particular, he stressed the importance of neighbourhood management arrangements in making local government more responsive, accountable, and transparent (Lyons Inquiry into Local Government, 2006, p. 68).

The Role of Area Decentralization in Creating Strong and Prosperous Communities It has been argued that the delayed LGWP – Strong and Prosperous Communities – published in October 2006a was less revolutionary than its critics had hoped, given Miliband’s previous devolutionary rhetoric and hype (Drillsma-Milgrom, 2006a; Golding & Drillsma-Milgrom, 2006).11 Referred to as a ‘‘damp squib’’ in that it had failed to go ‘‘far enough,’’ in terms of more radical aspects of devolution to communities, the Local Government White Paper (2006) did however highlight new powers to encourage devolution and decentralization, and in particular, to set up or maintain ‘‘parishes or alternatives such as ‘community’, ‘neighbourhood’, and/or ‘village councils’’’ (ibid., p. 15; DCLG, 2007). The LGWP also placed far greater emphasis on creating more strategic delivery vehicles such as local area and multi-area agreements (Coaffee & Headlam, 2007). It is at present unclear how ‘‘local’’ these strategic initiatives will become and how they might act as vehicles for area decentralization. Broadly speaking what emerged in the LGWP was a concerted policy direction that appears to be slowly heading toward another round of area decentralization. In this context, decentralization is seen to be a more participatory model of decision making – local authorities are pioneering new forms of decentralization – through empowered parish councils, citizen juries, area networks, and partnerships. Although the form and function of these new forms of area structures are yet to be decided, it is clear that what is important, is that the lessons from previous area decentralization experiments now need to be carefully considered. More recently, the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill (DCLG, 2006) has followed up and reinforced the LGWP, recommended that local people should have greater influence over services and decisions affecting their communities, and that local partnerships should support citizen empowerment. Importance here was also given to the enhanced role expected to be given to elected community leaders in their attempts to forge stronger links with their communities and broader issues of community empowerment. As such, it could be argued that the most recent round of area decentralization

Double Devolution at the Crossroads?

143

has now become explicitly about civic renewal and implicitly about managerial issues. One key issue here, is how to strategically promote devolved responsibility to the sub-local level to encourage civil renewal as a bottom-up tool for change and as ‘‘y a way to empower people in their communities to provide the answers to our contemporary social problems’’ (Blunkett, 2003, p. 1). A vital point here, is that such attempts will require policymakers at the Town Hall to learn and reflect upon the lessons from previous episodes of area decentralization, and subsequently transfer that knowledge appropriately in more innovative and creative ways to reengage citizens, and revive local politics to inform new decentralized area structures. In short: ‘‘they will also require the will, resources and freedom to embrace democratic freedom’’ (Local Government Chronicle, 2005). In sum, the promise coming from central government is that those Town Halls who can successfully devolve responsibility to the local level will gain freedom and independence.12

TRANSFERABLE LESSON DRAWING IN SUCCESSFUL AREA DECENTRALIZATION More recent area decentralization experiences have highlighted a series of more generic lessons for how sub-local governance can be introduced into local government and how this change can be managed in the ever-changing local authority context, representing both management and political challenges as well as stimulating civic renewal.13 The previous section of this chapter highlighted some of the challenges that might hinder area decentralization from taking place at the local level. This section by contrast, presents ten transferable lessons for good practice in local authorities tasked with setting up sub-local governance structures so that they might avoid the pitfalls from previous ‘‘failed’’ episodes of decentralization. These lessons emerged from an in-depth study into the practicalities of area based regeneration activities based in Newcastle upon Tyne. Lesson 1: Establishing a clear direction of travel for changing governance. It is important that a local authority decides upon the way in which national government guidance is to be adopted in relation to its own unique history and context. The decision may be that ‘‘area decentralization’’ is not worth undertaking. However, assuming the decision is made to develop some form of sub-local structure, developing this governance vision, requires a strong (clear and visible) managerial team to champion change, create awareness of

144

LORRAINE JOHNSTON

the proposed new initiative, and ensure that everyone knows what the change means for individual and team members in terms of commitment from the outset. A lack of clear and visible leadership from the top is likely to result in poor levels of commitment and support among service units for transformative change in newly established practices. Lesson 2: Strong political leadership. Sub-local decentralized structures require political ‘‘buy in’’ to drive the planned change process forward. A lack of political ‘‘will’’ and/or support (including the adoption of delaying tactics, stalling/hijacking processes, and simple frustration) will be detrimental to the change process in terms of time and smoothness of travel. Ideally any decision to set up and devolve power and responsibility to area structures should have cross-party political support to minimize the extent to which such structures might become politicized. This will also ensure that everyone is ‘‘on board’’ from the outset and takes ‘‘ownership’’ of the process. In governance terms, the political process can become more important than actually setting up the structures (see, for example, Haveri, 2006). As such, it is important that the introduction of any new structures can help reduce, rather than add to, the democratic (and bureaucratic) burden. Lesson 3: A dedicated and coherent corporate management structure. Responsibility for managing area decentralized initiatives must be held by senior management and coordinated and delegated appropriately to middle management and responsible officers. New governance structures must be viewed as a corporate priority and the placing of ultimate responsibility should not be located within individual service units. This will avoid the impression that such governance arenas are controlled by one directorate interest, and will encourage more cross-directorate working. Area decentralized structures should embody a sense of collaborative corporate ownership with all directorates involved, and dedicated officers put in place to manage this process. This will then need to be cascaded out to the localities and responsible communities as appropriate. Such structures should be seen as shared governance spaces and not simply a council forum. Lesson 4: The convergence of political and managerial leadership. It is important that the political and managerial leadership of local government are ‘‘pulling in the same direction’’ when setting up new governance arrangements. This will create mutual commitment to change and enable the operationalizing of new innovative and creative styles of sub-local

Double Devolution at the Crossroads?

145

governance. Any ambiguity within this relationship can stall change and give the impression of ‘‘treading water.’’ In short, spaces of ‘‘hope’’ can easily become spaces of ‘‘inaction’’ (Coaffee & Healey, 2003). Equally important is the establishment of good working relationships between officers and members, which define the day to day running of local governance. Here clear mandates are necessary to avoid blurring of roles (Taylor & Gastor, 2001). Training and capacity building have a vital role to play here. Lesson 5: Clear strategic placement. Clear lines of policy connection should be established to clarify the roles, responsibilities and objectives of area decentralized structures within the broader policy nexus, which includes a plethora of regeneration partnerships, strategic partnerships (especially the LSPs and LAAs), Parish councils, and service delivery arrangements. Positioning area decentralized structures in a confused way means that they will not be taken seriously and will lead to a duplication of effort leading to conflict over who should be delivering what services. Ideally, an area structure with a ‘‘tight-loose-tight framework’’ (Taylor & Gastor, 2001, p. 5) – bounded by vertical and external linkages (management, community and partners) and unbounded by internal horizontal barriers (breaking functional departmental barriers) should be adopted. Equally, the size that each new governance arena covers is an important decision to make at the start of the change process.14 Thus, establishing such area decentralized structures should be based on the logic of need, and in particular, a decision must be made about whether such structures are intended as service coordination vehicles, conduits for community voice, or both. In short, the most appropriate governance structures for specific individual areas should be selected.15 In particular, the ability for different governance arenas to collaborate is seen as vital and hence developing such structures, with permeable boundaries, is vital. Lesson 6: Effective listening and communication. Effective listening and twoway and multi-way communication of the vision for area decentralized structures both internally (within the local authority) and externally (between council and stakeholders and citizens) is vital for success. The message that sub-local governance is expected to operate differently from traditional forms of council meeting/consultation, needs to be disseminated as widely as possible. Horizontal communication within local government can help project a clear message as to the purpose of new governance arrangements – a purpose that has shared commitment and ownership. Developing clear lines of communication, linked to a concise and easily

146

LORRAINE JOHNSTON

understood governance structures, can help successfully downscale issues from cabinet (or equivalent) to area decentralized structures, and upscale area concerns to the higher levels of local government. Vertically, the linkage between council and citizen should be developed and sustained, through appropriate advertisement, which should give a clear indication of the aims and objectives of new committees, what is being discussed and how local people might participate. Advertising, in this sense, might require new and creative strategies of information dissemination. Lesson 7: Negotiating the most appropriate form of community involvement. Area decentralized structures must develop effective community engagement and empowerment strategies. Members of the community and community groups should be clear what is expected of them and be given the opportunity to identify what they would like their roles to be and to establish some key objectives for their participation. This should, of course, ensure that such inclusion is positive and transformative rather than adding further bureaucracy to the governance process (Bailey, 2005). This negotiation should take place within the broader context of the community strategy and planning-led statement of community involvement (SCI). The community must feel able to contribute effectively and be treated as equal partners in shaping the development of local priorities, local plans, and service provision. This could mean that community representatives are given co-opted voting rights, although this should be an aspiration that might be possible as area decentralized structures develop.16 To avoid the accusation that sub-local governance structures are little more than mini-town halls or councillor committees (Johnston, 2005), mobilizing community voice though involvement in setting meeting agendas, raising questions, and any council issues or concerns through councillors.17 Local authorities will need to decide (alongside/with communities) as to the type of community structure that is appropriate for their area. Any formal decentralized structures created by local government and service partners should also ideally be connected by parallel structures bringing together diverse community voices and networks in an area to present more innovative ideas at area decentralized meetings. Lesson 8: Pace of change. As with all change initiatives, the pace of change is vital in terms of how fast to introduce change elements, with knock on implications regarding how much should be initiated at once and what time will be put aside for learning practices. The speed at which local government should implement area decentralized structures is of course contingent upon

Double Devolution at the Crossroads?

147

local circumstances, and the most appropriate pace of change should be decided upon. Often a hurried approach may fail, and it may be more sensible to implement change over a number of progressive phases. The appropriate decentralization of dedicated ‘‘community coordinators’’ is also vital for success. Such a stepped approach, if managed appropriately, can help to anchor new approaches in the culture of local government working and iron out any teething problems before large resources are deployed. This is a delicate balancing act, as developing any area decentralized structures and leaving them without sufficient power and resources is likely to leave their membership frustrated and disillusioned and gives the impression that they are without sufficient ‘‘teeth,’’ cannot fulfil their objectives of helping solve local problems in new and innovative ways. Equally, devolving large budgets or responsibilities before the structures are ready or capable of making informed decisions is a recipe for disaster. These appropriate ‘‘quick wins’’ might be imitated, which have proved successful elsewhere in building confidence and enhancing the profit of a local scheme (Parkinson, 2001). Lesson 9: Ensure appropriate micro management processes are developed. As area decentralized structures are developed it is important to establish a set of ground rules for governance that all partners signs up to. This could include agreements on ethical frameworks and appropriate codes of conduct, the co-option of community representatives and other partners, a clear meeting protocol and a commitment to hold meetings in local areas, an agreement to avoid jargon and have a shared language in all disseminated information, guidelines on what should or shouldn’t be discussed, and who should chair the meeting (and the expected style of such chairing). Lesson 10: The importance of continual training, learning, and evaluation. It is important that all area decentralized structures put in place a dedicated training and development program for all officers, members, and community representatives. Bespoke tailored training programs should be adopted to ensure the style of area meetings so as not to resemble standardized council meetings and that all of the area decentralized structures’ membership can develop the skills to effectively participate. Such approaches should be based upon a skills audit to identify were training need is required (in this case, upon the proficiency required within area decentralized structures). Importance should also be placed upon reflecting and learning from other historic or ongoing experiences of sublocal governance.

148

LORRAINE JOHNSTON

The concluding section of this chapter highlights the challenges that Town Halls are currently experiencing while trying to implement double devolution as an approach to public policymaking. It is argued that policy-wise Town Halls are faced with a number of different scenarios – they are in essence at the crossroads of decentralization – with the direction of travel remaining uncertain.

DOUBLE DEVOLUTION AT THE CROSSROADS: CULTURE CHANGE IN AREA DECENTRALIZATION Increasingly, contemporary decentralization and the devolution of policy to sub-local area structures are inextricably linked to the broader reform and modernization of public sector management. Here, in the last decade there has been a concerted attempt to create more pluralist and effective approaches to solving long-standing local government management issues and to transform local governance through the creation of more diverse partnership structures – what some commentators have called a paradigm shift from new public management (NPM) to new public governance (NPG) (Ferlie & Andresani, 2006; Osborne, 2006; Rhodes, 1997). Equally the style of partnership working has transformed to ensure a greater emphasis upon enabling communities and individuals to interact in civic renewal and governance. This chapter has argued that double devolution is currently at the crossroads as a area decentralization policy. In setting up and directing which route that Town Halls will take in the evolution of sub-local decentralized working, the choice of route will be dependent upon a number of key factors including cultural change and civil renewal, policy learning, policy connectivity, and commitment and pace of change. First, cultural change will require Town Halls and their managers to break traditional mindsets in challenging the ‘‘status quo,’’ in order to ‘‘disembed’’ and ‘‘unlearn’’ deeply rooted habits in modernizing the old ‘‘ways of doing’’ government. This will enable the application of more innovative and creative thinking across and beyond boundaries. Such approaches will not be easy for Town Halls to achieve, and will require nurturing to develop approaches to ‘‘reembed’’ new learning as part of the organizational culture.18 In particular, cultural change will be required to bridge the longestablished ‘‘power gap’’ that exists within civic society between the Town Hall and communities. Miliband for example (2006, p. 216) argued that ‘‘the

Double Devolution at the Crossroads?

149

central political debate in the years ahead will be about power, who holds it, how it is spread, and how it is held accountable.’’ More recently, some political commentators have predicted that this ‘‘shift’’ in the balance of power from Town Halls to neighborhoods is imminent, particularly ‘‘in specific areas’’ (Hetherington, 2007, p. 3), although there is still concern about a real commitment to decentralization beyond the Town Hall. For example, Suchecki (2007) notes that a ‘‘bigger’’ challenge exists in persuading and facilitating local government to decentralize and devolve powers and responsibility. Despite this, the government continued to reinforce community ‘‘voice’’ and ‘‘choice’’ in bringing devolution to the doorstep, arguing that: Local people know the needs of their area better than anyone. This Government is delivering a real shift in power to town halls, and ensuring town halls pass this on to communities (Blears, 2007a, 2007b, emphasis added).19

Equally, utilizing ‘‘creative’’ and ‘‘innovative’’ attempts to redress the balance of power in delivering the ‘‘devolution revolution’’ are according to Golding (2007, p. 1) now ‘‘favorable’’ and are creating ‘‘increased optimism’’ toward boosting autonomy and winning extra powers for Town Halls.20 At present, however, it is unclear as to how such ‘‘extra’’ powers and responsibilities will be managed by the Town Hall (who will further devolve down to their communities) given concerns that they could emulate, at the sub-local level, the pronounced unequal ‘‘them and us’’ power relationship that exists between Town Hall and Whitehall.21 A clear tension will be balancing national standards with local choice over resource targeting. Second, appropriate policy learning must be undertaken by Town Halls and their managers in order that are decentralization might be more successful and sustainable than previous attempts. As such, attempts at area decentralization will need to proceed cautiously and ensure lessons are learnt in a self assured and robust way. Perhaps worryingly, Jordan (2007, p. 48) in his paper ‘‘Policy Without Learning’’ argues that ‘‘double devolution simply ignores a rising volume of evidence that finds problems in operationalizing small-scale and deliberative ideas.’’ Likewise lessons from urban policy will need to be fed into broader attempts to modernize the local state. For example, recent government evaluations of neighbourhood management pathfinder schemes offer hope that sub-local self-governance is achievable and highlight the potential of area decentralized working beyond the Town Hall (DCLG et al., 2007a, 2007b). These reports also highlight the potential importance of

150

LORRAINE JOHNSTON

neighbourhood management at the local level as key to empowering local communities and facilitating them (as intermediaries) in shaping their places, influencing mainstream service delivery, in an attempt to become more responsive to local need, and create linkages with and engage more mainstream service providers (ibid.). Third, it is important that area decentralization initiatives attain policy connectivity to broader governance dynamics. For example, how such initiatives are connected and related to the organizational corporate strategic drivers (initiatives such as LAAs, City Regions debates, and to what extent each scale of intervention is prioritized and will be important in giving (or not) area decentralization the impetus to develop appropriately. As previously highlighted in the transferable lessons section of this chapter, an inability to take seriously decentralization initiatives at the sub-local level might mean that they become worthless and ‘‘a waste of time.’’ Such approaches at the local level should be focused on taking more nuanced and pragmatic approaches (Coaffee & Headlam, 2007; Johnston, 2005, 2006) and thinking beyond boundaries, in a more upside-down and inside-out way (networks) both vertically and horizontally to deliver more fluid structures to achieve greater self governing communities in creating the opportunities to place-shape. Town Halls and community working together in co-delivery-type way can create a tension between strategic and local working as exemplified by some recent experiences of Local Strategic Partnerships that experienced problems connecting to a range of area-based regeneration initiatives (see, for example, Moore, 2003; Russell, 2001). Given the context of the 2006 LGWP, the extent to which such community-led budgeting will evolve in current government policy appears less clear, given that it appears more focused toward ‘‘strategic leadership’’ (especially LAAs) than area management. The scope for area decentralization remains a challenge for Town Halls as they once again, begin to explore, develop, build, and forge strategic alliances and relationships through new types of partnerships (Town Hall, partners, active citizens). However, the road ahead remains a complex task and requires unraveling. For example, how will Town Halls mobilize active citizens and civic society given the long history and popular struggles of participation and overcome mistrustful ‘‘them and us’’ relationship that still exists between the Town Hall and their neighborhoods? How will citizens become more excited by politics and democracy given falling voter turnout? In other words, how might civic renewal be achieved in the long term? For example, Robinson, Shaw, and Davidson (2005) in their research findings

Double Devolution at the Crossroads?

151

on New Deal for Communities, in Newcastle upon Tyne, noted that enhanced citizen participation in the process captured the spirit of self governance, whereby elections for citizens to sit on the partnership Board achieved higher voter turn-out rates than the local elections in the area. However, this kind of civic renewal was unable to be sustained and much lower voter rates were recorded in subsequent elections as a result of dwindling optimism about the power of the scheme to make a difference in the community. Fourth, policy commitment must be forthcoming if sub-local area decentralization initiatives are to be successful and sustainable this time around. Area decentralization below the town hall, to be successful must be viewed as a long-term commitment with dedicated financial and human resource backing. There is evidence emerging from central government that there is seed funding available but in the long term should there be fiscal retrenchment at the Town Hall level as occurred in the late 1980s with the Thatcher government cuts on spending (Pettigrew, Ferlie, & McKee, 1992, p. 62) this could prove detrimental to sub-local area decentralization working, as it is likely that these sub-local area decentralization initiatives could become casualties of cutback management at the Town Hall level. For example, in July 2007 the government minister for communities and local government advocated participatory or community led budgeting22 – a ‘‘community kitty’’ for empowered communities to direct resources (up to and above d20 million) on important neighbourhood issues.23 However, there appears to be less support in providing long-term revenue funding for mainstreaming such initiatives (Carpenter, 2006; Smith, Lepine, & Taylor, 2007; Thorlby, 2007). Finally, the pace of change proposed to devolve power to the neighbourhood level is expected to take up to a decade to ‘‘bed down’’ properly in order that necessary preparations including skill and capacity building can be undertaken. Importantly, there appears to be a genuine promise toward ‘‘step-change’’ in the way community needs are met per se and delivered at the sub-local level preventing short-term-ism and fragmentation. A key issue here if double devolution is to be a successful strategy for public policy, is the Town Hall creating the right conditions and local people having the capacity to take the opportunities area decentralization offers (Jordan, 2007, p. 49). Macauley further argues that such concerns are in response to fears that a blueprint or ‘‘one size fits all’’ scenario will be developed to aid performance management comparability. This potential difficulty of delivering in practice in the ‘‘devolution revolution,’’ it has been argued might best be undertaken by gradual evolution rather than radical

152

LORRAINE JOHNSTON

revolution (Hilder, James, & Bacon, 2006; p. 86). Such an approach will be determined by the oscillating relationships that are ever-present between the Town Hall and sub-local area decentralization structures (partnerships and networks) and locally empowered communities linked to policies of civic renewal. Such relationships will require nurturing and reciprocity in fostering, shaping, and adapting the changing culture of area decentralized structures at the locality level. In addition to this, successfully delivering common goals and clarifying responsibilities will require enhanced skills and knowledge sharing to ensure new sub-local area decentralized structures are effective delivery vehicles (Egan, 2004; NRU, 2002). In summary, recent pronouncements coming from government appear to champion a ‘‘radical vision’’ of localism and decentralization and a ‘‘move from the top-down centralized approach to give more freedom and at the same time wanting (councils) to deliver’’ (Blears, cited in Golding, 2007, p. 1).24 The success of ‘‘double devolution’’ and decentralizing to the sub-local level is dependent upon the extent to which Town Halls and their managers learn the lessons from previous constraints of management and political decentralization and are willing to ‘‘let go.’’ Civic renewal brings a new dimension to this governance relationship – with an expectation that favors a more bottom up, pluralistic approach to decentralized working. For example, Blunkett (2001, p. 123) sums this up in his argument, that: Creativity from the bottom up – people having ideas, discovering and revelling in their own ingenuity – could make an enormous difference to local communities y. It encourages self-belief and individual self-worth y. And it engenders in people an appreciation of the intrinsic value of ideas and imagination y. People have to believe: once they do so, anything is possible.

The bedrock for delivering new sub-local possibilities, will, it could be argued, only succeed if local policymakers can demonstrate that they have learnt the important past lessons and acted upon them. The challenge for these place-shapers will be in becoming exemplars of good practice, demonstrating openness and undertaking an honest assessment in sharing lessons learnt as a way of progressing beyond past failures with confidence that the same mistakes will not be repeated again. Active ‘‘past-learning’’ can identify and inform future policymaking of ‘‘what works,’’ increase efficiency, and minimize the potential for duplication of what doesn’t work. Importantly, distinctiveness of context will require a balance to be struck, between on one hand, learning the lessons from previous episodes of decentralized governance, while on the other, being selective in adapting

Double Devolution at the Crossroads?

153

appropriate lessons from current localist policy initiatives in order to create innovative and entrepreneurial solutions for decentralized structures in the future. This will require much dedication and understanding of the interplay between historical sub-local area decentralization context and recognition of the complexity inherent in implementing newer structures. Town Halls and their policymakers have a key role to play in realizing the key challenges that culture change brings, as they focus attention on devolving the leavers of power beyond local government in an attempt to close the power gap with more active and sustainable communities.

NOTES 1. Within the context of this chapter, ‘‘civil renewal’’ is taken to mean ‘‘a society whose citizens are inspired and enabled to make a positive contribution to the communities in which they live. Through these contributions, they shape and sustain strong communities and effective, representative governance. What lies behind the idea of civil renewal is the belief that strong communities are just as essential in today’s society as they were in the past, and that without active participation by citizens, good governance is unachievable’’ (Local Government Association, 2004, p. 8). 2. There is some debate in literature as to who coined the ‘‘double-devolution’’ concept (see, for example, Hilder, 2006; Mulgan & James, 2006; Young Foundation, 2005). 3. For critical reviews of the 1970–1980s experiments, see, for example, Boddy & Fudge (1984), Cockburn (1978), Diamond (1988) and Elcock (1988). 4. Cited in Heller (2001, p. 227). For example, Drucker developed the concept of decentralization as the ‘‘ideal’’ management system of local self-government, which was influenced by the success of Alfred P. Sloan Jr. (1875–1966) and General Motors (ibid.). 5. See, for example, Hoggett and Hambleton (1987); Lansley, Goss, and Wolmar (1987); Diamond (1988); Elcock (1988). 6. Researcher’s field notes at the Futures Conference, Bridgewater Hall, Manchester (October, 2005). 7. Speech by David Miliband, North West Improvement Network Meeting, October 2005. 8. In particular, there are concerns over potential risks associated over what powers will be delegated; the amount of powers and at what scale they will be delegated to (see, for example, Golding (2006a); Lovelace (2006)). 9. Cited in Golding (2006b). 10. Lyons Inquiry into Local Government (2006, p. 39) notes eight components of ‘‘place-shaping’’: building and shaping local identity, representing the community, regulating harmful and disruptive behaviors, maintaining community cohesiveness, resolving disagreements (resources and services), stronger local economy, understanding local need and preference and partnership working.

154

LORRAINE JOHNSTON

11. Ruth Kelly took over this position in May 2006 when David Miliband was moved to the Department for Environment and became Minister for Food and Rural Affairs. 12. Coen, cited in Hetherington (2006, p. 5). 13. These lessons are drawn primarily from research undertaken during 2002– 2006 into sub-local area governance structures set up in Newcastle upon Tyne. 14. There should be a well thought out and locally determined logic to this decision, which balances local governments’ requirements for localized and smallscale ward working with more strategic area or citywide concerns. 15. For example, it should also be ‘‘fit for purpose’’ but with flexibility built in to allow the structure to evolve, develop, and adapt in the future as changes are implanted into new processes. 16. At present legal responsibility to vote on decisions involving significant local authority finance remains with councillors. Equally, participatory engagement strategies should target all members of the community especially ‘‘hard to reach’’ groups (black and ethnic minority groups, youth, etc.) and not just the ‘‘usual suspects.’’ 17. This can perhaps be achieved by ensuring a dedicated ‘‘time slot’’ or public question time on the meeting agenda and held at the start of proceedings as an opportunity to raise community concerns. 18. See, for example, Senge (1990); Burgoyne, Boydell, and Pedler (1991); Pedler, Boydell, and Burgoyne (1989). 19. Hazel Blears, the newly positioned Minister for Communities and Local Government. 20. As such, performance indicators are to be cut from 1,200 to 200 (DrillsmaMilgrom, 2006b, p. 2). 21. In addition, there are also concerns regarding the risks associated with devolving to communities where there is political and religious extremism (see, for example, Golding (2006); Lovelace (2006); Local Government Chronicle Editorial (2006)). 22. For example, Blears (2007a) introduced 10 pilot projects including Salford; St. Helens, the Mersey Waterfront Regeneration area; Birmingham, Lewisham; Bradford; Salford; Sunderland; Newcastle; Southampton; and Manton in Nottinghamshire. The ‘‘participatory budgeting’’ model originated in Porto Alegre, Brazil in the late 1980s is a bottom-up attempt to encourage greater community involvement and empowered self-confident citizens through community ownership of assets and limited delegated powers (see, for example, the Young Foundation, 2005; Smulian, 2006). 23. According to Blears (2007a) such budgets could be spent on ‘‘anti-social behavior or drug-dealing to providing new community and leisure facilities’ (see also Bullard, 2007). In co-delivering projects (council, community, and partners), a further d400,000 financial support is required for ‘‘projects in 20 areas where local authorities are working with communities to give them a chance to take ownership of assets in line with the recommendations of the Quirk Review’’ (Blears, 2007a, see also Lovelace, 2007). Following the Gershon Efficiency Review, Barry Quirk, Chief Executive, Lewisham Council was appointed by the ODPM to undertake an independent review into efficiency gains in local government. A key argument was for greater community

Double Devolution at the Crossroads?

155

management and ownership of assets. The report was published on behalf of the Review Team by the Department for Communities and Local Government (May 2007). http://www.communities.gov.uk/index.asp?id¼1510515 24. Such claims are coming from new Communities for Local Government Minister, Hazel Blears (alongside Local Government Minister, John Healey). (See also, for example, Guardian Editorial, 2007, p. 36).

REFERENCES Bailey, N. (2005). Transformation or bureaucratization? The changing role of community representation in local strategic partnerships in England. Journal of Civil Society, 1(2), 147–162. Blears, H. (2007a). Local People to have a greater say on spending. Department of Communities and Local Government, Press Release. July 5. Blears, H. (2007b). Communities in control. London: Fabian Society. Blunkett, D. (2001). Politics and progress: Renewing democracy and civil society. London: Pilitico’s Publishing. Blunkett, D. (2003). Politics and progress: Renewing democracy and civil society. London: Politicos Publishing. Boddy, M., & Fudge, C. (Eds.). (1984). Local socialism. London, UK: Macmillan. Bullard, R. (2007). Power to the people: Participatory budgeting. Local Government Chronicle, 16–17. Available at http://www.lgcplus.com/lgc-news/features-power-to-the-people/490155. article. Accessed on 23 May. Burgoyne, J., Boydell, T., & Pedler, M. (1991). The learning company: A strategy for sustainable development. Maidenhead, UK: McGraw-Hill. Burns, D., Hambleton, R., & Hoggett, P. (1994). The politics of decentralisation: Revitalising local democracy. Basingstoke, UK: Macmillan. Carpenter, J. (2006). Local path to power. Regeneration & Renewal, April 21, pp. 16–17. Chandler, J. A. (2001). Local government today (3rd ed.). Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press. Coaffee, J. (2004). Re-scaling regeneration: Experiences of merging area-based and city-wide partnerships in urban policy. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 17(5), 443–461. Coaffee, J., & Headlam, N. (2007). Pragmatic localism uncovered: The search for locally contingent solutions to national reform agendas. Geoforum, 39(4), 1585–1599. Coaffee, J., & Healey, P. (2003). My voice: My place: Tracking transformations in urban governance. Urban Studies, 40(10), 1979–1999. Coaffee, J., & Johnston, L. (2005). The management of local government modernisation: Area decentralisation and pragmatic localism. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 18(2), 164–177. Cockburn, C. (1978). The local state: Management of cities and people. London, UK: Pluto Press. Corrigan, P. (2000). Starting to modernise: Local solutions: A practical guide to neighbourhood forums and area committees. London: New Local Government Network.

156

LORRAINE JOHNSTON

Coulson, A. (1998). Town, Parish and community councils: The potential for democracy and decentralisation. Local Governance, 24(4), 245–248. DCLG. (2006). Local government and public involvement in health bill: Regulatory impact assessment. London, UK: DCLG. DCLG. (2007, January). Strong and prosperous communities: The Local Government White Paper – Making it happen: The implementation plan. DCLG, London, UK. DCLG; with Taylor, M. (2007a, August). Neighbourhood management and social capital research report 35. Department for Local Government and Communities, London, UK. DCLG; with SQW Ltd. & Partners. (2007b, August). Neighbourhood management: Empowering communities, shaping places: Review 2006/7. Research Report No. 37. DCLG, London, UK. Diamond, J. (1988). Local Socialism as decentralisation: A study of the neighbourhood services initiative in Manchester 1984–1988. Unpublished Ph.D. University of Salford, Greater Manchester, UK. Diamond, J. (2004). First it was ‘going local’ in the 1980s and now its ‘localism’ – What have we learnt and why does it matter. The Challenges of Localism (pp. 18–21). London: Regional Studies Association. Diamond, J., & Liddle, J. (2005). The management of regeneration: Choices, challenges and dilemmas. London, UK: Routledge. Drillsma-Milgrom, D. (2006a). What is up Lyons Sleeve? Local Government Chronicle, September 21, p. 2. Drillsma-Milgrom, D. (2006b). Indicators cut from 1,200 to 200. Local Government Chronicle, October 26, p. 2. Drucker, P. (1946). Concept of corporation. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. Egan, J. (2004). The Egan review: Skills for sustainable communities. London, UK: ODPM. Elcock, H. (1988). Alternatives to representative democracy: Going local. Public Policy and Administration, 3(2), 38–50. Ferlie, E., & Andresani, G. (2006). Understanding current developments in public-sector management – New public management, governance to other theoretical perspectives? Public Management Review, 8(3), 389–394. Golding, N. (2006a). Devolution diluted?: Communities at risk from extremism could receive fewer powers. Local Government Chronicle, October 19, pp. 1–2. Golding, N. (2006b). Analysis – Residents to be given the upper hand. Local Government News, January. Retrieved from http://www.lgcplus.com/lgc-news/analysis-residents-to-be-giventhe-upper-hand/515513.article. Accessed on January 2006. Golding, N. (2007). Devolution revolution: Brown’s choice of ministers increases optimism over extra powers. Local Government Chronicle, July 5, p. 1. Golding, N., & Drillsma-Milgrom, D. (2006). Softly, softly reform: White paper and Lyons review to propose evolution not revolution. Local Government Chronicle, September 21. Guardian Editorial. (2007). Local difficulties. The Guardian, July 6, p. 36. Gyford, J. (1976). Local politics in Britain. London, UK: Croom Helm. Gyford, J. (1991). Citizens, consumers and councils: Local government and the public. London, UK: Macmillan. Hampton, W., & Chapman, J. J. (1971a). Towards neighbourhood councils – I. The Political Quarterly, 42(3), 247–254. Hampton, W., & Chapman, J. J. (1971b). Towards neighbourhood councils – II. Political Quarterly, 42(4), 414–422.

Double Devolution at the Crossroads?

157

Harrop, K. J., Mason, T., Vielba, C. A., & Webster, B. A. (1978). The implementation and development of area management. Second Interim report of the Area Management Monitoring Project, University of Birmingham, Institute of Local Government Studies (INLOGOV). Haveri, A. (2006). Complexity in local government change: Limits to rational reforming. Public Management Review, 8(1), 31–46. Healey, P. (1998). Building institutional capacity through collaborative approaches to urban planning. Environment and Planning A, 30(5), 1531–1556. Heller, R. (2001). Roads to success. London, UK: Dorling Kindersley. Hetherington, P. (2006). Attention seeker. Society Guardian, February 22, p. 5. Hetherington, P. (2007). Mini-democracy in the making. Society Guardian, July 4. Hilder, P. (2006). Power up, people: Double devolution and beyond. Institute for Public Policy and Research, 13(4), 238–248. Hilder, P., James, S., & Bacon, N. (2006). Neighbourhoods – the role and nature of the very local tier of governance. In G. Mulgan & F. Bury (Eds.), Double devolution: The renewal of local government (pp. 84–88). London, UK: The Smith Institute. Hoggett. P., & Hambleton, R. (1987). Decentralisation and democracy: Localising public services. Occasional Paper 28, 53–83. Bristol: School for Advanced Urban Studies. Howes, L. (1998). Local councils: What we can learn from France. Local Governance, 24(4), 249–255. Howes, L. (2006). The French commune: Lessons in local government reform. In G. Mulgan & F. Bury (Eds.), Double devolution: The renewal of local government (pp. 50–59). London, UK: The Smith Institute. Johnston, L. (2005). Waking up the sleeping giant: Change management, policy transfer and the search for collaboration. Public Policy and Administration, 20(3), 69–89. Johnston, L. (2006). My voice: My place, managing organisational change and complexity in local government. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis. University of Newcastle, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK. Johnston, L., & Coaffee, J. (2004), Managing change, complexity and pragmatism in local government modernisation: Experiences of area decentralisation. CLES Policy Briefing, Centre for Local Economic Strategies, Manchester, UK. Johnston, L., & Coaffee, J. (2005). Managing change, conflict and complexity in local government modernisation. Regeneration management: Essays on working with complexity (pp. 31–35). Manchester, UK: Centre for Local Economic Strategies. Johnston, L., & Coaffee, J. (2007). Managing involvement. In J. Diamond, J. Liddle, A. Southern & A. Townsend (Eds.), Managing the city (pp. 73–86). London, UK: Routledge. Jordan, G. (2007). Policy without learning: Double devolution and abuse of the deliberative idea. Public Policy and Administration, 22(1), 48–73. Lansley, S., Goss, S., & Wolmar, C. (1987). The rise and fall of the municipal left. London, UK: Macmillan. Local Government Act. (2000). London: The Stationery Office. Local Government Association. (2004, December). Towards self-governing communities: The role of local government in civil renewal. LG Connect, London, UK. Retrieved from http://www.lga.gov.uk/Publication.asp?Isection¼759&id¼SX7FOA-A7829B07. Accessed on November 4, 2005.

158

LORRAINE JOHNSTON

Local Government Chronicle. (2005). Public interest in local politics needs reviving (27 Apr) local government association. London: Hampstead Road. Local Government Chronicle Editorial. (2006). Neighbourhood governance could encourage BNP. Local Government Chronicle, August 24. Local Government White Paper. (2006). Strong and prosperous communities, communities and local government. London: The Stationery Office. Lovelace, N. (2006). Devolution brings risks and rewards. Local Government Chronicle, October 19, p. 11. Lovelace, N. (2007). Trust will ensure citizens’ influence: All tiers must co-operate to achieve Quirks vision. Local Government Chronicle, May 17, p. 10. Lyons Inquiry into Local Government. (2006, May). National prosperity, local choice and civic engagement: A new partnership between central and local government for the 21st century. London, UK: HMSO. Miliband, D. (2005). The politics of community. Speech at the launch of the North West Improvement Network (NWIN), Manchester, UK, October 24. Miliband, D. (2006). Power: A new agenda for the centre left. Institute for Public Policy and Research, 13(4), 216–220. Moore, G. (2003). A little local difficulty. Regeneration & Renewal, August 18–19. Morphet, J. (1987). Local authority decentralisation: Tower Hamlets goes all the way. Policy and Politics, 15(2), 119–126. Mulgan, G., & Bury, F. (2006). Double devolution: The renewal of local government. London, UK: The Smith Institute. Mulgan, G., & James, S. (2006). Double or nothing. Retrieved from http://www.youngfoundation. org/files/images/6_06_Double_or_nothing.pdf. Accessed on 30 June 2006. Myerson, J. (2005). The 10 best ways to waste a councillor’s time. SocietyGuardian, April 27, pp. 1–3. Neighbourhood Renewal Unit. (2002). The learning curve: Developing skills and knowledge for neighbourhood renewal. London, UK: HMSO. ODPM. (2005a). People, places and prosperity. London, UK: ODPM. ODPM. (2005b). Vibrant local leadership. London, UK: ODPM. ODPM. (2006a). Empowerment and the deal for devolution. London, UK: ODPM. Osborne, S. P. (2006). The new public governance? Public Management Review, 8(3), 377–387. Parkinson, M. (2001). The urban white paper: Halfway to paradise? New Economy, 8(1), 47–51. Pedler, M., Boydell, T., & Burgoyne, J. G. (1989). Towards the learning company. Management Education and Development, 20(1), 1–8. Pettigrew, A., Ferlie, E., & McKee, L. (1992). Shaping strategic change. London: Sage. Potts, G. (2005). Local knowledge. Regeneration & Renewal, Apr 15, p. 23. Rhodes, R. (1997). Understanding governance. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. Robinson, F., Shaw, K., & Davidson, G. (2005). On the side of the angels: Community involvement in the governance of neighbourhood renewal. Local Economy, 20(1), 13–26. Russell, H. (2001). Local strategic partnerships: Lessons from new commitment to regeneration. Bristol, UK: The Policy Press. Saunders, P. (1984). Rethinking local politics. In M. Boddy & C. Fudge (Eds.), Local socialism (pp. 22–48). London: Macmillian. Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art & practice of the learning organisation. Kent, UK: Mackays of Chatham.

Double Devolution at the Crossroads?

159

Smith, I., Lepine, E., & Taylor, M. (2007). Pulling together or breaking apart? New Start July 27, pp. 16–17. Smulian, M. (2006). Asking the right questions. Local Government Chronicle, January 26, pp. 16–17. Stewart, J. (1987). Has decentralisation failed. Local Government Policy Making, 14(2), 49–53. Stoker, G., Baine, S., Carlyle, S., Charters, S., & Du Sautoy, T. (1991). Reflections on neighbourhood decentralisation in Tower Hamlets. Public Administration, 69(3), 373–384. Suchecki, K. (2007). Double devolution. New Start, July. Sullivan, H. (2000). Community governance: An evaluation of area approaches in Birmingham. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK. Sullivan, H., Smith, M., Root, A., & Moran, D. (2001). Area committees and neighbourhood management: Increasing democratic participation and social inclusion. London, UK: Local Government Information Unit. Taylor, F., & Gastor, L. (2001). In the neighbourhood: Area decentralisation and new political structures. London, UK: Local Government Association. The Young Foundation. (2005). Seeing the wood for the trees: The evolving landscape for neighbourhood arrangements. Unpublished paper presented to the Neighbourhood Governance: Just around the corner. Institute for Political and Economic Governance (IPEG) University of Manchester, Young Foundation Seminar (18 Oct). Thorlby, T. (2007). Hanging around in the neighbourhood. New Start, August 3, p. 17. Travers, T. (2006). Double devolution concept is running ahead of reality. Local Government Chronicle, June 1, p. 5. Vize, R. (2006). Pulling the plug on target culture. Local Government Chronicle, July 6, p. 10. Walker, D. (2003). Divide and rule Birmingham is ‘going local’ with a radical plan to create mini councils in 11 neighbourhoods. The Guardian, July 23. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice, learning, meaning, and identity. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Wenger, E. (2000). Communities of practice and social learning systems. Organization, 7(2), 225–246.

CHAPTER 7 LEADERSHIP, WTO, COMMERCE, AND NEW STRATEGIES FOR CORPORATIZATION OF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS: A TOP INDIAN BUREAUCRAT’S TAKE Guru Prakash Prabhakar and Pankaj Saran ABSTRACT Purpose – To provide a select perspective from India in terms of its Civil Services, leadership, and its unique challenges. Design/Methodology/Approach – This chapter features an interview with L. V. Saptharishi, Additional Secretary to the Ministry of Commerce & Industry, Government of India. The interview was conducted under the aegis of the GLOBE project (Global Leadership and Organizational Behaviour Effectiveness Research Programme). Findings – Being a developing country and an emerging economic power, India has a set of unique challenges in the form of setting up agile organizational systems, policy formulation, and implementation. The new

Emerging and Potential Trends in Public Management: An Age of Austerity Critical Perspectives on International Public Sector Management, Volume 1, 161–172 Copyright r 2012 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 2045-7944/doi:10.1108/S2045-7944(2012)0000001010

161

162

GURU PRAKASH PRABHAKAR AND PANKAJ SARAN

approach that has emerged is debureaucratizing the institutions, improving quality, market focus, and value addition. Research limitations/Implications – This is not an exhaustive chapter as it is based on a single interview. Practical implications – This is a unique piece as it focuses on the unique experiences of an important bureaucrat from India. Originality/Value – This chapter is helpful for academicians and practitioners alike to understand the business- and leadership-related issues in India, particularly from a bureaucrat’s point of view. This is an original piece of work. Keywords: Leadership; Civil Services; corporatization; India The British Raj in India left the legacy of Indian Civil Services with a Staterun bureaucracy to control a billion plus population that still exists with full pomp and show. Personnel from the Civil Services of India belong to different regions of the country, learn the local language, identify themselves with the people of that State to which they are assigned and then grow up in the cadre. They then come to serve in the capital of the nation in different capacities. Selected through a fiercely competitive countrywide entrance examination process, as a young officer one is taught to manage the things from day one. The destiny of the people of the region to which the young officers are assigned is in the hands of this Service. It is expected of them not only to act as a coordinator but also as a leader in dealing with all kinds of crises. It may be a communal issue, a caste issue, an agricultural development program, or it may be the local industrial development program involving land acquisition, etc. This chapter features an interview with L. V. Saptharishi, Additional Secretary to the Ministry of Commerce & Industry, Government of India. He has since retired from the Service and had also contested for parliamentary elections during 2009. In his career spanning almost four decades, he has held important positions like DG NIFT (Director General National Institute of Fashion Technology), DG Anti-Dumping, and Special Election Observer for Bihar, besides several other distinguished positions in UN. The last post held by him was Director General of CAPART (Council for Advancement of People’s Action and Rural Technology), in the rank of Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Rural Development. He is presently Honorary Co-Chairman of CNRI (Confederation of NGOs of

A Perspective From India

163

Rural India), which is the largest platform for grassroot level NGOs on the same lines like Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI) and Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) for the industry sector. Interviewer: Could you please tell us beginning with your education, when did you first enter management positions or a position in administration? Saptharishi: The Indian Administrative Service, to which I belong, is a Federal Civil Service of the Government of India. We get assigned to this Service after we pass the competitive examination held on an all-India basis. So, we are known by the year in which we have been allotted to the Service after we compete and come out successfully. I belong to the 1969 batch. The distinguishing hallmark of this service is that even though we belong to a particular State or region, as far as our assignment to the Service cadre is concerned, it is based on a particular State. So, we belong to a particular State cadre to begin with. Hence, I got allotted to West Bengal cadre, though I come from Tamil Nadu, southern India. Interviewer: Now coming to your present position, what do you think was the vision that you had when you took over? First, what was the mandate that was given to you, and second the vision that you articulated? Saptharishi: This is a kind of promotion position I moved on in the Commerce Ministry and that was in October 2000. There were other responsibilities also in the Ministry, given to me. But the most important work that has been assigned to me is the Designated Authority as the Director General for Anti-Dumping Investigations. So many things have happened since the Uruguay Round. The World Trade Organization (WTO) came into being officially from the beginning of 1995, ushering in a series of agreements relating to agriculture and textiles and anti-dumping safeguards with the intellectual property rights, trade-related investment measures. There are so many things as part of that overall agreement of WTO. I didn’t know about it all when I came and accepted this responsibility of the Designated Authority. I only came to realize and learn that the WTO arrangement envisages many agreements and the areas of responsibilities are diverse and there are many issues and subjects that have their own authority to deal with. As far as I was concerned, my role was in the area of dealing with dumping or anti-dumping investigations. Now, anti-dumping issue is a very complex issue. It has a very intellectual and academic context. Countries want to protect their domestic industry, and the domestic industry has got to

164

GURU PRAKASH PRABHAKAR AND PANKAJ SARAN

be protected. The concept of free trade envisages freedom on the part of any exporter to sell his goods at any price at which he is able to negotiate and offer it to the buyer or the importer. The anti-dumping machinery talks about removal of price distortion as between the export price and the domestic price. It automatically means that there is some kind of interference with the freedom of the individual or the exporter. This is the paradox and has to be dealt with satisfactorily for the benefit of the exporter as well as the domestic industry. Interviewer: Were you the first Designated Authority in India for anti-dumping in the post-WTO era? Saptharishi: I am not the first Designated Authority. In fact, the antidumping laws and regulations have always been part of the rules and regulations in many countries, including in India, prior to the WTO. But it was from 1995 onwards that the Office of DG Anti-Dumping came to assume international dimensions. That is due to the amendments in 1995 to the Customs Tariff Act of 1975. Prior to me, there have been six Designated Authorities looking at the anti-dumping matters. It is therefore fair to say that I have been only building on or improving on, what is called, giving new meaning to some of the issues that had cropped up from time to time. Or I would say, case to case, a new issue; because issues being very complex in the international trading context, you do not see that it is the same issue that looks for interpretation or lends itself to a kind of interpretation the next day also. From that angle I have been able to look at the issues in an integrated way, taking into account what has happened in the past, what is happening elsewhere, and what could be done within the framework of the WTO guidelines and also our national laws. Interviewer: Could you articulate a new vision of what this role should be after you took over and understood the diverse problems that were there? Saptharishi: It is a very important question that you have put. We are talking about globalization, integration of world trade, nations getting together, and allowing free trade to take place. As an authority functioning within the framework of the rules and regulations, I do not think that I have any role or responsibility in changing these rules and regulations. That kind of freedom is not available to any individual and nation because they are all multilateral negotiations based on discussions and so many factors and complex issues. But what I am trying to do in my own way within

A Perspective From India

165

the powers and responsibilities I enjoy is to convey the message to the domestic industry that even as you get relief for removal of distress in the price vis-a`-vis the export price of products coming from, abroad, you must raise your technological capabilities. You must become a sector that can face worldwide competition, unfettered or not, depending upon by any such crutches or support in terms of anti-dumping duties and regulations. Now, it is easier said than done. That is why I said I have limited freedom in doing things. But people talk about it in seminars and other academic platforms emphasizing the need to have genuine anti-dumping measures. The point they forget is that in a rule-bound WTO regime where people have been given this facility to approach the Designated Authority to seek legitimate relief, if they are negatively affected, it does not redound to the credit of the Designated Authority if he ignores or discards the kind of complaints that the domestic industry raises before him in the context of the damage being done to the domestic industry. And that is where a balanced approach is called for. DG should also gradually build up a body of knowledge on this subject so that it is available to the Authority and to his team, even as one person leaves the chair and someone else takes over. Interviewer: Is this about the issue of institutional knowledge? Saptharishi: Yes, it is institutional knowledge. And in that process, it should be ensured that the precedence he has set, the kind of findings he has come out with, the kind of reports and the kind of presentations his team made are all world class, appreciated, and emulated. That kind of a thing he has to do; that is how I look at it so that the nation really gains from the Authority’s actions. Interviewer: What were the strengths of this particular team that you inherited at that time when you joined? Saptharishi: The team has been good. My objective was very clear that I will not talk about delays and who causes delay or what leads to a kind of a situation where we are not able to do the task assigned well in time. We will only see that if a task is to be performed within a particular time, we will perform and in performing that I started listing what are those support measures we require. We found that it was all very simple, the tools and equipment and the facility to move around, travel and interact

166

GURU PRAKASH PRABHAKAR AND PANKAJ SARAN

with the industry, and also have access to information from various sources. Interviewer: Is it a full-time team you have for anti-dumping in India and has any specific agency also been envisaged to be set up as a part of this? Saptharishi: It is a full-time team that is an entity under the Act. If you go in by the number of cases that we are handling, the number of people that we have are adequate. It is the value addition part that is often coming to my mind and in terms of numbers that you keep adding, and if there is no value addition to the work that you are performing, you are only adding to the bureaucratic setup that is not needed. As regards field organization is concerned, we have 30 odd port offices dealing with import export matters all over the country. Now, in coordination with the Director General of Foreign Trade (DGFT), who is again an authority under this Ministry, we have ensured that the port officer in charge of DGFT also acts as my spokesman as far as receiving any petition or complaint is concerned. He is the source of information and he responds to the petitioner. Interviewer: What about something like economic intelligence, especially international economic intelligence? Do you think that something more is required? Saptharishi: Yes, much more is required. First of all, the import data not only has to be analyzed in the context of actual physical imports but it also has to take into account what is the kind of global supply of a particular commodity, what is its global demand, whether the kind of import that is taking place is in line with the kind of demand for this product globally. Otherwise, you may tend to come to a conclusion that this case is peculiar to India and it is not taking place elsewhere. Second, as far as the data is concerned, we have traditionally the port data or the customs data supplied to the Directorate General of Commercial Intelligence and Statistics. Problems may arise if you depend upon that information only. We have told our officers that you have to check and cross check the information that you are getting; not only from this source but from other sources also, plus whatever information you will get from the domestic petitioner, the user industry, and the exporter interest. It is the totality of the picture that you have to take into account before rushing to any conclusion.

A Perspective From India

167

Interviewer: What were the deficiencies that you saw in the organization at the time you took over your mandate? Saptharishi: Once we talk about deficiencies when I took over, it will automatically mean I am talking about deficiencies that were there in my predecessor’s time. I do not belong to that school. Interviewer: But in the organization as such y Saptharishi: Organization was perfectly alright, but then one should chalk out one’s own strategy on getting the leadership role and responsibility. My strategy was very simple. But in the two or three regimes that were on how do I prepare my machinery to deal with the imports; if there is the kind of search and if there is a kind of dumping and how do I deal with that. So, with that in view, I started preparing my team to be active. That was my principle. If one is proactive, somebody will say, ‘‘you have gone out of the way to encourage the domestic industry to ask for relief that is unwarranted and why are you helping them.’’ Interviewer: Coming to the additional responsibility that you had of handling some commodity sectors in India, like tea, rubber, and coffee where perhaps you have had much more freedom in terms of trying to articulate another vision. What has come out of that? Saptharishi: I have been dealing with these commodities like cotton, jute, silk, and cash crops or nonindustrial raw material for the textile sector in the earlier years. But now I am dealing with plantation crops, particularly coffee, tea, and rubber. One thing is very clear that in the coming years these commodities have got to forge ahead in the international markets. Second, you have got to increase productivity and monitor that production in such a way that excess supplies do not get into the system. It is because unlike in the past when so many price stabilization measures and buffer-stocking operations, etc., were globally envisaged, today the options are limited. In a free market economy if you have global excess supplies, you have to take care of it by controlling the levels of production. Today the government ministries tell the heads of these boards (tea, coffee, etc.) to enhance productivity, link products, diversify the products, value add the products, and focus on consumers’ interest. They must notice how different beverages are competing for primacy and how in such a context your own product, be it tea or coffee, keeps the position in such a

168

GURU PRAKASH PRABHAKAR AND PANKAJ SARAN

way that it does not lose its share of the market. One has to also concentrate on the younger generation to enable them to form their own perception of these traditional beverages (tea, coffee) because new products have come to the market to attract their attention. Now in such a situation, the traditional beverages must be positioned in the international context in a new fashion so that you are fashionable enough for people to be after you. The content and the core will not change. But then, if the marketing style has undergone a change, the brand value for the product is something that has got to be promoted in a different way altogether. Your conventional methods of marketing and also offering the product to the consumer will have to undergo a change. And that is where a lot of efforts are now going on. We have approached McKinsey consultants and a couple of other marketing agencies to have a fresh look at our marketing strategy for coffee, tea, rubber, etc., both in the domestic context as well as in the international context. The world cannot do without coffee or tea, and natural rubber has its own uses. But how will they drink, who will market it, who will control it, this is where the strategy comes in. Interviewer: Any particular organizational changes they have talked about in it? Saptharishi: Yes, they have talked about organizational changes. The top end diversification efforts, the marketing strategy with reference to each country, with reference to each product group, each value-added product, and the trend we have set in motion are all there. Interviewer: Within the concept of a traditional organization, government structure like the coffee board or the tea board, what specific changes are you planning to bring about? Do you think they kind of approve taking on this particular charge of building new markets or going into new markets? Saptharishi: As I told you that these boards are government bodies. These institutions have been built up over so many decades with a mandate that they have fulfilled. At that point of time they fulfilled those mandates that were given to them. That is how the coffee and the tea sector grew and India’s rubber industry developed. Now when the new marketing situation has emerged, consumer preferences are changing. We have got to respond in a way that it takes care of an existing institution to address the needs of the new situation. One of my fundamental objections to the so-called liberalization era that started in 1991 in India has been that we never cared to

A Perspective From India

169

address institutional issues. We talked about new changes in policies, but we never addressed the instruments that are needed to bring upon those changes in policy. You can say that it is new wine in old bottle. The old bottle is very important but the old bottle should not reject the new wine. Or the new wine should not distort the old bottle. If you ask me whether these instruments like the tea board, coffee board, rubber board or other commodity boards are capable enough in addressing these issues, the answer is yes. But, the important message that has not gone into them earlier is that in the new environment, you have got to utilize the manpower at your disposal, human resources at your disposal and the scientific and technological capabilities that you have acquired over time, the new directions that are technology-driven and market-driven. We are now trying to ensure that such a message is transmitted across and they in turn transmit this message across to the coffee growers and other industry stakeholders. Therefore, I am trying to reengineer the old institution and reposition it to fulfill the very mandate that is new and modern and needs to be fulfilled. Interviewer: Do you think something like corporatization might be required for that kind of thing to happen? Saptharishi: Corporatization in the context of the Government of India is only understood as a disinvestment. I do not want to get into that area. But in regard to these developmental bodies corporatization is a very good idea in the sense that you can bring in concepts relating to managing the affairs in a transparent, profit-making, development-oriented fashion, and at the same time development of human resources also. Corporatization cannot be the goal but having all these objectives together and proceeding in that direction of corporatization means you will find a new kind of approach emerging. The new approach is debureaucratizing these institutions, improving quality, market focus, and value addition. Now, if you start addressing some of these issues you will find that the institutions will start realizing the user issues that were never heard before, farms will be fully utilized, and underutilized manpower resource will be trained and retrained for the purpose of value addition. Scientific and technological teams that were few could be redeployed in such a way that they are also part of the marketing efforts. Otherwise, they were keeping themselves isolated and they thought that they were doing a great job. Corporatization means addressing each of these issues. These institutions must think that they will not run on loss-making lines, will not run on subsidized lines, and will not depend upon government only for money without any results

170

GURU PRAKASH PRABHAKAR AND PANKAJ SARAN

or value addition. This is a different concept altogether in the era of liberalization and that is how we have to look at the institutions: as a new bottle or a reengineered bottle to carry the new wine. Interviewer: Coming to you now as a chief executive officer, what do you think are the major strengths you have? I think a couple of things came out very clearly; you are able to kind of define what you want to hit at, you are able to narrow down on it, and you are able to move. What are the other things apart from these? Saptharishi: To me leadership is not the quality that everyone inherits by birth. I do not subscribe to the theory that leaders are born. Circumstances make men what they are. They emerge as leaders. But the most important thing is for a man who is trained in the areas of leadership for assuming positions of responsibility is to look for aspects that have remained disadvantaged so that he could facilitate them to move up in the ladder. If you start addressing two or three issues like this, your leadership qualities come to be pursued. The disadvantaged want to be led. The orphans want to be pulled up. Orphan means not in the materialistic sense of the term only; but in the intellectual sense of the term, in the market sense of the term, in the technology sense of the term. Whoever becomes in charge of a situation, if he looks into these areas, he will find that he emerges as a leader. Whoever misses the opportunity and only works for self-centered career goals – moving up the ladder – is not a leader. I just want to make a distinction here as between an achiever and a successful man. An achiever is one who may fail in his career, may not have reached the top class, but he is an achiever who even as he was progressing or moving in different directions took care of these disadvantaged people, took care of these orphans, and also made things happen, added value to things that were happening and in the process he gave the direction. He is the one who sets the goal, he made things happen for all to see in the institutional building sense of the term, capacity building sense of the term and in the process he leaves the legacy. This achiever who may not necessarily reach always the top class is different from the successful man. The successful man is also a leader in the conventional sense of the term, but in his case you will notice a very important difference. He would know how to take care of his own interests, career interests, his immediate goals and objectives, his own social needs, his own societal needs, how he is in the hierarchy or protocol taken care of, etc. With these things being taken care of, he would not mind if his goals are not achieved because he has made use of the systems to promote himself and

A Perspective From India

171

once he has reached that position it does not matter whether others are able to go up along with him on the line. I think a leader is one who should be an achiever. He must be able to motivate, transmit his enthusiasm and direct people to achieve those goals and objectives he is passionately committed to, or, as a mission, he has to convey to all what to achieve. As far as the successful man is concerned, yes, there are many successful people around. But if you look at their track record, you will find that it will have only their name and their designation. This is the distinction I would like to convey to the younger generations today, and definitely to those who come into positions of leadership and responsibility. Interviewer: And on the flip side, what do you think are your major weaknesses as you can consider them? Saptharishi: My weakness is perhaps I articulate too much and come forward with my views very easily whether you ask for it or not. But one thing has been driving me, which I tell my younger colleagues, and that is – you are superior to your equals and you are equal to your superiors; you are never insecure vis-a`-vis your juniors. And you should never be insecure visa`-vis your juniors who are also following the same dictum. If this is understood, you will find leadership gets defined as far as I am concerned. The problem comes when you think that I am an equal one. You are equal in terms of the label; but in your own mental perception of the problem, farsightedness, futuristic vision, the kind of difference you want to make, you have got to think that you are different from the other person who is your equal – you are superior. And you may come across many superiors. Therefore, you have got to be equal to them because this philosophy automatically gets juxtaposed to that philosophy, and if this philosophy is followed by somebody below you in the hierarchy, you should not get perturbed and feel insecure. You must encourage him to move forward and allow him also to become superior to you because he is only following your footsteps. That is how I feel you will be able to generate competent people. Otherwise, you will be only breeding mediocrity. The best should come out and manifest itself. The meritorious should always find a place and be allowed to proceed and progress. Interviewer: What is your philosophy of management? Saptharishi: I believe in a famous theory called ‘‘SEE’’ – survival, effectiveness, and efficiency. You have got to survive, you have got to be around,

172

GURU PRAKASH PRABHAKAR AND PANKAJ SARAN

and you have got to be effective. Effectiveness is not efficiency. Effectiveness is capability to deliver, to get the thing done and to make it move forward. Efficiency also is required if you are part of the system, e.g. keeping files, etc. But if you start writing volumes of paper and do not deliver, that is not efficiency. You have got to be effective and you should know how to survive. If you do not survive you will be only part of the bemoaned category that he was, he had been, etc. A leader should solve the problems. A leader with a human approach to problems and human kindness of abundance can deliver. One must know how to take the team along and make them deliver and work for him and he moves forward as a leader and all work for him. And that is an art. The important message I wish to convey to the younger generation on the basis of my experience is that when you come to manage a situation, look at what is immediately possible and have that as the limited agenda so that you can move forward and you can show certain milestones and based on those milestones you have crossed, you would be able to set the trend or the direction in which the whole thing can proceed. But, from day one, if you get bogged down in the things that are unsolvable, in things that are not worth being solved even, and you attempt to solve and then you throw up your hands saying that I have spent five years and nothing has happened, no one is going to admire you for having done nothing. In such a situation, it is better to have a limited agenda, a focused set of plan of action and try to achieve; and if that achievement results in something concrete and brings out a new dimension to the solution of the problem, by doing this you have set the direction. And once the direction is clear, even if it takes somewhat longer time for you or for somebody else who would step in or succeed you, you will find that the direction is correct.

CHAPTER 8 PUBLIC SECTOR TRENDS IN AUSTRALIA Owen E. Hughes ABSTRACT Purpose – This chapter looks fundamentally at public management reform in Australia since the early 1980s within an international context. Design/Methodology/Approach – The approach of this chapter is historical and theoretical, tracing the change from traditional public administration to public management in one country. Findings – It is principally concluded that, unlike the experience in many countries, public management reform has generally worked well in Australia. However, where to go next is more problematic. The society seems to have lost an appetite for further change, but the public services are still being pressured to deliver more and more efficiency a verity that is rather relentless. Originality/Value – The majority of previous studies have been highly critical of public management reform. This study shows that in a specific context real reform can be delivered. Keywords: Public management reform; new public management; Australian government

Emerging and Potential Trends in Public Management: An Age of Austerity Critical Perspectives on International Public Sector Management, Volume 1, 173–193 Copyright r 2012 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 2045-7944/doi:10.1108/S2045-7944(2012)0000001011

173

174

OWEN E. HUGHES

INTRODUCTION In May 2011, in one of its regular country surveys, a UK-based newspaper argued that along with ‘‘a prosperous economy, a harmonious and egalitarian society’’ and several other assets, Australia had ‘‘an excellent civil service’’ (The Economist, May 28, 2011). This opens the question as to what an excellent civil service might be, whether this was a long-running feature of Australian society or whether it was something recent. Certainly in that year, and compared to Europe or the United States, it appeared that Australia had largely escaped the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) in part due to exports of commodities to China, but in part also due to good management, particularly of government. When the GFC started, the Australian government was debt-free, symbolic of a set of reforms undertaken since the early 1980s. Governments of both major parties followed Treasury advice and the nation appeared to be in a very good position when the crisis occurred. It can be argued further that since the early 1980s, Australia has been at the forefront of real and substantial public sector reform and the changes induced manifestly assisted in coping with the GFC. But it was not always like that. A similar survey to that of The Economist in the 1970s would have been much more critical of what was then a rather moribund society with a public service to match. Public management reforms in Australia may not have had the same kind of thorough academic review as in New Zealand (see Boston et al., 1996), although in some ways the reforms have been just as far-reaching. It is noteworthy, too, that public sector reform in Australia continued even after New Zealand slowed its reforms in the late 1990s. The extent of public management reform is contested, in both content and across countries and whether or not it has been a paradigmatic change (Hughes, 2012; Kettl, 2000; Pollitt & Bouckaert, 2004). In Australia, however, even if it is often hard to separate major changes from smaller steps that occur incrementally, it is clear in hindsight that major reform occurred over this time and that its effects were profound. In general, perhaps surprisingly, it must be argued that the society and the people have benefited from public management reform. However, where to go next is a valid question. The most far-reaching reforms have been carried out and the political parties, perhaps the whole society, seem to have lost an appetite for much more change. But the public service is still being pressured to deliver more and more efficiency – a verity that is rather relentless.

Public Sector Trends in Australia

175

PUBLIC MANAGEMENT REFORM Since the 1980s, the public sectors of many countries have undertaken major change. Australia was not only no exception, it was one of the world leaders in public sector change. Many governments from the mid-1970s had become unimpressed by their own public sectors, in particular pointing to a lack of managerial competence. Initially, public management reform seemed to be driven by ideological views as to what should be in the public sector and what should not. Later and more enduring reform was more about greater efficiency in the delivery of services regardless of what might be the prevailing view of the appropriate line between the public and the private sector. The methods of bureaucracy, which were once regarded as the epitome of good practice, were now seen in a quite different light. The time-honored processes, procedures, and theories of public administration seemed ill equipped to deal with rapid change, and public administrators were often regarded by political leaders as being obstructive and unresponsive. Once change started, it became apparent that many of the old ways were not universal, were not needed, and could be supplanted by other forms of management. It has been argued that this period of change represents a paradigm shift from the traditional model of public administration, dominant for most of the twentieth century, to public management (Hughes, 2012). There are many views as to what constitutes public management. The fundamental point of difference between the two models is that administration means following instructions and management means control or taking in hand. A public manager is required to achieve results and is, further, personally responsible for doing so. From this change, much else follows. If the manager is to achieve results, the ways and means of doing so will draw on other disciplines to assist in the primary task. However, the change to public management in Australia or elsewhere did not mean the automatic embrace of the reform movement known as new public management (NPM). There were many reforms, many approaches in different countries, and it is rather simplistic to classify them all as NPM. In Australia, the term NPM was little used by practitioners and has either now passed or never existed other than in the eyes of critics where the term public management is now generally accepted in terms of what practitioners actually do. There may be little harm in attaching a name to a period of reform, and it is quite clear to anyone working in public services that something has

176

OWEN E. HUGHES

happened. Public management is different from traditional public administration and is here to stay. However, change does not occur without cost. There are perennial issues of accountability; perhaps some managerial changes will result in little, if any benefit. There is, however, no reason to assume that public management will be dropped and the traditional model will be adopted again; indeed, more recent developments in the field, such as leadership, collaboration, coproduction, even governance, are all even further away from the traditional model of public administration. There were very real changes to public services in many places including in Australia. While initially controversial and contested, the vehemence of reaction became quite muted and surprisingly quickly. Australia largely avoided the deep ideological conflict over the public sector that characterized the United Kingdom during the Thatcher years. There were debates over cuts and privatization, but they were neither long-lasting nor particularly intense. Australians appeared to accept reform as being necessary and had such a low opinion of the public sector that there was little sympathy. Inside government offices, the corporate memory that there ever was an earlier theory of public administration largely vanished from actual practice. There may be some historical interest in the traditional model of public administration but its direct relevance has faded away. The key reform, the key change that led to much subsequent change, was the recognition that public managers were now personally responsible for the delivery of results. No longer could they hide behind the policyadministration dichotomy where only ministers were responsible and public administrators simply administered in the sense of following instructions. Once this fundamental change was recognized, there were inevitable requirements to measure performance, both organizational and personal, better financial systems, and an ongoing demand for greater efficiency in terms of inputs and outputs.

THE TRADITIONAL MODEL OF ADMINISTRATION IN AUSTRALIA The 1980s and 1990s saw the most significant changes in the management of the public sector since Federation in 1901. For most of the twentieth century, the Australian public services were exemplars of what has been termed the ‘‘traditional public administration’’ (see Hughes, 2012). What was more usually called the career service in Australia followed Weberian

Public Sector Trends in Australia

177

bureaucracy almost to the letter. A generation ago, the normal practice was for aspiring administrators to enter the public service direct from school after sitting an examination administered by one of the public service boards, be appointed to a position at the bottom of the hierarchy, gain regular promotions, often based on seniority, or seniority combined with ‘‘efficiency,’’ and, in principle, aspire to become a department head. Processes were highly bureaucratic, outcomes were measured only incidentally, and the people were not well educated as managers, nor particularly competent. Jobs were for life and performance appraisal far from systematic. Far from instituting an administrative elite, Australians seemed content to tolerate mediocrity (see Hughes, 1998). Writing in 1930, the Australian historian Keith Hancock noted with some irony: ‘‘democratic sentiment applauds the sound argument that every office boy should have a chance to become a manager, and perverts it into a practical rule that no-one should become a manager who has not been an office boy’’ (1961, p. 118). The employment of graduates was discouraged as was the employment of women who were required to resign at the point of marriage until 1966. There was a strict hierarchical structure based on entry qualifications and with promotion largely by seniority. The principle of employment for life came to mean it was practically impossible to dismiss anyone, regardless of incompetence. The focus of subsequent reforms in the public service has been to move away from the concept of a rigid and bureaucratized career service, toward a more fluid structure. For the first three quarters of the twentieth century, the structure and model of the public service continued essentially unaltered. Public service life was comfortable, not too hard, and provided a steady career for those of a mind to follow the rules. In the 1970s, in the course of research into the administration of several countries, an American writer saw the Australian bureaucracy in these terms: In Australia the atmosphere in government offices and statutory authorities is one of genteel respect for professional norms and orderly procedure. There is little overt sign of upward striving on the part of executives, and little mobility from one organisation to another. y There may be little financial reward and considerable loss in retirement benefits to be had from changing jobs. It is also difficult to jump over the seniority queue that governs most promotions. A high-flier might break into an organisation at the upper levels, but he will do so at the cost of some hostility from his new colleagues. y Australian officials do not cut corners in pursuing achievements for themselves or their organisations. They express a narrow view of what is permitted to them. y Australia’s public servants show few signs of entrepreneurship (Sharkansky, 1979, p. 32).

178

OWEN E. HUGHES

This was justifiable criticism even as it was made at a time in which the performance of the public service was encountering increased criticism. The late 1970s and early 1980s saw a debate over public sector management, in particular, its inefficiency and hide-bound character. A formal bureaucratic model is really more suited to administration rather than management (see Hughes, 2012). From the early 1980s, Australian governments became less than impressed with the quality and capacity of their public services and began wide-ranging reforms. In a relatively short period, Australia turned from a bastion of the traditional model to one of the world leaders in public sector reform. This change, however, did not occur quietly or without cost.

PUBLIC MANAGEMENT REFORM The beginnings of major public management reforms in Australia can be dated reasonably precisely to the early 1980s. In the 1970s, there was a series of reviews of the public sector and its management at the Commonwealth level (Australia, 1976) and many of the state governments. It is fair, although, to add that little of substance happened until 1983 when the Hawke Labor government took office in Canberra. The 1980s saw structural changes including personnel systems and the effective end of traditional administrative processes used without major change for much of the century. The 1990s saw even more change with a drastic shrinking of the public services, notably in Victoria and the Commonwealth, to be replaced by contracted relationships between the purchasers, meaning small policy departments, and the providers, contractors from the private or voluntary sectors. This ‘‘new contractualism’’ (Alford & O’Neill, 1994) represented a major shift from managerialism that, in its earlier stages at least, was concerned with improving management within government, rather than doing away with public service altogether. Early reforms were accompanied by an intense debate in the society about the role of government and the role of the public sector in general. Protests occurred over cuts and privatization. A further stage, since perhaps 2000, can be characterized by a reduction in the ideological ferment over public management reform. Although the contest between proponents and critics may have been less intense, reforms continued. The overall change process can be characterized as a change from the traditional model of administration to public management. These

179

Public Sector Trends in Australia

‘‘managerialist’’ changes attracted widespread criticism notably from academics, but governments pressed on regardless and the reforms were not wound back. It could be argued that the traditional model of public administration had outlived its usefulness; the new model promised much, but its results were mixed. Once change started, once reform was established, it gained momentum and the settled system, in place for most of the twentieth century, was taken apart. Early reforms As noted earlier, the first wave of significant public sector reform occurred in the early 1980s. Starting in the mid-1970s, there was a period of economic malaise, which, even if largely driven by external shocks such as the oil price rises, found the Australian economy in a vulnerable state. Public management reform in Australia does need to be seen as linked with economic reform because it was the need to restructure the economy that drove much of the public sector change. Even if the economic imperative was not as severe as it was in New Zealand in the early 1980s (see Scott, 2001), Australia was ill prepared for a world of free trade, open markets, and competition. For most of the twentieth century, Australia had operated an economic system with rural exports, such as wool and wheat, combined with high levels of tariff protection for manufactures, high wages, high rates of immigration, and, it must be said, an inefficient public service. This was no longer sustainable. In 1983, two key decisions by the Labor government – the floating of the Australian currency and big cuts in tariffs – ended this system and led to much further reform. As far as public management reform is concerned, a key point was the setting up of the Reid Inquiry (Australia, 1983) into the Australian public service in 1982. The then Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser noted: ‘‘the Government believes there is a question whether the public service, as presently organized, has the management tools, the flexibility and the capacities to meet the challenges that presently exist and that lie ahead.’’ Soon after this the government changed; however, the incoming Hawke Labor government made numerous changes to management practices and to the machinery of government in the same vein as those set out by the Reid Inquiry. It initiated a reform program that continued into successive Labor and Coalition governments. It is noteworthy that the reforms continued in similar vein regardless of the political ideology of the government of the day.

180

OWEN E. HUGHES

At the national government level and in many of the states, there was substantial managerial reform, including the abolition in most jurisdictions of public service boards, multiple ministers for single departments, and dramatic changes in the terms and conditions of employment. The main changes at the Commonwealth level were carried out during the period of Labor governments (1983–1996). This was something of a break from an earlier Labor tradition of reliance on bureaucracy and public sector delivery of services. It was justified on the basis that Labor was still delivering services to its traditional supporters but at lower cost due to greater efficiency, and, importantly, without losing its credibility with the business community. The Commonwealth government from Hawke to Keating and to Howard continued the managerial reforms with little apparent difference between their various visions for the public sector. State governments were more varied. The Kennett government in Victoria (1992–1999) slashed the public service (Alford and O’Neill, 1994) and privatized virtually all large-scale public enterprises – electricity, gas, public transport, rail – except for the water industry; South Australia even privatized the water industry. New South Wales and Queensland, on the other hand, were more cautious and deliberate, retaining a much larger public sector than Victoria.

Reducing Government Scope There are two key aspects to reduction in governmental scope. One is the general reduction in public spending; the other is the reduction in the scope of government activity. Over the time of public sector reform in Australia, both have been significant. The reduction in government spending in Australia has been real and sustained. In 2010, total government expenditure was 35 percent of GDP, close to 10 percent less than the OECD average (OECD Economic Outlook). It had declined from 37.5 percent in 1994 at the same time as other OECD nations showed a substantial increase. The main reason for this was a relatively low level of social security spending, less than half that of the United States in 2008, even though the outcomes were arguably better. This was due to benefits being means tested rather than available for all. Individual welfare cases that are deserving gain quite good benefits, but those with assets or income above the set limit gain less or even nothing. This means that the welfare system is not overly costly for the society as a whole.

181

Public Sector Trends in Australia

A similar story could be told with regard to spending on health care, where a mixed public-private system similar to that of Canada provided a good level of funding and good overall outcomes but at a cost in proportion to GDP less than half that of the United States. Rigorous means testing has its critics, notably those who argue that as they have paid for benefits through taxation they should receive something back, but there is general acceptance of the principle. The other aspect of governmental scope concerns the activities in which government is involved. For most of its history, indeed from its very founding, Australia has been a society where government was large and important. To even begin an argument about this, as occurred in the late 1970s, was a big change from previous practice. And then, as occurred from the early 1980s, for governmental scope to be actively reduced was a very big change indeed. Due in part to low population density, Australia had established communications and infrastructure in government hands from the start. Telecommunications, electricity supply, water and gas supply and even airlines were government-owned and operated as public enterprises. The Commonwealth government-owned domestic airline Australian Airlines was sold to the international carrier Qantas (also government owned) in 1992 and the whole enterprise privatized the year after. Commonwealth shipping lines and railways were privatized too. The telecommunications provider Telstra was privatized in stages following the allowing of competition in the mid-1990s. Rural marketing boards were deregulated. The process of privatization of state public enterprises was more patchy. Victoria privatized its electricity and gas supply and the operation of public transport was contracted out. Other states kept similar enterprises in government hands somewhat later. Early privatization was quite controversial and retention in government hands was most probably popular. But governments no longer saw a benefit. The most surprising aspect following privatization was how quickly the debate subsided. Service Delivery Public management reform aims at the delivery of services in as most efficient a manner as possible. The change to management is about more than mere words. In New Zealand, for example: There has been a major shift in emphasis from controls over inputs to control over outputs. As a result, both politicians and departments themselves have begun asking

182

OWEN E. HUGHES

serious questions about their activities, why do they do them, and whether they should continue doing them or whether they should be doing something else y. Anecdotal evidence y suggests that departments are providing better services with fewer resources and ministers believe that they are able to make more informed choices about outputs (Boston et al., 1996, p. 359)

Australian governments tried to do this in a number of ways. An example is Centrelink in Australia, an agency created in 1997 for the purpose of delivering services. These are provided for a number of dissimilar departments – Social Security, Employment, Education – with the agency acting as a contractor for service delivery. Citizen needs cross the boundaries of departments. Services to the elderly, for example, are provided by several agencies. By linking these through e-government, better service could be delivered; after all, it is the service that is important rather than its agency home, with the citizen unlikely to understand the nuances of organizational structures. In this way information flows can cross departmental boundaries. E-government can allow government agencies to work together more effectively, although there do need to be adequate safeguards for privacy and security. Another example from e-government is that of the taxation office. In Australia, some 90 per cent of income tax returns were lodged electronically during 2009–10 by tax agents using the Australian Taxation Office’s electronic lodgment system or by individuals using the electronic tax system. There are organizational effects: online lodgment reduces the time taken to process returns, and also greatly reduces the staff needed to process paper forms including the data entry of details. Much of the data needed is placed into the relevant parts of the database by the client, meaning that it can be processed directly by the assessor, instead of anyone else being needed at lower levels to get the data ready. There is less need to hire base-grade or casual staff, as was once the norm, to process forms after the due date for submission of tax returns. Tax office staff can spend more time on assessing the return itself, rather than dealing with the documentation. If many of the functions can be carried out by lower level staff, with assistance from software, resources can be diverted to higher tasks and to difficult cases rather than mere routine processing. This points to effective devolution of authority, even as there is enhanced capability to monitor results at higher levels. These changes have effects on personnel and career structures; there is less need for base-grade staff, greater capability of lower level staff, fewer middle managers, and, perhaps, greater scope for higher level staff.

Public Sector Trends in Australia

183

Personnel Management Change Changes to personnel management were particularly controversial as it seemed that many of the conditions of service enjoyed by public servants were being eroded. This may have been so, but public service pay and conditions had become out of step with community standards. Public services in Australia conformed for most of the twentieth century to the career service model, described in the mid-1970s by the Coombs Commission (Australia, 1976, p. 169) as (i) recruitment by merit (however defined) to a (ii) unified service (intended to mitigate the evils that result from a fragmentary service) subject to (iii) independent, non-political control of recruitment and of the conditions of employment; and where the rights of career public servants are protected by (iv) regulations that discourage the recruitment of ‘‘strangers’’ to positions above the base grade, and by (v) legislated protection against arbitrary dismissal (termination being only for cause and by due process). This unified service is characterized by (vi) a hierarchical structure of positions defined by (vii) a regular system of position classification of salaries (with incremental advancement within the salary ranges of particular positions), with the career public servant rising through this hierarchy of positions according to (viii) a system of promotion by merit subject to (ix) a system of appeals against promotions (designed to ensure that justice is seen to be done) and the final reward for long and loyal service being (x) a distinctive retirement and pension system. These points are classic principles of bureaucracy that might well have been written by Weber. Within 20 years, virtually all of these had changed totally, with the exception of recruitment and promotion by merit. There is now no unified Australian Public Service. An independent personnel agency, the Public Service Board – -the equivalent of the Office of Personnel Management in the United States – was abolished in 1987. There is no effective protection against arbitrary dismissal; recruitment is now no longer exclusively at the base grade; position classification no longer exists in general, having been replaced by broadbanded ‘‘levels’’ of employment; appeals against promotion and grievance procedures have been considerably watered down. Even the distinctive retirement and pension system has largely disappeared and has been replaced by arrangements more like the private sector. It is becoming easier to hire the right people, quickly and often with variations to the standard conditions of employment. Departments have set out to break down the rigid hierarchical structures and provide flexibility.

184

OWEN E. HUGHES

Rather than secure lifetime employment, more employees at all levels face regular restructuring of their agencies, more movement, more redundancies, and less certainty. There are likely to be more dismissals, and further cuts. In Victoria, the government restructured the public service in the 1990s, dispensing with a third of its employees. Public servants have no tenure beyond four weeks notice and were all reclassified as ‘‘government employees,’’ rather than public service officers. All senior bureaucrats are placed on short term contracts with a substantial (20 percent) performance pay component. These changes have been controversial for public servants. They were resisted by employees and unions, but public servants found they had little support in the general community. Governments and political leaders found they could restructure totally without it seeming to affect their political standing. So they continued.

Financial Management Change Australia has been at the forefront of financial management reform and, in general, this has worked very well. Program budgeting did not succeed in the United States but did work in Australia, perhaps due to the different institutional settings. The demise of program budgeting in the United States in the 1960s is sometimes used as an argument against any comprehensive financial management system. However, program budgeting in parliamentary systems has actually been successful. Where the executive is firmly in control of the parliament, the bureaucracy and the overall government budget, program budgeting works and works very well indeed as has been shown in such countries as Australia and New Zealand. Another important budgeting change involves the preparation of detailed budget estimates beyond the usual single year. This is another generally successful reform. In Australia, Forward Estimates have been prepared since 1972. Since 1983, their format has been greatly improved and published in time to assist the following year’s budgetary process. Forward Estimates provide the government and the public with information on the level and composition of spending over the next three years and with quite comprehensive forecasts of spending and revenue beyond that. Rather than comprising ‘‘wish lists’’ from departments, they now represent a realistic assessment of government spending, both overall and on particular programs, that will occur in the absence of policy changes. This enables the long-term costs of programs to be better estimated. The longer term perspective is extended even further through intergenerational

Public Sector Trends in Australia

185

reports that project program costs for up to 40 years, assuming no policy change. Traditional budgeting is based on cash, that is, revenue received and outlays paid out in the one year. What is termed ‘‘accrual accounting’’ is more sophisticated as it includes the value of assets in a more comprehensive way. Its major objective is to compare the total of economic costs incurred during a reporting period against the total economic benefit accrued in that period. In other words, the value of assets is included as well as their depreciation, so that a more complete picture of the government’s financial position is known in a way similar to that of the private sector. There follows a more meaningful comparison of financial inputs to policy outcomes; accountability is to be improved through the incorporation of performance measures and there is the opportunity to predict and monitor longer term impacts of government decisions. Accrual accounting was implemented as early as 1992 in New Zealand, but it was only during the late 1990s that other jurisdictions tried it. In Australia, the federal government started using it in 1999–2000 as did the state governments at around the same time. Accrual accounting requires that the full costs be charged to operating units, including accommodation and assets used, in other words, the full economic cost of operating that unit. In principle, accrual accounting would by itself drive substantial reform; as Kettl argues, ‘‘accrual accounting, especially in the Westminster countries, has been an important tool in making government more transparent’’ (Kettl, 2005, p. 46). However, accrual accounting is difficult to bring about and, if implemented badly, could impose similar rigidity as the traditional model. It does, however, offer an improved accounting system to go along with other parts of public management, although there are real difficulties in implementation. (Guthrie, Olson, Jones, & Olson, 2005). Another aspect of accounting is the more intense use of auditing than was previously the case. Public sector auditing once concentrated on financial probity by managers, rather than whether or not a program or agency was serving any useful function. Performance auditing can address this by making an assessment of program outcome as well as financial probity. There is also a shift away from detailed regulations and compliance management toward giving individual managers greater control over their own budgets as part of their overall responsibility to achieve results. Instead of the allocation of photocopiers across branches, for example, being decided centrally, it becomes the decision of a line manager to decide if that section wishes to buy a photocopier or a computer or use it for some

186

OWEN E. HUGHES

completely unrelated purpose. In principle, a one-line budget could be given to a particular manager to then manage the resources as he or she chose. A manager needs to produce results and the budget is the main resource allowing this to be done. In principle, devolution of real budget authority to managers is inarguable: in practice it has not been so easy for central agencies to let the manager manage and devolve budget authority as completely as might be desirable. Common reforms include provision for savings realized to remain with spending agencies and not be automatically reappropriated by the central budget office.

Contracting The other major change is that of contracting. Of course, contracting was not unknown before, but contracting now has been greatly extended (Davis, 1997). The standard now openly referred to in some places is the ‘‘Yellow Pages’’ standard, meaning that if there is a business listed in the Yellow Pages that could do a task now carried out in government, then it should be contracted out (Hughes & O’Neill, 2001). Personnel management is often contracted out; information technology is contracted out including the use of sensitive government information held about individuals. Coastal surveillance is contracted out; some prisons and immigration detention centers are contracted out. Under binding competition legislation, the principle of ‘‘competitive neutrality’’ means that there can be no favoritism for in-house providers of government goods and services as against possible outside contractors. Many local government services are now contracted out. This started with garbage and parks but has extended to such sensitive matters as planning permits and health services to children and the aged. There can a set of linked contractual arrangements. For example, a public hospital operates on a contractual arrangement with its health care network, which in turn is contractually bound to the Health Department and this can involve a contract or service agreement between the service delivery agency and the policy department.

THE GREAT DEBATE One interesting aspect of the managerial reform process in Australia was a debate that occurred among academics and between academics and

Public Sector Trends in Australia

187

practitioners (see Considine & Painter, 1997). The debate started with the 1988 issue of Australia Journal of Public Administration, with an editorial written by Martin Painter, one of the journal’s editors at the time. Painter criticized the ‘‘managerialism’’ of the public sector – the word regarded later as ‘‘the widely used term employed to describe all the organizational changes achieved in the public sector’’ (Considine & Painter, 1997, p. 2). He argued the reforms ‘‘lacked a solid intellectual or philosophical basis’’ and while ‘‘pragmatism in borrowing techniques and ideas is all very well’’ the ‘‘uncritical acceptance of a private business model for public administration has many dangers’’ (Painter, 1988, p. 2). These dangers included: First, the ‘model’ is often misrepresented, or viewed selectively through rose tinted spectacles. Secondly, there is no one model in any case, because in business, as in government, management practices vary with the people and the circumstances. Thirdly, the public sector is different y. Most areas of public service and administration have distinct political, ethical, constitutional and social dimensions which tend to be ignored or even supplanted by public management practices (p. 2).

Painter (1988, p. 5) pointed to personnel changes such as ‘‘the introduction of the senior executive service (SES), the use of private sector style performance measurement and improvement techniques for managers, the development of system-wide forms of program evaluation, the selective use of performance payment systems, the removal of statutory constraints on the reclassification and redeployment of subordinate staff, and the relocation and replacement of central agency controls over some resource issues.’’ These views were disputed. One senior manager argued that ‘‘in relation to broadly accepted ethical norms, modern public administration compares well with that which has gone before’’ (Paterson, 1988, p. 287). He argued there was certainly a new language of public administration that embraced terms such as performance measurement, performance improvement, program-based organizational structures, program budgeting, corporate planning, senior executive service, program evaluation, effectiveness review, performance payment, cash limits, devolution, and financial management and noted that ‘‘each of these semantic references has, to a greater or lesser extent, a counterpart in actual practice’’ (Paterson, 1988, p. 288). Paterson said that ‘‘most of the daily work of the modern public sector involves not administrative discretion, but rather the production of goods and services’’ (1988, p. 289) and added, ‘‘One might turn the critique of managerialism

188

OWEN E. HUGHES

back on its authors by observing that it is the survival of the classic paradigm that needs to be justified’’ (1988, p. 289). In general, he claimed: Most of the (generally senior) officials that I know who have followed the upsurge of ‘anti-managerialist’ expressions in the scholarly literature have been left puzzled. Practising managerialists have apparently been too occupied by their tasks to attempt to come systematically to terms with what they see as the accusations of their critics (Paterson, 1988, p. 287).

Another leading official argued, ‘‘What is y remarkable y to many of us officials is that, notwithstanding the widespread support for the management reforms, they have been subject to some vehement criticism by a number of people mostly outside official circles’’ (Keating, 1990, p. 114). It is interesting to revisit this debate more than two decades on. There has been a disconnect between what was said in the debate of the 1980s and 1990s and what actually happened later. Looking back at the debate, and what has occurred since, it is argued that even if neither proponents and opponents of managerial reform achieved all they wanted, the practitioner view is the one that ultimately prevailed. Market-based reforms occurred, but did not always proceed to their extremes. On the other hand, the arguments of opponents appear quaint and archaic. The sky did not fall in when public servants no longer had lifetime tenure in their jobs; politicization did not lead to corruption; most privatization did not lead to lower levels of service and higher costs; there was no diminution of the political contest. Even if the proponents of managerial reform have not achieved all they wanted, the current state of the public services in Australia is much closer to what the practitioners argued for in the late 1980s.

INTERNATIONAL IMPLICATIONS It is hard to see if the experience of managerial change in Australia does have international lessons in the sense of practices that can be readily transported. Indeed, one of the problems with NPM has been the assumption that there ever was a single model that could be readily transported regardless of institutional arrangements or history. Australia may be an exemplar of public management reform but at least part of that is due to fortune and resource endowments rather than exemplary practice. Perhaps the first lesson is that managerial reform can work provided there is a conducive environment for reform to take place. This may mean, as was the case in Australia, that bipartisan perspectives have more chance of

Public Sector Trends in Australia

189

taking root than ones that are heavily identified with one side of the political spectrum. It was evident in Australia that the need to reform the public sector, the ways in which this could be done, and the outcomes that were desired from reform were shared by the two main parties of government. Reform continued even when governments changed. It is also notable that the Labor Party in government, a party of the Left, was just as committed to public sector reform, including cuts and privatization, as were the parties of the Right. Indeed, it could be argued that the Labor Party was more successful in bringing about fundamental reform. Its affiliated interest groups could see the advantages in opening up the society to the outside and went along with the changes. It was argued as well that greater efficiency in government would better deliver services to its constituents. A second lesson relates to the application of economic theory to public management practice. The traditional model of public administration avoided the use of economics, although it is hard to understand why given that economics is about alternate uses of scarce resources. The basis in economic theory is one of the main criticisms of public management reform. In Australia, it is notable how strong the use of economic theory has been. Advisors and public officials with economic training dominated the policy process for much of the reform period. It was normal for any change to have economic assessments and modeling of effects. Public administration training was little evident by comparison to that of economics. This may have been a source of frustration to critics from the old public administration paradigm but it was real and continues. Economic theory was used to justify the privatization of public enterprises for deregulation, for performance management, and for much else. According to theory, the inferior accountability of the public sector was a good reason to contract out or to privatize. A third lesson is for the disciplines of public administration and public management. More than two decades after the reforms began, the debate over public management provides lessons for academics in needing to maintain and enhance relationships with public sector practitioners. One practitioner referred to, ‘‘at the extreme there is even some outright opposition to the reforms although interestingly much of this comes from people in universities who are not directly involved’’ (Keating, 1989). For some time after the beginning of the reform process, there was something of a divide between academics and practitioners that was unhelpful for both sides and raised very real questions as to whether or not public management is an abstract discipline or one related to practice. A final lesson is that, in Australia at least, managerial reform actually worked and worked better than is recognized by critics. Much if not most of

190

OWEN E. HUGHES

the academic literature around public management reform has been negative, in the sense of being highly critical of managerialism and critical of virtually every aspect of reform, particularly the market-based changes often referred to as NPM. The literature in the United States and the United Kingdom as well as Europe has been critical of public management reform. In Australia, along with New Zealand the experience has been rather different. Despite criticism governments persisted in making change and, for the most part, these changes have actually succeeded. There has been massive change, greatly affecting the career prospects of public servants along with a marked deterioration in their working conditions. But in terms of delivering services effectively and efficiently it has been a success. Public management reform is not about reducing democratic choice, not about replacing politicians by managers, and not about encouraging bureaucrats to act unethically, although all these claims have been made. It is about management, rather than administration, and using economic theory to carry out managerial functions rather than the public interest theories behind traditional public administration. As one of the contributors to the debate, Michael Keating, a leading Commonwealth official, argued: Not everyone has found it easy to accept that public administration is no longer essentially a matter of compliance with detailed processes, as outlined in manuals, but rather requires the exercise of good judgment within a clearly defined framework of policy guidelines, which make it clear what one is expected to achieve, while allowing some discretion as to how the expected outcomes can be most effectively pursued. However, the greater satisfaction then comes from identification by managers and staff with the results that they personally have achieved (p. 131).

This provides a very good summary of the reform process and its characterization as being a transition from public administration to public management. Managers were now required to achieve results and to take personal responsibility for doing so. This was a major shift from public administration and the detailed processes set out in manuals. Once a public manager is required to achieve results there is much else that follows.

WHERE TO NEXT? There are two different aspects of consideration of the future to be considered. First, there are aspects of public management reform in Australia that need further work, and that have been missing thus far.

Public Sector Trends in Australia

191

The second relates to theoretical concerns, that is, what kinds of theoretical approaches show promise for the future and the direction in which public management reform is heading. On the first point, the main reform issue that needs further work is that of the relationship between the national government and the states. Under Australia’s federal system, the Commonwealth government has the lion’s share of finances and the states deliver much of the services to people with the exception of welfare payments that the Commonwealth provides. In areas such as health care and education, there are overlaps and duplication adding to costs. Road funding may involve three levels of government. There appears to be no easy answer to dealing with this cost. Public servants spend much of their workday dealing with other levels of government. Further centralization may be more costly; further devolution may reduce accountability. Another issue, in some ways related to the first concerns implementation. In recent years there have been political issues around poor implementation. Central government funding to avert the worst effects of the GFC, notably one program to install home insulation and another to provide extra school buildings, showed a lack of capacity to actually deliver. Part of the problem may have been that Commonwealth did not have the experience or expertise where state governments do, but a more likely reason for failure was that actual delivery expertise had been hollowed out after so many years of reform. The old-style bureaucrat who may have asked difficult questions was no longer there. The second issue of theory is necessarily more speculative. It does appear that recent public management practice has been about new ways of interacting with actors outside the agency and incorporating their interests and expertise. Ideas around governance, ideas of leadership, ideas of collaboration and coproduction (Alford, 2009) all point to the need to get results but often in situations where the manager has no authority or little authority. An external focus is one of the key differences in a public management model compared to a public administration. Public managers now have to interact with outsiders much more than before. It is normal to have to work with interest groups, to engage contractors and normal to have to work with business. In all of these, it is remarkable how far public management has moved away from public administration. For instance, the discussion of leadership is quite antithetical to a Weberian bureaucracy, as in that theory any kind of personality was to be strictly removed from any consideration.

192

OWEN E. HUGHES

CONCLUSION After some three decades of substantial reform, it can be argued that there has been a revolution in public sector management in Australia. Many of the features of public administration disappeared, including employment for life, steady progress from the base-grade, and the focus on process rather than results. The revolution is not complete and aspects of administration remain. But it is a rare public servant who speaks of public administration anymore and a rare public servant who considers themselves an administrator rather than a manager. There has been something of a sterile debate around the world over ‘‘new public management’’ at least since Hood (1991). In Australia, there was a debate over managerialism and managerial reform but after more than two decades, reforms have not only been implemented but appear – contrary to some expectations at the time or of critics at any time – to have largely worked. The survey from The Economist mentioned at the beginning of this chapter argues of Australia that ‘‘textbook economics and sound management have truly worked wonders’’ (The Economist, May 28, 2011). To an extent that would confound the legion of critics of managerial reform in the public sectors around the world, it must be concluded that this statement is largely correct. The textbook use of economics in Australia is correct, as it was in New Zealand. Sound management has also been in place, but this was not always the case. Since 1983, Australian society has been transformed from what it was like before when it was isolated, insular, and protected from the world (see Hughes, 1998). Since that time management of the public sector has been greatly improved and the effects have been profound.

REFERENCES Alford, J. (2009). Engaging public sector clients: From service-delivery to co-production. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave-Macmillan. Alford, J., & O’Neill, D. (Eds.). (1994). The contract state: Public management and the Kennett government. Geelong, Australia: Centre for Applied Social Research, Deakin University Press. Australia. (1976). Royal Commission on Australian Government Administration. Report. AGPS, Canberra. Australia. (1983). Review of Commonwealth administration, Report. Canberra, Australia: AGPS. Boston, J., Martin, J., Pallot, J., & Walsh, P. (1996). Public management: The New Zealand model. Auckland, New Zealand: Oxford University Press.

Public Sector Trends in Australia

193

Considine, M., & Painter, M. (1997). Managerialism: The great debate. Carlton, Melbourne, Australia: Melbourne University Press. Davis, G. (1997). Implications, consequences and futures. In G. Davis, B. Sullivan & A. Yeatman (Eds.), The new contractualism. Melbourne, Australia: Macmillan. Guthrie, J., Olson, C., Jones, L. R., & Olson, O. (Eds.). (2005). International public financial management reform: Progress, contradictions, and challenges. Greenwich, CT: Information Age. Hancock, W. K. (1961). Australia. St. Lucia, Australia: University of Queensland Press. Hood, C. (1991). A public management for all seasons? Public Administration, 69(1), 3–19. Hughes, O. E. (1998). Australian politics (3rd ed.). Melbourne, Australia: Macmillan. Hughes, O. E. (2012). Public management and administration (4th ed.). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave. Hughes, O. E., & O’Neill, D. (2001). Managerialism in Victoria. In L. R. Jones, J. Guthrie & P. Steane (Eds.), International public management reform: Lessons from experience. Oxford, UK: Elsevier-JAI Press. Keating, M. (1989). Quo vadis? Challenges of pubic administration. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 48, 123–131. Keating, M. (1990). Managing for results in the public interest. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 49(4), 387–398. Kettl, D. F. (2000). The global public management revolution. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. Kettl, D. F. (2005). The global public management revolution (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. Painter, M. (1988). Public management: Fad or fallacy. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 47, 1–3. Paterson, J. (1988). A managerialist strikes back. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 47(4), 287–295. Pollitt, C., & Bouckaert, G. (2004). Public management reform: A comparative analysis (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Scott, G. (2001). Public management in New Zealand: Lessons and challenges. Wellington, New Zealand: New Zealand Business Roundtable. Sharkansky, I. (1979). Wither the state? Politics and public enterprise in three countries. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.

CHAPTER 9 NEW PROFESSIONALISM AND PUBLIC SECTOR MANAGEMENT: A REFLECTION ON COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE IN UK TEACHER EDUCATION Linda Rush and John Diamond ABSTRACT Purpose – This chapter argues that ‘‘Partnership Learning to learn’’ across different disciplinary and professional boundaries is integral to good practice and is necessary in order to promote and to support multidisciplinary practice and education. Design/Methodology – The chapter draws upon empirical data collected as part of a research project based at Liverpool Hope University (United Kingdom) and previous work undertaken by the authors. Findings – This chapter explores the models of leadership associated with good or promising collaboration. It suggests that this is likely to include an explicit understanding of the rationale, its role, and purpose; that debate and opposition are encouraged; and that space and time are

Emerging and Potential Trends in Public Management: An Age of Austerity Critical Perspectives on International Public Sector Management, Volume 1, 195–213 Copyright r 2012 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 2045-7944/doi:10.1108/S2045-7944(2012)0000001012

195

196

LINDA RUSH AND JOHN DIAMOND

created to facilitate structured conversations. Finally, a model of engaging with collaborative inquiry needs to be systematically developed. Research implications – The chapter argues that this model offers insights into how good teacher education and professional development across different settings and disciplines can be promoted. In this chapter, the authors argue that working across boundaries is defined as involving academics, teachers, ‘‘experts,’’ and students. Practical implications – The chapter suggests that this model of collaborative inquiry and practice has significant implications for how we might model our approach to professional and practitioner education and learning across different professional settings and boundaries. Originality – The chapter draws upon existing and ongoing development work that has implications for holistic change within organizations. Keywords: Reciprocal leadership; leadership; organizations; partnership; interprofessional learning; relationships; beliefs and values

POSITIONING STATEMENT As university academics we have significant experience of working cooperatively and in collaboration with practitioners and professionals from a variety of organizational settings. We take the view that both intra- and interorganizational collaboration are a precondition for effective ‘‘knowledge exchange’’ and ‘‘knowledge creation’’ within and across organizations (Rush & Diamond, 2009). We also argue that most of the challenges we face in the twenty-first century demand that we adopt multidisciplinary and multiprofessional ways of working (Claxton, 2006; Field, 2005; Fisher & Rush, 2008; Whitchurch, 2008). Furthermore, we believe that both intra- and interorganizational collaboration call into question existing ways of working, of decision-making, and demands an explicit examination of the organizational structure and the basis on which leadership is perceived (Karlsson, Anderberg, Booth, Odenrick, & Christmansson, 2008; Whitchurch, 2008).

BACKGROUND The changes in the ways in which traditional public agencies in the United Kingdom have been organized have to some extent involved changes too in

New Professionalism and Public Sector Management

197

their continuing professional development as well as those accredited undergraduate/postgraduate programs. Across a number of professional/ public or welfare disciplines; from teaching to social work and housing to services for children and young people, we can observe the development and introduction of a new(er) curriculum, modifications to the organization/ length, and supervision of professional practice and the formation of new career structures and management roles. There is an argument to make that in part these changes reflect wider and broader social, political, and economic changes too. Such changes can be seen to demonstrate the interplay between the social/economic changes of neoliberalism and those particular or local political/organizational changes provoked by one-off crises in welfare agencies. Drawing on previous research we believe that there are a number of themes that get played out across and within different professional disciplines and that these raise important questions about the scope for innovation and development within different professional disciplines or practice. These recurring themes include the following: a focus on cross boundary or multidisciplinary working; an importance attached to continuing professional development with a deliberate focus on partnership or collaborative working; a focus on securing user or client involvement in service design; a blurring of the boundaries between service professionals and administrators; flatter styles of management; an importance attached to the concept of the reflective practitioner; and for some service professionals an expectation that they will receive supervision of their practice. In this chapter, we argue that the aforementioned changes and emerging themes have more significant implications than just those relating to the education and training of new professionals. They raise important questions too about the ways in which knowledge and understanding are constructed or coproduced. They, also, bring into sharp relief the affordances or barriers for innovation and change in respect of collaboration. This chapter highlights some of the implications these changes may have for how we think about the potential to support/promote innovative collaborative practice within a new paradigm for public sector professionals. As we have argued elsewhere (Diamond & Rush, 2012): One of the consequences of the success of neo liberalism over the past 30 years has been to develop a new set of conventional ways of working. In the late 1970s the presence of an active movement within a number of professional disciplines across teaching, social work and health to promote shared learning and understanding between users and service professionals; to value self-reflection and critical thinking as important for personal and group development; to support ideas of thinking across socially constructed boundaries of knowledge and discipline and to encourage criticality and

198

LINDA RUSH AND JOHN DIAMOND

contestation as part of a learning and development-all supported innovative work in local neighbourhoods and in schools and social work teams y. A key feature, we think, of this conceptualisation of the New Professional approach is to stress its focus on thinking and reflection as ways of informing decisions and action. Moreover, it has focus on individual roles and responsibilities in a context of shared learning and thinking. Collaboration-framed in this way-is about developing practice which seeks to learn from and work with others whether they be users or practitioners. (p. 62)

Here, it is important to distinguish between the different external pressures for change across the public sector. We believe that the primary focus for change, at the moment, is economic; the austerity measures introduced after the UK 2010 General Election are being felt across the whole of the public sector. In this context the need to break down professional boundaries within the workforce can be seen as paramount. It is possible to view the changes to the children’s workforce introduced by the Labour government as part of the process of transformation and restructuring. It is important to note that this change predated the economic crisis. We locate part of the rationale for this change as representing a response to a perceived set of crisis in social work and child protection as well as a perception that children in UK schools were underachieving. In this context cross boundary working can be viewed as being initiated by external factors and choices in order to achieve more efficient use of resources but also to challenge particular ways of working by professional public sector groups. A secondary focus for change and to proposition toward new ways of working derives from a shared view that existing ways of working are failing and that there is a need to redefine the relationships between different professional disciplines and their client or user group. This ‘‘crisis’’ is also driven by a different intellectual and set of beliefs and values held by more professionals/practitioners advocating reform. We see this model as one which seeks to reimagine the prevailing social, educational, policy, and political relationships (Rush, 2010, 2012). It is this latter focus – ‘‘Partnership Learning to learn’’ that we discuss in this chapter. We do see it as sitting in opposition to the values and assumptions held by the primary driver for change. In our experience these two have coexisted alongside each other. In times of crisis, however, coexistence may not be an option. In this chapter, we attempt to outline the model of ‘‘Partnership Learning to learn’’ being promoted within the context of teacher education by one of the authors (Rush, 2010). We do so with a view to identify its potential to act as a framework to stimulate debate around collaborative practices beyond teacher education. We want to argue that this model provides a ‘‘scaffold’’

New Professionalism and Public Sector Management

199

for those engaged in partnership working across different boundaries of practice and in different settings to critically think and reflect on their own practice. In summary we think we can identify three different ‘‘types’’ of professional learning and practice:  those that value and promote multidisciplinary work across different professions and that advocate greater user participation;  those that resist such approaches and that resist the reforms of the New Right because they believe both undermine the autonomy of professional practice; and  those that promote changes in order to make the work force more flexible and sensitive to the economies of service provision and that see the professions as representing a block to national economic competitiveness. Each of these groupings engages with and interprets the public and political reform processes quite differently. We outline below a typology of approaches to collaboration that we think put more groupings in context.

INTRODUCTION In this chapter, we reflect on the competing and at times contradictory pressures on those who occupy leadership roles. More specifically, attention is paid to how one of the authors, linked to their vision for the Faculty of Education in which she works (see extract below), sought to promote, facilitate, and lead change on prevailing partnership practices in teacher education: More and more, we have to find ways to work across the disciplines/specialist areas of knowledge and professions. That’s a major challenge to us. We have organizational barriers (e.g. Quality Assurance mechanisms), cultural barriers (e.g. tutors protective of their specialist area of interest and seeing it as distinctive and/or more important than others – silo mentality) to that of, financial barriers (e.g. funding linked to student numbers). Of particular importance here is the role of Heads of Department and Programme Leaders as ‘boundary spanners’ and time being set aside for those involved in curriculum design to have sustained conversations with one another concerning innovative intra and inter-organisational collaboration, linked to the needs of our community both locally, regionally and internationally. (Rush & Fisher, 2009)

Encapsulated in this vision was and continues to be a commitment to a model of teacher education, which uses the expertise and professionalism of

200

LINDA RUSH AND JOHN DIAMOND

individuals wherever these exist. Crucially, here, is the centrality of what is being termed ‘‘Partnership Learning to learn’’ – reflective, intentional, and collaborative learning created through academic activities and practices in the university; the professional knowledge and skills of other professionals in school or other settings; and the fusion of these through programs of teacher education. It is worth noting here that the conceptualizing of partnership learning in this way has being informed by an institutional research project concerning the role of the academic, professional and specialist (in school or other settings), in promoting subject knowledge of student teachers at Liverpool Hope University (Hathaway et al., 2010; Rush, 2012). In examining the contribution of both internal and external partners, including the students themselves, the research has sought to examine conceptions of ‘‘partnership.’’ Related aims have been to: (1) address both the adequacy of the infrastructure for training and development at a conceptual and resource level; and (2) to consider the ways in which our current partnership model reflects Initial Teacher Training’s (ITT’s) capacity to evolve to meet the needs of twenty-first century schools. In the reconceptualization of current partnership practices increasing emphasis is being given to: (1) dissolving the boundaries between the worlds of the academic, the professional or expert and student; (2) enabling mutual appreciation of one another as partners in learning; (3) the complexity of knowledge being promoted; and (4) the use and application of theory to inform practice and vice versa. Such aspirations, in promoting a fuller representation of what it means to teach, require those working within teacher education to look at the concept and practice of partnership and the role of ‘‘knowledge’’ and its relationship to ‘‘knowing’’ in more expanded and imaginative ways. The ideas set out in this chapter recognize that Partnership Learning as defined above; reflective, intentional, and collaborative, is not fully realized in most ITT settings and the reshaping of knowledge is likely to be a troublesome activity for those involved (Walsh & Kahn, 2010). How to plan for the promotion of such a distinct pedagogy or to detail the ways in which someone should guide those involved into such a deep and critical, and very personal learning process at both strategic (organizational) group (program) and individual levels is problematic. This is especially so when prevailing perceptions and experiences of those working in ITT is one of feeling constrained and regulated (Burgess, 2000; Clark, 2005; Fisher & Rush, 2008; Rush & Fisher, 2009).

New Professionalism and Public Sector Management

201

CONTEXT: POLICY, POLITICS, AND ECONOMICS The public policy context in the United Kingdom is shaped by the consequences of the global banking and finance crash in 2007/2008. The Age of Austerity in the United Kingdom – especially in terms of a retrenchment in the public sector is likely to get worse over the next 12 months. The pattern of public spending cuts in the United Kingdom is not that different from those introduced across Europe and North America. In the United Kingdom and especially in England this means cuts to services at the local or neighborhood level. In practice this will mean schools cutting back on support workers as well as teachers. In addition the UK coalition government has both cut funding to higher education and given universities permission to raise the fees they charge students. In a sense, therefore, we are witnessing a ‘‘perfect storm’’ for those leading and promoting change within teacher education: cuts in funding to universities; reorganization and restructuring to anticipate or take account of the cuts; uncertainty over student numbers; and pressures on schools too. At the same time we can observe initiatives aimed at redefining the roles and professional identities of public sector/welfare professionals. In the United Kingdom, the new government is developing a policy agenda that appears to be calling into question the role and autonomy of university based or university led teacher education. Indeed we can see that such an approach is not restricted to the United Kingdom. As Zeichner (2010) argues attempts in the United States by the federal government to reform the model of university based teacher education are, in part, led by cost but also by a wish to challenge the assumed ‘‘separation’’ between school and university on pedagogic grounds. Such thinking is not new. Since the mid 1990s one key aim underpinning the majority of UK programs, schemes and initiatives concerning teacher education has been to heighten the central importance of the school-based element. Indeed, some argue that a clear message of expectation is being sent to schools that they assume center stage in initial teacher education. We can identify a number of features that are part of this shared discourse and that have informed the modernization of these sectors. These features include the following:  a focus on multidisciplinary or multiagency working as a means of organizing and providing a structure to the work of these public professionals;

202

LINDA RUSH AND JOHN DIAMOND

 a blurring of the boundaries between administrators and service professionals;  an expectation that service users will be involved in the design, commissioning, and evaluation of the services they rely on;  a reduction in managerial roles and grades and much ‘‘flatter’’ management structures; and  an assumption that the performance of the ‘‘new’’ public professionals can be measured and quantified. We set out below why we think the above features reflect the dominance of neoliberalism – in terms of its impact on the reform of the public realm and those who work within it. However, the social, economic, and ideological changes that are driving the cuts in public spending and the desire for public sector reforms are not new. Indeed, the crisis of the legitimacy of public sector goes back to the late 1970s. Across advanced economies there has been a persistent call for public sector reform. Some of the features outlined above reflect these changes. At the same time we need to recognize that an alternative ideology exists on the potential of cross-boundary working and learning, and should not be underestimated. This approach foregrounds beliefs and values and locates changes within an intellectual and conceptual context; setting out a vision and inviting discussion. In the context of this chapter, Partnership Learning views collaboration as a means of changing the balance of power between service users and professionals working in the field. It explicitly values critical thinking and learning for all. We acknowledge, however, that the concept of ‘‘blended professionals’’ can be destabilizing and disruptive for existing systems and structures. In reality, the whole concept of ‘‘Partnership Learning’’ does challenge existing ways of working and calls into question the capacity of institutions to innovate progressive changes that are informed by more distributive structures of decision-making and shared values and approaches. At this point it is important to think about the ways in which the secondary set of ideas or features inform the public conversation. These include the following:  an importance in promoting continuing professional development;  a focus on the cultivation of the reflective practitioner;  a deliberate stress on the importance of changing cultures/work practice through collaboration; and  a stress on the interrelatedness of practice and processes to social/ economic changes.

New Professionalism and Public Sector Management

203

The particular elements associated with such an understanding of how collaboration is understood and implemented in different settings or through a different ideological or conceptual lense include the following:  collaboration can be understood or analyzed as the ways in which organizations seek to reinvent or renew their decision-making systems or structures in order to maintain their place or status with their reference group – in this setting the priority is about maximizing resources and/or securing peer recognition;  collaboration can be viewed as a means to analyze the relative roles played by organizational decision-making systems – the formal as well as the informal processes;  collaboration can be seen as means of effecting change and innovation within an organization and through such processes, bringing key actors from the periphery of the organization into key decision-making roles or enabling them to exercise influence on strategic decision-makers – this process highlights the extent to which agencies rely on networks (formal/ informal) within the structure;  collaboration can be seen as a set of coherent policy and practice choices made by strategic decision-makers in which they seek to support different ways of working within their agency – this set of decisions often derives from a different set of decisions that highlight or state a commitment to learning and self-reflection. In this model, we can expect to see the presence of action-learning sets, communities of practice, or critical selfreflective groups. (Diamond & Rush, 2012).

EXPANDING THE CAPACITY TO LEARN: A DISTINCT PEDAGOGIC APPROACH TO PARTNERSHIP LEARNING TO LEARN The promotion of Partnership Learning to learn at Liverpool Hope University is informed by a distinct pedagogy and involves intra-professional learning (e.g., academics, teachers, experts, and students) across boundaries in the field of teacher education. This pedagogy ‘‘is fundamentally opposed to any view that involves a simple, nicely portioned transfer of knowledge: it foregrounds the human learner as the active and autonomous maker of knowledge’’ (Poerksen, 2005, p. 472). The conceptualizing of Partnership Learning in this way reflects our developing understanding of the importance of two closely related concepts, Learning to Learn (L2L) and Learning

204

LINDA RUSH AND JOHN DIAMOND

how to Learn (LHTL) as essential qualities of successful lifelong learning in teacher education (i.e., initial professional development, early professional development and continuing professional development). For the purpose of this chapter both concepts are associated with a concern for ways of working and learning comprising reflection, intentional learning and collaboration. This level of learning, where the learner becomes conscious of his or her perceptions of the world in general, of how they were formed and how they might be changed, is rare (Bateson, 1987). Deakin-Crick (2007) discusses the concept of LHTL or expanding one’s capacity to learn and the related concept of ‘‘Learning Power’’ (i.e., particular dispositions, values and attitudes, with a lateral and temporal connectivity) in terms of a paradigm shift [ ] toward a relational and transformative model of learning, in which the creation of interdependent communities of intentional learners provides a basis for the integration of ‘‘traditional academic’’ skills and outcomes with the learning dispositions, values, and attitudes necessary to meet the demands of the emerging ‘‘networked society.’’ (p. 137) In terms of the type of Partnership Learning being aspired to at Liverpool Hope University such a paradigm shift will involve professionals (including novice, i.e., student) across boundaries, turning to face one another as learners with a sense of agency and choice. Here, intentional learning goes beyond simply the promotion and acquisition of study skills and strategies and requires practices that invoke the need for the learner to take responsibility for their own learning, and to do this in a way that involves others. In focusing on expanding one’s capacity to learn core dimensions of learning or key learning capacities are promoted to do with: ‘‘critical curiosity,’’ ‘‘meaning making,’’ ‘‘resilience,’’ ‘‘creativity,’’ ‘‘reciprocity,’’ and ‘‘strategic awareness.’’ The notion of temporal connectivity and lateral connectivity, as discussed by Deakin-Crick (2007), are of particular interest in terms of the promotion of Partnership Learning: y temporal connectivity refers to a ‘way of being’ in the world that orientates a person towards changing and learning over time and in different contexts, and lateral connectivity refers to the ideas embedded in a sociocultural view of learning in which the learner is a ‘person in relation’ to other people and to cultural tools and artefacts in which learning is frequently mediated through the interactions of learning relationships y (p. 137)

PARTNERSHIP AS A FORM OF COLLABORATION AND LEARNING Mindful of the call to work more collaboratively within the context of teacher education attention is paid here to previous research carried out by

New Professionalism and Public Sector Management

205

the authors (Diamond & Rush, 2012) on key characteristics associated with individuals involved with good or promising collaborative practices. These ‘‘enlightened’’ individuals were: reflective, nurturing, informed, open, display enjoyment, dialogic, engaged, rigorous, confident, conceptually driven, professional, reciprocal, and progressive. Conversely, weak collaboration was associated with ‘‘pragmatic’’ individuals who are novice; naive, dominated, reactive fearful, silenced, fragile, in crisis, detached, and parochial in their thought and action. Furthermore, it was argued that degrees of collaboration or partnership will inevitably exist.  Coexistence – in which the interaction between individuals is almost nonexistent. Activity is task related, monitored, resource driven, and compliant.  Cooperation – in which the individuals are focused. Each person has an assigned role, roles are hierarchical, and, as such, dialogue is positional.  Coordination – in which the relationship between individuals is dialogic. Within defined parameters, decision-making is shared; individuals are involved in joint problem-solving and open to innovation.  Collaboration/Co-ownership – in which individuals are not limited by rules or accepted ways of doing things, assume a shared responsibility, listen attentively. The above individual characteristics and degrees of collaboration have been drawn on to analyze the quality of partnership at Liverpool Hope University. In this study a range of ways of understanding the phenomenon, the promotion of subject knowledge emerged as three hierarchically inclusive pedagogies associated with teacher learning and initial professional development: teacher replication in practice, teacher formation, and teacher transformation (see Table 1). These pedagogies revealed that our ITT partnership contained an inherent set of barriers to learning, with affordances and constraints that were present as a function of both the agents and the environment through their interactions (Greeno, 1994). Of particular note in the intra-organizational research was the role of leadership in promoting less or more sophisticated collaborative practice. In those collaborations where groups coexisted or cooperated, the presence of an individual or small group of individuals dominating in an autocratic way, linked to their personal hierarchical roles, appeared to impact negatively on the quality of collaboration. Conversely, more sophisticated views and behaviors of collaboration were observed when no individual leader emerged. Rather the notion of reciprocal leadership prevailed in which everybody had authority and genuine regard for this was tangible. Key factors that

Pre-structural reflection dealing with action

Unistructural/Multistructural  Reflection that modifies or remedies  Reflection on action

Multistructural/Relational  Reflection as planned, with a focus  Profound reflection that produces personal meaning

Category B: Subject knowledge acquired during teacher formation, bounded by curriculum and policy

Category C: Subject knowledge embodied in teacher practice, created through teacher transformation

Quality of Teacher Learning

The pedestrian individual: Functioning, lack of clarity, anxious, isolated, dependent, vulnerable, susceptible to rumor and myth, engage on a conditional basis, competent The enlightened individual: Reflective, dialogic, engaged, confident, reciprocal, conceptually driven, progressive, professional

The pragmatic individual: Novice, naive, reactive, fearful, silenced, fragile, crises, detachment, parochial

Individual Characteristics

Degrees of Collaboration

Collaboration/Co-ownership: Individuals not limited by rules or accepted practices; assumes a shared responsibility in which individuals listen attentively

Coexistence/Cooperation: Interaction is almost nonexistent; assigned roles are hierarchical and dialogue is positional; task-related; monitored; resource driven and compliant Coordination: Relationship is dialogic; within defined parameters, decision-making is shared; joint problem-solving; open to innovation

Key Characteristics of Partnership Learning.

Category A: Subject knowledge gained prior to teacher replication in practice

Categories of Description of the Promotion of Subject Knowledge

Table 1.

206 LINDA RUSH AND JOHN DIAMOND

New Professionalism and Public Sector Management

207

were identified as pivotal to more sophisticated intra-organizational collaborative practice and are worthy of consideration in our reconceptualizing of partnership practices in ITT are:  clear leadership at all levels – ownership;  explicit understanding by all those involved of its rationale, role, and purpose – contextualization;  encouraging debate and opposition – contestation;  structured time and space and processes for sustained ‘‘conversations’’ – conversation as inquiry;  systematically developed roles and capacity or disposition(s) in collaborative inquiry – professional development. Such a distributed model of leadership and ways of working and learning, as outlined above, is set against prevailing practice within the context of ITT that tend toward rules/regulatory and hierarchical ways of working and is likely to be resisted by those ‘‘bounded’’ individuals who tend to dominate institutional cultures and practice. This is evidenced in the New Professionalism research project itself and developing practices in respect of curriculum design and delivery, and emerging more symbiotic partnership plans with special schools and early years settings (see Table 2). From the outset, the reconceptualizing of partnership practice(s) has involved and will continue to involve extended discussions with others. Particular emphasis, to date, has focused on rationale, role, and purpose of partnership and the pedagogy associated with high quality personal and professional development.

LEADING AND MANAGING COLLABORATION THROUGH PARTNERSHIP LEARNING AT LIVERPOOL HOPE UNIVERSITY As with all collaborations, a change in the status and composition of key representatives in partnership practices at Liverpool Hope University has disturbed the status quo. This is exemplified, particularly, by the nonreplacement of a Director of Partnership in 2008. While we have no issues with the removal of a single, autocratic person assuming responsibility for partnership arrangements with the University, no clear rationale for the nonreplacement of this key person and a lack of strategic leadership of change led to fractures in the trust building cycle (Vangen & Huxham, 2003).

208

LINDA RUSH AND JOHN DIAMOND

Table 2. Epistemologies of Partnership Learning in Practice. Epistemology

Degrees of Collaboration

Representation in ITT ‘‘Partnership Learning’’

Replication Knowledge transmitted by authority, and to be absolute

Coexistence/Cooperation: Interaction is almost nonexistent; assigned roles are hierarchical and dialogue is positional; task-related; monitored; resource driven and compliant Coordination: Relationship is dialogic; within defined parameters, decisionmaking is shared; joint problem-solving; open to innovation Collaboration/Coownership: Individuals not limited by rules or accepted practices; assumes a shared responsibility in which individuals listen attentively

Mentor training Partnership Steering Group Partnership office and administration Director of Partnership

Formation Constructing meaning through application, and to be more reflective in their thinking Transformation Willing to engage in, persist with, and comprehend challenging tasks and concepts in an ‘‘uncomfortableness of uncertainty’’

Mentor training and development Partnership Steering Committee Visiting practitioners Working groups

New professionalism research project Center for Child and Family Role of philosophy of teaching Partnership plans – more symbiotic Appointment of teaching fellows Widening perspectives module Involvement of non-Qualified Teacher Status (QTS) staff in design and delivery of ITT Role of subject specialist study Developing practices in curriculum development and design Notion of Advanced Teaching Skills (ATS) graduate Teaching, learning, and assessment philosophy

In reality a feeling of vulnerability was and continues to be experienced by many concerning the potential unraveling of long-standing, ‘‘excellent’’ (Ofsted – the inspection agency for teacher education) practices. In such a context it has been important to stabilize practice. In recognition of a need for development there has been an urgency to explore the exact purpose of the partnership, the nature of the relationships between all those involved and the power dimensions at play. Consideration has also been given to the

New Professionalism and Public Sector Management

209

set of beliefs and values and philosophy that would need to be engendered to support the overarching purpose and associated aims of the partnership. In leading on the stabilizing and development of new partnership practices it has been important to posit any developments as a moment of opportunity, in the belief that: (1) the existing model of partnership was not harnessing, sufficiently, the potential of collaboration or ‘‘collaborative advantage’’; (2) that practice had become institutionalized in an unquestioning way; and, (3) that those collaborating were doing so because they have always done so and would just carry on collaborating in what Mary Douglas describes in a ‘‘fatalistic’’ way (Walsh & Kahn, 2010). A challenge has been to ascertain at which point in time or place, or which aspect to start the reconceptualization. From the outset the reconceptualization of partnership practices has been mindful that all partnerships or collaborations are dynamic, ever changing and multifaceted involving, some times, many people with differing needs and multiple settings. If not managed effectively any one of these issues can prevent the partnership from achieving its aims (Vangen & Huxham, 2003). As previously mentioned, even though partnership practices at Liverpool Hope University were well established, with many good relationships and, in many instances, a good level of trust, changes in key representatives have necessitated long overdue changes in roles, remits and responsibilities. Such changes in processes and systems have needed to be embedded in the mindsets of all those involved in the partnership via intensive face-to-face professional development ‘‘Partnership Learning’’ events and bespoke, closeup briefing meetings. Such events have been phased in alongside more traditional training activities aimed at professionals working in schools and academics working in the university. Documentation (both hard copy and virtual) has required updating and informal communications via email and phone have been encouraged. Such activity has been pivotal toward promoting a mutually agreed understanding of the purpose and form of collaboration. Throughout, every effort is being made to promote a trusting and respectful relationship – all of which will take time. Walsh and Kahn (2010, pp. 193–194) argue, ‘‘The question of time, time horizon, is another interesting issue y different time frames will foster different forms of collaboration.’’ Walsh and Kahn (2010) further explain that in promoting collaboration, careful attention needs to be paid to considering what engages someone’s energy and investment, their agency in making the whole thing work. In leading on changes to partnership, considerable time has been invested in exploring the benefits of the developed model of partnership for all. Crucial, here, has been the role of theory and research. In striving toward a ‘‘community

210

LINDA RUSH AND JOHN DIAMOND

of practitioners’’ in which different persons as carriers of knowledge face one another as learning partners has required careful consideration being given to the concept of learning partner and our modeling of this in all our communications about the proposed developments. Furthermore, a holistic approach to collaboration (Whitchurch, 2008) has been taken, which might include team working, project orientation, networking, accommodation to uncertainty/complexity, political astuteness, and adaptiveness. While acknowledging the argument toward ‘‘collaborative advantage’’ (Huxham & Vangen, 2000) a desire to collaborate and to promote alternative practices to collaboration has the potential to be disruptive of existing structures and practice. It will challenge organizational structures and the ways in which individuals construct their sense of who they are. This has certainly been the experience at Liverpool Hope University. In leading on the proposed changes due recognition has been given to the reality that for those who wish to protect the status quo of their agency or organization these challenges are not minor. We have also had to reflect on the argument being pushed by those feeling vulnerable that in times of resource constraint organizations need stability and security of purpose and structure in order to function effectively. However, drawing of previous research into collaboration (Diamond & Rush, 2011) we are confident that the demands of contemporary public policy choices and pressures rule out such an approach. The pressures on organizations, including universities, imply that cooperation or collaboration is the ‘‘smart’’ routes to adopt. Thus, the shift from assurance to enhancement should be seen as a process of securing active engagement with initiatives and approaches. The preconditions for successful implementation are not organizational stability but rather a deliberate strategy of encouraging intra-professional, cross-boundary working, a more holistic approach to problem-solving (less rule or status bound), and a more open approach to discussion and problemsolving. This approach to developing a reciprocal style of leadership within the organization has implications not only for how the organization is structured but also how the management of change is supported.

REFLECTIONS ON THE LEADERSHIP STYLE ASSOCIATED WITH GOOD OR PROMISING COLLABORATION IN TEACHER EDUCATION As we note above the financial and policy context within which collaborative partnerships are being developed are challenging, stressful, and

New Professionalism and Public Sector Management

211

difficult. The process has not been straightforward or without resistance. Integral to the leadership style adopted has been the foregrounding of beliefs and values, locating the changes within an intellectual and conceptual context and setting out a vision and inviting discussion. Bryman (2007) and Nailon, Delahaye, and Brownlee (2007) suggest defining and articulating a vision based upon values and beliefs does require a high degree of intellectual and personal honesty – not just about your beliefs but a willingness to be held account if you do not meet them. In a real sense, a key characteristic of leadership here is one of being very explicit about understanding the context within which the change is taking place as well as ‘‘owning’’ the nature of the change. Debate has been encouraged but within a clearly defined framework. For example, through an institutional-based research project (New Professionalism Project) an inquiry into the roles and relationships of tutors, students, and teachers, which challenged existing ways of working and learning, was facilitated. Assuming the role of leader as researcher in which individual commitment to one’s personal and professional development is pivotal foregrounds those skills and capacities associated with intelligent leadership.

CONCLUSION There remains a clear set of tensions between the local needs of the institution within which such change is taking place and the relationships and practice that has been established locally with ‘‘partner’’ organizations. In this context the scope for innovation or Partnership Learning might be conditional upon the support of key institutional leaders as well as needing to secure the active support of professionals and practitioners across different settings. But there are tensions too between those institutions seeking to promote change and the dominant political or ideological priorities of government. In this context, the significance of the Partnership Learning model developed here is that it offers an intellectual as well as pedagogical framework for analysis and reflection. It provides external agencies; governments or funders, with a lense through which to view how change and innovation are predicated upon a model of organizational transformation and change. The Partnership Learning approach proposed here does, we think, draw together those professionals and practitioners who are ‘‘open’’ to change. In effect it is about creating networks of practitioners who are an alliance of those wishing to promote innovation.

212

LINDA RUSH AND JOHN DIAMOND

However, in a time of acute stress and crisis it may not be possible to sustain the space within which the model outlined can be developed and implemented. The nature of the present crisis suggests that we need to remain cautious about the outcomes outlined here. We remain committed to the model and the potential it offers to act as a real catalyst for change. And yet we are (perhaps) less optimistic now than 12 months ago. The ‘‘spaces’’ for change may have narrowed but the need for it has not. The Age of Austerity highlights the failures of markets to promote social and economic justice for children and young people. We think that the model outlined here offers a way of working for ‘‘new’’ professionals and that does meet the needs of those living in acute urban or rural districts

REFERENCES Bateson, G. (1987). Steps to an ecology of mind. Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson. Bryman, A. (2007). Effective leadership in higher education: A literature review. Studies in Higher Education, 32(6), 693–710. Burgess, H. (2000). What future for initial teacher education? New curriculum and new directions. The Curriculum Journal, 11(3), 405–417. Clark, J. (2005). Curriculum studies in initial teacher education: The importance of holism and project 2061. The Curriculum Journal, 16(4), 509–521. Claxton, G. (2006). Expanding the capacity to learn: A new end for education? Paper presented at British Educational Research Association annual conference, September 2006 in Warwick University. Deakin Crick, RE. (2007). Learning how to learn: The dynamic assessment of learning power. Curriculum Journal, 18(2), 135–153. Diamond, J., & Rush, L. (2011). Intra-organisational Collaboration in one UK University: Potential for change or missed opportunity. International Journal of Public Sector Management. Diamond, J., & Rush, L. (2012). Exploring key variations in meaning & understanding of intra-organisational collaboration at one University. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 25, 287–300. Field, J. (2005). Social capital and lifelong learning. Bristol, UK: The Policy Press. Fisher, A., & Rush, L. (2008). Conceptions of learning and pedagogy. Curriculum Journal, 19(3), 227–238. Greeno, J. G. (1994). Gibson’s affordances. Psychological Review, 101(2), 336–342. Hathaway, T., Rush, L., James, A., Hughes, B., Hewitt, D., & Griffiths, T. (2010). Developing an integrative methodology to explore variation in experiences of partnership leading to a reconceptualised model of partnership. BERA Keynote Symposium, University of Warwick, UK. Huxham, C. & Vangen, S. (2000). Perspectives on leadership in collaboration: How things happen in a (not quite) joined up world. Urban Leadership Working Paper 8. University of the West of England.

New Professionalism and Public Sector Management

213

Karlsson, J., Anderberg, E., Booth, S., Odenrick, P., & Christmansson, M. (2008). Reaching beyond disciplines through collaboration. Journal of Work Place Learning, 20(2), 98–113. Nailon, D., Delahaye, B., & Brownlee, J. (2007). Learning and leading: How beliefs and learning can be used to promote effective leadership. Development and Learning in Organisations, 21(4), 6–9. Poerksen, B. (2005). Learning how to learn. Kybernetes, 34(3/4), 471–484. Rush, L. (2010). Expanding the capacity to learn in ITT: A personal reflection on embedding and enacting a distinct pedagogic approach to Partnership Learning. Chapter presented to the BERA conference, University of Warwick, UK, September 1–3. Rush, L. (2012). A systemic reflection on the promotion of a signature pedagogy of partnerships. Invited Keynote presentation TERN/APTE, London, UK, March 13. Rush, L., & Diamond, J. (2009). Exploring key variations and meanings in understanding intra-organisational collaboration at One University. Chapter presented to SRHE conference, Celtic Manor, December 2009, Birmingham City University, England. Rush, L., & Fisher, A. (2009). Expanding the capacity to learn of student teachers in initial teacher education. ESCalate. Retrieved from http://escalate.ac.uk/5802 Vangen, S., & Huxham, C. (2003). Managing trust in inter-organisational collaboration: Conceptualisations and tools. In P. Hibbert (Ed.), Co-creating emergent insights. Glasgow: University of Strathclyde. Walsh, L., & Kahn, P. (2010). Collaborative working in higher education: The social academy. London: Routledge. Whitchurch, C. (2008). Professional managers in UK higher education: Preparing for complex futures – final report. Leadership Foundation for Higher Education, London. Zeichner, K. (2010). Remaking the connections between campus courses and field experiences in college- and university-based teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1–2), 89–99.

CONCLUSION: REFLECTING UPON THE PAST AND ANTICIPATING THE IMMEDIATE

There is a central theme to this collection of essays and reflections, which is that we are in a period of profound and significant change. And whilst some elements of this period of change derive from the instability of the financial and banking sectors, there is a more important set of changes taking place. We think that these changes open the possibility of imagining an alternative to the market-based relationships of the past 30 years. We have characterised these relationships as ones which reflect the dominant ideology of neo-liberalism and that within advanced capitalist economies these relationships have determined social, welfare and public policy decisions. And a key part of this has been the dominance of a different discourse on the nature of civil society, the relationship between the individual, the market and the state, and that, as a consequence, the role of public agencies and institutions as a crude welfare safety net has been undermined over time. The crash of 2008, we suggest, had a profoundly destabilising impact on this social/ political settlement. It appears to have accelerated the rush towards marketled solutions and the retreat of the ‘public’ from within public conversation. The scale of the impact of the crash is not restricted to advanced economies. Even before 2007, we had seen the ways in which the values and the priorities of a market-led and deregulated state approach to public good had been promoted in Eastern Europe, China and Latin America. Despite attempts by a number of important states in South America to resist or to restrict the power and influence of global capital, neo-liberalism has become the default discourse. There has been a long history of change and attempts to promote deregulation and a smaller role for the state in public and civic policymaking. Whilst we all know that attempts to place these phases into neat historical boxes does not always work, it is important to appreciate that 215

216

CONCLUSION

the rise and influence of neo-liberalism have been a feature of public policy debate since the mid-1970s. Our point is not that this current period of change and transformation is new in principle, rather that it represents a shift in scale and intensity. We think we are living and working through a period of significant political and social change. In a sense we can see the bringing together of a ‘perfect storm’ of different elements which call into question a number of taken for granted assumptions. Our perfect storm includes the 2007/2008 banking crash with all the immediate consequences for institutional and citizen confidence in the system; the political crisis in Europe and North America – with a shift to the right in terms of disorganised but sometimes organised resistance to liberal democratic parties – the Tea Party in the States and the extreme right in Europe and the impact this has on left of centre/moderate right of centre parties moving to the right; an absence of a coherent progressive party or movement linked to community organisations or trade unions but in that absence the emergence of networks of groups very loosely connected – the Occupy Now Movement which brings together models of organisation and co-ordination which are part of the antiglobalisation movement of the late 1990s and which are less organised and co-ordinated than the right; a loss of confidence at the local or regional level with civil society institutions and elected politicians; a rise in unemployment on a global scale together with a collapse in the housing market in North America; a fear of civil disorder and anti-social behaviour; and a collapse in confidence by public sector managers in their skills and autonomy as well as a retreat from the idea of the ‘public’ as a means of organising society. It is these changes which we think are at the heart of the crisis. Indeed, it is not one crisis but a number of interconnected crises each with their own timescale and trajectory. We think that it is important to recognise the scale of the crises and then seek to develop a policy and political response. As Karen Johnston Miller suggests, part of the response is the need to revisit the intellectual and academic framework which has informed the public education, training and professional development of public sector managers and administrators. We need to revisit the assumptions and expectations associated with how the curriculum and professional development of practitioners has been structured. We think that such a reassessment can provide a basis for thinking through what model of education and teaching and learning we think fits with the needs of civil society over the next 20 years.

Conclusion

217

And as Stuart Speeden, Lorraine Johnston, and Linda Rush and John Diamond outline, these changes and challenges to existing ways of thinking and planning are part of the current debates. But each of these contributors pointed to the underlying tensions and challenges present in their specific examples. And part of the challenge is how to construct a public conversation on the role and place of civil society in public policy-making and decision-making. The essay by Stuart Speeden exemplifies this tension with his overview of how Equalities and Human Rights legislation has developed and is implemented and how it can be used as a means of allocating resources at a local level and can be used to draw in different sets of interests to promote a pluralist model of resource allocation. Whilst this is important as Lorraine Johnston illustrates, these models of decision-making promoted or developed by public sector managers and practitioners often lose their authority or perceived impartiality in times of contest and challenge. And as Linda Rush and John Diamond discuss, in these times there is often a need to promote change against different and sometimes contradictory sets of interests. The politicisation of the local and the public are themes examined by Ricardo Gomes and Humberto Falca˜o-Martins, Edoardo Ongaro, and Guru Prabhakar and Pankaj Saran. We think that a key theme to emerge from their contributions is that the role of the state and state institutions remains a central focus for research and analysis. In each of their separate chapters, different conceptions of the state and its relationships to institutions of civil society are made explicit. In some important respects, this suggests that a model of ‘public sector management/administration’ without locating it in its political and social spaces is significantly flawed and inadequate. We do think that there is a process of restructuring at a nation state level of systems and the role of state agencies and institutions in response to the crisis. These processes of change and restructuring were in play before the 2007/2008 banking crisis, but this has changed the context within which they are taking place. We think that we can imagine – in Europe – a much more deregulated state with a much more reduced role for the state and a change too for public agencies or quasi-public agencies. These changes are likely to be at advanced stage in the United Kingdom over the next 5–10 years and will be evident also in other European states. Outside the advanced so-called northern economies, the changes will reflect the scale and impact of the financial crisis. We can expect to see quite different patterns of development in Australia and in the so-called BRIC

218

CONCLUSION

countries (Brazil, Russia, India and China). We might anticipate that the institutions of the state – those associated with public sector management and/or policy-making – most linked to the ‘public’ will continue to reflect the local and national needs and expectations, but that these will, themselves, be shaped by the other elements present in our ‘perfect storm’. What has been absent from our reflections (and we hope that the second edition of this series will rectify this) has been examples of other ‘voices’ from the protest and resistant movements to the forces of globalisation. We do think that it is important that those involved in public sector management or administration are, themselves, encouraged to reflect upon their role as key participants in civil society institutions and agencies. The rise of the Occupy Now Movement and those who have resisted public spending cuts across Europe are an important constituency and one which public agencies need to listen to and try to engage with. Their dilemmas, difficulties and lack of choices in these fraught relationships are all important reasons for us to engage with the idea of the ‘public’ as a key organising principle which we need to hold onto and not lose to the market as the primary principle around which we organise our lives. John Diamond Joyce Liddle Editors