Paul Hoggett

Citizen Participation: Theory and Practice

In Chapter 2 we argued that local authorities need to concern themselves as much with improving the quality of government as with improving the quality of local public services. In fact, these are not separate tasks because, ultimately, the quality of public services depends on there being a set of pressures for service improvement which reside outside the state. A cursory glance at the failed communist regimes in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union reveals how the absence of such pressure resulted, amongst other things, in poor service performance and ineffective public planning. Vaclav Havel, president of Czechoslovakia from 1989 to 1992, spoke for millions when he argued that vigorous efforts need to be made to widen citizen involvement in public affairs: The schools must lead young people to become self-confident, participating citizens; if everyone doesn’t take an interest in politics, it will become the domain of those least suited to it’. (Havel, 1991, p. 118)

Race, ethnicity and community in three localities

Abstract This article looks at patterns of interaction and exclusion across ‘racial’ and ethnic boundaries within a variety of local ‘community initiatives’ in three areas ‐Bristol, Leicester and Tower Hamlets. This article is based upon seven case studies carried out over an eighteen month period as part of a Home Office research project that was concerned to see how forms of racial and ethnic exclusion might be overcome within community initiatives. In the course of this research we observed a wide variation in the development of racial and ethnic issues within and between the different areas. We also found that ‘community initiatives’ had engaged with these issues in a variety of ways. More or less open constructions of ‘community’ cut across more or less open constructions of ‘race’ and ethnicity. These constructions have an impact at the level of local initiatives by opening or closing these to the participation and involvement of different ‘racial’ and ethnic groups.

Overcoming the Desire for Misunderstanding through Dialogue

Abstract The emotional and psychological aspects of joint working are examined in this article, providing a powerful explanation for the continuing difficulties in achieving joined-up government. Drawing on the sociology of community, psycho-dynamics of inter-group behaviour and theories of identity and difference, the author argues that New Labours vision of an inclusive, consensual, community is inherently flawed; that conflict is a necessary and fundamental aspect of social relations. Indeed, ‘splitting’ and ‘exclusion’ are features of geographical, professional and occupational communities. And concepts such as ‘relationships-in-the-mind’ are valuable in understanding how identities are formed and maintained, and how patterns of conflict, hostility, misunderstanding and non-cooperation develop. Splitting and exclusion are important processes in building group identity, but they can also significantly undermine attempts to develop collaboration between agencies. The answer is for groups to engage in ‘conflictual dialogue’, addressing openly the misunderstandings created by group identities.

Devolution of local budgets

Devolved management has been the recommended solution to many of the problems of centralised public bureaucracies, but what does it mean in practice? In particular, how much control should be retained at the centre and how much allocated to service managers?

Neighbourhood Decentralisation and the New Public Management

The purpose of this chapter is to provide new ways of understanding the changing nature of management in local government. First we provide a context by examining the radically new approaches to the organisation of the production of goods and services which have emerged within both the public and private sectors during the last decade or so. Specifically we seek to examine some of the components of what has become known as ‘the new public management’ and to locate neighbourhood decentralisation as one strategy for giving particular shape to this. We provide a conceptual framework for neighbourhood decentralisation in which its four components — localisation, flexibility, devolution, and organisational culture change — are envisaged as interlocking and mutually reinforcing. We explore these four dimensions of decentralisation in some detail and offer numerous examples to illustrate how various models have worked in practice.

Rethinking Local Democracy

Recent debates about the role, form and function of local government have tended to focus on local authorities as mechanisms for delivering services. Yet we have argued for some years that while local government does offer a range of ways of providing good quality service, it is about much more than service delivery (Hambleton, 1988; Hambleton and Hoggett, 1990). If local government stands for a notion of community, if it is concerned to foster a vigorous civic culture and to improve the quality of life in the broadest sense, then attention must focus on the welfare of the local polity. Councillors and officers need to devote energy, time and resources to strategies designed to improve the quality of government, as well as the quality of service.

The Crisis in Local Government

Local government in the United Kingdom is currently undergoing a profound shift in the way it organises its activities and the way it relates to the public it serves. The changes of the 1980s and the 1990s have catapulted local government from relative obscurity into a highly visible role at the centre of national political debates. Indeed, it is possible to argue that the public services in general and local government in particular have become the most consistently contentious sphere of politics in Britain in the period since 1979. Driven by pressures from consumers and citizens at local level, by a maelstrom of legislation emanating from Whitehall, and by new thinking within the political parties, local authorities are being forced to change as never before.

Local Democracy beyond the Local State

Local government in the UK is in deep trouble. In Chapter 1 we outlined the main dimensions of the current crisis and explained how the Thatcher government, elected in 1979, introduced a series of measures designed to undermine the power of local authorities, to slash central government financial support to local government and to introduce market principles into the process of public service management. In this final chapter we revisit some of the key political themes we have discussed earlier in the book and outline a vision of a strong and reinvigorated local democracy. In this vision, locally-elected authorities would have much more power than they have atpresent, but we want to stress at the outset that we are not advocating a return to a glorious, possibly mythical, municipal past. A vibrant local democracy for the twenty-first century requires a powerful enabling capacity within the local state, but this does not imply a return to state domination of local decision-making and service provision.

Shaking up the Bureaucracies

In this chapter, we assess the degree of organisational change achieved in Islington and Tower Hamlets and, where possible, the impact of this upon service delivery. Do the new arrangements constitute a radical departure from the traditional bureaucratic forms that Weber (1948) outlined? In classical terms, bureaucracies have been perceived as ordered hierarchies of centralised command, relying heavily upon specialisation and formal procedures. In the context of governmental institutions the bureaucratic form has influenced the development of a particular kind of social relation between these institutions on the one hand and individuals and communities on the other — one characterised by the remoteness and impermeability of the organisation.

Enhancing Participatory Democracy: Islington

In this chapter we examine the experience of the London Borough of Islington in developing a network of neighbourhood forums. It can be claimed that the council has gone further than any other local authority in the UK in attempting to improve the quality of public involvement in local government. While the bold steps taken by Islington are clearly tuned to the local environment, the innovations developed there will be of wider interest to the local government community because they offer practical insights about how to strengthen the democratic roots of local government.