Third Sector in Partnership Arrangements:
Navigating New Waters or Treading Water?
JODI GODDARD
Social Policy Research Group, University of South Australia
Abstract
In recent years the notion of ‘partnership’ is being used by both the Commonwealth
and State Governments to describe a preferred relationship with the third sector.
Governments are increasingly initiating partnerships to deliver social services,
assuming that the networks and resources of third sector organisations can be
mobilised to address and solve ‘wicked problems’ of complex social concerns.
A partnership style is purported to differ from previous contractual relationships
between the third sector and the state. The suggestion is that partnerships can be a
‘tool for change’, offering opportunities for a change in culture, attitudes, perceptions,
and for third sector organisations to be involved in decision making processes. There
are, though, arguments that problems encountered by the third sector under the
contractual model (such as sustainability, access to policy-making processes and
maintaining independence and autonomy) still remain – and indeed have been
extended.
The literature proposes an on-going debate about whether partnerships between
governments and the third sector are rhetoric or reality. On the one hand,
inconsistent applications of partnership principles are seen as a source of tension
between governments and third sector organisations. That is, partnerships continue to
be developed within existing structures, processes and frameworks of power – “new
rhetoric poured into old bottles”. On the other hand, it is argued that partnerships
between the two sectors are not just empty rhetoric because they do correspond to a
rapid realignment of social policy and funding arrangements for human services.
The above debates are explored in this paper through insights gained to date via an
ARC Linkage project. The project uses contemporary Australian employment policy
as an example of partnership arrangements, given governments’ increasing use of
third sector organisations to deliver employment services.
1
Introduction
The issue of partnerships, or ‘collaborative advantage’ (Huxham 1996) is one which
currently occupies the attention of policy makers and academics. The idea presents an
attractive alternative to market mechanisms that have dominated the public
management movement internationally in the past decades (Lowndes and Skelcher
1998; Rummery 2002). This is particularly so given that the practice of dividing
social, political and economic issues into ‘silos’ or ‘stovepipes’ has become widely
condemned (Considine 2003; Lehane and Lambert 2003). Rhodes (1997; cited in
Hudson 2004) describes this shift from ‘government to governance’ where the state is
further ‘hollowed out’, through a reshaping of the roles and relationships between
actors from the three spheres of state, market and civil society (Geddes 2005).
Furthermore, governments may reduce their capacity to steer, as the new agenda of
‘partnership working’ requires a wide range of participation from different sectors to
address modern social problems.
Following the lead taken by Blair’s New Labour Government in the United Kingdom,
the implementation of much contemporary social policy in Australia is predicated on
third sector involvement via these ‘partnership’ organisational arrangements. This
suggests an increased recognition of the third sector’s contribution to society (Lehane
and Lambert 2003) and the advantages the sector possesses. However, a number of
Australian authors argue that, although there has in recent times been much rhetoric
about state/third sector partnerships, such partnerships are based on assumptions
which have thus far attracted little critique (Carson and Kerr 2002; Kenny 2001; Kerr
and Savelsberg 2001; Onyx 2001). Compared to other OECD countries such as the
United Kingdom and North America, Australia’s move towards partnerships is in its
infancy.
Much of the partnership debates are based on international literature.
Transferring policies across borders often risks inappropriate use of concepts where
the receiving background, culture and infrastructure do not correspond to the
originating country or institutional frameworks that spawned the concepts. Due to
this void, what is unclear is how third sector organisations are fairing in these new
arrangements and if there has been a change in the relationship between them and the
state.
2
The aim of my paper is to provide some insights gained from a research project
currently underway into the role of third sector organisations in a policy environment
which increasingly relies – both explicitly and implicitly – on such organisations for
its implementation. A brief overview of the project is provided. The paper considers
the use and reasons for Australia’s adoption of partnership working and highlights
some current debates in the literature.
It questions whether these new working
arrangements represent a paradigm shift for third sector organisations (hence are they
navigating new waters) or are relationships based within the previous contractual
paradigm (thus requiring third sector organisations to continue treading water). The
paper concludes by arguing there has not been a major paradigm shift but rather
current practices are reflecting a new form of contractualism. This shift I argue is
closer to Stoker’s (1998; cited in Powell and Dowling 2006) principal-agent
partnership model than an inter-organisational negotiation or systemic coordination
model.
The project – a brief overview
The title of the project is: Reconceptualising partnerships: new options for effective
partnerships between State Governments and the Third Sector in employment services
in Australia.1
Implementation of the main principles of New Public Sector Management in Australia
in the area of employment services since the 1990s has produced rapid privatisation
and devolution from the Commonwealth to Job Network agencies. With employment
service provision increasingly being based on a market model, a range of scholarly
and policy research to date argues that this has had the effect of fragmenting services
to such an extent that it has led to reduced accountability, lack of coordination and
limited effectiveness and efficiency (ACOSS 2000; Considine 2001; DEWRSB 2000;
Eardley, Abello and Macdonald 2001; Webster 1999).
In recognition of these
criticisms and on the basis of international comparisons, one of the key
recommendations of a report released by Finn (2001: 29) relates to the need for the
While the project’s focus is on employment services, the broader theoretical and practical aspects of
current policy directions, as they apply to the third sector in general, are an integral part of the study
and are the focus of my paper.
1
3
development of partnerships across governments, businesses and the third sector to
“‘join up’ existing multiple local intervention, create synergies and avoid
duplication”. The OECD (1999) agrees, suggesting that to connect people into the
labour market an integrated approach is needed to ‘join up’ thinking and action, where
agencies collaborate in order to devise and deliver effective solutions - “thus a
‘partnership’ approach is required” (OECD 1999: 204).
Developing effective partnerships, however, is difficult in part due to a lack of clarity
in the respective roles of the constituent parts. State Governments are effectively bypassed in new contractual arrangements at the heart of the Job Network. However,
often social and economic impacts are felt at the State level, and the third sector and
State Governments are expected to ‘fill the gap’ in services delivery to meet local
needs. This can be seen as cost-shifting from the Commonwealth to the limited
resources of individual States. The project critically analyses current practice in
employment services to identify options for more effective and innovative
partnerships between State Governments and the third sector, in order to promote
efficient and equitable labour markets.
A qualitative methodology is followed using a triangulation of methods to gather the
research data. This includes examining case studies of employment programs, semistructured interviews with job seekers and key stakeholders in employment services,
as well as the evaluation and implementation analysis of policy documents.
The use of ‘partnerships’ in Australia
In recent years, partnerships in Australia have been encouraged and initiated at a
prolific rate.
literature.
This encouragement can be found in many policy documents and
For example, the McClure (2000: 52) report recommended social
partnerships in order to ensure “the most effective targeting of resources and the
identification and application of good practices”. The South Australia Government’s
most recent employment policy states: “The State Government must forge
partnerships with all levels of government, industry, unions and the community to
4
secure ongoing employment opportunities for South Australians and a prosperous
economic future for the State” (DFEEST 2003:1).
In considering partnership working, a key issue is the recognition that partnerships are
not a new phenomenon (Balloch and Taylor 2001).
My point is that recently
established partnerships differ from those previously constructed such as those
introduced prior to WWII to deliver welfare or the ones set up specifically to address
economic restructuring in the early 1980s and 1990s.
In the new context,
Governments are espousing their desire to forge new partnerships with the aim of
achieving common goals and shared responsibilities for outcomes. Considine (2005:
9-10) describes this new arrangement nicely by suggesting that “senior officials have
long been joined through inter-departmental committees and working parties, the new
joined-up can hardly refer to them. Rather it implies a new regime of strategies and
methods to create joint management and integration of services”.
In order to establish the ‘use’ of partnerships in Australia, one would need to consider
a historical overview of social policy. This examination demonstrates contexts for the
changing relationship between the state and the third sector. Since colonial to modern
times there has been a tradition and continual role of Australian governments utilising
and relying on the third sector to deliver human services. At times governments have
undertaken a minimalist role, whereas at other points such as Post-WWII, it took on
more direct responsibility for the economy and service provision. With time, funding
models between the two sectors have also continued to evolve.
Lyon’s (1997)
typology of four models represents a good summary of shifts in funding arrangements
between governments and the third sector.
First, the government is seen as a
philanthropist. In this model governments provide support for a project after being
approached by a community organisation.
Second, the submission model.
The
government appropriates funds for a particular type of service and seeks submissions
from organisations, with organisations to determine where services will be located.
Third, the planning model. Under this model government departments engage in
more comprehensive prior planning about service delivery. Although there maybe
some negotiation and collaboration with third sector organisations about projects to be
funded, increasingly governments specify and fund outputs such as hours of service
and places. The trend towards free market policies however restructured the funding
5
arrangements between governments and third sector organisations. The fourth model
is therefore the competitive tendering model. Under this model the Government sets
policies and standards and monitors the performance of provided services. Such
arrangements are underpinned by the concept of the funder/purchaser/provider split,
an arrangement which has been in place for decades but was increasingly formalised
in the 1990s (Carson 2000; Carson and Kerr 1999).
A market model implemented in human services is argued to offer a number of
potential benefits. For example, some literature supports the claim that it produces
more efficient and effective service delivery and increased accountability. However, I
believe that the shift has altered the relationship between governments, the third
sector and individuals, and, after many years of implementation the approach still has
the potential to be counterproductive and unsustainable for third sector organisations.
The models of operation within the sector have changed, with service delivery being
more narrowly targeted and many preventative, coordinating and advocacy functions
being eliminated. The response of third sector organisations to the pressures of a
competitive environment means the sector is in danger of losing some of their
attributes that have long been asserted as the special contribution that the sector
makes both in the delivery of services and to a more inclusive and participatory civil
society (Carson 2000; Flack and Ryan 2003).
Increasingly governments are requiring the third sector to do more and as ACOSS
(2001) highlights, they continue to do so, without the full consideration of the
implication of these changes. The third sector is seen to have the ability to tap into
communities, generate all different types of networks and capacity build.
For
example, in employment policy, third sector organisations are regarded by
governments as having the capacity to use their abilities to increase skill levels for
disadvantaged job seekers as well as link them with potential employers.
As
highlighted by Kerr and Savelsberg (2001) governments want to tap into and use
these links and the advantages they bring.
This can be evidenced in Australia since the late 1990s through policy documents and
programs that are focusing on language such as ‘community’, ‘social capital’ and
‘networks’ as a means of addressing and solving ‘wicked problems’ of complex social
6
concerns. For instance, both internationally and in Australia there has been a return to
the idea of ‘community’. Policy direction since the mid to late 1990s has shifted in
emphasis away from the state taking direct responsibility for welfare service provision
towards it being ‘devolved’ or ‘rolled out’ to the local community level (Clarke and
Newman 1997; McDonald and Marston 2002). The community is seen as ideally
positioned to meet social needs, facilitate improved government-citizen relations and
respond to future welfare demands (Adams and Hess 2001; Everingham 2001).
Underlying these somewhat vague premises of community is the notion of social
capital. Social capital and networks are being considered as a means of stemming the
tide of perceived community decline and distrust associated with such decline.
Although these terms are highly contested in the literature, for example there is no
universally agreed definition of community and social capital, what is obvious is that
these terms are interconnected. They are predicated on the existence of each other.
This way of approaching welfare delivery, which is premised on popular reforms of a
highly responsive community enriched with social capital, is centred on third way
political thinking (Dollery and Wallis 2001; Reddel 2004). This notion therefore
underlies the concept of ‘partnership’. Here, the delivery of social welfare requires
the cooperation between the state and society.
Within the third way, Hodgson (2004) argues that this discourse differs from previous
ideas of ‘contracting out’ as an emphasis is placed on engendering a unique
partnership between the state and civil society. There is an intention to move from a
‘contract culture’ to a ‘partnership culture’ (Balloch and Taylor 2001) therefore
articulating a paradigm shift (McGregor-Lowndes and Turnour 2003). However, like
other commentators (such as Powell and Glendinning 2002; Rummery 2002) I
question whether these partnerships do represent a new and distinctive form of
welfare governance.
A change for third sector organisation relations - a new paradigm?
The notion of ‘partnership’ is used with increased frequency by both the
Commonwealth and State Governments to describe their desired relationship with the
third sector. This extends from our previous discussions in which there has been an
7
increased recognition of the third sector’s contribution to society. A partnership style
is suggested to be a ‘tool for change’, whereby there is an opportunity for a change in
culture, attitudes and perceptions and third sector organisations are involved in
decision making processes (Lehane and Lambert 2003).
However, the literature
suggests that these new opportunities are being met by controversy. What I found in
the literature is an on-going debate about whether partnerships between governments
and the third sector are rhetoric or reality.
Below, I present some of these
perspectives.
Some third sector organisations and authors argue that ‘partnership’ has become part
of rhetoric in the arrangement between governments and third sector organisations
and there is little evidence to support, or substance to, these ‘new’ partnership
arrangements (ACOSS 1997; Lyons 2002; 2003).
Inconsistent applications of
partnership principles are seen as a source of tension between governments and third
sector organisations, these being perceived as rhetoric rather than describing the
reality of the situation (Brown and Ryan 2003). Rowe (2002) agrees and highlights
that there is little sign of policy makers understanding the ideals of partnerships, and
that without this understanding there will be little change or, even more detrimental,
hopes will be lost by those excluded groups who believed their ‘voice’ would be
heard.
Craig and Taylor (2002: 134) state “partnership continues at present to be developed
within existing structures, processes and frameworks of power – new rhetoric poured
into old bottles”. Alternatively, Carson (2000) argues that partnerships between the
two sectors are not just empty rhetoric because it does correspond to rapid
realignment of social policy and funding arrangements for human services. For
instance, within South Australia, I found organisations such as the Office of the North
and the Social Inclusion Unit that have been specifically designed to broker local
level partnerships between levels of government and the third sector.
In order to investigate the two opposing arguments, my research examined three case
studies, which comprised of emerging employment assistance initiatives being
8
undertaken by third sector organisations and local governments2. The case studies
were conducted in South Australia, one in a regional area and one in each of the
southern and northern metropolitan areas. Three questions addressed in the research
included: how are the case studies defining and implementing partnership
arrangements; how are these initiatives different from previous arrangements; and
what are the strengths and weaknesses of partnership working?
Below, a brief
summary of these findings are provided.
How are partnerships being defined and implemented?
It was hypothesised that in the current environment partnerships are being
implemented depending on an organisation’s interpretation and in an ad hoc manner.
My research findings supported this and below I present three reasons. These include
the difficulty in defining partnerships, competing partnership models and a lack in
vertical integration.
First, like other research into partnerships, I found the difficulty in investigating
partnerships lay in the inconsistent and variable use of the term ‘partnership’ in
Australia. Stewart (2000; cited in Sterling 2002: 2) points out that there is “no agreed
definition of partnership, nor is there a clear theoretical framework within which to
analyse partnerships.” Bennington and Geddes (2001) and Balloch and Taylor (2001)
summarised this point well, by suggesting that partnership working can be placed on a
broad continuum of theory and practice with a tight contractual relationship at one
end and a loose network relationship at the other. Despite the term being used
ambiguously by partnership advocates and cynics alike, I argued for the need to
clarify the concept and have an analytical framework to assist in understanding
partnerships and how they work.
Emerging from the literature I constructed a
working definition of a partnership which featured five key characteristics. These
included:
2
The rationale for undertaking these case studies was based on the following. First, there are few
evaluations on the effectiveness of such employment programs, this study sought to address this.
Second, there was a need to investigate any linkages between levels of government and third sector
organisations. Third, the project questioned if and how these initiatives differed from the
Commonwealth’s Job Network system. Fourth, the project needed to examine whether these emerging
employment initiatives represented a ‘partnership’ and if so, how effective were they as partnerships.
9
1. Shared aims. At least two organisations are needed with some degree of
common interest or interdependence. Within this relationship there needs to
exist some degree of trust, equality and reciprocity.
2. Trust. The engagement of organisations/participants trusting each other to
deliver jointly held objectives is a distinctive characteristic of a partnership.
3. Reciprocity. Partnerships also entail some kind of reciprocity, and all
partners must benefit from the engagement in order to make the process
worthwhile.
4. Equity. There must be sufficient equity in the arrangements to ensure that all
partners have a ‘voice’ and power is shared.
5. Shared Funding. There should be a commitment to some sharing on issues
such as administration costs, workers and resources. The terms of the funding
needs to be negotiated in an open and transparent manner.
Two of the case studies demonstrated characteristics that fitted within the above
working definition. The third, on the other hand, did not, as it was weak on a number
of dimensions including shared aims and trust. However, it was discovered that
clusters or cliques within the employment program did constitute a form of limited
partnership. Although I found this framework useful to classify the programs, other
commentators, program stakeholders and the State Government already endorsed and
labelled these programs as partnerships. My concern therefore was not a theoretical
understanding of the term but rather to investigate the language and use of
partnerships in Australia.
For example, in each case study, stakeholders described their program as a result of
working in cooperative and collaborative efforts - a partnership arrangement.
However, I found there was no common understanding of the term and there was
disagreement about which stakeholders were deemed ‘partners’ in the partnership.
Second, my research supported the literature that there is no ‘one model’ of
partnership working. Partnerships are, above all, a means to an end. The earlier work
of Mackintosh (1992) refers to three types of partnerships which have distinct
rationale. First, the synergy or added value model which aims to increase a value
beyond what would have been achieved by individual organisations. Second, the
transformation model which emphasises changes in the aims and cultures of partner
10
organisations and the ability of one organisation to convince other partners of their
own values and objectives. Third, the budget enlargement model which emphasises
the ability to acquire and draw on a large budget that influences policy or solves
social problems.
Stewart (2002) further refines these by providing a simple typology of another three
categories: ‘facilitating’, ‘co-ordinating’ and ‘implementing’ partnerships. The
primary role of facilitating partnerships involves the negotiation of contentious or
politically sensitive issues among partners with differing perspectives. Co-ordinating
partnerships relate to the need to link a wide range of organisations that are committed
to making a contribution to an initiative. Activities are usually delegated to partners
agreed upon within the agenda of the partnership and issues are less politically
controversial and usually local in nature. Finally, implementing partnerships are
described as specific in focus and time-limited in nature. A key function of the
partnership is to secure resources for the project, manage implementation processes
and success is clearly defined and easily measured.
These two schemas are not as distinct as is implied by the component’s labels in each
set, and can be reconciled, at least in part. The explanatory accounts of the respective
authors emphasise parallels between the synergy and the co-ordinating models, where
the constituent members have shared commitments and perspectives.
The
transformation and the facilitating models emphasise situations where the partnership
involves negotiation amongst partners with differing perspectives, and resultant
changes in the aims and cultures of the constituents. Finally, the budget enlargement
and implementing models both emphasise the securing of resources necessary for the
partnership and its project to proceed. These models were used to classify the three
case studies and it was found that each case study represented a distinct model. What
is needed, and would make a beneficial future research endeavor, is a longer term
evaluation of the case studies to identify any model changes and developmental
phases of a partnership.
Although the above schemas proved useful in classifying partnership arrangements, a
more appropriate partnership model to assist in understanding partnership working in
an Australian context was found in Stoker’s (1998; cited in Powell and Dowling
11
2006) work. He identifies three types of partnerships: principal-agent relations,
inter-organisational negotiation and systemic coordination.
Principal-agent
partnerships involve purchaser-provider relationships, such as contracts associated
with competitive tendering and ‘best value’.
Inter-organisational negotiation
involves bargaining and coordination between parties through the blending of
capacities. The third category, systemic coordination, goes further by establishing a
level of being embedded and of mutual understanding to the extent that organisations
develop a shared vision and degree of joint working that leads to the establishment of
self-governing networks.
In understanding new network governance, I found there has been a move away from
bureaucratic sets of formal administration towards a more collaborative model. These
new partnerships do not characterize a realisation of the ideal type of network
governance.
The case studies did not represent Stoker’s systemic coordination,
however, they are moving in this direction. To the extent they are partnerships in
practice, they still closely represent Stoker’s principal-agent relations. This is because
of two reasons, first, they still have explicit principal-agent contracts at their heart
even though they are moving towards a pattern of inter-organisational negotiation.
Second, funders continue to have the ability to specify service delivery and outcomes
which in turn limits the potential for power sharing arrangements between
sectors/organisations.
The research case studies highlighted a third reason underpinning why, in the current
environment, partnerships are being implemented depending on an organisation’s
interpretation and in an ad hoc manner. Some authors argue (for instance, see Brown
and Ryan 2003) that inconsistent applications of partnership principles are seen as a
source of tension between governments and third sector organisations. My research
did not support this. Rather, I found that the issue was not a tension between the two
sectors but a lack of integration between levels of government and the third sector. In
Australia, governments are endorsing partnerships but there has not been the level of
engagement with detail on partnership issues that occurs in the United Kingdom and
other countries. Of particular interest is the lack of vertical integration of partnership
arrangements in Australia.
It seems that in Europe attention is paid to vertical
integration through national frameworks agreements (Ireland), negotiated plans (Italy)
12
and territorial pacts (Austria) that promote local level involvement in strategic
decisions and priority setting, as well as recognising the importance of sound
governance arrangements that underpin horizontal integration at the local level
(OECD 2003). Often what is being espoused in Australia at a strategic level is not
being operationalised, put into practice.
How are these initiatives different from previous arrangements?
In comparing the research’s case study initiatives to previous State Government and
third sector employment program delivery arrangements, I found that these
employment program partnerships were recent phenomena at the local level. For
example: funding for these initiatives were being pooled from sources that had not
been previously combined; there was a sharing of goals and commitments that had not
previously been undertaken such as the involvement of local employers/industries;
and the case study partnerships provided a structure to previous loose working
arrangements. However, I also discovered that some issues remained similar to
previous arrangements. For instance, in one case study, often partnership working
relationships lay within the realms of an individual and not their organisation. This
had implications for the transferability and sustainability of programs/projects. There
was little evidence of broadening relationships to introduce other individuals or
groom other stakeholders to continue the links or broaden the informal network
cliques. Funding arrangements for a case study also remained similar to previous
employment programs.
What are the strengths and weaknesses of partnership working?
Another way of testing if these partnerships are a ‘new’ phenomenon or whether
relationships between the third sector and governments are based in a contractual
paradigm was to consider the benefits and weaknesses of partnership working. The
theoretical benefits of partnership working are well rehearsed and documented
throughout partnership literature and government policies. For instance, partnerships
can increase resources and enhance service delivery. However, what was neglected in
much of this discourse was what I term the ‘dark side of partnerships’.
13
Working in partnership can encounter many barriers such as time limitation and
resource constraints, but, there can also be other factors at play which include power
struggles. For example, partnerships can offer the opportunity for sectors (especially
between the public and third sector) to shift the onus in a partnership to a powersharing relationship. However, Brown, Glynde, Renwick and Walsh (2003) note that
partnerships also have the potential to revert to more adversarial relationships inherent
in market-based contractual arrangements. Thus Rummery (2002) and Balloch and
Taylor (2001) note, partnerships appear to reinforce and leave existing power
relationships intact, allowing those who control resources the ability to dictate to other
less powerful members. This arrangement, Rummery (2002) suggests, is therefore
partnership in name only. In effect when governments hold the purse strings in the
area of social policy implementation and models of service delivery, the notion of
‘equal partner’ is brought into question. Here, I suggest that partnerships are echoing
the previous contractual paradigm.
Furthermore, in some cases “partnership working appears to be a remarkably effective
means of ensuring that the state retains, and in some cases strengthens, its power over
some sectors (particularly the voluntary and community sectors)” (Rummery 2002:
243). Partnerships may also challenge the power of local actors who have a specific
mandate that differs from that of a partnership (Curtain 2002). Additionally, Geddes
(2003) argues that a partnership agenda could be used to further cost-shifting between
sectors, with the ability to exclude certain sectors or organisations which may be seen
as a hindrance to the partnership or an individual partner’s objectives. In the United
Kingdom and increasingly in the Australian context, there is a trend towards
governments mandating partnerships at the local level. This goes against the very
core components of what makes a partnership work. That is, things such as trust and
reciprocity amongst members cannot be legislated for, but needs to be developed over
time.
Consideration of the above three questions (how are partnerships being defined and
implemented, how are these initiatives different from previous arrangements, and
what are the strengths and weaknesses of partnership working) exemplified that this
new arrangement is being met with controversy. Many of the problems encountered
by the third sector under competitive tendering practices such as sustainability, access
14
to policy making processes and balancing the needs to maintain independence and
autonomy still remain (Craig, Taylor and Parkes 2004; Craig and Taylor 2002; Spall
and Zetlin 2004) and have been extended (Sullivan and Skelcher 2002). I therefore
cannot support McGregor-Lowndes and Turnour’s (2003) conclusion that the present
move to partnerships articulates a major paradigm shift. Rather relationships between
the third sector and governments remain within a contractual paradigm.
However, I propose that that previous forms of contractualism are evolving and now
look different to previous models, although, the funder/purchaser/provider split still
remains it is not as clearly structured as it used to be. A new form of contractualism
seems to be emerging suggesting a move towards a pattern of Stoker’s (1998; cited in
Powell and Dowling 2006) inter-organisational negotiation. For example, in one case
study a contract existed between two organisations but renegotiation of this contract
was undertaken on a regular informal basis without the rewriting of the formal
contract.
More generally it involves government representatives on partnership
boards and often direct involvement in projects/programs, recognition of the
importance and value of networking amongst sectors and organisations, and the
emergence of new government groups specifically designed to link people and
streamline human service delivery. However, to an extent there has been a shift in
partnership types, this still most closely reflects Stoker’s (1998; cited in Powell and
Dowling 2006) principal-agent relations, since the case study partnerships were
underpinned by contractual arrangements.
Conclusion
In recent years, the notion of ‘partnership’ is being used by both the Commonwealth
and State Governments to describe a preferred relationship with the third sector. A
number of reasons presented for this desired change include: it extends from an
increased recognition of the third sector’s contribution to society; governments have
accepted that they are failing to keep pace with growing social problems and a new
direction is needed which is based on a more integrated and planned approach
(Yencken and Porter 2001); partnership styles are seen as a ‘tool for change’ (Lehane
and Lambert 2003); and a range of scholarly and policy research to date argues that a
15
market model in the delivery of human services has had the effect of fragmenting
services to such an extent that it has led to reduced accountability, lack of
coordination and limited effectiveness and efficiency.
Although there is an increase in the use of partnerships in Australia, there has not
been the level of analysis and discussion at a strategic or operational level that is
occurring in other OECD countries such as the United Kingdom.
It has been
purported that partnerships offer a change in the relationship between the third sector
and the state, perhaps adding a fifth model to Lyon’s (1997) typology. However, I do
not support these arguments. Rather, I suggest that these partnership arrangements
are not a new paradigm as relationships still lie within a contractual paradigm. Thus,
third sector organisations are not navigating new waters, but continue to tread water,
as issues encountered by third sector organisations under the contractual paradigm
still remain and in some cases have been extended.
However, I concur with Carson (2000) that changes in the relationship between
governments and third sector organisations are more than just rhetoric. They do
correspond to a rapid realignment of human service provision and suggest to me a
new form of contractualism. At present in Australia this model is argued to be closely
aligned to Stoker’s (1998; cited in Powell and Dowling 2006) principal-agent
partnership model.
The variable way partnerships are being defined and implemented suggests the need
to develop a conceptual framework for effective partnership working in Australia.
My project found that certain requirements are needed for a partnership to exist and
these are also required to address issues for sustainability and transferability. A
conceptual framework for effective partnership working would assist partnership
members in the forming and functioning of collaborative relationships and hence
assist in the identification of common principles which would structure the terms of
the partnership and the rights, roles and responsibilities of the partners.
16
References
ACOSS [Australian Council of Social Service] (1997) Keeping sight of the goal: the
limits of contracts and competition in community services, ACOSS Paper 92.
ACOSS (2000) Is the Job Network working? ACOSS analysis of the first stage of
the official evaluation, ACOSS Paper 108, August.
ACOSS (2001) Breaching the safety net: the harsh impact of social security penalties,
ACOSS INFO 305, August. [Online, assessed 14 August 2001].
URL:http://www.acoss.org.au/info/2001/305x.htm
Adams, D. and Hess, M. (2001). Community in public policy: fad or foundation?
Australian Journal of Public Administration, 60 (2): 13-23.
Balloch, S. and Taylor, M. (2001) Introduction. In S. Balloch and M. Taylor (ed.)
Partnership working: policy and practice: 1-16. Bristol: The Polity Press.
Benington, J. and Geddes, M. (2001) Introduction: social exclusion, partnership and
local governance - new problems, new policy discourses. In M. Geddes and J.
Benington (ed.) The European Union, in local partnerships and social exclusion in
the European Union: new forms of local social governance? 15-45. London:
Routledge.
Brown, K., Glyde, S., Renwick, A. and Walsh, K. (2003) Government-community
partnerships: rhetoric or reality?" The Journal of Contemporary Issues in Business
and Government, 9 (2): 51-62.
Brown, K. and Ryan, N. (2003) Redefining government-community relations through
service agreements: a case study of Australia, The Journal of Contemporary Issues in
Business and Government, 9 (1): 1-16.
Carson, E. (2000) Government and community partnerships: policy shifts and future
trends, Australian Journal on Volunteering, November: 42-51.
Carson, E. and Kerr, L. (1999) Articulated strategies for mature aged unemployed,
6th National Conference on Unemployment, Newcastle, 23-24 September.
Carson, E. and Kerr, L. (2002) Contractualism, employment services and mature
aged job seekers: why one size doesn’t fit all, The Drawing Board: An Australian
Review of Public Affairs, [Online, accessed 3 April 2003].
URL:http://www.econ.usyd.edu.au/drawing board/
Clarke, J. and Newman, J. (1997) The managerial state. London: Sage.
Considine, M. (2001) Enterprising states: the public management of welfare-towork. New York: Cambridge University Press.
17
Considine, M. (2003) From partnership to network governance - some reflections on
European models for development of local institutions, Paper presented at
Partnerships, community and local governance: international perspectives and
Australian experiences symposium, Centre for Public Policy, University of
Melbourne, 19 September.
Considine, M. (2005) Partnerships and collaborative advantage: some reflections on
new forms of network governance, Australian Policy on Line, December, The Centre
for Public Policy, [Online accessed 15 December 2005].
URL:http//:www.apo.org.au/linkboard/results.ctml?filename_num=64222
Craig, G. and Taylor, M. (2002) Dangerous liaisons: local government and the
voluntary and community sectors. In C. Glendinning, M. Powell and K. Rummery
(ed.) Partnerships, New Labour and the governance of welfare: 131-148. Bristol: The
Policy Press.
Craig, G., Taylor, M. and Parkes, T. (2004) Protest or partnership? The voluntary
and community sector in the policy process, Social Policy and Administration, 38 (3):
221-239.
Curtain, R. (2002) Area-based partnerships and service delivery coordination: the
case of local learning and employment networks in Victoria, Canberra Bulletin of
Public Administration, 105 September: 50-55.
DEWRSB [Department of Workplace Relations and Small Business] (2000) Job
Network evaluation stage one: implementation and market development, Evaluation
and Program Performance Branch (EPPB) Report 1/2000, Commonwealth
Government, Canberra.
DFEEST [Department of Further Education Employment Science and Technology]
(2003) South Australia Works, Government of South Australia, Adelaide.
Dollery, B. and Wallis, J. (2001) Social service delivery and the voluntary sector in
contemporary Australia, Australian Journal of Political Science 36 (3): 567-575.
Eardley, T., Abello, D. and Macdonald, H. (2001) Is the Job Network benefiting
disadvantaged job seekers? Social Policy Research Centre Discussion Paper No. 111,
January.
Everingham, C. (2001) Reconstituting community: social justice, social order and the
politics of community, Australian Journal of Social Issues, 36 (2), May: 105-122.
Finn, D. (2001) A new deal for unemployed Australians? Dusseldorp Skills Forum,
Melbourne, December, [Online, accessed 5 December 2002].
URL:http://www.dsf.org.au/default.htm
Flack, T. and Ryan, C. (2003) Accountability of Australian nonprofit organisations:
reporting dilemmas, The Journal of Contemporary Issues in Business and
Government, 9 (1): 75-88.
18
Geddes, M. (2003). Limits to local governance: recent experience in the United
Kingdom, paper presented at the Partnerships, community and local governance:
international perspectives and Australian experiences symposium, Centre for Public
Policy, University of Melbourne, 19th September.
Geddes, M. (2005) Neoliberalism and local governance – cross-national perspectives
and speculations, Policy Studies, 26 (3/4): 359-377.
Hodgson, L. (2004) Manufactured civil society: counting the cost, Critical Social
Policy, 24 (2): 139-164.
Hudson, B. (2004) Analysing network partnerships: Benson re-visited, Public
Management Review, 6 (1): 75-95.
Huxham (1996) Creating collaborative advantage. London: Sage.
Kenny, S. (2001) Third Sector and State partnerships: unpacking the discourses,
Paper presented to the Third Sector and State Partnerships Conference, Centre for
Citizenship and Human Rights, Deakin University, Melbourne.
Kerr, L. and Savelsberg, H. (2001) The community service sector in the era of the
market model: facilitator of social change or servants of the state? Just Policy, 23
September: 22-32.
Lehane, N. and Lambert, K. (2003) Partnership: cynical exercise or tool for change?
Australian Journal on Volunteering, 8 (2): 88-92.
Lowndes, V. and Skelcher, C. (1998) The dynamics of multi-organisational
partnerships: an analysis of changing modes of governance, Public Administration, 76
Summer: 313-333.
Lyons, M. (1997) Contracting for care: what is it and what is at issue? Third Sector
Review, Special Issue, 3: 5-21.
Lyons, M. (2002) Institutional prerequisites for successful compacts between
governments and the third sector or why a compact is not yet possible in Australia,
Paper to Sixth ANZTRS Conference, Auckland, 27-29 November.
Lyons, M. (2003) Improving government-community sector relations, The Journal of
Contemporary Issues in Business and Government, 9, (1): 7-20.
Mackintosh, M. (1992)
Economy, 7 (3): 210-224.
Partnerships: issues of policy and negotiation, Local
McClure, P. (2000) Participation support for a more equitable society, Final Report,
July, Department of Family and Community Services, Canberra.
McDonald, C. and Marston, G. (2002) Fixing the niche? Rhetorics of the community
sector in the neo-liberal welfare regime, Just Policy, 27 August: 3-10.
19
McGregor-Lowndes, M. and Turnour, M. (2003) Recent developments in
government community service relations: are you really my partner? The Journal of
Contemporary Issues in Business and Government, 9 (1): 31-42.
OECD [Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development] (1999) The local
dimension of welfare-to-work: an international survey. Paris: OECD Publication.
OECD (2003) Managing decentralisation: a new role for labour market policy.
Paris, OECD Publication.
Onyx, J. (2001) Partnership: beyond the State, Paper presented to the Third Sector
and State Partnerships Conference, Centre for Citizenship and Human Rights, Deakin
University, Melbourne.
Powell, M. and Dowling, B. (2006) New labour’s partnerships: comparing
conceptual models with existing forms, Social Policy and Society, 5 (2): 305-314.
Powell, M. and Glendinning, C. (2002) Introduction. In C. Glendinning, M. Powell
and K. Rummery (ed.) Partnerships, New Labour and the governance of welfare: 114. Bristol: The Policy Press.
Reddel, T. (2004) Third way social policy governance, Australian Journal of Social
Issues, 39 (2) May: 129-142.
Rowe, M. (2002) Partnership working? A tale of two programs, The Journal of
Contemporary Issues in Business and Government, 8 (2): 5-14.
Rummery, K. (2002) Towards a theory of welfare partnerships. In C. Glendinning,
M. Powell and K. Rummery (ed.) Partnerships, New Labour and the governance of
welfare: 229-245. Bristol: The Policy Press.
Spall, P. and Zetlin, D. (2004) Third sector in transition - a question of sustainability
for community service organisations and the sector? Australian Journal of Social
Issues, 39 (3) August: 283-298.
Sterling, R. (2002) Unpacking the role of partnerships in addressing social exclusion
in urban and rural areas, Paper presented to the Second of the Warwick seminars on
social exclusion and inequality, 20 November, United Kingdom.
Stewart, M. (2002) Systems governance: towards effective partnership working,
Paper to the Health Development Agency Seminar Series on Tackling Health
Inequalities, London, September.
Sullivan, H. and Skelcher, C. (2002) Working across boundaries: collaboration in
public services. Hampshire: Palgrave Publications.
Webster, E. (1999) Job Network: what can it offer? Just Policy, 17 December: 32-42.
Yencken, D. and Porter, L. (2001) A just and sustainable Australia, The Australian
Collaboration, ACOSS, Melbourne, September.
20