‘Token participation to
engaged partnerships’
Rose Melville
SWAHS School Seminar
21st Sept
Introduction
Examine the rhetoric around ‘partnerships’ and
‘participation’
Third way welfare policies and impact on social
citizenship politics (agency)
What are some of the policy drivers?
What lessons have been learnt from OS
experience?
What kinds of ‘partnerships’ exists between
government and CSOs in Australia
Do they improve the relationships between CSOs
and government (operational-organisational)
Do they increase/improve political participation or
input into policy making processes?
ARC Linkage Grant
‘Advocacy in the Age of Compacts’
(2006-2007) Onyx, Dalton, Casey &
Melville with industry partners –
NCOSS and PIAC
Builds on previous ARC Discovery
Grant (2000-2002) and 2 ARC small
research grants (1998, 1999)
Aims
Concerned with the relation between
policies of participation and partnership
on one hand, and social citizenship agency
on the other
In context of Third Way welfare regimes –
do these policies open up or close down
citizen influence on social decisions taken
in the political realm?
More specifically how do they it impact on
the advocacy, political and policy roles of
CSOs?
Third way welfare regimes
They taut ‘social investment’ as (economic) returns
in the future;
Balance citizenship rights with responsibilities –
passive to active welfare;
Social capital and human capital; thus citizenship
engagement and associational life are promoted
as values in themselves;
Flexibility and sensitivity to citizen’s needs –
decentralisation and formation of local
partnerships with community groups, close to
beneficiaries;
Not-for profits (social economy) encouraged over
private market enterprises
Social politics
Welfare state emergence – mobilise
power resources
Strain of welfare state theory & neoinstitutional theory; “power of ideas”
mobilised outside the political system
in civil society
Frame analysis & comparative policy
analysis;
Compacts/partnerships
Goddard (2006, p1) partnership ‘used by
government to describe a preferred relationship
with the CSS’;
White (2006) says participation is essentially about
political participation; whereas partnership is about
the [inter] organisational relationships between the
CS and the state;
Mcgregor-Lowndess (forthcoming, 2008) ‘ joint
venture’ – one of independent contractor – legal
and business relationship
Casey et al (2007) generic term for ‘written
protocols or agreements’ to seek to regulate the
cooperative relationship between state & CSOs
Empirical study
In-depth interviews with CEOs of 24 nonprofits
across human services and environmental
organisations in 2 Australian states (NSW & QLD)
To maximise coverage – 4 organisational clusters according to size and institutional type - fields of
disability, children & families, the environment and
homelessness & housing (16 in NSW & 8 in QLD)
Documentary analysis of partnerships agreements
internationally and nationally – NSW & Qld
International experiences
Circumstances underpinning emergence of
third way politics
Similarities and differences – unicarmel
versus three tiers of government
Political, cultural, linguistic, geographies
Under-estimate differences between
Australian states & within & between
regions
Britain
Third way politics; Blair (civil society)
NCVO (Deakin Inquiry) 1996;
Role of policy entrepreneurs;
Progressive think tanks
Massive drop in public “giving” to
charities;
Overly regulated environment;
Reframing of VC publicly
Canada
Accord – impetus from national peak bodies and
associations; elite group isolated from sector
(provincial & local governments)
Taken up Liberals as election promise in 1997;
Lack of unified leadership;
No champions within government;
Political distrust within sector – social politics and
social citizenship (social movement politics);
Government funding & interaction occurs at
provincial level not federal level of government
Australia
Diluted form of ‘third way politics;’
International, transnational organisations
(World Bank, OECD);
Declining levels of trust in efficacy of
politicians and institutions;
Inability of states to manage risk in
complex societies;
Declining infrastructure & reduced
resources;
Increasing social and economic inequality
State government levels
NSW, ACT, WA and TAS (current
partnership agreements;
Mainly with individual funding bodies & not
whole-of-government;
Federal government actively hostile to
CSS; (Howard government)
Particularistic nature of CSS in Australia –
mitigates against the development of
national agreement (silos, siege mentality)
Some features of Australian CSS
Contracting and competitive tendering
regime; (Hawke-Keating era)
Lack of staff, infrastructure, industry plans,
etc
Low morale, strong sector leadership and
identity;
Locked out of industry restructuring that
occurred in 1980s and 1990s;
Mixed economy of welfare – politically
marginal to social politics and policy
making in welfare state
Vic – “sustainability”
It is assumed that in a complex and
ever more rapidly changing society
where existing and emerging needs
far outstrip available funds there is a
need to be mutually agreed
processes for planning, developing
and delivering health, housing and
community services which are based
on the principles of sustainability
(Victorian Government 2002).
SA – “mutuality”
South Australians want to live in a community that
is compassionate and inclusive. South Australians
also want a balance contributing to the common
good with the opportunity to excel in their chosen
field of endeavor…The partnership created
opportunities to pool knowledge and resources, to
identify issues, resolve problems and develop new
approaches to improving health and
wellbeing…Common Ground provides a basis for
the Government and the Community sector to
work together to achieve mutually agreed goals
(Government of South Australia 2002).
Vic – CSS as “junior partner”
The purpose of this Partnership Agreement is to
affirm agreed expectations of a working
relationship between the Victorian Department of
Human Services and the independent health,
housing and community service organizations that
it funds. It recognizes that the Department and
service organizations have legitimate differences
in governance, roles and responsibilities…It is
assumed that government will administer public
funds and address program development in
accordance with the policies of the elected
parliament of the day and in accordance with
existing statutes and regulations (Partnership in
Practice – Department of Human Services 2002).
Advocacy roles
NSW Draft Working Together (2006):
Non-government organisations are
independent bodies that are free to pursue
their goals, which may involve advocating
for changes in Government policies and
priorities. In this sense, there is a healthy
tension inherent in the relationship
between government and the nongovernment sector (NCOSS)
ACT Social Compact
[T]ensions are a part of the policy
process. A mature relationship
between community sector
organisations and governments can
tolerate conflict and be sustained
despite disagreements over some
aspects of policy (Chief Minister’s
Department 2004)
What respondent’s said:
Absolutely that is the main elephant in
the room, there is no partnership,
the partnership is about we, you
[CSOs] put legs on because we no
longer deliver services in our own
right….
“Partnership”- not equal
The NGO sector, I mean I would see in
state government - and in the federal area everybody talks about partnership but it is
not an equal partnership. You know the
government sees it as its right and
responsibility to have policy about stuff and
the accountability factor then comes in and
I think it has taken the lead especially from
the feds who want increasing accountability
across everything
Well because we live in a paradigm of
government must be small and we live in a
paradigm with that of individual responsibility
thing and then we have got the globalization
stuff. Really my sense is that our federal
government can’t do much about anything
really I mean Howard may stand on the soap
box about being in control but only during an
election… In there is government sort of
realizing .. that they have no power, people
don’t trust them, and really don’t give a damn
about them. Therefore they are going let us be
nice, and have partnership, and so then
partnership becomes this, if we have got to be
small [government] but we have to deliver these
services we need you, we can’t do it without
you, come and play….
New ‘conditionality’
So partnership - all been terms that have
been bastardised; so partnership I think is
very much like conditional citizenship, it is
based on condition that is dictated by the
government. I think it leads to endangered
communities, NGO’s are seen by the
government department, they are actually
an- arms length government department,
and they are part of the government
department.
‘Symbolic meaning’
Play an important role in symbolically
framing the relationships between
government and the sector;
Organisational boundaries; roles,
expectations; funding levels & agreements,
micro management, tendering,
accountability, quality standards & civility;
Separating out operational [interorganisational] relationship from social
politics and political participation
‘Political contestation’
It’s about political advocacy and social politics –
input into policy making
Doing public policy making differently – Fung
(2006) calls ‘co-governing’ – decisions about
allocating economic resources at local levels
Maybe that community groups undergo a 2nd
incorporation into the state – but that civil society
activism will creep back in another guise & form,
supported by distinct values, networking & other
power resources. New cycle of contentious
politics…
References
Available by contacting author
r.melville@uq.edu.au
The correct citation of any material in this
presentation is Melville, R. (2007) ‘Token
participation to engaged partnerships’ SWAHS
School Seminar, 21st of September, available
http://www.uq.edu.au/swahs/index.html?page=288
07
Copyright protected