What is the value proposition for
Local Government in an era of
subsidiarity?
“Big vision – little steps”
Professor Mark Evans
Institute for Governance
& Policy Analysis
Introductions
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Director & Professor Institute for
Governance since 2009, formerly Head
of Politics, University of York, UK and
York City Councillor (2002-2007)
Area interests: citizen centric governance
and sustainable development
Member Independent Evaluation Group,
World Bank/European Union
Editor Policy Studies
Recent books include –The Rudd
Government (2011), The Gillard
Governments (2013), and Understanding
Localism (2013).
Recent evaluation projects: Austrade;
National Water Commission; Public
Administration Reform Post Arab Spring
(UNDP); National Indigenous Antismoking Programme
Designer and Convenor of the
ANZSOG/ACELG Excellence in Local
Government Leadership Programme
Senior policy advisor on citizen-centred
governance reforms (Afghanistan,
Australia, Brazil, China, Eqypt, Libya,
Tunisia, UK, Yemen)
2
How do Australians imagine their
democracy?
see:
www.governanceinstitute.edu.au/…DEMOCRACY%REPORT
The Power of 1 Voice
Museum of Australian Democracy,
Old Parliament House 2014-15
Sources of data
• 2013&14 Institute for
Governance/Museum of
Australian Democracy Surveys
of Political Engagement
• ANZSOG Local Government
Leadership Program 2011-14
• Ongoing workshops on the
ingredients of effective
collaborative governance with
members of the Senior
Executive Service at the
Commonwealth and
State/Territory levels (2011-15)
Value Proposition 1:
A Golden era for Local Government?
•
“Like any human venture, local
government can be full of error,
fallibility and risk aversion. But the
biggest danger for local governments
today is not conservatism but rather
that they might succumb to the
myth—often propagated by other
levels of government and a sceptical
media— that they are powerless,
condemned to mistrust and fatalism.
If they do succumb, they will fail to
rise to the great public policy
challenges of our time from climate
change to ageing to economic
development to combating poverty,
that local government is most suited
to tackle. That is the core value
proposition for local government; it
should be the engine room of public
sector problem solving for the 21st
century”.
Top 10 critical problems that the
sector is facing 2011-14…(N-127)
Issue
1. Financial sustainability
2. Influencing the national agenda
3. Infrastructure
4. Community engagement
5. Cutting red tape
6. Workforce planning and capability
development
7. Economic development
8. Managing/facilitating growth
9. Managing climate change
10. Responding to an Ageing population
Value Proposition 2:
Local government as a centre of excellence for
public value creation
• The establishment of
learning public
organisations which are
able to foster a culture of
innovation is central to
the achievement of this
aim.
• Linked to ‘new’ or
‘renewed’ focus on the
importance of
collaborative problemsolving through
community development.
Our focus
1. How does local government need
to position itself to meet the
challenges of the Federal White
Paper?
• “Seeing like a citizen” – what do
Australian citizens think about
local government?
• “Seeing like the Federal
government” – what does the
Federal government think about
local government?
• “Seeing like a Commonwealth
department” – what does the
Australian Commonwealth
government think about local
government?
• “Seeing like a State/Territory
Government” – what does
state/territory government think
2. The emerging value proposition –
“Big Vision Little Steps”
3. The Leadership Challenge
“Seeing like a citizen”
• Fairly/very satisfied with the way democracy
works i.e. democratic values (ANU 2011; 70.9;
Griffith 2012; 72.9).
• 7/10 very dissatisfied with the nature of politics
(anti-politics = anti-party politics) and the quality
of government (IG 2013&2014; Griffith
2012&2014).
• Very surprising in times of affluence.
• But local government and the local comes out
pretty well!
Australian attitudes to
(national/local) democracy
(IGPA, 2014)
18-24
25-34
35-44
44-54
55-64
65+
Have little or no
influence over
national decisionmaking
83
84
91
88
84
84
Have little or no
influence over local
decision-making
71
76
76
77
79
76
Perceptions of the quality of
government
(2008/2012 Griffith)
Level of
government
Federal
State
Local
Very/Quite Poor
43.5 (15.8)
45.4 (42.4)
40.4 (39.7)
Quite/Very
Good
55.3 (81.6)
53.4 (56.9)
58.1 (57)
Most effective
29.2 (50.1)
23.6 (18.1)
30.1(19.9)
Least effective
26.9 (15.7)
24.6 (32.2)
26.3 (35.3)
Positive Perceptions of the Quality
of Government (Griffith 2014)
Federal
55.0
State
54.5
Local
58.9
Sources of optimism for localism
• 43.7 believe that as many decisions as possible should
be made at the lowest level of government (subsidiarity)
(Griffith, 2012).
• The majority do not participate because of the nature of
politics on offer (IG, 2013&2014).
• 40% would participate if there was greater openness in
the political system and more participatory politics (IG,
2013&2014).
• The reform options that offer most hope involve building
on citizens’ interests in linking representative with more
participative political practices (IG, 2013&2014).
• 75% of Australians favour greater use of direct
democracy (IG 2014).
• 83% believe that there should be more voice for local
communities over their services (ANU 2011).
Perceptions of what forms of
engagement make a difference
(IGPA, 2014)
The reforms they would like to see
strengthen accountability, increased participation,
greater localism, digital futures
Two spaces for a new
local politics
Seeing like a Young
Australian
Seeing like a new
Australian citizen
Our evidence suggests that young
Australians passionately believe
in democratic values, possess
strong political views and are
actively engaged in contemporary
forms of participation. They simply
do not like the current politics on
offer. Young Australians yearn for
a democratic politics that is open,
participatory and digital.
REACH OUT!
New generation migrants have
great admiration for Australian
democracy but do not feel
represented in the political
system. Nor do they feel that their
interests are being responded to.
REACH OUT!
“Seeing like the
Commonwealth Government”
•
•
•
•
•
Commission of Audit/Federal White Paper on
the Federation. Says little about local
government; all about the states
Area led by Warren Truss (Deputy PM,
Infrastructure and Regional Development)
Key change; facilitative and enabling role for
Commonwealth government focusing on
national
policy&regulation/benchmarking/digitisation
The rhetoric of ‘subsidiarity’ & ‘productivity’ has
replaced the rhetoric of ‘localism’ i.e. that
services should be delivered as close as
practicable to the citizenry
Focus on Big City growth agenda, managed
immigration, and in response to independents
the Rural/Coastal regional agenda
“Seeing like a Commonwealth
Department”: barriers between levels of
government (N= 137 SES)
Behavioural
Professional language
Culture of risk aversion
Lack of trust; adverse perceptions of the
capacity of the “other” governments
Poor skills in active risk or change
management to create opportunity
structures for collaboration
No clear national voice
Absence of joined up targets (incentives)
Environmental constraints
Electoral cycle
Public expectations for quick fixes
Political overload
Cost containment
Institutional resources/constraints
Clear roles/responsibilities
Absence of adaptive leadership
Inflexible funding regimes
Short-term budgets and planning horizons
Technical capacity
Absence of innovation systems (learning
opportunities)
Institutional resources/constraints
Staff development
Limited support from the political elite
Delivery pressures and administrative
burdens
Poor rewards
“Seeing like a State”: barriers between
States/territories and local government?
(N=44)
Behavioural
Professional language
Culture of risk aversion
Lack of trust; adverse perceptions of the
capacity of local government
Poor skills in active risk or change
management to create opportunity
structures for collaboration
Greater strategic alignment but still
insufficient
Environmental constraints
Electoral cycle
Public expectations for quick fixes
Bad and sticky politics
Political overload
Cost containment
Institutional resources/constraints
Clear roles/responsibilities
Absence of adaptive leadership
Inflexible funding regimes
Short-term budgets and planning horizons
Technical capacity
Absence of innovation systems (learning
opportunities)
Institutional resources/constraints
Staff development
Limited support from the political elite
Delivery pressures and administrative
burdens
Poor rewards
Does local government need
to be stuck on an escalator?
A simple value proposition – local government
as a centre of excellence for public value
creation
Social Problem-seeker and solver
• Focus on fair-go and equitable
service delivery.
• Ensuring sustainable development
(balanced economic and social
change) and
• Assuring community wellbeing
•
•
•
•
Facilitator of Economic Growth
• Developing a community-led productivity
agenda around comparative advantages
Political champion
Cultural lifestyle coordinator
Giving political expression to local
• Enhance community wellbeing
identities and community values
(Qualities of life) through improving the
Creating an inclusive strategic vision
physical environment and productive
for the community
infrastructure
Attempt to broach critical governance • Arts, sport and leisure
issues
• Employer of choice
Build strong alliances in multi-level
governance
Value proposition –
Big vision, little steps
• Local government in multilevel governance: filling in
the gaps (NB Simon
Crean).
• Enduring transformational
projects by partnering
beyond government, placemaking and meaningful
digital futures.
• Community productivity
(development) at the
centre.
To work together to
gain an understanding
of plausible futures
To produce ‘line of
sight’ between goals,
policies and their
achievement
To work together to
produce a stretching,
consistent and aligned
vision of the future
Community
development
is essential
To work together to
create public value
To give organisational
core purpose
To provide
organisational
alignment and ability to
prioritise and allocate
resources for delivery
What form of Council would be able to
deliver this value proposition?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Highly skilled adaptive leadership
focused on high level community
outcomes (with a board of
shareholders mentality – local citizens
being the shareholders seeking
maximum return).
Accountable head of service and
executive team with a strong
commercial business plan & operating
model.
A whole of council approach with
strong political and service alignment.
A flat organisational structure
organised around community
wellbeing targets underpinned by
problem-solving networks
Employer of choice.
Payment by results for anything it
7
Citizen-centred services
operating with a co-design
principle to ensure equity of
provision.
8 Economic entrepreneurship to
support new market
opportunities.
9 Social entrepreneurship to
ensure community resources
are deployed effectively to meet
the needs of the most
vulnerable.
10 Effective community leadership
in multi-level governance
(Commonwealth, State,
Regional, Community)
Our key leadership challenge:
aspire to live in the best of all
possible worlds
• The role of local government
leaders is to create and deliver
public value (to accrue direct
social and economic benefits for
local citizens).
• The problems confronting local
government are now too complex
to be dealt with through
command and control leadership;
they require soft power –
adaptive leadership based on the
power of persuasion and
inclusion.
“Public services add
value to society in the
same way that private
for-profit organisations
create value for their
shareholders and
other stakeholders”.
Professor Mark
Moore, Hauser
Professor at Harvard.
Core message –
an invitation to local government to set the
agenda at the community level
• A retreating state requires active
communities and a growing realm
of social action
• Local government is potentially
the key facilitator of social action
• Subsidiarity is the route to better
services and a better society
• Subsidiarity does not stop at the
Town Hall
• Subsidiarity means more
collaborative problem-solving and
learning to share power with the
private and community sectors
• But have fun on the way!
Parting shot
• “It’s often the people
that no one imagines
anything of that do
the things that no one
else can imagine”.
• Alan Turing, breaker of
the Enigma code and
inventor of the computer