Public Value and Participation: A Literature Review for the Scottish Government

CHAPTER THREE WHAT ARE THE DRIVERS AND ENABLERS OF PARTICIPATION?

Drivers

3.1 Characterised by a diversity of theory and practice, public participation can be carried out using a number of different methods, as outlined in the previous chapter and in annex one. It is up to the organisation (and potentially citizens) to select the most appropriate approach for the desired result. Before doing so, a consideration of what it is that drives participation and the processes that enable participation to occur is necessary in order to determine what the process is likely to look like and what outcomes can be anticipated. The main drivers for public participation identified below are: public demand; political and managerial rationales; social capital; campaigning goals and community-led initiatives.

Public demand or lack thereof

3.2 Rising demand from the public might seem an obvious starting point for any debate about public participation, yet conversely, many initiatives originate from concern about the apparent lack of public enthusiasm for using existing democratic structures. Research that directly addresses the issue of demand for participation in public services is limited, but that which exists suggests that the demand for participation is low. For example, when an Audit Commission survey of the general UK population in 2003 asked whether respondents would like to get involved in helping their council plan and deliver its services, only 17 per cent of respondents said they would, while 60 per cent said they would not. For the NHS, the figures were 22 per cent and 51 per cent respectively (Audit Commission and Ipsos-MORI, 2003).

3.3 However, findings from the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust's ( JRRT) State of the Nation poll provide evidence of a latent demand amongst the public for a more active voice in policy making ( JRRT, 2004). When asked how much power different groups should have over government policies, 56 per cent stated that ordinary citizens should have a 'great deal' (60 per cent in Scotland), a higher percentage than for parliament (45 per cent total), the media or large companies. However, this was not matched by people's perceptions of how much influence they currently had over the decisions taken by the government. Just under half (49 per cent) thought that ordinary people had 'a little' power over government policies, 27 per cent 'a fair amount' and six per cent 'a great deal.' Mahendran and Cook also report that a 2005 Scottish Social Attitudes Survey found that, whilst rating better than the UK government, 60 per cent of respondents felt that the Scottish Executive was 'not very good' or 'not good at all' at listening to people's views (Mahendran and Cook, 2007). Whilst a demand for voice is different from a demand for more deliberative involvement in government, such evidence cannot be ignored.

3.4 Evidence that there is public appetite for more radical forms of participatory decision making is supplied by the response to a question in the JRRT's study about whether ordinary people should be selected at random from the electoral register and invited to serve on the boards of foundation hospitals and local police authorities. Sixty six per cent of all respondents and 74 per cent of respondents in Scotland thought this was a good idea (compared to 33 per cent who thought it was a bad idea) and 56 per cent of the total (49 per cent in Scotland) said they would accept such an invitation (compared to 43 per cent who said they would decline) ( JRRT, 2004). Furthermore, when asked whether ordinary people should be selected at random from the electoral register and invited to serve on boards such as those that decide on the safety of drugs or health and safety at work, 61 per cent thought this was a good idea (compared to 38 per cent who thought is was a bad idea) and 50 per cent said they would accept such an invitation (compared to 49 per cent who said they would decline). Whilst it questionable whether these levels of enthusiasm would be matched by a willingness to volunteer should the opportunity arise, this information does suggest that more radical ideas for governing public services are at least worthy of consideration.

3.5 In terms of electoral participation, a poll of non-voters at the 2005 general election (Power Inquiry, 2006) revealed that apathy was much less significant a factor in respondents' decision not to vote (19 per cent) than a lack of trust in politicians (54 per cent of all respondents, 72 per cent of 18-24 year olds). Moreover, when offered alternative means of participating in decision making processes, 72 per cent of non-voters said they were likely or very likely to get involved in a referendum, while 70 per cent said they were likely or very likely to get involved in a meeting where they could set local council budgets with councillors.

3.6 This evidence suggests that, within limitations, there is public interest in participating in the design and delivery of public services and that care should be taken not to assume that there is systemic apathy amongst the public to the possibilities afforded by political engagement. However, it is important to understand that the public will only engage in the process if they believe that they can make a difference and if they have confidence that their views will be treated with respect by public managers. It is to these issues that we now turn.

Political and managerial rationales

3.7 The two main rationales for greater public participation can be characterised as consumer participation to drive improvements in the quality of services (managerial) and citizen or civic participation as a valuable activity in its own right (political) (McAteer and Orr, 2006). In an institutional context, this can be summarised in the following way:

'In the past, there has been a tendency to respond to the gap that exists between citizens and state institutions in one of two ways. On the one hand, attention has been made to strengthen the processes of participation - that is the ways in which poor people exercise voice through new forms of inclusion, consultation and/or mobilisation designed to inform and to influence larger institutions and policies. On the other hand, growing attention has been paid to how to strengthen the accountability and responsiveness of these institutions and policies through changes in institutional design and a focus on the enabling structures for good governance' (Cornwall and Gaventa, 2001).

3.8 In Scotland, the debate on public service reform has been focused largely on user-focused public services rather than on contestability and choice between providers from different sectors, as in England (McCormick et al, 2007). Devolution and the first Scottish National Party administration means that, in practice, it is likely that the English and Scottish models will continue to diverge. In June 2006, the then Scottish Executive published Transforming Public Services: The next phase of reform. The report set out five fundamental principles around which reform should be organised, a number of which are relevant to public participation: user focus and personalisation, and strengthening accountability. ¹¹

3.9 Greater levels of public participation in policymaking, promoted by COSLA and the then Scottish Executive, preceded the development of Community Planning, a process aimed at improving local services by making local partners in the private, voluntary and public sector work together more effectively, ensuring that they identify the needs and views of their local communities, and that they agree and carry out their strategic vision for the area. The introduction of the Local Government in Scotland Act (2003) gave Community Planning a legislative base and established the power to advance well-being and Best Value. ¹² The Act extends the statutory duty to engage with citizens to improve service delivery from local authorities to chief constables and police boards, NHS boards, enterprise agencies, the fire service and transport agencies. It created a new discretionary power (the power to advance well being) enabling local authorities to do anything they consider likely to promote or improve the well-being of their area and/or persons in it. ¹³ The Best Value guidance also states that authorities demonstrating Best Value must display responsiveness to the needs of communities, citizens, customers, employees and other stakeholders, so that plans, priorities and actions are informed by an understanding of those needs; an ongoing dialogue with other public sector partners and the local business, voluntary and community sectors; and consultation arrangements which are open, fair and inclusive. ¹⁴ Reforms to specific services, such as the Scottish Housing Act 2001, also require local authorities to strengthen citizen participation in service delivery (McAteer and Orr, 2006).

3.10 Reforms to local government and public services, such as the introduction of Community Planning, Best Value and the Power to Advance Well Being, have therefore been a driver of participation in Scotland, involving a combination of both managerial and political rationales. It has been argued that these two rationales for participation are not mutually exclusive, since consultation without attention to power and politics leads to 'voice without influence', and the reform of political institutions without attention to inclusion and consultation will only reinforce the status quo (Horner and Lekhi, 2006). Some have gone further, to argue that at the heart of the new consensus of strong state and strong civil society are the need to develop both participatory democracy and responsive government as 'mutually reinforcing and supportive' (Commonwealth Foundation, 1999). However, this underestimates the tensions that may arise when the decisions taken by public managers or elected officials with a political mandate to carry out particular policies conflict with the stated interests of the public or groups of the public (Mahendran and Cook, 2007).

3.11 Moreover, McAteer and Orr (2006) have suggested that the promotion of participatory processes by central government policies has contributed to eroding many of the traditional structures for local political engagement (McAteer and Orr, 2006). The centralised drive for engaging communities and promoting participation in regeneration and social inclusion programmes is one example, although Community Planning was introduced to respond to concerns about the fragmented nature of partnerships and strategic planning and to make sure that accountability was established. There is a need to think about how the participation agenda affects existing governance structures and to consider whether a plethora of centrally mandated initiatives at local authority level serves to undermine the authority of councillors. In chapter four we discuss the difference between participative and representative forms of democracy in more detail.

Community-led initiatives and campaigning goals

3.12 Single or community-led issues can also rally citizens to create new mechanisms for voice or to exploit established formal and informal mechanisms to change a particular policy or address a particular complaint. Community-led initiatives in particular may also help build the capacity and interests of those involved so that they are willing and able to participate in policy initiatives. The report of the Power Inquiry highlighted the emergence and growing strength of the public's involvement in alternative forms of political engagement, from signing petitions, to demonstrating, to organising campaigns (Power Inquiry, 2006). Whilst these developments are not the focus of this report, public pressure from the 'outside', and how public organisations manage this, is an important driver of the development new participatory mechanisms.

3.13 Urban Forum, for instance, is an umbrella body for community groups with interests in urban and regional regeneration policy, which provides a strong voluntary sector voice on relevant policy issues and promotes sustainable regeneration initiatives. They place special emphasis on consultation and on encouraging equal opportunities for more marginalised communities, holding conferences and seminars in every region. Their 'Designing in Diversity' proposal urged government to be more responsive by involving Urban Forum in conducting research to explore and highlight the contributions made to regeneration by those who experience discrimination.

3.14 Done well, public participation not only enriches democracy by helping strengthen accountability, it also encourages and empowers citizens to work with the state and each other to meet current challenges. Debate and dialogue with service users can reveal new information about how policy created in town halls and Whitehall is working out on the ground. That kind of intelligence is vital if the intentions behind policy are to become a reality.

Enablers of Participation

3.15 Three enablers of participation have also been identified. These are socio-economic circumstance, social capital and civic behaviour. The following section explores the way in which these factors bring about the wider use of participatory instruments.

Socio-economic circumstance (resources of the locality)

3.16 Research has consistently shown that those living in poverty and those who are less well educated are less likely to take part in participatory activities involving their local community (Skidmore et al, 2006). Enabling participation therefore involves bridging socio-economic barriers by working with disconnected and disadvantaged communities to raise awareness of available public services and support, up-skill and include members of the public in democratic processes. Chapter five contains further information about engaging the so-called 'hard to reach', whilst the role of social capital is described in the following section.

Social Capital

3.17 Building on the theory of social scientist Robert Putnam, it has been argued that by getting involved in the governance of services participants build relationships with the institution, with officials and each other, which produces 'social capital'. This is defined as 'the connections among individuals - social networks and the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise from them' (Putnam, 2000). In essence, this theory argues that knowing that you can rely on others enables you to navigate critical events in your life better. 'Social capital' is a source of social cohesion. In Putnam's words:

A society characterized by a generalized reciprocity is more efficient than a distrustful society, for the same reason that money is more efficient than barter. If we don't have to balance every exchange instantly, we can get a lot more accomplished. Trustworthiness lubricates social life' (Putnam, 2000)

3.18 In disadvantaged communities, without the economic power to buy their way out of problems (for example, by moving house or purchasing additional services), social capital is particularly valuable. This theory has underpinned many community and social inclusion policies over the past decade. It recognises that coordinating bodies within civil society (volunteer bureaux, racial equality councils, chambers of commerce and faith networks) can act as important institutional conduits for public participation. Where traditional state run institutions are not reaching those in most need of them and are not producing the desired outcomes, offering funding and opportunities to communities and partnerships between local private, public sector and community organisations is aimed at providing a more direct and effective route to improving social outcomes (Woolcock, 2001).

Internal culture and 'civic behaviour'

3.19 What institutional structures are established, and how political, managerial and civic players behave in the context of these structures, makes a difference to the likelihood that citizens will engage. There are potentially three sorts of actors - political players ( MPs, MSPs and councillors), managerial players (council and public service officers and professionals) and civil society players (the people runing the intermediate institutions between the individual and the state) - who have a bearing on the extent to which public institutions involve the public in their decision making processes. Furthermore, the quality of the interactions between citizens and front-line council officers (whether in call centres or old-fashioned estate offices) affect people's perceptions of the accessibility and responsiveness of their local authority.

3.20 Newman et al's (2004) qualitative research on participation within deliberative forums (such as user-based forums or community-based organisations that are drawn into consultation processes) provides a useful insight into how different stakeholders view public participation. This study highlights that the perceptions of strategic policy actors concerning the ability and motivation of members of the public to get involved in participatory structures can act as constraints on the development of collaborative governance. In other words, successful public participation relies as much on those in power believing that the process of public participation is a valuable part of any service, as it does on the willingness of members of the public to engage.

3.21 The motivations for participation, and the enablers that allow public participation to flourish, are inevitably diverse - and it is this diversity that influences both the design of the participation process and the shape of the outcome. Yet a reading of some official documents on participation would seem to suggest that these differing motivations are complementary when, in fact, public participation is as likely to uncover conflicting views between members or groups of the public, public managers and politicians as to produce consensus. Moreover, as the following section illustrates, legal constraints and institutional culture can alter the original or stated purpose of public participation. Sometimes the leadership task of politicians and public managers is to either reconcile the irreconcilable or make a tough choice that leaves some citizens disappointed.

3.22 For instance, a recent survey of Scottish local councils found that while officers and elected members generally believe participation is a 'good thing', overall, they see the process as a means of improving services via consultation as opposed to extending deliberative democracy (McAteer and Orr, 2006). This is not in itself problematic, as long as the stated intention of the participatory process is clear to participants and to those within the organisation. However, McAteer and Orr's research found that different departments within local councils had quite different expectations of what participation was and what it should achieve.

3.23 The 'managerialist' and consumer orientated culture within local government can therefore present an obstacle to widening the scope of engagement activities to address political issues, such as declining voter turnout and trust in public institutions, outlined in the introduction. This is not necessarily the only barrier:

'Even if councils engage more fully with the public and create an internal culture to promote and sustain levels of community engagement, their actions are limited by structures that are beyond the immediate control of individuals; such structures may be organisational cultures or… regarding the public's influence over financial decisions, legal requirements to meet statutory duties and obligations'(Orr and McAteer, 2004) .

It is therefore important for organisations to have a consistent understanding of what they aim to get from engaging with the public, and an internal culture that is conducive to allowing this to happen.

Summary

The drivers for greater levels of public participation are:

• Public demand for a greater say in how government decisions are taken. Evidence of a public appetite for participating in the design and delivery of public services is mixed, although some of the literature does indicate that there is support for more radical forms of engagement, such as lay involvement on the governing boards of public services.
• However, demand for greater participation depends on a number of factors; whether it is a local or national issue at stake, how much input is required from the public, and proof that participation will 'make a difference'.
• The reform of public services and the structures that govern them, which often go hand in hand, are key factors in the drive to increase the number of opportunities for the public to participate in decision making, although this has not been the sole, or even the principal goal of many reforms. There is, however, debate about the extent to which tensions may arise between the introduction of greater participatory processes in policymaking and the role of elected officials.
• Enablers of public participation include the capacity and resources of the public, social capital and the attitudes of political, managerial and civil society leaders to participation.