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

CHAPTER SEVEN CONCLUSION

7.1 This report is designed to give public managers and policymakers an overview of how participatory processes contribute to the creation of public value. In doing so, it has outlined how public value theory sits within the context of the wider debate about public participation. Most importantly, it has sought to explain the constituent elements of the public value model, identified the conditions that must be met for deliberative governance to work and has explored some of the tensions between conventional models of governance and the wider use of participative instruments.

7.2 Much of the literature has focused on the relative merits of different forms of engagement, offering an account of where these methods sit on the participation 'scale'. We know how to 'do' participation today; the evidence is strong and there is a wealth of practical experience from which we might draw inspiration. Many reports have sought to identify the benefits in store for organisations that effectively manage more deliberative decision making processes. There are numerous case studies, often dealing with local initiatives, which show what can be achieved. However, the literature has rather less to say about how organisations can systematically assess the outputs of participation. Whilst individuals and organisations can and do demonstrate some of the best participative practice, many of the far-reaching benefits claimed for the process of public participation - such as increasing public satisfaction with services, restoring trust in public institutions and politicians, reducing the 'democratic deficit' - are unlikely to be realised unless more fundamental issues are addressed. The question of how to develop accurate and meaningful measurement is one, particularly given the need for evidence to demonstrate the link between public participation, actions and outcomes. Other factors include; ensuring that the aims of consultation are communicated clearly and consistently both to participants and internally; building in sustainability; and ensuring that new processes are integrated into existing governance structures so that deliberative and representative forms of governance are not in conflict.

7.3 The overarching message of this report is that there is no single route map to effective public participation that achieves the twin goals of revitalising democracy and developing better, more efficient and more responsive public services. On the one hand, though there are many difficulties associated with public participation, there is clearly an appetite for greater involvement, particularly with regard to local decisions that affect people's day-to-day lives. Increasingly, public managers should use participatory methods at different stages of the policymaking process - from the initial design stage, through implementation, to evaluation and review.

7.4 However, the critical issue is the extent to which citizens can genuinely be involved in decision making. Many initiatives have expanded the scope of consultation, which in itself is welcome, yet there are fewer initiatives in place in which citizens have played a discernable role in taking decisions. An important distinction must be drawn, of course, between service design and critical delivery issues on the one hand, and operational management on the other. We have already observed that there is uncertainty in this context. There are no simple solutions, and arguably the best approach is for public managers to simply 'learn by doing', adjusting their behaviour accordingly.

7.5 Widening the scope for participation raises three further issues. First, public managers must be clear about the extent to which they are exposing their organisation to risk - either defined in terms of the scope for 'public embarrassment' if unpalatable facts emerge in the public domain or in terms of the public disengagement that results from ineffective participation. Second, public managers have to be clear that they will be challenged. Indeed, a part of the rationale for public participation is that bureaucrats make better decisions if they are required to justify their actions.

7.6 Third, clarity is needed too in the relationship between conventional structures of representative governance and a wider commitment to extending deliberative democracy. Local politicians may be concerned if they believe that their democratic legitimacy or status will be undermined as a result of greater participation. Of course, this has to be viewed through the lens of the continuing evolution of the role of local politicians, particularly the notion that councillors should develop a wider role as community advocates, co-ordinating, supervising and scrutinising the delivery of local services. Confusion about where decision making power lies can be fatal to successful participation. Once again, it is essential to be clear about where responsibility lies - is it exclusively on the shoulders of politicians and public managers or should citizens take some responsibility too?

7.7 Institutional and organisational resistance and inconsistencies in policy mean that it is unlikely that public participation will change without fundamental changes in both the structure and culture of governance institutions. This does not mean that public participation cannot have a significant effect, but we should be realistic about the more radical claims made for what public participation can achieve.

7.8 When thinking about public participation and service improvement, public managers would do well to follow the principles outlined in chapter six. Most importantly, they need to ask themselves why are they engaging in public participation, what is it that they are asking the public, and how far can this process affect change? Is it an exercise in information gathering, communication, testing decisions, or decision making? When planning which methods to use and how to proceed with the process it is important to think through the wider organisational costs and benefits, including intangible outcomes. Finally, it is important to ensure that the process is transparent (specifically on the question of limits), clearly communicated, both within the organisation and to participants, and that outcomes are fed back to the public and to staff. Some of the best participative initiatives are those that engage people in local issues (services) that matter to them. However, it is worth remembering that organisational commitment to public value and changes to internal culture may yield as many benefits as public participation (particularly if you are simply consulting for its own sake).

7.9 Finally, it is important to recognise that tensions may arise between representative forms of democracy and newer participative approaches introduced as part of the service delivery agenda. Whilst the aims of making government more accountable and public services more efficient are not contradictory, it is important to establish clear lines of accountability if participatory processes are to complement the roles of elected officials rather than conflict with them. For more deliberative forms of participation to be embedded, serious thought must be given to how existing democratic structures operate. Without this, there is a danger that public participation is simply grafted on to existing institutions and processes rather than contributing to the development of more responsive public services that the public value.