Partnership Governance and Democratic Effectiveness
| Author | Chris Skelcher,Hugh A.D. Munro,Mark Roberts |
| DOI | 10.1177/0952076707083286 |
| Date | 01 January 2008 |
| Published date | 01 January 2008 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Partnership Governance and
Democratic Effectiveness
Community Leaders and Public Managers as Dual
Intermediaries
Hugh A.D. Munro, Mark Roberts and Chris Skelcher
University of Birmingham, UK
Abstract The design and evaluation of partnerships delivering public policy goals
should consider questions of democratic performance as much as matters of
service delivery. The flexibility afforded to partnership working places a
premium on managerial action loosely coupled to political oversight. Yet the
goals of partnerships are inherently political choices in which the public
interest should be represented. This article examines the way in which
community leaders and public managers impact on the democratic
performance of partnerships. We conceptualize community leaders and public
managers as ‘dual intermediaries’ between the formal institutional design of
partnership governance and its wider political constituency of citizens, service
users and stakeholders. We build on three partnership design archetypes –
club, agency and polity – identified in previous research, and theorize how
these might be expected to shape the roles of community leaders and public
managers. The article concludes by drawing out implications for the theory
and practice of partnership working.
Introduction
The emergence of partnership working has been driven by the desire to improve
the effectiveness of service delivery, and to overcome the constraints of traditional
models of public administration. Processes of public service reform internation-
ally have resulted in a much greater variety of institutional designs for the shaping,
making and delivery of public policy. Partnerships are thus part of a general trend
to establish operational activity at arm’s length from elected office holders, and
DOI: 10.1177/0952076707083286
Hugh A.D. Munro, Institute of Local Government Studies, School of Public Policy, University of
Birmingham, Edgbaston B15 2TT, UK. [email: hugh.munro@talk21.com] 61
© Public Policy and Administration
SAGE Publications Ltd
Los Angeles, London, New Delhi
and Singapore
0952-0767
200801 23(1) 61–79
give greater opportunity for managerial discretion and citizen engagement
(Sullivan and Skelcher, 2002). In theory, the separation of political goal setting
from managerial execution should provide for an enhanced capacity to translate
intent into outcomes, thus enhancing public welfare. The key mechanism is the
enhanced ability of managers to determine the best means to deliver public policy,
without being subject to day-to-day involvement of elected politicians (Pollitt and
Bouckaert, 2000), and the greater scope for direct citizen involvement (Barnes et
al., 2004; Newman, 2001). This approach contrasts with the politically headed
bureau, the predominant model under traditional public administration in which
elected politicians supervised officials (Hughes, 2003). Within this model, offi-
cials acted as the servants of their political masters, and citizens had a limited role
through electoral and pressure group activity.
Our view is that the effectiveness of partnership working cannot just be a
matter of improved service outcomes. Partnership, at least in the UK context, is the
default model through which much local public policy is now determined and
implemented. Consequently questions of democratic effectiveness cannot be
ignored. Partnership bodies debate and decide the distribution of public welfare to
the citizens or users within their jurisdiction. This is an inherently political
process, and the effectiveness with which normal constitutional safeguards apply
thus becomes an important matter for academic inquiry and policy debate.
This article contributes to the small but growing theoretical and empirical
literature on the extent to which forms of public governance located beyond
representative government are anchored in the democratic institutions of a society
(e.g. Klijn and Skelcher, forthcoming; Sørensen and Torfing, 2005). Our focus is
on the role of community leaders and public managers as ‘dual intermediaries’
who operate in and around the formal institutional designs of partnerships to link
them with relevant political constituencies of citizens, service users and other
stakeholders. This function is now well established in the literature, but tends to
be treated at a generic level. We contribute to the literature by analysing how
different governance designs structure the constraints and opportunities available
to these situated agents, and draw out the implications for the democratic
performance of partnerships.
The article starts by discussing the significance of the democratic dimension to
partnership working, drawing on recent research undertaken by one author and
colleagues. This sets out our conceptual framework, and highlights the potential
significance of community leaders and public managers. We then consider in
more detail the roles of community leaders and public managers as ‘dual inter-
mediaries’ in realizing the democratic performance of partnerships. The analysis
uses a typology of three partnership governance archetypes – club, agency and
polity – identified in our earlier research. We theorize how these might be
expected to shape the roles of community leaders and public managers. Finally,
we develop implications for future research and for the institutional design of
partnerships.
Public Policy and Administration 23(1)
62
To continue reading
Request your trial