PERFORMING GOVERNANCE: A PARTNERSHIP BOARD DRAMATURGY
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2007.00683.x |
| Author | EDWARD PECK,TIM FREEMAN |
| Published date | 01 December 2007 |
| Date | 01 December 2007 |
Public Administration Vol. 85, No. 4, 2007 (907–929)
© 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road,
Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.
PERFORMING GOVERNANCE: A PARTNERSHIP
BOARD DRAMATURGY
TIM FREEMAN AND EDWARD PECK
This paper explores the governance of complex public sector partnerships through a
detailed case study of a Joint Commissioning Partnership Board (JCPB) in the South
East of England. It argues that a theoretical and empirical focus on the instrumental
roles of boards has resulted in an under-appreciation of their symbolic purposes,
especially in the context of the governance of inter-organizational relationships. The
paper considers the performative dimension of partnership governance, highlighting
the role of the symbolic in institutional enactment. Following a brief overview of
governance in public sector partnerships, the case study site for the empirical re-
search is introduced. The instrumental and symbolic roles of management boards are
considered from a new institutionalist perspective and a dramaturgical analysis of
institutional enactment undertaken to explore interplays of the symbolic and instru-
mental in strategy formation. Some implications for our understanding of the sym-
bolic in partnership governance are discussed.
INTRODUCTION
International public sector reform processes have been identifi ed as multi-
dimensional, encompassing privatization, marketization, corporate manage-
ment, regulation, decentralization and political control ( Rhodes 1999 ). In
the UK, the conjunction of service delivery fragmentation with a political
imperative to combat ‘ wicked issues ’ cutting across the boundaries of the
fragmented organizational landscape has led to the creation of multiple
inter-agency partnerships to facilitate negotiation and delivery of public pro-
grammes ( Skelcher 2000 ). Problems were recast as requiring the manage-
ment of cross-system goals, necessitating collaborative action across multiple
agencies, professional groups and active citizens, and envisaged as broad,
diverse and inclusive partnerships ( Clarke and Stewart 1997 ).
Common across multiple UK social policy arenas, partnership is thus an
umbrella term covering a multitude of arrangements between public, private
and voluntary agencies and service users. While some arrangements are man-
datory, such as Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships ( Home Offi ce
1999 ; Bratby 1999; Fulcher 2000 ), and Drug Action Teams ( NTA 2002 ), many
more are voluntary in nature, including use of Section 31 fl exibilities under
the Health Act 1999 ( Hudson et. al. 2002 ), Primary Care Trust associations
Tim Freeman is a Lecturer in Health Policy and Edward Peck is Professor in Public Services Develop-
ment and Director of the School of Public Policy in Health and Social Care Partnerships in the Health
Services Management Centre, University of Birmingham.
908 TIM FREEMAN AND EDWARD PECK
Public Administration Vol. 85, No. 4, 2007 (907–929)
© 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
( Peck and Freeman 2005 ), and Joint Commissioning arrangements ( Pickup
2004 ). Despite the clarity of the policy prescription, there is little theoretical
or empirical understanding of the governance of such quasi-organizations
( Skelcher et al. 2004, 2005 ).
Conceptualizing governance
While there are many alternative defi nitions of governance ( Kooiman 1993;
Mayntz 1993; Rhodes 1996 ), Contandriopoulos et al. (2004) offer a composite
schema which integrates them under three problematics: (1) securing agree-
ment on a programme of action among a diversity of actors and organizations;
(2) redistributing the capacity of actors and organizations to interpret decisions
according to their own values; and (3) gaining acceptance among the collective
that resultant actions are legitimate. For the purposes of this paper, the focus
of governance lies in the enactment of structures for giving direction and de-
monstrating public accountability. In particular, it explores the corporate and
partnership board as the predominant forum within which direction is given.
Case study site
In our UK study, the county council and its NHS partners reached agreement
to establish a range of partnerships under Section 31 of the Health Act 1999,
relating to mental health, learning disability, drug and alcohol, and child and
adolescent mental health services (CAMHS). The arrangements, diagram-
matically presented in fi gure 1 , included integrated provision via a local
Partnership NHS Trust offering countywide services; pooled commissioning
and provision budgets; and joint commissioning arrangements. A pooled
commissioning budget was formed for each of the care groups across the
county and hosted by the County Council, the partnership agreement dele-
gating decision making to a quarterly Joint Commissioning Partnership
Board (JCPB), whose membership, at inception, included 8 county council-
lors and 8 Primary Care Trust (PCT) non-executives, with up to 4 co-opted
members, including the strategic health authority and formal observers from
the voluntary sector. PCTs are local NHS bodies with responsibility for com-
missioning and providing health care services within a defi ned geographical
area, serving populations of between 100,000 – 250,000 people, depending on
population densities, and the partnership arrangements meant that county-
wide services were commissioned jointly by the JCPB; PCT and county coun-
cil board members were jointly responsible for county-wide strategy.
Established in December 2001, the JCPB became fully operational in April
2002, its work supported by a Joint Commissioning Team (JCT), which was
hosted by the county council and charged with preparing items and papers.
The meetings were open to the public.
The roles of boards
While many models of board governance have been developed in the context
of private sector corporate governance, Farrell (2005) identifi es similarities
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations