THE ‘SOCIALLY EXCLUDED’ AND LOCAL TRANSPORT DECISION MAKING: VOICE AND RESPONSIVENESS IN A MARKETIZED ENVIRONMENT
| Date | 01 August 2006 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2006.00606.x |
| Published date | 01 August 2006 |
| Author | PAULINE DIBBEN |
Public Administration Vol. 84, No. 3, 2006 (655–672)
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2006, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street,
Malden, MA 02148, USA.
THE ‘ SOCIALLY EXCLUDED ’ AND LOCAL
TRANSPORT DECISION MAKING: VOICE
AND RESPONSIVENESS IN A MARKETIZED
ENVIRONMENT
PAULINE DIBBEN
This article examines the relationship between social exclusion and bus provision in
England in a marketized environment, and outlines the complexities of involving the
socially excluded in local transport decision making. An analysis of fi ve case studies,
including histories of where requests were made for changes to bus provision, reveals
the challenges for voice and responsiveness within a deregulated environment. Local
government has limited ability to respond effectively to the socially excluded; bus
providers are able to cut or revise services as they wish, and the discourse employed
by them emphasizes costs and effi ciency rather than social needs. The paper con-
cludes by advocating a more proactive approach toward tackling departmentalism
and social exclusion, with more rigorous and focused engagement of those who have
diffi culty in making their voices heard. At the same time, it recommends the revision
of accounting procedures and incentive structures in order to constrain the ability of
bus operators to ‘ play the system ’ .
INTRODUCTION
There has been much debate among scholars and others about why public
involvement should be carried out, and how it should take place (see, for
example, Goss 2001 ). There is also recognition of the fact that, as one of many
competing interest groups, the public can be actively prevented from exercis-
ing their right to have a voice ( Bachrach and Baratz 1970 ). As yet, however,
relatively little attention has been explicitly paid to the subject of this paper:
voice and responsiveness in relation to social exclusion and local transport
decision making. This is partly because it is diffi cult to determine who
constitutes the ‘ socially excluded ’ ( Levitas 1999 ), and also how to involve those
who lack either resources or the ability to articulate concerns ( Lister 2001 ).
This paper directly addresses the dual concepts of voice and responsive-
ness, in relation to transport decision making at the local level, examining
what happened in cases where people perceived to be among the socially
excluded requested changes to bus provision. The paper neither details a
range of consultation mechanisms nor is it centrally concerned with deter-
mining why the socially excluded should be involved in decision making.
Both these issues have been covered adequately elsewhere (see, for example,
Lowndes et al. 2001a, b ). Neither is it concerned with determining who ‘ the
Pauline Dibben is Lecturer in the University of Sheffi eld Management School.
656 PAULINE DIBBEN
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2006 Public Administration Vol. 84, No. 3, 2006 (655–672)
public ’ are; indeed, Barnes et al. (2003) provide an insightful discussion of this
issue. Moreover, although the relationship between public-private partner-
ships and participation ( Hambleton et al. 2000; Goss 2001; Lowndes and
Sullivan 2004 ) is addressed, it is not the prime focus of the paper. More spe-
cifi cally, the objectives are: (1) to examine the relationship between social
exclusion and bus provision in a marketized environment; (2) outline the
complexities of involving the socially excluded in local transport decision
making; (3) analyse the challenges inherent within the concepts of responsive-
ness and voice in this context; and (4) consider possible policy alternatives.
The issue of bus services has been selected because, fi rstly, transport is an
essential link for the ‘ socially excluded ’ to key services and social networks
( Lucas 2004 ); secondly, transport speaks to the growing concerns that have
arisen around the marketization of local services ( Pollock 2001; Dibben et al
2004 ) and the impact of powerful economic interests on accountability and
democracy ( Wainwright 2003; Fung and Wright 2003 ). However, rather than
taking a broad political economy approach, the focus of this paper is on the
operationalization of such issues at a community/micro level. The paper
focuses on the British experience, since Britain is one of the forerunners of
public service marketization ( Pollitt and Bouckaert 2000 ) and the testbed for
reforms that have sought to encourage public involvement in local decision
making ( Fenwick and Elcock 2004 ).
The fi rst part of the paper defi nes the term ‘ social exclusion ’ and its rela-
tionship to marketized bus provision. This is followed by a section that prob-
lematizes public involvement in local transport decision making, focusing
on the linked concepts of voice and responsiveness. These concepts are then
explored through the examination of fi ve case study histories that each ex-
plore what happened when bus users, or potential bus users, requested
changes to services, leading to a consideration of possible alternatives for
policy and practice.
CONTEXT: THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SOCIAL EXCLUSION
AND MARKETIZED BUS PROVISION
Social exclusion is a widely contested term ( Burchardt et al. 1999 ), not least
because it has been used interchangeably to refer to the causes, state of being
and effects of such exclusion. The term ‘ social exclusion ’ was originally
coined in 1974, and fi rst used by the European Commission in 1989, report-
edly to avoid discussions of poverty and divert attention from the need to
redistribute wealth ( Room 1995; Spicker 2002 ). Instead, integrational and
cultural dimensions have been employed ( Levitas 1999 ), although the latter
have been largely discredited due to a lack of consistent evidence ( Social
Exclusion Unit (SEU) 2004 ). Integrational explanations focus on inclusion in
social networks and paid work; cultural or subcultural aspects of exclusion
tend to imply non-conformity and maladjustment and can lead to the moral
condemnation of the poor ( Spicker 2002 ). More recently, however, the concept
To continue reading
Request your trial