Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T10:35:57.106Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Governance and Governmentality in Community Participation: The Shifting Sands of Power, Responsibility and Risk

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 October 2017

Steve Rolfe
Steve Rolfe*
Affiliation:
Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Stirling E-mail: steve.rolfe1@stir.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Community participation has become an essential element of government policy around the globe in recent decades. This move towards ‘government through community’ has been presented as an opportunity for citizens to gain power and as a necessary part of the shift from government to governance, enabling states and communities to tackle complex problems in tandem. However, it has also been critiqued as an attempt to shift responsibility from the state onto communities. Using evidence from detailed case studies, this article examines the implementation of Localism in England and Community Empowerment in Scotland. The findings suggest a need for a more nuanced analysis of community participation policy, incorporating risk alongside responsibility and power, as well as considering the agency of communities and the local state. Furthermore, understanding the constraints on community participation is key, particularly in terms of the enveloping impacts of austerity and state retrenchment.

Keywords

Localismcommunity empowermentcitizen participationgovernancegovernmentality
Type
Articles
Information
Social Policy and Society , Volume 17 , Issue 4 , October 2018 , pp. 579 - 598
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adam, B., Beck, U. and Van Loon, J. (eds.) (2000) Risk Society Revisited: Theory, Politics and Research Programmes, London: Sage.Google Scholar
Alexander, V., Thomas, H., Cronin, A., Fielding, J. and Moran-Ellis, J. (2008) ‘Mixed methods’, in Gilbert, N. (ed.), Researching Social Life, 3rd edn, London: Sage, 125–44.Google Scholar
Arnstein, S. (1969) ‘A ladder of citizen participation’, Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35, 4, 216–24.Google Scholar
Barnes, M., Bauld, L., Benzeval, M., Judge, K., Lawson, L., Mackenzie, M., Mackinnon, J., Matka, E., Meth, F., Sullivan, H. and Truman, J. (2003) National Evaluation of Health Action Zones: Final Report, London: Department of Health.Google Scholar
Batley, R. and Edwards, J. (1974) ‘The Urban Programme. A report on some programme funded projects’, British Journal of Social Work, 4, 3, 305–31.Google Scholar
Batty, E., Beatty, C., Foden, M., Lawless, P., Pearson, S. and Wilson, I. (2010) The New Deal for Communities Experience: A Final Assessment, London: Department for Communities and Local Government.Google Scholar
Beck, U. (1992) Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity, London: Sage.Google Scholar
Beetham, D., Blick, A. and Margetts, H. (2008) Power and Participation in Modern Britain, London: Democratic Audit.Google Scholar
Bulley, D. and Sokhi-Bulley, B. (2014) ‘Big Society as big government: Cameron's governmentality agenda’, British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 16, 3, 452–470.Google Scholar
Party, Conservative (2009) Control Shift - Returning Power to Local Communities - Policy Green Paper, London: Conservative Party.Google Scholar
Cooke, B. and Kothari, U. (eds.) (2001) Participation: The New Tyranny?, London: Zed books.Google Scholar
Daly, M. (2003) ‘Governance and social policy’, Journal of Social Policy, 32, 1, 113–28.Google Scholar
Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) (2010) Decentralisation and the Localism Bill - An Essential Guide, London: Department for Communities and Local Government.Google Scholar
Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) (2011) A Plain English Guide to the Localism Act, London: Department for Communities and Local Government.Google Scholar
Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) (2013) You've got the Power: A Quick and Simple Guide to Community Rights, London: Department for Communities and Local Government.Google Scholar
Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) (2017) Landmark 6,000 of Community Rights reached this Communities Week, London: Department for Communities and Local Government, https://www.gov.uk/government/news/landmark-6000-of-community-rights-reached-this-communities-week [accessed 18.08.2017].Google Scholar
de Graaf, L., van Hulst, M. and Michels, A. (2014) ‘Enhancing participation in disadvantaged urban neighbourhoods’, Local Government Studies, 41, 1, 44–62.Google Scholar
Dillon, D. and Fanning, B. (2011) Lessons for the Big Society: Planning, Regeneration and the Politics of Community Participation, Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Ferguson, Z. (2015) What is ‘the Scottish Approach’?, London: Alliance for Useful Evidence, http://www.alliance4usefulevidence.org/what-is-the-scottish-approach/?utm_source=Alliance+for+Useful+Evidence+Membersandutm_campaign=2b9413ff6d-Alliance_member_newsletter_July7_15_2015 [accessed 15.07.2015].Google Scholar
Flint, J. (2004) ‘Reconfiguring agency and responsibility in the governance of social housing in Scotland’, Urban Studies, 41, 1, 151–72.Google Scholar
Foucault, M. (1991) ‘Governmentality’, in Burchell, G., Gordon, C. and Miller, P. (eds.), The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 87–104.Google Scholar
Gilbert, N. and Gilbert, B. (1989) The Enabling State: Modern Welfare Capitalism in America, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gilchrist, A. and Taylor, M. (2011) The Short Guide to Community Development, Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
Gordon, C. (1991) ‘Governmental rationality: an introduction’, in Burchell, G., Gordon, C. and Miller, P. (eds.), The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1–52.Google Scholar
Green, J. and Chapman, A. (1992) ‘The British Community Development Project: lessons for today’, Community Development Journal, 27, 3, 242–58.Google Scholar
Hastings, A., Bailey, N., Bramley, G., Gannon, M. and Watkins, D. (2015a) The Cost of the Cuts: The Impact on Local Government and Poorer Communities, York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.Google Scholar
Hastings, A., Bailey, N., Gannon, M., Besemer, K. and Bramley, G. (2015b) ‘Coping with the cuts? The management of the worst financial settlement in living memory’, Local Government Studies, 41, 4, 601–21.Google Scholar
Hastings, A. and Matthews, P. (2014) ‘Bourdieu and the Big Society: empowering the powerful in public service provision?’, Policy and Politics, 43, 4, 545–60.Google Scholar
Huxley, K., Andrews, R., Downe, J. and Guarneros-Meza, V. (2016) ‘Administrative traditions and citizen participation in public policy: a comparative study of France, Germany, the UK and Norway’, Policy and Politics, 44, 3, 383–402.Google Scholar
Imrie, R. and Raco, M. (2003) ‘Community and the changing nature of urban policy’, in Imrie, R. and Raco, M. (eds.), Urban Renaissance? New Labour, Community and Urban Policy, Bristol: Policy Press, 3–36.Google Scholar
Keating, M. (2005) ‘Policy convergence and divergence in Scotland under devolution’, Regional Studies, 39, 4, 453–63.Google Scholar
Kennett, P., Jones, G., Meegan, R. and Croft, J. (2015) ‘Recession, austerity and the ‘great risk shift’: local government and household impacts and responses in Bristol and Liverpool’, Local Government Studies, 41, 4, 622–44.Google Scholar
Kooiman, J. (1999) ‘Social-political governance’, Public Management: An International Journal of Research and Theory, 1, 1, 67–92.Google Scholar
Kooiman, J. (2003) Governing as Governance, London: SageGoogle Scholar
Lowndes, V. and Pratchett, L. (2012) ‘Local governance under the Coalition government: austerity, localism and the ‘Big Society’’, Local Government Studies, 38, 1, 21–40.Google Scholar
Maloney, W., Smith, G. and Stoker, G. (2000) ‘Social capital and urban governance: adding a more contextualised ‘top-down perspective’’, Political Studies, 48, 4, 823–41.Google Scholar
McCulloch, A., Mohan, J. and Smith, P. (2013) Patterns of Social Capital, Voluntary Activity and Area Deprivation in England, Birmingham: Third Sector Research Centre.Google Scholar
McKee, K. (2011) ‘Sceptical, disorderly and paradoxical subjects: problematising the ‘will to empower’ in social housing governance’, Housing, Theory and Society, 28, 1, 1–18.Google Scholar
McKee, K. and Cooper, V. (2008) ‘The paradox of tenant empowerment: regulatory and liberatory possibilities’, Housing, Theory and Society, 25, 2, 132–46.Google Scholar
Moore, T. and McKee, K. (2014) ‘The ownership of assets by place-based community organisations: political rationales, geographies of social impact and future research agenda’, Social Policy and Society, 13, 4, 521–33.Google Scholar
Newman, J., Barnes, M., Sullivan, H. and Knops, A. (2004) ‘Public participation and collaborative governance’, Journal of Social Policy, 33, 2, 203–23.Google Scholar
Osborne, S. P. (2010) ‘Delivering public services: time for a new theory?’, Public Management Review, 12, 1, 1–10.Google Scholar
Peeters, R. (2013) ‘Responsibilisation on government's terms: new welfare and the governance of responsibility and solidarity’, Social Policy and Society, 12, 4, 583–95.Google Scholar
Pollitt, C. and Hupe, P. (2011) ‘Talking about government’, Public Management Review, 13, 5, 641– 58.Google Scholar
Public Services Commission (2011) Commission on the Future Delivery of Public Services Report (The Christie Commission Report), Edinburgh: Public Services Commission.Google Scholar
Raco, M. and Imrie, R. (2000) ‘Governmentality and rights and responsibilities in urban policy’, Environment and Planning A, 32, 12, 2187–204.Google Scholar
Rhodes, R., (1997) Understanding Governance: Policy Networks, Governance, Reflexivity and Accountability, Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
Rivas, M. G. (2014) ‘Decentralization, community participation, and improvement of water access in Mexico’, Community Development, 45, 2–16.Google Scholar
Rolfe, S. (2016) ‘Divergence in community participation policy: analysing localism and community empowerment using a theory of change approach’, Local Government Studies, 42, 1, 97– 118.Google Scholar
Rose, N. (1996) ‘The death of the social? Re-figuring the territory of government’, Economy and Society, 25, 3, 327–56.Google Scholar
Rose, N. (1999) The Powers of Freedom, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rose, N. and Miller, P. (2010) ‘Political power beyond the State: problematics of government’, British Journal of Sociology, 61, 271–303.Google Scholar
Scottish Government (2011) Renewing Scotland's Public Services: Priorities for Reform in Response to the Christie Commission, Edinburgh: Scottish Government.Google Scholar
Scottish Government (2014) Community Empowerment (Scotland) Bill: Policy Memorandum, Edinburgh: Scottish Government.Google Scholar
Scottish Government and COSLA (2009) Scottish Community Empowerment Action Plan - Celebrating Success: Inspiring Change, Edinburgh: Scottish Government.Google Scholar
Stewart, J. and Lithgow, S. (2015) ‘Problems and prospects in community engagement in urban planning and decision-making: three case studies from the Australian Capital Territory’, Policy Studies, 36, 1, 18–34.Google Scholar
Stoker, G. (1998) ‘Governance as theory: five propositions’, International Social Science Journal, 50, 17– 28.Google Scholar
Tarrow, S. (1994) Power in Movement: Social Movements, Collective Action and Mass Politics in the Modern State, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, M. (2007) ‘Community participation in the real world: opportunities and pitfalls in new governance spaces’, Urban Studies, 44, 2, 297–317.Google Scholar
Tulloch, J. and Lupton, D. (2003) Risk and Everyday Life, London: Sage.Google Scholar
United Nations (2016) Sustainable Development Goals, Geneva: United Nations, http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/# [accessed 10.07.2017].Google Scholar
Xiaojun, Y. and Ge, X. (2016) ‘Participatory policy making under authoritarianism: the pathways of local budgetary reform in the People's Republic of China’, Policy and Politics, 44, 2, 215–34.Google Scholar