Centre for Local & Regional Government Research Small country governance and public service delivery: Central-local.

Centre for Local & Regional Government Researchwww.cardiff.ac.uk/carbs/research/groups/clrgr

Small country governance andpublic service delivery:Central-local relations in Wales

Steve Martin, Valeria Guarneros-Meza, Tom Entwistle and James Downe

CONFERENCE ON SMALL COUNTRIES AND THE GLOBAL CRISIS 1ST JULY 2009


Small country governanceWelsh style

‘Collaboration and efficiency’

‘Citizen at the centre’

‘Central-local partnership’

Joined up Government


Voice not choice

Consumer model (England)Multiple providers compete for users to secure future viabilityConsumers choose between providers thereby driving up quality

Citizen model (Wales)Monopoly suppliers collaborate across boundariesCitizens informed and engaged to ensure services meet needs


The Welsh way

Close knit policy community

Localism – recognition of local democratic mandate

Strong informal links between local government leaders and ministers

Partnership council

Lack of policy capacity in fledgling devolved administration

Cohesive local government lobby

Non hypothecated funding

Lack of ‘hard edged’ performance management – WPI

(Laffin 2004; Greer 2004; Jeffrey 2006)


Evidence

Sent to all 22 authorities308 heads of 15 services323 executive members and scrutiny committee chairs

Response rates46% officers (all except Newport)22% members (all except Denbighshire)

Seven point Lickert scales 1=‘strongly disagree’ to 7=‘strongly agree’


Partnership rationales

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Joined up servicedelivery

Engagestakeholders

Driven by WAGrequirements

Access governmentfunding

Reduce costs


Main partners

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Other authorities

Other public

Voluntary/community

Business

Community/towncouncils


Engagement rationales

0 20 40 60 80 100

WAG encourages us to

Always done it

Enhance council's legitimacy

Strengthen social cohesion

Residents/users demand it

To improve services


Engagement with?

0 20 40 60 80 100

Ethnic minority groups

Community groups

Voluntary sector

User representatives

Users


Engagement methods

0 20 40 60 80 100

Deliberative approaches

Public meetings

Neighbourhood forums

Consultation

Complaint procedures

Providing information


Central-local relations


Important to my service

0 20 40 60 80 100

WAG policies

UK Government

EU policies


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Corporate

Dem Serv

Education

Finance

Housing

HR

Libraries

Planning

Public Protection

Regeneration

Social care adults

Social care children

Sport & recreation

Transport

Waste

Good relationship with WAG

66% officers47% members


Different parts of WAG seem to have conflicting policies

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Corporate

Dem Serv

Education

Finance

Housing

HR

Libraries

Planning

Public Protection

Regeneration

Social care adults

Social care children

Sport & recreation

Transport

Waste

Joined up government


Advantages Drawbacks

Constitutional autonomy

Local contextsMore ‘democratic’Low costs of

regulation

Capacity problemsReinvent wheelInequalities

Command and control

EquityAccountabilityExternal challenge

Insensitive to local variation

Costs of enforcementPolicy silos

Collaboration and negotiation

Clear division of rolesPlays to strengthsAvoids conflict

CosinessTransactions costsLack of transparency

Competition and contracting

Incentives to performInnovationTransparency

Style over substanceBidding costsUncertainty


Policymaking

Practice Performance Funding

Autonomy LAs free to make policy in clearly defined jurisdictions

LAs free to determine practice

Targets set locally, local performance monitoring

LAs control income and spending

Command CG makes policy with little meaningful consultation

CG attempts to control practice through guidelines and regulation

CG determines priorities and standards and monitors performance

CG controls income and expenditure (capping, ring-fencing, specific grants)

Collaboration

LAs have significant influence on policy objectives and/or instruments

CG helps councils to tackle practical problems

Negotiated national plus local targets. Joint monitoring of performance

Income and expenditure negotiated

Competition

LAs compete to influence the policy making process

LAs compete for recognition for best practice/innovation

Explicit comparisons with rewards and sanctions

LAs bid for challenge funding and other specific grants


0 20 40 60 80 100

Allows us to work outhow to deliver

Develops policy inpartnership

Willing to collaborate

Compete to be heard

Focus on nationalpriorities

Lots of restrictions

Strong pressure toachieve national targets


Policy Practice Performance

Funding

Mean

Autonomy 3.42 3.73 2.89 2.58 3.15

Command 3.95 4.47 4.06 4.66 4.29

Collaboration

3.84 3.15 4.68 2.44 3.53

Competition

4.77 4.47 4.09 3.77 4.28


0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Autonomy Collaboration Competition Command


Command EducationSocial services childrenTransportWaste

Competition CorporateSport and recreation

Collaboration Democratic ServicesFinance

Autonomy HRRegeneration


My service is under strong pressure from WAG to achieve national targets

0 20 40 60 80 100

CorporateDem ServEducation

FinanceHousing

HRLibrariesPlanning

Public ProtectionRegeneration

Social care adultsSocial care children

Sport & recreationTransport

Waste


WAG places a lot of restrictions in my service

0 20 40 60 80 100


FinanceHousing

HRLibrariesPlanning




Waste


WAG provides clear guidance about what it expects from my service

0 20 40 60 80 100


FinanceHousing

HRLibrariesPlanning




Waste


Many central-local relations not one approach

Variations between servicesBy policy, practice, performance, funding

Rhetoric of central-local partnership not reflected in most respondents’ perceptions

Perceived lack of joined up government across Assembly Government departments, activities, initiatives and funding regimes

What ‘works’, where and for whom?

Interim conclusions

Centre for Local & Regional Government Research Small country governance and public service delivery: Central-local.

Documents

government slide

local government leaders

local performance

local targets

centrallocal relations

service slide

needs slide

specific grants slide