Upload
others
View
2
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Reviving regional
cities/towns: The case
for catalytic innovation
Danish Board of Technology Conference on
Participatory Local Government and Digit
Methods
September, 2016
Janette Hartz-KarpCurtin University
Sustainability Policy (CUSP) Institute
Public Value
What is your contribution to the
Common Good?
The goal of the private sector is to create private (economic) value.
The goal of government agencies is to “create public (social) value”
Moore and Khagram, 2004
Social capital becomes weaker
Public and officials feel
disaffected and more distrustful
Concern and/or opportunity
Experts/ officials analyze data,
devise solutions/plans
Officials consult stakeholders/
interested others on plansExperts/ officials
review plans, adjust or retain
Officials try to implement plans
but they are resisted
Officials finalize plans, public is
formally informed
Fundamental cause of
problem:
Reliance on Power Over
(Advocacy)
TRADITIONAL COMMUNITY CONSULTATION“Fixes that Fail” (Vicious Cycle)“
© Janette Hartz-Karp and Rob Weymouth
From Involved to Committed
Democratic Assumptions ChartFROM TO
Assumption: selected representatives, technocrats and experts should make
the decisions, hence:
Action; Officials frame the issue.
Data is analysed, often with ‘expert’ advice. Officials devise solution(s) shaped
by risks, costs, political ideology.
Assumption: everyday people have the capacity to collaboratively resolve tough
issues, hence:
Action; Officials determine how decision-making power is best shared in this case.
Assumption: the public is disinterested, self interested and/or ill informed, so
public is unlikely to add value to the policy or decisions, hence:
Action; Officials consult/inform and listen to stakeholders, experts and
interested others to discern expert views and public opinion.
Efforts are made to inform/educate and to invite people to: “have your say”.
Assumption: resolving complex issues requires diverse viewpoints, egalitarian
deliberation and commitment to the outcomes being influential, hence:
Action; The broad public is given opportunities to frame the issue, suggest ideas,
develop discourses, and create possible options, providing a clearer idea of the
‘public will’ on this issue.
Assumption: Since proper process has been implemented, expert opinion
considered and public opinion canvassed, the community will comply, hence:
Action; Inputs contrary to the government will, are seen to be largely
unhelpful; officials may modify the solution to mollify, or keep it ‘as is’.
Plans are finalised and officials formally advise the public.
Assumption: Deliberative, collaborative governance will enable wiser, more
implementable decisions, with the capacity to be reflexive, hence:
Action; Mini publics are convened to deliberate the issue– a microcosm of the
population is comprehensively informed, consider different viewpoints, exchange
reasons, explore values and options, assess options, search for common ground
and develop recommendations.
Assumption: with education/PR/information, the public will see the wisdom
of the government solution, accept it and move on.
Action: Decisions continue to be made the same top-down way i.e. using
power over.
Assumption: if the public feels involved throughout it is more likely to co-own and
co-enact solutions
Action: Decisions as to the pathway forward are made collaboratively with the
broader public, i.e. using power with.
RESULTS
If Plans are Implemented, or are delayed, not implemented or are ineffective
Public feels unheard, disaffected and/or angry.
Officials think public is self interested, or un/misinformed. Public resists
implementation. Officials defend it. Assumptions are reinforced.
RESULTS
If Plans are Implemented and Effective.
The new assumptions are reinforced.
If Plans are delayed, not Implemented or ineffective.
Negative public outcry is mitigated since it was their fellow citizens who
deliberated and decided.
Social capital becomes stronger
Increased reciprocity and trust between
public and officials
Concern and/or opportunity
‘Public will’ reframes and co-creates options,
preferences
‘Mini public’ deliberates and
recommends ways forward ‘Mini public’
outcomes influence
decision-making
Officials and public co-create
and co-enact implementation
Public remains involved to finalize
and disseminate plans
High leverage
intervention:
Reliance on Power With
(Deliberativeness)
PARTICIPATORY SUSTAINABILITY - DELIBERATIVE DEMOCRA CY“A new technology of cooperation” (Virtuous Cycle)
© Janette Hartz-Karp and Rob Weymouth
Catalytic Innovation
Bringing about through social change through
scaling and replication
that breaks apart previous arrangements
of who gets what and
creates a new value network
public value
that values the contribution of cooperation.
Catalytic Innovation to realise
Public Value through Cooperation
Scaling and Repetition
1. Pioneering new ‘technologies' of collaboration to be
able to deal with complexity – Scaling-up
2. Broadening the co-ownership of problems and co-
creation of solution(s), across sectors geographic
borders – Scaling- out
3. When challenges arise that need the considered co-
ownership of the people, consistently applying
collaborative, deliberative governance to resolve them
© Janette Hartz-Karp and Rob Weymouth
Building up grass roots participation• Volunteer community ‘champions’ trained to have conversations
that matter/dialogue and deliberation with local people
• Participant random sampling throughout all public deliberations
to maximise diversity, often working in tandem with stakeholders
(government agency staff, community groups and
businesses/corporate groups)
• Providing opportunities for social groups to suggest projects and
develop them both online and face-to-face, then for co-decisional
prioritisation and fast tracking through to implementation
• Spin-off – Pollinators, a members based social enterprise that
aims to grow thriving regional communities while remaining
financially resilient. Their mission is to nurture innovations and
people that enable healthy, resilient communities; and CityHive –
a motivating and inspiring space to share skills and create new
knowledge
Adopting ABCD Principles
• Success is an inside job. Meaningful and lasting change
comes from within.
• People act responsibly when they support & care about
what they create. There is no power greater than a
community discovering what it cares about
• Social connectedness & building relationships - critical.
• Focus on community and resident resources, capacities,
strengths and aspirations, instead of dwelling on needs,
deficiencies & problems.
• A community’s strength is directly proportional to the
contribution of its people’s abilities and assets towards
the wellbeing of the community.
Maintaining the
“Gero Feel’
Geothermal and SolarPool Heating & Art Gallery
Implementation – Joint Priorities for Action
Solar power on
City buildings
Deliberative Democracy
Designing Our City Forum
Precinct PlanningRangeway-Utakarra-KarlooSunset Beach
RUK Parks GangPark Improvements PB
Building up government’s willingness
to find opportunities for power ‘with’
• Regular interaction with elected Council to elicit their agreement on the level of influence each deliberation will have
• Inviting the Mayor and Council representatives to be on each of the Independent Review Groups
• Inviting elected Council members to attend all public deliberations as observers
• Involving City administration management and staff in all deliberations as support team members or ‘expert witnesses’
• Finding opportunities for government to recognise and celebrate successes and continually learn and improve
The Community Sets the Agenda
Macro level changes
• Land use planning now geared towards
sustainable development;
• Attitudinal change in favour of population
growth;
• A global view – thinking beyond Gero;
• More empowered people participation
Participatory BudgetingA democratic process that entrusts
citizens to decide how to allocate part of
a budget that affects them
(usually around 10% of the budget)
Participatory Budgeting
of 100% of the budget
(infrastructure + operational)
• People’s Panel (35 – 40 participants) randomly selected
so they are representative of the population
demographics.
• Prior agreement by decision makers (elected and
administrative) of the influence of the
recommendations – public commitment to
transparency and accountability.
• Official presentation of recommendations by Panelists
to Council; public response by Council; and follow up
with communication and implementation by the City.
The PB ProcessUnderstanding the territory
1. Background briefing; 2. Local government budgeting briefing; understanding the current range and level of services, 3. Understanding deliberation and establishing 'rules of engagement‘.
Deeper learning phaseListening, 'cross examining experts' and collaborative learning ;
a) from the broader public, b) from experts (both City and community) and c) from each other.
Deliberating phase1. Determining the values that should underlie CGG's budgeting system; 2. Creating criteria based on those values; 3. Weighting the criteria, and 4. Using them to assess the services to determine their range and level given all
things learned.
Recommending and Report writing phaseCollaboratively developing recommendations for the Final Report documenting the proceedings and outcomes, and 'signing off' on both.
© Ja
ne
tte H
artz-K
arp
an
d R
ob
We
ym
ou
th
Unexpected Impacts
Staff Challenges and vulnerability
Shared ownership
Unexpected Impacts
PB Criteria: Example of Deliberative Turn –
Talk as decision-procedure….
CRITERIA A CLARIFICATION/WORDINGCommunity benefit
compared to the financial
cost
Who will it benefit?
• whole population?
• disadvantaged groups?
• special interest groups?
• seniors?
• young people?
• future generations?
Supports future population
retention and growth while
maintaining affordable
living
Supporting population growth and retention balanced with
affordable living and encouraging diverse employment (including
but not limited to: sport, culture, arts, technology, innovation,
education, ecotourism and environmental recreation).
Unexpected Impacts
Effect on Councillors
Experiences of the Panelists
Increases in Trust resulting from
influential, inclusive public deliberation
© Rob Weymouth and Janette Hartz-Karp
Changing our assumptions
about citizens• The key regional developer became one of our
most thoughtful panellists about the ‘good of the people’.
• The satellite town of Mullewa and the disadvantaged of the City were highly supported.
• The staunchest opponent of the budget was selected for the Panel but did not exercise undue influence.
Changing the way we work….
• Unprecedented level of staff involvement
across the organisation.
• Accountability and transparency in decision
making.
• More rigorous and accessible information
available to the public.
• High quality public deliberation is the norm.
100% Capital Works (10 year) Participatory Budgeting Panel and Support Group
100% Operational Budget (14/15) Participatory Budgeting Panel and Support Group
www.cgg.wa.gov.au/major-projects/changes-cgg-community
The democratic benefits of a public value approach
a particularly significant in communities
experiencing stress due to rapid social change of
crisis from economic downturns. These
communities are more likely to survive and adapt if
they are able to built a strong sense of social
solidarity and cohesion.
We can best achieve this by integrating empowered
participatory methods, including deliberative
democracy, participatory budgeting and
empowered community development.