Participatory budgeting (PB), a process whereby governments seek direct input from citizens into financial decisions, is gaining a foothold in the community engagement practices of Australian local governments. Following questions of definition, we survey the theoretical terrain, locating PB within several components of local democracy. We then provide details of six PB processes in New South Wales, Victoria, and Western Australia. We identify several questions for the future of PB in Australian local governments, including the role of deliberative practices as part of the broader work of councils, the issue of the adaptability of councils and leaders, the impacts upon state and local governments, and the role of third parties. The article concludes by reflecting on how PB sits with democratic practices at the local level if it continues to be implemented.
Participatory governance practices are enjoying popularity, not least in local government.Councils are encouraging communities to be involved in local decision-making on a multitude of issues. This popularity is driven by legislative environments that require local governments to undertake some of these processes, and also by communities and practitioners-parties that derive income from participatory governance. An industry is emerging: one characterised by the market imperatives of demand and supply, with frameworks, strategies and processes, staff, training courses and conferences. This industry warrants investigation so its impacts upon local democracy can be understood. Following a theorisation of local democracy and community engagement, the paper describes the community engagement industry, presenting evidence about council activities, providers and professional associations to establish that the commercialisation of engagement is a significant phenomenon in Australian local government. It then discusses the possible risks to local governance and local democracy.
Community engagement has assumed a more salient role in the operations of Australia’s local governments. A vast number of legislative instruments and reporting requirements are imposed upon local governments by the states and the Northern Territory across Australia’s seven local government jurisdictions. Consequently, a set of identifiable practices is solidifying as a core element of local government practice and state–local relations. However, while practices have recently proliferated, it is easy to forget that they are relatively new. This article examines the legislative frameworks of Australian local government systems by chronologically mapping the development of legislation and other reporting requirements. It is argued that community engagement now occupies a central place in local government, and that the jurisdictions use four different types of approaches, often simultaneously, which can fruitfully be described as ‘prescriptive’, ‘aspirational’, ‘empowering’ and ‘hedging’. The discussion draws comparative observations and identifies key issues and challenges for the future of community engagement. KeywordsCommunity engagement; Australia; local government; public participation; legislation
Public input into decision-making through participatory and deliberative democratic practices has become a widely accepted and legislated responsibility of Australian local governments. At any one time, councils are leading submission processes, workshops and online surveys on a multitude of projects, ranging from long-term community strategic plans to public art projects. The increase in these practices has been exponential, leaving little time for critical reflection. The lack of empirical data to illustrate how community engagement is understood and practised in different councils has hindered sector-wide reflection. This paper presents the findings of the 'Local Government Community Engagement Census', a survey of 175 councilsapproximately half from four of Australia's eastern states. This sectoral snapshot provides a picture of how councils understand, prioritise and practise community engagement, allowing critical reflection, an interpretation of implications and suggesting areas for future research.
An increase in community engagement by governments across Australia's three-tiered federal polity conforms to international trends. It represents a multi-dimensional institutionalisation of participatory democracy designed to involve the public in decisionmaking. Increasingly, it is a practice which displays the markers of professionalisation, including (self-described) professionals, professional associations and a code of ethics. The individuals who design, communicate and facilitate community engagement are placed in a unique position. Whereas most professions claim to serve both their client or employer and a greater public good, community engagement practitioners play these roles while also claiming to serve as 'guardians' of democratic processes. Yet the claimed professionalisation of community engagement is raising some questions: Is community engagement really a professionand by what criteria ought this be assessed? What tensions do community engagement practitioners face by 'serving multiple masters', and how do they manage these? More pointedly, how can ethics inform our understanding of community engagement and its professionalisation? This paper examines the case for the practice of community engagement as a profession using Noordegraaf's (2007) pillars of pure professionalism as a guide. It then explores some practical examples of the tensions practitioners may experience. The paper concludes by reflecting on the future direction of community engagement given its positioning.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.