New Spaces for Inclusion? Lessons from the ‘Three‐Thirds’ Partnerships in Wales

Abstract

Multi-sector partnership working has become an increasingly important mode of governance across many Western European countries. It is seen as a means of overcoming social divisions, promoting more inclusive policymaking, and transforming governance systems. Partnership is perceived to be a more flexible form of governance, capable of resolving some of the complex policy and legitimation problems associated with more traditional statist approaches, and thus preferable for the delivery of public policy and services. However, as previous research has shown, there is an emerging 'partnership crisis' with partnerships often failing to be sufficiently inclusive of representative interests, leading to a lack of legitimacy, equity and effectiveness. This article explores the unique approach to addressing the lack of balanced and effective representation in partnerships developed by the Welsh Assembly Government. The Assembly has adopted a formal approach to structuring key partnerships on the basis of strict equality of representation across the public, private and voluntary sectors -the so-called 'three-thirds principle'. This approach is conceptualized as a form of metagovernance whereby formal influence over partnership structures is being used in an effort to create institutional spaces for inclusion. The analysis indicates that while such network design does achieve improvement in partnership legitimacy, on its own it does not increase partnership effectiveness which remains constrained by the prevailing emphasis upon narrow, managerialist implementation agendas.

From government to governance…to meta-governance: a systematic literature review

“…This is quite evident when we look at the objective of democratic legitimacy. Screening the outcomes of several meta-governance studies, we found that meta-governance by no means automatically leads to more democratic governance (Bristow et al 2008;Evans 2007;Qvist 2017;Sørensen 2006). Sørensen (2006), for example, concludes that the way meta-governance is performed by local political leaders in Denmark weakens democracy at the local level, and Qvist (2017) concludes that increasing democratic legitimacy through stakeholder incorporation was not successful because in the end not many different stakeholders were included.…”

“…The relationships between the actors in the network and the form of interaction are not clear. In contrast, Bristow et al's (2008) and Vabo and Røiseland's (2012) previously mentioned meta-governance examples investigate clearly defined networks, i.e. EU Structural Fund Partnerships and local urban networks in which the network actors cooperate and develop policies together.…”

The role of academia in regional sustainability initiatives: Wales

“…The emphasis upon inclusive governance and the proliferation of partnership working in Wales has allowed voluntary groups, charities and NGOs, some of whom have a distinct sustainability remit, to participate in the policy process. However, these partnerships and other mechanisms for consultation often fail to engage with hard to reach groups or a wider constituency of community interests and views [3]. The Sustainable Development Forum for Wales, established in 2002, represents an attempt to mobilise civil society in the pursuit of sustainable development and does include academics amongst its board membership.…”

“…This reflected the powerful arguments advanced by advocates of the creation of the Assembly for broader engagement in the policy process, particularly with those from minority and previously excluded groups [2]. In practice, the emphasis upon inclusivity resulted in three distinctive developments in Wales: first, the emergence of formal partnership councils or forums for engagement with local government (the Partnership Council), the business community (the Business Partnership Council), and the voluntary sector (the Voluntary Sector Partnership Council); second, the proliferation of the partnership mode of governance across all policy areas within the Assembly's remit; and finally, the institution of the so-called 'three-thirds principle' of equal representation from the public, private and voluntary sectors on partnership structures [3]. It is notable that the HE (higher education) sector was not formally earmarked within this process as a strategic sector with whom to secure effective engagement, but is clearly embraced by the commitment to one-third public sector representation on local and regional partnerships across Wales.…”

Critical friend or absent partner? Institutional and organisational barriers to the development of regional civil society

“…A variety of research has now been carried out into civil society in Wales, primarily around how it is funded and the attributes of organisations it consists of (Bristow et al, 2008;Royles, 2006;Rumbul, 2012Rumbul, , 2013; however, very little academic literature has specifically examined the capacity of Welsh civil society to fully scrutinise the work of the governing institutions in Wales, namely the National Assembly for Wales (NAW) and the Welsh Government, since devolution. Unlike in Scotland, where the Constitutional Convention bound an already existing and interested civil society together with governing actors in the process of achieving devolution, Welsh civil society was somewhat less developed than in Scotland, and largely absent from the devolution conversation pre-1999 (Day, 2006).…”