Outsourcing local democracy? Evidence for and implications of the commercialisation of community engagement in Australian local government

Abstract

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.

The Doctors of Democracy: Self-Image and Democratic Values of Participatory Practitioners

“…Even though the central role of PPP is often mentioned in participatory literature (e.g., Christensen & Grant 2020;Elstub & Escobar 2017), studies that have analyzed PPP in depth are limited. Some authors have investigated the increasing professionalization and commercialization of public participation.…”

“…formal networks, conferences or professional associations) but they interpret these indicators of professionalization as a development of a ' community of practice' than a commercialized and competitive marketplace (Hendriks & Carson 2008: 304). More recently, Christensen and Grant (2020) have discussed the ' outsourcing of local democracy' in Australia more critically in terms of commercialization, standardization and capacity. Chilvers' (2007: 14) study of the UK participatory sector also reports a massive increase of participatory services and an ' emerging ' advisory culture.'…”

“…PPPs act on behalf of a sponsor or client as service providers delivering the good of public participation in an increasingly competitive sector (Bherer et al 2017b). The outsourcing of the organization and facilitation of public participation endows PPP with a powerful role since they are shaping the actual 'practice of democracy' (Cooper & Smith 2012: 4; see also Christensen & Grant 2020). Unlike other government consultants, PPP are processual experts rather than policy experts (Hendriks & Carson 2008).…”

Legislating deliberative engagement: Is local government in Victoria willing and able?

“…In Australia, although there have been several incremental reforms embracing participatory and deliberative procedures over the past two decades, principally through strategic planning instruments legislated by state governments for their local governments (see Grant & Drew, 2017, pp. 217–264) alongside heightened support for the practices of deliberation in the for‐profit and not‐for‐profit sectors (see Christensen & Grant, 2020; IAP2 2019; newDemocracy n.d.), deliberative practice has been implemented on an ad hoc basis. To date, there have not been the government reforms that systematically institutionalise democratic innovations or modernise the government–citizen relationship, such as those that have been pursed in other countries (see, e.g.…”

“…Although there is interest in the practice, questions remain regarding what how the practice is to be developed and embedded in government institutions (see, e.g. Christensen & Grant, 2020).…”