Partnership or Presence? Exploring the Complexity of Community Planning

Abstract

Partnership working between the public, private and third sectors is a defining feature of the contemporary local public policy landscape in the UK. Community Planning Partnerships (CPPs) in Scotland involve representatives from different sectors working in partnership, led by the relevant local authority. CPPs resemble local governance reforms elsewhere in the UK and encounter similar problems, among which are difficulties in successfully integrating voluntary sector organisations. This article draws upon research which explored the influence of voluntary sector participants in relation to community planning processes at the strategic, managerial and operational levels. It examines the suspicion that voluntary sector representatives have a 'mere presence rather than a voice' in local policy-making (Cameron, S. & Davoudi, S. (1998) Combating social exclusion -looking in or looking out?, in: G. Madaanipour et al. (Eds) Social Exclusion in European Cities, pp. 250 (London: Jessica Kingsley), and explores the potential contribution of complexity theory to interpret the relationships involved in local partnerships. It is concluded that voluntary sector participants are junior partners in CP and have to adapt how to operate and convince the leading public sector partners that they are business-like in order to exert influence.

The Community Empowerment Act and localism under devolution in Scotland

“…This mirrors the findings from elsewhere that staff training is needed in order to support effective community empowerment (Adamson and Bromiley 2013). In the latest update to the National Standards for Community Engagement the emphasis on development and training had been somewhat diluted so that where once there had been a commitment that is frequently noted that developing capacity in leadership, governance and partnership working is very difficult (Sullivan et al, 2006;Sinclair, 2011). The Community Empowerment Act 2015 does not take account of these challenges and does not put systems in place to further support the capacity of communities to become more empowered.…”

Local government reform: Community planning and the quality of life in Northern Ireland

“…The experience of Great Britain offers significant learning for Northern Ireland. Pemberton & Lloyd (2008& 2011, for example, noted that the reality of partnership working was much more complex than anticipated and that there were real difficulties in securing integration of public services and activities. Sinclair (2008Sinclair ( & 2011; see also Cowell, 2004) identified tensions in reconciling partnership working with local authority leadership: between community planning as an additional or core duty of public agencies; between community engagement and the practical demands of policymaking; and between central government direction and local partnership autonomy.…”

Exploring the Pathologies of One-Party-Dominance on Third Sector Public Policy Engagement in Liberal Democracies: Evidence from Meso-Government in the UK

“…In definitional terms, this paper follows existing research practice (Casey 2004) using the umbrella term 'third sector' to refer to the principal collective signifiers associated with non-government advocacy and service organisations (including, 'voluntary sector', 'civil society' and 'non-profit sector'). As a burgeoning literature confirms, power inequalities in the state-third sector nexus are amongst the principal barriers to reaping sought-after democratizing benefits (Schwartz 2001;Kendall 2009;Sinclair 2011). In this electoral politics play a pivotal, if frequently overlooked role.…”