Institutionalising Public Deliberation in Public Policy Agenda Setting

297 Pages·2014·2.2 MB·English

by  Adrian Bua

Institutionalising Public Deliberation in
Public Policy Agenda Setting: The Case of
the Sustainable Communities Act (2007)

Adrian Bua Roberts

Submitted in Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor in Politics
School of Political, Social and International Studies
Faculty of Arts and Humanities
University of East Anglia
June 2014

© This copy of the thesis has been supplied on condition that anyone who consults it is
understood to recognise that its copyright rests with the author and that use of any
information derived there-from must be in accordance with current UK Copyright Law. In
addition, any quotation or extract must include full attribution.
2

Abstract
The thesis argues that responsive governance can be achieved through institutions that
increase civic influence upon policy agendas. Participatory-deliberative processes (PDPs) are
understood to offer mechanisms for democratic responsiveness. However, the ways in the
outcomes of (PDPs) can be linked to policy making has received little attention, especially at
higher governance tiers. The thesis analyses a PDP set up to influence central government
policy agendas in the UK; the Sustainable Communities Act (SCA) (2007).The SCA was
selected for its analytically relevant features. It differs from other PDPs for a combination of
three reasons: (a) it was specifically designed to allow citizens to identify policy problems,
develop policy proposals and influence agendas; (b) it operated across governance levels,
connecting local participation to national policy development; and (c) it institutionalised a
link to the policy process. The thesis aims to evaluate the processes through which
proposals were developed and integrated within policy development, with a view to
assessing impacts upon ambitions for more responsive governance.

The analysis finds achievements such as the importance of reflexive agenda setting
processes that allow participants to explore and (re)define problems, as well as the
realisation of a form of responsiveness characterised by a deliberative, rather than a causal,
relation between input and output. However, modest achievements are marred by
important problems. First, proposal development processes were prone to ‘capture’ by the
political priorities of local authorities and interest group representatives. In this respect, the
analysis concludes that the SCA often resembled a ‘lobbying tool’ for local elites. Second,
when it came to integrating proposals within policy development, SCA proposals were
subsumed by the policy development, electoral and legislative cycles of representative
institutions. Such constraints are real, but not absolute, and can be mitigated through
institutional design. The thesis ends by making recommendations to this end.
3

Contents
Abstract ........................................................................................................................... 2
List of Tables, Charts and Diagrams ................................................................................... 7
Acknowledgements .......................................................................................................... 8
1. The Sustainable Communities Act: A Novel Democratic Innovation .......................... 10
1.1 The Origins of the SCA: ‘Ghost Town Britain’................................................................. 12
1.1.1 The Purpose of the SCA ........................................................................................................ 12
1.1.2 Local Works: Campaigning to Implement the SCA .............................................................. 14
1.1.3 The Design of the SCA .......................................................................................................... 16
1.2 The SCA’s Originality ...................................................................................................... 18
1.2.1 A Participatory-Deliberative Agenda-Setting Process .......................................................... 18
1.2.2 A Multi-level PDP ................................................................................................................. 20
1.2.3 A Statutorily Defined Link to Binding Decision .................................................................... 22
1.4 Outline of Thesis ............................................................................................................. 24
1.5 Summary of Findings and Argument .............................................................................. 26
1.5.1 Implications and Recommendations ................................................................................... 32
2. A Deliberative Analytical Framework .......................................................................... 35
2.1 Deliberative Democratic Theory: A Brief Introduction .................................................. 35
2.1.1 The Development of Deliberative Democratic Theory ........................................................ 36
2.2 Evaluating PDPs: ‘Who?’, ‘How?’ and ‘To What Effect?’ ............................................... 38
2.3 Who? .............................................................................................................................. 40
2.3.1 Objects of Representation ................................................................................................... 41
2.3.2 Participant Selection Methods ............................................................................................. 43
2.3.3 Representation, Participant Selection and Legitimacy in ‘Systemic’ Perspective ............... 47
2.4 How ................................................................................................................................ 47
2.4.1 Forms of Collaboration ........................................................................................................ 49
2.4.2 Communicative Inequalities and the Role of Facilitation .................................................... 55
2.5 To What Effect? .............................................................................................................. 57
2.5.1 Reflexivity and Responsiveness in Policy Making ................................................................ 58
2.5.2 ‘Transmission’, ‘Integration’ and ‘Mixed’ Forms ................................................................. 60
2.5.3 Relating Outcomes to Policy Development in the SCA: Key Themes .................................. 64
2.6 Summary ........................................................................................................................ 65
4

3. Research Design and Methods .................................................................................... 68
3.1 Why a Case Study Approach? ........................................................................................ 68
3.1.1 Generalisation and Depth of Understanding ....................................................................... 69
3.1.2 Why the SCA? ....................................................................................................................... 70
3.2 Casing and Sampling ....................................................................................................... 71
3.2.1’Casing’ .................................................................................................................................. 72
3.2.2 Sampling ............................................................................................................................... 77
3.3 Data Sources ................................................................................................................... 82
3.3.1 Semi-Structured Interviews ................................................................................................. 82
3.3.2 The SCA ‘Paper Trail’ ............................................................................................................ 88
3.4 Analysis Methods ........................................................................................................... 89
3.3.1 Interview Data: A Code and Retrieve Approach using NVIVO ............................................. 89
3.3.2 Qualitative Content Analysis of Government Response Document .................................... 94
3.5 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 97
4. An Overview of the First Round of the SCA .................................................................. 98
4.1 Local Works: Campaigning to Implement the SCA......................................................... 98
4.1.1 After the Bill Became the Act: Campaigning to Implement the SCA ................................... 99
4.1.2 The Prioritisation of Process Use and Impact over Quality ............................................... 103
4.2 Implementation at Local Level: An Overview .............................................................. 104
4.3 The LGA Selection Process ........................................................................................... 111
4.3.1 Developing Selection Criteria ............................................................................................. 112
4.3.2 An Outline of the Selection Process: July to December 2009 ............................................ 116
4.4 Try to Reach Agreement at National Level .................................................................. 119
4.4.1 The Try to Reach Agreement Process: A Short Description ............................................... 119
4.4.2 The Government Response: Proposals, Actions and Rationales ....................................... 121
4.5 Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 131
5. Representation and Participant Selection .................................................................. 133
5.1 Representing ‘The Local Community’ .......................................................................... 134
5.1.1 The ‘Local Area’ .................................................................................................................. 135
5.1.2 ‘Every Day People’ vs. the ‘Usual Suspects’ ....................................................................... 136
5.1.3 Locally Important Issues..................................................................................................... 139
5.1.4 Problems with Locality-based Constituencies?.................................................................. 141
5.2 Participant Selection Forms: Raising Ideas and the Constitution of Panels ................ 143
5

5.2.1 The SCA as a ‘Lobbying Tool’ .............................................................................................. 143
5.2.2 The ‘Mini-Public’ Approach: Descriptive Representativeness and Random Selection ...... 146
5.2.3 LSP-Based Panels ................................................................................................................ 149
5.2.4 Civil Society Representation .............................................................................................. 154
5.3 Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 158
6. Division of Labour and Collaboration ........................................................................ 163
6.1 Forms of Collaboration ................................................................................................. 164
6.1.1 The SCA as a ‘Lobbying Tool’: Minimal Participation ......................................................... 165
6.1.2 Serialised Collaboration ..................................................................................................... 166
6.1.3 Iterative and Convergent Collaboration 1: ‘Expert-Elite Problem Solving’ ........................ 170
6.1.4 Iterative and Convergent Collaboration 2: ‘Analytic-Deliberative’ Type Approaches ....... 173
6.2 Power Asymmetries and the Role of Facilitation in Local Panels ................................ 178
6.2.1 What Should Facilitators Do? ............................................................................................. 179
6.2.2 Facilitating ‘Deliberative-Analytic’ Problem Definition ...................................................... 181
6.2.3 A Different Approach to Understanding Facilitation? ....................................................... 185
6.3 Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 189
7. To What Effect: The SCA and Policy Development. .................................................... 191
7.1 The ‘Fine Line’ Walked by the LGA: Process and Substance Criteria ........................... 192
7.1.1 Substance Criteria .............................................................................................................. 194
7.1.2 Process Criteria .................................................................................................................. 198
7.1.3 Selection Process Problems ............................................................................................... 201
7.2 The ‘Try to Reach Agreement’ Process ........................................................................ 201
7.2.1 Operationalising the ‘Try to Reach Agreement’ Process ................................................... 202
7.2.2. The SCA and Whitehall: Bureaucratic Processes and Interdepartmental Politics. ........... 208
7.2.3 Extant Agendas .................................................................................................................. 211
7.2.4 Generating ‘Motivation’: Countervailing Power and Deliberative Activism ...................... 212
7.3 Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 216
8. Conclusion ................................................................................................................ 219
8.1 Elite Control and Participation Bias .............................................................................. 219
8.2 How? Collaboration and Division of Labour ................................................................ 224
8.3 To What Effect: Reflexivity and Responsiveness ......................................................... 226
8.4 Discussion and Recommendations: Democratising Agenda Setting through PDPs .... 230
8.4.1 Intrinsic Problems .............................................................................................................. 231
6

8.4.2 Rules and Regulations ........................................................................................................ 232
8.4.3 Redesign: Are Local Authorities and Whitehall the Appropriate ‘home’ for the SCA? ..... 236
8.4.4 Generating Motivation: Countervailing Power and Deliberative Activism ........................ 240
8.5 Closing Summary .......................................................................................................... 243
Appendices .................................................................................................................. 248
Item 1: Example of Sheffield Proposal Form ...................................................................... 248
Item 2: Coding Dictionary for Content Analysis of Response Document .......................... 259
Item 3: SCA Regulations ..................................................................................................... 263
Abbreviations ............................................................................................................... 266
List of Interviews .......................................................................................................... 267
References ................................................................................................................... 270
7

List of Tables, Charts, Graphs and Diagrams

Table 1: : Binary Categorical Matrix of Openness and Collaboration Measures. .................... 77
Table 2: Sampling Results. ...................................................................................................... 80
Table 3: Process Descriptions in Four Local Councils. ........................................................... 107
Table 4: Origins of Selection Process Criteria ........................................................................ 116
Table 5: Instances and Percentages of Selector Panel Rejection Rationales ........................ 118
Table 6: Government Rationales for Legislation or Direct Action ‘Despite’ Proposal ........... 126
Table 7: Government Rationale for Advisory Process ‘Despite’ Request .............................. 127
Table 8: Government Rationale for ‘Inspired By’ Invite / Advise Responses ........................ 128
Table 9: Government Rationale for Advisory Process ‘Inspired by’ Request ........................ 129
Table 10: Examples of Proposal Policy Outcomes and Rationales ........................................ 204

Chart 1: Type of Actions Committed to by Government ....................................................... 123
Chart 2: Relation of Action Types to Requests ...................................................................... 124

Graph 1: Percentage of Actions ‘Inspired by Request’ per Action Type: .............................. 125

Diagram 1: The SCA Double Devolution Process ..................................................................... 17
Diagram 2 Diagram 2 Serialised Process Illustration: the BCCA. ............................................. 50
Diagram 3: Iterative Process Illustration: UK Community Planning. ....................................... 52
Diagram 4: Convergent Process Illustration: Deliberative Mapping ....................................... 54
Diagram 5: Proposal Selection Process. ................................................................................. 116
8

Acknowledgements

I have received much support and encouragement from a great many people over the past
few years. I should begin by thanking my respondents, without your participation the study
would not have been possible. At the UEA, I would firstly like to thank my supervisors Scott
Wright and John Street. I am very grateful for the advice and guidance you have provided
throughout. I would also like to thank Heather Savigny and Scott Wright for introducing the
possibility of doctoral studies. This was something that had not crossed my mind before,
and there were times in this process at which I felt that your encouragement had been a
mixed blessing, but am very grateful for it. I also had the opportunity to meet some great
people whilst at the UEA, Stephen Greasley offered important advice and PhD colleagues at
the School of Political, Social and International Studies provided a friendly working
environment. Finally, friends from other departments and institutions such as Carlos Rengifo
and Fabio Galeotti, I enjoyed our ‘activities’, playing football and sharing ‘a few’ beers, as
well as Oliver Escobar, your enthusiasm for participatory democracy is infectious.

Prior to beginning the research, I greatly enjoyed working with colleagues at ‘Local Works’
and ‘Unlock Democracy’ on the campaign to implement the Sustainable Communities Act. I
thank you for the opportunity to become acquainted with this fascinating case, and your
interest and support since then. I am also lucky to have some great friends in the UK, Spain
and Galicia, who knew me before, and I met during, the PhD bubble I have been in for these
past few years. You are too many to list but you know who you are. Although some of our
distractions may have prolonged finishing the thesis, you have given advice and helped to
take my mind off things when I needed to – thank you all, gracias a todos, grazas meu!

Regarding my family, words will always fall short of fully conveying my gratitude to my
mother, Nicky, and her beloved husband, my step-father, Andrew. Thank you for your
indefatigable support. Unfortunately, my father, Jose Luis, passed away as I put the finishing
touches to this thesis. I will always remember our conversations about life, music as well as
politics. Our conversations provided that seed of interest that has grown into the pursuit of
a career in political science – my musical abilities left me no other option! It’s a great pity
that you are not with me to see the end of this project, but you live on in my mind, and of
9

those very many people who love you. Daniel Bua, my brother, my sister in law, Vanessa,
and my nieces and nephew Rhi, Leo and (soon to arrive!) Mia. I look forward to sharing a
long and happy family life with you. The same goes for all my other beloved family members
and friends in the UK and Spain.

Finally, I owe a deep debt of gratitude to Ana, my partner and soul-mate during the time I
carried out this research. You were extraordinarily supportive throughout. Words just do
not cut it, but I am very grateful.

Junto a mi padre, este trabajo te lo dedico a ti.
10

1. The Sustainable Communities Act: A Novel
Democratic Innovation

Democratic governance does not consist just in the
powers of citizen election or majority decision, but in the
continuous flow of information between governors and
the governed.
Paul Hirst (1994: 20).

In his seminal work Democracy and its Critics, Dahl (1989: 337-338) expressed the important
concern that the ‘growing gap that separates the policy elites from the demos’ may lead to
‘grafting of the symbols of democracy to the de facto guardianship of the policy elites’.
Towards the end of the twentieth century this preoccupation incited a ‘revival of interest in
the study of democracy’ (Shapiro 2003: 2). Spearheaded by scholars seeking to find new
ways in which civic participation in political life could be increased and improved (Pateman
1970; Habermas 1984; Barber 2003), these developments have not been limited to
academic debate but have also been reflected in democratic practice. Over recent decades
there has been widespread experimentation with new political institutions aiming to
develop a more democratic and co-operative division of labour between the demos and
political elites (Smith 2005; Fischer 2009). Thus, ‘democratic innovations’ (Smith 2009),
‘collaborative governance’ (Ansell and Gash 2007) and ‘participatory-deliberative processes’
(Hoppe 2010) have proliferated throughout the world (Fung and Warren 2011) seeking to
increase the influence of citizens and other non-state actors over the development of policy
or the management of public resources in a variety of policy areas.

Advocates of these institutions argue that they offer great potential to both ‘deepen’
democracy and improve policy making (Fung and Wright 2003; Fung 2006). However, our
knowledge of these, especially when compared to those traditional institutions which have
formed the ‘bread and butter’ of democratic theory and political science for most of the 20th
century (see e.g. Norris 2008), is relatively shallow (Fung and Warren 2011). One approach
has sought to evaluate these processes and establish the different contributions to