Davies, Jonathan S.. (2007) The limits of partnership : an exit-action strategy for local democratic inclusion. Political Studies, Vol.55 (No.4). pp. 779-800. ISSN 0032-3217

Preview

PDF WRAP_Davies_limits_partnership_0770216-lb-150611-ssrn-id1810882.pdf - Accepted Version - Requires a PDF viewer such as GSview, Xpdf or Adobe Acrobat Reader Download (407Kb)

Abstract

The challenge of enhancing the `democratic anchorage' of partnerships has become a central concern in policy studies. Radical reform proposals designed to level the deliberative playing field include community veto powers and the appointment of neutral arbiters. Welcome as they would be, however, it is questionable whether such reforms would overcome power asymmetries in the partnership arena. A study of the local politics of social inclusion in two UK cities, Dundee and Hull, suggests that managerialism, driven by national governments, is eroding the prospects for partnership democratisation. But more significantly for the reformist agenda, public managers and community activists think in incompatible frames about the role of partnerships and in ways that are not understood by the other party. Non-communication undermines the prospects for an equitable democratic consensus. Insights from Bourdieu suggest that even in environments more favourable to equitable democratic discourse than those in Dundee and Hull, subtle manifestations of power in culture, discourse and bearing would undermine the potential for a Habermasian consensus between radically unequal actors. In a radical departure from the network governance paradigm, it is therefore argued that empowerment may depend less on enhanced network democracy than on strong independent community organisation capable of acting separately and coercively against governing institutions and elites - an exit-action strategy. These preliminary conclusions point to a substantial research agenda on the politics of the state-civil society nexus.

Item Type:	Journal Article
Subjects:	J Political Science > JS Local government Municipal government
Divisions:	Faculty of Social Sciences > Warwick Business School > International Centre for Governance & Public Management Faculty of Social Sciences > Warwick Business School
Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH):	Dundee (Scotland) -- Politics and government, Hull (England) -- Politics and government, Local government -- Great Britain, Social integration -- Great Britain, Policy networks
Journal or Publication Title:	Political Studies
Publisher:	Blackwell Publishing
ISSN:	0032-3217
Date:	December 2007
Volume:	Vol.55
Number:	No.4
Number of Pages:	22
Page Range:	pp. 779-800
Identification Number:	10.1111/j.1467-9248.2007.00677.x
Status:	Peer Reviewed
Publication Status:	Published
Access rights to Published version:	Restricted or Subscription Access
Funder:	Economic and Social Research Council (Great Britain) (ESRC)
Grant number:	RES-000-22-0542 (ESRC)
References:	Amin A, 2005, Local community on trial. Economy and society. 34(4) 612-633 Bachrach P and Baratz M S, 1962, Two faces of power. American political science review. 56(4) 947-952 Bourdieu P, 1984, Distinction: a social critique of the judgement of taste. London, Routledge. Bourdieu P, 1990a, In other words: essays towards a reflexive sociology. Cambridge, Polity Press. Bourdieu P, 1990b, The logic of practice. Cambridge, Polity Press. Burns D, 1992, Poll tax rebellion. London, AK Press. Callinicos A T, 1999, Social theory: A historical introduction. Cambridge, Polity Press. Callinicos A T, 2006, The resources of critique. Cambridge, Polity Press. Collins C, 1999, Applying Bakhtin in urban studies: the failure of community participation in the Ferguslie Park Partnership. Urban studies 36(1) 73-90. Collins C, 2006, The Scottish Executive is open for business. Variant 26 10-13. Cook D, 2005, The sundered totality of system and lifeworld. Historical materialism. 13(4) 55-78 Crossley N, 2003, From reproduction to transformation: social movement fields and the radical habitus. Theory, culture and society. 20(6) 43-68 Crossley N, 2004, On systematically distorted communication: Bourdieu and the socio-analysis of publics. In Crossley N and Roberts J M (eds). After Habermas: new perspectives on the public sphere. Oxford, Blackwell. 88-112 Davies J S, 2002, Local regeneration partnerships under New Labour: A case of creeping centralisation'. In Glendenning C, Powell M and Rummery K (eds) Partnerships, New Labour and The Governance of Welfare. Bristol, Policy Press. 167-182 Davies J S, 2005, Local governance and the dialectics of hierarchy, market and network. Policy studies 26(3) 311-335 DETR, 2001, Local strategic partnerships: Government guidance. DETR, London. Diamond J, 2004, Local regeneration initiatives and capacity building: whose „capacity‟ and „building‟ for what? Community development journal 39(2) 177-189 Dobson J, June 2005, Meet the DIY experts. New Start. http://www.newstartmag.co.uk /organising.html. Dryzek J S, 2000, Deliberative democracy and beyond: Liberals, critics, contestations. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Dryzek J S, 2005, Deliberative democracy in divided societies: alternatives to agonism and analgesia. Political theory 33(2) 218-242 Edwards M, 2004, Civil society. Cambridge, Polity Press. Fairclough N, 2000, New labour, new language? London, Routledge. Finlayson J G, 2005, Habermas: a very short introduction. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Fraser N, 1990, Rethinking the public sphere. A contribution to the critique of actually existing democracy. Social text 25/26, 56-80. Habermas J, 1971, Knowledge and human interests. Boston, Beacon Press. Habermas J, 1984, The theory of communicative action. Volume 1, Cambridge, Polity Press. Habermas J, 1987a, The philosophical discourse of modernity. Cambridge MA, MIT Press. Habermas J, 1987b, The theory of communicative action. Volume 2, Cambridge, Polity Press. Hayward, C R, 2004, Doxa and deliberation. Critical review of international social and political philosophy. 7(1) 1-24 Innes J and Booher D, 1999, Consensus building as role playing and bricolage: toward a theory of collaborative planning. Journal of the American Planning Association 65(1), 9-26. Jayasuriya K, 2003, ‘Workfare for the global poor’: Anti politics and the new governance. Working Paper No 98, Asia Research Centre, Murdoch University, Perth, Australia. ISBN: 0-86905-8355 Johnson C and Osborne S P, 2003, Local strategic partnerships, neighbourhood renewal, and the limits to co-governance. Public money and management 23(3), 147-154. Klijn E H and Koppenjan J, 1999, Network management and decision making in networks: A multi-actor approach to governance. Working paper, University of Twente. NIG Working Paper 99-2. Kohn, M, 2000, Language, power and persuasion. Toward a critique of deliberative democracy. Constellations 7(3) 408-429 Lawless P, 2004, Locating and explaining area-based urban initiatives: New Deal for Communities in England. Environment and planning C: Policy and politics. 22(3) 383-399 Lijphart A, 1968, The politics of accommodation. Pluralism and democracy in the Netherlands. Berkley, University of California Press. Lowndes V, Pratchett L and Stoker G, 2006, Local political participation: the impact of rules-in-use. Public administration 84(3) 539-561 Marinetto M, 2003, Governing beyond the centre: A critique of the Anglo-governance school. Political studies 51(3) 592-608 Marquand, D, 2004, The decline of the public. Cambridge, Polity Press. Medearis J, 2005, Social movements and deliberative democratic theory. British journal of political science, 35(1), 53-75 Mettler S and Soss J, 2004, The consequences of public policy for democratic citizenship: Bridging policy studies and mass politics. Perspectives on Politics. 2(1) 55-73 Moore M, 1995, Creating public value: strategic management in government. Cambridge MA, Harvard University Press. Noble G and Watkins M, 2003, So how did Bourdieu learn to play tennis? Habitus, consciousness and habituation. Cultural studies, 17(3/4) 520-538 Painter J, 1997, In Lauria M (Ed) Regulation, regime, and practice in urban politics. Reconstructing urban regime theory: regulating urban politics in a global economy. London, Sage. 122-143 Perrons, D and Skyer S, 2003, Empowerment through participation? Conceptual explorations and a case study. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 27(2), 265-285 Rhodes R A W, 1997, Understanding governance: Policy networks, governance, reflexivity and accountability (Open University Press) Russell H, 2001, Local strategic partnerships: Lessons from New Commitment to Regeneration. Bristol: The Policy Press. Scottish Executive, 2002, Better communities in Scotland: Closing the gap. Edinburgh. Scottish Executive, 2003, Integrating social inclusion partnerships and community planning partnerships. Edinburgh. Sen A, 1999, Development as freedom. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Skelcher C, Mathur N and Smith M, 2005, The public governance of collaborative spaces: Discourse, design and democracy. Public administration 83(3) 573-596 Skelcher C, 2005, Jurisdictional integrity, polycentrism, and the design of democratic governance. Governance. 18(1) 89-110 Sorensen E and Torfing J, 2005, The democratic anchorage of governance networks. Scandinavian political studies 28(3) 195-218 Stoecker R, 2003, Understanding the development-organizing dialectic. Journal of urban affairs 25(4) 493-512. Stoker G, 2004, Transforming local governance. From Thatcherism to New Labour. Basingstoke, Palgrave. Taylor M, 2000, „Communities in the Lead: Power, Organisational Capacity and Social Capital‟ in Urban Studies 37(5/6) 1019-1035 Wallace M, 2001, A new approach to neighbourhood renewal in England. Urban Studies 38(12) 2163-2166. Wills J, 2004, Organising the low paid: East London‟s living wage campaign as a vehicle for change. In Healy G, Heery E, Taylor P and Brown W (eds) The Future of Worker Representation. Oxford, Oxford University Press. 246–282.
URI:	http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/id/eprint/31143

Data sourced from Thomson Reuters' Web of Knowledge

Request changes to a record

Actions (login required)

View Item