Mar 26, 1996 - overview of t he r ange of di verse m ethods u sed b y researchers w ithin t he s tudy of ...... early, a
Deepening Participation, Deepening Local Democracy? The State of Local Participatory Governance in Ireland Cian Finn, BA, MA PhD Thesis University of Limerick
Supervised by Dr. Chris McInerney and Dr. Frank Häge
Submitted to the University of Limerick, March 2017
ii
Abstract
Deepening Participation, Deepening Local Democracy? The State of Local Participatory Governance in Ireland Cian Finn In r esponse t o a de cline i n t raditional f orms of political pa rticipation a nd g rowing dissatisfaction with and distrust of democratic and public institutions, public authorities have engaged o r h ave b een r equired t o engage i n w idespread d emocratic ex perimentation, particularly at t he s ub-national l evel. T his experimentation, ch aracterized as an i ntegral component of e lite-led ‘ governance dr iven de mocratization’, ha s l ed t o the proliferation of participatory processes which exist a longside and supplement i nstitutions of r epresentative democracy. The growth of formal in stitutions of participation which represents the d evelopment of participatory approaches to governance extends of the surface area of the state and places citizens a nd publ ic of ficials i n m ore f requent and s ustained c ontact. Since 1996, l ocal authorities i n Ireland ha ve implemented formal participatory processes which e nable t he direct p articipation o f c itizens an d ci vil s ociety in p olicy f ormation. Despite t he i ncreased opportunity for citizens and civil society to participate, there is a persistent literature detailing dissatisfaction w ith ‘consultation f atigue’ and the ‘ cosmetic’ o r ‘ tokenistic’ nature of participation in Ireland and internationally. This research measures and e xplains va riation i n t he de pth of c ivil s ociety participation w ithin th ree sub na tional participatory governance processes; C ounty/City Development B oards, Local T raveller A ccommodation C onsultative C ommittees, and Strategic P olicy C ommittees. U sing m ixed m ethods r esearch i n a n ation-wide s tudy, t he depth of pa rticipation i s a nalysed with reference t o k ey co ncepts s uch as voi ce, i nfluence, trust and legitimacy. Further, the study connects the public administration and participatory democracy literature in the analysis of participation through the attitudes and experiences of public officials, elected representatives as well as citizen and civil society participants. In doi ng s o, t he s tudy pr oduces a m ore comprehensive a nd holistic a nalysis o f participatory governance and identifies important explanatory factors including the capacity and m otivations of c itizens, i nstitutional de sign, a nd t he c onduct a nd di sposition of publ ic officials an d el ected representatives. The research d emonstrates t hat while t he ex tent o f arenas within w hich c ivil s ociety voi ces c an b e heard i s c onsiderable, t hey do not enjoy a commensurate level of influence, leaving public policy dynamics largely undisturbed.
iii
Declaration
I declare that the work in this thesis is the work of the candidate alone and has not been submitted to any other University or higher education institution in support of a different award. Citations of secondary works have been fully referenced.
Signed: Cian Finn
Date: 06/03/2017
iv
Acknowledgements This research was made possible by the participation of civil society, elected representatives and public officials. I am immensely grateful to all those shared their experiences and time for the study. A s pecial t hank you t o my supervisors, Dr. C hris Mc Inerney a nd D r. F rank Häge; I a m appreciative o f your encouragement a nd s upport throughout t his research. I have benefited greatly from your guidance and wisdom. Thank you to Dr. Bernadette Connaughton for your advice, kindness and support throughout my time in UL. I gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the Faculty of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences a nd th e D epartment o f P olitics a nd P ublic A dministration in U L without w hich conference at tendance, field r esearch, and methodological training w ould not ha ve been possible. Thank you t o my fellow P hD colleagues in the D epartment o f P olitics a nd P ublic Administration, J ames Mc B ride a nd Franz A min, f or your encouragement an d friendship. Furthermore, I would like to thank Miriam Ryan for proofing the manuscript. Finally, I d edicate this thesis to m y parents, S ean and P atricia. I am g rateful f or your encouragement and support throughout my education.
v
vi
Detailed Contents Abstract ................................................................................................................................ iii Declaration ............................................................................................................................ iv Chapter 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Overview .......................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Research Aims, Context and Rationale ........................................................................... 2 1.3 Chapter Synopsis ............................................................................................................. 5 1.4 Overview of Findings and Significance ........................................................................... 8 Chapter 2 Concept Definitions and Review of Theoretical and Empirical Literature ............. 11 2.1. Political Participation, Participatory Governance, and Participatory Institutions ........ 11 2.2 Theories and Models of Democracy .............................................................................. 17 2.2.1 Modern Democratic Theory.................................................................................... 17 2.2.2 Participatory, Deliberative and Associative Democracy ........................................ 20 2.3 A Review of the Empirical Literature ............................................................................ 25 2.3.1 Weaknesses within Empirical Literature ................................................................ 27 2.3.2 Existing Measures of Democracy and Participation ............................................... 30 Chapter 3 Local Government and Local Participatory Governance in Ireland ....................... 35 3.1 Local Government, Structure and Functions ................................................................. 35 3.2 Historical Development of Local Government in Ireland ............................................. 37 3.3 Local Government Reform: From Government to Governance .................................... 40 3.3.1 The Influence of Europe ......................................................................................... 40 3.3.2 Internal Drivers and the Significance of National Government ............................. 42 3.3.3 Barrington Commission and Report ....................................................................... 43 3.3.4 Social Partnership ................................................................................................... 44 3.3.5 ‘Better Local Government’ ..................................................................................... 46 3.4 The Local Participatory Governance Landscape in Ireland ........................................... 47 3.4.1 Strategic Policy Committees ................................................................................... 49 3.4.2 County/City Development Boards .......................................................................... 51 3.4.3 LTACC and Irish Travellers ................................................................................... 53 3.5 Summary and PPN ......................................................................................................... 59 Chapter 4 Identifying Concepts for Empirical Inquiry ............................................................ 63 4.1 The Depth of Participation ............................................................................................. 63 4.1.1 Voice ....................................................................................................................... 63 4.1.2 Influence and Levels of Authority and Power ........................................................ 65 4.1.3 Democratic Participation and Legitimacy .............................................................. 68 4.1.4 Trust ........................................................................................................................ 69 vii
4.2 Part Two Variation in the Depth of Participation .......................................................... 72 4.2.1The capacity and characteristics of citizens ............................................................. 73 4.2.2 Implications for Public Administration and Public Officials ................................. 77 4.2.3 Institutional Design ................................................................................................. 81 4.3 Summary and Identifying Key Concepts For Further Analysis..................................... 83 Chapter 5 O perationalization of D ependent a nd Independent V ariables i n Q uantitative Analysis 87 5.1 Conceptualisation and Operationalization of Indicators of Depth of Participation ....... 88 5.1.1 Respect and Equality of Voice................................................................................ 88 5.1.2 Influence ................................................................................................................. 89 5.1.3 Trust in the Participatory Process ........................................................................... 91 5.1.4 Legitimate and Appropriate Functioning of the Process ........................................ 93 5.2 Operationalization of Potential Explanatory Variables ................................................. 95 5.2.1 The Characteristics and Capacity of Citizens ......................................................... 96 5.2.2 General Self Efficacy .............................................................................................. 99 5.2.3 Conflict Avoidance and Willingness to Engage in Debate and Discussion ......... 100 5.2.4 Political Affiliation ............................................................................................... 102 5.2.5 Social and Political Trust ...................................................................................... 104 Chapter 6 Methodology ..................................................................................................... 109 6.1 Ontology and Epistemology of Study .......................................................................... 109 6.2 Mixed Methods ............................................................................................................ 111 6.3 Research Design and Case Selection ........................................................................... 112 6.4 Data Collection and Data Gathering ............................................................................ 115 6.5 Survey Method and Technique .................................................................................... 117 6.6 Pilot and Launch of Questionnaire .............................................................................. 121 6.7 Survey Response and Survey Sample .......................................................................... 122 6.8 Qualitative Data Comments, Focus Groups and Semi-Structured Interviews ............. 125 6.9 Measurement, Composite Measure and Factor Analysis ............................................. 127 6.10 Linear Regression Analysis and Kruskal Wallis Test................................................ 130 Chapter 7 Quantitative Analysis Chapter .............................................................................. 135 7.1 Constructing the Dependent Variable .......................................................................... 135 7.2 Comparison of Different Types of Participants ........................................................... 139 7.3 Results of the Linear Regression Analysis .................................................................. 146 Chapter 8 Qualitative Data Analysis...................................................................................... 153 8.1 Voice ............................................................................................................................ 153 8.1.1 Administrative Dominance of Voice and Limited Policy Discussion .................. 156 8.1.2 Conduct of Chairpersons and Elected Representatives ........................................ 158 viii
8.1.3 Voice, Conflict and LTACC ................................................................................. 161 8.2 Influence and Trust ...................................................................................................... 163 8.2.1 Agendas and Types of Issues Discussed ............................................................... 165 8.2.2 Influencing Policy and Trust in the Process ......................................................... 170 8.3 Legitimacy of the Process and Civil Society Participation .......................................... 176 8.3.1 Formal Rules ......................................................................................................... 178 8.3.2 Disposition of Elected Representatives ................................................................ 181 8.3.3 Appropriateness of Participatory Governance and Civil Society Participation .... 184 8.4 Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 186 Chapter 9 The Depth of Participation .................................................................................... 189 9.1 Institutional Design ...................................................................................................... 189 9.1.1 Formal (and Informal) Rules ................................................................................ 190 9.1.2 Authority and Power ............................................................................................. 192 9.2 C ompeting D ispositions a nd R oles: O fficials, E lected R epresentatives a nd C ivil Society................................................................................................................................ 194 9.2.1 Role and Disposition of Public Officials .............................................................. 195 9.2.2 Role and Disposition of Elected Representatives ................................................. 197 9.2.3 Leadership, Training and Capacity Building ........................................................ 198 9.3 Participatory Governance and “Wicked” Problems ..................................................... 201 9.4 The Participation of Minority/Seldom Heard Groups ................................................. 204 9.5 Individual Characteristics and Capacity of Civil Society ............................................ 206 9.5.1 Age, Socio-Economic Status and Personal Efficacy ............................................ 206 9.5.2 Participation and Trust .......................................................................................... 209 9.6 Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 210 Chapter 10 Conclusions ......................................................................................................... 213 10.1 Summary of Thesis .................................................................................................... 214 10.2 Addressing the Research Questions ........................................................................... 215 10.3 Contribution of the Study........................................................................................... 219 10.3.1 Methodological Contribution (General and Irish Specific Level) ...................... 219 10.3.2 Policy and Practice in Ireland ............................................................................. 221 10.3.3 Broader Literature ............................................................................................... 224 10.4 Implications for Future Research ............................................................................... 227 References 231
ix
List of Tables Table 1 Key Features of Local Participatory Governance Processes ...................................... 49 Table 2 Number of Respondents and Estimated Active Target Population .......................... 124 Table 3 Factor Analysis Depth of Participation ..................................................................... 136 Table 4 Differences between Local Authority Officials and Other Participants .................. 145 Table 5 Results of Regression Analysis................................................................................. 147 Table 6 Indicators of Voice (1) .............................................................................................. 154 Table 7 Indicator of Voice (2) “Dominated Discussion”....................................................... 155 Table 8 Indicators of Influence and Trust .............................................................................. 164 Table 9 Frequency of Agenda Setting ................................................................................... 166 Table 10 Indicators of Legitimacy of Process ....................................................................... 177
List of Figures Figure 1 Scree Plot of Eigenvalues ........................................................................................ 137 Figure 2 Box Plot Depth of Participation Across All Types of Participants ......................... 141 Figure 3 Depth of Participation Across Different Types of SPC Participants ....................... 142 Figure 4 Depth of Participation Across Different Types of CDB Participants...................... 143 Figure 5 Depth of Participation LTACC Traveller and Local Authority Officials ............... 144
List of Appendices Appendix A: Questionnaire for Civil Society Participants
255
Appendix B: List of NVIVO Codes
268
x
Acronyms BLG
Better Local Government
CDB
City/County Development Boards
CSO
Civil Society Organisation
DECLG
Department of Environment, Community and Local Government
DHPCLG
Department of Housing, Planning, Community and Local Government
EC
European Community
EDD
Empowered Deliberative Democracy
EEC
European Economic Community
EU
European Union
LAMA
Local Authority Members Association
LCDC
Local Community Development Committee
LGMA
Local Government Management Agency
LTACC
Local Traveller Accommodation Consultative Committee
IAPP
International Association of Public Participation
ITM
Irish Traveller Movement
NESC
National Economic Social Council
NESF
National Economic and Social Forum
NTACC
National Traveller Accommodation Consultative Committee
NPM
New Public Management
OECD
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
PB
Participatory Budgeting
PESP
Programme for Economic and Social Progress
PPF
Putting People First
PPN
Public Participation Network
QCA
Qualitative Comparative Analysis
SES
Socio-Economic Status
SHIP
Social Housing Investment Programme
SMI
Strategic Management Initiative
SPC
Strategic Policy Committee
TAP
Traveller Accommodation Programme
UN
United Nations
xi
Chapter 1 Introduction 1.1 Overview In r esponse t o a de cline i n t raditional f orms of political pa rticipation a nd g rowing dissatisfaction with and distrust of democratic and public institutions, public authorities have engaged o r h ave b een r equired t o engage i n w idespread d emocratic ex perimentation, particularly at t he s ub-national l evel. T his experimentation h as b een characterized as an integral c omponent o f e lite-led ‘ governance d riven d emocratization’ (Warren 2009b ). The current practice of political participation is diverse and varies in size and scale. Democratic experimentation a nd i nnovation ha s l ed t o t he pr oliferation of pa rticipatory i nstitutions or processes w hich s upplement a nd e xist a longside i nstitutions of r epresentative de mocracy (Smith 2009) . Elite l ed o r g overnance driven processes a re o ften “t op d own” an d o riginate primarily from public administration with limited consultation with civil society in terms of remit a nd in stitutional d esign (Lowndes 2002, Warren 2009b ). The growth of p articipatory institutions represents the development of participatory approaches to governance or what is often d escribed as p articipatory governance. Participatory governance r epresents t he extension o f t he s urface area o f t he s tate i n w hich ci tizens an d p ublic o fficials ar e i n m ore frequent a nd s ustained c ontact a nd e ngage in pol icy m aking a nd ove rsight (Wampler an d McNulty 2011). Participation i s c onsidered a form of d emocratisation, a n e ffective m ethod t o s olve complex g overnance pr oblems, a nd a s a m eans t o e nhance t he l egitimacy of a nd c itizens’ trust in p ublic in stitutions a nd p olicies (Wright a nd F ung 2003, S peer 2012, F ung 2015) . According to ma ny s upranational in stitutions, “ participation” is a c entral p illar o f g ood democratic governance and improves public policy (OECD 2001, C ouncil of Europe 2008). Good governance, which includes transparent and accountable public administration, is seen as key to economic growth and social equality (United Nations 2009). However, despite the increased oppor tunity f or c itizens a nd c ivil s ociety to p articipate w ithin p articipatory institutions, th ere is a p ersistent lite rature d etailing d issatisfaction w ith the “ cosmetic” or “tokenistic” na ture of pa rticipation (Pateman 2012, G anuza a nd B aiocchi 2012) . M any participatory in stitutions a re c onsidered tr ivial in w hich p articipants p ossess little in fluence and t he t ypes of i ssues di scussed a re c onstrained (Fung 2015) . C onsequently, a n i mportant research s trand w ithin t he s tudy o f p articipatory democracy/governance c oncerns t he ex tent 1
to w hich c itizens c an e xercise voi ce, i nfluence, a nd de termine de cisions on i ssues t hat directly impact their lives (Task Force on Democracy 2012). Since 1996, l ocal authorities i n Ireland have i mplemented new forms of governance including participatory institutions which enable the direct participation of citizens and civil society. These i nstitutions a re t op dow n created a t n ational g overnment l evel but implemented a t lo cal le vel. While l acking d ecision-making a uthority, t hese pr ocesses are designed to engage in policy formulation and, sometimes, oversight, and facilitate sustained interactions between citizens/civil society and public and elected officials. Recent reform has emphasised the importance of public participation to the future of local democracy and local government i n Ireland. Participation was identified a s ke y t o t he s trengthening of l ocal democracy i n t he Local G overnment R eform A ct 2014. In ‘Putting P eople F irst’, the government white pa per w hich f orms t he ba sis f or t his l egislation, t he ne ed f or l ocal government t o pr ovide greater oppor tunities f or c itizen a nd c ivil s ociety to pa rticipate i n decisions t hat a ffect t hem a nd a n i ncreased r ole i n pol icy formulation a nd publ ic s ervice delivery i s acknowledged (Department of t he E nvironment C ommunity a nd Local Government 2012). This is further strengthened in the Open Government Partnership Ireland Action P lan recently pu blished b y t he D epartment of P ublic E xpenditure a nd R eform. T he document hi ghlights t he i mportance of s upporting and e nhancing public participation in policy-making a nd de veloping c apacity within publ ic a dministration to a chieve th is (Department of Public Expenditure and Reform 2016).
1.2 Research Aims, Context and Rationale This study has a descriptive and an explanatory objective. 1 The descriptive objective is to assess the d epth of participation i n l ocal p articipatory governance in Ireland b etween 2009 and 2014 i n three distinct participatory processes in all local authority areas: Strategic Policy C ommittees (SPC) and Local T raveller A ccommodation C onsultative C ommittees (LTACC) and City/County Development Boards (CDB). The actors permitted to participate within SPCs, CDBs and LTACCs include citizens, representatives of community and wider civil s ociety o rganisations, local elected political r epresentatives, and na tional a nd l ocal authority of ficials. Within th is, the r esearch has attempted to a nswer t he f ollowing tw o questions: 1
Ethics ap proval for t his r esearch was g ranted b y t he U niversity o f Limerick Arts, Humanities, an d Social Sciences ethics committee in May 2014-reference number 2014_05_04_AHSS
2
Q1: In l ight of t he increased opportunities f or civil s ociety p articipation in f ormal lo cal governance processes in Ireland, what is the depth of participation in the selected cases? In r eference to the theoretical and empirical literature, it is possible to make the distinction between ‘increasing’ an d ‘ deepening’ ci tizen an d ci vil s ociety participation (Smith 2009) . The depth of participation in this study is analysed with quantitative and qualitative data. The perceived depth of p articipation is measured quantitatively through a composite measure of respect and equality of voice, influence, trust, and legitimacy within each institution. Further, the qua litative da ta f ocuses on t he a bility t o di scuss a nd i nfluence w ider l ocal g overnment policy and the level of authority of the process. While primarily concerned with civil society, the de pth of p articipation of l ocal authority officials a nd elected r epresentatives w ho participated alongside civil society is also examined. Q2: What explanatory factors influence the depth of participation in the selected cases? A c omprehensive r eview o f th e lite rature id entified d iverse f actors in cluding th e individual c haracteristics and m otivations of citizens an d civil s ociety participants, institutional d esign, as well a s t he c onduct a nd di sposition of administrative a nd p olitical actors within local authorities. This will be analysed through qualitative and quantitative data. While focused on local participatory governance in Ireland, the findings of the research make a contribution to the broader body of knowledge within participatory governance. This s tudy and s ubsequent r esearch d esign was co nceived i n o rder t o assess t he practice o f p articipation i n Ireland and i n l ight of t he e xisting t heoretical an d em pirical literature. It is
intended t o s erve as a c ontribution t o t he f urther de velopment of
methodological pl uralism w ithin t he s tudy of pa rticipatory governance and t he us e l arger scale empirical analysis and measurement (Galais et al. 2012). While there has been a recent comparative e mpirical tu rn in th e s tudy o f p articipation, existing s tudies ar e p redominately case s tudy b ased (Smith 2011, W ampler 2008) . Empirical s tudies h ave, f or t he m ost pa rt, focused on a s mall num ber of s o-called b est p ractice c ases o f p articipatory o r d emocratic innovations s uch a s P articipatory Budgeting (Smith 2011) . T his a pproach, i t i s a rgued, ha s resulted i n a general f ailure t o p roduce reliable o verall as sessments of the practice o f participation within c ountries a nd s tates; a nd ha s led to a v iew th at th e b enefits o f participation tend to outweigh the costs or problems associated with it (Font et al. 2012). The study of participatory governance and supplements to representative forms of democracy, it is argued, requires a m ore comprehensive a nalysis of s ub-national p ractice (Goodhart e t a l. 3
2012). In addition, few existing empirical studies have analysed the perceptions of actors who participate in participatory processes and t heir s ense of empowerment (Talò and M annarini 2015). In a recent review of research into ‘Direct Public Engagement’, Nabatchi and Amsler highlight a number of necessary areas of further research. The authors argue further research in th e f ollowing areas o f lo cal participation is r equired; ( a) how t he c ontext a nd s etting o f participation, including the attitudes of senior officials and elected representatives, affect the design and outcome of participatory processes (b) the motivations of sponsors and convenors and its implications for the participatory process (c) how the design of participatory processes affect the rate of citizen participation and (d) how public officials, elected representatives and public actors interact and experience participatory processes (Nabatchi and Amsler 2014). While i t i s of ten di fficult t o c onduct l arger s cale c omparative a nalysis w ithin participatory governance, the standardisation and uniformity of local participatory processes in Ireland f acilitates a comparison o f p articipatory ex periences w ithin an d acr oss l ocal authorities. T he ke y r ole of t he D epartment of E nvironment, C ommunity a nd Local Government, a nd na tional g overnment, more generally, i n t he cr eation o f p articipatory processes has resulted i n a s tandardisation of i nstitutional de sign. Each process is d esigned nationally but administered and implemented locally. As a result, the institutional factors or processes t herefore are constant t hroughout t he c ases. This i s i n contrast to ot her European states, f or example, the Netherlands, where a dministrators a t t he l ocal a nd m unicipal l evel possess m ore a utonomy and f lexibility i n de signing a nd i nitiating p articipatory pr ocesses resulting in d iverse mo tivations, r ationales and i nstitutional de signs (Geurtz a nd V an de Wijdeven 2010). Further, this policy context enabled research on administrative and political actors who are statutorily required to facilitate and participate within participatory processes designed and introduced by central government. Within th e e xisting li terature o n p articipatory democracy/governance, the us e of conceptualisation and analytical frameworks is m ore evident than subsequent measurement. The development of so-called ‘thicker’ forms of democracy and the subsequent concern with the depth of participation in governance has led to a search for instruments of measurement to assess p articipation on a c omparative ba sis. A r ecent c omprehensive r eport f rom t he American P olitical S cience A ssociation entitled ‘ Democratic I mperatives: I nnovations in Rights, P articipation a nd E conomic C itizenship’ pr oposes t he d evelopment of m easures of so-called ‘thicker’ forms of democracy (Goodhart et al. 2012). 4
As there are no widely applied measures of participation in participatory governance, the study has developed a composite measure of the perceived depth of participation within each p articipatory p rocess. This i s unde rtaken i n f ull c onsideration of t he t asks o f conceptualisation, measurement and aggregation (Goertz 2006). The measurement of a social science c oncept r equires t he i dentification and c areful us e of i ndicators (Goertz 2006) . An indicator can be defined as a tool “that indicates the state or level of something, [or] a device providing specific information on the state or condition of something, in particular a gauge or meter o f a s pecified k ind” (Botero e t al. 2011, p.155) . The s election of i ndicators of t he perceived d epth o f p articipation is c arried o ut in r eference to th e e xisting th eoretical literature. The measures and indicators are operationalized through a survey questionnaire of key p articipants a nd analysed th rough s tatistical a nalysis. The qu estionnaire pr obed participants’ perceptions of the depth of participation within each process as well as a number of potential individual level explanatory variables. In addition to civil society participants, the study probed the actions and beliefs of all actors i nvolved i n each p articipatory pr ocess. Examining the ex periences o f o fficials an d local el ected r epresentatives within local pa rticipatory governance a nd t he na ture of t heir relationships w ith c ivil society a ctors he lped t o be tter e xplain va riation i n t he de pth of participation i n t he c ases. T his approach pr oduced a more h olistic a ssessment o f th e functioning of t he t hree processes a nd set the ex periences o f ci vil s ociety participants in a broader context. In sum, the contribution of this thesis can be divided into four strands. These include the c ontribution t o t he knowledge of citizen a nd c ivil s ociety p articipation in I reland, a specific analysis of the role of public and elected officials within participatory processes, the further application of mixed methods within existing research, and the extension of research from case study to a larger comparative analysis of subnational practice.
1.3 Chapter Synopsis Chapter 2 of t his study engages i n a co mprehensive r eview o f t he ex isting t heoretical an d conceptual l iterature i n t he br oad f ield of pa rticipatory d emocracy an d g overnance; an d highlights the pr edominant m ethodological a pproach a nd pr ioritisation of c onceptualisation and t heory o ver m easurement. This di scussion e mphasises t he growing m ethodological pluralism within research of participation, the need for larger scale comparative analysis and a more comprehensive assessment of subnational practice. 5
Chapter 3 provides the national context for the study of participatory governance in Ireland including t he development of t he pa rticipatory governance l andscape and t he origins a nd functions of the three participatory processes. In addition, a discussion of Irish Travellers and their r elationship with th e Irish state is pr ovided t o he lp s ituate t he Local T raveller Accommodation C onsultative C ommittee in a wider context. This c hapter hi ghlights t he historical w eaknesses of l ocal government and democracy i n Ireland a nd t he ke y r ole o f central government in local government policy. The primary role of the centre is evident in the de velopment a nd i mplementation of local participatory g overnance and in r ecent local government reform. Participatory processes are implemented locally but originate outside the local a uthority. This c ontext o f in stitutional d esign h as imp lications f or t he f acilitation a nd implementation of local participatory governance in Ireland. Chapter 4 will id entify k ey concepts f or analysis in r espect t o t he de pth of c ivil s ociety participation and pot ential explanatory variables. In terms of the depth of participation, key concepts are identified including voice, influence, trust and legitimacy. In terms of explaining variation, individual characteristics of civil society, institutional design, and the conduct and disposition of public and elected officials are highlighted as potentially significant variables. Chapter 5 will narrow the conceptual focus and detail the precise operationalization of key concepts, both the de pendent a nd i ndependent variables, us ed t o m easure t he de pth of participation in the quantitative analysis. The accurate measurement of concepts necessitates precise operationalization. The chapter will also detail the hypothesised relationship between the depth of participation and the individual explanatory variables examined in the regression analysis. The selected explanatory variables include socio-demographic variables, personality factors, and wider political and associational links. Chapter 6 explores an d justifies the ove rall m ethodological a pproach t aken. T his i ncludes case s election and research de sign, t he ont ology and e pistemology of t he s tudy, the us e of mixed methods, the attempts to identify and invite the target population to participate in the research, and the design and launch of the questionnaire. The use of regression analysis and Factor an alysis is a lso discussed. The l imitations of t he m ethodological a pproach and i ts impact upon t he da ta c ollected a nd s ubsequent a nalysis is acknowledged t hroughout the chapter. Chapter 7 details th e r esults o f th e mu ltiple r egression a nalysis in w hich th e r elationship between individual explanatory variables and variation in the perceived depth of participation 6
is e xplored. T his c hapter a lso pr ovides a n analysis of statistical d ifferences b etween the different types o f act ors in r espect to th e c omposite me asure within a nd a cross t he t hree participatory p rocesses. This a nalysis d emonstrates s tatistically significant d ifferences between p ublic and el ected o fficials and ci vil s ociety i n respect t o t he p erceived d epth o f participation, a nd w ithin c ivil s ociety. T he regression analysis which examines the relationship between the perceived depth of participation and the individual characteristics of civil s ociety a ctors d emonstrates t he s ignificance o f a ge, general p ersonal ef ficacy an d political trust. Income is also significant until the membership of specific civil society pillars is controlled for. Chapter 8 explores the qualitative data gathered in the context of the depth of participation. The q ualitative d ata emphasises th e imp ortance of in stitutional d esign including th e f ormal rules a nd l evel of a uthority and the c onduct a nd di sposition of a dministrative a nd pol itical actors within e ach pa rticipatory process. The d ata i ndicates t hat p rocesses are o ften dominated b y l ocal au thority o fficials w ho c an restrict t he r ange o f i ssues d iscussed an d restrict the le vel of pol icy discussion. F urthermore, t he c hapter explores t he l egitimacy o f participation and the conduct of civil society from the perspectives of local authority officials and elected representatives. There is evidence of a lack of political support for civil society participation w ithin l ocal g overnment and que stions a s t o the ex tent o f civil s ociety accountability an d r epresentativeness. T his i ncludes a
belief that ma ny c ivil s ociety
representatives, pa rticularly from t he T ravelling community, a re concerned not w ith pol icy but with personal interests. Chapter 9 engages in d etailed analysis of the findings of the research in the context of the theoretical l iterature an d i n t he co ntext o f l ocal p articipatory governance i n Ireland. This analysis focuses on t he s ignificance o f in stitutional d esign, th e d ifficulty in b alancing representative an d p articipatory f orms o f d emocracy, t he cap acity and di sposition of publ ic administration to facilitate participatory governance, as well as the capacity of civil society. In light of the findings of the LTACC, which reveal considerable dissatisfaction and conflict between m embers, a n analysis of t he pr ovision of T raveller a ccommodation a nd t he relationship between Travellers and local authorities is conducted. Chapter 10 is t he c onclusion c hapter. The ch apter co ntains a s ummary o f t he research findings a nd addresses t he t wo r esearch qu estions. The ch apter further explores t he contribution o f th e s tudy w ithin th ree s pecific a reas; th e p olicy and p ractice o f lo cal participatory governance i n Ireland, t he br oader l iterature, a nd t he m ethodological 7
contribution of t he s tudy. Finally, potential areas o f f uture r esearch are i dentified including the f urther d evelopment o f m easurement w ithin p articipatory governance r esearch an d additional analysis of the relationship between socio-demographic and personality factors and the experience of participation. In the context of Ireland, issues such as the need for greater attention to institutional design amongst policy makers and additional mechanisms to reduce tension and build mutual understanding between LTACC participants and further support for Travellers to meet the costs of participation are identified.
1.4 Overview of Findings and Significance This d issertation id entifies a number o f imp ortant is sues in lo cal p articipatory governance i n Ireland. While t hese i ssues w ill be e xplored i n f urther d etail t hroughout t he dissertation, the following section will discuss them in brief. The research demonstrates that while the extent of arenas within which civil society voices can be heard is considerable, they do n ot e njoy a c ommensurate le vel o f in fluence, le aving p ublic p olicy d ynamics la rgely undisturbed. Participation is widely perceived to be “tokenistic” with participatory processes perceived as “talking s hops”. The a bility t o i nfluence pol icy and t he out puts of publ ic institutions is c rucial t o t he de pth of pa rticipation a nd the study emphasises t he pr oblems inherent i n a dvisory s tructures w hich l ack a uthority o r t he a bility t o impact publ ic pol icy. Perceptions of “ tokenistic” pa rticipation lead to cynicism a nd dissatisfaction with lo cal government. T he lack of t angible out comes and pe rceptions of t okenism undermines relationships with administrative and political actors and erodes trust in local government. The de pth of p articipation w ithin t he c ases i s i nfluenced b y a range of factors including the individual characteristics and motivations of civil society participants, aspects of i nstitutional de sign, a nd t he role a nd di sposition of publ ic and el ected o fficials. Participatory p rocesses a re f acilitated a nd imp lemented b y p ublic a dministration. Irrespective of the level of authority or how well designed; the experience of participation is dependent upon the conduct and support of public officials who must possess the capacity for and disposition towards collaborative forms of policy making and integrative forms of public leadership. P articipatory governance, how ever, ha s c onsiderable i mplications f or t he traditional role of public administration and its relationship with citizens and civil society. The s uccessful i mplementation of pa rticipatory governance t herefore de mands capacity bui lding within publ ic i nstitutions a nd g reater e mphasis on l ess bur eaucratic a nd instrumental f orms o f a dministration a nd pol icy m aking. Further, l ocal elected an d p ublic 8
officials must have some sense of ownership of institutional design and broader support for participatory governance. This is not always the case in the Irish context where participatory institutions are top down, and originate within national government. The facilitation of local participation d oes n ot s ignal a c ommitment o r p ositive d isposition to ward p articipatory governance within local government. This top down, national, one size fits all approach to the design and implementation of participatory processes is problematic leaving local authorities without a dequate ow nership or t he a bility to a dapt pr ocesses t o be tter s uit l ocal circumstances. This national design also produces processes with institutional features which constrain the depth of participation including the location of each process within the formal administrative and political realm of the local authority. Participation i s c onsidered a s upplement to and e xists in p arallel to r epresentative democracy. It is designed to address democratic deficits and deficits within traditional forms of policy making. However, the further deepening of participation necessitates a willingness to share authority and influence and a greater disposition towards the inputs and preferences of c ivil s ociety a ctors w ithin p olitics a nd p ublic a dministration. T his is challenging a s th e more substantive participation of civil society within local government reduces the influence of elected representatives and presents challenges to existing conceptions of democracy and the ap propriateness o f d emocratic d ecision-making. Further, t he p references o f s ome ci vil society groups m ay p resent p articular ch allenges f or publ ic a uthorities as is t he cas e w ith Irish T ravellers in th is s tudy. T herefore, t he implementation of pa rticipatory f orms o f governance r equires balancing b etween d ivergent forms a nd unde rstandings o f de mocracy and democratic authorisation and representation, and a greater willingness on behalf of public authorities to share influence and authority. For civil s ociety a ctors, th e s tudy demonstrates a co nsiderable l evel o f p ersonal capacity i s r equired t o participate effectively and e ngage i n de eper f orms of de mocratic participation. C apacity includes efficacy, knowledge, s elf-confidence a nd s trength o f personality. T raining and c apacity building i s crucial t o t he de velopment of efficacy an d knowledge. This is of particular relevance in the case of participants from social excluded or marginalised groups. Capacity can be developed through active membership of associations and civil society organisations as well as formal training provided by public institutions and institutional d esigners o f p articipatory p rocesses. Finally, t his r esearch d emonstrates t he importance of c ompetence, know ledge o f r elevant pol icy i ssues, a nd a cting i n t he w ider public interest, to the effectiveness and legitimacy of civil society participation. In addition, 9
civil society participants must be accountable to and act in the interests of the constituencies they represent as w ell as d emonstrate a co ncern f or t he w ider p ublic i nterest w ithin participatory in stitutions. Accountability a nd c oncern w ith t he w ider publ ic i nterest i s important f or t he l evel of t rust of public of ficials i n c ivil s ociety actors a nd t he ove rall legitimacy of their involvement in local decision and policy-making. The following chapter will explore the wider theoretical and empirical literature.
10
Chapter 2 Concept Definitions and Review of Theoretical and Empirical Literature The first s ection of this ch apter will distinguish between different forms of political participation and define key concepts within the study. This is undertaken to bring clarity to the c oncept a nd p ractice of pa rticipation a nd to situate it w ithin p articipatory p rocesses o r institutions. T he s econd s ection e xplores the broader t heoretical underpinnings o f participatory governance t hrough a di scussion of pa rticipatory, deliberative an d as sociative models of democracy. This discussion provides the theoretical underpinnings of the diverse forms of pa rticipation, highlights key differences w ith r epresentative d emocracy as w ell as the implications of participatory governance for traditional conceptions of policy making and participation. The final section will engage in a review of the existing empirical literature and highlight the methodological focus of existing research.
2.1. Political Participation, Participatory Governance, and Participatory Institutions This s ection w ill c larify a nd d istinguish b etween s o-called tr aditional a nd e merging forms o f p olitical p articipation a nd te rms u sed w ithin th e l iterature o n p articipatory democracy and g overnance. T his i s t o a cknowledge the di versity of p articipation a nd t o distinguish involvement in participatory governance from traditional and emerging forms of democratic and p olitical participation. For t he m ost pa rt, r esearch on pol itical pa rticipation has focused predominately on t he act of voting. However, there has been an increased focus on th e growing d iversity of p olitical p articipation (Fung 2006, E kman a nd A mnå 2012) . Citizen p articipation in p olitics a nd w ider c ivic e ngagement is a k ey characteristic o f democracy. M ore broadly, pol itical p articipation c an b e u nderstood a s c itizens’ a ctivities which a ffect p olitics (van D eth 2014 ). P olitical p articipation i s al so ch aracterised as an y action unde rtaken b y or dinary citizens t o i nfluence pol itical out comes (Ekman a nd Amnå 2012). T he practice o f p olitical p articipation is d iverse and w ide-ranging i ncluding voting, joining interest groups and political parties, and engaging in protest or social movements. A distinction between ‘latent’ and ‘manifest’ forms of political participation is made. Manifest p olitical b ehaviour includes actions, e ither i ndividual or c ollective, i ntended t o influence government decisions and political outcomes. Latent behaviour, however, is more informal civic engagement, for example, the participation of citizens in a community in order 11
to improve the lives of disadvantaged groups or to shape the community’s future (Ekman and Amnå 2012). This often proceeds in non-formal arenas or ‘popular spaces’ which are brought about b y civil s ociety or ganisations (Cornwall 2 004). Citizens ar e i ncreasingly d isengaged from tr aditional f orms of p articipation (Norris 1999, D alton 2004, F arrell 2014 ). The evolution from traditional political participation to so-called emerging forms of participation is e vident (Stolle e t a l. 2005, S mith 2005) . E merging f orms i nclude involvement i n participatory in stitutions in w hich members o f th e p ublic a re in vited to p articipate in structured processes of decision and policy making. The p articipation o f c itizens and ci vil s ociety i n g overnance i s a d iverse an d multifaceted c oncept a nd ope n t o s ignificant i nterpretation. The ambiguity s urrounding t he concept of p articipation within th e p ractice o f p articipatory democracy and governance has been hi ghlighted also. With t he g lobal pr oliferation of pa rticipatory processes and t he development of ‘governance driven democratization’, participation is considered a relatively ambiguous and va gue term bot h conceptually and p olitically (Cornwall a nd B rock 2005, Warren 2009b, Baiocchi a nd G anuza 2014 ). The c onceptualisation of t he pr actice of participation emerges from a di verse r ange of actors i ncluding p rofessional pr actitioners, advocacy groups, i nternational or ganisations s uch a s t he W orld B ank a nd O rganisation f or Economic Co-operation a nd Development ( OECD), as w ell as democratic th eorists a nd academics. To s ome e xtent, the c ontrasting t erms a nd definitions ( and r ealisation) of participation is reflective of the disjuncture between the so-called governance driven and the more radical democratisation ethos of participatory democratic theory. It also has roots in the divergent conceptualisation of democracy as an instrument or method and as an educative or transformative process. Key concepts w ithin t he s tudy of pa rticipation, i t i s a rgued, a re not w ell de fined or formulated (Frewer and Rowe 2005). Conceptions such as participation and civic engagement serve as um brella t erms f or a va riety of m ethods t o i nclude t he publ ic mo re d irectly i n governance (Rowe and Frewer 2005, N abatchi a nd A msler 2014) . T his i s e vident f rom t he proliferation of t erms u sed t o de scribe t his practice in cluding public engagement, c itizen engagement, c ivic engagement, publ ic pa rticipation, c itizen pa rticipation, c ommunity participation, publ ic d eliberation, d eliberative de mocracy, ne twork governance, e mpowered participatory g overnance, and c ollaborative gove rnance. The di versity and w idespread practice o f p articipation an d en gagement m eans p ractitioners o ften co nflate t erms an d u se mismatched d efinitions. This c onflation, i t i s a rgued, l eads t o c onfusion s urrounding t he 12
meaning of concepts and even stymies the development of theory and practice (Nabatchi and Amsler 2014) . R esearch o f p articipation o r engagement, t herefore, l acks cl arity an d consistency of language. This is common in social sciences where concepts often are defined in different ways (polysemy) but these different terms can mean the same thing (synonymy) (Gerring and Barresi 2003). A w ide va riety o f de finitions a re e vident. Rowe a nd F rewer, f or e xample, de fine (public) pa rticipation a s t he “ practice of i nvolving m embers of t he pu blic i n t he a genda setting, d ecision-making, and pol icy-forming a ctivities o f o rganizations/institutions responsible for policy development” (Rowe and Frewer 2005, p.512) . It is also defined as a process in which individuals take part in decision making in the institutions, programs, and environments th at a ffect th em (Mannarini a nd T alò 2013) . The E uropean A nti-Poverty Network ( EAPN) defines p articipation as an “ exchange b etween citizens an d government, between those who make policy and people affected b y policy choices” (EAPN 2011, p.i i). According to Webler and Tuler, participation is a “variety of procedures for enabling diverse members of t he publ ic t o be active pa rticipants i n de liberations about pr eferred pol icy options, a nd i n s ome c ases de cision-making” (Webler and T uler 2001, p.30) . N abatchi and Amsler, m eanwhile, de fine ‘ direct publ ic e ngagement’ as “i n-person a nd onl ine pr ocesses that allow members of the public (i.e., those not holding office or administrative positions in government) in a county, city, town, village, or municipal authority to personally and actively exercise v oice s uch t hat t heir i deas, co ncerns, n eeds, i nterests, an d v alues ar e i ncorporated into g overnmental de cision m aking” (Nabatchi and A msler 2014, p.3) . It is a rgued th at academic research and indeed practice would benefit from a more explicit acknowledgement of th e q ualitative d ifferences in th ese d efinitions in a ddition to in creased c larity and coherence in the use of such terminology (Nabatchi and Amsler 2014). ‘Participation’ or ‘civic en gagement’ is o ften s ituated mo re d irectly in th e r ealm o f participatory democracy and governance. Participatory democracy is understood as a process which i nvolves t he pa rticipation of t he w ider p opulation i n de signing a nd i mplementing community p olicies, r aising i ssues a nd pr oviding s olutions t o t hem (Tumanyan an d Shahbazyan 2011) . It is also de fined a s a f orm o f co llective act ion b etween ci tizens an d political e lites th at b lends e lements o f d irect a nd r epresentative d emocracy a nd p otentially constrains p oliticians’ d ecision-making (Aragones an d S ánchez-Pagés 2009) . ‘ Participatory governance’, me anwhile, s ituates c itizen p articipation d irectly w ithin g overnance p rocesses and institutions. It involves the direct engagement of the population in issues of importance to 13
their l ives. P articipatory g overnance af fords ci tizens i ncreased access, v oice an d i nfluence and s ignals a ne w f orm of i nterrelations a nd i nteractions be tween c itizens a nd pub lic authorities (Goodhart et al. 2012). Irrespective of definitions or the terms used, participation often takes place in formal participatory m echanisms o r p rocesses. The i ncrease in o pportunities to p articipate mo re directly within g overnance has l ed t o a pr oliferation of participatory institutions which proceed a longside or i n pa rallel t o r epresentative a nd bur eaucratic i nstitutions (Rowe an d Frewer 2005, S mith 20 09). New institutions of p articipation have b een ch aracterised as ‘democratic i nnovations’. S mith de fines de mocratic i nnovations a s “ institutions t hat ha ve been s pecifically d esigned t o i ncrease an d d eepen ci tizen p articipation in th e p olitical decision-making p rocess” (Smith 2009, p.1) . These can b e considered s tructures t hrough democratic o utcomes ar e r ealised and as a m edium t hrough which democratic a gency i s articulated. Processes an d m echanisms are also d escribed as so -called u pstream o r q uasilegislative p rocesses u sed t o cr eate, s hape, an d i mplement p olicy (Nabatchi a nd A msler 2014). While varying in scale, participatory institutions have increased significantly over the past t hirty years and are now
considered a c omponent o f t he no rmal political a nd
administrative sphere (Galais et al. 2012). Participatory processes are institutionalised more frequently at the sub-national level. Increased participation at the local level is understood as a fo rm o f institutional r e-engineering i n w hich g overnors a nd c ivil s ociety ha ve i n uni son explored ways to increase citizen influence in local affairs (Wampler 2012, Zittel and Fuchs 2007). P articipatory en gineering is d efined as the “ purposive attempt o f p olitical e lites to positively affect the level of political participation by increasing institutional opportunities to participate” (Zittel and Fuchs 2007, p.1). The importance of the local or subnational arena is echoed b y M cPherson and P ateman i n t heir t heories o f p articipatory d emocracy (Pateman 1970, M acPherson 1977 ). Governance dr iven or e lite l ed pr ocesses a re often t op dow n or designed and implemented with limited consultation with citizens and civil society in terms of policy remit and formal rules and procedures (Warren 2009b, Hoppe 2011). Participatory theory and practice, it is argued, has evolved from questions of should the publ ic pa rticipate i n g overnance to que stions of how a nd how m uch t he publ ic s hould participate (Nabatchi and Amsler 2014). It is possible and important therefore to distinguish between i ncreasing an d d eepening p articipation. Increasing p articipation can r efer t o t he growth in the opportunities and numbers involved in political participation. In the context of participatory governance, the objective is often to increase the participation of marginalised 14
and ha rd t o reach groups. ‘Deeper’ participation has b een d efined as “ any change w hich allows a m ore direct, sustained and informed participation by citizens in political decisions” (Smith 2005, p.18). In addition, a report of the American Political Science Association’s Task Force on Democracy, Economic Security, and S ocial Justice in a Volatile World highlights the potential to ‘deepen’ democracy through participation. Participatory governance deepens democracy, t he report argues, b y expanding and i nstitutionalising oppor tunities f or a ll citizens to s hape a nd in fluence d ecisions, i ncreasing accountability, le gitimacy and responsiveness, and empowering citizens to take a greater role in governing themselves. This can b e ach ieved t hrough ‘ co-governance’ in w hich ci tizens an d el ites co operate, d eliberate and de cide on pol icies i n s pecially de signed processes (Goodhart e t al. 2012) . M aking reference to th e e mpirical lite rature o n P articipatory Budgeting in B razil, the r eport a rgues that participatory governance h as the potential to ‘deepen’ democracy b y ( a) i ncreasing t he rate and quality of citizen participation and providing citizens with greater access, voice and influence, (b) replacing the clientelist relations between citizens and elites with ones based on deliberation and publ ic r eason and (c) i mproving s tate performance a nd political out comes. This m ore s ubstantive pa rticipation i ncreases pu blic a ccess to s tate in stitutions and a ffords citizens an increased role in decision-making and policy-making (Goodhart et al. 2012). More direct forms of participation are often described in the academic literature and by practitioners as ‘public’, ‘citizen’ or ‘civil society’ participation. It is possible to make a distinction be tween pa rticipatory pr ocesses w hich a llow t he i nvolvement of or dinary members of t he publ ic and t hose w hich e ncompass m embers of a ssociations a nd g roups (Smith 2009). The term public encompasses citizens within a population acting individually or a s pa rt o f civil s ociety or community o rganizations. In t he c ontext of t his r esearch, however, the t erm ci tizen d oes n ot m ean a n aturalised o r n ative m ember o f a s tate b ut an inhabitant of a l ocal area. Citizen is a lso us ed t o m ake a di stinction be tween ‘client’ and ‘consumer’ which are often used by public administration to describe its relationship with the public (Feldman and Khademian 2007). While providing increased opportunities for citizens and civil society to participate more directly in governance, it is possible to identify a diverse range o f act ors w ho p articipate. T hese i nclude ci tizens, r epresentatives o f ci vil s ociety organisations s uch as c ommunity groups, l ay stakeholders, p rofessional s takeholders or representatives of pr ofessional or ganisations, political r epresentatives, and a dministrative elites or public officials (Fung 2006).
15
Citizens w ithin p articipatory in stitutions are o ften m embers an d r epresentatives o f civil s ociety o rganisations. Civil s ociety c an be understood a s a n a rena or s pace i n s ociety where c ollective c itizen a ction o ccurs, w here in dividuals c ome to gether v oluntarily and participate in formal and informal meetings, and organisations and associations (Melena and Heinrich 2005 ). A ccording t o Diamond, c ivil society i s a n arena i n which c itizens a re empowered and w here citizens c an de velop s kills r elating t o de mocratic pow er s haring, negotiation and collective action (Diamond 1994). The CIVICUS index defines civil society as “the arena between family, government, and market where people voluntarily associate to advance common interests” (Melena and Heinrich 2005, p.346). This sphere includes a broad range o f or ganisations a nd i nterest groups i n w hich c itizens c an a ct i ndividually a s well a s collectively. It m ust be
acknowledged t hat civil s ociety is not hom ogenous a nd doe s not
encompass a s ingle public sphere. In reality, civil society encompasses a myriad of different associational f orms a nd c ivil s ociety or ganisations ( CSOs) can h ave d iverse an d even conflicting a ims, obj ectives a nd v alues. Furthermore, these g roups may wish to r emain distinct a nd d etached f rom th e s tate a nd r efuse to e ngage in f orms o f p articipatory governance. Dryzek, for example, conceptualised civil society as a place in which the people choose t o l ive t heir l ives a nd s olve collective pr oblems. A dvancing an i ndependent understanding of civil s ociety which i s di stinct f rom t he s tate, he i dentifies a num ber of activities C SOs ma y be in volved in cluding: c hanging th e te rms o f political d iscourse, legitimating d ifferent f orms o f c ollective a ction, c onvening p olicy o rientated f ora; a nd generating r esponses f rom g overnment as a r esult o f f ear o f p olitical i nstability (Dryzek 1996). However, in reality, complete detachment from the state is seldom feasible for CSOs and t he in volvement in f ormal p articipatory in stitutions h as imp lications f or th e r ole and status o f c ivil s ociety. T his n ecessitates th e mo vement o f c ivil s ociety in to th e s tate s phere and more formally into the realm of public authorities. This embeds civil society and citizens into the institutions of the state and incorporates government officials into civil society also, blurring the lines between state and civil society and altering traditional state-society relations (Wampler 2012). In summary, citizen, civil society or public participation is an ambiguous concept and the practice and research of participation or engagement often lacks clarity and consistency of language. Participation in this study is distinct from traditional political participation such as voting i n e lections a nd j oining i nterest gr oups a nd pol itical pa rties, or non -formal fo rms o f 16
participation i ncluding advocacy a nd pa rticipating i n s ocial m ovements. It i s a form of participatory democracy and governance, and concerns the extent to which citizens and civil society a ctors can ex ercise v oice, i nfluence an d d etermine d ecisions o n i ssues t hat ar e important to th em o r affect th em (Goodhart et a l. 2012) . This m ore di rect form of participation is non-conventional a nd
institutional a s i t c onsists of t he i nvolvement of
citizens in new forms of political activity and enables them to be connected with political and administrative d ecision-making (Galais e t a l. 2012) . Within this, m embers of t he publ ic acting individually or as members of civil society organisations participate directly alongside public o fficials an d el ected r epresentatives. In contrast t o t raditional f orms o f p articipation, their interests and concerns are not mediated by elected representatives. While not electoral, participants m ay vot e and pa rticipate a fter be ing s elected t hrough vot ing pr ocedures. Although o ften comprising of individual members of the public, this engagement is often a collective endeavour carried out by citizens aimed at directly producing or determining public services and political outcomes in their communities (Johnson 2014). The following section explores the theoretical and conceptual underpinnings of participation in further detail.
2.2 Theories and Models of Democracy The pa rticipation of
members of t he publ ic in p articipatory in stitutions has
implications f or tr aditional p olitical p articipation a s w ell as democratic r epresentation. T he shift to more direct forms of citizen and civil society participation and the institutionalisation of pa rticipatory governance ha s c lear r oots i n t he t heories of pa rticipatory, de liberative a nd associational f orms of democracy and t he r ecognition of deficits w ithin r epresentative democracy a nd government. T his s ection of t he c hapter will e xplore t he t heoretical underpinning of pa rticipation a nd s ituate t his participation i n t he w ider c ontext of t he development and evolution of m odern democracy. B efore t he s ubstantive di scussion of ke y theoretical arguments made b y advocates o f p articipatory and d eliberative forms o f democracy, t his s ection w ill out line t he theoretical de velopment of m odern de mocracy and representative g overnment a nd s ome m ore e stablished r ationales against m ore s ubstantive forms of citizen participation. 2.2.1 Modern Democratic Theory Despite its many variants, democracy, according to Held, is a form of government in which t he pe ople r ule, and involves a f orm of c ommunity i n w hich t here i s a de gree of 17
political equality among people (Held 2006). Most conceptions of democracy are built on the foundation of popul ar r ights, e quality, a nd e mpowering pe ople t o g overn t heir l ives (Alexander a nd W elzel 2011) . D emocracy i s c onsidered i nstrumental and de velopmental simultaneously, be neficial t o i ndividuals a nd society, and a n e ffective a nd l egitimate instrument of de cision-making. D epending on t he t heoretical a nd po litical pe rspective, moreover, de mocracy can r epresent a s et of i nstitutions a nd va lues or t he i deological justification or means to challenge and alter them (Blaug 2002). By the late twentieth century, a di stinct f orm of de mocracy, considered pr imarily as a m ethod or a s a s et of i nstitutional arrangements, became dominant in western society. This contained constitutional frameworks of r epresentative e lected g overnment, a dult s uffrage a nd t he r ight of c itizens t o f orm a nd participate i n i ndependent pol itical a ssociations a nd i nterest groups (Dahl 1956, P ateman 1970). The vast majority of liberal-democratic theorists supported representative democracy where representatives are elected in accordance with formal procedures. For much of the late nineteenth a nd early t wentieth c entury, a pessimistic a nd pr oceduralist vi ew of d emocracy and t he capacity o f ci tizens t herein were articulated b y, amongst o thers, M ax W eber an d Joseph Schumpeter. Both theorists advanced a vision of democracy with limited participation and societal development. Democratic t heorists o f the p eriod w ere l argely pessimistic co ncerning t he r ole o f ordinary citizens i n de mocracy a nd t heir pot ential c ontribution t o government. This pessimism c ontinues a nd c oncerns a bout t he c apacity a nd m otivations of c itizens w ithin modern subnational participatory governance have been raised (Talpin 2011, Warren 1996). Democracy was conceptualised more as a p rocedure or method to elect decision-makers and can be c onsidered a rejection o f t he cl assical Athenian m odel. S chumpeter, f or ex ample, understood de mocracy primarily as a n i nstrument a nd a dvocated electoral c ompetition f or political le adership. He considered d emocracy a pol itical m ethod o r a n i nstitutional arrangement, a nd de fined d emocracy as “ that in stitutional a rrangement f or a rriving a t political de cisions i n w hich i ndividuals a cquire t he pow er t o de cide b y m eans of a competitive s truggle f or pe oples’ vote” (Schumpeter 1976, p.269 ). His w ritings h ad a considerable i mpact upo n t he de velopment of d emocratic t heory pos t World W ar II and aligned closely with many in the West who, perhaps influenced by Communism, considered mass participation and mobilization of citizens as dangerous (Held 2006). In contrast to emerging forms of more substantive participation, citizens could expect no more from democracy than to select political representatives and to elect governments. In 18
Capitalism, Soc ialism and D emocracy, f irst p ublished i n 1943, Schumpeter’s negative attitudes toward citizen participation are evident, arguing “the electoral mass is incapable of action ot her t han a s tampede, s o t hat i t i s l eaders w ho m ust be a ctive, i nitiate an d d ecide” (Schumpeter 1976, p.28 3). He contended t hat the p olitical a rena is ta xing f or s uitably competent individuals, never mind citizens who lacked rationality and sufficient information to make competent and informed decisions. The electorate is weak and excessively emotional with p olitical is sues d istant f rom their liv es. C itizens, h e ma intained, discussed p olitics without a s ense of r esponsibility a nd i n a n i gnorant a nd i nfantile m anner. P ublic pol icy formation was the terrain of those suitably experienced and qualified with democracy the rule of t he pr ofessional pol itician not t he pe ople. Consequently, a so-called division of l abour between ci tizens an d r epresentatives w as es sential w ith p olitical p arties an d t he p olitical ‘boss’ the essence of politics (Schumpeter 1976). This pessimism is evident in the writings of other influential theorists of that time. In A Preface to Democratic Theory, Robert Dahl argued lower socio-economic groups were the least politically active and likely to possess authoritarian sympathies. Dahl equated political equality with universal suffrage (Dahl 1956). However, Dahl later challenged the minimalist or proceduralist view of democracy and argued that democracy extended beyond government formation a nd pr ocedure. D emocracy w as not m erely an out come but an important process also. Further, he also recognised the inequalities within the democratic process due to social and eco nomic i nequalities g enerated b y c apitalism (Dahl 1989) . M uch of c ontemporary liberal democratic theory regarded the participation of minority elites as crucial and the nonparticipation of ordinary citizens as an effective bulwark against political instability (Pateman 1970). In the view of many liberal theorists, excessive or unchecked democracy contributed to despotism, revolt from the masses, and the tyranny of the majority (Barber 1984). Much of the pos t-World War II scholarship on de mocracy a nd d emocratization, i t i s a rgued, h as largely t reated t he r oot co ncept o f d emocracy as f ixed (Munck 201 3). In t his vi ew, democratic theory h ad b ecome largely a theory of s ystem stability focused primarily on the effective institutionalisation of electoral democracy (Goodhart et al. 2012). This predominant conception of democracy advocated limited citizen participation apart from the act of voting and joining political parties (Held 2006). However, t he c oncept of de mocracy i s ope n to i nterpretation a nd a di stinction between ‘thin’ and ‘thick’ forms of democracy is made (Munck 2013). It is also possible to distinguish be tween di fferent m odels, pr inciples or va rieties o f de mocracy which c ontrast 19
with l iberal an d el ectoral d emocracy (Coppedge e t a l. 2013, H eld 20 06). The tw entieth century w itnessed t he a rticulation a nd j ustification of ne w va riants i ncluding pl uralism, democratic socialism, deliberative and participatory forms of democracy (Held 2006). There is a c onsiderable existing lite rature o utlining d ifferent id eal forms o f d emocracy or alternatives to electoral or liberal democracy. For some, the growth of these so-called ‘nonhegemonic’ conceptions of democracy are in response to the ‘elitism’ and failings of existing democratic practice (de Sousa Santos and Avritzer 2007). The following section will explore the de velopment of p articipatory, de liberative a nd a ssociational f orms of de mocracy w hich have i nformed t he de velopment of citizen p articipation w ithin p articipatory in stitutions increasingly institutionalised at the sub-national level. 2.2.2 Participatory, Deliberative and Associative Democracy As outlined, the term “participation” is ambiguous and often used as an umbrella term to de scribe a m yriad of e merging forms of democratic p articipation which c ontrast w ith traditional participation in representative forms of democracy. Irrespective of the term used, current forms of participation formalised within participatory institutions have clear roots in participatory, deliberative and associational theories of democracy. This section will highlight these underpinnings and engage in a brief discussion of each of the theories. This discussion is critical in establishing concepts and indicators in the analysis of the depth of participation. The r eview, f or example, emphasises t he i mportance o f voice a nd i nfluence a nd hi ghlights key differences w ith r epresentative d emocracy. As participatory pr ocesses of ten pr oceed within a nd in p arallel to e xisting representative and bur eaucratic i nstitutions, these t heories also pr esent a n i nsight i n t he di fficulties b alancing p articipatory and tr aditional d emocratic practice, as well as its implications for the traditional decision and policy making and the role of citizens in this. The t erm ‘Participatory Democracy’, i t i s argued, has roots i n Arnold S . Kaufman’s arguments in favour of a participatory politics (Mansbridge 1995). It began as a slogan of the ‘New L eft’ student m ovement of t he 1960 ’s which a dvocated t he d emocratization of universities. T his m ovement l ater s pread to t he w orkplace amidst a rguments i n f avour of greater worker control of industry (MacPherson 1977). Participatory democracy as articulated by Pateman and MacPherson, argues Held, reimagined the terms of reference of democracy. Their th eoretical w ork, which e merged t hrough a c ombination of t he pol itical uphe avals of the n ineteen s ixties, d ebates w ithin th e ideological left an d dissatisfaction w ith lib eral a nd Marxist thought, served as a leading alternative to the so-called legal democracy of the new 20
right and the competitive elitism advocated by Schumpeter (Held 2006). The broader theory of pa rticipatory democracy i s of ten considered a s upplement t o l iberal d emocracy a nd a n effective means to address its many deficits. Although initially articulated as an alternative to liberal democracy, participatory democrats do not advocate the replacement of representative democracy with participation. Participatory de mocratic t heory i s bui lt on a nu mber of no rmative f oundations. A participatory society, it is argued, can achieve political equality and self-development. Direct citizen participation can better realise democratic ideals, reduce inequality within society, and serve a n i mportant s ocial a nd pol itical e ducative f unction (Pateman 1970, B arber 1984) . According t o C arole P ateman, t he t heory of pa rticipatory de mocracy i s “ built a round t he central assertion that individuals and their institutions cannot be considered in isolation from one a nother” (Pateman 1970, p.42) . “C itizens”, s he ar gues, “ have t he r ight t o publ ic provision, t he r ight t o pa rticipate i n de cision-making a bout th eir c ollective lif e a nd to liv e within a uthority s tructures th at m ake s uch pa rticipation pos sible” (Pateman 2012, p.14) . A 2012 ar ticle b y P ateman, which r eflects o n ex isting d eliberative an d p articipatory p ractice, identifies what is considered by the author as the most important components of the theory of participatory d emocracy. T hese e lements in clude ( a) th e in teraction o f th e c apacities, s kills and c haracteristics o f in dividuals w ith a uthority structures th at ma ke p articipation p ossible, (b) the opportunity for individuals to participate in decision-making in their everyday lives as well a s pol itics a nd ( c) s tructural r eform of u ndemocratic authority s tructures (Pateman 2012). The de sire f or i ncreased pa rticipation a longside r epresentative i nstitutions de mands greater opportunities or democratic institutions to participate. Such participatory institutions are a m eans to a ddress t he m any w eaknesses of liberal a nd a ggregative democracy and t o extend t he r ealm o f co llective d ecision-making t o n ew s pheres o f governance an d s ociety (Goodhart et a l. 2012 ). The r ealm o f p olitical a ctivity th erefore i s expanded i n an e ffort t o ‘democratize democracy’ and democratic decision-making. To satisfy the participatory ideal, argues Pateman, participation must impact public action and interact with authority structures (Pateman 2012) . In addition, t his f orm of de mocracy has an explicit c ommunicative or discursive d imension w ith th e c ollective w ill f ormulated n ot th rough e lectoral c ompetition but through discourse and deliberation. Benjamin Barber’s di scussion of pa rticipatory theory i s m ore de veloped t han Pateman’s an d h is t heory expands p articipatory de mocracy from t he w orkplace t o a ll o f society. His conception of Strong Democracy is considered a modern and more practical form 21
of t he radical co nception o f p articipatory d emocracy (Barber 19 84). Critical o f lib eral democratic p luralism’s d epiction o f p olitics a s “ nothing m ore t han t he c hambermaid of private interests”, B arber s ets out an alternative v ision of pol itics based on c ivic education, community and pa rticipation (Barber 1984, p.1 18). “D emocracy”, h e a rgues, “ is n either government b y t he m ajority n or r epresentative r ule: it is c itizen s elf-government. W ithout citizens there can be only elite/mass politics” (Barber 1984, p.211). If p articipatory d emocracy i ncorporates a d emocratic s ystem i n w hich “ citizens literally rule themselves, directly and participatorily, day in day out, in all matters that affect them in their common lives”, Strong Democracy is less demanding. It is a form of democracy in which “all of the people govern themselves in at least some public matters at least some of the time” (Barber 1984, p.xiv). This is a system of self-government by citizens as opposed to representative government on be half of c itizens. Strong D emocracy deals w ith p ublic disputes and conflicts through an enduring process of deliberation, decision, and action; and proceeds i n i nstitutions a t bot h l ocal a nd na tional r ealms t hat e ncourage c ommon t alk, common decision-making and political judgement. (Barber 1984). According to Barber, talk is f undamental t o de mocracy allowing citizens t o ove rcome na rrow s elf-interests, to ju stify and renew political beliefs and convictions. It can build community, maintain rights, produce societal c onsensus a nd r esolve c onflict. H e a rticulates ni ne f unctions of s trong de mocratic talk which include the articulation of interests, bargaining and exchange, persuasion, agendasetting, e xploring m utuality, a ffiliation a nd a ffection, m aintaining a utonomy, w itness a nd self-expression, r eformulation a nd r econceptualization, a nd c ommunity bui lding a s t he creation of public interests, common goods, and active citizens (Barber 1984). Deliberation i s also a feature o f participatory g overnance. While r epresentative democracy focuses on a ggregative outcomes through voting, deliberative theorists argue the essence of democratic legitimacy is the capacity of those affected by a collective decision to deliberate in the creation of that decision (Barber 1984, Dryzek 2002). Deliberation has been defined as “a process whereby groups of people, often ordinary citizens, engage in reasoned opinion e xpression on a s ocial or pol itical i ssue i n a n a ttempt t o i dentify s olutions t o a common problem and to evaluate those solutions” (Stromer-Galley 2007, p.3). Deliberation concerns free, e qual a nd ope n c ommunication r elated t o m atters of publ ic c oncern b y t he actors affected (Myers and Mendelberg 2013). Deliberative democrats are concerned with the extent to which democratic processes and institutions should be built on so-called reasonable political judgement, not the empirical will of those who participate in politics (Held 2006). 22
Deliberative democracy is considered a process that “creates a public, citizens coming together t o t alk about collective problems, goals, i deals an d actions” (Young a nd B enhabib 1996, p.121) . In t his vi ew, c itizens a nd c ivil s ociety a ctors i nvolved i n t his pr ocess a re not motivated by solely rational or instrumental concerns. Instead issues are considered in terms of the common good as deliberation involves discussion and the exchange of views. Through deliberation, i ndividuals a re obl iged t o j ustify t heir opi nions, c onsider t he me rits o f alternative ar guments, g ive r easons, an d are m ore willing to ch ange fixed preferences (Dryzek 2002, T eague 2 006). Deliberation, t herefore, c an en able p articipants t o l earn m ore about pol icy-making and r esult in mo re le gitimate a nd b etter th ought o ut de cision-making that de velops f rom c ollaborative a nd j oint a ction. It of fers t he pot ential f or m ore i nclusive and just decision-making. Consequently, deliberation is considered a necessary condition in securing legitimacy and rationality in collective decision-making (Cunningham 2001). While both deliberative and participatory forms of democracy are considered a means to address the weaknesses of representative democracy, participatory theory has come under criticism f rom n umerous d eliberative d emocrats w ho c riticize th e th eory’s o ften f uzzy utopianism and t he absence of empirical evidence s upporting m any of i ts normative claims (Warren 1996) . H owever, t he r elationship be tween de liberative a nd pa rticipatory s chools i s complex (Mutz 2006) . P articipation extends de liberation a nd ot her f orms of collective political a ctions in to mo re d iverse s pheres o f s ociety. S imilar to a dvocates o f p articipatory democracy, de liberative theorists be lieve i n t he capacity o f or dinary c itizens t o c ontribute meaningfully and intelligently to politics. Therefore, deliberation like participation is widely considered an i nstrument o f d eeper d emocracy and a m ore s ubstantive f orm of pol itical participation (Goodhart et al. 2012, Fung and Wright 2001). However, while deliberation is considered participatory as it in volves citizens and elites deliberating on collective issues of importance, bot h a re di stinct a nd di fferent t heories of de mocracy. D eliberation c an b e considered a ne cessary but not a s ufficient c ondition of pa rticipatory democratic t heory (Hilmer 2010). Furthermore, in contrast with radical participatory theorists such as Pateman, many a dvocates of de liberation do not be lieve a t ransformation of de mocratic s tructures i s necessary (Hauptmann 2001). The potential combination of deliberation and participation is evident in Empowered Deliberative D emocracy (EDD). EDD is an institutional m odel of pa rticipatory de mocracy and s ituates d eliberative a nd p articipatory th eory within formal s tructures o f governance. Drawing o n r eal-life e xperiences i n B razil, India, a nd t he U nited S tates, i t c oncerns t he 23
resolution of specific and tangible societal problems, seeks to secure the active participation of those affected by the problems in question, and the use of deliberative processes to solve these pr oblems (Wright a nd F ung 2003) . T his f orm of p articipation i s de liberative and involves the direct influence of citizens on public action particularly on i ssues of importance to t he l ives of pa rticipants. EDD therefore r epresents a f undamental c hange i n how governments i nclude c itizens a nd c ivil s ociety actors i n de mocratic de cision-making an d public administration (Fung 2003a). It is worth emphasising that this is institutionalised at the subnational o r lo cal le vel a nd n ecessitates p articipation in d eliberative decision m aking i n arenas with considerable power, not in advisory and consultative mechanisms. Finally, t he c onnection be tween associations a nd pa rticipatory f orms of g overnance must be acknowledged. Indeed, it is common for existing participatory processes to facilitate the involvement of the public as members of associations and civil society organisations as well a s in dividual c itizens. A ssociative de mocracy i s not a hom ogenous c oncept a nd embodies di ffering pe rspectives on t he r ole of associations i n g overnance. O ne m odel o f associational democracy argues that associations can represent lower socio-economic groups and can help solve the problems faced by poorer citizens in society largely through advocacy, interest r epresentation and ef fective i nterest o rganisation (Cohen 1997) . O thers r efer t o t he role of associations as part of a robust and vibrant civil society, which does not necessarily participate i n p rocesses o f governance, b ut r ather s erves as a ch eck an d b alance o n government behaviour (Gaventa 2006). In the case of Irish Travellers, associative democracy is of particular relevance to this study. Hirst advocated for associations as the primary instrument of democratic governance and s ocial a nd pol itical a ffairs. A ssociations, he c ontended, ar e a “ supplement a nd he althy competitor” f or s o-called “ dominant f orms of s ocial or ganisation, r epresentative m ass democracy, b ureaucratic s tate w elfare, a nd t he b ig c orporation” (Hirst 1 993, p.42) . In t his substantive theory of associative democracy, associations perform an enhanced role in social and economic governance t aking on activities t he s tate c annot or do es not w ish t o de liver. This public service delivery role for associations and community organisations is increasingly evident in an era of New Public Management. Although considered as distinct modes of democracy, a number of scholars consider associations a s ke y i n t he r evitalising of pa rticipatory d emocracy w here t hey s hare publ ic power in addition to advocacy in interest groups arenas (Fung 2003a). The participation in, and m embership o f, as sociations s timulates f ace t o f ace en gagement an d d evelops ci tizens’ 24
civic skills. Politically, an increased influence for associations, for example, community and parent organisations i n de cision-making c an boos t de mocratic out comes a nd i mprove political a nd a dministrative a ccountability. T his r ole is s imilar to EDD and pa rticipatory governance w ith a ssociations pr acticing de liberative c ommunication i nternally and w ith administrative a nd p olitical e lites (Fung a nd Wright 2001, C ohen 19 97, G oodhart e t al. 2012). From th is discussion, a num ber of ke y a reas w ithin t he br oad f ield of p articipatory democracy a nd g overnance are ap parent. T he t heories of pa rticipatory, de liberative a nd associational democracy, which have influenced both the conceptualisation and application of the mo dern s hift to p articipation, highlight t he i mportance of voi ce and i nfluence and increased oppor tunities f or c itizens t o pa rticipate di rectly i n g overnance as w ell a s t hrough civil s ociety o rganisations. The di scussion a lso highlights t he contrast with r epresentative democracy an d traditional forms o f decision a nd policy ma king within democratic institutions.
2.3 A Review of the Empirical Literature This section of the chapter will engage in a review of the existing empirical literature and outline its m ethodological focus. The traditional f ocus w ithin th e e xisting literature is theoretical an d co nceptual. However, t here i s a growing p rioritisation o f e mpiricism in th e field of participatory democracy/governance and use of mixed methods research. The study of pa rticipatory d emocracy h as be gun t o a ddress the s o-called d ivorce b etween n ormative theory and e mpirical political s cience (Smith 2011) . R esearch o f d eliberative an d participatory democracy, argue Thompson and Smith, has, for the most part, progressed with a d ivorce b etween th eory and e mpiricism w ith n ormative th eorists la rgely d ismissive o f empirical f indings and empirical s tudies n ot engaging a dequately w ith theory (Thompson 2008, S mith 2011) . This i s ech oed b y P ateman, who ar gues p articipation should not be treated only as a “normative argument, concerned with ideals” (Pateman 2012, p.10). Empirical studies have focused on a small number of so-called best practice cases of participatory institutions (Smith 2011). A case study approach assumes the data from selected cases can r epresent a b roader p opulation (Gerring 2004 ). However, there i s a growing awareness o f t he p otential b enefits o f extending r esearch f rom cas e s tudies to l arger s cale analysis (Burton 2009, Gaventa and Barrett 2010, Font et al. 2012). The case study approach, it i s ar gued, h as resulted i n a g eneral f ailure t o p roduce r eliable o verall as sessments o f 25
participatory practice within countries and s tates; and has led to a vi ew t hat t he benefits of participation t end t o out weigh costs a nd pr oblems (Font a nd G alais 20 11, W ampler 2008) . The need t o e volve from i n-depth cas e s tudies to l arger comparative an alyses o f d ifferent participatory i nstitutions w ithin a nd a cross r egions i s a cknowledged (Speer 2012, W ampler and McNulty 2011). According to Wampler and McNulty, the study of participation demands a greater comparative analysis of the different type of participatory institutions across a wide spectrum of c ountries and r egions t o be tter va lidate c laims a bout i ts pos itive e ffects on participants a nd on gove rnance (Wampler a nd M cNulty 2011) . These l arger scale comparative s tudies c an pot entially produce a better unde rstanding of each pa rticipatory process including examples of more substantive forms of participation (Font et al. 2012). A more rigorous investigation of how institutional design affects outcomes and the influence of the p articipatory process on t he m otivation of a ctors t o pa rticipate i s a lso a dvocated (Fung 2007, Smith 2011). Researchers h ave b egun t o en gage i n this through t he increased use of quantitative and comparative methods. A 2012 i ssue of the Revista Internacional de Sociología gives an overview of t he r ange of di verse m ethods u sed b y researchers w ithin t he s tudy of participation. The opening article references the use of large N, small N quantitative research, experimental r esearch, ethnography, case s tudy r esearch, a nd c omparative s tudies. T his methodological pl uralism, a rgue t he a uthors, r epresents m aturity within t he s ub-field o f participatory democracy (Font et al. 2012). This is echoed by Smith who argues the study of democratic p articipation has w itnessed a n empirical a nd “institutional t urn”. S cholars, he argues, now focus less on the desire for more participation and more on the context of citizen participation a nd t he c onsequences of i nstitutional de sign. T his e volution r epresents a “middle gr ound” and h as be gun t o address t he so -called tr aditional “ division of l abour” between normative theory and empirical political science (Smith 2011, p.9). Comparative research has grown with the proliferation of democratic innovations and participatory institutions (Ryan a nd S mith 201 2). C omparative mixed m ethods r esearch within th e f ield appears m ost de veloped w ithin t he study o f P articipatory Budgeting. Fo r example, Wampler analyses the conditions which ‘deepen’ the quality of democracy drawing on the differing success of Participatory Budgeting institutions throughout Brazil. The study explains the divergent outcomes of eight separate budgeting processes and identifies two key explanatory f actors, ‘ strong m ayoral s upport’ a nd t he ‘ type o f c ivil s ociety activity’, i .e. cooperation and contestation. The study develops a theoretical framework, is based on bot h 26
primary and secondary research, and engages in detailed comparative analysis. The findings underline the importance of elite support and the capacity of civil society to engage in deeper forms o f p articipation (Wampler 2008) . Wampler also an alyses t he ex tent t o w hich Participatory Budgeting in Brazil has mobilised low income groups with the use of a range of quantitative methods including survey research and logistic regression (Wampler 2007a). The study analyses eleven of thirty five municipalities in Brazil which had implemented PB for a period of at least seven years. The author administered the questionnaire to a pool of elected PB c itizen de legates. T he s tudy develops t wo separate m odels’ t o e xplain r espondents’ attitudes, individual level socio-economic characteristics and aggregate level municipal data. PB, results indicate, has the potential to empower lower income groups in the public sphere and alter state-civil society relations based previously on clientelism and corruption. PB can ‘deepen’ democracy w hen p articipants ar e r ewarded w ith s ignificant l evels o f au thority (Wampler 2007a). The comparative approach is further developed by Ryan and Smith in their analysis of Participatory B udgeting out comes using ‘Fuzzy S et’ or ‘Qualitative Comparative Analysis’ (QCA) methods (Ryan a nd S mith 2012) . T he s tudy applies Q CA t o evaluate an d b eing t o explain the divergent outcomes of Participatory Budgeting in six cases across the globe. This analysis h as th e p rimary aim o f e xplaining th e k ey conditions i n w hich P articipatory Budgeting is e ffectively in stitutionalised. T he p rimary o utcome is ‘ citizen c ontrol o f participatory d ecision-making’ a nd t he s elected ‘ influencing conditions’ c oncern f iscal independence, participatory leadership, civil society demand, and initial bureaucratic support. The authors are e xplicit a bout t heir m ethodological approach a nd clearly d efine an d operationalize the selected variables. Moreover, data is calibrated transparently with the use of qualitative continuous measurement scales. The analysis also indicates that the presence of initial bur eaucratic s upport e ven i n t he a bsence of ot her c onditions c an pr oduce c itizen control on de cision-making (Ryan and Smith 2012). This is significant and further indicates the importance of public administration to participatory governance. 2.3.1 Weaknesses within Empirical Literature Despite th e growing me thodological p luralism within th e lite rature, w eaknesses of existing studies and approaches to empirical research have been hi ghlighted. More broadly, the n eed f or r esearchers t o b e m ore ex plicit ab out m ethodological ch oices an d r esearch design has been referenced (Gaventa and Barrett 2010). In terms of evaluating participation within f ormal p articipatory in stitutions, research i s criticised f or a f ailure t o d iscuss an d 27
explore m ethodological a nd r esearch d esign i n detail (Burton 2009) . There is c riticism o f existing a pproaches t o evaluation. C ritics a rgued t hat use of no rmative f rameworks t o evaluate participatory mechanisms has not been carried out in a s ystematic basis, or resulted in a co nsiderable v olume o f accu rate o r r eliable d ata t o a ssess the supposed benefits of participation t o i ndividual participants o r t o governance (Burton 2009 , R owe a nd Frewer 2004). This i s c onsidered a c onsequence of t he l ack of s tandard f rameworks t o a ssess processes a nd c larity o f how
evaluation s hould be unde rtaken. Existing s tudies l ack
systematic and generally applicable measures and evaluation tools (Frewer and Rowe 2005, Rowe e t a l. 2008) . According t o s ome, t he a ssumptions a nd f indings of s pecific s tudies of participatory pr ocesses are w eakened t hrough po orly d efined de finitions of e ffectiveness, a dearth o f m easureable d ata an d v alid an d a ccurate m ethods o f m easurement (Rowe et al. 2008). There i s d earth o f r obust i ndicators of pr ocess outcomes de spite t he perception of ‘outcome f ailure’, and a lack o f evidence to e stablish th e n ormative c laims o f p otential democratic goods and positive benefits of civic engagement (Burton 2009, Frewer and Rowe 2005, H arvey 2009, G aventa a nd Barrett 2010) . This, i t i s a rgued, w eakens t he nor mative claims of the positive effects of participation. As a r esult, the extent to which participatory mechanisms ju stify th e n ormative c laims o f p articipatory t heorists c annot be a nswered definitively (Speer 2012 ). Further, t he existing literature, argue N abatchi an d Amsler, l acks comprehensive analyses of pa rticipants’ a ssessments a nd s atisfaction w ith pa rticipation a nd the imp act o f participation on t he work of publ ic a uthorities. T hese aspects a re i ntegral to assessing t he r elationship be tween c ontext, pr ocess, i nstitutional de signs a nd out puts i n participatory governance
(Nabatchi and A msler 2014) . Although, in t he c ontext of
Participatory Budgeting in Brazil, the impact of participation on public institutions and civil society has been examined (Touchton and Wampler 2013, Wampler 2015). Criteria f or e valuating p articipatory institutions can be ba sed on nor mative a nd empirical c onsiderations (Harvey 2009) . Normative c riteria o ften h ave d emocratic an d theoretical foundations, with empirical criteria more concerned with outcomes and objectives and t he e xtent t o w hich t hese a re a chieved. In t his m ode of e valuation, ‘success’ i s determined by ‘results’ and ‘outcomes’ (Harvey 2009). The attempt to engage in procedural or in strumental o utcome b ased e valuations is s ubject to criticism. While c onsidered t o b e more e mpirical, it is
a rgued th at a ttempts to e xamine th e outcomes of pa rticipatory
institutions through current evaluation frameworks largely ignore or underplay participatory 28
experiences, or how the actions of participants influence outcomes (Harvey 2009). This form of evaluation prioritises the outcome of the participatory process and, as a result, excludes the experience o f k ey p articipants in cluding a dministrative a nd p olitical e lites w ho a re la rgely understood i n ‘instrumental’ terms. This approach also lacks a r igorous a ssessment of t he extent of democratization and the quality of democratic participation. Consequently, this can ignore or undermine the experience of participants (citizens, officials and politicians) whose insights and experiences are integral to the assessment of participatory governance. Smith h as al so i dentified s ome weaknesses within e xisting a pproaches t o the comparative a nalysis o f in stitutions. The i nstitutional f ocus, he a rgues, has t aken t wo different ap proaches, ‘principal-application’ and ‘ reflection o n p ractice’. Principal application, t he most c ommon a pproach, pr ioritises th e a rticulation o f a s et o f n ormative principles for a particular democratic theory that advances the creation of more sophisticated analytical frameworks which are subsequently applied to institutional designs (Smith 2011). This is criticised as selected cases either serve to strengthen theoretical foundations or show distance f rom a pa rticular nor mative p rinciple. The pr edominant f ocus on t heory i s a lso considered i nsufficient because t heoretical an d n ormative f rameworks d o n ot accu rately account f or t he c omplexity of t he pa rticipatory pr ocess. ‘ Reflection on pr actice’, a rgues Smith, is more useful and can result in a more vigorous analysis of how democratic principles are realized t hrough a detailed f ocus on i nstitutional design and pr actice. T his f orm o f analysis ma y h ave imp lications f or th e n ormative id eals in herent in e xisting p articipatory theories and demonstrate the institutional circumstances in which these ideals are or are not achieved (Smith 2011) . T he r eflection on pr actice a pproach l ends i tself t o c omparative analysis across participatory cases. This is important as participation research, it is argued, is dominated by so-called ‘practice stories’ in which effective participation is stymied through the be haviour of c ynical e lites (Burton 2009) . The m ethodology of t his s tudy c an be considered a fo rm o f re flection on pr actice i n w hich t he r elationship be tween t he de pth of participation and a r ange of potential explanatory variables, including the characteristics and motivations of a ctors a nd i nstitutional d esign a re e xamined. Further, t he m easurement an d explanation of t he de pth of pa rticipation focuses on t he e xperiences of a d iverse r ange o f participants including elected and public officials. According to Burton, the traditional lack of empirical scrutiny of participation may be a consequence of the normative concerns of participatory and democratic theorists as well as the methodological difficulties experienced in the creation of evaluative frameworks. Further, 29
the normative and theoretical focus of much of the literature has roots in the so-called rights based e thos o f p articipation, in w hich c riticism o f p articipation is a kin t o c riticism o f th e citizens right to participate (Burton 2009). It must be acknowledged that the sheer diversity and pl urality of d emocratic innovations or p articipatory pr ocesses h as c omplicated t he evaluation of participation for researchers. The assessment of the outcomes of participation, argue G aventa an d B arrett, i s co mplex (Gaventa a nd B arrett 2010) . For ex ample, participation varies in scope and s cale and institutional designers have experimented with a large number of different institutional designs (Bryson et al. 2013, Fung 2015). This is further complicated as a ctors, i ncluding de signers, often pos sess di vergent g oals, m otivations a nd desired out comes (Klijn et a l. 2010) . T he s tudy of pr ocesses w ithin l ocal government, i t i s argued, is c omplicated by t he different and c omplex or ganizational s tructures of l ocal authorities as well as the contrasting purpose of and motivations behind the establishment of institutions (Lowndes et a l. 2001) . Participatory p rocesses a re d istinct in d esign a nd a im. Subsequently measures and results cannot be easily generalized to other cases (Mannarini and Talò 2013). Further, larger scale comparative analyses require larger sources of reliable data which are not always available or obtainable (Font et al. 2012). 2.3.2 Existing Measures of Democracy and Participation This s tudy m easures t he perceived depth of pa rticipation t hrough qua ntitative analysis. The following section details existing measures of democracy and participation and the overall use of measurement within the literature. Measurement of social science concepts, it i s a rgued, i s be neficial t o our know ledge a bout pol itics a nd governance. Measurement i n social s ciences c an b e d efined as t he as signment o f n umbers t o observations a ccording t o rules. Measurement, according to Schedler, is the translation of concepts and realities into the language of numbers (Schedler 2012). More broadly, the consideration afforded by scholars to measurement within political science and its subsequent application in empirical studies is lacking (Munck a nd V erkuilen 2003, M unck 2009) . In t he vi ew of M unck, a ccurate measurement o f t he ‘quality’ of d emocracy r equires a n extension of t he c oncept of democracy b eyond e lectoral de mocracy (Munck 2013) . The ne ed t o de velop a nd operationalize measures of deeper democracy and more direct forms of participation has been highlighted (Goodhart e t a l. 2012) . The majority o f e xisting e mpirical me asures, as exemplified through a variety of indices of electoral and liberal democracy, measure a ‘thin’ concept o f de mocracy, which i s ope rationalized pr imarily as electoral c ompetition a nd th e rule of law (Munck 2013). Such measures have been criticised f or a d isconnection between 30
conceptualisation and classical democratic theory (Bühlmann et al. 2012). Standard measures of democracy primarily differentiate democratic from non-democratic regimes. They do not adequately ad dress t he s o-called d emocratisation o f d emocracy, t he growth of pa rticipatory governance a nd de mocratic i nnovations, a nd t he e xtent t o w hich c itizens pos sess opportunities t o i nfluence ke y de cisions a nd pl ay a m ore a ctive a nd substantive r ole i n governance (Goodhart et al. 2012). Primarily due t o i ts nor mative a nd t heoretical f oundations, c onceptualisation is prominent than measurement in the existing literature. In addition to the theoretical work of Pateman a nd B arber, t he l iterature ha s pr oduced a num ber of a nalytical a nd e valuative frameworks i ncluding, amongst ot hers, A rnstein’s ‘Ladder of P articipation’ and F ung’s ‘Democracy C ube’. F ung’s ‘Democracy C ube’, for e xample, o ffers a c omprehensive framework to assess participation through three key components of participant selection, the mode of communication and decision, and the extent of authority and power. In this regard the a uthor i dentifies t hree i mportant que stions i n a ssessing t he s cope of participation: w ho participates? H ow do t hey communicate and make de cisions? W hat is t he c onnection between t heir c onclusions a nd opi nions on one ha nd a nd publ ic pol icy a nd a ction on t he other? (Fung 2006). In addition, Burton proposes three similar questions which can serve as a starting point in the conceptualisation and measurement of participation. These include (a) who s hould pa rticipate; (b) A t w hat l evel of de cision-making; and ( c) i n w hat r elationship with elites in formal decision-making responsibility? (Burton 2009). In t he c ontext of l arger s cale em pirical r esearch the a forementioned theoretical frameworks and definitions of participation are seldom operationalized or measured (Burton 2009, Rowe et al. 2008, Fung 2006). This is not intended as a criticism of these conceptual frameworks or t heir authors but r ather t o emphasize t he gap b etween c onceptualization, measurement and a ggregation w ithin th e c urrent lite rature a nd ju stify th e me asurement o f indicators of participation in reference to empirical cases. However, similar to the extension of r esearch f rom cas e s tudy t o l arger s cale r esearch d esigns, there i s an em erging s trand within the literature engaged in the development and application of indicators and measures. Existing a ttempts a t me asurement w ithin p articipation a re commonly di vided be tween frameworks w hich f ocus on pr ocedure or out comes a nd t hose w hich a ssess de velopmental aspects of the participatory process. Despite the complexity and diversity of participation and the varied design and rationale of participatory processes, there is a growing effort to develop measures applicable to participatory institutions. The most common aspect, it is argued, is the 31
deliberative part of the process which, irrespective of the intended outcome, is a fundamental aspect of participation (Mannarini and Talò 2013). Indeed, t he p ractice of measurement i s m ore de veloped i n t he f ield of D eliberative Democracy where researchers h ave d eveloped m easures t o ev aluate t he q uality o f deliberation. A ttempts t o me asure d eliberation can be di vided be tween m icro and m acro analytic approaches in addition to direct and indirect measures of deliberation (Bächtiger et al. 2009) . M acro-analytical a pproaches are evident t hrough 3 m easurement i nstruments including t he D iscourse Q uality Index a nd S tromer G alley’s in dex o f d eliberative content (Stromer-Galley 2007, Steenbergen e t a l. 2003 ). S tromer G alley’s coding s cheme o f t he quality of deliberation is composed of six measures: Reasoned Opinion Expression, Sourcing, Disagreement, Equality, Engagement and Topic. The contribution of t his i ndex i s two-fold. Firstly, t he s cheme cl early o perationalizes d eliberation. S econdly, t he a uthor de velops a nd presents a robust and transparent coding scheme. The m easurement of pa rticipatory pr ocesses i s m uch l ess de veloped. H owever, Mannarini a nd Talò developed t wo m easurement i nstruments, the “Deliberative P rocess Perceived Quality Scale” (DPPQS) and the “Outcome Rating Scale” (ORS). The criteria used in t hese m easures a re ba sed on t he pr ior w ork of R owe a nd F rewer a nd S tromer-Galley amongst ot hers (Rowe and F rewer 2000, S tromer-Galley 2007) . T he s cales di vide t he participatory or deliberative process into three phases: dialogue, understanding, and outcomes as part of the ORS. The measures are based on the subjective responses of participants and are u sed ex -post a fter t he pr ocess e nds. T he s cale i s c omprised of 33 i tems w ith agree/disagree scales ( from 1=strongly d isagree an d 7= strongly a gree) (Mannarini and Talò 2013). T he pr imary aim of t he s tudy (in a ddition t o t he c onstruction of the m easure) i s t o explore t he r elationship b etween s ubjective experience a nd future b ehaviour. The t wo measures reviewed above are most concerned with the quality of discourse and are applicable to one of f p articipatory or d eliberative p rocesses. T alò and M annarini a lso de veloped t he ‘Participatory Behaviours S cale’ with f our dimensions: f ormal p olitical p articipation, activism, civic participation and disengagement (Talò and M annarini 2015). Using a theory led approach, the measure consists of 28 items across the four dimensions and is designed to determine th e e xtent to which c itizens e ngage in s pecific b ehaviours. ‘ ‘The f ollowing lis t includes a list of behaviours characterizing civic and political engagement. Can you indicate to what extent you recognize these behaviours as your behaviours?’’ Respondents must select
32
1-strongly di sagree and 5 f or s trong agree. These m easures represent t he d evelopment o f measurement within the existing empirical literature. In s ummary, the opportunities for citizens and civil society to participate directly in formal g overnance pr ocesses c ontinue t o pr oliferate, pa rticularly at t he s ub-national l evel. This p articipation is d istinct f rom tr aditional r epresentative f orms o f d emocracy a nd government in which the concerns of citizens are mediated by elected representatives. After defining a nd i ntroducing t he c oncept of pa rticipation, t his l iterature r eview e xplored t he theoretical b asis a nd r ationale for participatory de mocracy a nd governance. W hile t he practice of participation does not always meet the standards of participatory and deliberative theorists, t hese t heories unde rpin the p ractice o f p articipation an d t he institutions o f subnational participatory governance. Gaps within the empirical literature and weaknesses of existing research have been highlighted. There is a growing awareness of the need to engage in more systematic studies of the dynamics of participatory processes and subsequent outputs and outcomes as well as measurement of key concepts (Smith 2011, Goodhart et al. 2012). Further, additional research on t he context and setting of participatory processes and the m otivations of pr ocess de signers can strengthen nor mative a ssumptions a nd e xisting theory (Nabatchi a nd Amsler 2014) . Existing t heoretical f rameworks a nd c onceptual definitions are i nfrequently o perationalized o r m easured a cross a l arge n umber o f cas es (Rowe et al. 2008, Burton 2009, G oodhart et al. 2012). Measurement within the research of participation remains in its relative infancy and there is scope for the further development of measures a nd i ndicators. However, a review o f th e e xisting e mpirical lite rature e mphasises the growing methodological pluralism within the broad field of participatory democracy and governance. The f ield of pa rticipatory de mocracy and governance is unde rgoing methodological de velopment and m aturity a nd the gr owing di versity of methods including measurement is evident (Galais et al. 2012).
33
34
Chapter 3 Local Government and Local Participatory Governance in Ireland The a im of t his c hapter i s pr ovide a na tional c ontext f or t he s tudy of l ocal participatory g overnance in Ir eland w hich takes p laces w ithin o r i n p arallel t o l ocal government. This necessitates a focus on t he powers and functions of local government and its historical development. This will help situate the inclusion of civil society actors as well as the presence of l ocal governance p rocesses s uch as S trategic P olicy Committees, Local Traveller Accommodation Consultative Committees and City/County Development Boards in a wider cultural, historical and political context. However, t his context has i mplications for facilitation a nd i mplementation of pa rticipatory governance within l ocal government i n Ireland. Historically, subnational government in Ireland has been weak with little functional autonomy an d an absence o f f inancial i ndependence. For t he m ost pa rt, l ocal g overnment policy h as been top down and driven b y central government. This is largely the case in the development of local participatory governance also. The first section of the chapter will give an ove rview of l ocal government pow ers a nd i ts br oad f unctions. T he second s ection w ill explore t he g radual, i ncremental r eform of l ocal g overnment a nd t he de velopment of t he participatory governance l andscape. F inally, t he or igins a nd rationale f or t he t hree participatory processes will be discussed as well as Irish Travellers and their relationship with the Irish state.
3.1 Local Government, Structure and Functions Ireland i s ch aracterised as o ne o f t he m ost cen tralised E uropean l iberal democracies with w eak s tructures o f subnational g overnment which, b y a nd l arge, is answerable t o an d financially dependent on central government (Connaughton 2009). The as sociation between central an d local government i s a symmetric a nd ha s be en l ikened t o a pr incipal-agent relationship (Callanan 2003b, H aslam 2003) . In t erms o f i ts f unctional cap acity and autonomy, local government i n Ireland i s widely characterised as w eak (Quinn 2003) . In contrast to ma ny E uropean s tates, lo cal g overnment p erforms a limite d r ole in a reas o f education and health while the absence of a system of local taxation has rendered it heavily dependent on c entral government f or f unding. The t wo traditional functions of l ocal government in Ireland centre on providing various services and administering/implementing national pol icies. In contrast t o m any ot her European s tates, with t he exception of hous ing, local g overnment i n Ireland ha d l ittle i nvolvement i n t he pr ovision of social s ervices. T he 35
areas of
responsibility of l ocal a uthorities a re pr edominately hous ing, r oads, w ater,
environment and recreation and amenity. 2 Traditionally, local government in Ireland could only act with powers granted by the Oireachtas. The legal formalist doctrine of ‘ultra vires’, which constrained local government to perform functions out lined i n l aw, ended with t he i ntroduction of t he Local Government Act in 1991. The general principle of ‘ultra vires’ is that the actions of the executive must be authorised by statute. In the case of Ireland, local government action was dispersed across a wide bod y o f s tatute law. This c entralisation i s c onsidered a n e nduring feature o f Irish politico-administrative c ulture. T he s tructure of l ocal g overnment de veloped i n Ireland i s often described as a ‘managerial system’ of local administration (Adshead and Quinn 1998). The b asic p rinciple o f th e ma nagerial s ystem is th e l egal di chotomy of r eserved pow ers of councils a nd t he executive f unctions of m anagement, e ach m andated t hrough central government legislation (Adshead and Tonge 2009). This is evident in the key executive role in pol icy formation a nd i mplementation e xercised b y city a nd c ounty managers i n t he provision of local services (Connaughton 2009). The increase in authority for local authority managers came at the expense of the role of local elected representatives. Prior to the Local Government Reform Act 2014, local government was divided into 29 county and 5 city authorities as well as 80 t own councils. The local authority system was led b y elected co unty c ouncillors a nd a dministered b y county and c ity m anagers w ho were hired by the Local Appointments Commission for a period of seven years. The functions of local government are divided into two primary categories, reserved and executive. In contrast to m any ot her E uropean s tates, t he C ounty or C ity M anager pos sessed de cision-making powers a longside t he r eserved f unctions of e lected r epresentatives (Callanan 2004a ). In t he context of the so-called traditional politico-administrative dichotomy local officials in Ireland enjoyed s ignificant i nfluence ove r l ocal pol icy. T raditionally, a ny f unction of a l ocal authority not e xpressed i n l aw a s a r eserved f unction i s a n e xecutive function a nd t hus t he responsibility of the County Manager and the local authority’s team of Directors of Services (Sheehy 2003). Managers, it is argued, enjoyed a considerable amount of formal and informal power. For e xample, m anagers were responsible f or t he c onstruction of the l ocal a uthority budget which is then approved by the elected members (Forde 2005). 2
The provision of water services has been removed with the creation of ‘Irish Water’ under the Water Services Act 2013, which combined the public water and wastewater services of all Local Authorities under one national service provider.
36
Reserved f unctions are concerned with pol icy and pr ovide t he f ramework t hrough which the manager and authority staff work (Callanan 2004a). Reserve functions are adopted by el ected r epresentatives a nd i nclude t he adoption of t he C ouncil budg et, t he po wer t o borrow m oney, a nd m ake or revoke b y-laws. S enior local a uthority o fficials also a dvise elected representatives i n t he p erformance of t heir f unctions. Since ‘ Better Local Government’ (BLG) each manager has a team of Directors of Services with the responsibility of a dministering and pr oviding s ervices i n a s pecific function o f t he l ocal a uthority. The Director of Service also provides advice and administrative support to the relevant Strategic Policy Committee. This altered the role of the County Manager somewhat as the new system of d irectors resulted in a d elegation o f ma nagerial o perational r esponsibilities f rom th e County Manager to his team of directors (Sheehy 2003). The role of senior officials such as Director of Services is significant within local participatory governance in Ireland.
3.2 Historical Development of Local Government in Ireland One ex planation for the relative weakness of local government and local democracy in Ireland relates to the development of the state after independence. The weakness of local government i n Ireland c an be un derstood i n t he pol itical a nd cultural c ontext of t he ‘Irish Free State’ which largely adopted the structures of British government and administration. In addition, independent Ireland witnessed the emergence of a somewhat contradictory political culture bui lt upon s upport f or de mocracy, a llegiance t o t he pol itical s ystem, pa ternalism, clientelism, personalism, authoritarianism, and a mix of centralism and localism (Quinn and Connaughton 2009, G arvin 2005, F erriter 2005). The local administrative machinery of th e Irish Free State inherited from British rule was based on the Local Government (Ireland) Act of 1898. T he m ain a im of t his a ct w as t o put c ounty government on a r epresentative ba sis (Haslam 2003). The 1898 Act, which is the last major reform of local government in Ireland before independence, established the county as the main unit of administration and the county council as the primary instrument of administering local government. Although it broadened the f ranchise, this s ystem w as not a utonomous or pa rticularly r esponsive to l ocal communities with local authorities largely understood as agents of central government. In 1922, independent Ireland consciously absorbed rather than adapted the institutions of t he B ritish s tate. T hese in stitutions represented s tability for t hose now i n c harge (Connaughton 2009). The years immediately after the birth of the Irish Free State is notable for a commitment to further centralisation. Political elites consciously and purposely built a 37
state w ith a s trong cen tre (Barrington 1991, Ferriter 2005) . Th e new government w hich assumed c ommand of t he s tructures of t he s tate prioritised functional e fficacy and pragmatism over democracy and accountability (Adshead and Tonge 2009). In addition, the uncertainty and co nflict cau sed b y the s ubsequent civil w ar s olidified the c ommitment to strong central l eadership at t he ex pense o f l ocal d emocracy (Ferriter 2001) . The change initiated by the Cumman Na nGaedheal government during the 1920’s prioritised the reform of local administration and personnel over an expansion of the provision of local government functions. The gradual introduction of the management system, solidified in law through the County Management Act, 1940, increased bureaucratisation and served as an efficient means to downgrade the functions of local councils widely regarded at the time as incompetent. In a ddition to th e p olitical p rerequisites o f th e time , it is c lear th e p ursuit o f centralisation h as roots in th e v alues o f p olitical a nd a dministrative e lites to w hich s ubnational a uthority w as l argely u nattractive. Local g overnment w as s een b y m any Irish nationalists a s a B ritish i nvention a nd a nti-national (Ferriter 2 005). Despite s trong r oots i n localism and a desire to develop rural life, many Fianna Fáil members wished to abolish local government dur ing t he nineteen th irties (Ferriter 2 005). T he r etention of local g overnment bodies wrote Minister for Local Government and Public Health, Sean MacEntee, in 1934, i s “gradually becoming an expensive anachronism” (Ferriter 2001, p.15). Local elected councils were s een as having l ittle value for an i ndependent Ireland. C ulturally, argues G arvin, bot h local g overnment a nd de mocracy di d not coalesce w ith t he va lues of Irish na tionalists w ho wished to take power from local councils perceived as vulnerable to the malign influence of so-called ‘unsuitable p eople’ and ‘moral me diocrity’. T he l eaders o f independent I reland, argues G arvin, were ‘ unenthusiastic d emocrats’ unwilling to give c itizens the a utonomy t o look after local affairs (Garvin 1996). However, this centralisation, argues Callanan, emerged not from an ideological assault on local government but rather a set of government decisions “often mo tivated b y a simple a ssumption t hat t he c entre know s b est” (Callanan 2003 a, p.475). The overall ambivalence towards local government is further reflected in its absence from Bunreacht N a hE ireann, t he 1937 C onstitution. Indeed, l ocal government i n Ireland would la ck s pecific constitutional r ecognition unt il t he i nclusion of A rticle 28A i nto t he constitution a fter a r eferendum i n J une 1999. Prior t o t his, i t w as c ommon f or na tional governments to postpone local elections. In general, this suspension of local democracy was not met with any significant objections from citizens (Ferriter 2001). Uniquely in the context 38
of government in Europe, little significant reform of local government took place in Ireland after W orld W ar II. Between 1970 a nd 19 85, ho wever, s uccessive Irish administrations di d engage i n a n analysis o f how l ocal government c ould be i mproved pub lishing a s eries o f policy papers and reports. One white paper entitled ‘Local Government Reorganisation’ was published in 1971. This report, however, did not propose any shift in the services delivered or administered b y local government (Keoghan 2003). B y and large, Ireland’s weak structures of l ocal government h ad c ontinued upon
Ireland’s e ntry t o t he E uropean E conomic
Community (EEC) in 1973. By this time, local government in Ireland had become “locked in a c reation o f V ictorian B ritain a nd ni neteenth c entury legislation a dapted f or Ireland” (Connaughton 2009, p.75). The initial period of its status as a member of the EEC witnessed further centralisation during the 1970’s and 1980’s. The abolition of the domestic rates is an example of this and local authorities became more dependent on central government grants. 3 Consequently, local revenues reduced by approximately fifty per cent. The abolition of rates further reduced the autonomy of l ocal g overnment i n Ireland and i ts r eliance upon c entral g overnment f or finances (Adshead and Tonge 2009). The economic crisis of the 1970’s, however, brought the control ex ercised o ver local government b y t he c entral executive i nto s harp focus as government i n Ireland faced i ncreased pr essures t o e ngage i n pl anning a nd i ndustrial development. Moreover, dissatisfaction with the status of local administration had become a relevant political issue by the end of the decade (Ferriter 2001). In s ummary, l ocal government i n Ireland, a rgues H aslam, di d not r ecover f rom s ocalled ‘ Benthamite Ideology’ 4 and t he c entralism br ought a bout b y Ireland’s s tatus a s a dominion of the British Empire (Haslam 2003). Reforms introduced after the post war period did not br oaden i ts f unctional r emit and/or capacity. Local government i n Ireland i s characterised b y legal f ormalism, a g eneral mis trust o f lo calism, and a n unw illingness t o devolve significant power and functions as in other European states. Local government was not a ttractive to th e revolutionaries who i nherited t he Irish Free S tate an d s ubsequent governments. T here w as little d emand f rom lo cal c ouncillors a nd c itizens to c hange th is practice. The Irish electorate, it is argued, may have been somewhat comfortable with a mix
3
The s hortfall in r evenue f rom r ates, i t was ar gued, would b e r eplaced b y s tate grants. H owever, t his was amended in 1983 when local authorities were required to levy local service charges. Such service charges were difficult to implement and enforce, however. 4 Benthamite Ideology is generally considered to encompass individualism, legalism and positivism.
39
of a uthoritarianism a nd democracy (Ferriter 2 001). T he weakness of l ocal government i n Ireland, argues Lee, is indicative of a paradox, namely the gap between the ability of the Irish to carry out its political and social affairs and the myth of self-reliance and a s elf-sufficient state (Lee 1985).
3.3 Local Government Reform: From Government to Governance This section will discuss the reform of local government in Ireland and the shift from government t o governance. In addition t o governance, t here has be en reform of operational components including financial m anagement a nd r ecruitment w ithin l ocal government. Broadly, i t i s pos sible t o i dentify bot h i nternal an d ex ternal d rivers f or l ocal g overnment reforms, t he de velopment of t he pa rticipatory governance l andscape a nd t he s hift t o m ore ‘bottom up’ approaches to s ubnational governance i n Ireland. The impulse to reform local government, argues Chubb, emerged from an acknowledgment that sub-national government in Ireland ha d no w r esembled a n ‘administrative j ungle’ (Chubb 199 2). T his s ituation developed gradually from de cades of ad ho c a nd di sorganised a ttempts t o a ddress t hese weaknesses, as w ell as the ex istence o f a m yriad o f s ubnational agencies n ow i n o peration. Further, as will be discussed in further detail below, the perceived success of ‘National Social Partnership’ had significant implications for the substance of local government reform in the 1990’s. 5 Social P artnership i n Ireland w as i nitiated b y na tional government i n 1987 a s a response t o economic crisis, while the Better Local G overnment white p aper em erged f rom the D epartment of
Local G overnment, H eritage a nd E nvironment. T wo s ignificant
developments di scussed be low a re t he B arrington C ommission a nd S ocial P artnership. In terms of external drivers, this section of the chapter will discuss the influence of Europe. 3.3.1 The Influence of Europe While the actions and preferences of national government actors are of fundamental importance, i t i s c lear E uropeanisation a nd t he g eneral a daptation t o E uropean nor ms ha s influenced the character and substance of the reform of local government in Ireland and the shift f rom government t o g overnance. Europeanisation i s c haracterised as t he pr ocess b y which EU pol icy-making i mpacts dom estic s tructures and t he processes by which dom estic 5
‘Social P artnership’, a tri-partite or c orporatist a rrangement be tween government, trade un ions a nd business groups, b uilt o n t he work o f t he N ational E conomic and Social Council (NESC) established i n 1973 under the auspices of the Department of An Taoiseach.
40
structures adapt to Europe (Rees and Connaughton 2009). Member States upon e ntry to the EU f ace pr essures t o a dapt t o E uropean nor ms and pr ocedures. E U m embership pr ovides learning and policy templates as well as formal pressures to adapt governance structures and procedures. The European Union has encouraged the increase in local government capacities and t he i nclusion o f a wider array o f act ors i n l ocal d ecision-making. Engagement w ith European regional policy has contributed to new institution building at subnational level. In response t o E uropean C ommunity (EC) r egional pol icy, central g overnment w as compelled t o r eorganise l ocal de velopment pol icy and i ncrease t he pa rticipation of t hose affected by reforms at the local level. The 1988 reform of regional structural funds solidified partnership as a fundamental component in the management and delivery of regional policy. Prior t o t his, r egional development pol icy was t op dow n a nd c oncerned w ith na tional economic pol icy. S oon, European Structural a nd C ohesion f unds had c onditions a ttached including an emphasis on creation of partnership structures at the local level which involved civil s ociety. T hese s tructures f unctioned largely outside or r an in p arallel w ith th e lo cal government s ystem (Adshead a nd Q uinn 1998 ). The in crease in E U related in itiatives required a considerable development in the capacity of regional structures culminating in the creation o f eight r egional a uthorities i n 1993 . Further, t he E uropean i nfluence on N ational Development P lans s timulated th e de velopment of local p artnership p rocesses i n ar eas o f urban and rural development (Adshead and McInerney 2009). 6 Europe influenced the gradual reform of local government also. The European Charter of Local S elf-Government de vised i n 1985, s tates “ local s elf-government de notes t he r ight and a bility of lo cal authorities, w ithin th e limits o f th e l aw, to m anage a nd r egulate a substantial s hare of publ ic a ffairs unde r t heir o wn r esponsibility and w ithin t he i nterests o f the local population” (Callanan 2003b, p.4). The charter was signed by the Irish Government in 1997. A constitutional referendum held in 1999 brought Ireland into line with the rest of Europe a nd i n c ompliance w ith t he E uropean C harter of S elf G overnment. T he t ext of t he provision a ffirmed l ocal government’s r esponsibility in p romoting th e in terests o f th e lo cal community a nd i n de fining l ocal pr iorities. In addition, t he m ost r ecent Local G overnment Reform Act 2014 h as clear influences from Europe. In the view of one senior official in the Department of Environment, Community and Local Government, there is an awareness of the need to develop the capacity of local government in Ireland to that in other European states. 6
This is e xemplified b y the 1994–1999 N ational D evelopment P lan which i ncluded a s pecific O perational Programme devoted to Local Urban and Rural Development carried out, in part, through partnership processes.
41
In addition, doc uments from t he C ouncil of E urope ha ve i nfluenced t he de velopment of ‘Public P articipation N etworks’ ( Interview Department of E nvironment O fficial 1 2014 ). The l iterature p roduced by t he C ouncil of E urope i ncluding t he E uropean C harter of Local Self Government and the Council of Europe’s Code of Good Practice in Civil Participation in t he Decision-Making Process influenced t he de sign of P ublic Participation Networks (PPNs) (Interview PPN Working Group Members 1 and 2 2014). 3.3.2 Internal Drivers and the Significance of National Government In the interpretivist constructivist view of Europeanisation, it is possible for member states t o be come s ocialised i nto E uropean nor ms vi a di ffusion, learning a nd pe rsuasion. However, i t i s important not t o ove rstate t he i nfluence of E urope on t he r eform of l ocal government in Ireland. European norms and regulations can be mediated by domestic factors. Domestic factors, such as institutions, policies and culture, can assist or thwart adaptation and change (Rees and Connaughton 2009). In reality, the changes and reforms brought about by participation in European affairs has not affected all levels of government in Ireland equally (Connaughton 2009 ). T he e ffects of E uropeanisation, i t i s a rgued, h ave be en di luted b y Ireland’s hi story, pol itical a nd s ocial c ulture, n ationalism an d cen tralised s tructures o f administration a nd g overnment (Quinn a nd C onnaughton 2009) . For e xample, a s out lined, between entry to the EEC in 1973 a nd 1985 t here was no m ajor reform of local government in Ireland. The impact of Europeanization, argues Connaughton, “was far less overt in terms of institutional structures and official awareness within local authorities” (Connaughton 2009, p.69). Reform o f l ocal government i n Ireland a nd the de velopment of pa rticipatory governance therefore is not the direct result of Europeanisation. While providing learning and in s ome c ases t he s timulus t o r eform, c hanges i n t he s tructures of l ocal g overnment ha ve distinct n ational ch aracteristics an d p riorities. Internally, t here was a growing awareness o f the need to address the functional and structural inadequacies of local government within the national c ivil a nd publ ic s ervice a nd amongst some national politicians. T he ke y driver o f reform in Irish public administration, including changes to local government, was the senior civil service (Connaughton 2009). Local government reform was promoted largely by senior civil servants and not politicians as in a number of European states.
42
3.3.3 Barrington Commission and Report An i mportant s timulus f or l ocal g overnment r eform w as t he ‘Advisory E xpert Committee on L ocal Government R eorganisation and R eform’ led b y Tom Barrington. The committee published a series of recommendations in 1991, known as the ‘Barrington Report’, after t he m ost co mprehensive an alysis o f t he s ystem o f l ocal government unde rtaken i n Ireland. The content of the report is reflective of a growing hostility in the 1970’s and 1980’s to centralisation and the growth of the state (Ferriter 2001). However, it must be emphasised that many of the issues highlighted by Barrington were referenced in the ‘Devlin Report’, a report o f t he ‘Public S ervices O rganisation R eview G roup’, published i n 1969. D evlin w as critical of the doctrine of ‘ultra vires’ and identified the problem of central control of local government (Devlin 1969). Nevertheless, the Barrington Report, also critical of centralisation in Ireland, h ighlighted t he la ck o f lo cal e nergy, in itiative a nd f lexibility in d ealing with changing economic and social circumstances. This lack of initiative, the report argued, was a consequence of rigid u niformity a nd poo rly d eveloped l ocal de mocratic in stitutions. T he importance of political commitment to the reform of local government and the need for local government i n Ireland to be c onsidered a ‘ valid pa rtner’ i n government a s w ell a s a ‘legitimate democratic entity’ was recognised (Barrington 1991). Barrington’s ma in recommendations i ncluded constitutional r ecognition of l ocal government, devolution of functions to local government, greater attention to the policy role of c ouncillors, f inancial i ndependence of l ocal a uthorities f rom c entral g overnment, improving t he r esponsiveness of l ocal g overnment t o t he publ ic, a nd t he relaxation of t he system o f ‘ultra v ires’ (Barrington 1991) . W ithout que stion, t he r eport ha d a significant influence on BLG and its findings were generally accepted by the then government (Keoghan 2003). This l ed t o t he introduction of t he Local Government Acts of 199 1, 1992, 1993 a nd 1994 w hich formally i ntroduced m any of
Barrington’s r ecommendations but not t he
decentralisation of key functions and powers. The Local Government Act 1991 di d relax the ‘ultra vires’ doctrine and introduced broad powers of general competence for local authorities to n ow a ct in th e in terests o f lo cal c ommunities. T here was also r ecognition th at lo cal government i n Ireland was, i n e ffect, ha mstrung f inancially. If l ocal government w as t o perform a greater r ole in th e lo cal c ommunity fiscal r eform w as r equired. In r eality, t he reforms i ntroduced i n the 1991 a ct w ere un dermined b y t he f inancial a nd t echnical dependence upon central government (Adshead and Tonge 2009).
43
3.3.4 Social Partnership The national governance landscape which formalised the inclusion of new groups of actors in policy and political decision-making through ‘Social Partnership’ had an impact on the de velopment of l ocal p articipatory governance (Adshead 2011 ). In response t o di fficult economic circumstances and political instability in the late 1980’s t he m inority Fianna F áil government pur sued a m ore i nclusive a nd consensus b ased ap proach t o eco nomic development. S ocial P artnership, initially a t ri-partite o r co rporatist ar rangement b etween government, trade unions and business groups, built on t he work of the National Economic and Social Council (NESC) established in 1973 under the auspices of the Department of An Taoiseach. Social P artnership i n I reland, s ynonymous w ith t he s tate’s e conomic gr owth dur ing the ‘Celtic Tiger’ period, is understood as a web of governance comprising “multiple sets of engagements be tween government d epartments and c ivil s ociety actors” (Connolly 2008, p.8). 7 For s ome, p artnership i ndicated t he government’s w illingness t o s urrender i ts uni que position i n pol icy-making i n f avour of a m ore i nclusive a nd c onsensus ba sed a pproach (Adshead and Quinn 1998). National Social Partnership, extended to include community and voluntary or ganisations i n 1996 to ne gotiate t he f ourth a greement, ‘Programme 2000 ’, formalised a nd in stitutionalised a n ew r elationship b etween th e s tate a nd c ivil s ociety. T he government had established the National Economic and Social Forum (NESF) in 1993 w ith responsibility t o m onitor a nd a nalyse t he i mplementation of s pecific pr ogrammes and measures outlined in partnership agreements with a particular focus on issues of equality and social inclusion. The extension of partnership to the ‘Community and Voluntary’ pillar influenced the reform o f l ocal government and creation of t he l ocal pa rticipatory governance l andscape i n Ireland, increasing civil society’s proximity to and ability to communicate with both elected representatives a nd c entral g overnment. T he work of t he N ESF, how ever, w as l argely overshadowed b y t he N ESC w hich a t f irst di d not i nclude t he c ommunity a nd vol untary groups. The less cohesive and homogenous community and voluntary sector did not integrate into national partnership as successfully as the traditional corporatist partners with voluntary organisations c ritical of government a nd c ivil s ervant a ttitudes a nd be haviour. M uch of t he
7
"Celtic Tiger" is the term used to describe the economy of Ireland from the mid-1990s to the mid-2000s which saw rapid economic growth and prosperity.
44
sector’s focus on i ssues s uch a s equality a nd s ocial i nclusion, i t i s a rgued, pr esented a challenge t o a p rocess l argely co ncerned w ith m atters o f p ay an d t axation (Adshead 2011, Meade 2005 ). The i nclusion of t he c ommunity and vol untary organisations i mpinged upon existing relationships between unions, business and national government actors. In the view of other participants, the community and voluntary pillar were largely unable or unwilling to adapt to the existing culture of partnership. Despite the formal inclusion and participation of community and vol untary o rganisations, t hey are r egarded a s ha ving l ittle s uccess i n widening t he s cope of t he de bate on i ssues of s ocial i nclusion (Connolly 2008) . Th e contradictory n ature o f t he s ector’s i nvolvement in t he process i s captured b y M urphy w ho states; “while there is no ove rwhelming case to stay in social partnership neither is there an overwhelming c ase to le ave. T he C ommunity a nd V oluntary P illar’s e xit f rom s ocial partnership i s unl ikely t o m ake front-page ne ws nor i s our de parture l ikely t o ch ange t he nature of ideological debate in Ireland today. Remembering how hard it was to get a foot in the door, we know that if we leave, the door will be slammed shut behind us” (Murphy 2002, p.87). However, t he p erceived success o f p artnership w ould i nfluence t he s ubsequent reforms in local government in the 1996 white paper BLG which praised the achievements of partnership a t bot h l ocal a nd na tional l evels, a rguing i t ha d e nabled c ommunities “ to t ake responsibility f or t heir own af fairs i n an i mportant ex ercise i n p articipative d emocracy” (Government of Ireland 1996, p.29). More specifically the influence of partnership is evident in the composition of Strategic Policy Committees (SPC) which include ‘external members’ comprised of representatives from the business, union and community and voluntary sectors in governance subcommittees within the local authority. Partnership and the economic crisis of t he 1980’ s also c ontributed t o a n i ncreased role f or l ocal civil s ociety actors i n l ocal development through community based partnerships. The partnership agreement, Programme for E conomic and Soc ial P rogress (PESP), f or ex ample, influenced t he e stablishment of ‘Area Based Partnerships’. These bodies represented the first series of governance processes created to tackle issues of local economic and social development. Similar to other structures, membership o f ‘Area Based P artnerships’ commonly c omprised r epresentatives f rom t rade unions, business and community and voluntary sectors. However, i t a ppears t hat c entral a uthorities m ade a c onscious de cision t o e stablish such partnerships and b odies in p arallel to lo cal g overnment, which p layed a limite d r ole. This r esulted i n t wo di vergent s ystems, one of f unctionally l imited l ocal government a nd a 45
collection of l ocal de velopment ne tworks w ith l ittle or no c oordination (McInerney 2008 ). This led to the dearth of cohesion and alignment of development bodies and local government referenced i n BLG which s tates; “ through l ack of r esources a nd i nability t o r espond t o problems which transcend their traditional functions, local authorities have tended to be bypassed by the growth of new forms of community development organisations, many of which are attracting s tate and European U nion ( EU) s upport” (Government o f Ireland 1996, p.8 ). BLG advanced efforts to align and coordinate the parallel systems with the aim of enhancing local democracy through allowing communities and their representatives to influence service delivery an d t he d ecision-making p rocesses of l ocal government (Forde 2005, M cInerney 2008). 3.3.5 ‘Better Local Government’ After the relaxation of ‘ultra vires’ under the 1991 act, local government could now operate more independently. However, local authorities continued to operate under financial constraints and reform of local government continued to be on the national political agenda. The c hange i n g overnment i n 1994 di d not impact t his. T he F ine Gael, Labour a nd Democratic Left s o-called ‘ Rainbow’ C oalition g overnment, pledged t o r eform l ocal government in its new programme for government. The Devolution Commission, established in 1995, made a series of recommendations on the devolution of functions to local authorities. Although t hese r ecommendations w ere not a cted upon, t he ‘Rainbow’ c oalition sought t o reform local government in 1996, initiating Better Local Government through the Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government. BLG can be considered a critical juncture in that it brought about substantial changes in the structure and capacity of local government. With origins in the Strategic Management Initiative (SMI) and i nfluenced b y t he p erceived s uccess of S ocial P artnership, t he white paper centred on e nhancing l ocal de mocracy, s erving t he c ustomer be tter, de veloping efficiency, and providing proper resources for local authorities. While BLG did not propose a significant transfer of powers from central to local government, it can be said to have inspired future le gislation which extended competences t o local authorities to b etter tackle issues of local i mportance. T he document pl edged t o e nhance l ocal de mocracy mainly t hrough constitutional r ecognition of l ocal government, a r eorganisation o f th e committee s ystem, strengthening the role of local councillors and to reform financial management and methods of r ecruitment (Keoghan 2003) . T he pa per hi ghlighted a ne ed t o i ncrease t he influence of 46
elected representative’s vis-à-vis council officials, and to enhance their role in policy-making (Callanan 2005). BLG has be en c riticised f or a de arth of c onsultation w ith l ocal a uthorities a nd t he wider community. It i s regarded by some as a form of centralised ‘top down’ l ocal reform. BLG was introduced by the Department of Environment and Local Government with little or no consultation. After its introduction, the ‘Interdepartmental T ask Force o n the Integration of the Local Government and Local Development Systems’ did consult with social partners, elected representatives, t he C ity a nd C ounty M anagers A ssociation, C ounty E nterprise Boards, and the national Community and Voluntary sector (Forde 2005). However, there was little substantial involvement of the local community. The taskforce did not engage in a more extensive country-wide consultation with citizens and local communities which, according to critics, could have fostered a greater connection between communities and local governance (Forde 2005). This is significant in the Irish case as, according to BLG, local government in Ireland “ developed l argely f rom a j udicial s ystem i ntroduced und er a c olonial r egime and from to wn c orporations w ith limited c ommunity in volvement; it te nds therefore to la ck th e deep c ommunity roots t hat g o t o f orm t he ba sis of c ontinental local g overnment” (Government o f Ireland 1996, p.14) . T his i s s ignificant i n t he c ontext of t he c ases i n t his study and will be explored in further detail in subsequent chapters. A n umber o f c ore fe atures o f BLG were i ncorporated i nto l aw t hrough t he Local Government Act 2001, which solidified the enhanced role of elected members, supported the involvement o f lo cal in terests in p olicy-making and he lped t o m odernise l ocal government through na tional l egislation (Government of Ireland 1996) . C rucially, i t also en couraged a move aw ay f rom l ocal government as s olely a d eliverer o f s ervices t o a facilitator an d coordinator of local governance (McInerney and Adshead 2010). In the Irish context, with the creation o f SPCs and t he i nclusion o f ci vil s ociety actors, t he act s ignalled a s hift t oward a more participatory culture within local governance (McInerney and Adshead 2010).
3.4 The Local Participatory Governance Landscape in Ireland Having explored the shift from government to governance in Ireland and outlined the broad functions of local government, this section of the chapter will discuss the creation and characteristics o f t he l ocal p articipatory p rocesses r esearched in the th esis as w ell as the actors involved. Since the publication of the BLG document, a number of local governance 47
processes in cluding S trategic P olicy C ommittees, City/County D evelopment Boards a nd Local T raveller A ccommodation C onsultative Committee ha ve be en i ntroduced. Other mechanisms with t his l andscape such as C ounty C hildcare C ommittees, LEADER a nd RAPID a re not pa rt o f t his s tudy. RAPID or “ Revitalising A reas t hrough P lanning, Investment and Development” was established in 2001. The RAPID process originated from a n ational partnership a greement and la cks a le gislative base. Initial attempts were made to include R APID i n t his s tudy. H owever, t he e conomic c risis of 2008 saw the r eduction of government f unding f or t he pr oject i ncluding RAPID c oordinators e mployed b y l ocal authorities. T his l ed t o t he e ffective s uspension of t he pr ocess w ithin l ocal g overnment i n 2012 and 2013. Participatory p rocesses i n Ireland are t op d own a nd or iginate f rom na tional government. The selection of SPCs, CDBs and LTACCs is justified in terms of their location within the participatory governance landscape and their contrasting origins and focus. SPCs reformed existing local government committees with the addition of civil society actors and are embedded w ithin th e a dministrative e nvironment o f th e lo cal a uthority w ith d istinct norms a nd va lues. C DBs c an b e c onsidered a qua si-independent pr ocess s upported b y specialised l ocal au thority s taff. T he LTACC r epresents a l argely i ssue s pecific p rocess which i nvolves t he pa rticipation of a m arginalised g roup unde rrepresented i n t raditional democratic arenas. The issue of Traveller accommodation is a persistent “wicked” problem in Irish p olicy. Table 1 gives an o verview o f t he k ey features o f t he t hree p rocesses. The following section will discuss the origins and structure of each process in detail.
48
Table 1 Key Features of Local Participatory Governance Processes Process Origin Legislative Base
Membership
Function / Focus
Monitoring/ Review Support / Servicing
CDB
LTACC
SPC
National Policy Local Government Act 2001
National Policy Housing (Traveller Accommodation) Act 1998 Local Authority Officials, Social Workers, Local Councillors, Traveller representatives
National Policy Local Government Act 2001
Local and National Public Officials, Chairs of SPCs and town councillors, Local Development and Civil Society
Local Development
Traveller Accommodation
Weak-No formal oversight
Weak-NTACC
Specialised staff Community and Enterprise section of Local Authority
Housing Section Local Authority
Local Authority Officials, Local Councillors, Social Partners, Environment and Community and Voluntary Representatives Different Policy Areas of Local Authority Weak-No formal oversight Senior Officials across Local Authority
3.4.1 Strategic Policy Committees Strategic P olicy C ommittees w ere le gislated f or in s ection 4 8 o f th e Local Government Act 2001. Prior to the act, their remit and structure were developed by a series of guidelines publ ished i n 1997 a nd l ater r evised i n 1999. T he S PC s ystem e stablished a committee for all major service areas in the local authority. SPCs, which replaced an existing local authority committee system of local councillors, are advisory, not decision making, and accountable to the full elected council. Policies recommended or approved at SPCs are sent to the f ull c ouncil w hich has th e final decision under i ts r eserved functions. I n a ddition, a ‘Corporate S ervices G roup’ in each l ocal au thority was i ntroduced comprising the different chairs of S PCs. This g roup w as i ntended t o f unction a s a s o-called min i c abinet in lo cal government thereby strengthening the role of elected representatives and SPCs. As out lined, SPCs were i nfluenced b y t he pe rceived s uccess of s ocial partnership at national l evel. T he guidelines f or t he ope ration of S PCs w ere dr afted b y a committee appointed b y n ational gove rnment w hich i ncluded r epresentatives o f t he d ifferent s ocial 49
partners. Two thirds of the membership consisted of elected members of the council with one third comprising of so-called sectoral interests from the broad range of civil society. This is based very much on the experience and format of national partnership with the involvement of community and voluntary organisations, trade unions and business interests. However, for the most part, politicians were not involved in national partnership discussions. This is a key difference b etween S PCs a nd na tional pa rtnership processes. SPCs e xpand t he r ange of participants of pa rtnership t o i nclude e nvironment or ganisations a nd i n s ome c ases representatives o f a cademic in stitutions. I nterestingly, th e s election me chanism f or t he sectoral i nterests o n S PCs va ries. T rade uni ons a nd bus iness organisations c ould nom inate their r epresentatives t hrough na tional or ganisations. T he c ommunity a nd vol untary groups, however, were required to select its representatives through local processes most commonly the l ocal ‘ Community and V oluntary Forum’ or ‘ Community P latform’. T hese e ntities generally comprised a wide variety of local community groups and associations ranging from cultural or ganisations t o gr oups w ith a di stinct s ocial i nclusion f ocus. E nvironment representatives w ere generally s elected from l ocal E nvironment o rganisations. T his w as largely the same in the case of the CDB. Each l ocal a uthority s et up f our or f ive SPC focused o n s pecific p olicy ar eas. However, t he p recise s tructure o f each S PC is a ma tter f or e ach in dividual lo cal a uthority. Following t he 1999 l ocal e lections, each l ocal a uthority dr ew up a s o-called S PC s cheme which de tailed t he num ber of S PCs, t he pol icy f ocus, num ber of m embers a s w ell a s t he representation of sectoral interests. The range of issues discussed at SPCs includes housing, planning, a nd e nvironment a nd t ransportation i ssues. E ach S PC is s erviced b y t he s enior local authority staff with responsibility for a particular area, most commonly the Director of Service. However, specialised staff or additional capacity building for public officials was not provided. In t erms of l ocal pa rticipatory governance, t he c reation of S PCs i s s ignificant. It introduced the concept of formal participation in local governance and can be understood as a blending of representative a nd pa rticipatory f orms of de mocracy (McInerney a nd Adshead 2010). H owever, while S PCs a re a n a ttempt t o s upplement r epresentative d emocracy, the extent of t heir pa rticipatory nature ha s be en di sputed (Forde 2005 ). In r eality, t he strengthening of the role of the elected representative in policy and decisions was a key aim in their development. A more robust role for councillors in policy, it was hoped, could serve as a d emocratic co unter-balance t o t he power of the m anager and s enior officials (Adshead 50
and T onge 2009) . Existing s tudy a nd e valuation of S PCs i s r ather l imited. H owever, criticisms identified previously include minor logistical issues concerning meetings to more significant matters such as their relationship with the wider local government sector and the attitude and performance of members. A report undertaken by the Irish Public Administration in 2004 a rgued “SPCs will not work unless their members (both elected representatives and external members) tr eat th em s eriously, d emonstrate a c ommitment to e ngage in p olicy matters, c ontribute t o S PC di scussions, a nd t ake “ ownership” t hrough a ccepting responsibility for SPC recommendations” (Callanan 2004b, p.6). 3.4.2 County/City Development Boards City/County Development Boards (CDBs) were established in 2000 in part to respond to the challenge of the increased integration of public and local service delivery and to better integrate local government and local development in Ireland. Similar to SPCs, they originate from the BLG white paper and were subsequently legislated for in the 2001 Act. 34 Boards were set up, one in each of the different local authority areas. One of the primary aims of the CDBs was to join up l ocal government and local development and to enhance co-ordination, co-operation and integration amongst existing local bodies primarily through the production of a local development plan or strategy. In broad terms, local development entities in Ireland had a remit to promote social and economic i nclusion but previously l ocal government had played a limited role in this. One t he m ain f unctions of t he C DBs w as t he c reation of a n e conomic, s ocial a nd cultural development strategy for each local authority area. CDBs normally numbered about 29 members from a diverse range of sectors and organisations. The membership of each CDB was comprised of l ocal authority o fficials (most commonly t he C ounty Manager) and l ocal elected r epresentatives, m ost commonly t he chairs of t he SPCs and s ome t own councillors, representatives o f l ocal s tatutory agencies, including F ÁS, E nterprise Ireland, a nd t he Department of Social Protection, as well as representatives of local development groups and agencies. S imilar t o S PCs, c ommunity a nd vol untary r epresentatives were drawn f rom t he Community and V oluntary f orum. Moreover, representatives o f e nvironment or ganisations could participate. While occupying a quasi-independent status within and alongside the local authority, each C DB w as s erviced by senior l ocal au thority o fficials an d ch aired b y a m ember o f t he local a uthority. A ccording t o guidelines “ a Board s hall, i n s o f ar a s i s pr ovided b y t his 51
section, operate under the aegis of the relevant county council or city council it is otherwise independent i n t he pe rformance of i ts f unctions” (Government of Ireland 2001, p.103) . Further, a ccording t o t he a ct, “ a publ ic a uthority, l ocal authority, or ot her bod y w hich i s represented on a B oard, s hall i n s o f ar a s i s no t i nconsistent w ith t he performance of i ts functions— (i) c o-operate w ith t he Board i n i ts work, a nd (ii) e ndeavour t o c omply w ith a request from the Board in respect of information of relevance to its functions” (Government of Ireland 2001, p.104). This has led to criticism of the rather confused nature of the process in which the CDB is designed to be independent of the local authority yet was chaired by an elected m ember an d s erviced b y s enior l ocal au thority o fficials (McInerney a nd A dshead 2010). In 2000, substructures including ‘Social Inclusion Monitoring’ (SIM) working groups were established within each CDB. SIMs had the remit to enhance co-ordination and advance joint action on issues of social exclusion. Similar to SPCs, academic study and evaluation of CDBs is rather limited. Although lacking a formal national evaluation or m onitoring s tructure, the M inister for Environment, Heritage and Local Government instructed each County/City Development Board to carry out a review of its strategy in 2005, while a national independent review of CDBs undertaken by the D epartment of E nvironment w as publ ished in J anuary 2008. T his r eview i ncluded a survey of s enior l ocal a uthority of ficials but di d not e xtend t o c ommunity a nd vol untary organisations and officials from statutory agencies. While not comprehensive, the report did seek the views of non-local authority actors including community and voluntary participants (Indecon International Economic Consultants 2008). T his report highlighted the importance of personnel t o t he effectiveness and s uccess of each C DB. According t o t he r eport, C DBs can ‘ punch above t heir weight’ i n t erms of i nfluencing t he c o-ordination of l ocal s ervice delivery where key local authority personnel, for example Director of Service for Community and E nterprise, are of
a ve ry hi gh qua lity and ha ve e xcellent r eputation, s kills a nd
relationships w ith ot her organisations (Indecon International E conomic Consultants 2008) . However, in situations in which this is not the case, the effectiveness of CDBs was called into question. “CDBs, according to one contribution to the report, were effective where there is a spirit of g oodwill a nd c o-operation be tween t he a gencies, a nd t he g roups a nd w here objectives ar e cl ear and act ions / w ork p rogrammes ar e cl ear”(Indecon I nternational Economic Consultants 2008, p.54). Key is sues a ffecting th e le vel o f e ngagement with C DBs a lso h ighlighted in th e review included the nature of individuals nominated and the degree of guidance on their role 52
by t heir p arent o rganisation/agency/department; l evel o f aw areness o f b est p ractice i n facilitating effective integrated service delivery; the quality of personnel; training; the nature of in formal relationships; a nd t he l evel o f i ncentives of r espective pa rties t o e ngage i n coordinated l ocal s ervice delivery. In a ddressing the nom ination of s ocial pa rtners a nd t he specific r ole o f c ommunity a nd vol untary r epresentatives, the r eport r eferences t he importance of ensuring the best and most representative individuals who understand specific local requirements are nominated. The importance of resources to support the participation of community a nd vol untary r epresentatives was a lso highlighted (Indecon I nternational Economic Consultants 2008).
3.4.3 LTACC and Irish Travellers This s ection w ill d iscuss th e o rigins a nd r ationale of t he Local Traveller Accommodation Consultative Committee ( LTACC). F irst, a br ief di scussion of
Irish
Travellers and Traveller accommodation policy will be conducted. This detailed discussion is necessary as the LTACC is focused on a “wicked” problem, Traveller accommodation, and involves the participation of a marginalised group with a historical difficult relationship with the Irish s tate. The LTACC e ncompasses t he participation of m embers of t he T ravelling community a s w ell a s settled r epresentatives o f T raveller o rganisations an d p rojects. In consideration of this, it is worth exploring the characteristics of the Travelling community in Ireland as well as its historical relationship with the Irish state. The Pavee Community, known colloquially as Travellers, is a small indigenous ethnic minority. A ccording t o t he 2011 C ensus, a n e stimated t hirty t o f orty t housand T ravellers reside in Ireland or approximately 7,765 T raveller households defined as containing at least one T raveller. T his r epresents a pproximately 0.6 pe r c ent of t he ove rall population, 90 pe r cent of whom were born in Ireland (Central Statistics Office 2012). The 2011 census figure on t he T raveller popul ation r epresents a 32 pe r cent i ncrease s ince 200 6. A ccording t o a report und ertaken on
behalf of t he N ational T raveller A ccommodation C onsultative
Committee (NTACC) in 2014, t he num ber of Traveller families within each l ocal authority area va ries considerably. T he county w ith t he hi ghest num ber of T raveller f amilies i n t he country is C o. G alway ( 1,120 f amilies), f ollowed b y C o. D ublin ( 994 f amilies), C ork ( 816 families) and Limerick (652 families). In addition, the total number of families identified by
53
the local authorities as living permanently in their local authority areas as of 2014 was 9,095 or 98% of all Traveller families (KW Research and Associates 2014). Travellers are generally considered o ne o f t he m ost m arginalised and d isadvantaged groups i n Irish s ociety (Helleiner 2000, M ac Laughlin 19 96, R oyall 2010) . Issues s uch a s racism, social exclusion, lack of recognition of cultural identity have been identified as key health issues (All Ireland Traveller Health Study 2010). A growing body of research indicates Travellers ar e m ore l ikely t o ex perience p oorer o utcomes ac ross a range o f i ndicators including employment, health, education and training (Coates et al. 2012). According to the Central Statistics Office, Irish Travellers are more likely to be unemployed, to leave school early, and to lack access to a car and technology such as the internet (Central Statistics Office 2012). Poverty l evels f or T ravellers r emain hi gh due t o a range of i ssues i ncluding hi gh unemployment and dependence on social welfare. Travellers h ave b een l ong r egarded an d regard t hemselves as d istinct f rom o ther sections of Irish society. Travellers are characterised as an indigenous minority with a distinct culture, value system and common language. While they share nationality, language, race and religion with the settled Irish population, Travellers are considered distinct from mainstream Irish s ociety d ue t o t heir s hared co mmon cu ltural p ractices, v alues, language, customs, oral traditions a nd nom adism. T his i s ba sed on d istinctive c ultural pr actices, t he G ammon language, as w ell as genealogical l inkages (Keane 2005, M cLaughlin 2 000, R oyall 2010) . While Travellers an d T raveller o rganisations sought recognition of e thnicity and s pecific ethnic s tatus, the I rish state refused to d esignate T ravellers as a n e thnic min ority until February 2017. Much of the academic literature on Traveller ethnicity describes nomadism as a k ey f eature o f T ravellers’ et hnic i dentity (Hayes 2006, O kely 19 94). N omadism is considered central t o t he unde rstanding of T raveller s ociety a nd h as l ong s tanding s ocial, cultural an d ec onomic f unctions f or T ravellers. N omadism r epresents a d
ifferent
understanding of accommodation, of work and of life in general, it is not simply a lifestyle choice, argue Traveller advocates (Hayes 2006). While the vast majority of Travellers are no longer nom adic, nom adism r emains i mportant t o T raveller i dentity a nd c ulture. Scepticism surrounding t he ethnicity of T ravellers a nd t he i mportance of nom adism i s evident in lo cal government and this will be discussed in the context of the depth of participation in chapters 8 and 9.
54
The r ole o f l ocal government i n the pr ovision of Traveller accommodation i s significant and l ocal a uthorities ha ve a c lear pol icy remit a nd a uthority i n t he ar ea. T he number of Traveller families accommodated by or with the assistance of local authorities has risen since the introduction of the LTACC, NTACC and the 1998 Traveller Accommodation Act (Coates et al. 2009). For example, approximately 60 per cent of Irish Traveller families are hous ed w ith t he di rect a ssistance of l ocal g overnment. T his r ises t o 85 pe r c ent w hen Travellers in the private rented sector in receipt of public subsidies is included (Coates et al 2015). A ccommodation f or T ravellers i s pr ovided a cross a r ange of opt ions i ncluding standard l ocal a uthority hous ing w hich i s f inanced f rom t he Department of E nvironment, Community a nd L ocal Government Social H ousing Investment P rogramme ( SHIP), Traveller-specific a ccommodation s uch a s g roup hous ing a nd ha lting s ite ba ys, f unded through 100% capital grant, private housing assisted by local authority or voluntary housing bodies, pr ivate r ented a ccommodation a nd t hrough t heir o wn resources. This f unding i s allocated by the department and must be drawn down by local authorities. Policy on Traveller accommodation has evolved incrementally and has been shaped to some d egree b y t he f indings o f t hree m ain r eports ( Coates e t a l 2015) . Historically, I rish settlement policy considered Travellers as poor Irish who would absorb and become members of t he s ettled c ommunity with i ncreased a ccess t o e ducation, hous ing, a nd e mployment (Helleiner 2000) . T he a pproach of t he Irish g overnment t o t he issue of T raveller accommodation ha s be en de scribed as a s hift f rom p olicies o f “ assimilationism to integrationism to (weak) multiculturalism” (Norris and Winston 2005, p.815). The ‘Report of the C ommission on I tinerancy’ in 1963 represents t he f irst of ficial s tate r esponse t o t he Travelling community in Ireland. The Commission marked a noticeable shift in social policy from anti-interventionism to more direct state involvement (Crowley 2005). The main pillar of th is p olicy was th e a ssimilation o f T ravellers, r eferred to a s ‘itinerants’ throughout t he report, into the general community through housing of Travellers in standard accommodation units. T he C ommission’s r eport a dvocated t he s ettlement, r eintegration a nd “ absorption” of Travellers i nto t he ge neral popul ation a s w ell a s t heir r ehabilitation. G overnment a dopted much of the report’s recommendations as policy. Increased access to education and standard housing, i t w as a rgued, could ‘ civilise’ Travellers an d s olve t he ‘ problem’ of i tineracy and residing on t he r oad. This report, a rgues C rowley, mo bilised a n ational s ettlement, assimilation, and rehabilitation programme for Travellers.
55
In comparison t o t he 1 963 doc ument, ‘A R eport o f t he T ravelling P eople R eview Body’ (1983) r epresented a de parture f or T raveller a ccommodation pol icy. T he r eview established in January 1981 by the Ministers for the Environment and for Health and Social Welfare was tasked with reviewing existing policies and services for Travellers. It argued for an e nd t o the p olicy of a ssimilation o r ‘ absorption’ of Irish T ravellers in to s ettled communities. Instead, t he r eport emphasised t he i ntegration o f bot h communities a nd t he construction of Traveller specific accommodation including group schemes. It advocated the building of halting sites only in cases where Travellers did not wish to be accommodated in standard hous ing. In t he years a fter t he 1983 r eview, t he num bers of T ravellers i n h alting sites increased as did the numbers of Travellers accommodated in Group Housing Schemes. In 1993, a ‘Task Force on the Travelling Community’ was established to “advise and report on t he needs of travellers and on government policy generally in relation to travellers, with s pecific r eference t o t he co -ordination of pol icy a pproaches b y G overnment Departments a nd lo cal a uthorities” (Task F orce on t he T ravelling C ommunity 1995, p.67) . The group published a report in 1995 which placed an emphasis on inequalities experienced by T ravellers a nd e mphasised t heir c ultural di stinctiveness, f ocused on key i ssues s uch a s health, e ducation a nd h ousing a nd t he na ture of r elationships be tween Travellers and t he settled community. The report recognised the importance of nomadism, extended family, and language as k ey features o f T raveller cu lture. T raveller cu lture, it recommended, s hould be recognised a nd t aken i nto c onsideration. T he pr ovision of s ettled, Traveller s pecific accommodation and short term transient sites to better facilitate nomadism was endorsed. 8 However, t he pr ovision of T raveller accommodation ha s be en c riticized f or a s ocalled p olicy imp lementation d eficit (Norris a nd W inston 2005) . Underspending of t he Traveller s pecific accommodation budg et i s e vident i n t he unde r de livery o f uni ts of accommodation identified and targeted within Traveller Accommodation Programmes (TAP) and b y t he 1995 T askforce r eport. This i s a c onsistent f eature of
the pr ovision of
accommodation an d p redates t he r ecent eco nomic cr isis. This unde r s pending b y l ocal 8
The provision of 3,100 units of accommodation, incorporating 900 standard and group houses, 1,200 serviced bays on permanent halting sites was recommended. In addition, a network of serviced transient halting sites providing 1,000 bays throughout the country to cater for the normal patterns of movement of Travellers was endorsed. Following consideration of the report, the national strategy for Traveller accommodation incorporating the principal recommendations of the task force in relation to Traveller accommodation was adopted by then Government on 26 March 1996. A new national programme for Traveller accommodation was to be located within the local government sector.
56
authorities w as a cknowledged b y t he Irish government i n i ts s ubmission t o t he E uropean Committee of Social Rights (European Committee of Social Rights 2016). Opposition from settled residents and local elected representatives to both the housing of Travellers in settled local a uthority accommodation, as w ell as t he d evelopment of T raveller s pecific accommodation particularly halting sites, has been highlighted as significant to the provision of T raveller a ccommodation (Fanning 2012) . In 2005, t he D epartment o f J ustice, E quality and Law Reform, for example, acknowledged that the opposition of local residents was the key ba rrier t o t he i mplementation of T raveller Accommodation P rogrammes (TAP) (Department of J ustice 2005). T he i mportance of s upport of l ocal c ommunities ha s be en identified b y s enior lo cal authority officials in t his r esearch an d elsewhere who ar gue t he successful implementation of TAPs is not solely the responsibility of the local authority. 9 The opposition of residents and political representatives to accommodating Travellers is a h istorical i ssue i n Ireland a nd c an be t raced back t o t he 1940’ s a nd 1950’s (Helleiner 2000). The oppos ition of l ocal residents to Traveller accommodation is often manifested in legal proceedings and planning objections. Under planning regulations, local authorities must publish not ices i n t he media on a ll de velopments t o f acilitate c onsultation. T his i ncludes Traveller s pecific a ccommodation. P ublishing de tails of pr oposed uni ts o f a ccommodation enables oppos ition f rom r esidents groups t o T raveller a ccommodation and can result i n planning d elays. These objections c an hol d up or pr event t he d elivery of a ccommodation, including the implementation of units set out in TAPs. The issue of Traveller accommodation is c onsidered p olitically sensitive f or many local c ouncillors. S upport f or T raveller accommodation i s co nsidered d etrimental t o a l ocal co uncillors’ electoral s uccess with opposition t o T raveller accommodation l ikely t o i ncrease t he pol itical s upport f or l ocal candidates i n s ome co mmunities. T his w as ack nowledged b y a n umber o f l ocal el ected representatives interviewed in this research. 10 Despite t he e mphasis o f t he T ask Force a nd s ubsequent l egislation on T raveller culture, government pol icy has pl aced restrictions on a realisation of a n omadic l ifestyle i n recent d ecades. E lements o f act s g overning T raveller accommodation an d s ubsequent 9
Dick Brady, Chief Executive of Dublin City Council, addressing an Oireachtas Committee in 2013, argued “A successful programme r equires t he s upport and goodwill of t he Traveller community and also t hat of potential neighbours and local communities.” 10 The contentious issue influences national politics also. For example, one former TD explained the loss of her seat in a general election, in part, due to her refusal to oppose agreed units of accommodation. She described how local residents’ associations within her constituency sought guarantees from election candidates to oppose Traveller accommodation (Fanning 2012).
57
legislation have made the nomadic lifestyle of Travellers more difficult. Under Section 32 of the 1998 T raveller A ccommodation A ct, local a uthorities a nd A n G ardaí S iochána a re empowered t o e vict T ravellers f rom publ ic l and a nd f rom t he r oadside. T ravellers’ hom es could be c onfiscated or removed i f c onsidered u nfit f or hum an ha bitation due t o a l ack of proper services, if they are likely to interfere with public or private amenities or likely to pose a co nsiderable risk to pe rsonal he alth or publ ic s afety. T he government i ntroduced t he Housing ( Miscellaneous P rovisions) A ct i n 2002 w hich f urther s trengthened t he pow er of local authorities and An Garda Siochána to evict Travellers from public land. 11 According to the g overnment, t he l egislation w as i ntroduced a s a m eans t o p revent l arge s cale encampments but w as u sed w idely on families living on t heir o wn or in s maller groups (Humphreys 2003). Such legislation makes it difficult for nomadic Travellers to adhere to the law particularly in the absence of a network of adequate transient sites. This is significant as according to the recent report of the European Committee of Social Rights published in May 2016, only five local authorities provide official sites of transient accommodation (European Committee of Social Rights 2016). The L ocal Traveller A ccommodation C onsultative C ommittee ( LTACC) h as foundations in national legislation governing the provision of Traveller accommodation. The 1995 report from the Taskforce resulted in a statutory duty to consult with Travellers on t he issue of accommodation. N ational le gislation o n the p rovision o f T raveller accommodation was introduced in 1998 leading to the establishment of the Local Traveller Accommodation Consultative C ommittees ( LTACC) i n l ocal a uthorities. S ections 20, 21 a nd 22 of t he Housing ( Traveller A ccommodation) A ct 1998 r equire each l ocal a uthority t o e stablish a LTACC a nd to create a T raveller A ccommodation P rogramme in c onsultation w ith th e LTACC. T he pr imary functions of LTACCs i nclude ( a) t o a dvise i n r elation t o t he preparation and implementation of any accommodation programme for the functional area of the a ppointing a uthority c oncerned ( b) a dvise o n t he m anagement o f a ccommodation f or Travellers an d (c) p rovide a l iaison b etween T ravellers a nd m embers a nd of ficials of t he appointing authority concerned (Government of Ireland 1998). Each LTACC is established for five years after local authority elections. Membership generally consists o f l ocal au thority officials a nd l ocal elected r epresentatives as well as
11
Part 11A was inserted into the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994 and amended section of the 1998 act. This made trespass a criminal o ffense. N omadic T ravellers co uld b e ar rested w ithout a w arrant an d forced t o m ove on w ithout a ny alternative accommodation being furnished.
58
Travellers an d representatives o f Traveller or ganisations. E lected r epresentatives s hould comprise no m ore t han ha lf of e ach c ommittee, however. T he nom ination of LTACC Traveller representatives i s m ost c ommonly f acilitated t hrough l ocal T raveller gr oups a nd Traveller projects. However, in some cases, Traveller representatives have been selected b y local au thorities and i n a s mall n umber o f c ases, r epresentatives w ere s elected t hrough t he Traveller Health Projects and Interagency Groups (Irish Traveller Movement 2011). Similar to SPCs, the LTACC is embedded within the administrative system of the local authority. By and large, the responsibility for the operation of the process resides within the departments of housing and is administered by senior officials including the Director of Service for Housing. Further local authority support may be provided by Senior Executive Officers, Administrative Officers, Traveller Liaison Officers, Traveller Accommodation Officers and Social Workers. This varies across the different local authorities. The establishment of t he LTACCs r epresents a n i ntroduction of a participatory governance di mension i nto t he pr ovision of T raveller a ccommodation a t t he l ocal l evel i n Ireland w ith t he p articipation o f T ravellers, r epresentatives of T raveller organisations, l ocal authority officials and local elected representatives (McInerney and Adshead 2010). LTACCs are an attempt to introduce a forum on t he contentious issue of Traveller accommodation in communities as well as advise the authority on the preparation of subsequent implementation of t he T AP. Crucially, t he L TACC also represents t he p rimary m echanism f or t he engagement o f T ravellers w ith l ocal government a nd one of t he f ew m echanisms f or t heir participation in Irish politics and policy making. LTACC guidelines instruct local authorities to take “reasonable steps” to implement TAPs. Although the committees can advise the local authority on a spects of t he dr aft a ccommodation pl an, s ubsequent a doption i s a r eserved function of elected members of the local authority. Local councils are required to produce a programme but there is no requirement to draw down funding or any sanctions for failing to provide units set out in the TAP.
3.5 Summary and PPN The purpose of this chapter was to explore the role and function of local government and the development and origins of the participatory governance landscape in Ireland. Within this, the establishment a nd s tructure of t he t hree participatory processes under s tudy i n t his research w as d iscussed. In a ddition, T raveller a ccommodation pol icy, Irish T ravellers and their relationship with the state was explored. The chapter emphasises the limited functional 59
remit o f lo cal g overnment in I reland a s w ell a s th e n ational o rigins o f lo cal p articipatory governance. T he d evelopment of t he pa rticipatory governance i n Ireland i s l argely a consequence of national government policy which was carried out with limited consultation and pa rtnership w ith l ocal communities a nd lo cal authorities. In contrast w ith ot her international e xamples, t he c reation of pa rticipatory pr ocesses w ithin l ocal g overnment i n Ireland i s not i ndicative of s upport of publ ic a dministration or l ocal p oliticians f or participatory d emocracy or a b elief in i ts m erits. The de velopment of pa rticipatory governance in Ireland is example of largely top down policy making. The national thrust of policy i n t his a rea d eprives l ocal a uthorities of a s ense o f ow nership on t he i nstitutions of participatory governance. The c entralised approach t o pol icy i n t he realm o f p ublic p articipation is f urther evident in the context of recent reform of local government in Ireland, and the overall system of c ivic e ngagement w ith local a uthorities, P ublic P articipation N etworks ( PPN). PPN s a re designed to take an active formal role in policy-making and oversight activities in the local authority’s area of responsibility and serve as the primary conduit through which each local authority connects with the community & voluntary and environmental sectors. Since 2014, the PPN i s the p rimary mechanism f or th e s election o f c itizens a nd c ivil s ociety actors to participate within local participatory institutions. Similar to the origins of SPCs, LTACCs and CDBs, P PNs, w hich n ow s tructure t he ove rall r elationship of c ivil society with l ocal government and involvement in local participatory governance, were designed nationally but are implemented locally according to strict guidelines. The e stablishment o f P PNs in t he Local G overnment R eform A ct 201 4 follows a report of the ‘Working Group on C itizen Engagement with Local Government’ published in December 2013. The group was tasked to make recommendations concerning more extensive and diverse input by citizens into the decision-making process at local government level b y the D epartment of E nvironment, C ommunity a nd Local Government and t o r eplace t he ‘Community and V oluntary Fora’ structure. T he w orking group ope rated in a s hort time frame a nd completed i ts w ork i n ap proximately eight w eeks. T he s hort t ime f rame p laced constraints on t heir ability to work and engage in institutional design. For example, the draft report of t he w orking group w as not put out f or c onsultation with th e p ublic although t he group did r eceive s ome w ritten s ubmissions. Some m embers of t he w orking group were dissatisfied with th e a mount o f time a vailable to c omplete its w ork. While t he p rocess was not entirely satisfactory to a ll m embers, t he group endeavoured to r each the be st pos sible 60
outcome considering t he time c onstraints and parameters s et o ut by t he M inister of t he Department. One member indicated: I would have been much happier with a pr ocess in which we would have taken submissions, w here w e have s ent out a draft f or consultation, w here w e would have had he arings e ven, w here pe ople c ould c ome i n and p resent. ( PPN Working Group Member 1) The member also reflected: It [ the tim eframe fo r th e e stablishment o f P PNs] was f ar t oo t ight. I w ould qualify that by saying I am a realist in the political situation and something was going to get put in, something was going to be done. Some type of structure was going to be put in place. So, it was much better for us to come up with something that was possible within the timeframe within the parameters that had been set. And I think we did that. (ibid) The P PN i s a f urther example o f l argely n ational de sign and l ocal delivery a nd t heir establishment suggests a top down; one size fits all approach within participatory governance continues. Further, the lack of time afforded to the group to engage in institutional design and engage in wider consultation is indicative of a lack of capacity and planning within national government in the area of local participatory governance.
61
62
Chapter 4 Identifying Concepts for Empirical Inquiry This c hapter w ill id entify areas o f p otential imp ortance to assessing and e xplaining variation i n t he de pth of pa rticipation. While n ot r epresentative o f all r elevant a reas o f research within participatory governance, a comprehensive review of the literature highlights key concepts s uch as v oice a nd i nfluence, t rust a nd l egitimacy and pot ential e xplanatory factors which c an i nfluence t his. This discussion is i ntended t o provide j ustification for t he selected c oncepts used t o examine the de pth o f participation in th is s tudy. The p recise operationalization of t hese c oncepts for t he pur pose of measurement t hrough qua ntitative analysis will be e xplored i n c hapter f ive. The f irst s ection w ill id entify concepts of importance to the dependent variable or the depth of participation. The second part will deal with key theoretical arguments which identify potential explanatory variables that may cause variation i n t he de pth o f pa rticipation. T he e xplanatory variables include both i nstitutional and individual level factors. The individual level factors include the actions and disposition of public and elected officials as well as the characteristics, capacities and motivations of public participants who take part.
4.1 The Depth of Participation 4.1.1 Voice Voice a nd communication is o f c lear s ignificance to p articipation a nd p articipatory democracy. Irrespective of the level of authority of the participatory process, voice is a means for c itizens t o s hape a nd t o i nfluence pol icy a nd de cisions. T raditional forms of p olitical voice i nclude contacting publ ic officials and pol itical representatives or e ngaging i n protest activities. H owever, v oice w ithin p articipation is d irect a nd not
mediated b y el ected
representatives. Participatory g overnance involves f ace t o face e ncounters be tween publ ic administration, elected representatives, and members of the public in which citizen and civil society a ctors personally ex ercise voice, increasing the likelihood that their ideas, concerns, interests, and values are incorporated in decisions taken by public authorities (Nabatchi and Amsler 2014) . In t he c ontext of pa rticipation, voice i s a means f or c itizens t o e xpress preferences directly to political and administrative elites without political representatives, to form j udgements c ollectively t hrough r eason, and s hape f uture de cisions a nd de mocratic outcomes (Goodhart et al. 2012, Fung 2006).
63
Voice is a k ey theme of th e d eliberative a nd p articipatory democracy literature. Proponents of m ore d eliberative forms of c ollective de cision m aking emphasise the importance of r easoning a nd pe rsuasion i n w hich c itizens be came w iser a nd m ore understanding of di fferent vi ews and p erspectives t hrough di scussion (Fung 2004) . According t o B arber, ‘ talk’ i s f undamental t o de mocracy allowing citizens t o ove rcome narrow self-interests, and to justify and renew political beliefs and convictions (Barber 1984). The i mportance of c ommunication ha s be en hi ghlighted b y Y oung, who i n t he i deal of communicative de mocracy considers “democracy as a p rocess o f communication am ong citizens and public officials” (Young 2000, p.52). Smith, moreover, identifies the opportunity to discuss and debate policy as an element of deeper participation (Smith 2005). Increasing citizens’ v oice, it is a rgued, can pot entially m ake publ ic i nstitutions m ore a ccountable a nd responsive to the needs of the public and their demands (Gaventa and Barrett 2010). Within participatory p rocesses, communication a nd di alogue i s a lso unde rstood a s t he m eans i n which actors interact an d behave (Mannarini and Talò 2013). Communication therefore has the p otential to shape how publ ic of ficials a nd c itizens unde rstand e ach ot her, m ake decisions, a nd s olve problems (Bartels 2013) . Fung id entifies several m odes o f communication w ithin a pa rticipatory pr ocess i ncluding l istening, expressing pr eferences, giving advice or expertise, as well as bargaining, negotiating and deliberating (Fung 2006). However, communication in a democratic process can be one-way, or top-down from elites to citizens, reciprocal, and/or deliberative (Gastil 2008). Public presence or increasing the oppor tunity o f m embers of t he publ ic t o pa rticipate doe s not equate w ith having substantive oppor tunities t o g ive voi ce a nd t o i nfluence t he p articipatory p rocess or publ ic policy. Voice m ay be do minated or controlled b y some t ypes o f a ctors, for example publ ic officials and elected representatives who p articipate with citizens. Many studies reveal how the num ber of c itizen a ctors i s r elated t o t heir subsequent c onfidence a nd w illingness t o contribute t o pr oceedings. Also, t he conduct of chairpersons a nd f acilitators a re c rucial i n ensuring e quality of v oice between d ifferent act ors (Smith 2009) . Participation a nd deliberation, a rgue Fraser a nd Y oung, c an s erve t o r eproduce i nequality t hrough t he dominance of pa rticular s ocietal gr oups, t heir n arratives and pr eferences. T his i s l argely a consequence of so-called false consensus based on the views and concerns of the dominant actors generated within more discursive forms of democracy in addition to the privileging of certain forms of dialogue and diction (Young 2000, Fraser 1992, Young 1996).
64
Participatory p rocesses as w ell as d eliberative arenas can p rivilege certain f orms o f speaking over others. For example, norms of proper speaking can lead to bias against people with a ccents or who e xpress t hemselves e motionally. Young de scribes t he pot ential f or participation t o pr oduce i nternal e xclusion i n w hich c ertain pe ople’s c ontributions a nd perspectives dom inate discussions or a re giving greater w eight w ithin pa rticipatory o r deliberative p rocesses (Young 2000) . T he in strumental r ationality o f p ublic o fficials, it is argued, can clash with the communicative rationality of citizens which is often less concerned with th e e fficient f ulfilment o f goals a nd o bjectives (Kelly 2004 ). T his m ay l ead t o a preference fo r m ore s o-called di spassionate a nd “disembodied” reason giving w ithin publ ic administration in contrast to the narrative or emotive style of members of the public (Young 2000). In s ituations i n w hich voi ce a nd s tyles of c ommunication do not m esh, c itizens a nd public of ficials m ay ha ve t o de velop communicative cap acity, which i s unde rstood a s t he ability to recognise and break through dominant patterns of communication by adapting the nature, tone and conditions of their conservations to the situation at hand (Bartels 2013). In l ight of t his di scussion, th e e xtent to w hich p articipants within p articipatory processes possess the opportunity to give voice, to discuss and debate policy, and the degree to which contributions a re r espected by publ ic officials a nd e lected representatives i s o f significance to the depth of participation. 4.1.2 Influence and Levels of Authority and Power A key focus within the literature is the distinction between the levels of authority of participatory p rocesses which v ary t o a s ignificant degree. It i s clear t hat t he ex tent o f citizens’ a uthority is a c ritical d imension w ithin the c onceptualisation o f more e mpowered forms of pa rticipation. One of t he pr imary a ims of i nstitutions of pa rticipatory governance, or ‘t hicker’ o r ‘d eeper’ forms of d emocracy, i n addition t o t he nor mative c oncerns of s ocalled ‘ radical d emocrats’, is to e mpower c itizens to p lay a greater r ole in g overning themselves (Goodhart et al. 2012, Barber 1984, Pateman 2012). The authority of participation can vary from advisory or consultative bodies to power sharing in co-governance or so-called ‘empowered’ forms of participatory governance (Fung and Wright 2001). The International A ssociation of P ublic P articipation (IAP2) has i dentified a ‘spectrum’ o f publ ic pa rticipation f rom i nforming, c onsulting, i nvolving, c ollaborating t o empowering c itizens (IAP2 2007) . This d efinition is n otable as th e a uthors a re explicit in distinguishing be tween pa rticipation, i nformation a nd c onsultation. Information a nd 65
consultation do not afford real authority to citizens. The IAP2 identifies seven core values of public participation. These include the right of participants to engage in decision-making, the recruiting t hose pot entially a ffected b y governance de cisions, a nd pr oviding c itizens t he information r equired t o pa rticipate m eaningfully (IAP2 2007) . Indeed, citizens’ a bility t o influence de cision-making i s of ten r egarded as f undamental t o t he a ssessment of a participatory pr ocess or democratic i nnovation. ‘Beyond t he Ballot’, identifies f ive d istinct categories of p articipation, r anging f rom c onsultation, de liberation, di rect de mocracy, e democracy, and co-governance (Smith 2005). In a m ore r adical c onceptualisation, A rnstein’s ‘Ladder of P articipation’, which distinguishes between di fferent l evel of p articipatory po wer, pl aces citizen m anipulation b y elites a t th e b ottom a nd “ citizen c ontrol” a t th e to p (Arnstein 1969) . A rnstein’s vi ew of citizen p articipation e quates p articipation w ith p ower. A p articipatory p rocess th at f ails to transfer authority to citizens, she argues, is ‘tokenistic’ (Arnstein 1969). According to Carole Pateman, participation is the equal right of participation in decision-making (Pateman 1970). This ethos is echoed in her 2012 a rticle, ‘Participatory Democracy Revisited’ , in which she argues citizens have “the right to participate in decision-making about their collective life and to liv e w ithin a uthority s tructures th at m ake s uch pa rticipation possible” (Pateman 2012, p.15). T he i mportance of t he p articipation of citizens i n de cision-making i s echoed by Benjamin B arber w ho ma intains c itizens s hould t ake pa rt di rectly “ not n ecessarily at ev ery level and in every instance, but frequently enough and in particular when basic policies are being decided and when significant power is being deployed” (Barber 1984, p.151). In mo st r ecent a ttempts to conceptualise participation, de cision m aking c apability distinguishes ‘participation’ from participation defined with adjectives such as ‘empowered’ or ‘deep’. Similar to Pateman, Fung, in his concept of ‘empowered’ participation, argues that “people s hould ha ve t he s ubstantial a nd e qual oppor tunity t o pa rticipate di rectly i n the decisions that affect them” (Fung 2004, p.4). The importance of authority or power is echoed by W ampler who, when di scussing t he d eepening of d emocracy, argues, “ if an d w hen governments a re u nwilling to d elegate r eal a uthority to c itizens, p articipatory programs a re more l ikely to b e f ormal s hells w ith li ttle policy or de mocratic c ontent” (Wampler 2008, p.77). Participatory p rocesses w ith limite d le vels o f a uthority a nd in fluence, it is a rgued, undermine the ‘deepening’ of democracy and participation. In the vi ew o f m any theorists, t he l ack of decision-making pow er e quates t o ‘emasculated’, ‘pseudo’ or ‘cosmetic’ participation (Arnstein 1969, P ateman 2012, P ateman 66
1970). T here i s a
growing a wareness a nd d issatisfaction w ith s o-called “p seudo” or
“tokenistic” participation (Pateman 2012 ). Participation as c urrently f acilitated a nd institutionalised, it is a rgued, h as la rgely failed to f ulfil its d emocratizing an d d ecisionmaking potential (Pateman 1970, Pateman 2012, Barber 1984, Burton 2009). More critically, Leal a rgues ‘ participation’ ha s be s tripped of m uch of i ts pol itical and t ransformative elements w ith t he ‘ governance dr iven’ application of pa rticipation l argely a s anitised depoliticised in strument to ma intain a nd ju stify t he s tatus q uo (Alejandro Leal 2007 ). T his encompasses dissatisfaction with the development and facilitation of participatory processes by public authorities. A conflict between so called governance driven participation and demands from civil society and participatory democrats for more empowered participation is apparent. From the perspective o f p ublic an d el ected o fficials, ci tizen p articipation i s t ypically c oncerned w ith citizen input instead of citizen empowerment. It is a means to gain citizen advice and improve services t hereby i ncreasing t he l egitimacy of pu blic pol icies a nd not a means t o de volve authority t o c itizens a nd c ivil s ociety (Warren 2 009a). It i s pos sible f or t he out comes or outputs of
participatory pr ocesses t o b e i gnored b y public a uthorities (Smith 2009) .
Collective outputs formed in a deliberative and an egalitarian manner during the participatory process m ay not be i mplemented by p ublic a uthorities o r tr ansformed in to p ublic a ction (Fung a nd W right 2001) . P articipatory p rocesses, t herefore, can p roduce co llaborative an d inclusive out puts which are n ot i mplemented an d do not be come publ ic pol icy. T he m ost substantive form of influence is when decisions or outputs of processes become public policy and are transformed into public action (Pateman 2012, Fung 2004). However, m uch of t he pa rticipatory governance l andscape w ithin s ub-national government doe s not de volve de cision m aking a uthority to c itizens a nd c ivil s ociety. Participatory institutions are c onsultative or a dvisory or perhaps co-decision m aking. The participatory processes in this study are largely advisory and lack authority or power vis-à-vis democratic institutions. That said, t hey o ffer t he pot ential for citizens t o i nfluence di fferent aspects of policy-making and involve sustained relationships between members of the public and p olitical a nd a dministrative e lites. In li ght o f th is, th e s tudy m akes th e d istinction between citizens’ perceived influence within the participatory process, the level of authority of t he participatory p rocess, and t he ability t o de termine and i nfluence wider public pol icy. Assessing the extent of influence is not a simple question of decision-making power. Public influence within participatory processes, for example, includes agendas or the types of issues 67
discussed as w ell as wider policy influence and de cisions (Smith 200 9). The m easure o f perceived influence operationalised in chapter 5 will measure the perceived influence within each case while the qualitative data will expand this to focus more on th e impact on wider local authority policy and the level of authority of each participatory institution. 4.1.3 Democratic Participation and Legitimacy Legitimacy h as b een a n imp ortant d river in the p roliferation o f e xperiments w ith participatory forms of d emocracy an d governance. P articipation i s co nsidered a m eans t o boost t he l egitimacy o f g overnment d ecisions a midst a d ecline in tr ust a nd s upport of democratic institutions. Legitimacy is increased through t he i njection o f citizen preferences more di rectly into t he policy m aking pr ocess, thereby pot entially pr oducing a gr eater alignment between the public will and the decisions of public authorities (Fung 2015). In this view, legitimacy is both a driver and an outcome of deeper and substantive forms democratic participation. Legitimacy, i t i s a rgued, can p roduce a ‘ reservoir’ of s upport or goodwill f or democratic institutions and t heir out puts (Weatherford 1992). The d emocratic legitimacy of government ha s be en described as t he c itizens’ w illingness t o a ccept t he a ctions a nd decisions of governors even if these actions and decisions do not align with their preferences and/or goals (Gustavsen et al. 2014a). It i s considered a product of t he collective beliefs of the public in relation to the acceptability of government or the product of citizens’ attitudes and beliefs about government (Johnson 2014). The le gitimacy o f government or a de mocratic i nstitution i s unde rstood a s a n endorsement o f that institution at a normative or moral level (Gustavsen et al. 2014b). The legitimacy o f
government in cludes ju dgements c oncerning th e a cceptability o r
appropriateness of t he de mocratic pr ocess a nd t he e xtent t o w hich i t f unctions i n a n acceptable manner (Roos and Lidström 2014). It is possible that individuals can make these judgements according to particular political ideals or values including fairness an d eq uality (Johnson 2014). More broadly, legitimacy refers to beliefs in the normative appropriateness of i nstitutions, s tructures a nd/or a ctors. It i s c ommonly unde rstood as t he be lief t hat authorities, o rganisations, in stitutions an d s ocial arrangements ar e ap propriate, p roper an d just (Tyler 2006). The c oncept o f le gitimacy h as v arious imp lications in th e c ontext o f p articipatory governance, however. Legitimacy can be considered from the perspective of citizens and of political and administrative actors. Legitimacy can involve the perceived appropriateness of 68
participatory institutions, publ ic pol icy, and public a uthorities. In c ontrast w ith traditional representative democracy an d government, public a uthorities of ten d evolve a uthority and influence ov er publ ic p olicy and pol itical de cisions t o c itizens i n pa rticipatory f orms o f governance. This i nvolves di rect r elationships b etween di fferent t ypes of a ctors a nd t he reorganising or r eshaping of m odes o f government a nd r elations be tween or dinary c itizens and a dministrative and p olitical a ctors (Johnson 2014) . The pa rticipatory process o r ‘democratic i nnovation’ functions alongside, often i n p arallel, to tr aditional f orms o f representative d emocracy (Smith 2009) . Participation therefore has implications f or th e traditional r ole of el ected r epresentatives, t he n ature o f d emocratic r epresentation an d t heir influence w ithin governance a s well a s t he r ole o f publ ic of ficials (Montanaro 2012, Bryer 2007). Thus, the more substantive role of citizens in this places potential importance on t he legitimacy of participation among public officials and elected representatives. This highlights the legitimacy o f participatory g overnance within p olitics a nd p ublic a dministration itself which is considered a supplement or a means to address democratic deficits. The concept of legitimacy is r elevant t o p ublic an d el ected o fficials w ho es sentially s hare i nfluence an d authority ove r de cisions a nd pol icy-making with t he publ ic. T his involves a
further
distinction b etween th e le gitimacy o f p articipatory governance w ithin p ublic a dministration and the legitimacy o f the participatory p rocess which is set up and facilitated within public authorities from the perspective of citizens and civil society. 4.1.4 Trust Citizen t rust i s c onsidered i mportant t o de mocracy a nd d emocratic government a s well a s th e s hift to p articipatory governance and p articipation a s a n administrative a nd political r eform s trategy (Rosanvallon 2008, Jackson e t a l. 2011b, K aina 2008a , P utnam 1993). In the context of participation and democracy, trust is multifaceted. Enhancing citizen trust i n de mocracy a nd government i s c onsidered a pot ential be nefit of m ore s ubstantive participation within participatory institutions. Increased citizen trust can be considered a key outcome of participatory governance. Furthermore, trust can influence relationships between participants and the extent to which citizens and public officials engage in participatory forms of governance (Yang 2006, Yang 2005). Consequently, questions of trust can involve trust of public officials in the capacity and intentions of citizens, trust of the public in officials and public a uthorities, a s w ell j udgements c oncerning t he c apacity a nd e ffectiveness of participatory p rocesses o r the level of trust in participatory processes to generate consensus
69
and de liver agreed out comes. The co ncept o f t rust, therefore, is diverse and r elevant t o citizens and civil society as well as public officials and elected representatives. A r eview o f th e lite rature o n tr ust f urther h ighlights its p otential s ignificance to participatory governance a nd relationship w ith concepts s uch a s i nfluence and l egitimacy. More br oadly, t rust c an ha ve t wo di stinct di mensions; pe rceptions of c ompetence and of motivations o r s hared in terests (Hardin 200 6, W arren a nd Gastil 2013) . It i s a lso characterised as citizen’s perception of fairness and level of satisfaction with the outcomes of democratic i nstitutions (Grimes 2008, K aina 20 08b, B ouckaert a nd V an de W alle 2003) . According to Barbalet, for trust to be relevant it must make a difference in how a person acts. The a ct of giving t rust to a nother actor pr oduces a nd s ustains a n activity th at would n ot otherwise be possible or attainable (Barbalet 2009). The a ct of g iving t rust r equires t he e xercising of j udgement. T o e xercise t his judgement, individuals must have knowledge of other actors’ competence, skills, interests as well as a belief in their impartiality and fairness. According to Hardin, citizens often do not have direct experience of the workings of democratic institutions and the conduct of officials to m ake accu rate j udgements co ncerning co mpetence an d m otivations (Hardin 2006) . T his means t hat t hey o ften l ack t he expertise or knowledge t o evaluate t heir a ctions and analyse their tr ustworthiness (Jackson e t a l. 2011a ). Consequently, it is d ifficult f or c itizens to accurately t rust i nstitutions be cause t hey l ack knowledge a nd und erstanding of how t hey function (Hardin 2001) . However, pa rticipation i nvolves t he di rect i nvolvement o f citizens and ci vil s ociety in pol icy m aking of ten on i ssues d irectly r elevant t o th eir liv es. T his facilitates new roles for citizens and encompasses interpersonal relationships based on more sustained interactions. Participation enables c itizens a nd c ivil s ociety actors t o bui ld t he kno wledge a nd understanding of i nstitutions a nd ot her actors t o t rust. In m any p articipatory governance processes, public of ficials a nd c itizens a re of ten c onsidered e quals i n t he pur suit a nd development of priorities and problem solving strategies. This contradiction in official roles can pot entially f oster mistrust a nd c onflict be tween c itizens a nd of ficials i n s ubsequent relationships (Fung 2004). These relationships and interactions enable citizens to trust based on experiences and knowledge of public authorities. Participatory processes, however, exist within e xisting d emocratic in stitutions w ith p re-existing pr ocedures a nd pow er d ynamics. The p articipation o f ci tizens, el ected representatives an d p ublic o fficials i n p olicy m aking processes, often on wicked issues, raises the potential for competing or incompatible interests 70
and preferences. If interests diverge it is possible for the concerns of citizens not to be acted upon or incorporated into policy or outcomes. Trust can further be complicated by the so-called ‘starting conditions’ or the existing relationships or s hared histories be tween pa rticipants w hich m ay be b ased on m istrust, antagonism and even ho stility. In relation t o s tarting conditions, Ansell a nd Gash r eference three imp ortant f actors; imbalances be tween t he r esources or pow er o f s takeholders, t he incentives t hat s takeholders ha ve t o c ollaborate a nd t he pr ior hi story and r elationships of participants. Perceptions of the other are hardened and initial conditions are characterised by disharmony and low levels of trust between future collaborators (Ansell and Gash 2008). The collaboration be tween a ctors f rom m inority or s ocially e xcluded groups and a dministrative and political elites may be influenced by prior animosity and existing negative perceptions of the ot her. A l ack of t rust, t herefore, can reflect d eeper s ocial, e conomic, cl ass, r acial an d cultural di visions e mbedded i n w ider s ociety and r emain di fficult t o r econcile. This i s of potential relevance in this study with the participation of Irish Travellers within the LTACC. As well as citizens, the question of trust is of significance to public officials who must design a nd implement participatory p rocesses. The c reation a nd s ubsequent f acilitation of participation place considerable demands upon actors and institutions. It can create situations of r isk a nd unc ertainty between actors, be t ime-consuming and r esource i ntensive (Yang 2006). Public officials must invest time and resources in formal institutions of participation yet may feel that processes are costly, inefficient and ineffective due to the incompetence of citizens a nd t he i nherent de sign or s tructure of pa rticipatory p rocesses. A t t he i ndividual level, officials may also consider other participants, whether elected representatives or from civil s ociety, a s u nable o r u nwilling to contribute e ffectively to th e process o r to lo cal government m ore ge nerally. The le vel o f tr ust o f o fficials in c itizens t herefore is s aid to influence t he e xtent t o which t hey pr omote a nd r espond t o pa rticipatory i nitiatives. T his degree of trust may have links with the views of public officials concerning the desirable role and influence of citizens in governance and the legitimacy or appropriateness of a deeper role for c itizens. Therefore, in a ddition t o know ledge and pe rformance, t rust i s i mpacted b y perceptions of organisational and social norms concerning identities, desirable behaviour and roles of administrative and citizen actors in governance (Yang 2006). Finally, i n a ddition t o t rust i n t he pa rticipatory pr ocess a nd publ ic of ficials w ho facilitate this, trust can also determine the extent to which members of the public engage in a participatory process and interact with public authorities. Citizens with low social trust and 71
low levels of trust in political institutions are less likely to participate (Uslaner 2008). In this regard, the significance of trust can be complex. For example, while trust can determine the extent to w hich a ctors engage, citizens w ho d istrust p ublic in stitutions c an p articipate to oppose a publ ic a uthority or t o m onitor i ts actions m ore cl osely (Laurian 2009) . Trust in democracy a nd government; how ever, may be f urther e roded i f t he e xperience of participation is not satisfactory. In summary, trust is an important concept in analysing the depth of participation. The absence of trust of o fficials in the cap abilities and intentions of citizens has been cited as a stumbling b lock in th e r ealization o f mo re s ubstantive f orms o f p articipation (EAPN 2011, Laurian 2004, Yang 2005). There is evidence a lack of trust has hampered participation at the local g overnance level in I reland (McInerney and A dshead 2010) . However, the p otential importance o r s ignificance o f t rust to c itizen p articipation a nd p articipatory f orms of governance is multi-faceted including the extent of public officials’ faith in the capacity and intentions of citizens. From t he perspective of citizens, it encompasses questions of t rust in public a uthorities a nd t hose w ho r epresent t hem, a s w ell as judgements c oncerning t he capacity of participatory institutions to understand and deal well with what matters to them. Trust i s a contested s ocial s cience c oncept a nd de pending on i ts c onceptualisation an d operationalization i t can b e co nsidered as an explanatory f actor as w ell as a n i ndicator or outcome of d eeper participation. In t his r espect, existing levels o f social a nd p olitical trust can determine the extent to which citizens engage in political acts.
4.2 Part Two Variation in the Depth of Participation In addition to the descriptive objective, this thesis attempts to identify k ey variables which can explain variation in the depth of participation. Due to the location of participation within the realm of public administration and alongside existing representative institutions, a complete a nalysis ne cessitates a f ocus on s ubnational government s ystems, t he i nstitutional design of pa rticipatory processes, t he publ ic i nstitutions w hich f acilitate a nd t he publ ic officials who work within them, in addition to characteristics and motivations of the citizens who participate. However, in practice, a full examination of all potential explanatory factors is not possible in the context of one dissertation or research project.
72
In b road t erms, i t i s pos sible t o i dentify a num ber of di verse factors w hich c an be situated at the individual and institutional level. Individual factors include the characteristics and m otivations of c itizens a nd ot her ke y a ctors. Institutional f actors e ncompass t he institutional d esign o f p articipatory p rocesses as w ell th e w ider in stitution in w hich th e process is situated. In addition to the motivations, capacity and characteristics of citizens and public of ficials, t he r ules a nd s tructure of pa rticipatory pr ocesses s hape t he p articipatory experience and i nfluence t he depth of p articipation. T he i nstitutional de sign c an determine the a uthority o f a pr ocess, w ho p articipates, i n what num bers, a nd s hape how pa rticipants communicate a nd m ake de cisions. However, t he pr esence of pa rticular r ules or de sign of institutions or the capacity of participants cannot fully account for the depth of participation or the outcomes of participatory processes. The implementation of institutions depends upon individuals also. This study will focus primarily on the cap acity an d ch aracteristics of civil society participants, the conduct and disposition of public and elected officials as well as the institutional design and rules of each participatory process. 4.2.1The capacity and characteristics of citizens Having highlighted the potential relevance of individual and institutional level factors, this s ection w ill f ocus on ke
y t heoretical arguments c oncerning the c apacity a nd
characteristics o f c itizens. In th is ta sk, it is p ossible to f ocus o n s ocio-demographics, cognitive and personality factors, political and association links, as well as their motivations to p articipate. P articipation h as imp lications f or the tr aditional d ivision o f la bour b etween citizens, elected representatives and public officials, and is considered more demanding than traditional political activities such as voting (Warren 2009b). C itizens must pos sess various civil a nd p olitical s kills as w ell as k nowledge o f r elevant is sues to p articipate effectively. Common criticisms of participation and those who participate within participatory institutions tend to focus on the competence, efficacy and motivations of citizens. Citizen participation, it is argued, is largely dependent upon the quality of citizens who participate (Talpin 2011). Deeper a nd m ore s ubstantive f orms of d emocratic p articipation, it is a rgued, are unrealistic due a l ack o f competence, kno wledge, and i nterest on b ehalf of m embers of the public. This view of the competence of citizens has roots in the view of Schumpeter and socalled democratic realists who are sceptical of the capacity of ordinary citizens to play a more substantive role in governance (Schumpeter 1976, Held 2006). There is a belief that ordinary citizens are politically and ideologically indifferent, unsophisticated and lack a stable vision of public policy and concern with the wider public interest (Kinder 2006). This, it is argued, 73
affects citizens’ ability t o engage in decision-making on complex i ssues of governance and renders t hem i ncapable of c ontributing m eaningfully t o pol icy m aking. Others ha ve r aised questions about increased democratic contestation for citizens without mediation by political representatives (Warren 1996). Participation is widely understood by participatory democratic theorists as a means to empower and c reate m ore co mpetent democratic ci tizens. Indeed, for many p articipatory democrats this development is an important feature and outcome of participatory democracy (Pateman 2012, B arber 1984) . However, t he qua lities or s kills r equired t o e ngage successfully i n di rect d emocratic pa rticipation m ust be de veloped a nd nu rtured w hich m ay take time (Talpin 2011) . In r eality, c itizens may lack t he know ledge o f i ssues t o m ake a meaningful c ontribution to pol icy or de cision m aking. According t o W arren and G astil, t o make good decisions and to make an effective contribution, citizens must possess knowledge and be a ware of t heir i nterests a nd va lues, a ware of t hose of ot her c itizens, pos sess a n understanding of the social and material conditions of society, and the potential wider impact of pol icies und er consideration (Warren a nd Gastil 2013) . T his also e choes t he i dea o f citizens demonstrating a s o-called ‘ enlarged m entality’ and willingness t o forego i ndividual interests (Smith 2009). However, members of the public may be more interested in personal or pa rochial obj ectives and t his i s ke y to the le gitimacy o f c itizens a nd c ivil s ociety who participate (Talpin 2011). Participation p laces an emphasis o n t he p ersonality o f ci tizens including levels o f personal ef ficacy. Perceptions of e fficacy, i t i s a rgued, a re i mportant f actors i n how individuals t hink, f eel a nd be have a nd i t c an v ary across a ctivities a nd c ontexts (Bandura 2012). S elf-efficacy beliefs ar e co nsidered as s o-called ‘ knowledge s tructures’ w hich are reflective o f t he l evel o f co ntrol ci tizens ex ert o n t he k ey i ssues w hich af fect t heir l ives (Vecchione a nd C aprara 2009) . E fficacy has i mplications f or ex pectations, g oals an d can influence individual and collective behaviour. Individuals’ beliefs in their ability to achieve goals t hrough i ndividual a ction i s c onsidered a powerful m otivator of p olitical a ction (van Zomeren et al. 2013). Furthermore, i n pa rticipatory arenas, ci tizens m ay h ave t o p ractice co ntentious an d cooperative f orms of p articipation (Wampler 2 007b). However, t he conflict i nherent i n democracy and de mocratic c ontestation, i t is a rgued, c an inhibit individuals pa rticipating (Ulbig and Funk 1999). While this may be overstated, according to Warren, it is unrealistic to expect c itizens to c hoose e ngagement in c onflict o rientated p olitics o ver o ther f orms o f 74
engagement including family, f riends a nd r ecreation (Warren 2009 a). T his p laces an emphasis on t he potential for conflict and need t o engage in political debate and discussion with publ ic a nd e lected officials. S ome m embers of t he publ ic m ay f ind this c onflict a nd contestation difficult and unsatisfactory. There is a lso c onsiderable p olitical in formation asymmetry b etween c itizens a s w ell as co nsiderable i mbalances i n k nowledge between c itizens a nd p olitical and a dministrative elites who participate within participatory institutions. The dependence or reliance of citizens upon elites for information and resources is problematic and brings the autonomy of citizens into question. At its worst, this dependence may result in elite capture. Participation raises the danger of ‘elite capture’ in which civil society does not advocate the interests of the poor but reproduces the socio-economic hierarchies of society (Cornwall 2004, Luckham et al. 2000). More s ubstantive forms of de mocratic p articipation c an be c ostly f or citizens a nd m any citizens have scarce political resources at their disposal (Warren 2009a). The so-called costs of pa rticipation i nclude t ime, e ffort, r esources, a nd m oney (Laurian 2009) . Citizens w ith greater s ocietal a nd a ssociational tie s a nd lin ks ma y f ind th e c osts o f p articipation le ss. Participation and active membership of civil society and political organisations/associations may provide citizens with both resources and tangible skills (Wallman Lundåsen 2015). Generating interest in citizens to participate has been described as a trade-off between time f or i nfluence a nd p ower (Fung 2004) . C itizens m ust be lieve t he costs or de mands of participation do not out weigh t he be nefits. H owever, the c osts of pa rticipation i ncluding attending m eetings c an be h igh. S uch costs m ay b e m et m ore easily f or ci tizens of hi gher socio-economic status (SES). SES is a key demographic variable in political analysis and has potential s ignificance t o pa rticipatory governance. SES is c onsidered imp ortant to p olitical efficacy as well as overall representation and participation in democracy and government. It is influential to social and political interactions and relationships. Due to their disconnection from sources of societal influence, citizens of lower SES groups, it is argued, are less likely to feel politically efficacious. In contrast, as well as higher education and income, citizens of higher socio-economic status, are more likely to be better informed about political issues and have a greater r ange o f s ocial, f inancial a nd cognitive r esources t o engage i n pol itical participation m ore s uccessfully (Caprara et al . 2 009). Poorer citizens, i t is a rgued, a re less likely t o p articipate b ecause o f a l ack o f t ime, r esources and p erceived ef ficacy. Evidence suggests those who are better off or better educated are more likely to participate.
75
New f orms o f ci tizen e ngagement a re co nsidered a m eans t o ad dress democratic deficits w ithin r epresentative an d bureaucratic in stitutions. Increasing a nd de epening t he participation o f c itizens o f lo wer S ES a nd c itizens le ss lik ely to p articipate in tr aditional democratic arenas is considered an outcome or benefit of participatory forms of governance (Goodhart et al. 2012). However, some evidence s uggests participatory governance i s m ore likely t o be s uccessful u nder c onditions of w ealth, hi gher l evels of education a nd s ocietal homogeneity with c itizens o f lo wer s ocio-economic gr oups of ten pe rforming w orst i n participatory p rocesses (Smith 2009, F ung 2004, T alpin 2011) . Citizens of hi gher i ncome groups and w ith hi gher l evels of e ducation or t hose al ready represented i n t raditional democratic arenas may participate more regularly and/or successfully. Consequently, p articipatory p rocesses are often criticised fo r failing to in crease o r deepen citizen participation across social groups and for reinforcing the participation of those groups who are most likely to influence decisions in traditional democratic fora (Abers 2003, Talpin 2011) . In r esponse, public of ficials a nd facilitators o f p articipatory p rocesses ma y have t o cr eate incentives f or p articipation a nd b e p roactive in f acilitating c itizens f rom seldom h eard/hard t o r each, or disadvantaged or marginalised g roups. In p ractice, s elfselection methods of citizen recruitment can favour wealthier individuals and individuals of higher socio-economic status (Smith 2009). Further, the beliefs and goals of citizens of lower socio-economic status may be considered inappropriate and incompatible with the objectives of publ ic a uthorities. C onsequently, a ttempts t o g enerate c onsensus or pr oduce out comes based on t he de sires of minorities or s ocially e xcluded groups i n uni son w ith pol itical an d official a ctors w ho ma y p ossess p articular mo ral p references o r i ndeed prejudices is mo re complicated (McInerney and Adshead 2010, Young 2000). S ocially m arginalised groups o r minorities can also lack access to the knowledge and perspectives inherent in the culture of the dominant group as participation proceeds based on nor ms not shared by all participants. These p erspectives c an d iffer r adically and p rove d ifficult t o r econcile (Myers a nd Mendelberg 2013) . Consequently, i n practice, participatory governance can r esult i n n ew types of d emocratic d eficits a nd f orms of pol itical i nequality w hen ne w oppor tunities t o participate r esult in w ealthier c itizens or t hose al ready represented i n d emocratic ar enas participating in greater numbers (Warren 2009a). The above discussion has identified the importance of the characteristics, capacity and motivations o f c itizens who p articipate. T he r eview o f th e lite rature has highlighted t he potential importance of the socio-economic status of citizens including income and education, 76
their o bjectives and mo tivations to p articipate, as w ell a s th eir in volvement in o rganised associations. T hese f actors ha ve pot ential i mplications f or the p erceived d epth o f participation. It is hypothesised that higher levels of efficacy, education and income will have a positive relationship with the depth of participation. This will be explored in further detail in chapter 5.
4.2.2 Implications for Public Administration and Public Officials In attempting t o account f or t he out comes o r pe rceived s uccess of participatory processes, much of t he f ocus i s on t he capacity and m otivations of c itizens a nd t he importance of i nstitutional de sign. H owever, pa rticipation of ten f unctions w ithin t he administrative r ealm o f p ublic a uthorities a nd a longside e xisting d emocratic in stitutions. Located within sub-national authorities, the values, beliefs and actions of administrative and political actors are of potential significance. In addition to democratisation, the shift to more direct forms of public participation can be situated in the reform and the emergence of new paradigms of public administration and the shift from government to governance. Described by Pierre and Peters as a “notoriously slippery concept”, governance involves a wider range of a ctors i nvolved in g overning (Pierre a nd P eters 2000) . A ccording t o t he U nited N ations Development Programme, governance denotes “the system of values, policies and institutions by which a society manages its economic and s ocial affairs through interactions within and among the state, civil society and the private sector” (Nahem and Sudders 2004, p.1). 12 Viewed f rom a governance p erspective, i ncreased p articipation i s r eflective o f t he changing ch aracter an d at tributes o f m odern s tates. In r ecent d ecades, p olitical an d administrative e lites h ave e ngaged in e xtensive policy formation in c ooperation w ith lo cal and international actors, have sought the participation of the private and third sectors in the production of public services, and actively devolved and shared power with sub-national or local authorities (Robinson 2008). As a result, state policy springs from a more complex and inclusive process between non-state actors, networks and administrative and political elites. As outlined, the proliferation of participatory institutions has also been characterised as elite driven ‘governance driven democratization’ (Warren 2009b).
12
The definition continues: “It is the way society organises itself to make a nd implement decisions-achieving mutual understanding, agreement and action. It comprises the mechanisms and processes for citizens and groups to articulate their interests, mediate their differences, and exercise their legal rights and obligations.”
77
The location of much of participatory governance within local and public authorities’ places considerable responsibility on public administration. In many respects, public officials and pol itical representatives d etermine t he p urpose an d t he l evel o f au thority o f a p rocess before it begins. The central role of public officials and politicians creates considerable ‘elite discretion’ in which designers can carefully select and frame issues and limit the range an d scope of r epresentation a nd i ssues di scussed (Pateman 2012) . M ore c ynically, t he contribution of citizens and civil society can be managed by elites who do not wish to reduce their i nfluence on pol icy and a re unr eceptive t o pol icies t hat c hallenge e xisting nor ms. Participatory processes are largely subject to the discretion of political and elected elites and officials w ho m ust d etermine w hether t o d elegate d ecision-making a uthority a nd w hether citizen d emands can b e acco mmodated w ithin their i nterests an d p arliamentary s tructure (Wampler 2008) . “ Embedded i n t hese pa rticipatory institutions”, a rgue W ampler a nd McNulty “are political agendas that reflect the designers’ public and private interests. Thus, the rule structure embedded in the new participatory institutions reflects the interests of their designers” (Wampler a nd M cNulty 2011, p.16) . The f urther de epening of de mocracy, i t i s argued, may depend on the new ‘complementarities’ between representative and participatory forms of de mocracy (de S ousa S antos a nd A vritzer 2007) . The i mportance o f ‘interlocking institutions’ a nd c ohesion be tween a dministration, p olitics a nd c ivil society has b een identified (Wampler 20 15). P articipatory f orms of de mocracy m ay a lso be c onsidered incompatible with elected democracy and traditional local authority decision-making and/or undesirable by political and administrative elites (McKenna 2011, McKenna 2012). However, the role of public administration extends beyond institutional design and the delegation of a uthority. P ublic of ficials a re t asked w ith op erating t he m achinery of participation which places significant responsibility on public officials to deal with all aspects of the process, including ensuring all participants are heard and, where necessary, to resolve difficulties or tensions that may arise. This role has implications for bureaucracy, previously a c entral component of t he t raditional m odel of publ ic a dministration. As i ncreasingly administrators and officials s eek t he i nput and k nowledge of s ocietal a ctors i n t he complex task of g overning, participation ha s implications f or th e tr aditional r ole a nd v alues o f th e public o fficial a nd h is/her r elationship w ith ordinary citizens ( in a ddition to t he t raditional
78
relationship between citizens and elected representatives). 13 Participation alters the traditional role of the administrator as ‘expert, implementer and ruler’ and the citizen as ‘client, voter, and customer’ (Callahan 2007, p.1187). Participation and collaboration is a strand of de-bureaucratisation and evidence of the decline in the traditional model of public administration (Hughes 2012). Bureaucracy, based on r ational and l egal a uthority, i s i mpersonal, hi erarchical, r igid, and bui lt on f ormal structures with clear rules and regulations (Hughes 2012). Common criticisms of bureaucracy highlight its in efficiency, r igidity, a nd disconnection from c itizens (Olsen 2008) . T he bureaucratic p rinciples o f pr ofessional a utonomy ne cessitated non -professional i nterference from t he publ ic and politics r esulting i n a n e ffective s eparation of s tate a nd s ociety. In contrast, participation demands joint problem solving and closer interaction between citizens and o fficials a t th e p olicy in terface. The f ormal i nclusion of c ivil s ociety a ctors i n pol icy making p rocesses imp acts th e t ypical w orking r elationship b etween o fficials a nd p olitical representatives as well as formal and inform rules and standard conduct in governance (Bryer 2007). The hierarchical and bureaucratic nature of traditional public administration therefore appears to be at odds with more sustained collaboration between officials, citizens and civil society (Hughes 2012) . The c reation o f p articipatory spaces a nd th e in stitutionalisation o f formal collaboration between citizens and officials involve the tacit assumption of the need for o fficials to a lter th eir le gal-rational b ureaucratic e thics a nd tr aditional r oles (Bryer an d Sahin 2012). Elements o f participatory democracy, how ever, m ay be i ncompatible with t he traditional r ules-based e thos of publ ic a dministration. The s hift t o de eper m ore s ubstantive forms of pa rticipation c an pr oduce a t ension within publ ic a dministration be tween t he traditional t reatment o f ci tizens as cu stomers an d v oters an d t he increasing need to collaborate w ith t hem as p artners (Vigoda 2002, G eurtz a nd V an de W ijdeven 2010) . It is argued, t herefore, t hat t o i ncorporate greater p articipation i n m odern governance, public administration must evolve from ‘technical-rational’ to a ‘citizen participatory’ culture (Bryer 2007). In t he c ontext of g overnance, i n w hich t he pr edominant vi ew of t he r elationship between t he publ ic a nd publ ic a dministration i s i ncreasingly on e of pa rtners a nd 13
The m ost r ecent lo cal g overnment white paper i n I reland, “Putting P eople F irst”, h as r ecognised t he importance o f a dministrative change to b etter facilitate a nd r espond to p articipation. T his includes fostering a supportive political and administrative culture as well as new skills to respond to citizen input.
79
collaborators, t his i s of ten e xercised t hrough c ooperation w ith c itizens a nd s takeholders (Bryer 2007). Alternatively, the scope for such collaboration may be narrow and as a result the response of administration is one of negotiation in which public officials must balance the demands of s takeholders w ith i nternalised pr ofessional a nd i nstitutional nor ms a nd procedures. T his ba lancing, a rgues B ryer, c an be unde rstood i n t erms of a dministrative responsiveness (Bryer 2 009). H owever, existing f orms of g overnance a nd a dministrative practice c an be w ell e ntrenched a nd r esistant t o c hange i n de cision making a nd pol icy making. E xisting lo cal authority s tructures an d p ractice can b e u sed a s a m eans t o r esist participative discourses and attempts to initiate new forms of governance (McKenna 2011). In addition to challenging the traditional role of the public officials and their values, participation ma y p oses c hallenges f or th e c apacity o f p ublic in stitutions a nd th e o fficials who w ork w ithin t hem. More p ractically, pa rticipatory governance creates f urther t asks f or officials t o c arry out . Public officials a re now considered more active in the pol icy process due t o t heir e nhanced r ole i n or ganising and a dministering ne tworks a nd de signing and facilitating participatory governance mechanisms (Klijn and Skelcher 2007, Wright and Fung 2003). This undertaking is often complex and demanding. For example, officials may have to identify, recruit a nd s ubsequently support a ctors f rom ot herwise m arginalised a nd s ocially excluded g roups (Torfing and T riantafillou 2013) . In de aling w ith i nexperienced a ctors not yet accustomed to active involvement in governance, officials may have to be proactive and creative in ma ximizing th eir participation (Feldman a nd K hademian 2 007, S mith 2009) . Despite th eir b est in tentions, p ublic o fficials can e xperience di fficulty i n m obilising or recruiting c itizens a s w ell a s e nsuring th ey p ossess t he c ommitment, kn owledge a nd s kills required t o en gage m ore d eeply i n governance (Fung 2004) . Further, pu blic a dministration must deal with a greater number of stakeholders and balance the demands of multiple actors. Public officials may not possess the expertise to facilitate this or the resources. Participation therefore can be viewed by public officials as a strain on existing capacity and as an obstacle to hurdle (Abers 2003). In s um, p articipation h as s ignificant imp lications f or t he t raditional r ole of publ ic administration and its relationship with citizens. Public and elected officials must possess the capacity and will to, first, develop processes, second, facilitate them, and, thirdly, implement the decisions which emerge from them (Wright and Fung 2003). Public and elected officials, however, may not wish to share influence and consider participation as a challenge to their traditional r oles a nd a uthority. T he de volution of a uthority a nd i nfluence f rom e lites t o 80
citizens, however small, may be resisted. Public administration may consider citizens as illsuited or una ble to c ontribute m eaningfully t o pol icy a nd de cision-making. T he f acilitation and i mplementation of pa rticipatory pr ocesses r aises que stions a bout t he c apacity of publ ic administration a nd its i mplications f or th e tr aditional r ole of publ ic of ficials. Participation requires public administration to adapt from the ethos of traditional bureaucracy to the ethos or logic of participation. Administrative support for participation can be understood as a form of collaborative responsiveness, which is concerned with the extent to which administrators are amenable to new modes of thought and action (Bryer 2009). It is hypothesised that the capacity and disposition of public officials is significant to the d epth o f p articipation w ithin th e c ases. S ituated w ithin th e a dministrative a nd p olitical realm of local authorities, public (and elected) officials will have to practice more inclusive forms of policy making and be amenable to new modes of working. This includes procedures for agenda setting or establishing the types of issues discussed as well as influence on policy and de cisions. The r ole of administrative a ctors in o perating t he m achinery o f en gagement and the impact of this on the depth of participation within subnational governance in Ireland will be discussed in further detail in chapter eight in reference to the qualitative data. 4.2.3 Institutional Design The institutional design of participatory processes is also of significance to the depth of p articipation. M uch o f th e e xisting lite rature emphasises th e imp ortance o f in stitutional design and its effects on the quality or success of participation and deliberation (Fung 2003b, Smith 2009, Bryson et al. 2013). Within this context, the institutional design of participatory processes and the wider public institution in which it is facilitated is important. Institutional or co ntextual f actors co ncern procedures, r ules and n orms as w ell as t he b roader s etting i n which p articipation t akes p lace (Myers a nd Mendelberg 2013) . At th e in stitutional o r contextual l evel, p articipation i s s haped b y t he f ormal ch oices m ade b y d esigners. T his can include the structure of participation including t he number of citizens, the t ype of activities and t he dom inant m odes of c ommunication a nd de cision. T he i nstitutional de sign of participatory p rocesses s hapes t he nature of pub lic e ngagement a nd relationships be tween participants. T he s tructure or de sign therefore en ables o r co nstrains t he co llective an d distributive pow er of pa rticipants. C ollective p ower r elates t o t he pow er of groups t o do something while distributive concerns the power of some groups over others (Koch 2013).
81
Institutional design concerns how institutions can or should be created, and how they are adopted to function correctly and efficiently. It is considered a means to solve collective problems a nd i mprove t he f unctioning of d emocratic i nstitutions. T he t ask of i nstitutional design is considered complex and challenging. Effective d esign demands learning, adaption and a ttention on t he e ffect of s tructure on out comes (Olsen 2009) . Design c hoices m ay be influenced b y beliefs a nd w ider in stitutional f actors. A d emocratic in stitution s uch a s a participatory process does not occur spontaneously. The design of participatory institutions is purposeful, c ontext s pecific a nd i nfluenced b y l ocal a nd na tional c onditions. D emocratic institutions s uch a s pa rticipatory pr ocesses a re i nfluenced b y t he br oader pol itical a nd institutional context in which it proceeds. This can place constraints on the development of institutions and how they function in practice (Olsen 1997). More br oadly, i nstitutions c an be und erstood as f ormal or i nformal procedures, routines, nor ms a nd conventions e mbedded i n t he or ganisational s tructure o f p olitical and social phe nomena (Hall a nd T aylor 1996) . Institutions, i t i s a rgued, can s tructure t he exchange of i nformation or va rious t ypes of be haviour a s w ell a s impose s anctions. Institutions therefore can be understood as form of ordering and structuring of systems, parts and a ctors. “ Formal or ganizations a nd f ormally organized i nstitutions”, a rgues Olsen, “are conceived as collections of rules and standard operating procedures, pre-defined patterns of thought a nd action, i ncluding but not l imited t o l egal r ules and pr ocedures, a nd resources” (Olsen 2009, p.4) . P olitical-institutional c onditions c an i nfluence bot h i ndividual a ttitudes and actions. Depending on aims, institutional designers, it is argued, seek to make institutions more accountable, efficient, fair, functional, representative or rational (Olsen 1997). Institutional de sign pl aces a n emphasis o n r ules w hich a re d efined as t he f ormal arrangements t hat a re u sed t o s tructure t he p articipatory p rocess (Lowndes e t a l. 2006 ). “Rules”, it is argued, “are shared understandings among those involved that refer to enforced prescriptions a bout w hat a ctions ( or s tates of t he w orld) are r equired, pr ohibited, o r permitted” (Ostrom 201 1, p.17). R ules can be formal (rules i n form) and i nformal (rules i n use) and constrain, g uide a nd s hape be haviour. R ules c an de termine how a ctors s hould interact, create roles for participants, and set out desirable actions and behaviours (Lowndes et a l. 2006) . Rules therefore standardise t he r ole a nd f unctions of pa rticipants as w ell as particular behaviours and practices. Formal rules and procedures, however, are considered a ‘double edged sword’ in which interactions are heavily regulated and formalised. Actors can use f ormal r ules i n c ertain s ituations t o c ontrol a nd bl ock t he di scussion or r esolutions of 82
issues (Wagenaar 2007) . In a ddition, rules c an be a mbiguous or i nterpreted i n a pa rticular way b y r elevant actors (Olsen 2009). After t heir development and i ntroduction, s upport for democratic institutions such as participatory processes cannot be assumed or taken as given. A participatory process may be judged deontologically in which actors make a judgement as to w hether it is a n e ffective o r a ppropriate w ay to d eal w ith p articular is sues. P articipatory processes may face opposition and resistance from public authorities and other participants. Prescribed rules and procedures may not be adhered to or supported (Olsen 2009). Resistance to new institutions and modes of operating can be considered a form of institutional identity and the expression of particular beliefs and concerns. In s ummary, t he de sign of pa rticipatory pr ocesses i ncluding r ules a nd ope rating procedures can to some degree shape the participatory experience and influence the level of participation be fore engagement takes p lace. It is h ypothesised th at a spects o f in stitutional design s uch as excessively f ormal rules and procedures and th e location of activities of the process within t he e nvironment of t he l ocal authority have a n egative relationship w ith t he depth of p articipation w ithin t he c ases. Further, th e w ider c ontext o f in stitutional d esign in which processes are developed nationally and implemented locally may also have a n egative impact on the depth of participation. The local officials and elected representatives who are tasked w ith ope rating t he m achinery o f e ngagement l ack ow nership of local p articipatory governance i n i ts c urrent i nstitutional de sign. T he c entral government responsibility f or the development of pa rticipatory i nstitutions doe s not ne cessarily pr oduce s upport f or or t he capacity w ithin lo cal government to facilitate p articipation. As out lined, t he ope ration o f participatory processes, no m atter how w ell de signed, d epends upon c apable a ctors who understand how they should function, who are supportive, and who possess the capacities and skills to ensure they function effectively (Fung 2004). The impact of institutional design will be explored further in chapter eight.
4.3 Summary and Identifying Key Concepts For Further Analysis So far this chapter has identified and discussed some key theoretical arguments within the existing lite rature. T his e ndeavour ha s be en unde rtaken t o i dentify key concepts an d theoretical ar guments to answer the t wo m ain r esearch q uestions through mix ed me thods research. In t he context of t he br oad f ield of pa rticipatory de mocracy a nd g overnance, t his process helps to provide the theoretical justification to analyse the depth of participation and to de velop m easures and i ndicators. In t erms of t he de pth of participation, t his c hapter ha s 83
highlighted t he s ignificance of t he extent t o w hich ci tizens an d ci vil s ociety a ctors ex ercise voice, i nfluence t he w ork of pa rticipatory pr ocesses and br oader l ocal government policy, express trust in and believe participatory processes function appropriately or legitimately. These c oncepts a re also m ultidimensional a nd multi-faceted, how ever. Voice ca n include t he predominant types of c ommunication s uch a s de liberation or e xpressing preferences, t he frequency of c ommunication w ithin pa rticipatory processes and t he perception o f eq uality and r espect of voi ce. Influence can encompass the e xtent to w hich participants impact the agendas or the types of issues discussed, their overall level of policy influence, and their impact on political decisions. The discussion of trust revealed how it can be operationalized as a d ependent variable as well as an explanatory factor in the context of participatory g overnance. It i s pos sible t o c onsider t rust a s a n out come or be nefit of participation through which successful participation boosts the level of trust between citizens and publ ic a uthorities. Further, e xisting le vels of s ocial and p olitical tr ust c an imp act th e extent to w hich c itizens engage in d ifferent f orms o f p olitical p articipation. From t he perspective of public officials and elected representatives, meanwhile, questions of trust and legitimacy in volve b eliefs in th e appropriateness an d m erits o f participatory f orms o f governance. To s atisfy th e study’s explanatory obj ective, some pos sible r elevant explanatory variables were i dentified. A r eview o f t he l iterature highlights th e p otential s ignificance o f individual a nd in stitutional f actors. For example, t he r ules a nd s tructure of pa rticipatory processes can to some degree shape the participatory process. Based on t he express purpose of t he p rocess, pa rticipation c an of fer t he pot ential f or t he publ ic t o c onsult w ith l ocal authorities or share-decision making powers on p articular issues. Moreover, the formal rules can r ecommend a ctive de liberation on pa rticular i ssues of i mportance t o c ommunities or indicate that public participants must predominately listen to the views of experts and elites. The s tructure or design of processes t herefore s hapes i nteractions and enables or constrains the collective and distributive influence or power of participants. However, in addition, it is proposed that the behaviour, beliefs and characteristics of individuals are i mportant and i nfluential also. The presence of particular rules alone cannot fully e xplain be haviour or out comes. T his e mphasises t he m ulti-dimensional a spect i n attempting t o e xplain va riance i n t he de pth of pa rticipation a nd t he r elevance of bot h individual l evel a nd i nstitutional level f actors. The ‘ governance driven’ n ature of participation places a clear responsibility on public (and elected officials) to design, facilitate 84
and imp lement p articipatory processes. T he lo cation o f p articipatory institutions within public a uthorities r enders t he di sposition, responsiveness a nd va lues of of ficials fundamentally i mportant t o t he pa rticipatory pr ocess a nd t he experiences of participants. However, the operation of the machinery of engagement has implications for the traditional role of officials as well as traditional democratic decision-making and representation. From t he pe rspective of c itizens, pa rticipatory governance de mands c onsidered judgment or the possession and deployment of knowledge and expertise to be effective and legitimate (Smith 2009) . Irrespective of t he l evel of a uthority afforded t o t he pa rticipatory process, t he cap acity o r s kills an d s ocial ch aracteristics o f p articipants, and t he p erceived capacity of citizens, is of potential significance. The quality or capacity of citizens to engage in political action, and t he perceived e fficacy o f this action, is influenced to a considerable degree, b y t he l evel of r esources at t heir di sposal. T his pl aces pot ential i mportance on the socio-economic s tatus o f c itizens and ci vil s ociety a ctors and t heir br oader pol itical a nd associational lin ks. After id entifying k ey v ariables, t he precise o perationalization of indicators is necessary to engage in measurement through quantitative analysis. This task will be undertaken in the following chapter.
85
86
Chapter 5 Operationalization of Dependent and Independent Variables in Quantitative Analysis The p rimary objective of th e th esis is to e xamine th e d epth o f p articipation a nd explain v ariation in th is through m ixed m ethods r esearch. Chapter s even w ill e xplore t he results o f q uantitative a nalysis which m easures the pe rceived de pth of p articipation within each participatory process amongst civil society participants and a number of individual level explanatory f actors. The pr evious c hapters di scussed t he c onceptual unde rpinnings of participatory forms of governance and i dentified ke y t heoretical a rguments w ithin t he literature a nd important c oncepts f or f urther study. The review o f t he l iterature identified concepts s uch as voi ce, influence, t rust, l egitimacy and e xplanatory factors s uch a s s ociodemographics, e fficacy, t rust, and wider political a nd associational l inks. Further, t his analysis identified the need to construct a multi-dimensional measure of the perceived depth of participation which cannot be measured with a single indicator. This chapter w ill ju stify th e s election o f a nd d etail th e p recise o perationalization o f the ke y va riables us ed i n t he regression an alysis. Quantitative an alysis i nvolves conceptualisation, measurement and aggregation and methodological issues can begin at the initial level of de finition and conceptualisation. Theory t herefore h elps t o d efine a co ncept, probe its core dimensions, and to identify important dimensions or indicators (Saylor 2013). After conceptualisation, valid measurement requires precise operationalization and selection of t he m easurement l evel (Goertz 2006, B ollen a nd B auldry 2011) . The m easurement o f concepts must be justifiable and transparent at all stages of the measurement process (Goertz and M ahoney 2013) . This s tudy ha s d eveloped a m easure of t he p erceived de pth of participation t hrough t he ope rationalization of i ndicators of respect a nd equality o f voi ce, influence, trust in, and the legitimate or appropriate functioning of the participatory process. Indicators are observed variables that measure a latent variable (Bollen 2011). The responses to t hese i ndicators a re theorised t o be dr iving a l atent s ense o f t he perceived de pth of participation within each process (Bollen and Bauldry 2011).
87
5.1 Conceptualisation and Operationalization of Indicators of Depth of Participation 5.1.1 Respect and Equality of Voice Voice i s a cr
ucial co ncept within pa rticipatory governance. In participatory
governance, members o f t he publ ic can p ersonally exercise v oice, increasing t he l ikelihood that their ideas, concerns, interests, and values are incorporated in decisions taken by public authorities (Nabatchi a nd A msler 2014) . This e ncompasses a r ange o f different t ypes o f communication f rom expressing pr eferences, de liberation a nd pol icy d ebate a nd di scussion (Fung 2006). Participant voice can be understood as the ability/capacity to express opinions and pr eferences w ithin participatory p rocesses. The i ndicators o f voi ce i n t he composite measure concern the extent of perceived respect and equality of voice according to each type of actor. As voice may be dominated or r estricted by act ors, an assessment of the ex tent of voice m ust m easure t he degree t o w hich c itizen actors pos sess s ubstantive oppor tunities t o communicate dur ing t he pr ocess. This i s o f s ignificance as the oppor tunity for c itizens t o participate o r t o b e p resent doe s not m ean t hey are a fforded a n e qual op portunity t o voi ce preferences or t o c ontribute t o pr oceedings. In p ractice, the right to p articipate d oes n ot equate with equality of voice or mean that the contributions of participants are respected by others (Smith 2009) . Potentially, th is is o f a dded s ignificance in th e p articipation o f marginalised or s o c alled ha rd t o r each groups such as Irish T ravellers (Young 2000) . The importance of respect and equality of voice is also based upon t he importance of fairness in the d eliberative lite rature o r th e equal o pportunity to a ct in all a spects o f a p articipatory process (Mannarini and Talò 2013). The analysis of ‘voice’ in the quantitative analysis concerns the equal opportunity of actors to e xercise voi ce dur ing t he pa rticipatory p rocess and t he p erceived respect o f participants’ contributions. The indicators assess the extent to which participants believe they had the opportunity to speak and contribute to proceedings and that these contributions were respected by others. The mode of communication and the extent to which public actors could debate policy and express preferences and the role of institutional design as well as political and a dministrative a ctors in th is will b e explored in th e q ualitative d ata analysis in ch apter eight. Some of t he following measures echo the ‘ Deliberative P rocess P erceived Q uality Scale’ (Mannarini a nd Talò 2013) . Perceived equality and respect of voi ce i s m easured through the following indicators. 88
Please i ndicate t he e xtent t o w hich y ou agr ee or di sagree w ith t he f ollowing s tatements concerning this committee: In general, everyone had the opportunity to speak and to make themselves heard I had the opportunity to express my views as I would have liked Some SPC/LTACC/CDB members dominated the discussion Other members restricted my opportunity to speak In general, other members respected my point of view Strongly agree, agree, neither agree or disagree, disagree, strongly disagree 5.1.2 Influence The i ndicators of i nfluence measure t he p erceived i nfluence o f ci tizens an d ci vil society participants in each participatory process. The ability to shape and influence decisions is considered a f undamental question i n assessing t he de pth of p articipation a s w ell as assessing the strength of broader participatory democracy/governance principles. However, in practice, most subnational participatory processes do not live up to the ideal of citizen control and do not devolve significant decision-making power to members of the public. Assessing the extent of influence within participatory institutions is not a simple question of authority and decision-making power. Influence therefore is a multi-faceted concept in the context o f local participatory governance. This includes the potential for citizens to influence the work of each participatory pr ocess, the t ypes of i ssues di scussed, t he a bility t o determine an d decide public policies and the outputs of public authorities (Smith 2009). The measure of influence in this study is built on the idea that nature of power extends beyond influence on d ecisions or voting. For example, it is possible to identify four distinct stages of a decision-making process, problem definition, option analysis, option selection and implementation (Smith 2009) . In fluence can b e i dentified at e ach o f t hese four s tages. ‘Power’ and influence can be exercised in setting the agenda of a decision-making process or the types of issues discussed. This is reflective of a so-called two dimensional conception of power (Hay 2002) . A genda-setting i s i mportant in pa rticipatory p rocesses a s pow er can b e exercised t hrough d eciding w hich i ssues ar e d iscussed an d d ebated and t hose w hich a re constrained (Smith 2009, F ung 2015 ). Agenda s etting r equires formal a nd i nformal procedures within a participatory process which may be conducted in collaboration with civil society. However, a dministrative a nd pol itical a ctors c an c ontrol or co nstrain the range o f 89
issues di scussed and pot entially remove contentious i ssues from t he process l imiting publ ic voice t o t he di scussion of s o-called ‘ safe’ t opics o r t o topics d eemed ap propriate b y el ites (Fung 2015). The m easure o f p erceived i nfluence i s guided b y t he existing c oncept of s ubjective influence or perceived external efficacy of participants. This is the perception of the degree of and in dividual’s in fluence in te rms o f th e actual f unctioning o f a p olitical s ystem. O ne fundamental as pect o f subjective i nfluence is t he pe rception of how amenable a pol itical institution is to the influence of citizens individually or collectively (Vecchione et al. 2014). It is possible to make a further distinction between so-called ‘regime based ef ficacy’ or the perception of the political system’s responsiveness as a consequence of rules and procedures, and ‘incumbent based’ efficacy or the perceived responsiveness of elite actors in government or political office (Craig et al. 1990). External efficacy or ‘perceived system responsiveness’ is the belief of how likely elite actors ( public of ficials a nd e lected representatives) a re w illing o r a ble t o r espond t o individuals (Bowler a nd D onovan 2002, S aris a nd G allhofer 2007) . Elected r epresentatives and l ocal au thority o fficials ar e k ey a ctors w ithin th e c ases in th is s tudy. T hey p articipate alongside c ivil s ociety a ctors but due t o the l ocation of t he pr ocesses w ithin t he administrative a nd p olitical r ealm o f th e lo cal authority a re crucial to how e ach p rocess functions and local authority policy making. Consequently, in addition to perceived influence on the work of the overall process, the perception of extent to which elected representatives and public officials cared about what civil society actors thought is considered an indicator of influence and of significance to the perceived depth of participation within each process. The measure of influence in this study refer to participants subjective influence on the work of the participatory process and the t ypes of issues discussed as well as the extent to which local authority officials and elected representatives cared about what they thought. Perceived influence is operationalized in the study with the following measures: To what extent do you agree or disagree with following statements: I had a say about the types of issues discussed by this process I influenced the overall work of this process Local authority officials in this process cared about what I thought Elected representatives in this process cared about what I thought 90
Strongly Agree, Agree, Neither Agree nor Disagree, Disagree, Strongly Disagree 5.1.3 Trust in the Participatory Process The pr evious c hapter i dentified ke y a rguments c oncerning t he pot ential s ignificance of trust to participatory governance and to democracy more broadly from the perspectives of citizens a nd p ublic o fficials. Trust i s o f potential s ignificance i n m ore s ubstantive f orms of democratic participation and within participatory processes which encompasses m ore direct involvement in policy making and closer interactions between citizens and administrative and political a ctors. The f ollowing section w ill p rovide th eoretical ju stification f or th e development of i ndicators of t rust i n t he p articipatory process a nd d etail t heir p recise operationalization. Trust w ithin t he b roader s ocial s ciences i s a co ntested s ocial s cience concept w ith no de finitive de finition or c onsensus a s t o i ts e xact m eaning (Barbalet 2009, Shapiro 1987) . M easuring t rust i s c onsidered c omplex a nd a ccording t o e xisting conceptualisations is influenced b y an actor’s predisposition to trust, the trustee’s perceived character, capability, motives, predictability or behaviour. Consequently, when attempting to measure th e extent o f tr ust in a d emocratic in stitution it is imp ortant to f ocus o n e xisting understandings of trust within political theory and political studies for guidance. Trust, i t i s a rgued, ha s affective a nd cognitive f oundations. T he c ognitive a spect of trust in volves a choice t o tr ust o thers o n th e b asis o f p articular criteria. S uch c riteria can include p ast ex perience, co mpetence, k nowledge, p erformance and s ocial ch aracteristics (McAllister 1995) . T he s o-called a ffective f oundation of t rust m eanwhile ha s r oots i n perceptions c oncerning t he m otives of ot hers. I ndeed, di fferent e lements of t rust e vident within the literature include so-called instrumental, moral, and experience based components (Uslaner 2008, Warren and Gastil 2013). Trust is constituted through expectations as well as cognitive judgements concerning the be haviour of ot hers. M oreover, t hese p erceived m otivations r ender i ndividuals m ore o r less tr ustworthy in p articular c ontexts (Hardin 2006) . The c oncept o f p olitical tr ust is commonly divided into two distinct dimensions; competence and motivations (Hardin 2006, Warren a nd G astil 2013) . T his i nvolves judgments a bout t he ove rall c ompetence o f a ctors and j udgements c oncerning t heir i nterests and motivations (Warren a nd G astil 2013) . In terms of c ompetence, i ndividuals a re r equired t o m ake a j udgement on w hether ot hers a re competent to ma ke g ood de cisions. T his j udgement w ill r equire know ledge c oncerning a n actor’s s kills, know ledge a nd c ompetency. T he second di mension o f t his unde rstanding o f 91
trust c omprises j udgements c oncerning t he i nterests, m otivations a nd va lues of a ctors a nd institutions. In this dimension of trust, actors make judgements whether t heir interests align with others (Warren and Gastil 2013). This echoes Hardin’s conception of trust as ‘encapsulated interests’ (Hardin 2006). In the understanding of trust as ‘encapsulated interests’, accurate perceptions of trustworthiness require s ustained r elationships be tween i ndividuals t o j udge t he e xtent t o w hich a n individual’s interests are encapsulated in the interests of the truster. This trust is not general and relates to specific actions or situations. Trust therefore concerns the extent to which we believe ot hers have t he r ight i ntentions t owards us and are competent t o carry out what w e trust them to do (Hardin 2006). Or trust is present when actors believe actors in a relationship have an incentive to act in each other’s interests and incorporate the interests of others into their own (Choudhury 2008). In t he context of pa rticipatory governance, i t i s i mportant t o a cknowledge t he similarity between m easures o f p erceived i nfluence an d t rust as ‘encapsulated i nterests’. More b roadly, a spects of p olitical tr ust have b een l inked w ith pe rceptions of s ubjective influence (Craig et al. 1990). So, while considered a distinct concept, the operationalization of t rust ha s connections w ith pe rceived i nfluence on t he pa rticipatory process and t he perception of elite r esponsiveness. Further, the distinction be tween t rust i n i ndividuals a nd institutions is complicated in the context of government and politics, including participatory governance. Political and administrative actors are essential to the functioning of democratic institutions and the conduct of individuals can serve as a proxy for trust in an institution. Due to t he ke y role of publ ic officials and elected r epresentatives within t he cases i n t his s tudy, the indicators of trust in the participatory process can be considered related to perceptions of trust in other key actors also. Based on
the und erstanding of t rust a s e ncapsulated i nterests, this s tudy ha s
operationalized two indicators of trust in the participatory process. The measure of trust in the participatory process is focused on trust in the process. The indicators focus on the perceived understanding of t heir i nterests and concerns and t he perceived extent t o which t he process dealt or r esponded t o t hose i nterests a nd c oncerns. Trust i n s hared i nterests focuses on t he alignment between the interests and priorities of the process and each actor. Trust in dealing well w ith co ncerns focuses on t he a bility or willingness of t he pr ocess t o a ct upon w hat mattered to civil society actors.
92
Reflecting upon your experience of this Process to what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements? This Process understood my concerns (or the things which mattered to me) This Process dealt well with my concerns (or the things which mattered to me) Strongly agree, agree, neither agree or disagree, disagree, strongly disagree 5.1.4 Legitimate and Appropriate Functioning of the Process The previous chapter identified the potential importance of legitimacy to democracy and more substantive forms of citizen participation. The qualitative data in chapter eight will explore the legitimacy of the broader concept of participation and institutions of participatory governance from the perspectives of public and elected officials in this study. The measure of legitimacy in th e q uantitative a nalysis f ocuses o n th e p erceived l egitimacy of th e participatory p rocess. Before t he pr ecise ope rationalization o f th e me asure o f le gitimate o r the a ppropriate f unctioning of th e p articipatory p rocess, th is s ection w ill engage in a b rief theoretical discussion of the concept of legitimacy. This, in conjunction with the significance of le gitimacy id entified p reviously, is in tended to ju stify th e o perationalization o f th e indicators in the quantitative analysis. Legitimacy is a c ontested s ocial s cience c oncept or a “ slippery” concept t o ha ndle (Jackson et al. 2015). In general, legitimacy refers to beliefs in the normative appropriateness of institutions, structures and actors. It is commonly understood as the belief that authorities, organisations, i nstitutions a nd s ocial a rrangements a re a ppropriate, pr oper a nd j ust (Tyler 2006). Legitimacy boosts c ompliance w ith r ules and r egulations as w ell as co operation between individuals and organisations. The organisational viability of democratic institutions is strengthened when rules and practices are considered legitimate and are widely adhered to. Consequently, i t i s c onsidered i mportant t o t he s uccess of d emocratic i nstitutions a nd structures (Tyler 2006) . According t o B eetham, l egitimacy en capsulates expressed co nsent (or pe rceived dut y t o o bey), s hared b eliefs, a nd c onformity t o e stablished r ules (Beetham 1991). In this view, legitimacy is perceived obligation to institutions and social arrangements and emanates from a sense of obligation that encourages deference to the rules of authorities because they are considered appropriate, fair and just. Actors are more likely to comply with the r ules o f a p rocess w hen th ey c onsider t hem le gitimate (Tyler 2006) . Legitimacy, therefore, encourages actors to defer voluntarily t o decisions, rules and social ar rangements without the threat of sanctions (Tyler 2006). This involves shared acceptance of rule or rules 93
from affected actors within a group or community (Bernstein 2011). Non-compliance with a process or procedure is considered evidence of a lack of legitimacy. The legitimacy of a democratic process or institution can be understood in reference to n ormative a nd empirical le gitimacy. The normative c onception s ets out pa rameters according t o w hich an i nstitution o r o rganisation is le gitimate and me ets p articular substantive requirements (Jackson et al. 2008). Normative legitimacy therefore is established if a p rocess i s j ustifiable on m utually accepted, w ell f ounded reasons or s hared common values. Empirical legitimacy is achieved when the process is accepted, or perceived as right and j ust, b y a l arge nu mber of r elevant actors (Warren a nd M ansbridge 2013) . In the empirical sense, a norm or an institutional arrangement is legitimate if it finds the approval of those who are supposed to reside in this group (Bottoms and Tankebe 2012). An individual’s judgement of the legitimacy of a process or institution, it is argued, involves an assessment of the similarity of its objectives and behaviours and their values and objectives (Jackson et al. 2011a). S omething or s omeone c an be considered l egitimate i f based on shared b eliefs and values or e xpectations a nd a re c onstructed a ccording t o c ultural un derstandings and s ocial discourses (Häikiö 2012). Legitimacy therefore can be c onceptualised a nd ope rationalized a s t wo d istinct constructs. The le gitimacy of a n i nstitution or authority can be de termined b y l evels of acceptance, adherence and compliance. The first concerns the obedience or adherence to rules or i nstitutions, a nd t he s econd c oncerns a s o-called mo ral a lignment be tween t he va lues of institutions and participants or the public (Jackson et al. 2008). An actor confers legitimacy on an institution when he/she feels an obligation to obey, feels it expresses shared beliefs, and follows c onsistently a nd f airly its o wn in ternal r ules a nd pr ocedures (Jackson e t a l. 2008) . Those subject or involved in an institution must consider its processes and procedures as just and pr oper. The me asure o f le gitimacy in th e composite m easure focuses on t he nor mative aspect of the concept and the extent to which the participatory is perceived as appropriate and fair. A process or arrangement can be considered legitimate if it is perceived as appropriate, proper and just (Tyler 2006). This study has operationalized measures of legitimacy in the participatory process based on the perceived appropriateness of the functioning of the process, how it reached its decisions, and pe rceptions of f airness a nd e qual t reatment. As p articipatory in stitutions in volve decisions or c ollective out puts, a di stinction be tween general f unctioning a nd de cisions i s made. 94
Reflecting upon your experience of this Process to what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements? This Process functioned in an appropriate manner This Process reached decisions in an appropriate manner On this Process all members were treated equally Strongly agree, agree, neither disagree or agree, disagree, strongly disagree
In s ummary, while n ot representative o f a ll key concepts r elevant t o t he de pth o f participation, th is s ection p rovided th e th eoretical ju stification a nd d etailed p recise operationalization of indicators such as respect and equality of voice, influence, trust in, and the le gitimate o r a ppropriate f unctioning of t he pa rticipatory p rocess for t he pur pose of the quantitative analysis. Accurate and valid measurement requires precise operationalization and the selection of a m easurement level. The measure of the perceived depth of participation is conducted a t t he i ndividual l evel a nd indicators ar e d erived from ex isting co ncepts an d theories. T he s elected i ndicators are t heorised t o b e d riving a l atent s ense o f t he p erceived depth of participation. This will be tested through Explanatory Factor analysis in chapter 7 . The next section of the chapter will operationalize the potential individual level explanatory variables.
5.2 Operationalization of Potential Explanatory Variables Chapter four identified a num ber of potentially important factors i n e xplaining variation i n t he de pth o f pa rticipation. In b road t erms, t hese f actors can be di vided i nto individual a nd i nstitutional f actors. W ithin t he i ndividual l evel of a nalysis, a f urther distinction w as ma de b etween c itizens, and elected a nd publ ic of ficials. Chapter s even will detail the r esults of the regression an alysis w hich m easures the relationship b etween t he perceived de pth of pa rticipation a nd a s eries of e xplanatory v ariables c omprising the individual c haracteristics o f c ivil s ociety a ctors. This s ection of t he ch apter provides t he theoretical justification of chosen explanatory variables, details their h ypothesised ef fect o n the dependent variable, and their precise operationalization in the study. In broad terms, these individual variables can be situated a t th e s ocio-demographic, a ssociational a nd pe rsonality level. 95
5.2.1 The Characteristics and Capacity of Citizens For many participatory democrats, citizen participation is fundamental to democracy, citizen d evelopment an d as a m eans t o cr eate co mpetent d emocratic citizens. H owever, common c riticisms of pa rticipatory de mocracy f ocus on t he c apacity, c ompetence a nd motivations of citizen participants (Papadopoulos and Warin 2007, Talpin 2011). The quality or capacity of citizens to engage in political action, and the perceived efficacy of this action, is i nfluenced, t o a considerable d egree, b y t he l evel of r esources a t t heir di sposal. T hese resources can b e f inancial, h uman an d i nter-organisational i n na ture. H uman r esources a re characterised as the knowledge and skills individuals and groups have to engage in political action (Mayne 2010 ). The r egression an alysis will e xplore th e e ffect o f the sociodemographic v ariables of a ge, gender, i ncome a nd e ducation on t he perceived depth o f participation amongst civil society participants. Income and education can be considered indicators of an individual’s socio-economic status. S ES i s a c ontested c oncept w ith no e xact de finition. Indicators of S ES va ry a nd encompass several dimensions including income, education, occupational status, social class and race. It is common for measures of socio-economic status to measure peoples’ access to certain economic an d s ocial r esources i ncluding education and i ncome. In t his se nse, S ES cannot b e m easured “d irectly” an d i s an example o f a l atent v ariable (Saris an d Gallhofer 2007). SES h as b een defined i n broad t erms as an i ndividual’s access t o financial, cultural, human an d s ocial r esources and t he overall s tanding o f a p erson in th e social s tratification system o f s ociety (Bollen a nd B auldry 2011) . According t o O akes a nd R ossi, SES i s “differential ac cess ( realised a nd po tential) t o d esired r esources” (Oakes a nd R ossi 2003 , p.775). The following section will discuss the hypothesised effects of income, education and age on the perceived depth of participation. Education The l ink be tween wider pol itical pa rticipation a nd e ducation i s w ell do cumented. Education is commonly used as an exogenous variable in predicting political participation in which citizens of higher education are considered more willing and able to interact with and participate in the political system (Kam and Palmer 2008). Education, it is argued, enhances skills n ecessary for p articipation in cluding c ognitive a bility, kno wledge, a nd c ivic skills. Education increases cognitive ability and the level of political information to assist citizens in making s ense of pol itics a nd pol icy-making. F urther, e ducation c an e nable c itizens t o ga in 96
higher i ncome a nd hi gher pr estige oc cupations a nd f urther t heir i nvolvement i n a r ange of civil s ociety o rganisations. C onsequently, t hrough education citizens can b e p laced i nto important networks which subsequently facilitate all types of political participation (Kam and Palmer 2008). The i mportance of e ducation i n participatory governance i s of pot ential g reater significance. T he pr ocesses i n t his s tudy i nvolve pol icy m aking on a r ange of c omplex matters a nd require hi gh l evels of kno wledge and i nformation. T o pa rticipate m ore d eeply and t o i nfluence d ecisions a nd pol icy, citizens m ay r equire considerable l evels o f t echnical knowledge a nd t he c apacity t o unde rstand t hese i ssues. C onsequently, e ducation i s hypothesised to have a positive effect on the perceived depth of participation. Income Similar to education, income is widely considered to have a positive association with wider political participation and political efficacy. Higher income increases the resources at the disposal of citizens to engage in a variety of different forms of participation. It also places citizens in to n etworks w here a re mo re lik ely t o be e ngaged i n di fferent t ypes of pol itical activity (Levin-Waldman 2013) . The e ffect o f i ncome on pol itical pa rticipation a nd participatory forms o f d emocracy is n uanced. S imilar to education, it i s unde rstood t hat citizens of higher income groups or those already represented in traditional democratic arenas may participate more regularly and/or successfully. However, in contrast to the link between high S ES a nd pol itical engagement, it is p ossible f or pove rty and economic ha rdship t o increase political interest and participation, particularly on ar eas of direct importance to the lives o f c itizens (Neundorf e t a l. 2013) . This ha s be en a ke y i nsight f rom institutions o f participatory governance globally, most notably Participatory Budgeting in Porto Alegre. However, c onsiderable evidence s uggests t he ex perience o f citizens f rom l ower economic and socially excluded groups is not as successful or satisfactory. Citizens in lower income groups a re le ss lik ely to f eel p olitically efficacious (Caprara e t al. 2009) . Furthermore, citizens from lower socio-economic groups often perform worst in participatory arenas with citizen participation more likely to be successful under conditions of wealth, high levels of education and societal homogeneity (Smith 2009). In addition, attempts to generate consensus or pr oduce outcomes ba sed on t he preferences of lower i ncome o r s ocially excluded g roups can be m ore di fficult. The be liefs a nd g oals of t hese pa rticipants m ay be
97
considered i nappropriate or unde sirable b y pub lic i nstitutions. Consequently, i ncome i s theorised to have a positive relationship with the dependent variable in this study. Age While not ne cessarily an i ndicator of S ES, age is a k ey s ocio-demographic va riable and has been positively correlated with all aspects of political activity. Traditionally, family and education are considered important agents of political socialization in which the context in which citizens grow up impacts political interest and subsequent engagement. In addition, interest in p olitics in creases w ith a ge, particularly t he s hift from a dolescence t o a dulthood (Neundorf e t a l. 2013) . It is a rgued th at, a s c itizens g et o lder, th ey become e mployed, educated, l ess geographically m obile a nd m ore integrated w ith communities. In a ddition, older citizens may develop the habit of participation in which prior experience increases the likelihood of future and more diverse forms of political participation (Valentino et al. 2009). They may possess more time to engage in political activity and have more knowledge about politics and policy (Brady et al. 1995). Older citizens, therefore, are better able to meet the costs of political participation as well as being more active membership in civil society and political o rganisations. This is o f p otential s ignificance to p articipatory g overnance a s th e costs and demands of participation including time and levels of technical knowledge required are often hi gher. Consequently i t i s proposed t hat a ge ha s a pos itive a ssociation with the depth of participation. The socio-demographic indicators a re o perationalised w ith th e f ollowing ite ms in t he questionnaire. Which best describes your total annual household income? 1: U nder €20,000 2: €20,000-€24,000 3: €25,000 -€29,000 4: €30,000 -€34,999 5: €35,000 €39,999 6: €40,000-€49,000 7: €50,000-€74,999 8: €75,000-€99,999 9: €100,000-€149,000 10: €150,000 + What is the highest school or degree completed to date? 0: N one. 1: I ncomplete pr imary. 2: P rimary c ompleted. 3: I ncomplete s econdary. 4: Secondary c ompleted. 5: P ost--‐secondary t rade/vocational s chool. 6: U niversity undergraduate de gree incomplete. 7:
University unde rgraduate de gree c ompleted. 8:
Postgraduate diploma 9: Master’s degree (MA MBA or MSC). 10: Ph.D. What is your age? 16-24, 25-34, 35-44, 45-54, 55-64, 65+ 98
The q uantitative an alysis al so ex amines t he r elationship b etween gender and t he d ependent variable. Gender is operationalized through the following item. What is your gender? Male or Female 5.2.2 General Self Efficacy In a ddition t o que stions of s ocio-economic s tatus, pe rceptions of e fficacy of individuals a re c onsidered i mportant i n e xplaining pol itical be haviour and t he e xtent of political participation. The d irect en gagement o f members of t he publ ic in p articipatory arenas r enders t he ca pacity an d ef ficacy of ci tizens potentially more significant than traditional forms of participation such as voting. Perceived general self-efficacy in this study is a b elief in th e a bility to b e e ffective a nd in fluential in d emocratic in stitutions a nd participatory forms of governance. Self-efficacy beliefs are considered essential components of a n i ndividual’s pe rsonality (Bandura 2000) . General personal/self-efficacy i s co nsidered important to actions and behaviour. Recent socio-psychological studies have located political efficacy within broader understandings of human agency and social cognition, and highlight the i mportance of perceived s elf-efficacy i n j udgements co ncerning ci tizens’ cap acity t o b e effective in political contexts (Caprara and Vecchione 2013). Efficacy is a s tatement of c apability and is r elated to in dividuals’ b eliefs in th eir capabilities t o ach ieve particular accomplishments (Bandura 2012 ). While m easures o f efficacy are i ncreasingly context s pecific o r d omain s pecific, i ndividuals m ay pos sess a general level of self-efficacy which applies in different aspects of their lives (Bandura 2006). The s ense of e fficacy within pol itics i s c onnected t o pe rceptions of a chieving r esults or particular goals th rough a ctions. The pe rception of pol itical e fficacy h as b een d efined as “feeling that individual political action does have, or can have, an impact upon t he political process, th at is , th at it is w orthwhile t o pe rform one 's c ivic dut ies” (Campbell e t a l. 1954, p.187). According to M orrell, p olitical e fficacy and s elf-efficacy ca n be c onsidered dimensions of t he s ame c oncept a nd r elate t o pe rceived a bility of i ndividuals t o i nfluence politics (Morrell 2005). Perceptions of e fficacy are l inked w ith m otivations a nd a ctions. It i s a rgued t hat individual judgements concerning the ability to be effective in the political realm are linked to th e a mount o f time and e ffort in dividuals a re w illing to e ngage in p olitical a ctivity (Vecchione e t a l. 2014) . A pe rceived l ack of e fficacy, i t i s a rgued, i mpacts a n i ndividual’s willingness to engage in political activity and impacts the extent of political engagement. For 99
example, if c itizens’ d o n ot b elieve in th eir a bility to p erform c ertain ta sks o r achieve particular outcomes then they are less likely to pursue objectives and persevere in the face of challenges. P erceptions o f ef ficacy m ay al so r eflect ci tizens’ cap acity t o meet t he co sts o f participation a nd engage m ore s ubstantively i n t he pa rticipatory pr ocess. It i s h ypothesised that h igher l evels o f general s elf-efficacy h ave a pos itive e ffect on t he perceived de pth of participation. The study measured respondents’ sense of general self-efficacy which is not domain specific. Due to the length of the questionnaire only six items from Schwarzer and Jerusalem’s general self-efficacy t en i tem s cale w ere s elected (Schwarzer a nd J erusalem 2010) . T his doe s no t measure self-efficacy as comprehensively as the original measure. Please indicate the extent to which you agree with the following statements on a scale from 15 with 1 meaning strongly disagree and 5- strongly agree: It is easy for me to stick to my aims and accomplish my goals Thanks to my resourcefulness, I know how to handle unforeseen situations I can solve most problems if I invest the necessary effort I remain calm when facing difficulties because I can rely on my coping abilities I can usually handle whatever comes my way If someone opposes me, I can usually find the means and ways to get what I want 5.2.3 Conflict Avoidance and Willingness to Engage in Debate and Discussion Conflict a nd de bate i s a c ommon f eature of pol itical pa rticipation w hich i s a lso a social a ctivity. S imilar to e fficacy, th e w illingness to e ngage in c ontentious p olitical discussion and debate is considered an important personality trait in determining the extent of political pa rticipation. T he l ink be tween conflict a voidance a nd p olitical p articipation is consistent w ith s ocial ps ychological research on c itizens’ ha ndling o f non -political disagreements (Mutz 2002) . S ome h ave s uggested t hat, o n average, ci tizens ar e conflict averse and prefer to leave politics to politicians (Hibbing and Theiss-Morse 2002). Existing studies of pol itical pa rticipation ha ve hi ghlighted ne gative relationships be tween c onflict avoidance and m ore pub lic a cts of pa rticipation s uch a s pr otesting a nd p olitical di scussion (Blais and St-Vincent 2011).
100
As out lined, i t i s pos sible t o di stinguish be tween di fferent t ypes of participation include v oting, e ngaging in p olitical p rotest, c ontacting p ublic o fficials, jo ining p olitical parties an d i nterest groups as w ell as deliberation and p articipation in p articipatory institutions. P olitics an d d emocratic contestation can b e co operative, consensual as w ell as conflictual. According t o U lbig and F unk, democratic c ontestation i nvolves s ocial a nd political c onflict w hich c an in fluence the type o f p olitical p articipation e ngaged i n b y citizens. The extent to which conflict is relevant to political participation may depend on the type of pa rticipation, and on t he s ocial context, in which t his participation t akes pl ace. The extent to which social conflict is a feature of political participation depends on w hether the act o f p articipation is p ublic o r p rivate a nd w hether p articipation is a imed a t p ersonal o r particularistic goals o r f ar r eaching change. M ore i ntensive forms of p articipation i nvolve expressing b eliefs, o pinions a nd p references w hich m ay be oppos ed b y others (Ulbig a nd Funk 1999). This h as p articular r elevance t o participatory i nstitutions in w hich p articipation is potentially more d emanding than t he act of vot ing. A s out lined, t his involves t he e ntry of citizens into public and political arenas alongside elected representatives and public officials often on issues of direct relevance to their lives or communities. In these arenas, citizens may have to engage in contestation to express preferences, engage in agenda setting and monitor the implementation of specific policies or outcomes of processes. Such arenas are potentially demanding for citizens a nd t hose w ho a re un comfortable w ith c onflict and c ontentious discussion may not choose to participate, participate effectively, or adapt to the demands of the participatory process as well as others. Moreover, pol itical de cision-making or pol icy m aking i nvolves bargaining, compromise and the exercise of power and influence. This can involve disagreement, rancour and compromise b etween di fferent groups of actors with di vergent i nterests, obj ectives and values. C itizens m ay h ave t o be proactive and f orceful i n voi cing t heir opi nions i n governance ar enas. P articipatory governance t herefore o ften requires ci tizens t o p ractice cooperative and c ontentious pol itics. Citizens m ust c ooperate w ith publ ic of ficials i n or der access/receive in formation, to f acilitate me etings, and e ngage i n ne gotiation. W ithout cooperation, p ublic o fficials ma y h ave a d iminished in terest in f acilitating p articipation. However, t oo m uch c ooperation m ay r esult i n t he c o-optation o f c ivil s ociety b y o fficials. Contestation, t herefore, i nvolves pr otecting i nterests a nd e nables c itizens t o voi ces
101
preferences a nd ensure agreed upon out comes are actioned b y publ ic a uthorities (Wampler 2008). In t he Irish c ase, this h as a dded s ignificance a s evidence s uggests t he e ntry o f civil society actors in political arenas alongside administrative and political actors can be daunting and in timidating (McInerney a nd A dshead 2010, O 'Connell 2006) . T hese a ctors e nter i nto formal ar enas within th e a dministrative r ealm o f th e lo cal a uthority with a pr e-existing culture and established modes of working. In addition, civil society may be fewer in number than local authority officials and elected representatives with their opportunities to contribute regulated by these actors. The hypothesis is that the willingness of participants to engage in debate and di scussion has a pos itive a ssociation with t he pe rceived de pth of pa rticipation. Willingness to engage in debate is measured with the following indicators. Please indicate the extent to which you agree with the following statements on a scale from 15 with 1 meaning strongly disagree and 5- strongly agree: It is often better to give in on arguments rather than antagonizing people It is important to get one’s point across even if others don’t like it When people debate political issues I often feel uncomfortable 5.2.4 Political Affiliation The s tudy examines th e r elationship b etween p olitical a ffiliation a nd th e p erceived depth of participation. The regression analysis will also consider the impact of participants’ membership of specific civil society pillars. At the individual level, widespread engagement and p articipation in electoral p olitics, including affiliation w ith a p olitical p arty, has l ong been r eferenced as an i ndicator o f a v ibrant d emocracy (Pacheco a nd Owen 2015) . W hile political pa rty m embership a ppears t o be i n de cline, and pol itical pa rties a re no l onger considered mass organisations, political parties have traditionally served as the link between citizens an d d emocratic leadership (Slothuus and de V reese 2010, Van Biezen et al. 2012 ). Traditionally, political parties help citizens make choices by simplifying policy choices and educate t hem t o t ake m ore i nformed de cisions by pr oviding i nformation. Political p arties therefore can mobilise citizens and help them to form partisan identities, and shape citizens’ decisions b y m obilising, in fluencing a nd s tructuring choices among p olitical a lternatives (Leeper and Slothuus 2014).
102
Political and associational links, therefore, have the potential to increase the capacity and efficacy of citizens in political contexts. As di scussed, i ndividual pol itical behaviour i s influenced by a variety of factors including material and cognitive resources (Valentino et al. 2009). Studies of political efficacy have highlighted the link between involvement in political parties an d p erceptions of co mpetence t o engage i n p olitical act s as well t he p erceived responsiveness of t he p olitical s ystem (Caprara e t a l. 2009) . P olitical p arties a nd p arty membership is c onsidered imp ortant to c itizens’ pol itical e fficacy, know ledge and socialisation. P arty affiliation m ay i ncrease citizens’ s ense o f s ocietal i nfluence an d integration within communities. In addition, political involvement is understood as a habit in which citizens engaged in political activity become more likely to engage in future political activities (Valentino et al. 2009). Globally, the success of participatory governance initiatives has be en l inked w ith s upport f rom a br oader po litical pr oject a nd w hen i t doe s not oppos e existing p ower r elations (Hickey and M ohan 2005, W ampler 2008 , R odgers 2007) . Membership of pol itical or ganisations ha s be en i dentified a s a s trong de terminant of participatory governance in Europe with participation in participatory institutions considered a stepping stone to politics or a means to revive political careers (Talpin 2011). 14 However, many participatory processes are focused on specific policy areas and have little connection with party politics and formal political institutions (Warren 2009a). Potentially, p olitical a ffiliation c an pr ovide i mportant ‘ socio-political’ learning f or citizens w here th ey d evelop c onfidence, p ractical p olitical s kills a s w ell as in terest in th e political realm and in specific political issues. Participation in organised associations such as political p arties, it is a rgued, p rovides me mbers w ith ta ngible s kills s uch a s o rganisational and communication skills (Wallman Lundåsen 2015). Th erefore, involvement in a political party can increase citizens’ sense of competence, knowledge, and access to resources as well as de velop pol itical ne tworks a nd r elationships w ith p olitical a ctors. Current o r p rior involvement in a political party can involve experience in group activity aimed at achieving political objectives. Further, it may also increase citizens capacity and confidence to engage in m ore de manding f orms of c ommunication a nd di scussion (Beaumont 2011) . P olitical affiliation may also have positive effects on t he level of trust in the political system and the perceived responsiveness of political institutions. Consequently it is hypothesised that current
14
In the case of Irish participatory governance, this perception is common amongst local elected representatives who often consider civil society participants as potential future political rivals and adversaries.
103
or p ast p olitical a ffiliation w ill h ave a p ositive association with the perceived depth of participation. Political affiliation is measured with one survey item: which of the following best describes your af filiation with a p olitical par ty: never belonged, us ed t o belong but do not currently, belong but do not actively participate, belong and actively participate. 5.2.5 Social and Political Trust Despite ope rationalizing a m easure of t rust a s encapsulated i nterests i n t he participatory p rocess, th is s tudy h as id entified th e le vel o f both social a nd p olitical tr ust o f citizens as potential ex planatory v ariables. This l evel o f tr ust h as p otential imp lications f or the extent to which citizens participate in participatory processes and relationships with other participants. More w idely, trust is c onsidered i mportant t o t he f unctioning of de mocratic institutions, t o c ollective a ction a nd t o t he c ollaboration of c itizens a nd publ ic a uthorities. Trust, l ike e fficacy, i nfluences i ndividual a nd collective be haviour h elping to r educe s ocial complexity a nd c oordinate c ollective a ction (Kaina 2008b) . It can p rovide cer tainty o r uncertainty a bout a n i ndividual’s f uture be haviour a nd s hapes e xpectations of ot hers. The following section will discuss the potential relationship between social and political trust and the perceived depth of participation and detail how these indicators are operationalized in the study. Social t rust c an be c onsidered a f orm of i nterpersonal t rust a nd i s di stinct f rom political tr ust o r tr ust i n p olitical in stitutions (Putnam 2007) . Generalized social tr ust is defined a s t he pe rception t hat m ost pe ople a re pa rt of your m oral c ommunity and c an be trusted (Uslaner 2008) . Social tr ust acts as a l ubricant o f s ocial co ordination an d s ocial interaction and is said to sustain a cooperative social climate, to facilitate collective behaviour and to encourage a regard for the public interest and make participation i n public and civic life le ss r isky (Putnam 1993, Zmerli a nd N ewton 2008) . T his involves s ocial c onnections between t ruster and t rustee a nd i s r elevant w hen i ndividuals de pend up on t he a ctions of others, w hen i ndividuals f eel un certainty c oncerning t he attitudes of ot hers, a nd w hen a n element of risk or vulnerability is involved in these actions (Jackson et al. 2008). Social a ctivities, it is a rgued, a re mo re lik ely to be successful i n s ituations of c ooperation a nd t rust i n w hich i ndividuals a ssume ot hers c an be t rusted or do not ha ve t o demonstrate t hey c an be t rusted be fore r eciprocation (Hay 2007b) . However, i nterpersonal trust, a rgues U slaner, i s bui lt on a n i mportant moral f oundation (Uslaner 2002) . T rust in 104
others involves an important moral dimension in which actors may not trust others considered or p erceived as u nlike th em (Uslaner 2008) . This so -called m oral tr ust is la rgely unconditional a nd not dependent upon everyday experiences a nd e ven pe rceptions a nd experiences o f reciprocity. C onsequently, i t s erves as a s tatement about how a ctors s hould behave, and involves expectations about honesty and certain types of desirable or acceptable behaviours (Uslaner 200 8). Trust, t herefore, i s a lso a ‘ moral’ va lue, one w hich i s s table, enduring a nd de pendent upon t he pe rception o f t he extent t o w hich others s hare your fundamental ethical principles and standards (Uslaner 2008). Moral or particularised trusters, however, are l ess l ikely to trust o thers p erceived as not part of t heir own community. As a result, s ome pe ople c an be c onsidered as p ossessing a hi gher di sposition t o t rust. Consequently, in t hese cases, trust be tween i ndividuals a nd g roups i s o ften pa rticularized with cooperation between these actors less likely and more difficult (Uslaner 2002). Social tr ust is s een a s i nherent t o s ocial r elationships a nd influential in social situations, i ncluding f ace-to-face m eetings and r elationships be tween i ndividuals, organisations, i nstitutions a nd t he s tate. This trust i s c onsidered of pot ential i mportance t o participatory forms of governance as it often requires investment of time and resources from and s ustained s ocial c ooperation a nd i nteraction be tween di verse i ndividuals. P olitics including pa rticipatory f orms of g overnance therefore can b e co nsidered a s ocial act ivity which functions best in situations of trust and cooperation between different types of actors. Those with low social trust, it is argued, are less likely to participate in politics and find the activity of participation more difficult to perform. According to Uslaner, the most demanding forms of civic engagement and political activities, which ties us to others considered unlike ourselves, depend a great d eal o n l evels o f generalised social trust (Uslaner 2008) . Cooperation between people perceived as different requires a positive view of others different from ourselves and believe they are trustworthy. Social trust, therefore, is considered important to a cooperative environment and the facilitation of collective behaviour (Zmerli and Newton 2008). In addition to implications for cooperation, levels of social trust have been linked with perceptions of the responsiveness of political actors and institutions or perceived external efficacy. Consequently, it is possible for social trust to influence the conduct of citizen and civil actors during the participatory process and t he extent o f th eir p articipation. Social t rust is c onsidered l ower i n s ituations of s ocial diversity and i n a reas of l ower s ocietal h eterogeneity. In t his r espect, i t i s ar gued t hat members of a s ocial group are more likely to feel at ease with members of their own group 105
(Putnam 2007). Some evidence suggests that social trust is lower amongst members of ethnic minority groups (Hooghe et al. 2009). 15 Social tr ust is th eorised t o ha ve a pos itive r elationship w ith t he pe rceived de pth of participation. However, s imilar to indicators of socio-economic s tatus, the pr esence of l ow social trusters within participatory processes does not mean they are less willing to engage in more substantive forms of participation. It is possible for low social trusters or particularized trusters t o a ct on t he basis of di strust a nd e ngage i n c ontested f orms of de mocratic participation a nd c onflict w ith p olitical a nd a dministrative act ors. H owever, t hey a re m ore likely t o ha ve a di ssatisfactory e xperience a nd poor er r elationships w ith public a nd e lected officials and this could impact the perceived depth of participation. General social trust was measured with the following three items in the study. This measure is based on the measure of general social trust in the European Social Survey. Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements: (Network) There are only a few people I can trust completely (Interpersonal) If you are not careful, other people will take advantage of you (Helpfulness) Most people just look out for themselves Strongly agree, agree, neither agree or disagree, disagree, strongly disagree Political Trust Political trust relates to trust in political actors as well as trust in political institutions. It is possible to operationalize indicators which evaluate levels of trust in individuals and trust in institutions. Studies indicate that citizens’ trust in political institutions and political parties is in d ecline (Dalton 20 04, N orris 1999, B iezen a nd P oguntke 2014, F arrell 2014 ). T his decline in trust is considered detrimental to democracy. However, some make arguments in relation to th e imp ortance o f d istrust to d emocracy in w hich criticism o f p olitical a uthority fosters d ebate and s crutiny o f d emocratic in stitutions (Bouckaert a nd Van de W alle 2003) . According to s ome, s ocial tr ust is imp ortant o r a p recursor f or p olitical tr ust. C itizens w ho trust o thers a re a lso lik ely to tr ust p olitical in stitutions (O'Sullivan e t al. 2014). T his, however, i s di sputed b y Uslaner who c onsiders s ocial t rust w hich r elates t o t rust of generalised ot hers a nd pol itical t rust or j udgements of g overnment pe rformance and 15
This has potential important implications for participatory institutions which involve the direct participation of ethnic minority groups such as members of the Travelling community within the LTACC.
106
responsiveness as d istinct (Uslaner 2002) . It is p ossible therefore to d istinguish be tween social o r in terpersonal t rust a nd pol itical t rust which c omprises t rust i n i ndividuals a nd institutions. Institutional tr ust, i t is a rgued, imp lies th at a n in stitution is trusted to c arry its tasks an d s erve co llective i nterests i n a r eliable, competent an d s ecure f ashion (TschannenMoran a nd H oy 2000 ). As o utlined, in th e p olitical r ealm, th e d istinction b etween tr ust in individuals and institutions is not clear. Members of t he publ ic may be m otivated t o e ngage w ith publ ic a uthorities on t he basis of political trust and distrust. In context of policy-making, public authorities are often perceived a s ba rriers t o a ccess r esources b y c ertain gr oups a nd/or t he implementation of public policies. Higher levels of political trust are hypothesised to have a positive relationship with t he pe rceived de pth of pa rticipation. In t heory, hi gher l evels of political trust increase the likelihood of citizens engaging in political participation including participatory forms of governance and c ooperating w ith publ ic a nd e lected o fficials a s w ell perceptions o f t he participatory pr ocess a nd t he r esponsiveness of a dministrative a nd p olitical a ctors. Actors who interact w ith p ublic o fficials in p olicy m aking a ctivities w ith e xisting lo w le vels o f political trust may perceive them as unwilling or unable to implement agreed upon outcomes. The p recise n ature o f t he t heoretical relationship of p olitical tr ust to t he de pendent variable i s s ubject t o d ebate, how ever. It is pos sible t hat t he de pth of participation ha s a positive a ssociation w ith tr ust in th e w ider p olitical s ystem a nd is an o utcome o f th e experience of participation. In this understanding, political trust is not a cause but rather an outcome of the p articipatory in stitution. O ne further p ossibility is th at tr ust in p olitical institutions is not causal or an effect of the dependent variable but is instead epiphenomenal. Consequently, the measure of trust exists alongside the experience of participation but is not a direct cause or outcome of this experience. However, despite this debate, it is hypothesised that p articipants’ l evel o f p olitical tr ust h as a p ositive a ssociation w ith th e d epth o f participation for civil society actors. Political tr ust in th is s tudy w as m easured us ing i ndicators s imilar t o t hose f ound i n t he European Social Survey and the Irish National Election Study. These indicators focus on trust in national political institutions as well as national political actors. How t rusting ar e y ou o f e ach of t he following? P olitical P arties, D áil É ireann, National Government, The Civil Service, An Garda Siochána, The Courts.
107
Very tr usting, fa irly tr usting, n either t rusting or unt rusting, not very t rusting, not at all trusting In s ummary, t he measurement o f s ocial s cience concepts requires p recise operationalization (Goertz 2006, S aris a nd G allhofer 2007) . This c hapter e xplored t he development of i ndicators of t he perceived depth of pa rticipation a nd i ndividual l evel explanatory f actors which m ay i nfluence t his for t he purpose of t he regression analysis. To assist i n m easurement for t he pur poses of t his s tudy, d etailed conceptualisation a nd operationalization of the dependent and independent variables was conducted. These factors include participants’ aspects of socio-economic status including income and education, levels of general s elf-efficacy, p olitical tr ust, a nd willingness to e ngage in p olitical d ebate. The following c hapter w ill e xplore a nd j ustify t he o verall r esearch de sign a nd m ethodological approach of the study.
108
Chapter 6 Methodology Methodological d ecisions ar e critical i n em pirical r esearch, t o d ata gathering, and subsequent da ta a nalysis. The pur pose of t his c hapter i s t o e xplore a nd j ustify t he methodological approach taken during the study. The methodology of this study is driven by the ai ms o f t he r esearch an d t he at tempt t o answer t he two p rimary r esearch questions; (a) what i s t he de pth of pa rticipation and ( b) w hat f actors e xplain va riance i n t he de pth of participation in the selected cases? In the context of research within the field of participatory governance, more generally, and subnational governance in Ireland, the aims of the research presented a number of methodological challenges. The attempt to expand the analysis of local participatory g overnance in Ireland from c ase s tudy t o l arger s cale an alysis, and t he objectives of de scription a nd e xplanation g uide t he overall m ethodological a pproach. The chapter w ill be gin w ith a di scussion of t he ont ology and e pistemology underpinning t he research and the use of mixed methods. As surveys often generalize findings from a sample to a br oader popul ation, a br eakdown of r esponses a cross each pr ocess a nd e ach t ype o f participant will be provided. Moreover, the limitations of the methodological approach and its impact on data and findings will be discussed throughout.
6.1 Ontology and Epistemology of Study Political research, argue Marsh and Furlong, should proceed with the awareness and understanding of ont ology and e pistemology as such a ssumptions s hape a nd de termine the approach to political enquiry. Ontology and epistemology can be understood as the ‘skin’ of a researcher’s ap proach t o s ocial s cience en quiry (Marsh a nd F urlong 2010). O ntology i s concerned with ‘ being’, w ith w hat ‘ is’ o r w hat e xists in ‘ reality’. In terms o f p olitical research, th is c an b e e xtended to p olitical b eing, to w hat ‘ is’ p olitically, to w hat ‘ exists’ politically, o r to p olitical ‘ reality’ (Hay 2006) . E pistemology, i n c ontrast, i s a t heory o f knowledge and reflects our view of what can be known and how it can be known (Hay 2006). It i s pos sible t o di stinguish be tween ont ological a nd e pistemological a pproaches w ith profound di fferences i n unde rstanding of t he natural an d s ocial w orld. Consequently, recognising a nd unde rstanding the ont ological a nd e pistemological u nderpinnings of a particular theoretical or methodological approach is of importance (Hay 2007a). Foundationalism and anti-foundationalism, for example, s erve as oppos ing pi llars i n ontology. Positivism, which argues the world exists independently of our knowledge, is one 109
form of foundationalist ontology. Positivists seek to test causal hypotheses and advocate the separation of e mpirical and nor mative que stions. P ositivist e pistemology f ocuses on c ausal relationships, the testing of hypotheses, and makes use of quantitative methods. Quantitative data is used to measure relationships that are directly observable. Anti-foundationalism, such as interpretivist approaches, in contrast, is a theory which argues no one foundation on which beliefs an d k nowledge c laims ar e built, f ocusing more on m eaning a nd l ess on e xplanation (Marsh and Furlong 2010). The m ethodology o f t his s tudy is lo cated w ithin th e pragmatic paradigm which encompasses mixed philosophical positions (Onwuegbuzie et al. 2009). Pragmatism provides epistemological ju stification f or mix ing a pproaches and m ethods a nd r ejects t he incompatibility o f q ualitative a nd q uantitative d ata (Onwuegbuzie e t a l. 2009) . Pragmatism involves pos t pos itivist and i nterpretivist a pproaches i n w hich i t i s c onsidered na tural t o combine s tatistical a nalysis w ith m yriad f orms o f q ualitative analysis. The a doption of t his position is practical and is guided by the objectives of the research and the desire to produce a more comprehensive analysis of participation. The study is guided by the belief that there is nothing i nherent i n t he properties of a q uantitative a nd q ualitative approach t hat pr events them being used by researchers of different epistemological positions (Read and Marsh 2002, Johnson a nd O nwuegbuzie 2004) . Moreover, t he study agrees w ith th e a rgument th at th e positivist separation between ‘facts’ and ‘values’ is both artificial and detrimental to political research (Goodhart et al. 2012). The m ethodology o f t he r esearch encompasses qualitative a nd qua ntitative analysis and is co ncerned with description, explanation a nd unde rstanding. While the r esearch t ests hypotheses and involves some elements of post-positivist research, the study rejects the strict dichotomy between both positivism and interpretivism. Both the quantitative and qualitative data explores t he na ture a nd m eaning of p articipation f or pa rticipants and i nvolves some degree of s ubjectivity. The r esearch is c ognisant that in dividuals a ct o n th e b asis o f their beliefs an d p references an d t hat t hese b eliefs an d p references a re often rooted w ithin objective factors such as job position, gender and class (Bevir and Rhodes 2010). Therefore, the potential for the interpretation and understanding of social phenomena to affect outcomes is recognised. As the world is socially constructed, social structures can shape and are shaped by the social world, and are developed through the actions of actors. In this regard, actors act on the basis of beliefs and values. Moreover, values, which reflect the broader social world in which pe ople op erate, c an be us ed t o j ustify actions (Bevir and R hodes 2010) . This is in 110
keeping w ith th e p ragmatic philosophy i n which know ledge i s vi ewed as c onstructed a nd based o n t he r eality o f t he w orld w e ex perience an d ex ist i n (Johnson a nd O nwuegbuzie 2004). Further, the study does not take either a s trictly structural or agential approach and is cognisant of t he pot ential i mportance of bot h s tructure and agency. T raditionally, s tructure and agency are considered as opposites. However, it is possible to identify both structural and agential f actors in mo st s ocial a nd p olitical c ontexts. I t is a b elief of th is s tudy that individuals can and do act consciously but are situated within specific contexts which involve an uneven distribution of opportunities and restraints (Hay 2002).
6.2 Mixed Methods In k eeping w ith t he p ragmatic philosophy, this study u tilises bot h qua ntitative a nd qualitative analysis and is a form of mixed methods, blended or integrative research (Johnson et a l. 2007) . The pr imary f ocus of qu alitative da ta, i t i s a rgued, is on m eaning and understanding. It c an i dentify how i ndividuals i nterpret t heir e xperiences a nd s urroundings. This is in contrast to quantitative data, which focuses primarily on t he amount of something and t he r elationships be tween va riables analysed t hrough s tatistical an alysis (Merriam a nd Tisdell 2015). Mixed m ethods research recognises the similarities between quantitative and qualitative r esearch i n which r esearch q uestions ar e addressed t hrough t he analysis o f empirical obs ervations c oming f rom personal e xperience, obs ervation or e xperiment (Onwuegbuzie et al. 2009). A mixed methods approach is cognisant of the limitations of all types of da ta including large s cale quantitative research. C onsequently, it is imp ortant to combine t his da ta w ith qua litative s ources t o de epen a nd s trengthen a nalyses (Font e t a l. 2012). This combination has the potential to combine the strengths of both quantitative and qualitative approaches in t he r ealisation o f b roader r esearch o bjectives. T he purpose of t his approach c an b e s ummed up i n t erms of
triangulation, complementarity, i nitiation,
development and expansion (Johnson and Onwuegbuzie 2004). Triangulation can be used as an instrument of validation, and as a means to gain new information, and to build a d eeper understanding of a n i ssue (Flick 2004) . Due to th e p otential s ignificance o f in stitutional design as w ell as the be haviour of a ctors, a comprehensive analysis of t he depth of participation in these cases, necessitates a focus on institutional and individual level factors and t he us e of bot h q uantitative a nd qua litative da ta. The us e of m ixed m ethods c an potentially produce more comprehensive analysis in which the significance of individual and 111
institutional factors are considered and a larger number of participants are invited to take part in t he s tudy. T he use of mixed m ethods is a lso unde rtaken i n t he c ontext of growing methodological p luralism in th e field o f participatory gove rnance and t he pr ioritisation of conceptualisation o ver measurement within th e e xisting lite rature (Galais e t a l. 2012, Goodhart et al. 2012). The s tudy follows a l argely sequential m ixed an alysis in w hich q uantitative a nd qualitative data were gathered at different stages. However, this is not clear cut as qualitative methods were used throughout the research, including the development and improvement of the que stionnaire pr ior t o i ts l aunch. The que stionnaire also provided r espondents w ith t he opportunity t o pr ovide i n de pth qualitative feedback. In t his s ense, r espondents pr ovided qualitative a nd q uantitative d ata. That s aid, t he s tudy e ngaged i n extensive qua litative da ta collection after the questionnaire and the interviews and focus groups were for the most part conducted after this. Qualitative data was used to expand upon or to supplement the survey data. This helped to explore the results of the questionnaire in further detail and to determine important factors in the variation of the depth of participation. Therefore, the i nterview da ta a nd focus groups w ere us ed t o t riangulate da ta, t o expand the extent of understanding, and to set the results of the statistical analysis in a wider context. Finally, mixed methods are also evident in the approach to measurement. According to some, the attempt to engage in measurement should be free from subjective judgement. In the tr aditional p ositivist v iew, inquiry must b e objective based o n p recise r ules an d observable f acts. However, f or me asurement to b e e mpirical a nd s cientific it mu st b e grounded i n s hared c oncepts, s hared realities, a nd s hared rules of t ranslation, a ll of w hich require the use of judgement by the researcher (Schedler 2012). For ex ample, interpretation and judgement is required in the use of Factor analysis which, although primarily a statistical method, requires researchers to name f actors and i nterpret w hat f actors m ean. T his is considered a form of qualitative coding (Onwuegbuzie et al. 2009).
6.3 Research Design and Case Selection The development of the participatory governance landscape in Ireland and the origins and relevance of these p rocesses were discussed previously. This section discusses the cas e selection an d the research de sign of t he s tudy i n f urther d etail. The r esearch analyses t he depth of pa rticipation i n t hree l ocal g overnance pr ocesses i n a ll l ocal a uthority a reas i n Ireland: Local T raveller A ccommodation C onsultative C ommittees ( LTACCs), S trategic 112
Policy C ommittees (SPCs), a nd C ounty/City Development B oards (CDBs). The r eference period of t he study i s be tween 2009 and 2014. As di scussed, on e of t he motivations of t he research i s t o e xpand t he s tudy of p articipatory governance i n Ireland f rom cas e s tudy t o larger scale analysis through a comprehensive analysis of subnational practice. The research, which as sesses p articipation acr oss t hree d istinct p rocesses and f rom t he p erspectives o f different t ypes of pa rticipants, is a w ithin a nd acr oss u nit r esearch d esign (Gerring 2004) . While it explores the experiences of local authority officials and elected representatives, the primary u nit o f a nalysis is
civil s ociety participants and t he de pth of
civil s ociety
participation. The selection of these p articipatory institutions is justified in terms of th eir location within th e p articipatory governance l andscape, in a ddition t o their c ontrasting or igins a nd policy focus. SPCs reformed existing local government committees with the addition of civil society actors and are embedded within the administrative environment of the local authority with pre-existing norms a nd va lues. In c ontrast, CDBs, w hich f ocused on br oad i ssues of local development including social inclusion, can be considered a qu asi-independent entity, supported b y s pecialised l ocal a uthority s taff who w ere o ften recruited out side t he l ocal government s ector. While e mbedded w ithin th e a dministrative r ealm o f t he l ocal au thority, the LTACC is a largely issue specific process, n amely Traveller accommodation. However, the L TACC formalised the p articipation o f a marginalised and s ocially ex cluded group largely underrepresented i n t raditional d emocratic ar enas. Fu rther, t he i ssue o f T raveller accommodation is a persistent “wicked” problem i n Irish public policy and t he relationship between Travellers and t he Irish s tate h as also been p roblematic. According t o S mith, participatory processes can produce certain democratic goods in different ways (Smith 2011). It is important, therefore, to assess the depth of participation within diverse and similar cases. While p ossessing s imilar f eatures, a nalytical v ariation is evident w ithin th e in stitutional design, policy focus and remit of the three participatory institutions. This offers the potential to an alyse diverse participatory experiences a nd t o build t heories t o a ccount f or a ny differentiation. Research should produce data that is both internally and externally valid. According to Gerring, internal validity refers to the correctness of a h ypothesis or causal inference with respect t o t he s ample (the cas es actually s tudied b y t he r esearcher) w hile ex ternal v alidity refers t o t he c orrectness of a h ypothesis w ith r espect t o t he broader population ( cases not studied). T he ke y e lement of e xternal va lidity t hus r ests upon t he r epresentativeness of t he 113
sample and responses received (Gerring 2004). The study of three local governance processes throughout Ireland helps to increase the study’s internal validity and is more representative of the r eality o f l ocal p articipatory governance i n Ireland (Yin 2009) . With th is in min d, a n effort was made to ensure adequate geographic representation of respondents throughout the different local authority areas. Further, i n r eference t o t he d ata co mpiled f rom l ocal el ected representatives, an
effort w as m ade t o en sure b oth geographical an d cr oss p arty
representativeness. In t erms of m easuring and e xplaining va riation i n t he de pth of participation in Ireland, a national study increases the generalizability of the study. A national comparison of Irish c ases c an e stablish s trong i nternal va lidity and pr oduce ge neralizable results relevant to the sample studied, and possess a high level of transferability to other ‘out of sample’ cases (Slater and Ziblatt 2013). It is hoped, therefore, that this design will be able to e xplain a nd a ccount f or a ny va riation i n t he depth of pa rticipation within a nd across t he selected cas es an d that f indings possess st rong v alidity in t he c ontext of pa rticipatory governance in Ireland. To a nswer t he p rimary r esearch que stions, the d issertation explores t he de pth o f participation in reference to qualitative and quantitative data. In terms of explaining variation, the hypothesised relationship be tween t he de pth of pa rticipation a nd the individual characteristics o f civil s ociety participants a re te sted th rough quantitative analysis. This analysis tests a num ber a h ypotheses i n r espect t o t he r elationship be tween t he de pth of participation a nd va riables s uch a s e ducation, i ncome, s ocial t rust, a nd personal e fficacy. Further evidence in respect to these variables is provided in reference to the qualitative data. The perceived depth of participation of local authority officials and elected representatives is not i ncluded i n t he r egression a nalysis and t he majority of t he e xplanatory variable survey items were not a pa rt of t he questionnaire for no n-civil society participants. The context of their p articipation d iffers f rom c ivil s ociety p articipants a nd t he h ypothesised r elationship between v ariables such as income; efficacy, s ocial and p olitical trust and t he de pth o f participation are not relevant to political and administrative actors. However, the quantitative analysis does examine statistically significant differences in respect to the composite measure across the different types of actors. The r elationship be tween t he de pth of pa rticipation a nd i nstitutional de sign a nd t he role of publ ic administration an d el ected o fficials i s ex amined primarily through t he qualitative d ata gathered. B y potentially pr oviding a richer understanding of how t he constraints of t he r ules a nd pr ocedures of e ach p rocess, a nd t he di sposition a nd c onduct o f 114
administrative and political actors, impact the depth of participation, the qualitative data was considered a m ore effective ap proach f or t hese potential explanatory variables. There i s relatively small variation i n i nstitutional de sign a cross t he c ases, s o t he focus i s i nstead t o examine participants’ experiences of how the processes are designed and how this impacted the e xtent o f th eir p articipation. It is reasonable to h ypothesise t hat t he l ooser i nstitutional design of t he C DB a nd i ts qua si-independent s tatus c ould pr oduce de eper pa rticipation. However, w hile n ot te sted d irectly th rough h ypothesis te sting, th e relationship be tween t he dependent variable and participating within each process controlling for the other individual level v ariables i s ex amined i n t he r egression a nalysis. This w ill b e discussed further i n chapters s even a nd ni ne. More d etailed h ypothesis te sting o n th e imp act o f in stitutional design t o t he de pth of participation a cross di verse c ases i s a pot ential avenue f or further research.
6.4 Data Collection and Data Gathering This section will outline the criteria used to identify and target the research population and t he e ffort unde rtaken t o invite th is population to t ake p art in t he r esearch. This study commenced in October 2013. After a pilot phase, the primary data gathering commenced in November 2015. T he da ta a nalysis pha se c ommenced i n l ate spring 2016 w hich continued until th e a utumn of 2 016. Participants w ere t argeted b ased o n t heir m embership o r involvement w ith t he t hree p articipatory processes be tween 2009 and 2014. T hey were targeted using purposive sampling in which respondents are selected to participate according to p redetermined c riteria r elevant t o t he s pecific r esearch o bjectives (Onwuegbuzie a nd Collins 2007). In May 2014 local authority elections were held to form new membership of local authorities nationally. As a result, the three processes in this study were dissolved and new p articipants w ere s ubsequently s elected t o reflect t he ch anging m embership o f l ocal authorities between 2014 and 2019. The end of the five year period provided an opportunity for participants to reflect on their experiences. A database of the members of each process in each local authority area between 2009 and 2014 w as compiled prior to the May 2014 e lections. As there is no one central database with a comprehensive list o f p articipants o r t heir c ontact d etails, this w as a co mplex undertaking. To compile the database, an extensive an alysis o f local authority w ebsites and annual r eports was conducted. T his helped t o i dentify the vast majority o f potential participants within each p rocess. The co ntact details f or p articipants w ere s ubsequently 115
gathered ov er t he n ext 12 m onths i n c onjunction w ith l ocal a uthorities, c ivil s ociety organisations a nd t hrough i ndependent r esearch. A s mall n umber o f lo cal a uthorities published the names and full contact details of the participants in their entirety either online or in annual reports. Some local authorities provided the contact details of participants upon request with the permission of those involved. However, in some cases, local authorities did not provide sufficient information and some were non-responsive to contact via email. Informal partnerships were developed with many civil society groups to better target the popul ation. F urther, the s tudy b enefited f rom t he assistance o f t he Local Government Management Agency (LGMA) and the Local Authority Members Association (LAMA) who agreed t o r aise aw areness of t he s tudy within l ocal government. In c ases where the co ntact details of participants were not available, the Community and Voluntary Fora were contacted to h elp d istribute the qu estionnaire t o pa rticipants. In t he cas e o f t he LTACC, t he r esearch engaged with an ethnic minority population who may be considered a ‘ hard to reach’ group or ‘ seldom he ard’ group (Kelleher et al . 2 014). A n i nformal pa rtnership w ith t he Irish Traveller M ovement (ITM), t he N ational T ravellers W omen’s Forum a nd l ocal T raveller projects a ssisted in id entifying a nd in viting T ravellers to p articipate. A s d iscussed, t he LTACC T raveller representatives a re d ivided b etween m embers o f T raveller organisations, who m ay be s ettled Irish, and or dinary m embers of t he T ravelling community ( most commonly supported by Traveller organisations). For the most part, LTACC representatives are nom inated a nd s elected t hrough T raveller l ocal a nd na tional pr ojects a nd or ganisations. Some LTACC r epresentatives ar e f ull-time o r part-time e mployees o f t hese or ganisations with many serving as Accommodation and Primary Health Care officers. Consequently, T raveller r epresentatives w ere i nvited t o pa rticipate t hrough personalised e mails a nd through i nformal pa rtnerships w ith T raveller d evelopment pr ojects and advocacy groups. As is common with researching so-called marginalised, hard to reach groups or s eldom he ard g roups, m any T raveller r epresentatives di d not ha ve a ccess t o computers, email or t he i nternet. C onsequently, a pa per ha rd c opy version of t he questionnaire w as pr ovided vi a l ocal T raveller g roups a nd pr ojects w ho r eturned t he questionnaire. D ue to illite racy, a s mall n umber of T raveller r epresentatives co mpleted t he questionnaire with the assistance of a Traveller project worker who returned the questionnaire to the researcher on their behalf. The hard copies were returned to the researcher and inputted manually i nto t he s urvey software. The ta sk o f in viting T ravellers a nd o ther c ivil s ociety actors t o p articipate w as f urther complicated b y the ef fects of t he 2008 economic crash in 116
Ireland which ha s resulted i n a c onsiderable d ecline i n f unding f or T raveller pr ojects a nd community a nd vol untary or ganisations (Harvey 2013) . C urrently, a num ber of l ocal authority areas no l onger ha ve functioning T raveller or ganisations, while ma ny T raveller projects ha ve be en r ecently s ubsumed i n pr imary health c are w ith l ittle funding t o s upport wider Traveller participation in local government and issues of accommodation. Despite this, the cooperation of organisations such as the Irish Traveller Movement ensured the invitation to p articipate was extended t o a l arge proportion of t he t arget popul ation. The d ecline i n funding f or T raveller o rganisations ha s i mplications f or the d emocratic p articipation o f Travellers in local government. T his w ill be discussed i n f urther d etail i n s ubsequent chapters.
6.5 Survey Method and Technique A s urvey qu estionnaire us ing Fluid Survey software s erved as a p rimary d ata gathering instrument to measure participants’ perceptions of the depth of participation and the individual e xplanatory v ariables in th e q uantitative a nalysis. Due t o t he num ber of l ocal authority areas in Ireland and the number of actors who participate in each process from civil society, politics and public administration, a survey was considered a valuable and effective method to contact participants in all local authority areas. A survey questionnaire with space for qualitative data therefore could potentially reach a wider cohort of participants with this data supplemented w ith a s maller num ber o f i n depth i nterviews and focus gr oups. A s elfadministered online questionnaire was used to invite participants to take part. It is possible to distinguish be tween di fferent s urvey t echniques including: a s elf-administered s urvey ( hard or soft-copy); an interviewer administered telephone survey and an interviewer administered face-to-face survey (De Vaus 2002). Each survey technique has particular strengths and weaknesses. The self-administered survey technique available online and in hard copy was deemed the most appropriate method for this research study in the context of potential methodological benefits as well as financial and hum an resources available. This w as ma de p ossible w ith the a vailability o f contact details s uch as t he em ail ad dresses o f p otential r espondents f rom al l s pheres a fter t he development of the respondent database. For ex ample, local authority officials were widely contactable via email. The vast majority of local elected representatives were contactable via email also. In addition, while access was complicated by a decline in funding for community and voluntary organisations, a substantial number of representatives from wider civil society 117
were contactable via email and through various civil society organisations and networks. In cases where telephone contact details were available, contact was made to raise awareness of the questionnaire and invite participants to take part. Moreover, there a re ma ny p otential me thodological b enefits to a s elf-administrated questionnaire which must be acknowledged. One weakness of survey questionnaires is social desirability b ias w hich i ncreases m easurement er ror (Saris a nd G allhofer 2007 ). T his facilitates r espondents to a void q uestions a nd p otentially a nswer mo re s ensitive ite ms honestly. The anonymity of the online questionnaire, it was hoped, could reduce the incentive of r espondents t o respond i n a s ocially d esirable w ay (Dolnicar 2013 ). In c ontrast w ith telephone or i nterviewer que stionnaires, s elf-administered s urveys, i t i s a rgued, e nable respondents to answer at their own pace increasing the comprehension and consideration of each s urvey it em. T hey c an a lso min imise th e s o-called i nterviewer e ffect an d i ncrease respondent anonymity and confidentiality, which may reduce problems of social desirability and o ther f orms o f b ias. T his c an p otentially b etter f acilitate th e a nswering o f s ensitive questions. For the purposes of targeting the population and gathering the data, three versions of the que stionnaire w ere pr oduced. Potential r espondents were di vided i nto t hree m ain categories; lo cal a uthority o fficials, local el ected r epresentatives, and s o-called “ex ternal members” including community a nd vol untary representatives, r epresentatives o f environment groups, representatives of Traveller organisations and ordinary members of the Travelling c ommunity, a s w ell as S ocial P artner r epresentatives. 16 In t he c ase o f t he C DB, invitations to participate in the research were sent to relevant national public officials within statutory agencies including the Health Service Executive (HSE) and Enterprise Ireland. Each version of t he que stionnaire ha d a s lightly di fferent i nvitation l etter a nd l ayout a nd w as addressed directly to each type of respondent. Most questions in each version were identical, although que stions not c onsidered r elevant t o a pa rticular type of actor w ere excluded. Moreover, extra questions on a ttitudes to “external” or civil society actors were included in the questionnaire administered to officials and elected representatives. The onl ine invites w ere facilitated th rough th e u se o f Fluid Survey software w hich provided a num ber o f functional be nefits. The s oftware’s in vite to ol facilitated d istinct personalised i nvitations for e ach t ype o f a ctor. The survey software enabled t he u se o f 16
However, t his s tudy d oes n ot r esearch t he p articipation o f r epresentatives o f A gricultural/Farming organisations.
118
complex branching logic to make the questionnaire more respondent friendly in the context of ea ch p rocess an d each t ype o f p articipant. To di stinguish c learly b etween e ach participatory pr ocess, r espondents i n e ach ve rsion of t he que stionnaire w ere i nstructed t o select the process they participated on during the period at the beginning of the questionnaire. With br anching r ules, subsequent que stions w ithin t he onl ine questionnaire r eferred specifically to that specific participatory process and no ot her. Again, this was undertaken to ensure e ach q uestionnaire w as s pecific and relevant t o e ach t ype of actor, t o exclude irrelevant que stions, and t o r educe t he co mplexity of a nd t he time to c omplete th e s urvey. The data derived from t he different questionnaires were later combined i nto one dataset for quantitative analysis. The pr imarily online m ethod of t argeting t he s urvey popul ation h as s trengths a nd weaknesses an d i t is important t o a cknowledge t he pot ential i mpact of t his on the d ata gathered and subsequent analysis. The online approach likely skews the responses from those who ar e r egular u sers o f em ail an d s ocial m edia. R epresentatives w ithout an active email address o r w ho d o n ot u se em ail an d s ocial m edia r egularly ar e l ess l ikely t o co mplete t he questionnaire. In terms of local authority officials, attempts were made to contact those who had retired or left the local government sector after 2014 and in the wake of reduction in the size of t he publ ic s ector in I reland. However, i t i s l ikely r etired a nd/or ex l ocal au thority officials who no longer use local authority emails are underrepresented in the responses. This has pot ential i mplications f or s ubsequent d ata an alysis an d t he r esults of the r esearch. It is important t o s tress t hat additional m ethods w ere us ed t o m ake c ontact w ith r espondents, however. In cases where email communication was not possible, contact was made by phone or through civil society organisations. All da ta g athering i nstruments pos sess pot ential s trengths a nd w eaknesses w hich impact th e r eliability a nd v alidity o f th e d ata gathered. T his s ection w ill d iscuss the steps taken t o e nsure t he s urvey i nstrument w as va lid a nd r eliable. In pr esenting s urvey ite ms, researchers must consider a number of factors which may influence responses and impact the validity a nd r eliability o f s urvey data. Survey p resentation i s i mportant a s i ssues s uch as ambiguous wording, t he di rection of i tem wording, and t he range of response provided can impact upon the validity and reliability of subsequent data (Krosnick and Presser 2010). This was addressed in the construction of and presentation of the questionnaire and attempts were made to ensure questions and statements were clear, concise, meaningful and unambiguous to respondents. It was one of t he ke y aims of t he pi lot pha se of t he s tudy w hich w ill be 119
discussed f urther later. The que stionnaire w as designed t o pr ovide a clear and l ogical sequence f or r espondents a nd r educe t he i ncongruent s equencing of items. In ge neral, questions w ere grouped a ccording t o c oncept. The que stionnaire m ixed t he or dering o f response opt ions f rom ‘strongly di sagree’ t o ‘strongly agree’. The a ltering of r esponse formats de creases t he l ikelihood of r espondents ‘satisficing’ or a nswering que stions on autopilot w ithout c areful c onsideration of t he q uestionnaire i tems (Krosnick an d P resser 2010). The mixing of response options was programmed using the survey software. The m easurement o f at titudes an d b eliefs ar e co nsidered ‘ non-factual’ an d b est achieved w ith t he u se o f s cales. Survey s cales m ust b e r eliable an d possess uni ts of measurement w ith s o-called t heoretically va lid ‘ anchoring poi nts’ that c an give me aning to scores. Response s cales m ust pr ovide r espondents w ith e nough va riation t o a dequately display t heir r esponse without r educing c larity of m eaning or i nducing c onflation or redundancy (Krosnick and Fabrigar 1997). This is significant as the presentation of items and scales to respondents presents a co gnitive challenge to respondents. Survey scales demand a matching or mapping process from respondents who must assess their own attitude or belief conceptually and s ubsequently i dentify t he va lue t hat m ost closely r esembles th at a ttitude (Krosnick and Presser 2010). This requires a conscious and explicit decision of behalf of the researcher to, firstly, questioning the suitability of the use of such s cales and, secondly, the number of poi nts pr ovided t o r espondents on e ach s cale. Within th is, th e v alidity o f the measurement i nstrument r equires t hat t he s elected s cale adequately covers t he r ange o f potential responses and that respondents can adequately interpret or comprehend each point. Respondents must be given enough options to accurately reflect their response. Providing too few options or too many can bias results (Krosnick and Fabrigar 1997). With t his in m ind, a de cision w as m ade t o f ollow t he s tandard five poi nt agree/disagree s cale with t he que stionnaire w hich included a ‘neither agree nor di sagree’ option. S ometimes, t his opt ion i s e xcluded t o encourage r espondents t o e xpress a f irm positive or negative attitude. The use of this response option may encourage participants to select it as a safe option or to hide true attitudes or values. The inclusion of the ‘neither agree nor di sagree’ option, how ever, i s j ustified i n r elation t o t he na ture of a ttitudes a nd experiences a nd i t w as c onsidered i mportant to i nclude t his opt ion t o be tter r eflect t he true attitudes of respondents. It must be acknowledged that the answers of respondents based on scales can b e i nterpreted d ifferently. In s hort, s ome g roups or i ndividual r espondents c an have di ffering unde rstandings of qu estions a nd r esponse c ategories s uch as s trongly agree, 120
agree, d isagree et c. (King a nd W and 2007) . It is o f p aramount imp ortance th at a ll o r mo st respondents can agree i n t heir i nterpretations o f t he m eaning o f e ach s cale p oint (Krosnick and Presser 2010). A differing understanding of a particular point on a scale can result in two respondents w ith a s imilar a ttitude s electing d ifferent p ositions. T his a ffects th e r eliability and validity of survey responses. This is a potential limitation of all survey data including the results of the quantitative analysis in this research.
6.6 Pilot and Launch of Questionnaire The l aunch of t he final questionnaire c ommenced i n e arly D ecember 20 15 t hrough three distinct me thods. Firstly, u tilising t he Fluid Sur vey invite t ool direct pe rsonalised invitations w ere s ent t o civil s ociety, l ocal e lected r epresentatives, a nd l ocal au thority officials via email. This involved a direct survey invite via email with a link to the survey and invitation l etter e xplaining t he r esearch s tudy. T he i nvite s oftware t ool g enerated a uni que link for each r espondent. This personalised i nvite approach allowed greater flexibility f rom the pe rspective of r espondents but a lso e nabled t he researcher t o s end targeted reminders based on w ho participated but had not completed the questionnaire. Secondly, in the case of non-personalised i nvites, the que stionnaire w as distributed t hrough l ocal a uthority m ailing lists and community and voluntary organisations providing an anonymous access link with a cover letter inviting participants to take part in the study. A generic link and invitation letter was provided. Lastly, a hard copy of the questionnaire was sent to respondents without access to computers or email. Prior to th is, the questionnaire w as t ested du ring a pi lot pha se, considered an important aspect of any survey study. As outlined, the operationalization of complex theory and m ulti-dimensional c oncepts t hrough s urvey research i s considered d ifficult (Saris an d Gallhofer 2007). Piloting, it is argued, can reduce problems associated with subjectivity and differing in terpretations of s urvey ite ms and s cales th ereby reducing me asurement e rror. It also pr ovides t he r esearcher w ith t he oppor tunity to s harpen t he l anguage o f c losed e nded survey que stions a nd, w here ne cessary, t o m ake t hem m ore pr ecise. The que stionnaire w as piloted in November 2015 w ith three civil society actors, three local elected representatives and t wo l ocal a uthority officials. Afterwards, a number of i nterviews w ith p articipants in person and via telephone were conducted to gauge their understanding of the questions. The aim of the feedback was to reduce respondent confusion and to sharpen the wording of items. When r espondents c ompleted t he que stionnaire, que stions w ere a sked a bout s urvey 121
introduction: its content, length, item wording and their overall comprehension of the items and the language used. The interviews helped to determine how respondents understood the questions and indicators. In g eneral, t he r espondents de monstrated an unde rstanding of t he que stions, satisfaction w ith t he l ength of t he s urvey, a nd e xpressed no di fficulty c omprehending t he questions. However, some questions were amended t o i mprove t heir clarity for p articipants resulting in a f ew m inor c hanges t o t he f inal qu estionnaire. For example, i nterviews w ith local elected representatives resulted in the inclusion of the distinction between an ‘ordinary member’ and ‘Chairperson’ of each process. It is possible for local elected representatives to chair the process resulting in different actions/behaviour than an ordinary member. The post pilot interview with officials also resulted in some minor changes to the questionnaire. While key participants, local authority officials are ‘ex-officio’ members not full ‘members’ of each process. C onsequently, t he w ording of t he que stionnaire w as a mended t o r eflect t his. F or example, r eferences t o ‘ other m embers’ in s ome i tems w ere am ended t o ‘ members’ to account for this distinction. In addition, in reference to concerns surrounding anonymity and confidentiality, a que stion a sking of ficials t o s pecify t heir j ob pos ition w ithin t he l ocal authority w as r emoved. Lastly, s ome a rgued t he a nonymity a nd c onfidentially of t he s tudy should be c learer i n bot h t he i nvitation l etter a nd t he i ntroductory cover pa ge of t he onl ine questionnaire. Both the invitation letter and cover page of the questionnaire was amended in light of this.
6.7 Survey Response and Survey Sample This section will detail the response to the questionnaire. While attempting to reach an entire popul ation, survey r esearch can g eneralize findings f rom a s ample t o a larger population. As out lined, c onsiderable e ffort w as m ade t o i dentify and c ontact t he t arget population a nd e nsure t he findings of t he s tudy are r epresentative of local pa rticipatory governance throughout Ireland during the period. The depth of participation in the study is analysed through participants who participated on a consistent and sustained basis during the five year time period. As discussed previously, it was not possible to obtain an official list of membership o f ea ch p rocess i n each l ocal au thority a rea. T he d atabase c ompiled i dentified over 1900 potential respondents across all types of all participants within the three processes. This i ncluded approximately 900 local el ected r epresentatives an d 300 local a uthority officials. The l aunch o f t he q uestionnaire r evealed i naccuracies b etween t he o fficial 122
memberships o f each p rocess as p er l ocal au thority documents us ed t o bui ld t he da tabase. While l isted a s of ficial pa rticipants o f e ach pr ocess i n l ocal a uthority doc uments, s ome indicated t hey w ere not m embers or ha d pa rticipated be fore 2009. Further, m any potential respondents i ndicated a lack of c onsistent a nd meaningful e ngagement between 2009 and 2014 a nd di d not w ish t o t ake pa rt i n t he r esearch or f elt t hey could not t ake pa rt. It w as common for t hose respondents t o s tate t hat t hey participated at t he be ginning perhaps for a period of six or twelve months or attended one initial meeting. Further, the analysis of local authority documents revealed places designated t o potential respondents were left vacant or one designated number of a civil society pillar participated on two processes at the same time during t he s ame period. This i s ev ident i n al l t hree p rocesses an d across all t ypes o f actors and makes d etermining t he ex act r esponse rates across e ach p rocess d ifficult. This p ractice was c ommented upon b y s everal l ocal a uthority of ficials w ho hi ghlighted a l ack o f engagement from l ocal elected representatives and c ivil s ociety a ctors d uring t his p eriod. Additional research into the disengagement or lack of participation among these respondents and within broader civil society is an important avenue for further research in the context of participatory governance. Explanations i nclude the s pecific s election m echanisms, a lack o f capacity and support, and perceptions of “tokenism”. This will be discussed further in chapter 10. Table 2 details the number of respondents to the study per category of participant and the n umber o f es timated act ive t arget r espondents i n each cat egory. The es timated t arget population i s c alculated i n r eference t o t he nu mber of pl aces i dentified i n l ocal a uthority documents as well as the actual take up of those places and the number of active participants during t he pe riod. T his a ssessment w as m ade in r eference t o l ocal a uthority doc uments including m inutes of m eetings and c orrespondence w ith pa rticipants. However, in s ome instances the actual t ake up of pl aces a nd active e ngagement dur ing t he pe riod are l ikely lower than the estimated number and the exact response rate is difficult to determine. The under participation of c ivil s ociety is most evident i n t he co ntext o f T raveller representatives. Most commonly, depending on t he size of the local authority area, 3, 4 or 5 places were reserved for Traveller representatives on each LTACC. A total of 43 responses were r eceived from Traveller representatives. In terms of participating on a consistent basis throughout 2009 a nd 20 14 t he num ber of active Traveller r epresentatives i s l ikely around 100. In addition t o an a nalysis of documents s uch as m inutes o f LTACC m eetings, contact with l ocal a uthority of ficials a nd T raveller or ganisations r evealed m any listed T raveller 123
members of the LTACC did not participate at all or very infrequently during the period. In reference to lo cal a uthority d ocuments, a s imilar la ck o f e ngagement w ith th e LTACC is evident o n b ehalf o f el ected r epresentatives w ho often di d not a ttend m eetings. A high turnover of Traveller r epresentatives i s e vident i n m any l ocal a uthority areas w ith non engaging participants being replaced by new members. This is primarily the case for ordinary members o f th e T ravelling c ommunity or r epresentatives w ho a re not e mployed w ithin or supported b y T raveller organisations. Due t o t he non -participation o f T ravellers it n ot w as uncommon for Traveller representatives to participate on LTACCs in different local authority areas. Further, i ndependent r esearch r evealed that, c ontrary t o n ational guidelines, t he LTACC di d not f unction on a r egular ba sis i n at l east three l ocal au thority a reas. In t hese areas, the LTACC met infrequently, if at all, during the time period of the study. Table 2 Number of Respondents and Estimated Active Target Population
Type of Actor
Number of Respondents
Estimated Active Target Population
Included in Quantitative Analysis
Community and Voluntary
95
230
81
Travellers Environment Social Partners Total Civil Society Local Development
43 42 62 242 49
100 115 200 645 160
35 34 51 201 43
State Agency Officials Elected Representatives
51 231
140 900
46 195
Local Authority Officials
117
300
108
The g eographic s pread i s w ide ranging w ith r esponses r eceived f rom al l l ocal authority areas across t he d ifferent t ypes o f ac tors. Not a ll r espondents a nswered every question. In t he qu antitative a nalysis, r espondents w ho di d not a nswer o ne or m ore of t he relevant questions are excluded. This led to a reduction in the number of cases included in the final analysis with a total of 201 i ncluded in the civil society analysis and 593 for the total analysis i ncluding el ected r epresentatives an d p ublic o fficials. The extent of non -completed responses within civil society can be explained, in part, by the length of the questionnaire and 124
the s ensitive na ture of s ome of t he s urvey i tems i n r espect t o t he h ypothesised e xplanatory variables the majority of which elected and public officials were not required to answer. To test if an increase in the number of cases would impact the results of the quantitative findings, additional testing with multiple imputation was conducted with Stata. However, this analysis did not change the significance of the results and the listwise deletion method was retained. In t erms o f t he r esponse r ate o f l ocal authority o fficials, t he s tudy r eceived 5 8 responses for SPCs, 38 for LTACCs and 21 for CDBs or a total of 117 responses. According to t he d atabase, t his r epresents a r esponse r ate of a pproximately 40 per cen t of o fficials. While some respondents did not wish to indicate their local authority area, the responses from officials a re w ell d istributed g eographically. For e xample, in t he c ontext of t he LTACC, officials fro m at le ast 2 1 different l ocal a uthority a reas responded. T his extends t o ove r 2 5 local authority areas for SPCs. The local elected representative survey received a total of 231 completed or partially completed responses out of a potential population over 900 including 172 for SPC and 39 for CDBs. Similar to public officials, it is possible for county councillors to pa rticipate on two or more different p rocesses during t he pe riod and S PC c hairpersons could be CDB members. In the case of the LTACC, local elected representatives did not respond to requests to participate as readily as the S PC or C DB. Only 2 0 responded t o t he LTACC que stionnaire and t he response s ample l acked r epresentation f rom F ianna Fáil a nd F ine G ael councillors. Consequently, i t is not r epresentative of t he target population and i s not i ncluded i n t he quantitative a nalysis f or t he LTACC i n c hapter 7. Additional a ttempts w ere m ade in partnership with the LAMA to boost response rates amongst local elected representatives for the LTACC. The lack of response from local elected representatives can be explained, in part, by t he c ontroversial na ture of T raveller a ccommodation a nd of ten c onflictual r elationship between r epresentatives o f T raveller o rganisations a nd l ocal pol iticians. To ga in t he perspective o f elected representatives w ho p articipated o n t he LTACC, 6 s emi-structured interviews were conducted with county councillors from different political parties.
6.8 Qualitative Data Comments, Focus Groups and Semi-Structured Interviews The r esearch collected a s ubstantial v olume o f q ualitative d ata th rough th e questionnaire w hich pr ovided r espondents t he o pportunity t o pr ovide q ualitative f eedback and t o di scuss t heir e xperiences i n f urther de tail. T he majority of all t ypes of r espondents provided qualitative feedback at the end of each questionnaire producing a substantial volume 125
of qualitative material which further explored questionnaire responses and other key aspects of their experiences in often substantial detail. Further, twenty six semi-structured interviews were co nducted with the different a ctors i ncluding senior lo cal a uthority o fficials, l ocal elected representatives and a va riety o f civil s ociety p articipants. Four focus g roups were conducted, two with m embers of t he T ravelling c ommunity a nd t wo w ith m embers of community a nd vol untary or ganisations a nd e nvironment g roups i n s eparate geographic locations. Focus groups had approximately between 4 and 12 participants and were used for practical r easons. In th e c ontext o f me mbers o f th e T ravelling c ommunity, they f acilitated contact with multiple members of a “hard to reach” group at the same time and location. To explore broader policy on participatory governance in Ireland and recent reform in the area, interviews w ith tw o senior civil s ervants i n t he Department of E nvironment, H eritage and Local G overnment, and t wo m embers of t he ‘Working G roup on C itizen E ngagement’, responsible for the creation of the PPN, were also conducted. After th e in itial in vitation to p articipate in th e q uestionnaire, a f urther i nvitation t o engage i n q ualitative r esearch was m ade. T he s election o f i nterviewees w as purposive a nd guided b y the p articipatory process a nd geographical c onsiderations. T his w as to en sure adequate r epresentation a cross e ach p rocess a nd t hroughout Ireland. It i s important to acknowledge the potential bias in terms of the method of qualitative data collection, however. For example, it is reasonable to assume that, in the case of civil society, those motivated to engage i n i nterviews and f ocus gr oups a re m ore l ikely t o ha ve a ne gative e xperience of participation a nd seek t o a rticulate th is. This is a lso r elevant in te rms o f th e q ualitative feedback within t he m ain que stionnaire. To a ssess t he general t enor o f t he q ualitative data within the civil society questionnaire, ea ch response was coded i nto t hree broad categories, positive, ne gative a nd n eutral. Of the ap proximately 1 50 s ubstantive responses, 90 were coded a s n egative. N egative comments f ocused on a r ange of i ssues i ncluding voi ce, influence, t okenism, t he f unctioning of e ach pr ocess, a nd t he c onduct a nd di sposition of elected r epresentatives an d l ocal au thority o fficials. However, the r esearch attempted to triangulate claims made in the qualitative data in light of the contributions of local authority officials an d el ected r epresentatives. For ex ample, t his i s e vident i n t he c ontext of administrative dominance of agendas and the extent of conflict within the LTACC which is acknowledged by all types of actors involved. The interview questions were guided by the key descriptive and explanatory concepts. The i nterviews w ere or iented b y a l ist of pr e-determined que stions. However, a semi126
structured approach was adopted and additional follow up que stions were asked to probe an interviewee’s response further and/or to clarify issues and matters arising (Hopf 2004). The qualitative data, including comments within the main questionnaire, was coded with NVIVO software. Training in NVIVO software was undertaken to assist in this task. Coding is a form of qua litative c ontent a nalysis w hich m ost c ommonly us es i ndividual t hemes t o g uide analysis. A code is a researcher generated construct that symbolizes or translates data which involves the interpretation of data and a so-called lens or filter to do so. Codes are understood as w ords or s hort phr ases t hat s ymbolically assign a s o-called s ummative, s alient, essence capturing, and/or evocative attribute for language or visual data (Saldaña 2015). The data was coded in reference to concepts such as voice, influence, trust, and legitimacy as w ell as the relevant explanatory variables.
6.9 Measurement, Composite Measure and Factor Analysis This section will explore the rationale for the development of the composite measure of t he pe rceived d epth of pa rticipation. The s tudy s eeks t o bui ld on t he c onceptual a nd theoretical work within the literature through the empirical application of theory and concepts to cases through measurement. The theoretical discussion identified relevant indicators of the depth of pa rticipation within pa rticipatory governance. T he s elected di mensions a nd indicators are not considered as entirely comprehensive of participation in participatory forms of governance, how ever. M easuring a ll components of p articipation i n pa rticipatory governance is not necessarily practical for one research project. The dependent variable in the quantitative a nalysis is constructed with r eference to e xisting th eory a nd is a n a ttempt to present a manageable and practical research challenge. Measurement in social sciences can be defined as the assignment of numerical values to obs ervations a ccording t o r ules. In t he c ase of t he m easurement of c oncepts s uch a s democracy or direct participation in governance, researchers must form measures which link the conceptual dimensions of the phenomenon under study with observations (Munck 2009). Concepts within the social sciences lack standardized units of measurement but through the use of clear and transparent rules it is possible to assign values to observations and observe phenomena. This has also been described as quantification or the assigning and meaning of numbers (Schedler 201 2). Each t ask i n t he m easurement p rocess, ho wever, must s atisfy validity an d reliability which r educes m easurement er ror. The s pecific c omponents of t he dependent variable in this study are organised according to the separate but interrelated tasks 127
of conceptualisation, measurement and aggregation (Goertz 2006). Indicators of respect and equality of voice, influence, trust and legitimate functioning of the process were selected in reference to theory and later validated through Factor analysis. A m easurement i nstrument s uch a s a n i ndex o r c omposite m easure i s a t ool t o generate d ata (Munck 2 009). T his ap proach al lows r esearchers t o m easure t he ef fects o f a single cumulative variable (or concept) rather than the individual effects of a set of variables (or c oncept s ub-dimensions). Using mu ltiple ite ms o r me asures o f a n u nderlying la tent variable i s co nsidered more r eliable t han a s ingle i ndicator (De V aus 2002). Due t o t he complexity and di versity of pa rticipation, a ny i nstruments o f me asurement mu st b e mu ltidimensional a nd c annot be m easured di rectly. However, the r obustness of a co mposite measure is dependent on the quality of underlying variables. This emphasises the importance of reliability and validity as well as the importance of concept measure consistency (Goertz 2006). Composite me asures can c onsist o f d issimilar v ariables w ith little o r n o conceptual unity. T hey are c onsidered a s e xact l inear c ombinations of t he i ndividual i ndicators. W hile the de pendent va riable in the q uantitative a nalysis combines di fferent i ndicators i nto a composite measure, their selection is not arbitrary. The composite measure is constructed and validated through Factor analysis. Factor analysis is useful in the context of this research as it examines the extent to which each of these indicators is driven by the same underlying latent variable. Participants’ responses to the indicators are theorised to be driven by an underlying sense of t he pe rceived d epth of pa rticipation within e ach p articipatory in stitution. Through this a nalysis, it is p ossible to f ind common un derlying di mensions w ithin t he da ta. By reducing a d ata s et f rom a g roup o f i nterrelated variables t o a s maller s et o f f actors, factor analysis a chieves pa rsimony b y explaining t he m aximum a mount of c ommon va riance i n a correlation ma trix u sing th e s mallest n umber of e xplanatory c onstructs. This r educes t he number of variables by describing the linear combination of the indicators that contain most of t he i nformation. A factor c an be de scribed i n t erms of t he v ariables measured a nd t he relative importance of them for that factor (represented by the value of b). Factor scores used in t he qua ntitative a nalysis r epresent a c omposite s core f or e ach i ndividual on a pa rticular factor (Field 2009). The use of Factor analysis is justified in terms of the desire for validity. This analysis provides c onstruct va lidity for i ndicators a nd e vidence of t he r elationship be tween t he individual indicators and the underlying latent concept. The indicators which are theorised to 128
be driving responses to a latent sense of participants’ depth of participation have some degree of conceptual unity. They are correlated theoretically and empirically. The indicators measure a di mension of t he ove rall c oncept a s d efined. The i ndicators of perceived r espect an d equality of voi ce, i nfluence, trust in and th e le gitimate f unctioning o f th e p articipatory process dr ive c hange i n t he ove rall pe rceived d epth of pa rticipation (Bollen a nd B auldry 2011). While b ased on t heory, t he non -use o f C onfirmatory F actor A nalysis is ju stified in terms of the exploratory nature of the research and data. A confirmatory base in which to test the measure or model is lacking in this case. After factor extraction, scores are developed to determine a respondent’s position on the dependent variable. A statistical approach to aggregation and weighting is used with the factor method. It is possible to take a more theoretical approach and following either a family resemblance or necessary and sufficient condition structure which are the two most common approaches t o structuring social s cience co ncepts. A n ecessary an d s ufficient co ndition approach d eems a cas e to f it t he co nceptual cr iteria w hen ‘ x’ n umber o f ch aracteristics i s evident. A ne cessary condition i s one that c annot be s ubstituted f or. T his i mplies a c risp, dichotomous view of concepts and their constitutive dimensions in which membership is all or not hing (Goertz 2006) . In contrast, a f amily r esemblance s tructure i s l ess s tringent an d demands t hat t he s econdary di mensions of t he concept exceed a pa rticular s tandard. T he absence of one conceptual dimension can be compensated by another. While similar to family resemblance i n t he s ense t hat a l ow s core i s c ompensated b y a h igher s core o n an other indicator, the factor method by its definition assigns different weights to different indicators based on f actor l oadings. This a pproach s eeks to m aximise va lidity b y pr oducing f actor scores that are highly correlated with a given factor and to obtain unbiased estimates of true factor scores. The w eighting and s cores f or t he measure in th is s tudy was f ormulated u sing regression w eights. A r egression w eight s cheme is c ommonly us ed w hen obt aining a s core for i ndividuals. In t his approach, t he s um of s quared di fferences i n s cores b etween t he variable o f i nterest a nd s um s core s hould be minimal. W hen c omparing t he m eans o f different groups, it is possible to make use of Bartlett Weights in which the sum score is an unbiased estimate of the variable being measured and only shared factors have an impact on subsequent factor scores. This approach is considered beneficial in the comparison of groups (DiStefano et al. 2009). Consequently, the factors scores used in the regression analysis ar e derived through regression weighting and the tests for the differences between each t ype of 129
participant t hrough Bartlett W eights. As t hese s cores ar e a n u nbiased es timate o f t he dependent va riable, Bartlett W eights are considered ap propriate w hen s cores a re u sed t o compare differences between groups (DiStefano et al. 2009). 17
6.10 Linear Regression Analysis and Kruskal Wallis Test The f inal s ection of t his c hapter w ill di scuss t he us e of l inear r egression t o e xplain variation in the perceived depth of participation and the approach used to test for statistically significant differences between groups. A primary goal of accurate quantitative measurement is t o i dentify t he s trength a nd s ignificance of t he impact o f i ndependent va riables on a dependent va riable (Coppedge 2012) . Regression mo dels a re s tatistical c onstructs w hich attempt to mo del w hat i s o ccurring in a dataset. A n i ndication of t he f it of t he r egression model between the independent variable and the outcome variable is represented by the r (or Pearson coefficient). The R square value is used as an indication of the amount of variation in each outcome variable which is attributable to variation in the predictor variable in bivariate regression (or predictor variables in multivariate regression) and details its explanatory power (Kohler and K reuter 2 012). The regression c oefficient i s us ed a s a m easure of t his relationship. T he c oefficient i ndicates t he a mount of i ncrease i n t he dependent va riable predicted b y a 1 uni t i ncrease i n t he i ndependent va riable o r pr edictor hol ding a ll ot her predictors constant (Kohler and Kreuter 2012). If a predictor variable i s n ot s ignificant, t he coefficient is not significantly different from 0. Therefore the values measure the change in a participant’s level of the dependent variable for a one unit change (standard deviation) in the explanatory variable. The regression analysis outlined i n chapter 7 was undertaken with t he us e of robust standard errors. They are considered robust in the sense they are correct even in the presence of some types of violations of the model. Robust standard errors, it is argued, can deal with some f ailures t o m eet a ssumptions, s uch a s m inor pr oblems a bout nor mality, heteroskedasticity, or s ome obs ervations t hat e xhibit l arge r esiduals, l everage or i nfluence. Violations of assumptions can lead to biased estimates of coefficients. Robust standard errors make a djustments i n c oefficients t hat t ake f laws i n t he da ta i nto a ccount. F or s uch m inor problems, the robust option may effectively deal with these concerns. The point estimates of the coefficients are similar to ordinary OLS. While this takes into account issues concerning 17
Parallel tests were conducted with scores extracted through Regression Weights which revealed no change in differences between groups identified in the quantitative analysis in chapter 7.
130
heterogeneity and l ack of n ormality, it d oes n ot m ean r esearchers c an m isspecify m odels (Long and Freese 2014). Tests w ere conducted to d etermine if th e mo dels me t th e a ssumptions o f lin ear regression i ncluding t he nor mality of r esiduals w hich m ust be normally d istributed. Tests were conducted t o d etermine de partures f rom normality i ncluding t he S hapiro W ilk t est which c onfirmed t he no rmality of residuals. A dditional t ests w ere c onducted t o c heck f or collinearity which imp lies th at tw o v ariables are n ear p erfect l inear co mbinations o f o ne another. When more than two variables are involved it is often called multicollinearity. The primary concern is th at a s th e d egree o f mu lticollinearity in creases, th e r egression mo del estimates o f t he co efficients b ecome uns table a nd t he s tandard errors f or t he c oefficients become i nflated. T his w as de termined t hrough a Variance Inflation F actor (VIF) test. V IF and T olerance i ndicates the l evel o f co llinearity between regression p redictor v ariables. A VIF v alue greater than 10 i s a c ause f or c oncern, or a n a verage V IF value s ubstantially greater t han 1, m ay i ndicate a bi ased r egression. A t olerance value (which i s 1/ VIF) below 0.1 i ndicates a s erious pr oblem, a nd a t olerance va lue be low 0.2 i ndicates a pot ential problem. VIF tests indicated that collinearity is not an issue in the regression models. As out lined, t he pe rceived de pth o f pa rticipation of l ocal a uthority o fficials a nd elected r epresentatives i s n ot i ncluded i n t he r egression a nalysis. The c ontext of t heir participation d iffers fro m civil s ociety participants a nd t he h ypotheses w hich i nform t he analysis such as a ge, i ncome, ef ficacy and political trust a re n ot r elevant to p olitical an d administrative a ctors. However, t he quantitative a nalysis also examines statistically significant di fferences i n r espect t o t he c omposite m easure ac ross t he d ifferent types of actors. This analysis is relevant in the context of the existing literature, which identifies the important distinction between the role and perspectives of citizens and civil society and that of p olitical a nd a dministrative a ctors w ho p articipate within p articipatory institutions (Nabatchi a nd A msler 2014) . Differences b etween civil s ociety and pol itical a nd administrative a ctors ha ve i mplications f or t he f unctioning of pa rticipatory forms of governance. This raises t he i mportance o f t he d iverse ex periences an d p erspectives o f political and administrative and citizens and civil society actors. This is also relevant in the context of specific cases under analysis. As outlined, while designed at t he n ational l evel, each p rocess is a dministered b y and f acilitated w ithin lo cal authorities. The role of political and administrative actors within each process as well as their location w ithin t he l ocal a uthority pl aces c onsiderable responsibility on elected a nd publ ic 131
officials. Local elected representatives participate alongside civil society actors and serve as chairpersons. L ocal a uthority officials, m oreover, pos sess a dministrative r esponsibility but are also key actors in the development of policy and subsequent outcomes which may or may not emerge. Due to national design and local implementation, these actors lack ownership or influence o n in stitutional de sign. Their i nvolvement does n ot in dicate lo cal p olitical o r administrative s upport f or c ivil s ociety p articipation o r p articipatory form o f g overnance. Further, the f ormal r ules o f t hese p articipatory p rocesses i n this s tudy di stinguish be tween ‘internal’ and ‘external’ members. In terms of the language and location of these cases, civil society actors are coming from outside into the local authority with pre-existing relationships, norms, a nd m odes o f w orking. This context e mphasises t he i mportance of m easuring a nd analysing the perceived depth of participation amongst the different types of participants. The t ests f or s tatistically s ignificant d ifferences w ere co nducted u sing t he KruskalWallis te st w hich is an a lternative t o one -way ANOVA for c omparing g roups. It i s o ften referred t o as an A NOVA with r anks a nd a n e xtension of t he M ann W hitney T est for comparing t wo groups. K ruskal i s a nonpa rametric m ethod not r equiring t he nor mality assumption. T he t est s tatistic us es onl y t he or dinal i nformation i n t he da ta r anking t he observations a nd c ompares m ean r anks f or t he various groups. T he t est s tatistic i s l arger when the differences among the mean ranks are larger. This test was conducted as ANOVA has r estrictive assumptions a bout nor mality and concerning t he di stributions of t he groups under analysis. For example, the groups must have equal variances, and the measures in each group must be continuous, normally distributed variables (Agresti and Finlay 2009). The K ruskal-Wallis H t est is an omnibus test s tatistic w hich d oes n ot r eveal w hich values of t he i ndependent va riable are statistically s ignificantly d ifferent f rom e ach o ther. This i s c arried out t hrough Dunn’s M ultiple Comparison pos t hoc t est w ith t he S idak adjustment (Dinno 2015). A Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test is used in the case of the LTACC, in w hich co mparisons are m ade b etween T raveller r epresentatives a nd l ocal au thority officials. Although the variables do not always meet the assumptions of ANOVA, an analysis of variance with the Sidak adjustment for multiple comparisons of means was conducted in parallel. The significance of the differences between groups is the same as the Kruskal test. In s ummary, t his c hapter e xplored t he design o f th e e mpirical s tudy and t he o verall methodological ap proach t aken. The context s urrounding t he pi lot and l aunch o f t he questionnaire and a br eakdown of responses was also provided. The following chapter will discuss the results of the quantitative analysis. 132
133
134
Chapter 7 Quantitative Analysis Chapter This chapter explores the results of the quantitative data analysis. The first section of the ch apter details the c onstruction of t he c omposite m easure. The de pendent va riable was created t hrough the s election o f in dicators in lig ht o f a
review o f t he ex isting
conceptual/theoretical l iterature, an d operationalised through s urvey i tems. T he c omposite measure w as constructed u sing Factor an alysis, w hich indicated t he p resence o f an underlying f actor. Secondly, t he differences b etween different t ypes o f p articipants are discussed. This analysis demonstrates statistically significant differences between participants within civil society and between civil society and local authority actors. Lastly, the result of the r egression analysis, which hi ghlights t he r elationship be tween t he pe rceived de pth of participation and individual variables including age and self-efficacy, is explored.
7.1 Constructing the Dependent Variable This s tudy ha s de veloped a m easure of t he pe rceived de pth of pa rticipation t hrough the operationalization of i ndicators o f r espect and equality of voi ce, i nfluence, t rust i n, and the le gitimate o r appropriate f unctioning o f th e participatory p rocess. Factor an alysis w as undertaken on the 14 items to build the composite measure. This was carried out to determine the extent to which the variation in responses to the survey items is explicable by a ‘common’ factor. The combined factor analysis is to confirm the extent to which the items relate to each other a nd correspond t o a n unde rlying latent co nstruct. In t his cas e, the ex tracted f actor i s theorised t o be t he pe rceived s ense of t he ov erall de pth of pa rticipation. The de tails of t he factor analysis are presented in Table 3.
135
Table 3 Factor Analysis Depth of Participation Survey Item In general, everyone had the opportunity to speak and to make themselves heard
Factor Loading 0.67
I had the opportunity to express my views as I would have liked
0.67
Some committee members dominated the discussion (reverse code)
0.44
Other committee members restricted my opportunity to speak (reverse code)
0.53
In general, other members respected my point of view
0.74
Local Authority officials cared Elected Representatives cared I influenced the work of the process I had a say about the types of issues discussed Process functioned appropriately Process reached decisions appropriately
0.75 0.64 0.58 0.58 0.83 0.75
All treated equally Understood my concerns Dealt Well with my concerns
0.76 0.81 0.81
Kaiser Meyer Olkin (KMO) Extracted Eigenvalue Percentage of Variance Explained (%) Cronbach’s Alpha N
0.92 6.7 48.2 0.92 201
The Iterated P rincipal F actoring ( IPF) m ethod w as us ed. T his obt ains estimates of communalities u sing s quared mu ltiple c orrelation c oefficients b ut ite rates th e s olution to achieve better estimates (StataCorp 2013). The factor was rotated (using an oblique Oblimin procedure) t o i mprove t he i nterpretation of t he loadings. T he choice be tween obl ique a nd orthogonal rotation is largely determined by whether the factors are related or independent. In oblique r otation, factors are allowed t o co rrelate, an d i n the c ase o f t he perceived depth of participation, the underlying indicators are related conceptually. Determining the number of factors was conducted with reference to eigenvalues and scree plots. The scree plot in Figure 1 indicates the presence of one factor to extract. In reference to the scree plot, the cut-off for selecting factors is the point of inflexion of the curve.
136
Figure 1 Scree Plot of Eigenvalues
Eigenvalues w ere u sed as t he p rimary criterion to d etermine w hether a f actor i s statistically robust and to determine if an underlying factor solution is acceptable. While the minimum value for an eigenvalue is open to interpretation, conventional practice establishes an eigenvalue of 1.0 (Field 2009). This is often referred to as the K aiser Criterion which is based o n t he i dea t hat t hese v alues r epresent t he amount o f v ariance explained b y a factor. The most basic justification for the Kaiser rule is that there is little sense in adding a factor that explains less variance than is contained in one individual indicator. The eigenvalue of 1 represents a substantial amount of variation (Field 2009). Only o ne f actor h ad an eigenvalue o f > 1 an d i n l ine w ith t he K aiser criterion, and with reference to the scree plot, only one factor was maintained. The combined measure has 14 d ifferent i tems o r v ariables an d t he ei genvalue o f t he ex tracted f actor i s 6 .7. T he f actor explains a pproximately 48 pe r c ent of t he t otal va riation w ithin t he i ndicators. T he K aiser Meyer Olkin (KMO) value is used to determine whether the factor is reliable for the sample size. KMO takes values between 0 and 1, with small values meaning that overall the variables have to o little in c ommon to w arrant a f actor analysis. Values of 0.5 t o 0.7 a re c onsidered mediocre, and be tween 0.7 a nd 0.8 a s good i ndication of t he a bility of f actor analysis t o produce reliable results for the current sample size (Field 2009). The KMO equals 0.92 and the individual KMO values are all 0.86 or above, thus well above the acceptable limit. As only one factor was extracted in the current analysis, the factor loadings in Table 3 represent the strength of the linear relationship (correlation coefficient) between the extracted 137
underlying f actor a nd each indicator. 18 While t here i s no a greed upon c riteria, i n general, factor loadings of 0.30 or above are considered significant. A loading below 0.3 is indicative of a w eak-moderate r elationship be tween e ach i tem a nd t he und erlying f actor. For s ample sizes of 200-300, factor loadings of 0.364 and 0.298 respectively are considered appropriate. However, a s t he va lue of t he l oading doe s not give an i ndication o f t he s ignificance o f a variable to the factor, interpreting loading values below 0.40 is not advised (Stevens 2012). The values of factor loadings were each above .44 and therefore above the acceptable limit. In ad dition, s cale r eliability an alysis w as co nducted. The alpha co efficient can b e considered a test of the reliability and unidimensionality of a composite measure. This relates to t he uni dimensionality of a s cale or t he e xtent t o w hich t he i ndividual i tems r epresent a n underlying factor or construct. The individual indicators yielded very good reliability with a Cronbach
α coefficient of 0.92 or 92 per cent of the error in the scores or composite scores is
internally r eliable. Additional t ests w ere co nducted f or m ulticollinearity. Multicollinearity means i tems m ay be r edundant a s i ndicators o f a n unde rlying c onstruct questioning t he unique c ontribution of e ach i tem t o t he construct (Field 2009) . None of t he i nter-item correlations were above 0.8, which is indicative of multicollinearity. This exists when two or more i tems ar e cl osely l inearly r elated. Due t o t he
α coefficient and i n part because t hese
indicators e xhibit s trong f ace va lidity and construct va lidity i t i s pos sible t o c onsider t he composite a robust measure of an underlying construct of perceived depth of participation. A measure of each respondent’s score of the depth of participation was created using factor scores through the regression method. Regression factors scores predict the location of an i ndividual on a
factor. T he s cores a re s tandardised t o a m ean of 0 w ith the
variance=squared multiple correlation (SMC) between the item and factor. These scores are linear combinations of the observed variables which consider what is shared between the item and t he f actor. T his pr ocedure i s s aid t o m aximise t he va lidity of s cores (DiStefano et al . 2009). Moreover, a regression method is considered optimal as it provides weights with the highest pos sible c orrelation be tween t he f actor a nd scores. The f actors s cores w ere standardised us ing t he measure’s s tandard de viation. A s tandardised v ariable (sometimes called a z -score o r a s tandard s core) i s a v ariable t hat h as b een r escaled to h ave a m ean o f 18
It is important to acknowledge there might be a difference in interpretation between estimating a single factor within f actor an alysis an d ex tracting a s ingle f actor f rom a f actor an alysis t hat i nvolves es timating s everal factors.
138
zero a nd a s tandard de viation of one . F or a s tandardised v ariable, ea ch value in dicates its difference from the mean of the original. Common factors are supposed to be normalised to have a m ean of 0 a nd s tandard de viation of 1. H owever, i n pr actice t he estimation m ethod seldom yields a standard deviation of 1 unless an exact solution to the factor model is found (StataCorp 2013). The Kurtosis value indicates the extent to which the data clusters around the e nd o f th e d istribution o r if d ata is h eavy tailed o r lig ht ta iled r elative to a n ormal distribution. The Kurtosis value for normal i s 3. T he Kurtosis value for t he m easure i s 2.3 , indicating a small degree of leptokurtic kurtosis. Skewness is a m easure of the symmetry or lack of s ymmetry of t he f requency di stribution. T he s kewness f or nor mal da ta i s z ero. T he value for the measure is -.35. This indicates the data is skewed to the l eft. However, as the value i s b etween -.5 and .5 , it i s pos sible t o c onsider t he di stribution of t he da ta a s approximately symmetric.
7.2 Comparison of Different Types of Participants The following s ection e xplores t he d ifferences b etween each o f t ype o f actor across all p rocesses in r espect to t he dependent va riable of t he de pth of pa rticipation. The t hree participatory pr ocesses i n t his s tudy i nvolve t he pa rticipation of civil s ociety, p olitical and administrative a ctors. T hese p illars i nclude r epresentatives o f C ommunity and V oluntary organisations, Environment organisations, Social Partner organisations (business, employers and T rade U nions), the local d evelopment s ector, Travellers, local el ected r epresentatives, officials f rom s tate a gencies, a nd l ocal a uthority officials. This m easure of t he d epth of participation excluded the two items on e lite responsiveness as the questionnaire did not ask elected r epresentatives an d local au thority officials t he ex tent t o w hich o ther el ected representatives a nd of ficials on e ach pr ocess c ared a bout t hey t hought. H owever, i t w as constructed using the same method of Factor analysis. 19 Figure 2 details a box plot for factor scores on the dependent variable for each type of participant acr oss al l t hree p rocesses. B ased o n t hese d escriptive s tatistics, t here ar e cl ear differences. Local authority officials and elected representatives indicate a perceived deeper level of participation within the processes. The box plots are reasonably small indicating less variation i n t he r ange of s cores i n c omparison w ith c ivil s ociety actors. T raveller representatives i ndicate the l owest p erceived experience o f p articipation. T he b ox p lot f or 19
The results of this analysis were similar to the composite measure used in the regression analysis. One factor was extracted in reference to the Kaiser Criterion. The eigenvalue was 5.2.
139
Environment representatives is the tallest indicating a wider range of scores for Environment representatives i n c omparison w ith t he ot her g roups. C loser i nvestigation i ndicates differences b etween E nvironment r epresentatives w ho pa rticipated on t he S PC a nd C DB. There is a range of responses within the Community and Voluntary pillar also. Environment representatives on the CDB indicate a lower sense of participation and are often critical of the process a nd t he c onduct of t he l ocal a uthority. This is a c ontrast w ith C ommunity a nd Voluntary a ctors w ho are generally more pos itive i n t heir e xperience of the C DB in comparison with SPC. There is a specific SPC dealing with issues of the environment within each local authority and there is a s ense amongst participants that the CDB lacked focus and interest in the environment. Social Partner organisations which encompass members of trade unions and business groups express deeper levels of participation in comparison to the other civil society groups. Further, the box plot is smaller indicating less variation in their scores. These findings will be explored in further detail with the qualitative data.
140
Figure 2 Box Plot Depth of Participation Across All Types of Participants
Dunn’s post hoc t est with t he S idak c orrection indicates statistically s ignificant difference in terms of perceived depth of participation across the types of participants on all three processes, χ2 (7), = 125.061, p = 0.0001. There ar e statistically significant differences between l ocal au thority officials an d el ected r epresentatives an d t he f our main ci vil s ociety pillars. In general, local a uthority officials score hi gher within each process compared w ith Community &
Voluntary r epresentatives, T raveller r epresentatives,
Environment
representatives an d r epresentatives o f Social Partner or ganisations. T his i s r epeated f or t he local elected representatives who have a statistically significant higher level of participation compared w ith t he ot her c ivil s ociety pa rticipants w ith t he e xception of the Social P artner group. Interestingly, t he d ifference b etween l ocal au thority o fficials an d el ected representatives is n ot s ignificant. T he d ifferences w ithin civil s ociety are in teresting. Traveller representatives indicate a lower level of participation compared to the other pillars. These d ifferences are s tatistically s ignificant compared w ith C ommunity & Voluntary a nd Social Partners but not Environment representatives.
141
Figure 3 Depth of Participation Across Different Types of SPC Participants
Figure 3 illustrates a box plot for different types of participants within the SPC. The graph i ndicates h igher s cores amongst el ected r epresentatives an d l ocal au thority officials with hi gher m edian va lues. With r espect t o el ected r epresentatives, there ar e a n umber o f clear outliers but the plot is relatively small indicating some degree of consistency in scores. Moreover, the graph indicates a greater range of scores within Community and Voluntary and Environment respondents in comparison with local authority officials, elected representatives and representatives from the traditional Social Partner organisations. A Kruskal-Wallis H test revealed statistically s ignificant d ifferences across g roups of S PC pa rticipants, χ2 (4), = 46.061, p = 0.0001. In general, local authority officials, both elected and non-elected, have a higher p erceived d epth o f p articipation. S tatistically s ignificant d ifferences ar e ev ident between civil s ociety and l ocal au thority o fficials an d el ected representatives al though t he difference between Social Partners and elected representatives are not significant.
142
Figure 4 Depth of Participation Across Different Types of CDB Participants
Figure 4 illustrates the differences in the depth of participation between types of CDB members. The data, for the most part, demonstrates smaller differences between members. It confirms t he di fference in t he de pth of pa rticipation be tween S PC a nd CDB E nvironment representatives. C DB E nvironment r epresentatives i ndicate a l ower perceived depth of participation compared with S PC m embers. C ommunity a nd V oluntary r epresentatives’ scores are similar to the other types of participants though there are some outliers. According to t he K ruskal t ests, t he differences b etween groups i s m uch s maller, χ2 (6), = 16.186, p = 0.0001. Statistically significant differences are evident between Environment representatives and local authority officials, officials from state agencies, and elected representatives. On the LTACC, clear d ifferences ar e ev ident b etween T raveller r epresentatives a nd l ocal authority officials, χ2 (6), = 38.111, p = 0.0001 (see Figure 5). This is reflective of contrasting as well as the often combative and conflictual relationships evident within the LTACC.
143
Figure 5 Depth of Participation LTACC Traveller and Local Authority Officials
In general, t he l argest d ifference am ong groups is b etween l ocal au thority o fficials and other types of actors across all three processes. These differences are evident in Table 4 which details the results of Dunn’s test for pairwise comparisons with the Sidak correction. The ta ble d emonstrates statistically s ignificant d ifferences b etween lo cal a uthority officials and c ivil s ociety participants m ost not ably representatives of C ommunity and V oluntary organisations an d T raveller o rganisations. T he d ifference b etween local authority o fficials and S ocial P artner p articipants is s maller a lbeit significant i n t he cas e o f t he S PC. Table 4 also i ndicates t he s maller d istance b etween C DB m embers a nd l ocal a uthority of ficials i n comparison with the SPC and LTACC.
144
Table 4 Differences between Local Authority Officials and Other Participants Type of Process Type of Actors Community Voluntary All Processes Traveller Environment Social Partners Local Development State Agencies Elected Representatives
Difference -6.61 -8.81 -6.2 -3.5 -5.15 -3.3 -2.4
Sig 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0051 0.0000 0.0096 0.2031
SPC
Community Voluntary Environment Social Partners Elected Representatives
-5.02 -4.68 -2.81 -1.44
0.0000 0.0000 0.0244 0.5350
CDB
Community Voluntary Environment Social Partners Local Development State Agencies Elected Representatives
-2.5 -3.49 -1.40 -2.68 -1.59 -1.84
0.1125 0.0050 0.8236 0.0073 0.6940 0.5003
LTACC
Traveller Representatives -6.60
0.000
This an alysis h as d emonstrated s tatistically s ignificant d ifferences b etween diverse types o f p articipants in r espect to th e perceived depth of pa rticipation. Clear d ifferences between local authority officials, elected representatives, and civil society actors are evident. These differences represent interesting findings in the context of participatory governance in Ireland and in the context of wider theoretical literature. In general, the largest differences are between local authority officials and civil society, most notably Traveller representatives. As discussed, t hese pa rticipatory processes f unctioned w ithin t he a dministrative r ealm o f l ocal authorities and are a dministered b y s enior l ocal a uthority of ficials. O fficials t hrough t heir professional duties have a considerable level of responsibility for each process and indicate a statistically significant, deeper sense of participation within each process. There are also clear differences within civil society. W ithin C ommunity and Voluntary and E nvironment pi llars tall box plots indicate a r ange of responses. In terms of each process, the differences on t he CDB ar e smaller and less significant in comparison to the LTACC and SPC. In t he cas e of the LTACC, it indicates widely divergent experiences between public officials and Traveller representatives. The qualitative data indicates administrative dominance of agendas and voice 145
during meetings a nd a ctivities o f S PCs and w idespread dissatisfaction amongst T ravellers with mo st a spects o f th e LTACC. Chapter 8 will e xplore th ese is sues i n f urther d etail in reference to the qualitative data gathered.
7.3 Results of the Linear Regression Analysis This s ection w ill p resent th e r esults o f th e mu ltivariate r egression analysis o f th e perceived d epth o f p articipation f or ci vil s ociety participants. T he f actors r elate t o sociodemographics, aspects of personality, as well as their wider political and social associational links. These include variables such as age, gender, income and education, personal efficacy, their w illingness to e ngage in debate an d discussion, p olitical a ffiliation, s ocial tr ust, and political tr ust, which w ere operationalized in c hapter 5. W ith r obust s tandard e rrors, t he results o f th e mu ltivariate r egression o f th e f ive mo dels a re p resented in T able 5, w hich details the results of five separate models. As it is p ossible th at l evels o f e fficacy a nd t rust ma y b e in fluenced b y sociodemographic f actors s uch a s e ducation a nd i ncome, the di stinct models a re pr esented t o demonstrate t he e ffects of di fferent t ypes of va riables s eparately a nd t hen i n c ombination. This f acilitates an an alysis o f t he relationship b etween t he d ependent variable a nd t he combination of socio-demographic variables and other explanatory factors. The first column presents the model of variables including social trust, political trust, and political affiliation, willingness t o e ngage i n de bate, pe rsonal e fficacy and t he l ength of pa rticipation. As t he perceived depth of participation may depend on the length of engagement, it is controlled for in t he a nalysis. T he va st m ajority of respondents pa rticipated f or be tween 4 a nd 5 years. However, in t he case o f t he LTACC, which s aw co nflict b etween T raveller r epresentatives and local authority actors, some Traveller representatives participated for less time than this. Model 2 is a model of the socio-demographic variables of age, gender, education and income. Model 3 assesses t he co mbination o f s ocio-demographic variables an d t he o ther theoretical variables. T he f ourth column pr esents t he c ombined m odel with t he a ddition of dummy v ariables r epresenting r espondents’ m embership of e ach of t he f our m ain c ivil society pillars. The Traveller category is used as the base category. The final column presents the c ombined m odel w ith dum my v ariables indicating pa rticipation on each of t he t hree processes. T he LTACC is t he r eference c ategory. A s T raveller r epresentatives ar e t he s ole civil society representatives, the LTACC category is identical to the Traveller category in the previous model. 146
Table 5 Results of Regression Analysis (1) Trust//Person ality
VARIABLES
Age
Gender
Education
Income
Social Trust
Personal Efficacy
Political Debate
Political Affiliation
Political Trust
Length of Participation
-0.040^ (0.023) -1.74 0.13* (0.065) 2.03 -0.01 (0.0333) -0.33 0.029 (0.056) 0.52 0.41*** (0.072) 5.73 0.86^ (0.499) 1.73
(2) Demographic
(3) Combined
(4) Type of Participant
(5) Process
0.219*** (0.0567) 3.86 -0.083 (0.130) -0.64 -0.027 (0.038) -.70 0.11** (0.029) 3.87
0.159** (0.055) 3.32 0.039 (0.13) 0.31 -0.036 (0.040) -.90 0.082* (0.033) 2.49 -0.038 (0.0249) -1.54 0.127* (0.061) 2.07 -0.015 (0.032) -0.48 0.024 (0.057) 0.43 0.365*** (0.074) 4.87 .068 (0.050) 1.34
0.154* (0.072) 2.12 0.11 (0.16) 0.73 -0.032 (0.053) -0.61 0.063 (0.041) 1.53 -0.041 (0.030) -1.34 0.016* (0.079) 2.05 -0.027 (0.041) -0.66 0.024 (0.076) 0.32 0.351*** (0.09) 3.70 .114 (.066) 1.74 0.408 (0.248) 1.65 -0.038 (0.31) -0.12 0.65* (0.27) 2.35
0.166* (0.074) 2.24 0.107 (0.161) 0.67 -0.076 (0.049) -1.53 0.087 (0.040) 2.15 -0.042 (0.030) -1.39 0.160* (0.081) 1.99 -0.009 (0.039) -0.23 0.11 (0.072) 0.16 0.361*** (0.095) 3.79 0.82 (0.68) 1.21
Comm & Vol
Environment
Social Partners
0.13 (0.445)
-1.23* (0.415)
-0.69 (0.57)
-1.48* (0.69)
0.45 (0.24)^ 0.30 (0.292) -1.46* (0.69)
201 0.24 9.43
201 0.16 9.27
201 0.32 10.12
201 0.33 8.41
201 0.31 9.14
SPC CDB Constant
N R-squared Anova F
Robust standard errors in parentheses *** p
