Public Service Reform in Scotland and England

I'm currently doing some work on accountability in a world of more decentralised services. As part of some thinking about the position in Scotland I went back and read (I have to admit for the first time) the Christie Commission report on the future delivery of public services published this summer http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2011/06/27154527/0 

It makes extremely interesting reading, the more so when compared to the Open Public Services white paper (OPSWP) setting out the direction of public service reform in England.

The five principles set out in the OPSWP are - increasing choice; decentralisation of services to the lowest appropriate level; being open to a range of providers; fair access; and accountability to users and taxpayers.

The starting point for Christie is an analysis which suggests that the main issues are:

• taking demand out of the system through preventative actions and early intervention to tackle the root causes of inequality and negative outcomes;
• working more closely with individuals and communities to understand their needs and mobilise a wider range of Scotland’s talents and assets in response to these needs, and to support self reliance and community resilience
• tackling fragmentation and complexity in the design and delivery of public services by improving coherence and collaboration between agencies and sectors; and
• improving transparency, challenge and accountability to bring a stronger focus on value for money and achieving positive outcomes for individuals and communities.

The commission report is powerful in the connection that it draws between the need for greater involvement of the community in helping to design services; the need for much more integration including in budgeting, governance, duties and accountability in order to be able to respond effectively; the emphasis on prevention in order to save money in the longer term and the need for shared approaches in the shorter term to improve value for money.

The contrast between the two approaches hardly needs drawing out although it is of course fair to say that the OPSWP does make some play of community budgets and a role for local authorities to integrate resources around some of the most intractable problems, particularly where these are related to families. But this comes across as something of an adjunct to the main proposals.

If one looks at the five principles in the OPSWP and compares them to the very forthright thinking in Christie about the future reform of public services it shows an absolutely massive difference in emphasis.

The Scottish principles are all around co-design with communities and the need for an overhaul of the relationships within and between public agencies to move towards much greater integration of decision making (possibly - although on this they are clearly sceptical - a single public authority for an area); joint planning and budgeting; and shared services whether back or front office with robust external challenge from well informed and powerful regulators and from central and local bodies holding each other to account for their respective roles in achieving defined outcomes which are about addressing root inequalities (rather than focusing on mitigation measures to achieve fair access in a world which may well remain inherently unequal).

The routes that England and Scotland follow in relation to public service reform look set to diverge rapidly and significantly if the Scottish Government follow anything approaching the course suggested in Christie.

As a footnote I did word searches for the terms 'decentralisation', 'choice' and 'competition'. They each turned up a blank. 

Post Democracy - happening now

I wrote recently about a post democratic world http://mountgroveassociates.blogspot.com/2011/09/post-democracy-and-post-modernity.html

This story - which has been running in a variety of ways for a little while now - about the influence being exerted by some of the insurance companies that potentially stand to gain from the changes in legal aid is a worrying example of just that phenomenon.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/oct/10/insurance-companies-legal-aid-bill?INTCMP=SRCH

Some may say that lobbying has always been part of the process of government and that it's much more pronounced in some other countries, notably the US.

But this is about repositioning the role of lobbyists from asking the questions to helping to construct the answers. That should give us all pause for thought.

'Changing Fortunes': the 'rubber band' model

Changing Fortunes is a fascinating new dynamic sociological analysis of income and poverty by Stephen Jenkins from the LSE. The particularly interesting aspect of this work is that it is a longitudinal study (using data from the British Household Panel Survey) of the same cohort over a lengthy period rather than a series of snapshots using different sample populations and that it looks at all sources of income including wages, savings and benefits rather than focusing solely on one source. 

If the population is then divided up into 10 blocks containing equal numbers it is possible to look at both the overall shape and the degree of movement between the blocks. Two metaphors are perhaps useful here - a building for the overall shape and a rubber band for the degree of movement.

In terms of the building what is increasingly apparent is that it is a skyscraper rather than a bungalow which is entirely consistent with the plethora of recent studies showing increasing income inequality.

The rubber band is more interesting. There are both relatively small movements between consecutive floors in the building where the band is stretched a little but not greatly but also some much larger tensions where someone moves several floors up or down.

The extent of movement is considerable. About 50% of those in the basement (the lowest floor) will move upwards although the tension on the rubber band means that the movement up becomes increasingly difficult so smaller and smaller numbers reach the upper floors. But about 30% of the inhabitants of the building (taking all floors together) will at some point visit the basement.

This is fascinating since it suggests that:

- the extent of a residual underclass may be overstated in some analyses (although it has to be said that whilst this study is a reasonably lengthy one going back to 1991 it is not and does not pretend to be an inter-generational study and even on this analysis about half of the people in the basement stay there)

- there are some perhaps unsurprising developments for individuals (such as educational attainment) which allow them to access the stairs between floors

- the experience of poverty (using the standard definition of <60% median income in the relevant year) is much more widespread across the population at least at some point in the lives of individuals.

The study ends in 2006 prior to the credit crunch, the recession and the austerity package introduced by the current Government. The analysis suggests that the policies designed to address income poverty had some effect in the period under consideration and made the UK less vulnerable to increasing poverty than some others such as the US.

The big question for the future is how far the pattern described in the study will be affected by the recession and by changes in public policy.

But the most interesting point of all is that poverty is something that many people will experience in their lives, certainly not just the the province of a feckless, lazy or feral underclass. If that experience is increasingly shared it should make us all think about our attitudes to those who happen to be in the basement at a given point in time and just how tall the building rising above them has become.

Transparency and Accountability

Last week, the Government published the responses to consultation on its proposed code of practice on transparency:

http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/localgovernment/codepracticeladataresponses

Relatively little seems to have changed as a result of the consultation. There are substantive arguments about the benefits, the scale of the additional burdens and the practicability and effectiveness of the proposed approach which are given a thorough airing in the responses, some of which are hard hitting and don't need repeating here.

In many ways the bigger problem is how narrow the whole debate has been. Any purposive analysis of transparency as currently envisaged would inevitably conclude that it is narrow in the extreme: removing 'top-down bureaucractic' mechanisms and providing raw data to people who are assumed to have the time and the energy to form substantive judgements about it (although this does of course fit with the wider assumption that people know better than politicians which was the subject of a previous post).

Lets just examine briefly two of the ways in which this misses some bigger opportunities. 

The first is that the approach remains partial. For example:

- it fails to recognise that the aim of the Government in increasing diversity in the responsibility for the delivery of public services should place analogous requirements on all bodies which are undertaking such activities not just a requirement to be clear about the amounts going to third sector bodies (something which is frankly neither here nor there in a properly value driven system)

- there is no adequate treatment of how significant comparability of data is for being able to draw any meaningful conclusions. Mechanisms and organisations which previously provided some of that comparability are being removed in parallel.

The second is bigger again. As the Centre for Public Scrutiny set out very clearly in their response, there is no proper engagement with the substantive questions about true accountabilty which must include discussion of governance and decision making. Transparency, even if achieved in an effective manner, is only ever one element of accountability.

The response to consultation does deal briefly with concerns that the code and the current approach may lead to the emergence of a compliance culture. Perhaps it is not overly surprising that there may be a focus on compliance with process requirements when that is where most of the attention has been placed and in the absence of a more purposive approach.

In contrast, a substantive discussion about how to enhance the broader accountability of decision making for public services would be very welcome. It would, however, look rather different to a discussion primarily about the provision of raw data which is focused on how much is spent - rather than why and with what effect.

Imagination and the value of 'theoretical everything'

'Philosopy bites' is a fantastic set of podcasts which provides accessible but top end contributions from leading philosophers on a variety of subjects. I listened again recently to one on the role and development of the imagination and how it helps us to understand and appreciate causal relationships  http://philosophybites.com/2011/06/alison-gopnik-on-the-imagination.html

 

In evolutionary terms, the very extended and protected period of childhood allows exploration through the imagination without the responsiblities associated with survival so that once adult the individual can apply the product from this learning to get things done. The podcast rather facetiously suggests that children are the 'R&D division' and adults the 'production and marketing division' of human beings plc. The insight that not having to focus on short term goals allows us to be able to accomplish goals in the longer term is increasingly well appreciated in spheres such as think tanks, strategy units and firms in silicon valley which all pride themselves on innovation and where efforts are made to capture (through the use of play rooms and play things) some of the child like exploration from which our ability to think differently arises. But it also reinforces that a constrained and regimented approach to child development particularly through the education system is short sighted and in fact counter to our basic evolution!

There is then some discussion about philosophy as 'theoretical everything' i.e. there is always a more abstract and theoretical end of any spectrum (so for example ethics might be seen as the very theoretical end of law; aesthetics as the theoretical end of art). Importantly, these are points on a spectrum or different parts of a web; not different worlds. Perhaps a statement of the  blindingly obvious. But an under appreciated one.

Imagination developed as an evolutionary tool to help us to think about cause and relationship. The abstract tells us a huge amount about the concrete. It was meant to do so. Recognising that there is a  'theoretical' in everything at a time when the emphasis is on the supposedly practical is worth well worth remembering.

Post Democracy and Post Modernity

'Night Waves' (BBC Radio 3) always provides stimulating discussion even if the experience can be as exhausting as it is exhilarating as one feels increasing feeble in the presence of the great minds.

Last week, one of the subjects under consideration was that of 'post democracy' as identified by professor Colin Copus. The basic notion of post democracy should, rather unsurprisingly, be worrying for democrats. It is that whilst the mechanisms and structures of democracy remain in place - elections, rights, rule of law, separation of powers - the content is being emptied of substance since, as Copus puts it, 'the energy has gone elsewhere'.

Just where has it gone? To major interest groups, particularly wealthy corporate interests, which now not only spend their time lobbying but do so 'within the chamber' i.e. they are not just making the case, they are helping to form the response. This direct involvement and indeed entanglement (see hacking scandal) is a major threat since it renders decision making much less visible and less accountable. In other words decision taking is increasingly done in ways other than through the channels that have been established to give effect to democracy.

To some extent politicians have been encouraging of this sort of development. The impatience with opposition or obstacle of any kind has manifested in various ways from the 'one of us' style of sofa government to the reduction in powers for bodies such as local authorities. Thanks to recent scandals on expenses and on hacking, light is now being shone on some of the murkier post-democractic recesses.

At much the same time as thinking about post democracy, I read a piece by Hari Kunzru which was the most lucid writing on postmodernism that I have yet found: http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2011/sep/15/postmodernism-cutting-edge-to-museum.

Kunzru makes some penetrating distinctions between modernism and postmodernism: 'If modernism was about substance, about serious design solving serious problems, postmodernism was all manner and swagger and stance.' Modernism had as its heart the idea of form following function. It supported a rational future. But its failings became all too apparent in the swathes of high rise tower blocks and grim functionality which all too often was in practice dysfunctional. The emphasis on reason and order which had been integral to much political and sociological thought since the Enlightenment but already buckling in response to some of the horrors inflicted in the 20th century seemed to have run up against the buffers.

At this point I enter highly risky territory in bringing together slippery concepts which apply in relation to both art and philosophy. But here goes.

Democracy has to combine form and substance or it dies. We have become very adept at style and the debasement of terminology. Everything is 'democratic' in some way. The favoured way in a post democractic world is that of grass roots activism and community organisation. It is one that meshes well with a broad neoliberal emphasis on the removal of constraint; on seeing choice and opportunity as the hallmarks of a good system and on fewer rules as almost always a good thing (except perhaps when it comes to personal morality - which, ironically, is in part response to the relativism unleashed by post-modern thinking).

But the dangers of post democracy are very real - irresponsibility among decision makers and a failure of the democratic system to deliver for those who are most disadvantaged in society.

Our wealth may be unequal. Our votes should all score the same. If there is an inside track and a weakening of the rules of the game, such democractic check as there is on inequality is significantly reduced.

A final quote from Kunzru: 'You look around at your beautiful house and your beautiful wife and you ask yourself, like the narrator of the Talking Heads song: 'Well, how did I get here?" After that, it's only a short step to deciding that this is not your beautiful house and your beautiful wife at all.'

In respect of democracy we do actually know how we 'got here'. We may enjoy the playfulness and the wit of posst modernism but we need a democracy which is about more than a pick and mix borrowing of the ideas of the past and an easy way with dressing up systems in democratic colours. It is easy to be playful when unhelpful rules can be wished away. In contrast playing by the rules is a lot tougher. How we 'do' democracy matters deeply - its form is there to give effect to its function which is precisely to try to ensure that what is done commands broad support and that decisions are not taken in the interests of the few.

Post-modernism may now be behind us but it may be replaced by a future of post-modernity characterised by 'disorganisation' rather than by the order and reason which underpinned modernism. In such a disorganised future - which envisages a disintegration of the role of the state; the growth of consumerism and an increase in the strength of multi-national corporate interests - post-democracy fits well. 

That certainly makes me want to restate the case for the full substance of democracy - warts and all. 

Localism Bill Transfer of Functions: Is Government back tracking already?

There has been support across the political parties for amendments to the Localism Bill which were developed by the Centre for Cities and which will allow for the transfer or delegation of the functions of Ministers, Departments and NDPBs to local authorities either in structures such as combined authorities or to individual councils. In the debate in the House of Lords there were claims, which are far from grandiose, that these amendments represent the biggest step towards genuine localism in the Bill.

It feels churlish to carp a little when these are big steps forward for more genuine devolution. Yet in responding to what had been a very positive debate, the Minister, Baroness Hanham, slipped in some statements which may give supporters of the amendments some cause for concern. Here are two:

‘I need to stress to the House that this new power, to which we are all signed up, does not mean that we intend to unpick the arrangements for the national delivery of certain economic development functions as set out in publications such as the Local Growth White Paper and skills strategy. Those would not be able to be devolved’

She did not explain further and clearly there will be some major practical questions whch arise in unpicking current arrangements. However, but one can well anticipate that this includes the whole gamut of Work Programme provisions and probably much of the skills agenda both of which would be seen as significant elements of a well rounded economic development strategy. It would be helpful if Ministers were pressed to explain further what this apparent pre-emptive strike takes off the table.

Secondly, there was the following reference:

 'Any such proposals that were to come forward would need the clear support of local enterprise partnerships’

Given that the amendments were in part designed to provide ballast for emerging LEPs, at one level this makes sense. One would also expect that it would be unlikely that authorities would be putting forward proposals with which any LEP strongly disagreed. But at another level it does seem rather odd that bodies that will have no standing in statute and which have complicated and less than transparent accountability will apparently trump the views of democratically elected local authorities.