New localism: an
emerging governance principle
New Localism
can be characterised as a strategy aimed at devolving power and resources away
from central control and towards front-line managers, local democratic
structures and local consumers and communities, within an agreed framework of
national minimum standards and policy priorities.
In short it
represents a practical response to a significant practical challenge: how to
manage a substantial variety of state service provision and interventions in a
world that defies the application of simple rule- driven solutions and where
the recipient of the service has to be actively engaged if the intervention is
going to work.
Building a
road or providing electricity is a task that requires of level of state
capacity in building a better environment for citizens. Creating the conditions
for a damaged child or community to achieve their potential requires a rather
different and more subtle capacity.
The case for
New Localism rests on three grounds. First it is a realistic response to the
complexity of modern governance. Second it meets the need for a more engaging
form of democracy appropriate to the 21st century.
Third New
Localism enables the dimensions of trust, empathy and social capital to be
fostered and as such encourages civil renewal.
The case New
Localism against rests around concerns about local decision-making either
failing in some way or leading to more inequitable outcomes. These arguments
for and against New Localism will be explored further below.
Complexity
There are
very few problems confronting communities today that have simple solutions.
Protecting the environment, creating a sound economy, sustaining healthy
communities or helping to prevent crime all require a complex set of actions
from people and agencies at different spatial levels and from different
sectors.
It would be
nice to argue that we should stop doing complexity and instead think about
simplicity.
That might
wash in a self improvement book but when it comes to running the business of a
modern society; the attraction of simplicity is false. As the saying goes ‘to
every complex problem there is a simple answer and it is always wrong.
We need to
find ways of living with complexity. We need to understand any problem or issue
in its multiple dimensions and find mechanisms that enable us to not get
swamped by complexity but to deal with it effectively.
That is
where the message of New Localism has got something to offer. The path to
reform is not to allow local institutions complete autonomy or equally to
imagine that the centre can steer the whole of the government system.
We need a
form of central-local relations that allows scope for all institutions to play
an active role and we need to find ways of involving a wider range of people in
the oversight of the services that are provided through public funds and in the
search for solutions to complex problems.
Complexity
comes in a range of forms: structural, technical or over the allocation of
responsibilities, one of the key challenges to democracy today lies precisely
in the sheer complexity of modern government and governance.
Complexity
is inevitable because of the range of activities that governments and public
services are now engaged in. There are as a result a lot of organisations
involved in delivery. Governing operates a range of levels and through a range
of organisations.
New Localism
is attractive because it is only through giving scope for local capacity
building and development of local solutions, in the context of a national
framework, which we can hope to meet challenge posed by these complexities.
The solution
to complexity is networked community government because it is only through such
an approach that local knowledge and action can be connected t wider network of
support and learning. In that way we can get solutions designed for diverse and
complete circumstances.
Democracy:
engaging participants
To commit to
New Localism means recognising that conventional understanding of democracy are
able but limited. We can agree that several of the features of conventional
vision of democracy essential: the protection of fundamental citizen rights and
freedom of organisation and assembly groups and individuals.
But we need
different answers to two fundamental questions: what are building blocks of
democracy and what is the nature of accountability.
The
conventional answer to th> two questions sees the nation state, national
assemblies and central government as the ultimate indeed prime building blocks
of democracy and accountability as led by elected representatives held to
account by their electorates.
This
top-down view of democracy is not appropriate when we about making democracy
work in our complex societies.
New Localism
draws in broad terms from the ideas of associative democracy advocated by Paul
democracy must have a strong local dimension; the core institution of democracy
not the nation state.
Democracy is
made real through its practice at local, regional and international Levels as
well as the level of the nation state. More than that, the central government
should be an enabler, regulator and maybe a standard setter but not a direct
provider nor the level for coming judgments about detailed directions or the
substance of services.
Second, that
provision itself must be plural through a variety of organisations and
associations so that everyday citizens have an opportunity to be involved in
decisions about services and judge the capacity of different institutions to
deliver. Third, democracy can be organised through functional as well as
territorial forms.
Finally,
this understanding of democracy sees accountability as a more rounded process.
The electorate choosing their representatives remains important but people
should have more opportunities to be involved in direct discussion with service
providers and be in a position to judge their performance. In short,
accountability involves reason-giving, questioning and a continuous exchange
between the provider and the relevant public. The service providers will also
have accountability to the centre in terms of the minimum standards. The lines
of accountability are multiple and overlapping.
Building
social capital and the capacity for civil renewal
One key area
where this new vision of democracy has the potential to deliver is with respect
to the hidden social fabric of trust, social capital and citizenship that make
a key contribution to tackling the complex service and policy issues that we
now face.
We need to
find ways in which these resources among ordinary citizens can be fostered and
replenished. A New Loyalist policy has the potential to be| centrally important
in developing these resources.
We know that
involvement and exchange are the crucial ways in which trust and social capital
are created and sustained. A democracy of strangers loses these dimensions yet
both trust and social capital are essential for encouraging the commitment and
providing the glue that allows solutions to complex problems to be identified
and followed through.
Trust and
the sense of shared values, norms and citizenship that is encouraged through
social capital can make people willing to go the extra mile in the search for
solutions; it can enable agreements and collective action. A local dimension to
governance can draw particularly effectively on these social dimensions of
decision-making.
The
essential insight of social capitalists is that the quality of social relations
makes a difference to the achievement of effective outcomes when it comes to
activities that involve complex exchange of ideas and the co-ordination of a
variety of actors.
Civil
renewal is about giving people a stronger sense of involvement in their
communities and a [greater say over their lives. The greater sense of efficacy
and autonomy it offers people combines rights and responsibilities.
People have
rights to: respect for themselves, a quality of life, decent public services
and the opportunity to influence their environment. But equally they have
responsibilities to respect others, make a contribution to supporting their
environment and their fellow citizens and to engaging in and accepting as
legitimate the outcomes of the democratic process.
Addressing
competence and equity concerns
There are
two common grounds for objecting to local decision-making. One line of argument
is that the perspective of communities is inherently limited and limiting.
The danger
of too much local decision-making is that it opens up too much decision making
to the parochial concerns of narrow-minded individuals and threatens the ideas
and practice of a wider welfare politics.
Behind the
romantic notions of community lurks a real world of insular, ‘not in my own
backyard’ politics. Most forms of progressive politics need a wider canvass
than local politics can provide, it is argued.
The second
objection is that if the problems faced by communities are going to be
addressed there is a need for interventions to address the inequalities faced
by particular communities.
To tackle inequality
requires national or even international intervention and creating more scope
for local decision making simply helps to foster or even reinforce existing
inequalities. Rich areas will stay rich and poor areas will be allowed the
freedom to spend non-existent resources on addressing the problems they confront.
It is
precisely because of recognition of these concerns that ‘new’ is added to the
localism. New Localism is crucially set in the context of national framework
setting and funding. Indeed the localism that is advocated is part of a wider
system of multi-level governance.
Moreover,
there is nothing in New Localism that means that it simply assumes that local
politics is automatically devoid of the tensions that characterise politics at
other levels. Conflict between interests and the resolution of those conflicts
remain at the heart of politics wherever it is conducted.
Localism
does not imply a sort of romantic faith in communities to come up with
solutions for the common good. Nor is incompatible with a redistribution of
resources provided through the power of higher levels of government
The argument
for New Localism is an argument for a shift in the balance of governance, one
that allows more scope for local decision making and local communities. It is
premised on the idea that involving people in the hard, rationing choices of
politics in the context of a shared sense of citizenship is a way of delivering
a more mature and sustainable democracy.
It is also
based on the idea that meeting the challenge of equity does not mean treating
all communities or individuals the same but rather it involves tailoring
solutions to meet particular needs.
That
proposition would be widely accepted and localism can play as part in ensuring
the tailoring process succeeds and is responsive to local needs and circumstances.
Summary and
review
The
complexity of what the modern state is trying to achieve, the need for a more
engaging form of politics and a recognition of the importance of issues of
empathy and feelings of involvement to enable social and political mobilisation
make the case for a New Localism because it is at the local level that some of
these challenges can best be met. The point is not that all social and
political action and decision should be local but rather that more of it should
be.
The vision
of New Localism needs to be carefully specified in a way that recognizes
diversity in communities and a concern with equity issues.
The argument
is not for a romantic return to community decision making or a rampant ‘beggar
by neighbour’ localism. It is about a key and growing role for local
involvement in decision making about the public services and the public realm
as part of a wider system of multi-level governance.
To make sure
that sustainable development takes place within the urban local government, the
following measures have to be implemented.
(i) In order to ensure their
effective participation, these forms of Government cannot be the state
governments at their own will and to ensure inclusive development and women
position, women should be given 1/3 rd reservation in district council.
(ii) State level finance
commission should be granted more powers to recommend for develop finances to
Local Self Government.
(iii) Perspective plan for a
period of 25 years should be prepared by the state government and should
implement through Urban Local bodies.
(iv) In order to ensure
transparency in administration, people participation should be encouraged at
level in policy formulation.
(v) Control of elected
representatives over employees of local bodies by clearly defining the roles
powers of local bodies. It should also ensure flow of funds easier and quicker
to local bodies.
(vi) Allocation of funds by the
centre to the state government should be conditioned upon the of the state in
implementing the provisions of the 7th Amendment.
(vii) Preparing guidelines for
the states for facilitating cities in levying taxes, user charges, borrowing
funds and incurring expenditure.
(viii) Facilitating necessary
municipal reforms to allow municipal bodies to raise requisite funds.
(ix) Creating awareness for all
segments of communities for active people participation.
(x) Laws, rules and regulations
should be specifically formulated for local bodies for effective implementation
of local projects.
(xi) Promoting Public-Private Partnership
at local level as single agency or government is not effectively addressing the
issues of poverty.
(xii) To ensure transparency in
administration, simplifying laws, rules and procedures to make them e
understandable to an average person.
(xiii) Improving efficiency of
local bodies through enhanced technical, administrative and financial.
Development of appropriate municipal information systems for the people to
conduct process of governance at the local level
(xiv) Computerisation of various
departments of local bodies and usage of geographical information tem for
better decision making.
(xv) Assessment of training
needs of people involved in Urban Administration.
(xvi) Creation of interactive
platform for sharing municipal innovation, experience among municipal ad
istration.
Conclusion
The problems
and challenges faced by mankind are global in nature but they have to be dealt
at local level.
To fight the
problems of environmental degradation, poverty, unemployment, it was suggested
that the stakeholders should be involved at the grassroots level and governance
should be g; due importance, involvement of community in decision making powers
can only provide effective to the problems of urban areas.
Politics
should be delinked from administration in urban areas the adoption of the
concept of New Localism.
Techniques
of New Public Management should be at the local level to increase the
efficiency and also to ensure the accountability of administration to stake
holders. Governance should include apart from traditional institutions under
Local Self Government, NGO’s, civil society, User Groups, pressure groups and
the people themselves.
Participation
management of the local level can only provide effective solution to the
challenges of administration urban bodies at the local level.
No comments:
Post a Comment