Navdeep Mathur

The collaborative agenda is at the heart of the debate about contemporary governance in liberal democracies. In some countries the fragmentation of governmental structures through constitutional design (as in the US) or new public management reform (as in the UK) has ...

Network governance can enhance democratic practice by furnishing new routes for actors to deliberate, make, and execute public policy. But it is hindered by a lack of political oversight, limited democratic competence of new organizational forms, and informality of operation. Little research has been conducted on the democratic performance of governance networks, and the methodology is poorly developed. Quality-of-democracy studies of national governmental and political systems offer a starting point. Their criteria-based method is useful in accessing the democratic “hardware” of formal entities, such as partnerships and hybrids, but it does not enable data to be gathered on democratic “software”—the informal day-to-day practices of actors in networks. Interpretive approaches offer a way forward. Narrative analysis, qualitative interviews using a criteria-based instrument, and Q-methodology provide routes into democratic software. They enable the researcher to move beyond the analysis of institutional nodes and to understand the democratic performance of the wider governance network.

This article investigates the relationship between democratic practices and the design of institutions operating in collaborative spaces, those policy and spatial domains where multiple public, private and non-profit actors join together to shape, make and implement public policy. Partnerships are organizational manifestations of institutional design for collaboration. They offer flexibility and stakeholder engagement, but are loosely coupled to representative democratic systems. A multi-method research strategy examines the impact of discourses of managerialism, consociationalism and participation on the design of partnerships in two UK localities. Analysing objective measures of democratic performance in partnerships and interpreting the discursive transition from earlier practices in representative democratic institutions we find that institutional designs for collaboration reflect different settlements between discourses, captured in the distinction between club, agency and polity-forming partnership types. The results show how the governance of collaborative spaces is mediated through a dominant set of discursively defined institutional practices.

This paper discusses the findings of a study undertaken by a team from the University of Birmingham's Institute for Local Government Studies (INLOGOV), funded by the Economic and Social Research Council. The research explores the implications for democratic practice of collaborative working through partnership arrangements in the public sector. Through a study of multi-organisational partnerships in two local authority areas, the research identifies a problem for policy makers to address: partnerships are flexible management tools, but exhibit a democratic deficit in terms of the rules and procedures of public governance when measured against a benchmark of elected local government. Partnerships are in, but not of, the community.