SUPPLEMENTARY MEMORANDUM BY DR SUE BROWNILL
This short memorandum covers points which there
was insufficient time for the Committee to discuss during the
timetabled session, but which may be useful to the Committee's
deliberations.
1. The Role of Participation in changes in
Governance
There is a danger that participation and consultation
are being promoted at present to fill some of the "democratic
deficits" that are arising from the restructuring of local
governance. Our evidence related to regeneration partnerships
that are non-elected, but there are parallels across a range of
public services. Trends towards modernisation ie best value, elected
mayors, even partnerships, do not automatically equal trends towards
greater democratisation of public decision-making. There are also
many tensions and contradictions between modernisation and democratisation.
Participation may be wheeled on at this point to give the impression
of greater involvement, but the actual structures of decision-making
may result in less influence.
Regeneration partnerships show some of these
dilemmas in action. While community partners sit on the board
their actual influence is limited due to lack of resources (power),
the tendency to be out-numbered and for some decisions to made
through chair's action or sub-committees which they do not sit
on. Community partners may therefore be there only to legitimise
and rubber-stamp decisions over which they have little influence.
On the other hand, in practice the local nature of partnerships,
the way they operate and the scope for more genuine shifts in
power which the partnership arrangement can provide an impetus
for can engender more meaningful participation. At the end of
the day there are likely to be variable outcomes from the promotion
of participation but this is not to imply that it should not be
promoted.
2. Structures and Processes
The importance of how participation is carried
out as opposed to the democratic structures underlying it is illustrated
by an example from London Docklands. In research I carried out
residents found that the differences between the elected London
Borough of Newham and the unelected London Docklands Development
Corporation in relation to participation were not as great as
might be expected because of the processes by which LDDC consulted.
These included an area committee, community development workers
and an allocated budget. By contrast LBN had little presence on
the ground and less resources to encourage participation. Interestingly,
residents still felt that at the end of the day both organisations
took little account of their views when making decisions.
| 
