Reviving regional

cities/towns: The case

for catalytic innovation

Danish Board of Technology Conference on

Participatory Local Government and Digit

Methods

September, 2016

Janette Hartz-KarpCurtin University

Sustainability Policy (CUSP) Institute

Public Value

What is your contribution to the

Common Good?

The goal of the private sector is to create private (economic) value.

The goal of government agencies is to “create public (social) value”

Moore and Khagram, 2004

Social capital becomes weaker

Public and officials feel

disaffected and more distrustful

Concern and/or opportunity

Experts/ officials analyze data,

devise solutions/plans

Officials consult stakeholders/

interested others on plansExperts/ officials

review plans, adjust or retain

Officials try to implement plans

but they are resisted

Officials finalize plans, public is

formally informed

Fundamental cause of

problem:

Reliance on Power Over

(Advocacy)

TRADITIONAL COMMUNITY CONSULTATION“Fixes that Fail” (Vicious Cycle)“

© Janette Hartz-Karp and Rob Weymouth

From Involved to Committed

Democratic Assumptions ChartFROM TO

Assumption: selected representatives, technocrats and experts should make

the decisions, hence:

Action; Officials frame the issue.

Data is analysed, often with ‘expert’ advice. Officials devise solution(s) shaped

by risks, costs, political ideology.

Assumption: everyday people have the capacity to collaboratively resolve tough

issues, hence:

Action; Officials determine how decision-making power is best shared in this case.

Assumption: the public is disinterested, self interested and/or ill informed, so

public is unlikely to add value to the policy or decisions, hence:

Action; Officials consult/inform and listen to stakeholders, experts and

interested others to discern expert views and public opinion.

Efforts are made to inform/educate and to invite people to: “have your say”.

Assumption: resolving complex issues requires diverse viewpoints, egalitarian

deliberation and commitment to the outcomes being influential, hence:

Action; The broad public is given opportunities to frame the issue, suggest ideas,

develop discourses, and create possible options, providing a clearer idea of the

‘public will’ on this issue.

Assumption: Since proper process has been implemented, expert opinion

considered and public opinion canvassed, the community will comply, hence:

Action; Inputs contrary to the government will, are seen to be largely

unhelpful; officials may modify the solution to mollify, or keep it ‘as is’.

Plans are finalised and officials formally advise the public.

Assumption: Deliberative, collaborative governance will enable wiser, more

implementable decisions, with the capacity to be reflexive, hence:

Action; Mini publics are convened to deliberate the issue– a microcosm of the

population is comprehensively informed, consider different viewpoints, exchange

reasons, explore values and options, assess options, search for common ground

and develop recommendations.

Assumption: with education/PR/information, the public will see the wisdom

of the government solution, accept it and move on.

Action: Decisions continue to be made the same top-down way i.e. using

power over.

Assumption: if the public feels involved throughout it is more likely to co-own and

co-enact solutions

Action: Decisions as to the pathway forward are made collaboratively with the

broader public, i.e. using power with.

RESULTS

If Plans are Implemented, or are delayed, not implemented or are ineffective

Public feels unheard, disaffected and/or angry.

Officials think public is self interested, or un/misinformed. Public resists

implementation. Officials defend it. Assumptions are reinforced.

RESULTS

If Plans are Implemented and Effective.

The new assumptions are reinforced.

If Plans are delayed, not Implemented or ineffective.

Negative public outcry is mitigated since it was their fellow citizens who

deliberated and decided.

Social capital becomes stronger

Increased reciprocity and trust between

public and officials

Concern and/or opportunity

‘Public will’ reframes and co-creates options,

preferences

‘Mini public’ deliberates and

recommends ways forward ‘Mini public’

outcomes influence

decision-making

Officials and public co-create

and co-enact implementation

Public remains involved to finalize

and disseminate plans

High leverage

intervention:

Reliance on Power With

(Deliberativeness)

PARTICIPATORY SUSTAINABILITY - DELIBERATIVE DEMOCRA CY“A new technology of cooperation” (Virtuous Cycle)

© Janette Hartz-Karp and Rob Weymouth

Catalytic Innovation

Bringing about through social change through

scaling and replication

that breaks apart previous arrangements

of who gets what and

creates a new value network

public value

that values the contribution of cooperation.

Catalytic Innovation to realise

Public Value through Cooperation

Scaling and Repetition

1. Pioneering new ‘technologies' of collaboration to be

able to deal with complexity – Scaling-up

2. Broadening the co-ownership of problems and co-

creation of solution(s), across sectors geographic

borders – Scaling- out

3. When challenges arise that need the considered co-

ownership of the people, consistently applying

collaborative, deliberative governance to resolve them

© Janette Hartz-Karp and Rob Weymouth

Building up grass roots participation• Volunteer community ‘champions’ trained to have conversations

that matter/dialogue and deliberation with local people

• Participant random sampling throughout all public deliberations

to maximise diversity, often working in tandem with stakeholders

(government agency staff, community groups and

businesses/corporate groups)

• Providing opportunities for social groups to suggest projects and

develop them both online and face-to-face, then for co-decisional

prioritisation and fast tracking through to implementation

• Spin-off – Pollinators, a members based social enterprise that

aims to grow thriving regional communities while remaining

financially resilient. Their mission is to nurture innovations and

people that enable healthy, resilient communities; and CityHive –

a motivating and inspiring space to share skills and create new

knowledge

Adopting ABCD Principles

• Success is an inside job. Meaningful and lasting change

comes from within.

• People act responsibly when they support & care about

what they create. There is no power greater than a

community discovering what it cares about

• Social connectedness & building relationships - critical.

• Focus on community and resident resources, capacities,

strengths and aspirations, instead of dwelling on needs,

deficiencies & problems.

• A community’s strength is directly proportional to the

contribution of its people’s abilities and assets towards

the wellbeing of the community.

Maintaining the

“Gero Feel’

Geothermal and SolarPool Heating & Art Gallery

Implementation – Joint Priorities for Action

Solar power on

City buildings

Deliberative Democracy

Designing Our City Forum

Precinct PlanningRangeway-Utakarra-KarlooSunset Beach

RUK Parks GangPark Improvements PB

Building up government’s willingness

to find opportunities for power ‘with’

• Regular interaction with elected Council to elicit their agreement on the level of influence each deliberation will have

• Inviting the Mayor and Council representatives to be on each of the Independent Review Groups

• Inviting elected Council members to attend all public deliberations as observers

• Involving City administration management and staff in all deliberations as support team members or ‘expert witnesses’

• Finding opportunities for government to recognise and celebrate successes and continually learn and improve

The Community Sets the Agenda

Macro level changes

• Land use planning now geared towards

sustainable development;

• Attitudinal change in favour of population

growth;

• A global view – thinking beyond Gero;

• More empowered people participation

Participatory BudgetingA democratic process that entrusts

citizens to decide how to allocate part of

a budget that affects them

(usually around 10% of the budget)

Participatory Budgeting

of 100% of the budget

(infrastructure + operational)

• People’s Panel (35 – 40 participants) randomly selected

so they are representative of the population

demographics.

• Prior agreement by decision makers (elected and

administrative) of the influence of the

recommendations – public commitment to

transparency and accountability.

• Official presentation of recommendations by Panelists

to Council; public response by Council; and follow up

with communication and implementation by the City.

The PB ProcessUnderstanding the territory

1. Background briefing; 2. Local government budgeting briefing; understanding the current range and level of services, 3. Understanding deliberation and establishing 'rules of engagement‘.

Deeper learning phaseListening, 'cross examining experts' and collaborative learning ;

a) from the broader public, b) from experts (both City and community) and c) from each other.

Deliberating phase1. Determining the values that should underlie CGG's budgeting system; 2. Creating criteria based on those values; 3. Weighting the criteria, and 4. Using them to assess the services to determine their range and level given all

things learned.

Recommending and Report writing phaseCollaboratively developing recommendations for the Final Report documenting the proceedings and outcomes, and 'signing off' on both.

© Ja

ne

tte H

artz-K

arp

an

d R

ob

We

ym

ou

th

Unexpected Impacts

Staff Challenges and vulnerability

Shared ownership

Unexpected Impacts

PB Criteria: Example of Deliberative Turn –

Talk as decision-procedure….

CRITERIA A CLARIFICATION/WORDINGCommunity benefit

compared to the financial

cost

Who will it benefit?

• whole population?

• disadvantaged groups?

• special interest groups?

• seniors?

• young people?

• future generations?

Supports future population

retention and growth while

maintaining affordable

living

Supporting population growth and retention balanced with

affordable living and encouraging diverse employment (including

but not limited to: sport, culture, arts, technology, innovation,

education, ecotourism and environmental recreation).

Unexpected Impacts

Effect on Councillors

Experiences of the Panelists

Increases in Trust resulting from

influential, inclusive public deliberation

© Rob Weymouth and Janette Hartz-Karp

Changing our assumptions

about citizens• The key regional developer became one of our

most thoughtful panellists about the ‘good of the people’.

• The satellite town of Mullewa and the disadvantaged of the City were highly supported.

• The staunchest opponent of the budget was selected for the Panel but did not exercise undue influence.

Changing the way we work….

• Unprecedented level of staff involvement

across the organisation.

• Accountability and transparency in decision

making.

• More rigorous and accessible information

available to the public.

• High quality public deliberation is the norm.

100% Capital Works (10 year) Participatory Budgeting Panel and Support Group

100% Operational Budget (14/15) Participatory Budgeting Panel and Support Group

www.cgg.wa.gov.au/major-projects/changes-cgg-community

The democratic benefits of a public value approach

a particularly significant in communities

experiencing stress due to rapid social change of

crisis from economic downturns. These

communities are more likely to survive and adapt if

they are able to built a strong sense of social

solidarity and cohesion.

We can best achieve this by integrating empowered

participatory methods, including deliberative

democracy, participatory budgeting and

empowered community development.