A Paper Presented to the
23^rd La Touche Legacy Seminar
‘Local Democracy – A Vision for the Future’

Greystones, 30^th September 2011

Dr. Mark Callanan

Institute of Public Administration

Any views expressed in this paper represent those of the author,
and not the Institute of Public Administration

 Where to Next?

Future Challenges and Opportunities for Local Democracy

The Importance of Thinking Ahead

Ireland in 2011 sees itself in a period of crisis, and for very understandable reasons both policy-making and public service provision operate within the dark shadow of the global financial crisis and the deficit in the national public finances. While this issue is rightly the focus of policy-makers’ attention, it is important not to lose sight of other key challenges facing the country. Ken Whitaker, one of the acknowledged architects of different responses of past governments to some of the early crises in Ireland’s history, has suggested:

The day-to-day decisions of government, no less than those of individuals, tend too often to respond to the pressures, the needs, the provocations and the opportunities of the moment. Good management demands the longer view (cited in Kennedy, 1997).

Equally, the 2008 OECD Review of the Irish public service commented:

Government is often obsessed by short-term and ‘reactive’ attitudes. It is affected by the pressure of public opinion and the media who demand quick solutions to problems. One of the greatest challenges for government is to balance short-term pressures and long-term objectives. Many areas of public policy, such as ageing, health, education, urban infrastructure, and the environment, can only be addressed adequately over the long term (OECD, 2008, pp. 266-267).

It is probably utopian, particularly in this day and age, to expect those with an interest in government and in local government to be permanently in a state of ‘crystal ball gazing’, strategising about what may or may not lie ahead, and how we might need to prepare for different eventualities. Human nature is in many ways to live for the here and now – the ‘big picture’ stuff can be left to others.

However, it can also be argued that, if anything, the current crisis demands that a greater focus at least occasionally be given to strategic analysis and considering the implications of medium and long-term trends for public policy-making, including the implications for local government and local democracy. That’s why events like this seminar are important in providing ‘time out’ to allow for such deliberation – we can’t engage in this process continuously, but we need to make some time for it.

A short history of Irish governance

While of course the picture is not nearly as black and white as some seem to want to paint it, it is nevertheless difficult to make a credible case that since independence, Irish governments have covered themselves in glory. As Cullen (2007) suggests, despite some bold and imaginative initiatives, and with notable some exceptions, the first 60 to 70 years of independence on the whole were characterised by poor policy choices and flawed ideologies that saw Ireland slide down the global pecking order. The mid-1980s saw a spectacular reversal of this trend, only to be dashed in recent years by a spectacular fall from grace. This paper is not going to dwell on the reasons for where we are – that is for others, and indeed the reasons for some notable policy failures are the subject of considerable public discussion, which is to be welcomed.

Needless to say, these broadbrush comments do not go anywhere near doing justice to the nuances and exceptions that could be highlighted in different periods or in different policy areas. For example, not everything about the Celtic Tiger was a mirage. However, while making a brief reference to the past, I wish in this paper to focus on future challenges, and some of the implications these may pose for local government.

Challenges that lie ahead

In terms of identifying future challenges, it is certainly difficult to look beyond the current economic crisis, and clearly this is likely to dominate decision-making in the years ahead. However, a sole focus on this issue alone carries with it the risk of developing ‘blind spots’ to other challenges. A number of key challenges around public service provision were identified as part of the Institute of Public Administration’s Public Service 2022 project. A brief reference to some of these can perhaps help inform the debate on how local government might evolve into the future.

Clearly, the current global, national and local economic environment is extremely painful, and the immediate economic future is unlikely to be especially bright – the prevailing view in many quarters is one of profound pessimism. Nevertheless, if what are admittedly monumental domestic and European short-term problems can be overcome, there are some reasonable grounds for hope that the Irish economy could recover relatively rapidly once the global downturn ends.

Looking at other economic trends, we can expect globalisation to continue to evolve, manifested through the continued emergence of countries such as China and India as major economic players, and the dependency of the Irish economy on export markets. From a local point of view, it is likely to mean that the competition between alternative locations as places to do business is likely to increase. Businesses are far more mobile and will look at a range of factors when choosing where to business – some of these of course (such as labour market costs and corporate taxation) are national policy issues, but others have much more local dimensions – these include transport and environmental infrastructure, access to broadband, proximity to other firms working in particular sectors, local educational facilities and skills, and quality of life and the general attractiveness of the area as a place to live and work.

Despite the economic downturn, the overall population of the country, as evidenced by the preliminary results of Census 2011, continues to increase. We can be reasonably certain about a number of core demographic challenges that lie ahead. As is now relatively well understood, Ireland is facing what has sometimes been referred to as an ‘agequake’ – a significant increase in the number of people who will be over 65, particularly over the next 20 to 30 years. Much of the debate on this area has focussed on pensions, but this change is also likely to have consequences for other areas of public policy and service provision. In fact our increase in the number of older people will take place somewhat later than most other European countries, so there should be opportunities to learn from elsewhere on how best to address the different challenges that this change will present.

Equally, it is reasonable to assume that due to medical advances and improved treatments, those with a disability or suffering a major trauma during their lives will also live longer, again implying increased demand in areas such as caring services, special education and other supports for the disabled.

Ireland is also a far more diverse society than it was even just a few years ago. Immigration has slowed following the economic downturn, and emigration is making something of a comeback. Nevertheless Ireland is expected to remain ethnically diverse. As with many other countries, as the years pass Ireland will have a higher proportion of citizens who will be second and third generation immigrants.

Spatial patterns and internal migration will also be critical from a local government point of view. Some population projections have 2 million people out of total population of 5 million living in the Greater Dublin area by the 2020s. This will have major implications for quality of life in large parts of the country that have a high proportion of people commuting long distances to work, and will place pressures on infrastructure. It also has implications for public service provision in more sparsely populated parts of the country.

Notwithstanding a proud tradition of community and voluntary activity, authoritative data on trends in social capital and citizen participation is difficult to come by and not all of it is conclusive. It has been suggested by some that economic and social changes in Ireland during the last two decades in particular have led to a more ‘individualistic’ society. However, the limited data that is available suggests that in international terms Ireland would still have relatively high rates of social capital compared to many other countries (see for example NESF, 2003; Fahey et al., 2005).

While hard to trace, societal values seem to be in a constant state of flux, with new and perhaps generally more critical attitudes towards government but also towards authority more generally. People are in future likely to demand more transparency and accountability, not just within government and public bodies, but (following banking and church scandals highlighted in the media) also in private-sector companies and voluntary organisations. Following the tribunals, there is also greater public awareness of the potential for corruption amongst political and administrative office-holders in government. It has also been suggested that rising education levels have also led to greater demands for participation and involvement in decision-making.

One key medium-term challenge for Ireland is around its dependency on oil (Forfás, 2006). While both oil and gas will continue as major sources of energy, with world demand increasing, the underlying trend is likely to continue to point towards increased energy prices. Thus economic as well as environmental impulses will point towards a reduction in energy consumption, as well as greater use of renewable sources to reduce reliance on oil and gas.

Different studies into the impact of climate change in Ireland have suggested the possibility of wetter winters, especially in the west and north, and drier summers, especially in the south and east. Other implications include the possibility of water shortages in some areas, but also more severe and less predictable weather events (NUI Maynooth, 2008).

New technologies will continue to become available, and in much the same way as the internet and new social media in the past, will continue to change the way we live and work. Newer technologies can carry with them enormous potential in terms of productivity improvements. However, retraining and lifelong learning must become more than just a mantra if society is to ‘keep up’. The so-called ‘digital divide’ between those comfortable with new technologies, and those who are not, should gradually be plugged with increasing Internet use at home, and access through channels such as workplaces, schools and public libraries.

Local government may have a key role in addressing some of these challenges. In the past, many local authorities have served in the role of ‘trouble shooter’, in particular by addressing a number of ‘gaps’ that often emerged at local level in public service provision – for example in terms of coordinating childcare provision, providing for educational or recreational facilities in new communities, improving access to broadband, community development, and supporting business start-ups and local employment. It may well be that this ‘trouble shooter’ role could extend to some of the above future challenges as well.

‘Stepping back’ in some areas, but perhaps ‘stepping up’ in others…?

A lot of the focus in today’s debates is around the need for the state to get out of some areas of activity (‘stepping back’ so to speak), leaving provision to the market or indeed to the voluntary sector. We see examples in the local government field in areas such as waste collection and social housing – where in essence some of the slack is being taken up by private providers and the voluntary sector.

In other areas that local government is responsible for, it would not be especially surprising if this were to continue. Based on international experience, it seems as though outsourcing is most prevalent in areas such as back-office or corporate functions (such as payroll, IT support, etc.) and certain capital-intensive or infrastructural services. I suspect it is less likely to occur in more labour-intensive services, social supports, and regulatory services.

Equally however, as well as local government stepping back from some areas, we need to be attentive to where new demands may emerge that might require a government-led response, if not in delivery at least in terms of ensuring that delivery occurs. An example from the relatively recent past may help illustrate this point. During the 1990s, with an expanding population and near full employment, greater numbers of women entered the labour market. Unsurprisingly, this led to a major increase in the demand for childcare services during the same period, and the government essentially opted to leave provision to the market. Given that demand far exceeded supply, the result was predictable: very expensive childcare costs, with anecdotal reports of childcare costs rivalling mortgage payments in some family budgets. One may reasonably ask whether, in the context of new demands likely to emerge over the next decade or so (such as care for the elderly), whether we again wish to leave provision to the market, or whether there is a need for a government-led response (that is a need for government to ‘step up’ to address emerging needs). Of course, such issues will ultimately require political decisions, but certainly a debate on these choices is needed, and local government could play a number of roles here – for example care of the elderly is a local government responsibility in many other jurisdictions.

What will local government look like?

There are also likely to be changes in terms of make-up of the local government workforce. In the context of the current climate of reducing costs, the emphasis has been on reducing the local government workforce. This is likely to continue at least into the short term. But what about the profile of the local government workforce? Based on current trends, the average public servant 15 years from now will be considerably older than at present. This may have implications for the ability of the system to be agile, fresh and innovative. Other changes are also in prospect. Women already make up the majority of public service employees, but one might expect a far larger number of senior managers than at present can be expected to be female. In addition, up to one in five of the public service workforce could be drawn from first or second generation immigrants. All of these factors can be expected to significantly affect the local government’s way of working.

It may also be that public expectations will increasingly demand tailored solutions to the needs of citizens, especially the disadvantaged, as opposed to inflexible, ‘mass bureaucracy’ public sector programmes. Meeting this demand will require a more flexible and less rules-driven approach on the part of public servants, but within robust standards of equity.

The next phase of public service reform

While often overlooked or dismissed, many worthwhile reforms have been made to way public services are provided in recent years. Contrary to popular belief, Ireland has a relatively small public service relative to its population by international standards, and it is getting smaller while the population is getting larger. While quantifying public sector productivity is problematic with measurements often contested, those studies that have been carried out suggest that Ireland is generally ranked alongside countries such as Denmark, Finland, Austria, Sweden, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Norway and Switzerland (Boyle, 2007a; Boyle, 2007b; Boyle, 2010).

That said, it is difficult to argue that reforms to date have taken public servants out of their ‘comfort zone’ – more fundamental change may be needed. Until the relatively recent past, public sector reform in reality had very little political underpinning – most reforms essentially being initiated by public servants and driven by them.

Open recruitment has only really begun to take hold for many public service positions, and in some cases has been more theoretical than real. There is little or no interchange of personnel between different ‘domains’ within the public service (central government, health, local government etc.). One might expect in future for there to be more interchange of personnel between local government and other parts of the public sector, and between local government and the private sector. The idea of starting one’s career in one organisation and spending one’s entire working life in that organisation (with accompanying internal career paths) could in all likelihood be a much rarer prospect into the future.

Innovation within the public service often goes unrewarded, while underperformance is often overlooked. The practice of side-lining manifestly poor performers into positions where they can ‘do no harm’ should no longer be tolerated, and frequently acts as a source of resentment for the majority of public servants. Another key imperative will be looking to ways in which public bodies, including local government, can demonstrate productivity in service provision.

Four Themes for Local Government’s Future?

One assessment of the path that lies ahead for local government suggested that:

The challenges for local government for the future will be: first, to remain close to their communities to listen, learn, inform and respond; second, to work in new ways (influencing, enabling and working through others, as well as providing services); and finally to retain a concern for the welfare of its citizens beyond its statutory functions (Keogan and Callanan, 2003, p. 506).

These fundamental tasks remain pertinent. Given the various challenges highlighted above, we may conclude that a number of inter-related themes seem likely to influence the future of local government in Ireland.

Efficient Local Government

Clearly, this theme is primarily driven by the demands of the moment. The Local Government Efficiency Review (2010), while not without its faults, does contain some sensible recommendations in this area. Of course as this report itself notes, most local authorities on their own initiative have for a number of years now been trying to reduce costs and identify efficiencies – they were not waiting around for others to tell them what to do, and in many cases the recommendations of the report draw on ideas and actions that have already been undertaken by individual local authorities.

Many initiatives to reduce the cost base of local government are well underway, including reducing the number of local government employees (far more dramatically than other parts of the public service), sharpening procurement practices, engaging in joint working with local authorities coming together in shared services arrangements, and through expanding the role of audit including a greater focus for value-for-money audit. Aside from cost reductions, other pressures are likely to point towards the need for further improvements in the quality of service provision.

A lot of this work need not call for wholescale amalgamations. The international evidence is that the benefits of local authority mergers can often be over-stated, and that mergers carry with them under-estimated ongoing and one-off transitional costs. Along with others, I am currently researching the issue of economies of scale in Irish local government – suffice it to say the amalgamation of county and city councils will not be a magic bullet to make local government more efficient. The evidence to suggest that larger local authorities outperform smaller local authorities across the board is pretty flimsy. That is not to say there are no potential economies of scale and efficiencies to be gained through serving larger population bases in some areas of service provision, but rather to suggest that local authorities can do this where it makes sense through shared service arrangements, rather than incurring the expense of a full merger.

The debate over greater efficiency at local level cannot be confined to the current remit and structures of local government, but must also encompass the many other local service providers that exist in towns, counties and cities around the country. Government seems remarkably reluctant to question the duplication involved in the current distribution of public services, and whether there is a need for multiple parallel administrative structures at local level, each reporting back to respective parent Departments (Callanan, 2009).

Participative Local Government

New attempts to try to engage citizens in local decision-making, as a complement to the electoral process and representative democracy, seem likely. There have been a wide range of largely experimental approaches employed in this respect across different countries, including local referenda, participatory budgeting, community fora, online discussion forums, citizens’ juries, cooption onto local council committees, and many others.

There are a number of key individuals and actors that can influence the development of community involvement and participation. These may include community activists, ‘frontline’ officials and senior managers within public bodies, and local politicians – the role of these actors is not necessarily consistent across locations and will very often vary depending on locality. Research into this area suggests that along with socio-economic factors, the process of converting informal social networks into more active civic participation is mediated by different filters, including local political leadership, local officials, and local civic infrastructure (Lowndes et al., 2002). Local politicians can influence how citizens view the potential receptiveness of the system to participative mechanisms, and by extension how worthwhile participation is perceived. The more political institutions are perceived to be closed, the more relations with citizens tend to be characterized by either confrontation or a resigned but critical apathy. Local officials and the local administrative culture can also have an important influence – this includes both the formal and the informal conventions within public institutions, including the issues that might be open to participation, and whether these serve to encourage or obstruct public participation. Lowndes et al. (2002) suggest that public management is crucial in ensuring that participation is sustained and extended over time. Local civic infrastructure includes the mechanisms for linking (and where necessary coordinating) different associations and their activities within the community and voluntary sector, and mechanisms for providing a channel of communication to local decision-makers. Depending on past local experience and tradition, a number of different organizations can play this role, from chambers of commerce and religious groups, to partnership bodies and community fora.

A more participative local government implies that those within local government must be able to develop para-diplomatic skills of listening, dialogue, communicating, mediation and arbitration skills, and developing mutual understanding between different parties. Those involved in participation have to be comfortable with bargaining, negotiating, cajoling, brokerage, consensus building, spotting win-win solutions, joint problem solving, and have the ability to cope with limited control as well as an increase in complexity, unpredictability and risk. A more participative local government also will require individuals to draw on personal qualities such as vision, strength, stamina, energy, inventiveness and commitment.

Citizen engagement can sometimes challenge strongly-imbued professional values held by officials that there are ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ answers to the different problems that local communities face. This can be the source of conflict not only between local government and community groups, but also between local officials and elected representatives (Nalbandian, 2007).

Leading Local Government

There is a case for a more clearly defined leadership role for local government. There are perhaps two dimensions to this area. In the first place, a clearer leadership role in needed in terms of local decision-making and working with other public service providers. This was originally envisaged via the county/ city development board process, but it is debatable whether this has materialised in practice, and the experience appears to vary considerably across the country. If one is to take the call for more ‘joined up government’ at local level seriously, it seems to be reasonable to suggest that there needs a more clearly defined leadership role at local level with at least limited default powers for local government to bring public bodies together and to compel them into action, including the use of financial incentives and sanctions where necessary.

A second dimension concerns the debate over whether there is a need for more clearly defined leadership roles within local government – this is an issue that has received a lot of attention in local government reforms in several countries. The most well-known manifestation of this has been the creation of directly-elected (or sometimes council-elected) mayors with certain executive powers. Less well-known perhaps is the experience in other jurisdictions such as Britain and the Netherlands with cabinet-style systems in local government (John, 2001). Despite all the attention that mayoral proposals get, it is also worth noting that the city manager model in the US remains popular, and outside the largest cities its use has increased in recent years in US local government.

An interesting question to pose in the Irish context is: ‘who’s in charge in local government?’ The answer probably depends on where one stands. However, the ambiguity within Irish local government does sometimes lead to an unhealthy ‘blame game’ – the Minister blames local authorities for something not being done, the Councillors blame their lack of powers, or the manager, or the Department, the officials (usually in private) blame the Department, or the Councillors for not using their powers. There seems to be too many hiding places in this kind of arrangement, particularly for opportunists who are quick to take the credit for when things go right, but equally quick to point the finger elsewhere when things go wrong.

Empowered Local Government

Part of the reason for the ‘blame game’ lies in the ambiguity that surrounds local government responsibilities, and ambiguity in how far local government enjoys discretion in the level of service it provides. It has often struck me that there is (deliberately or otherwise) considerable vagueness over the extent of local government discretion in different service areas. Although legislation (and indeed the Constitution) refers to local government as a forum for the democratic representation of local communities, in contrast to most countries, in Ireland we don’t distinguish between those areas of local government service provision where local authorities have discretion to adapt the level of service provision according to the needs and priorities of local communities, and those areas where local authorities are essentially acting as agents of the state, delivering a uniform service across the entire country.

Of course, some areas approach the uniformity end of the scale – for example, the collection of motor tax and the allocation of higher education grants largely works in this way, with local authorities delivering essentially the same service according to a prescribed set of rules and criteria. Arguably this also extends to highly regulated areas such as water supply and treatment, where service provision is subject to detailed specifications and standards through multiple EU directives, national legislation and statutory instruments.

However, it is less than clear in many areas of local government activity where there is a desire for uniformity, where there is scope for local discretion, or indeed where local discretion is desired albeit with a minimum level of provision. In essence, what areas are national competences (where local government is delivering a uniform service) and what are local competences (where local government has discretion)? For instance, a more participative local government starts with an assumption of a more empowered local government with at least some element of discretion – there is not much point taking part in local decision-making if local government operates in a straight-jacket and all the key decisions have already been taken at national level.

Equally the future is likely to be characterised by greater economic, demographic, social and environmental diversity, with different conditions and circumstances applying in different localities and regions. This suggests that keeping faith with ‘one size fits all’ solutions to what can be quite different problems in different areas is unlikely to yield optimal results, at least in many areas of policy-making.

As part of the current discussions over political reform, and the perceived need to ‘fix’ our system of government, it would be helpful to have an honest debate over those areas where it is essentially seen as desirable to have the same level of service across the country, and those areas where local communities may decide to vary the level of service provision according to local needs and wishes (with appropriate financing and taxation implications of course – otherwise everyone will look for the ‘free lunch’!). Critically, this debate should not be restricted to the current responsibilities of local government, but should equally encompass other public services such as education or community care services.

______________________________________________

Boyle, Richard (2007a) Comparing Public Administrations: An Assessment of the quality and efficiency of public administration in Ireland compared with selected European and OECD countries, CPMR Research Report 7, Dublin: Institute of Public Administration

Boyle, Richard (2007b) “Public Sector Productivity Measurement: An Impossible Task?” in C. Aylward and R. O’Toole (eds), Perspectives on Irish Productivity, Dublin: Forfás

Boyle, Richard (2010) Public Sector Trends 2010, State of the Public Service Series Research Paper no. 2, Dublin: Institute of Public Administration

Callanan, Mark (2009) “Fostering a more integrated public service – working through networks at central and local level”, Administration, Vol. 57, no. 1

Cullen, John (2007), “Meeting Future Challenges – Final Thoughts”, in M. Callanan (ed.) Ireland 2022: Towards One Hundred Years of Self-Government, Dublin: Institute of Public Administration

Fahey, Tony, Hayes, Bernadette C., and Sinnott, Richard (2005) Conflict and Consensus: A study of values and attitudes in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, Dublin: Institute of Public Administration

Forfás (2006) A Baseline Assessment of Ireland’s Oil Dependence – Key Policy Considerations, Dublin: Forfás

Kennedy, Finola (1997) “The cause of the Irish welfare state”, in F. Ó Muircheartaigh (ed.) Ireland in the Coming Times, Dublin: Institute of Public Administration

Koegan, Justin F., and Mark Callanan (2003) “The Future”, in M. Callanan and J.F. Keogan (eds.) Local Government in Ireland: Inside Out, Dublin: Institute of Public Administration

John, Peter (2001) Local Governance in Western Europe, London: Sage

Lowndes, Vivien, Pratchett, Lawrence, and Stoker, Gerry (2002) The Locality Effect: Local Government and Citizen Participation, Final Report of Economic and Social Research Council Award L215252039 (downloaded from http://www.esrc.ac.uk/)

Nalbandian, John (2007) “Professionals and the Conflicting Forces of Administrative Modernization and Civic Engagement”, in R. Hambleton and J. Simone Gross (eds.) Governing Cities in a Global Era: Urban Innovation, Competition, and Democratic Reform, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan

NESF (National Economic and Social Forum) (2003) The Policy Implications of Social Capital, Forum Report No. 28, Dublin: National Economic and Social Forum

NUI Maynooth (2008) Climate Change – Refining the Impacts for Ireland, Wexford: Environmental Protection Agency

OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) (2008) Ireland: Towards an Integrated Public Service, OECD Public Management Reviews, Paris: OECD