Dilemmas of Implementation: ‘Integration’ and ‘Participation’ in Norwegian and Scottish Local Government
Dilemmas of Implementation: ‘Integration’ and ‘Participation’ in Norwegian and Scottish Local Government
复制标题
实施困境：挪威和苏格兰地方政府的“整合”与“参与”
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2004
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
R. Cowell
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
S. Abram;R. Cowell
最近欧洲各地地方治理的转变强调了“更多的公众参与”和参与政策制定和执行的机构之间的“更紧密的融合”。研究人员刚刚开始研究这些议程的相互兼容性。这项分析的重点是挪威和苏格兰之间的跨国比较，使用人种学方法来绘制各种行为者如何同时使用战略规划（挪威的kkleeplan，苏格兰的社区计划），以促进参与和融合。对地方实施实践的研究揭示了这些议程之间的紧张关系，但也揭示了地方官员、政治家和公众谈论过去、谈判或以其他方式管理问题的各种背景嵌入方式。这表现在：在制定计划时，参与性和综合性活动之间的平衡;当选成员的作用;伙伴关系的指导和代表作用的结合;以及合理化的压力。在最后的分析中，我们认为，这些问题不能简单地被认为是当地的管理混乱，但反映了更深层次的倾向，在“第三条道路”的政治和实际后果的强调“什么工作”。
Recent shifts in local governance across Europe have emphasised ‘more public participation’ and ‘closer integration’ between the bodies involved in policy formulation and delivery. Researchers have only started to examine the mutual compatibility of these agendas. The focus of this analysis is a cross-national comparison between Norway and Scotland, using ethnographic methods to chart how various actors have used strategic planning (kommuneplan in Norway, community plans in Scotland) simultaneously to promote participation and integration. A study of local implementation practices reveals tensions between these agendas, but also the various contextually embedded ways in which local officers, politicians, and publics talk past, negotiate, or otherwise manage the problem. These are manifest in the balance between participatory and integrative activities in drawing up the plans; in the role of elected members; in combining steering and representative roles for partnerships; and in pressures for rationalisation. In the final analysis, we argue that these problems cannot simply be considered as local managerial muddles, but as reflecting deeper tendencies in ‘Third Way’ politics and the practical consequences of its emphasis on ‘what works’.