Firstly a big thank you to everyone who has taken the time to respond to my
mail on Joined up policy. For myself all contributions have proved
invaluble and it just goes to show how much better we function as a problem
solving community when we can generate a kind of 'quick fire' debate.
Well enough of the platitudes, I decided to respond as I believe we can see
the emergence of two sides of a debate on what joined up policy is and can
do for the advancement of welfare.
I hope it is ok to sterotype the two leaders for the benefit of following
the debate.
In the blue (no subliminal political link intended) corner, represented by
P. Spicker, are those who suggest Joined up policy (JUP) is not new but has
been a feature of policy making that has enjoyed previous support, then
dipped and now sees a resurgence. Others in this group feel that JUP is
relatively clear and involves various conceptions of multi, inter, intra-
organisational cooperation.
In the red corner (similarly without intentions), and represented by P.
Squires, are those who believe that JUP in its present stage of development
is new because its conception did not stem from previous ideas of inter-
connectedness but as a response against deregulation of public services
during the eighties and 1990's. Others in this group share a healthy dose
of suspicion towards what they see as rhetoric.
I place myself in the red corner and would like to offer my supporting
arguements.
Anne Hollows mail summerises the reasons for suspicion, at the end she says
it is odd to apparently see a 'rollover' in attitudes towards JUP since
during her experience JUP was positively discouraged. I suggest that
anything that changes that quickly is either a lie or the fastest cultural
shift history has ever recorded. It seems unlikely in the extreame that
such cultures can be completely transformed in such a short period of time.
Lucy Grimshaw, actively working to operationalise JUP does little,
unfortunately, to ease our worries. This is because while we gain the gist
of the what and the why of JUP but the critical, specifically how this will
be done appears vauge. The statements do appear rhetoric-heavy and no
where in the other official sources does it make clear specifically how the
culture of competition, a serious barrier to real JUP, will be addressed.
The blue corner is suspicious of these claims because we don't believe the
culture has just vanished. Instead, we think it more likely that many
people have done what P. Squires suggests and have just joined in
the 'supporting cast'. After all it is highly supportable rhetoric, with
an aim to match.
The consequences, if JUP is just mainly rhetorical, are outlined by K. Gale
when she said that often, in her experience, end users were not part of
this joined up process. In essance this sums up the Blue corner- We are
seeking for a deeper conceptualisation of JUP, one that is more than just
the working connectedness of organisations and institutions. I theorised
Gale's point in 'feedback' as:
4. The political dimension can become 'joined' if the needs of the
main social actors are inclusively incorporated into policy outcomes rather
than production.
Currently then, our criticism of New Labour's JUP is that 'it's not doing
what it says on the tin', the social actors are not being inclusively
incorporated into policy outcomes. Furthermore that a defensive and
competitive culture in various organisations and institutions do undermine
attempts for genuinly joined-up policy.
So let the debate continue (and don't forget that it is more helpful to
mail the list and lambast my interpretation than reply to me personally).
Perhaps we could look at questions such as why New Labour are not backing
their mouth up? Is it a power thing?, maybe they simply don't have an idea
of how to implement JUP?, perhaps the civil service itself is playing along
with the words but remains against JUP (as we [well me] have argued in the
red corner. Most importantly is how can we in social policy use JUP as a
vehicle for the pursuit of a more welfare orientated society. Ultimately
we have a good idea of the what and certainly of the why but we need to
work on the how.
Anyway thanks for listening again.
Tim Clark
|