Intergovernmental Relations: Issues in Public

Intergovernmental Relations: Issues in Public Policies

This objective of this work is to examine intergovernmental relations specifically as related to issues in public policy and to answer the question of 'what changes need to be made in the public administration and political systems in order for them to be more communicative and inter-related?'

INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS (IGR) ISSUE

The issue addressed in this study is focused on the needed changes to public administration and political systems in order for them to be more communicative and inter-related. It is reported by the Australia South Africa Local Governance Partnership in the work entitled: "Intergovernmental Relations - a Key to Good Service Delivery" that intergovernmental relations or IGR is "the set of processes and relationships between elected members and officials which affect and effect service delivery and which can be generally taken to consist of communicating information, consultation and engagement." (ASALGP, nd) Intergovernmental relations is the "basis by which elected members and officials of government entities deal with each other where cooperation is necessary to assure legislative compliance, policy implementation and service delivery."(ASALGP, nd) Not only does IGR contribute to delivery of services but it also "can be a major factor in efficient and effective service delivery. In many cases problems with service delivery can be attributed to failures of IGR." (ASALGP, nd) Intergovernmental relations (IGR) is "about improving the delivery of outcomes through effective systems, processes and procedures that ensure cooperation of different role players around policy formulation, planning, monitoring and support and delivery. A narrow structural approach leads to people getting bogged down with structure which collapse if difficulties are experienced." (ASALGP, nd)

II. LITERATURE REVIEW

It is reported by the Australia South Africa Local Governance Partnership in the work entitled: "Intergovernmental Relations - a Key to Good Service Delivery" that constraints to quality intergovernmental relation practices include the following constraints:

Lack of a shared focus on key national development priorities

Perpetuation of previous hierarchical relations between spheres

Insufficient sharing of information

Absence of a focus on cross cutting issues

Lack of capacity

Erratic and unfocussed participation in coordination structures

Inadequate enforcement and performance management

Instruments not being used as intended

Lack of a shared spatial area of focus (ASALGP, nd)

It is related by the ASALGP that both elected and non-elected officials play a role in IGR which may take many forms including "protocol dealings, liaison meetings, intersphere planning, approval processes or formal input on a service proposal." (nd) Stakeholders in IGR include "all spheres of government, parastatals (major service providers such as those involved with water and electricity provision) as well as community groups and the public." (ASALGP, nd)

Characteristics of quality IGR are stated to be the following:

Effective and efficient Service Delivery

Inclusive decision making and consultative processes

Absence of disputes between spheres of government

Mechanisms to resolve disputes between spheres of government

Capacity within all spheres of government to develop and progress IGR as equal partners

Mutual respect for decision making process and time frames

Understanding of roles and responsibilities

Good alignment of IDP's with National and Provincial plans and strategies

Good public participation, quality ward committees which enhance decision making and the development of mandates

Meetings with purpose, agenda/minutes and decisions actioned (ASALGP, nd)

Characteristics of poor IGR are stated to include:

Poor or no service delivery

Unilateral decision making by spheres of government on matters affecting other spheres

Disputes between spheres of government

Absence of mechanisms to resolve disputes between spheres of government - legal options pursued

Unequal partnerships

Unfunded mandates

Non-inclusive decision making (gender, minority groups)

Unreasonable time frames to respond - especially by province of local government

Large budget under/over expenditure

Duplication of services

Meetings cancelled at short notice or ineffective, no agenda/minutes, no responsibility for actioning decision. (ASALGP, nd)

The ASALGP states that IGR is achieved "through processes and relationships as well as structures by communicating information, consulting and engaging to assure policy formulation, planning, monitoring and support and delivery." (nd) Communicating information is stated to be "a one way process without the need for a formal of structured response." (ASALGP, nd) Consultation is stated to involve "bi lateral contract involving exchange of ideas of information, and a formal or informal response." (ASALGP, nd) Additionally stated is that consultation "necessitates respect and consideration of the other party (ies) and can contribute significantly to building better relationships." (ASALGP, nd) Engagement is described as the "formalizing of relationships between and within spheres of government through mechanisms that include structure and process. In some cases it can take the form of a partnership agreement or in others through negotiated informal, formal or legal/statutory agreement relating to the provision of services, agreed performance measures, outcomes and feedback." (ASALGP, nd) the question is asked of how important meetings are in assisting and promoting good IGR. Stated as the answer is that meetings are "a very important part of building and establishing relationships and fostering consultation and communication." (ASALGP, nd) Meetings must be:

1) Structured to ensure sufficient notice is given to participants so that they can ascertain views to take to the meeting;

2) Based on mutual respect and equal regard for views of all participants to ensure quality decision making;

3) Arranged so that the purpose and desired outcomes of the meeting are is clear and participants have sufficient mandate to contribute meaningfully;

4) Arranged so that someone has responsibility for minuting the decisions and allocating responsibility for actioning the agreed outcomes. (ASALGP, nd)

The following table labeled Figure 1 in this study lists the practices of the 'poor or no IGR' level, the 'Embryonic IGR' level, the 'Emerging IGR' level, the 'Developing IGR' level and the 'Mature IGR' level.

Characteristics of the Various Levels of IGR

Source: (ASALGP, nd)

Stated as guidelines for effective meetings with decision marks are the following guidelines which follow upon the meeting having been secured in the adaptation for ensuring an effective meeting and effective outcomes from the meeting:

1) Once advice of the meeting appointment has been received confirm the date, time and place in writing along with the names and positions of those in the party attending.

2) Also confirm the matter/s to be discussed at the meeting and attach any background papers you think may be useful. Carefully consider whether you should provide all documents that you will be speaking to- if you do, the decision maker may decide a meeting is not necessary and that they will consider the submission alone.

3) Keep the numbers in your delegation small, usually 4 or less is ideal, too many people will mean either most attend and say nothing or if they all wish to contribute differing points-of-view may emerge.

4) Decision makers are very busy people, especially senior people such as Ministers/MECs and you should assume that the meeting will start later than suggested and may finish earlier than suggested. Tailor your presentation to ensure that there will be sufficient time.

5) as a rule elected members should address elected members, officials should address officials (the anointed should talk to the anointed and the appointed to the appointed). It is poor protocol and reflects badly on the elected members if a delegation including elected members and officials is led by the officials in addressing a Minister/MEC. In some cases where a highly technical matter is to be discussed it may be appropriate for the Mayor to lead the discussions and then invite the Municipal Manager to outline the technical matters but care should be taken to show that the elected members are aware of and understand the issue.

6) Carefully plan who will talk at the meeting, in what order and what they will say- a meeting can easily be ruined by poor planning and preparation.

7) Remember that the purpose of the meeting is partly to brief the decision maker on the issue but more importantly to secure the views of the latter. Too often delegations use all the meeting time outlining their submission and then leave without the decision maker offering a view.

8) Ensure someone takes notes of the meeting, particularly any assurances about action or further contact. If the decision maker requests further information note that and ensure that it happens, similarly if the decision maker promises to provide something make sure it is noted.

9) as soon as possible after the meeting write back to the decision maker thanking them for the meeting, confirming the outcomes and any agreements to provide further advice or documentation. If you undertook to provide a report confirm that you will do so and ensure that I happens. If the decision maker undertook to provide some further comment or feedback politely confirm your understanding that they will do so. Too often time drags by after a meeting with both sides convinced the other was going to take a course of action. (ASALGP, nd)

The work of Agranoff (2008) entitled: "Toward an Emergent Theory of IGR Governance at the Dawn of the Network Era" states that the network is "one of increasing relevance for understanding current connections between units of government within a nation-wide state system. Once more oriented to the minimal statistics gathering and funding assistance between more or less watertight compartments, intergovernmental relations (IGR) has evolved into dynamic and highly integrated sets of behaviors, not only between agents of government but among a host of non-governmental actors, non-profit and for-profit." (Agranoff, 2008) Agranoff states that intergovernmental relations appear to have started with "the territorial organization of states, often termed in international nomenclature as 'primary civil divisions'." (2008) However, changing and accelerating the IGR models was the 'rise of the welfare state' which resulted in "linking central and local governments in deep interdependency in such scope and breadth that the nineteenth century law and politics crowd could never imagine." (Agranoff, 2008)

At this time centralized government programs "began to become parachuted in to local communities by central governments, and in federal systems with connecting landings in constituent unit governments, that is states or provinces." (Agranoff, 2008) Agranoff relates that the intergovernmentalization has resulted in a model of governance that is described as the "overlapping authority model of governmental interaction." (Agranoff, 2008) Agranoff relates that in the 21st Century networks characterizes local government as well as business associations and economic development agencies. These networks have been defined as "structure of interdependence involving multiple organizations or parts thereof, where one unit is not merely the formal subordinate of the others in some larger hierarchical management." (O'Toole, 1997, in Agranoff, 2008)

However, study of intergovernmental networks state conclusions that these networks are "by no means replacing hierarchies, they are differentiated by function, they are non-hierarchical and self-functioning but managed, become knowledge builders and managers devoted to their primary purposes, can make a difference in terms of advancing public value, and while they change the way public managers work with NGOs, networks do not control public agencies." (Agranoff, 2008) Agranoff states that interesting to note concerning the intergovernmental networks which are emerging is that the "officials from central government, state/provincial government, local government, public and private universities, and NGO's representing the non-profit and for-profit sectors sit down with on another at the same table to discuss, explore, negotiate and solve issues." (Agranoff, 2008) Previously the transactions that were intergovernmental "were bilateral and focused on government to government or government-NGO matters..." however, the network approach is noted to be "clearly multilateral, collaborative and attack issues that transcend bilateral intergovernmental concerns." (Agranoff, 2008) the following figure lists the four intergovernmental relations areas or levels as stated in the work of Agranoff (2008).

Four Intergovernmental Relations Areas

Agranoff (2008)

The work of Zeemering (2006) entitled: "City Council Members and the Representation Function in Intergovernmental Decision-Making" states that it is shown in the research that the public administrator plays a role of a critical nature in intergovernmental collaboration." (Zeemering, 2006) Elected officials who are officers of the government with authority to vote are the representatives of the public on many contracts of an intergovernmental nature and the public budgets that fund jurisdiction service provision. Traditional conceptions of council-manager government have been challenged "by research that demonstrates the power distribution between administrative executives and elected officials" which varies across cities and is dependent on the "institutional structure and political dynamics within jurisdictions." (Zeemering, 2006) Today's public administration is stated to have developed "largely to address problems associated with the fragmented and disarticulated state problems that are multijurisdictional in nature require public managers prepared to form conjunctive solutions across the traditional political boundaries of local government jurisdictions." (Zeemering, 2006) Zeemering (2006) states that the conceptual mapping of federalism terminology in the work of Deil Wright (1990) can help in thinking about the elected official and their role in "inter-local collaboration." Zeemering relates that distinguished in Wrights work are: (1) federalism; (2) intergovernmental relations; and (3) intergovernmental management. (2008) in the construct as stated by Wright, the leading actors in federalism are the elected officials. Intergovernmental relations (IGR) and intergovernmental management mainly involve "administrative generalists" and "policy professionals" respectively... Elected officials are not the primary IGR actors..." And IGR is considered to be a "policy making and coordination activity." (Zeemering, 2006)

From this view intergovernmental management "...involves the implementation of networked programs and the problem solving associated with intergovernmental programs. Intergovernmental relations are characterized by middle-range involvement of elected politicians in contrast to intergovernmental management's minimal involvement of elected politicians. With this classification, elected officials might be expected to play a minimal role in managerial networks or implementation of an intergovernmental contract..." (Zeemering, 2006) Since intergovernmental relations are inclusive of policymaking decisions among jurisdictions of the government conceptualized might be a role for elected officials that is more active in decision making. This would not only make it more likely that the decisions made would be more adherent to the needs of the public at large but would ensure that the public at large be represented in actuality instead of merely in theory in relation to their desires and needs when decision making takes place.