Post-bureaucratic state

Recently I was sent a link to the ‘Steve Hilton Strategy bulletin’ (seehttp://blogs.ft.com/westminster/2010/01/the-steve-hilton-strategy-bulletins/). Steve Hilton is Director of Strategy for David Cameron and in a series of ‘bulletins’ outlines areas of Conservative thinking including on the post-bureaucratic state. According to the bulletin the post-bureaucratic state for the Conservatives is where information about performance is more accessible, costs are more transparent, individuals more powerful. It’s where hierarchies are replaced with a far flatter structure.

Is it a message that the other main parties would disagree with?

According to the bulletin there will be a premium on networks and collaboration will be key. To maximise the opportunities from this collaboration access to and mastery of knowledge will confer the sort of advantage which family connections and inherited position used to secure. Whilst the rhetoric is arguably reassuring how far are we from this position?

A colleague reminded me recently that it was definitely not what you know but who you know as he retold stories from the Rotary Clubs and the guilds and bodies linked to the Lord Mayor of London. Recently reading about Mr Cameron’s own background the case was made that connections were very important (seehttp://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/nov/29/davidcameron-no-ordinary-kinda-guy). His story may not be very dissimilar to many of those who today either run the country or are in the most well paid and well regarded jobs (http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/jan/17/social-mobility-top-professions-elitist). The start of the Character Inquiry may have more to say on what ‘connections’ bestow and what makes a strong and resilient character (see http://www.demos.co.uk/projects/the-character-inquiry).

Maybe the focus on a mastery of knowledge is what parents who provide their children with a private education are after? I was reminded recently of this when someone I know re-lived the pressure they felt as their son sat his 11+ exams to get into a ‘good’ public school. Both entry into our elite universities and the elite professions is disproportionately in favour of those who have a good public school education (seehttp://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/jan/17/social-mobility-top-professions-elitist). How far will we be able to travel from the advantages of family and connections?

I am now at that age when many of those running the country or applying to run the country are my peers. I do wonder on days if going to what was regarded as a pretty poor local inner city comprehensive and leaving school with a few O’levels and failing to progress much beyond this until I was in my mid 20s held my progress back. I was in general an average student and maybe that is where the state system really faces a challenge – arguably it lets everyone down equally including in many cases even the most gifted and talented. Is there a certain mediocrity in public provision on which I have reflected before (see https://bereadyforchange.wordpress.com/?s=mediocrity)

Is that what all the new rhetoric and policies from across the party divides appears to be about – empowering individuals to make the best choices for themselves, equipping them with budgets and choices to do so and redistributing power so that they can get access to the best provision. Allied to this is an acknowledgement that it will increase personal and social responsibility. Is all this the leading edge thinking on public service reform? Will this provide the solutions to inequalities of opportunity? Will this ultimately make our society fairer?

The vision as set out in the bulletin is to use the state to help create a big society with social entrepreneurs, community activists and active citizens at the forefront. And the role of civil servants it is suggested is as civic servants understanding how to work with social entrepreneurs and enabling civic action. But as my colleague John Sharples recently pointed out (see http://townhallmatters.wordpress.com/2010/01/10/the-merits-and-limitations-of-coproduction/) the assumption that we can co-produce solutions can forget to link with capabilities and that must remain a challenge.

It is said that a key part of the post-bureaucratic society is the doing away of hierarchies. The 20th century model of the bureaucratic state as outlined in the bulletin maybe represented in what I tentatively will call ‘the local big state’ formed of local committees and organisations co-opted into local power and influence through formal and informal set ups which are arguably the preserve of a small elite that can have a disproportionate influence on what goes on locally. These can in the current system be seen as ‘legitimate’ representatives. What if they are not? What happens if others express another narrative or argument? Is the post bureaucratic state about fostering more competing voices, new and alternative networks and not just ‘the same old same old’? Is this for example the idea around parents and local people being empowered to run and challenge local services?

And what, if we do enter the post-bureaucratic state, will this mean for the networks that currently exist? According to comment highlighted in the bulletin network theorists such as Alberto-Laszlo Barabassi teach us that the building of contacts between people fosters a rich stock of intellectual capital and that the more traffic there is between those with knowledge to share, the more knowledge, insights, innovation and growth are generated. But will these new networks be most successful where there is wealth, family connections and the professions? Will it really mean that traditional networks and elites are challenged? And even if we are successful in overcoming some of these hurdles are we ready for what these developments may entail? What role for councils in supporting a far more competitive environment with diverse networks and many more voices wanting to be heard and wanting to act?