One of the big ideas in public services reform in recent years has been the need for greater personalisation. A key driver for this was the sense that public services had to catch up with an increasingly demanding public that expects the same options, flexibility and targeted information from their schools and hospitals as they might get from their supermarket or mobile phone provider. But in such straitened times, that kind of individualism is beginning to sound both unfashionable and expensive. Can personalised services survive the credit crunch? And can they deliver on any of their promises – a more satisfied public, better outcomes, perhaps even a more equal society?
Over at the Department for Work and Pensions, James Purnell certainly seems to think that personalising services will help. Taking its cue from the Gregg Review’s vision of personalised conditionality and support, the recent White Paper argues that this ‘would be a significant change...moving from treating people according to their category to according to their needs, and at their pace.’ Rejecting claims that the economic downturn makes it an inopportune time to personalise, the Minister argues the opposite: ‘we should increase the pace [of reform], because that means offering more support to people and matching it with the expectation that they should not fall out of touch with the world of work.’
In other sectors, however, there is a risk that personalised services may come to be seen as a costly venture at a time when cut-backs are being demanded left, right and centre. Detractors may point for example at last year’s report on user-driven services from the Public Administration Select Committee, which suggested that an evaluative evidence base on such services was only just starting to emerge and there was ‘little evidence as yet on their cost-effectiveness’. Many decision-makers may start to question whether this is really the time to get personalising.
So where does this leave us? One of the problems with the word ‘personalisation’ is that it can cover a range of different activities with different methods and possibly opposing goals. Is it about choice, about giving people the chance to pic’n’mix how they use public services in the way that best suits? Is it primarily about harnessing the power of IT to improve how people interact with public services, as much of the transformational government agenda seems to suggest? Or is it about tailoring services such as long-term care or education so that they are more effective in helping those that need such services the most?
Some of the more ambitious attempts at personalisation may indeed have to be put on hold for now, but it would be a shame to throw the baby out with the bathwater. The idea that personalised services could improve the life chances of the most disadvantaged and thus reduce inequality is an important one, particularly as we enter difficult times. The challenge is to work out how we do that in the best – and most cost-effective – way possible.
ippr north’s Commission on Public Sector Reform in the North East is looking at the prospects for more local, more personalised services and considering whether they can help the region to address persistent inequalities both within the region and between the North East and other parts of England. It is trying to establish what kind of personalised services are required, and what, if anything, would be distinctive about how we personalise public services in the North East. The answers it comes up with should tell us something about whether personalised services are indeed value for money as we all tighten our belts.
Duncan Hiscock is Senior Research Fellow at ippr north and author of Prospects for more local, more personalised services published this week by ippr north’s Commission on Public Sector Reform in the North East, free to download at www.ippr.org/north.
Monday, 19 January 2009
Monday, 12 January 2009
Building bridges not walls
In the wake of the US presidential elections in November, attention has been refocused on the question of western foreign policy towards the Middle East. Although the legacy of the past eight years will be challenging to overcome in the short to medium term, there have been many encouraging signs that President-Elect Obama will take decisive steps to alter both the direction and tone of US policy in the region. He has already signalled his willingness to talk to all leaders, whether they are friends or foes, in an effort to restore American diplomatic credibility and to re-establish links with key regional powerbrokers like Syria. However, it is far less clear what approach the new American leadership will take towards engaging with the range of Islamist parties and movements either in power or in opposition across the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region. This remains a critical test.
North American and European policymakers have often been criticised for their tendency to treat political Islam as a monolithic and uniformly negative phenomenon, and for their failure to appreciate the role that non-violent Islamist parties could potentially play in addressing political stagnation in the region. This charge is perhaps no longer as fair as it used to be. In recent years, there has been increasing recognition of the fact that political Islam is not a fixed ideology with a clearly identifiable set of values and objectives, but rather a fluid phenomenon that encompasses a range of movements with different philosophies, principles and agendas.
A number of serious commentators in Europe and North America also now stress the need for western governments to be open to the idea of direct engagement with those Islamist groups in the Middle East and North Africa that have formally renounced the use of violence and that seek to work through legal political processes to achieve their goals, such as the Party of Justice and Development in Morocco, the Islamic Action Front in Jordan and even the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. As organisations like the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace argue, these groups currently offer the strongest and most popular opposition to existing authoritarian regimes and efforts should therefore be made to draw them into the wider dialogue about regional political reform. But to date, this argument has failed to translate into the formulation of realistic strategies for engaging with mainstream political Islam. To paraphrase Edward Djerejian, former US Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, we are still building more walls than bridges in our policies towards political Islamists.
Some western governments have been more receptive to the idea of dialogue than others. In 2005, the German Federal Foreign Office released a policy paper recommending that potential avenues of collaboration with non-violent Islamist movements in the Arab world should be explored. More controversially, publication of a series of leaked memos in the New Statesman journal in early 2006 revealed that political analysts within the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office were in favour of enhancing contacts with members of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. It was suggested that the British government should be trying to influence this group, given the extent of its grassroots support in Egypt, and noted that engaging with the Brotherhood would provide an opportunity to challenge their perception of the West, including of the UK, as well as their prescriptions for solving the challenges facing Egypt and the region.
However, whatever official support may have existed within European and North American governments for taking steps towards developing contacts with non-violent Islamist movements has been weakened in the past few years by the backlash to these tentative shifts in policy from elements of the media and policymaking establishment. Indeed, the mandate of the unit within the FCO that was responsible for ‘engaging with the Islamic world’ was fundamentally changed in 2007: it now focuses more on countering radicalisation and terrorism than on promoting dialogue with political actors in the region.
Enthusiasm for practical engagement with political Islamists also seems to have been sapped by endless circular discussions about the democratic credentials of mainstream Islamist groups. Instead of asking how we might engage more effectively, many policymakers are still asking whether this is feasible or desirable. This is linked to their concerns about Islamist violence and terrorism in both domestic and international contexts, but also relates to their wider strategic and political interests in the MENA region, some of which they perceive to be threatened by the rising popularity and influence of Islamist parties and movements. For their part, Islamist groups have also displayed a strong reluctance to enter into dialogue with those western governments whose policies in the region they oppose, particularly the United States and the United Kingdom. Both sides have legitimate concerns about the implications of forging closer ties, but a failure even to discuss these issues will do little to move the debate forward.
To this end, in November 2008, ippr held an international symposium on the theme of political Islam in the Middle East and North Africa. Alongside members of the western political establishment, academia and civil society, it also involved current or former representatives of a number of Islamist parties, including the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, the Jordanian Islamic Action Front, the Tunisian al-Nahda Party and Hezbollah. The aim of the conference was not to put Islamists on the back foot by interrogating their commitment to western democratic ideals, but rather to provide a neutral space for debate about political reform, human rights, the relationship between religion and state and regional political, economic and security dynamics. Although few conclusions were reached, the process of dialogue was valuable in and of itself.
It would be difficult, if not impractical and even counterproductive, for western governments to formulate a single strategy for engaging with non-violent Islamist parties across the MENA region. The context in each country is very different, and policy will have to be based on a careful assessment as to what is appropriate and feasible in any given case. But the focus must surely be on finding more avenues for frank discussion of this kind. At a time when there are so many walls – both political and physical – that divide people within the region and separate them from partners in the West, it is essential to start building a few more bridges.
Alex Glennie is a Research Assistant in ippr's International Team. Her reports include Reform in Jordan: The role of political Islamists, and Reform in Morocco: The role of political Islamists.
North American and European policymakers have often been criticised for their tendency to treat political Islam as a monolithic and uniformly negative phenomenon, and for their failure to appreciate the role that non-violent Islamist parties could potentially play in addressing political stagnation in the region. This charge is perhaps no longer as fair as it used to be. In recent years, there has been increasing recognition of the fact that political Islam is not a fixed ideology with a clearly identifiable set of values and objectives, but rather a fluid phenomenon that encompasses a range of movements with different philosophies, principles and agendas.
A number of serious commentators in Europe and North America also now stress the need for western governments to be open to the idea of direct engagement with those Islamist groups in the Middle East and North Africa that have formally renounced the use of violence and that seek to work through legal political processes to achieve their goals, such as the Party of Justice and Development in Morocco, the Islamic Action Front in Jordan and even the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. As organisations like the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace argue, these groups currently offer the strongest and most popular opposition to existing authoritarian regimes and efforts should therefore be made to draw them into the wider dialogue about regional political reform. But to date, this argument has failed to translate into the formulation of realistic strategies for engaging with mainstream political Islam. To paraphrase Edward Djerejian, former US Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, we are still building more walls than bridges in our policies towards political Islamists.
Some western governments have been more receptive to the idea of dialogue than others. In 2005, the German Federal Foreign Office released a policy paper recommending that potential avenues of collaboration with non-violent Islamist movements in the Arab world should be explored. More controversially, publication of a series of leaked memos in the New Statesman journal in early 2006 revealed that political analysts within the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office were in favour of enhancing contacts with members of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. It was suggested that the British government should be trying to influence this group, given the extent of its grassroots support in Egypt, and noted that engaging with the Brotherhood would provide an opportunity to challenge their perception of the West, including of the UK, as well as their prescriptions for solving the challenges facing Egypt and the region.
However, whatever official support may have existed within European and North American governments for taking steps towards developing contacts with non-violent Islamist movements has been weakened in the past few years by the backlash to these tentative shifts in policy from elements of the media and policymaking establishment. Indeed, the mandate of the unit within the FCO that was responsible for ‘engaging with the Islamic world’ was fundamentally changed in 2007: it now focuses more on countering radicalisation and terrorism than on promoting dialogue with political actors in the region.
Enthusiasm for practical engagement with political Islamists also seems to have been sapped by endless circular discussions about the democratic credentials of mainstream Islamist groups. Instead of asking how we might engage more effectively, many policymakers are still asking whether this is feasible or desirable. This is linked to their concerns about Islamist violence and terrorism in both domestic and international contexts, but also relates to their wider strategic and political interests in the MENA region, some of which they perceive to be threatened by the rising popularity and influence of Islamist parties and movements. For their part, Islamist groups have also displayed a strong reluctance to enter into dialogue with those western governments whose policies in the region they oppose, particularly the United States and the United Kingdom. Both sides have legitimate concerns about the implications of forging closer ties, but a failure even to discuss these issues will do little to move the debate forward.
To this end, in November 2008, ippr held an international symposium on the theme of political Islam in the Middle East and North Africa. Alongside members of the western political establishment, academia and civil society, it also involved current or former representatives of a number of Islamist parties, including the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, the Jordanian Islamic Action Front, the Tunisian al-Nahda Party and Hezbollah. The aim of the conference was not to put Islamists on the back foot by interrogating their commitment to western democratic ideals, but rather to provide a neutral space for debate about political reform, human rights, the relationship between religion and state and regional political, economic and security dynamics. Although few conclusions were reached, the process of dialogue was valuable in and of itself.
It would be difficult, if not impractical and even counterproductive, for western governments to formulate a single strategy for engaging with non-violent Islamist parties across the MENA region. The context in each country is very different, and policy will have to be based on a careful assessment as to what is appropriate and feasible in any given case. But the focus must surely be on finding more avenues for frank discussion of this kind. At a time when there are so many walls – both political and physical – that divide people within the region and separate them from partners in the West, it is essential to start building a few more bridges.
Alex Glennie is a Research Assistant in ippr's International Team. Her reports include Reform in Jordan: The role of political Islamists, and Reform in Morocco: The role of political Islamists.
Sunday, 28 September 2008
Public services agenda: agreeing to agree.
The themes of personalism and localism have run through all of ippr's public services debates at party conferences, and today's event is no different. All parties have emphasised the importance of personalisation and empowering local communities, but as Labour MP Tony McNulty pointed out last week, there are still massive challenges ahead for public service delivery.
When differentiating the Conservatives' public service policy from the other parties, former Health Secretary Stephen Dorrell MP acknowledged that there is currently a consensus in policy but questioned the depth of Labour's commitment to the policies of pluralism and localism.
Dorrell also spoke of the 'hard edge' of localism, being that we will have to be comfortable with the fact that localism means 'local variety'. In other words, the edge will be a lot harder for some than for others.
Both Susan Anderson of CBI and Sarah McKee of A4e stressed that public expectations are ultra high for service delivery, and that public opinion is low. The pace of reform can not keep up with rising expectations.
Stephen Dorrell points out the size of ippr's hotel rooms.
Nick Hurd MP, also in on the joke. Eliot Whittington, clearly concerned.
When differentiating the Conservatives' public service policy from the other parties, former Health Secretary Stephen Dorrell MP acknowledged that there is currently a consensus in policy but questioned the depth of Labour's commitment to the policies of pluralism and localism.
Dorrell also spoke of the 'hard edge' of localism, being that we will have to be comfortable with the fact that localism means 'local variety'. In other words, the edge will be a lot harder for some than for others.
Both Susan Anderson of CBI and Sarah McKee of A4e stressed that public expectations are ultra high for service delivery, and that public opinion is low. The pace of reform can not keep up with rising expectations.
Stephen Dorrell points out the size of ippr's hotel rooms.Next door the ippr panel debated how to achieve a global deal on climate change:
Nick Hurd MP, also in on the joke. Eliot Whittington, clearly concerned.Sunday, 21 September 2008
Localism: Liberator or fraud?
A fair question perhaps, but not one expected from Tony McNulty MP, whose Ministerial portfolio has previously included housing, planning and transport (he is currently Home Office Minister of State for Security, Counter-terrorism, Crime and Policing).
McNulty: Devolution my ass, Major.*
McNulty wasn't shy in stirring the pot at ippr's first event in Manchester, strongly challenging the effectiveness of public service devolution in practice and citing example upon example of the shortcomings of localism in public services over the past decade.
Firm in the belief that public service localism doesn't actually matter the majority of people in increasingly autonomous communities, he also added that devolution of public services often benefits public service professionals far more than the public service users.
Anna Coote, Commissioner for Health, Sustainable Development Commission, suggested that with the economy dipping into possible depression, the Government needs to find other resources within local communities to boost public service outcomes. She said the Government must re-engineer public services and draw more heavily from the 'core services' in local communities: skills, knowledge and time from the individuals in the community.
She said the state must invest in mechanisms to allow new partnerships and co-productions with community groups to improve public services.
Susan Anderson of CBI spoke of the need for improved access to public services and a stronger emphasis on customer satisfaction. She also addressed the need to build new and better relationships between private service suppliers and government.
*Gratuitous reference to The Wire because I can't be at The Wire Weekend at the Curzon Cinema in Soho. One McNulty in exchange for another.
McNulty: Devolution my ass, Major.*McNulty wasn't shy in stirring the pot at ippr's first event in Manchester, strongly challenging the effectiveness of public service devolution in practice and citing example upon example of the shortcomings of localism in public services over the past decade.
Firm in the belief that public service localism doesn't actually matter the majority of people in increasingly autonomous communities, he also added that devolution of public services often benefits public service professionals far more than the public service users.
Anna Coote, Commissioner for Health, Sustainable Development Commission, suggested that with the economy dipping into possible depression, the Government needs to find other resources within local communities to boost public service outcomes. She said the Government must re-engineer public services and draw more heavily from the 'core services' in local communities: skills, knowledge and time from the individuals in the community.
She said the state must invest in mechanisms to allow new partnerships and co-productions with community groups to improve public services.
Susan Anderson of CBI spoke of the need for improved access to public services and a stronger emphasis on customer satisfaction. She also addressed the need to build new and better relationships between private service suppliers and government.
*Gratuitous reference to The Wire because I can't be at The Wire Weekend at the Curzon Cinema in Soho. One McNulty in exchange for another.
Wednesday, 17 September 2008
Wearing a black tie with a white shirt is only going to get you confused with the catering staff.
Hi everyone. No I don't know where the Dorchester Suite is.
The last night of ippr's Liberal Democrat events saw us joined by Lembit Opik, Spokesperson for Housing and Segway enthusiast.
Lembit highlighted that we are in a time when more people are living alone, we have more households, and we have a growing population, all of which are contributing to the housing problems in the UK.
He spoke of developing partnerships within local communities between government, developers, and the community in order to give the communities the housings they need. However, according to panelist David Tuffin, local engagement often fails due to the lack of professionalism in planning departments, with poor wages and overworked employees delivering poor results in housing.
Tuffin brought a technical point of view to the panel, and said there is no point building cheap houses for high profits, as people will end up paying more in the long run while developers continue to make profits.
The debate went back to Lembit, who proposed that central government give money to local authorities for social housing in order to stimulate the affordable housing market and create positive equity for local authorities.
Addressing the social element of the housing issue was Heather Petch from the Housing Associations Charitable Trust. She highlighted the urgency in the need for a boost in housing supply, and added that we cannot possibly address other pressing social problems without adequate housing.
She also added that there is a problem with the isolation of housing from other services. This 'silo approach', particularly the separation of housing from education and health, is limiting outcomes in this area.
We weren't at all expecting a karate demo.
So the sun sets on a successful sojourn to Bournemouth, many thanks to all speakers, sponsors and delegates for making it all possible. See you in Manchester...
The last night of ippr's Liberal Democrat events saw us joined by Lembit Opik, Spokesperson for Housing and Segway enthusiast.
Lembit highlighted that we are in a time when more people are living alone, we have more households, and we have a growing population, all of which are contributing to the housing problems in the UK.
He spoke of developing partnerships within local communities between government, developers, and the community in order to give the communities the housings they need. However, according to panelist David Tuffin, local engagement often fails due to the lack of professionalism in planning departments, with poor wages and overworked employees delivering poor results in housing.
Tuffin brought a technical point of view to the panel, and said there is no point building cheap houses for high profits, as people will end up paying more in the long run while developers continue to make profits.
The debate went back to Lembit, who proposed that central government give money to local authorities for social housing in order to stimulate the affordable housing market and create positive equity for local authorities.
Addressing the social element of the housing issue was Heather Petch from the Housing Associations Charitable Trust. She highlighted the urgency in the need for a boost in housing supply, and added that we cannot possibly address other pressing social problems without adequate housing.
She also added that there is a problem with the isolation of housing from other services. This 'silo approach', particularly the separation of housing from education and health, is limiting outcomes in this area.
We weren't at all expecting a karate demo.Monday, 15 September 2008
If the Lib Dems are all about fairness, why is everyone pushing in front of me at the bar? (also: debate on children's issues and education)
Another standing-room-only event tonight, this time with debate centred around children and education.
The UK's first Children's Commissioner Al Aynsley-Green opened the event, combating David Cameron's 'broken society' rhetoric. He says the 'traditional family is ancient history' and that quality of parenting is far more important than family structure in outcomes for children. He added that some communities are locked into the cycle of low aspirations, low skills, low wages.
A major theme running throughout tonight's debate is the lack of aspiration in young people from deprived backgrounds. This often is fueled by a knock-on effect that families themselves have no aspirations for their children.
David Collins from the Association of Schools said the national curriculum is a complete disaster, as it does not take account to the fact that children learn best when the subjects are relevant to them. He said that students are not seeing relevance in what they are studying, and that curriculum should relate to the world around them.
David Laws MP also says we don't have a "broken society", just a broken part of society (the bottom 25%, who are 'fragmented and dysfunctional'). He also discussed the importance raising aspiration among young people.
ippr: 20 years of panel lols
Then it was over to the Marriott bar to wrestle our way towards getting served a few pints. Always a joy at conference, especially considering everyone in front of you orders about 30 pints at once, so by the time you actually get back to your colleagues you find everyone flying around with jet packs, and that humans have in fact evolved into two distinct species.
The UK's first Children's Commissioner Al Aynsley-Green opened the event, combating David Cameron's 'broken society' rhetoric. He says the 'traditional family is ancient history' and that quality of parenting is far more important than family structure in outcomes for children. He added that some communities are locked into the cycle of low aspirations, low skills, low wages.
A major theme running throughout tonight's debate is the lack of aspiration in young people from deprived backgrounds. This often is fueled by a knock-on effect that families themselves have no aspirations for their children.
David Collins from the Association of Schools said the national curriculum is a complete disaster, as it does not take account to the fact that children learn best when the subjects are relevant to them. He said that students are not seeing relevance in what they are studying, and that curriculum should relate to the world around them.
David Laws MP also says we don't have a "broken society", just a broken part of society (the bottom 25%, who are 'fragmented and dysfunctional'). He also discussed the importance raising aspiration among young people.
ippr: 20 years of panel lolsThen it was over to the Marriott bar to wrestle our way towards getting served a few pints. Always a joy at conference, especially considering everyone in front of you orders about 30 pints at once, so by the time you actually get back to your colleagues you find everyone flying around with jet packs, and that humans have in fact evolved into two distinct species.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)