Embedding democratic innovations in government institutions

Chapter 1: Embedding democratic

innovations in government

institutions

1.1 Introduction

Often heralded as a corrective to what are regarded as the limitations of elected

representation, democratic innovations have burgeoned over the past few

decades. Scholars and proponents alike have framed these practices as a

compelling counterbalance to claims of a ‘democratic deficit’ (Norris, 2011),

premised on the often-reported declining trust in government and the perceived

capacity, or propensity, of elected representatives to genuinely champion their

constituents and the public good (see Dovi, 2016; Mansbridge, 2003; Fishkin,

2011). Democratic innovations are championed as a way to broaden political

dialogue and legitimise policy decisions, expanding the locus of deliberation

from a select and often homogeneous group of elected representatives to

broader inclusion of the citizenry (see Gutmann & Thompson, 2009).

Proponents advance that through this active participation of ‘ordinary people’,

not beholden to any vested interests or hidden agendas, the common good can

ensue, and democratic innovations may even ‘save democracy’ (Stoker &

Evans, 2022).

Within this, there are various ontological bases for the materiality of democratic

innovations, including normative – that is, citizens have the right to be involved

in decisions that affect their lives, which in some cases is demanded by a newly

assertive democratic culture (Stoker & Evans, 2022; Beauvais & Baechtiger,

2016); epistemic – that broader descriptive representation results in accessing

more diverse expertise and nuanced understandings of policy issues that will

contribute to making better decisions (Habermas, 1990; Pateman, 1970;

Fishkin, 2011; Young, 2002); and pragmatic – that involving citizens better

informs elected representatives of decisions and policies that will be supported

and accepted by their constituents (Nabatchi, 2010). These cogent arguments

have led to what has been described as a ‘deliberative wave’ (OECD, 2020),

with governments increasingly applying democratic innovations that putatively

devolve power and encourage public participation to tackle complex policy

problems through processes such as citizen’s assemblies, mini-publics, and

participatory budgeting.

However, whilst the enthusiasm for democratic innovations has been expansive,

for the most part, these innovations have not been integrated into the overall

system of representative government or democratic institutions, nor have they

become part of the ‘regular political cycle in the life of a community’ (Pateman,

2012, p. 10). In fact, most democratic innovations have been discrete initiatives

delivered in response to a policy issue rather than embedded in the practices of

government decision-making in an ongoing manner. Furthermore, various

studies have found that the consequentiality of democratic innovations is

relatively limited (Ryan, 2013; Font et al., 2018), even to the point of rendering

them trivial (Fung, 2015, p. 521). They have, by and large, not created the

substantive long-term democratic change they espouse (Goodin & Dryzek,

2006; Johnson, 2015; Spada & Ryan, 2017).

Perhaps to address this, more recently, there has been an emphasis on the

institutionalisation of the practices through legal and regulatory frameworks,

thereby embedding greater citizen participation in the formal structures of

decision-making (see, for example, Smith, 2009; Bussu et al., 2022; OECD,

2020). However, even in contexts where democratic innovations have been

legislated, there has been what Lowndes (2005) described as an ‘institutional

stickiness’ (p. 296), where the practices of government agencies were

effectively no different despite legislation for more public participation. There is

still a risk that, even if legislated, democratic innovations become intermittent

sites for greater public participation and government organisations quickly revert

to ‘business as usual’ once completed. In this case, it could be argued that they

are doing little to shift the ‘crisis of legitimacy’ that representative democratic

structures have experienced and the premise from which democratic

innovations emerged. It is reasonable to suggest that, if democratic innovations

are to live up to their democratic ideals and advance a more citizen-centred

approach to policymaking, consideration needs to be given to what exactly is

underpinning this ‘institutional stickiness’.

One of the key assertions of this thesis is that any examination of the

institutionalisation of democratic innovations needs to consider the context

within which they are realised; therefore, a better understanding of their

relationship with representative systems of government is crucial. The thesis

proposes an approach that focuses on the institutional conditions that support

democratic innovations beyond discrete and isolated initiatives; in particular, the

organisational capacities and authorising environments that influence and

constrain the practices. Here, a substantial gap in knowledge around how

democratic innovations are embedded and institutionalised in government

decision-making presents itself. Smith (2009) suggests this gap stems from an

over-reliance on the normative ideals of democratic innovations and their

utilitarian claims, leading to a failure to systematically engage in the ‘messy’ and

detailed task of institutional design. Warren (2017, p. 39) goes further to

suggest that empirical research and a rapidly growing number of practical

experiments around democratic innovations are also too preoccupied with

different models and their relative merits or limitations.

In addition to Smith’s (2009) and Warren’s (2017) suggestions, consideration

should be given to how the perceived dichotomy between democratic

innovations and elected representation may have informed the integration of

both. Although theorists of democratic innovations vary in terms of how critical

they are of existing representative institutions, when considered in the light of

the epistemic and pragmatic impetuses described earlier, democratic

innovations can be conceived of as strengthening the legitimacy of

representative institutions by producing more informed and reasoned solutions

to policy issues (Fung, 2015; Thompson, 2019). In this way, democratic

innovations are not an alternative to representative democracy, but rather an

expansion of it (Chambers, 2003). Within this context, even if those

commissioning the practices are favourably disposed to democratic innovations

and convinced of their potential benefits, the undertaking must still be reconciled

with existing processes and institutional structures of decisionmaking. As such,

further consideration needs to be given to the implications for government

institutions and how they evolve and adapt to operate under the changed

expectations of democratic innovations (see Fung & Wright, 2001; Smith, 2009;

Hartz-Karp & Briand, 2009a; Aulich, 2009).

Further to the need for greater examination of the interconnectedness of

democratic innovations with systems of government, it seems that much of the

scholarship has neglected the importance of public administration in the

institutionalisation of the practices. Some scholars have recognised public

administration as having a fundamental role in determining the extent of

democratic innovations (Nabatchi, 2010), particularly because they control the

way these practices are integrated into policymaking processes and, therefore,

their potential impact (Jantti et al., 2023; Blijleven et al., 2019; Eckerd &

Heidelberg, 2020). However, even where scholars recognise the importance of

the broader governance ecology, further elaboration is often lacking. Instead,

this aspect is subsumed by assumptions that public managers will diligently and

capably support democratic innovations once their benefits are better

understood and mandated by the authorising environment.

These under-examined areas of scholarship have meant that, despite the

prolific amount of research about the normative ideals of democratic

innovations, the conditions for their institutionalisation remain elusive. As

governments continue to set intentions through policy positions and legislative

reforms, such as the case study under analysis for this thesis, this research

argues that examining how those intentions translate to embedded practice in

government organisations is critical. Inherent in this, how policy actors interpret

democratic innovations is tantamount to whether the practices prevail over the

myriad spoken and unspoken incentives or disincentives that influence policy

actors’ decisions and courses of action. This thesis contributes to scholarship by

analysing democratic innovations from this distinctive standpoint. The thesis

posits that a more nuanced understanding of what might underpin the hitherto

‘institutional stickiness’ may support democratic innovations to achieve their

normative ideals, and therefore, better inform future reforms of this nature.

1.2 Research approach

The research focuses on the Victorian Local Government Act 2020 as a case

study and explores how local governments in Victoria adapted to the new

legislative requirements that mandated ‘deliberative engagement practices’. The

context of the actual legislation, its development and authorising environment

are explained later in this chapter, while this section outlines how the research

was conducted.

As noted in the previous section, the research is premised on the contention

that, to fully understand how democratic innovations are realised, a more

indepth exploration of how they are embedded in the systems of public

administration is required. To achieve this, the research applies public value

theory, and in particular, the public value strategic triangle (and the three points

– value, authorising environment, and operational capacity), to create a more

layered understanding of the dynamic interplay between various incentives and

constraints placed on policy actors. As explained in detail in Chapter 3, the

public value strategic triangle is also useful as a heuristic device and a way of

conceptualising and organising the research approach. In line with the public

value strategic triangle the research poses the following research questions:

• How are deliberative engagement practices understood and interpreted by

local government organisations?

• How does the authorising environment influence the design and

implementation of deliberative engagement practices, including their

perceived legitimacy?

• How do organisational cultures and constraints inform how deliberative

engagement practices are designed and implemented?

The first question explores how the deliberative engagement requirements of

the legislation are interpreted and understood by local government

organisations, analysing the dominant discourses and practices that emerge

from sense-making processes. The second question interrogates how the

authorising environment responds to the legislation by examining how it confers

legitimacy on the deliberative engagement practices, particularly how the

authorising environment perceives the representative claims of the deliberative

cohorts. Finally, the third question brings attention back to the organisational

context and analyses how existing systems, cultures, and norms influence how

deliberative engagement practices are embedded within local government

systems and, ultimately, how this affects their institutionalisation.

As can be seen by the questions, rather than pose one overarching question, in

line with public value theory the research explores three distinct, yet

interconnected, lines of inquiry around public value, authorising environment

and operational capacity. Furthermore, instead of looking at the deliberative

engagement practices themselves and the constituent parts that render them

deliberative or not, or arguing the benefits of one process over another, the

research focuses specifically on how the practices are operationalised.

In addition to public value theory as a frame of reference, the research also

applies an institutionalist lens and therefore recognises that there are inherent

incentives and deterrents within any organisational structure and that these can

either support or prevent policy actors from taking certain courses of action. An

institutionalist lens means that the research pays particular attention to the

constraints and conditions that influence and shape the decisions of policy

actors, therefore, acts as a useful reference point to better analyse how public

managers engage with, interpret, and then implement deliberative engagement

practices.

By approaching the research through an institutionalist lens, the research seeks

to explore the nuance of situated meaning, stemming from an understanding

that this meaning is highly contextualised, and the agency of policy actors is

influenced not only by formal written rules and conventions but also the tacit and

unspoken drivers of ‘the way we do things here’. As such, this lends itself to an

interpretivist research approach. The research does not attempt to identify

phenomena that might be replicated or objectively true in all cases but instead

sees the benefit of exploring the plurality of experiences and sense-making to

gain a more complete understanding of the incentives and drivers for

institutional change.

Regarding research design, the Victorian Local Government Act 2020 can

arguably be considered a historically distinctive event, therefore falling into the

category of a ‘remarkable circumstance’ that Yin (2009) suggests makes for

more compelling and better case studies. Further to this, the case study method

is germane because of its ability to investigate a contemporary phenomenon in

depth and within its real-world context (Yin, 2012), and, therefore, to draw out a

broader understanding of how deliberative engagement practices are

interpreted and applied across Victoria, in different councils, and with varying

degrees of capacity and resolve. While the research specifically examines how

the mandated requirements of ‘deliberative engagement practices’ are applied

for the development of a council’s key strategic planning document, the council

plan, it also utilises several embedded units of analysis to ensure there are

multiple sources of evidence, more plurality of viewpoints, and increased

opportunities for extensive analysis (Yin, 2012; Creswell, 2016). This involves a

mixed methods research approach and, therefore, both qualitative and

quantitative data, which includes interviews, observation, documents, artefacts,

and sector-wide surveys. The combination of approaches means that the

research is able to draw data at a micro level of individual councils’ experiences

through qualitative instruments such as interviews, and then broaden out to the

more macro scale of quantitative methods such as surveys to position findings

within the broader Victorian local government sector context. Finally, the data

analysis ensures the integration of both qualitative and quantitative data,

continually adapting and responding to circumstances as they emerge and

testing findings against multiple sources of evidence and interpretation before

arriving at conclusions.

Whilst the thesis is situated firmly in the organisational context and focused on

public administration, which it argues is critical for understanding how

democratic innovations are institutionalised, this is not to say that there were not

a variety of other foci that could have been pursued. The Victorian Local

Government Act 2020 provided a breadth of what would have been worthwhile

avenues for empirical research. For example, how organisations engaged a

select group to ‘represent’ their fellow community members and how these

groups were juxtaposed with elected representatives would have been valuable

for a better understanding of the constructs of representative claims within

democratic innovations. The research acknowledges that any frame of

reference can be considered in terms of not only what it sheds light on but also

where it remains silent: ‘a way of seeing is also a way of not seeing and a focus

upon object A involves a neglect of object B’ (Merton, 1940, p. 562). Accepting

this, a focus on the institutional conditions and constraints is prioritised because

it was considered integral to the impact of deliberative engagement practices

and realising their normative claims.

1.3 The Victorian Local Government Act 2020: a case study for

the institutionalisation of democratic innovations

As noted in the previous section, the case study for this research is the Victorian

Local Government Act 2020, which states that:

Council must adopt and maintain a community engagement policy which

must; give effect to the community engagement principles; and be

capable of being applied in relation to any of the Council's strategic

planning or policy development and include deliberative engagement

practices which must be capable of being applied to the development of

the Community Vision, Council Plan, Financial Plan and Asset Plan.

(s.55(2)(g) - emphasis added)

This section provides an overview of the context for the legislative reform,

including the broader authorising environment and an account of how the

legislation was established.

1.3.1 The Victorian local government context and authorising

environment

In Victoria, local government is made up of 79 councils comprising 22

metropolitan, 9 interface, 19 large shire, 10 regional, and 19 small shire councils

(VAGO, n.d.). Broadly, established urban areas fall into the category of

metropolitan councils, whilst interface councils are the outer urban suburbs that

are experiencing significant growth, and rural areas are governed by shire

councils.

As with other Australian jurisdictions, local government is established by an Act

of the state’s parliament; in this case, the Victorian Local Government Act 2020.

This is the principal legislation that governs councils; it outlines the purposes

and functions of local government as well as provides the legal framework for

establishing and administering the responsibilities for local government.

These councils operate under numerous layers of oversight, including

councilinitiatives processes as well as external agencies (MAV, 2020). Figure

1.1 illustrates the authorising environment for local government in Victoria,

including some of the key stakeholders, particularly those relevant to this study.

Figure 1.1 Victorian local government authorising environment

State government bodies:

Local Government Victoria provides advice and support to councils and the

Minister for Local Government. This entity is responsible for ‘overseeing

legislation and working with councils to support responsive and accountable

local government services’ (LGV, n.d.). This organisation was the key conduit

for distributing information and engaging with the sector around the legislative

changes.

Oversight Agencies

Victorian Auditor General (VAGO)

Independent Broad -based Anti -Corruption Commission (IBAC)

Victorian Ombudsman

Local Government Inspectorate

Source: Author’s own

Victorian Local

Government Act 2020

Peak industry bodies

VLGA

LGPro

MAV

79 Councils

22 Metro

Interface9

19 Large shire

10 Regional

19 Small shire

LOCAL

GOVERNMENT

STATE

GOVERNMENT

Department of

Government

Services

Local Government

Victoria )LGV(

Department of Government Services is currently responsible for the local

government portfolio and, therefore, managing Local Government Victoria.

However, this department was called the Department of Environment, Land,

Water and Planning (DELWP) when the Victorian Local Government Act 2020

was developed.1

Victorian Auditor-General is responsible for ‘conducting audits to ensure that

public sector entities are transparent and accountable to the Victorian

Parliament and the community’ (VAGO, n.d.). It has conducted various audits on

the participation practices of both local and state government in Victoria. In

2015, VAGO published Public Participation in Government Decision-making:

Better Practice Guide and then in 2017, it released its Public Participation and

Community Engagement: Local Government Sector Report.

These three organisations are most relevant to the thesis; however, it is

important to note that the Victorian local government authorising environment

also includes the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission (IBAC),

Local Government Inspectorate, and Victorian Ombudsman. These

organisations can investigate the conduct of councils, councillors, and council

staff. In the most serious circumstances, the State Government has the power

to dismiss an elected council and appoint administrators to act in the equivalent

role of councillors (MAV, 2020).

Peak industry bodies

Whilst not necessarily ‘authorising’ bodies, the three peak industry bodies for

local government in Victoria also played a significant role during the

development of the Act, as well as in the initial stages of its implementation.

These bodies include:

Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV) ‘is a membership association and the

legislated peak body for local government in Victoria’ (MAV, n.d.). It offers

business services to council members, including governance and legislative

1 Some relevant documents regarding the legislation were also published when the local government

portfolio was in the Department of Jobs, Skills, Industry and Regions (DJSIR).

advice, insurance, and procurement services.

LGPro is a member association for people working in local government in

Victoria. It provides ‘leadership, professional development, advocacy, and

representation in the pursuit of excellence’ (LGPro, n.d.).

Victorian Local Government Association (VLGA) is an independent governance

organisation supporting councils and councillors. It provides opportunities for

councillor networking and actively engages with ‘key policymakers and broader

stakeholders to inform, influence and lead the conversations that determine the

priorities for the local government sector in Victoria and support good

governance at the local level’ (VLGA, n.d.).

It could be said that each of the organisations in this section played an

instrumental role in driving the narratives during the development of the

Victorian Local Government Act 2020 and, therefore, formed an important part

of the context for this case study.

1.3.2 Review and development of a new Local Government

Act

The Victorian government launched its review of the Local Government Act

1989 in September 2015, describing it as ‘the first comprehensive review of

local government in a quarter of a century’ (DELWP, 2015, p. 6). This review

was generally welcomed and considered imperative given that, since 1989,

there had been over 90 amending acts resulting in hundreds of additions that

meant the Act had grown from what was originally a 136-page document to one

of over 450 pages (Blacher, 2015, p. 2).

The subsequent development of the Victorian Local Government Act 2020

extended over a 5-year period and was described as ‘one of the most

exhaustive engagement processes of any piece of legislation in government’

(Jennings, 2019). Indeed, prima facie five years to conduct a reform process

may appear inordinate; however, as Savini and Grant (2020) point out, this is

not unusual in Australia. Savini and Grant (2020) provide examples of several

reform efforts across Australia that were protracted, highlighting that due to the

nature of local government reform being intrinsically concerned with political

reorganisation, for the most part, it is highly vexatious and, as such, usually

subject to processes of ‘appreciative inquiry’ rather than reform (p. 517).

Figure 1.2 (below) demonstrates the major milestones and consultations that

informed this extensive process. As can be seen in Figure 1.2, the review

commenced with a ‘Discussion Paper’ (2015); an advisory committee made up

of councillors, former CEOs, and academics; various community forums; and

the publication of 12 Background Papers (see DELWP, 2016, ‘Appendix 6

Commissioned research of the Discussion Paper’). Over the next 5-year period,

consultation for the review was marked by the publication of two further key

documents aligned to the next consultation stages: a ‘Directions Paper’ (2016)

and an ‘Exposure Draft Bill’ (2018). Collectively, the three documents that were

published during the review received 871 submissions from the local

government sector, community organisations, and community members. These

have been examined in detail by Savini and Grant (2020) and are further

explored in Chapter 5. Alongside these documents, several technical working

groups were established (see DELWP, 2016, ‘Appendix 4 Technical Working

Group Members of the Discussion Paper’), as well as continued engagement

via community forums and meetings with peak associations.

Figure 1.2 Development of Victorian Local Government Act 2020: Milestones

Source: Adapted from Savini & Grant (2020)

This considerable review process eventuated in the Victorian Local Government

Act 2020, which received Royal Assent on 24 March 2020. The resultant Act is

multi-faceted and includes several reforms to local government practices,

including several new policy requirements. Amongst these, one of the

legislators’ core claims was that it would ‘put community at the centre of council

decision-making’ (Jennings, 2019). This involved a range of new and extensive

community engagement principles and, particularly for this thesis, mandating

that all Victorian local governments undertake ‘deliberative engagement

practices’ when developing their major strategic planning documents.

As will be expanded in Chapter 5, the mandated ‘deliberative engagement

practices’ presented a significant departure from the more moderate

expectations around community engagement that had preceded them.

Furthermore, while involving citizens in policymaking was arguably common

practice for local governments in Victoria, democratic innovations were less

widespread when the reforms of the Victorian Local Government Act 2020 were

introduced.

This study focuses on how this legislative reform translated into practice, as all

79 councils across Victoria revised their community engagement processes and

implemented ‘deliberative engagement practices’ for the first time. It posits that,

whilst the State Government’s policy intentions were clear, ultimately, how the

legislation is interpreted and operationalised by policy actors is fundamental to

the realisation of those intentions. As a case study, by examining such an

ambitious and extensive state-wide initiative, the thesis contends that it is a

unique empirical context for studying the institutionalisation of democratic

innovations.

1.4 Outline of the thesis

This chapter introduces the thesis topic, outlining that while democratic

innovations have increasingly been applied to address the perceived limitations

of elected representation, for the most part, little is known about how they are

integrated into existing systems and institutionalised. The key assertion of the

thesis, that a more expansive understanding of how this integration occurs and

the role of public administration would be worthwhile, is introduced. This chapter

also provides a brief account of the research approach and how it is positioned

within the Victorian Local Government Act 2020 case study. Finally, the chapter

describes the context in which the study was undertaken with an overview of the

Victorian local government authorising environment, how the legislation was

developed, and a brief explanation that the reforms were a significant departure

from previous expectations regarding public participation in council

decisionmaking.

Chapter 2 places the thesis within the context of a significant body of existing

literature regarding democratic innovations. It highlights that, despite scholars

acknowledging that democratic innovations cannot be separated from systems

of elected representation, the extant literature has limited empirical exploration

of how they are embedded into those systems and hypothesises that this is

required if the practices are to fulfil their promise of democratic renewal. In

particular, the chapter draws attention to the role of public administration, which,

it argues, has consequential influence over how the practices are

operationalised. The chapter examines how several scholars and proponents

have conceptualised the effective institutionalisation of democratic innovations

to draw out what they reveal about the role of public administration. It then

provides some examples of how democratic innovations have been

institutionalised around the world. These examples indicate some institutional

constraints; however, they also demonstrate that relatively little is known about

how democratic innovations interact with the authorising environments and

operational capacities of government bodies. Finally, the chapter draws

attention to the fact that, despite their relatively muted outcomes around

‘democratic renewal’, democratic innovations have nonetheless proliferated,

and the conceptual and normative understandings associated with them have

prevailed to create a variety of ongoing commitments to its institutionalisation,

such as the Victorian Local Government Act 2020. Chapter 2, therefore,

underscores this study’s contention: without a greater understanding of the

institutional constraints policy actors must manage, integrating deliberative

engagement practices into decision-making processes can be compromised by

‘institutional stickiness’.

Having established the need for a more comprehensive understanding of the

institutional constraints that policy actors operate within, Chapter 3 introduces

the two key theoretical lenses applied to the research. It begins by explaining

how an institutionalist lens provides a useful vantage point for interrogating

tensions and addressing the gaps in existing knowledge. In addition, it explains

how the research has applied public value theory (in particular, the public value

strategic triangle) as a way of conceptualising and organising the dynamic

interplay of incentives and constraints on policy actors. How institutionalist and

public value theories relate to the study of democratic innovations and the

existing scholarship is outlined, and how these two theoretical approaches differ

in ontological frames of reference is explored. The chapter then presents an

analytical framework that guided the initial stages of the research. Therefore,

the chapter describes the theoretical underpinnings that were applied in the

research design and argues how they provide a more layered understanding of

the interconnections and variety of determinants that influenced the realisation

of deliberative engagement practices in Victoria.

Chapter 4 sets out the research design, connecting the theoretical

underpinnings with the research methodology and its interpretivist ontological

and epistemological foundations. The chapter sets out the research questions

and then explains why the case study method was chosen and, in particular,

why the Victorian Local Government Act 2020 presented a compelling site for

analysis. The chapter establishes the precise unit of analysis and, therefore, the

scope of focus for the case study, before describing the embedded units of

analysis, which include in-depth engagement with three councils coupled with

broader sector data such as interviews with consultants and sector-wide

surveys. The mixed methods research approach is then outlined; the chapter

explains the qualitative and quantitative data collection instruments along with

the rationales for including them in the research design. This is followed by an

account of the data analysis and how the research integrated the multiple data

sources to establish findings. Overall, the chapter demonstrates how the

research approach continually adapted and responded to circumstances as

they emerged in a manner that ensured the findings were consistently

interrogated against multiple sources of evidence and interpretation.

Chapter 5 outlines key changes in community engagement requirements that

were part of the Victorian Local Government Act 2020 and how they were a

significant departure from the requirements of the preceding Act. It establishes a

context for this reform, including the events and actors that are likely to have

influenced the Victorian State Government and some of the dominant narratives

that accompanied the legislation. Following this, it examines how local

governments perceived the proposed mandating of ‘deliberative engagement

practices’ through the submissions they made to the State Government during

consultation. These indicate widespread scepticism around the suitability of the

practices and the capabilities of councils to effectively implement the new

requirements. The chapter, therefore, provides an initial account of the Victorian

local government sector’s response to deliberative engagement practices and

its preparedness to adopt the practices, and identifies some of the perceived

constraints and concerns that would have informed how the practices were

implemented.

Chapter 6 considers the ‘principles-based’ nature of the legislation and

examines the implications of not providing a definition for ‘deliberative

engagement practices’ in the Act. It analyses the resultant sense-making that

occurred in the initial stages of the Act’s implementation, and then, through the

prism of Lowndes and Roberts’ (2013) rules, practices and narratives, the

chapter considers how councils defined and then applied deliberative

engagement practices. It considers the dominant narratives that may have

influenced the way the practices were understood and ultimately formalised by

councils in their community engagement policies. The chapter highlights how

some of the rules and practices that emerged in Victoria were inherently

contradictory to the commonly recognised epistemic and normative principles of

democratic innovations, and then indicates how this disjuncture may have

occurred.

Chapter 7 considers the authorising environment by examining in detail how

decision-makers conferred legitimacy on deliberative engagement practices.

The chapter begins with an exploration of the different approaches that were

taken for engaging elected representatives (councillors) in the design and

implementation of their deliberative engagement practices. It draws attention to

how this engagement influenced the perceived legitimacy of the deliberative

process and the deliberative cohort. The chapter then takes a broader view of

the authorising environment and positions the deliberative process within the

civic context and overall public participation ‘system’, examining the

interconnections between what could be considered the ‘deliberative’ and

‘nondeliberative’ aspects of participation. It discusses how the legitimacy of

deliberative engagement processes and their representative claims were

juxtaposed to existing systems and norms of public participation, with the later

prevailing.

Chapter 8 focuses on the operational capacity of the local government sector

and how this impacted the design and delivery of deliberative engagement

practices. It provides an overview of the complex environment in which the

legislative requirements were realised and considers the challenges presented

to council staff. In addition, it identifies how these constraints may have

influenced the emergent practices and explores the frames of reference council

staff utilised to establish what they believed were acceptable standards of

practice. The chapter also considers the two ‘dispositions’ that seemed most

prevalent in council staff. It analyses how they approached the task of

operationalising deliberative engagement practices and the types of

organisational cultures and leadership that enabled those approaches. The

chapter then reflects on capacity building and hypothesises whether improved

capabilities and resources might see expanded deliberative engagement

practices in the future.

Drawing on the individual findings from each of the empirical chapters and

contemporaneously, each research question, Chapter 9 demonstrates how the

study built on existing knowledge and expanded understandings of how

democratic innovations are institutionalised. It begins with a synopsis of the

findings as they relate to the research questions and argues that they created a

fuller description of the constraints and conditions that public managers

navigated when operationalising deliberative engagement practices in Victoria.

Four key considerations are identified and examined in the context of relevant

scholarship, explaining how the study aligns with and augments some of the

empirical research in this field. The chapter then reflects on the theoretical

frameworks utilised in the thesis, establishing how both public value theory and

institutionalism provided useful prisms through which to examine the data.

To conclude, Chapter 10 examines the contributions of the findings, particularly

in relation to the institutionalisation of democratic innovations. It identifies some

of the research limitations before proposing the research contribution and

suggestions for further research.

Chapter 2: Theoretical constructs

and empirical understandings of

institutionalising democratic

innovations

2.1 Introduction

This chapter situates the thesis within the significant body of existing literature

regarding democratic innovations and draws the parameters of the study around

the institutionalisation of the practices. It highlights the inherent connection of

democratic innovations to systems of elected representation and provides an

account of how the extant literature has explored their institutionalisation from

this paradigmatic lens. The chapter then examines how several scholars and

proponents have conceptualised the effective institutionalisation of democratic

innovations to draw out current understandings regarding the role of public

administration. The chapter provides some examples of how democratic

innovations have been institutionalised around the world and considers what

these examples might reveal about the organisational constraints that impact

actualisation. The chapter then specifically positions the research within the

context of local government and provides a brief account of how the practices

have evolved in Australia. Finally, the chapter draws attention to how democratic

innovations have continued to proliferate and how the normative

understandings of their outcomes have created a growing interest in

institutionalisation through reforms such as the Victorian Local Government Act

2020.

The chapter articulates how the research both responds to and builds on extant

literature. It establishes how, through the unique case study of the Victorian

reforms, it seeks to make a valuable contribution to this field of study.

2.2 The ‘Deliberative Wave’

In 2020, the OECD published a report titled Innovative Citizen Participation and

New Democratic Institutions: Catching the Deliberative Wave. This report

asserted that a ‘deliberative wave’ had been building over the past few decades

and that public authorities were increasingly employing these practices to

address complex policy issues (OECD, 2020). In fact, there had been many

proponents of these practices, stemming from a broad cohort of political actors,

including civil servants, elected representatives, leaders of social movements,

and for-profit service providers. Alongside the expansion in the practice of

deliberative democracy, which is highlighted in the OECD’s report, the field has

also experienced prolific theoretical contributions in political science

scholarship. Indeed, there had been extensive scholarship since the 1960s and

1970s (Arnstein, 1969; Pateman, 1970), and almost 20 years before the OECD

report, Chambers (2003) observed that the number of scholars focused on

deliberative democracy was ‘enormous’ (p. 307). Elstub (2010) has suggested

that the theory of deliberative democracy is so auspicious that it dominates

theoretical discussions (p. 291), and for their part, Dryzek (2010) noted that

deliberative democracy had been so ascendant that it was ‘hard to keep track of

the developments’ (p. v). Only a few years before the OECD report, Warren

(2017) also asserted that deliberative democratic theory was arguably one of

the most productive research paradigms within democratic theory. Finally, Mutz

(2008) made the valid observation: ‘It is difficult to exaggerate the enthusiasm

for deliberation, the amount of time and money invested in it is staggering

relative to virtually any other current social science theory’ (p. 535).

Within this landscape of deliberative zeal, any study of deliberative engagement

finds itself not only in a ‘deliberative wave’, but in what can sometimes feel like a

tsunami of literature. Even with the qualification of an empirical lens, the breadth

of studies is so widespread that any survey cannot claim to be exhaustive; it

must inevitably choose its focus and draw some distinctions. As such, the

following chapter is not a comprehensive analysis of the literature, instead, it

sets the scene for the research and critically positions it within scholarship

regarding the institutionalisation of democratic innovations.

2.2.1 The genesis of democratic innovations

Whilst the study of democratic innovations is extensive, there seems to be

relative consistency around their genesis. Most interpretations stem from the

perceived limitations of existing forms of democracy and elected representation.

Proponents have argued that democracy is ‘in crisis’ (see Norris, 2011) and that

there is growing political alienation as trust in democratic institutions declines.

This is often premised on a suspicion of elected representatives and their

capacity, or propensity, to genuinely represent their constituents (see Dovi,

2016; Mansbridge, 2003; Fishkin, 2011; Meadowcroft, 2001). In addition, the

mechanisms for holding elected representatives to account through universal

suffrage are considered too blunt and insufficient to effectively understand

citizens’ aspirations (Fung, 2003). To address this ‘democratic deficit’ (Norris,

2011), advocates of democratic innovations posit that an increased citizen voice

is a necessary counterweight to the failures of representative democracy. There

are various ontological bases within this premise, namely:

•normative – that citizens have the right to be involved in decisions that affect

their lives and that this right is increasingly demanded by a newly assertive

democratic culture (Stoker & Evans, 2022)

•epistemic – by involving citizens who have broader descriptive

representation, deliberations benefit from diverse expertise and more

nuanced understandings of policy issues, which in turn contributes to

making better policy decisions (Habermas, 1990; Fishkin, 2011; Pateman,

1970; Young, 2002)

•pragmatic – engaging with citizens develops greater trust and better informs

elected representatives of decisions and policies that will be supported or

accepted by their constituents (Nabatchi, 2010). This includes the strategic

value of generating support for policy positions, particularly more

contentious issues or mitigating dissent (Bherer et al., 2016).

These principles underpin much of the practice around democratic innovations

and often dominate narratives surrounding their adoption. Certainly, they

resonated with Victorian legislators who repeatedly referenced the epistemic

and pragmatic benefits when introducing ‘deliberative engagement practices’ to

local government strategic planning.

2.2.2 Four generations or ‘turns’ of scholarship

Alongside various hypotheses regarding the potential contribution of democratic

innovations, many scholars have theorised their proper principles and ideals.

Within this, deliberative democratic theory has now reached what is considered

its fourth generation of scholarship (Elstab et al., 2016), or alternatively, its

fourth ‘turn’ (Dryzek, 2012). A brief examination of the central premise for each

of these provides salient insight into the objectives and limitations of theory as it

has evolved and as each generation, or turn, iteratively attempts to address the

perceived limitations of the last.

Elstub (2015) provides a thorough examination of the four generations. To

summarise, the first generation (Habermas, 1996; Dryzek, 1990) debated the

normative justifications of deliberative democracy and focused on the necessary

components of ideal deliberation. However, some scholars argued that this

emphasis did not account for the sheer complexity of contemporary society,

asserting that the practical application of those ideals en masse was unrealistic

(Elstub, 2010; Elstub et al., 2016). Based on this perceived limitation, the

second generation explored how the inherent pluralities of contemporary society

might be accommodated practically in deliberative forums (Bohman, 2012;

Young, 2002). However, this body of scholarship was later criticised for

refraining from engaging with the specifics of institutional design and the more

empirical analysis of deliberative practices (Elstub et al., 2016). This paved the

way for a third generation to emerge, which sought to establish the nature of

deliberative fora and their ideal approximations in practice (Elstub, 2010). This

generation paid greater attention to feasibility, namely the design of deliberative

spaces such as citizens’ juries or participatory budgeting processes,

undertaking empirical analysis of deliberative processes to determine the

required parameters for institutional design. However, investigations tended to

look at micro or discrete instances of deliberative engagement, and one of the

perceived limitations of this third generation was that it failed to look at the

macro or broader system in which the practices were realised (Mansbridge et

al., 2012). Finally, the fourth generation advanced a ‘systems approach’ that

conceived of deliberation beyond isolated deliberative practices and examined

not only the relationship between specific deliberative sites but also ‘the

relationship between deliberative and non-deliberative practices in the political

system as a whole and over time’ (Thompson, 2008, p. 500). This generation

had a more expansive view of what constitutes a ‘deliberative’ forum and has

also attracted some criticism, namely, that it risks stretching deliberative

democracy to the ‘point of vacuity’ (Neblo, 2005).

Rather than generations, some scholars such as Dryzek (2012) use the

terminology of ‘turns’. Dryzek (2012) explains that this body of literature begins

with the institutional turn which focused on the ‘shape taken by particular

forums’ (p. 6) and emphasised the micro-scale outcomes of discrete forums

such as mini-publics rather than how they interacted with the macro-scale

political systems. This approach was criticised for losing sight of the larger

ambitions of deliberative democracy (Chambers, 2003), and the systemic turn

emerged to bring a more comprehensive lens and consider the whole system

any deliberative forum interacted with. This was followed by a practical turn

where the emphasis was on strengthening deliberative democracy in the ‘real

world of politics’. Finally, the empirical turn is where ‘deliberative democratic

theory starts to inspire systematic empirical work to test or refine its claims’

(Dryzek, 2012, p. 8).

Regardless of whether they are referred to as generations or turns, these brief

accounts indicate that each conceptualisation emerged in response to what

were considered the shortcomings of the last. In this sense, scholarship has

been iterative. However, it would be erroneous to consider these generations or

turns in a continuous sense; that is, that all contemporary scholars now belong

to the fourth generation and focus on a systems or empirical approach. Instead,

these categorisations distinguish the manifold foci and the evolution of

concepts. Some scholars, such as Dryzek and Mansbridge, have been part of

more than one generation or turn, and contemporary scholars continue to focus

on what are considered the domains of previous generations.

An outline of these was provided as context to the ever-evolving nature of

scholarship around democratic innovations. As noted earlier, the magnitude of

research is extensive, and as shown in this section, it is also dynamic.

2.3 Establishing the research parameters: institutionalising

democratic innovations

2.3.1 Parameters for what are considered ‘democratic

innovations’

To explore the institutionalisation of democratic innovations, and related to the

previous point about the considerable amount of literature to draw from, it is

essential to establish some parameters around what type of initiatives are

considered ‘democratic innovations’ for this study. Here, there is no easy

solution or definition to draw from. As noted in the previous section, there are

substantive and ongoing theoretical debates within the field (see Curato et al.,

2017). Prominent scholars have conceded that there has never been a unified

theory (Elstub et al., 2016; Smith, 2009; Mansbridge et al., 2012), and Ryan

(2019) suggests that much of the debate comes down to ‘conceptual haggling

about what democratic innovations are’ (p. 568).

This discordance can be detected in how democratic innovations are labelled or

described in the literature. Some scholars focus principally on deliberative

democracy (Dryzek, 2002; Parkinson & Mansbridge, 2012; Chambers, 2003);

others lean towards overarching concepts such as democratic innovations

(Smith, 2009; Elstub & Escobar, 2019) or public participation (Fung, 2015).

Sometimes deliberative democracy is understood as fundamentally distinct from

participatory democracy (Pateman, 2012; Young, 2002), but participatory

processes such as participatory budgeting are also commonly included in

literature on democratic innovations (Ganuza & Baiocchi, 2019), indicating

some scholars see them as connected. Furthermore, there are various distinct

models of democratic innovation that fall under the banner. Some literature

focuses on these distinct models, such as mini-publics (Curato et al., 2021),

while at other times, the literature encourages not looking at models at all and

instead consider ‘democratic functions’ (Warren, 2017).

From an empirical or practice-based account of the literature, the complexity

around setting conceptual parameters remains. A cursory review of Participedia

(n.d. – a crowd-sourcing platform for ‘participatory democratic innovations’)

reveals that how contributors distinguish their processes as ‘deliberative’ or

‘participatory’ is relatively unpredictable, depending perhaps on the

commissioning body and what their preferred rhetorical framing is at that time.

Conversely, organisations such as the OCED, which reviewed almost 300

deliberative processes in its report (OECD, 2020), offer a decidedly prescriptive

approach. To be included in its analysis, the OECD established three core

defining features that it argued were of key importance: deliberation, which

involves, amongst other things, weighing carefully different opinions and

information from a diversity of perspectives; representativeness, through

random sampling; and impact, meaning decision-makers agree to respond to

and act on recommendations (OCED, 2020, p. 13, emphasis original). While

this level of differentiation may be conducive for the OCED, which tends to

favour comparative analysis in order to establish standardisation or ‘best

practice’, this level of prescription in terms of the literature considered for this

thesis would have been overly limiting.

Given that this thesis focuses on legislation that mandates ‘deliberative

engagement’, it could be argued that the literature should have been restricted

to this categorisation. However, even here, there are various understandings of

what ‘counts as deliberative’ (Elstub et al., 2016, p. 141). The fourth generation

of deliberative democracy scholarship, which, as explained earlier, takes a

systems approach, further complicates this type of qualification as it takes a

‘more ecumenical view of what constitutes “deliberation”’ (Elstub et al., 2016, p.

245) and therefore a substantially broad interpretation of deliberative forums.

Therefore, any research parameters that were qualified by the use of

‘deliberative engagement practices’ may have overlooked useful and relevant

data that was categorised as ‘participatory’ or ‘public participation’.

Row and Frewer (2005) suggested that the very existence of a variety of

mechanisms for public participation implies uncertainty as to how involvement

should best be enacted; they argue that if it was a simple, bounded, and

wellunderstood process, then one particular mechanism might suffice to enable

it to be effectively achieved (p. 252). From this viewpoint, the complexity and

variety of conceptualisations become an inherent aspect of the scholarship;

however, it does render the potential scope of any study of democratic

innovations, even with some qualifications, quite expansive. Without a holistic

sense of the field, what is discerned as pertinent to the study of deliberative

engagement practices becomes a minefield. There can be equivocation around

a particular study’s relevance to the research focus, and any attempted

circumscription of ‘relevant’ literature is likely to exclude important work.

Accepting the inherent dilemma of categorisation and the inconsistent use of

terminology in the literature, to avoid confusion, the empirical chapters of the

thesis have used ‘deliberative engagement practices’ when referring to the

specific actions of local government organisations in Victoria – in line with the

terminology used in the legislation – and democratic innovations when referring

to the broader institutionalisation of such practices. This is even though the term

‘democratic innovations’ could, of itself, be considered flawed. For example,

Smith (2019) stresses that, as a concept, democracy is more far-reaching than

deliberative or participatory spaces. However, it was selected because

democratic innovations best encapsulated the focus of the research. As noted

previously, the introduction of ‘deliberative engagement practices’ through the

Victorian Local Government Act 2020 was an attempt to augment the public’s

role in local government decision-making; in doing so, it aligns with Elstub and

Escobar’s (2019) definition of democratic innovations as ‘processes or

institutions that are new to a policy issue, policy role or level of governance, and

developed to reimagine and deepen the role of citizens in governance

processes by increasing opportunities for participation, deliberation and

influence’ (p. 11). Of particular importance in this definition is the concept of

reimagining the role of citizens, Newton (2012) makes that argument that

democratic innovations have at their core the intention to ‘change the structures

or processes of democratic decision-making in order to improve them’ (p. 4),

this underscores that the practices are intended as more than ‘minor

modifications’ but instead a qualitative break with the status quo.

2.3.2 What is meant by the ‘institutionalisation’ of the practices?

At first, what is meant by the ‘institutionalisation’ of democratic innovations may

seem evident; however, a literature search found that, much like the idiomatic

dilemmas set out in the previous section, the terms ‘institution’ and

‘institutionalisation’ are also used in a variety of ways in democratic innovations

scholarship. Many scholars conceive of the ‘institution’ as the deliberative or

participatory forum rather than the sponsoring entity that is responsible for the

design and development of that forum. As such, when scholars discuss

‘institutional design’, they are often referring to the democratic innovation itself.

An example is Smith’s (2009) book Democratic innovations: Designing

institutions for citizen participation. Although it could be inadvertently assumed

that the work examines how to embed citizen participation more thoroughly in

decision-making, Smith uses the term to imply ‘designing forums for citizen

participation’. At the same time, there are equally as many references to the

‘institutionalisation’ of democratic innovations in academic and grey literature. In

these instances, scholars are referring to how democratic innovations are

‘coupled’ with centres of power and other parts of the democratic system (Smith,

2019, p. 577), and these predominantly focus on how these fora have a more

central role in the decision-making process (Macq & Jacquet, 2023). This

inconsistency in the application of the terms meant that care had to be taken

when deciding which literature to draw from and its relevance to this thesis.

Following the OECD’s (2020) definition of ‘institutionalising deliberation’, this

research considers ‘institutionalisation’ as a condition where democratic

innovations are incorporated ‘into the rules of public decision-making structures

and governance arrangements in a way that is legally constituted so as to

establish a basic legal or regulatory framework to ensure continuity regardless

of political change’ (p. 122). This acknowledges that ‘institutionalisation’ shifts

attention from ad hoc initiatives that are not intended as a means of changing

established decision-making processes to practices that embed citizen

participation within the structures of government and render them ‘an integral

part of the democratic architecture’ (OECD, 2021, p. 5).

2.4 Democratic innovations within the context of extant

representative systems

One of the key assertions of this thesis is that any examination of the

institutionalisation of democratic innovations needs to consider the context

within which they are realised, and therefore, a better understanding of their

relationship with representative systems of government is crucial.

As noted earlier, democratic innovations were conceived as mechanisms to

counterbalance the perceived deficiencies of elected representation and,

therefore, their premise could be understood as intrinsically or conceptually in

conflict with representative systems of government. However, whilst some

advocates are arguably antagonistic towards elected representation (Van

Reybrouck, 2013; Henning, 2017), most theorists concede that democratic

innovations cannot be separated from these systems. Much of the academic

literature underscores that the outcomes of democratic innovations are largely

determined by their political context, particularly the propensity of political actors

to share decision-making (Johnson, 2011; Caluwaerts & Reuchamps, 2016;

Cornwall, 2004; Parkinson, 2012; Goodin & Dryzek, 2006).

Democratic innovations are, therefore, not necessarily a distinct form of

representation; they are a complement rather than substitute for traditional

representative democracy and interact in complex ways (Bua, 2019). Wampler

(2012a) describes this as a symbiotic relationship with representative

institutions to which the practices are ‘grafted on’ (p. 669). As such, although

various schemata offer distinctions between different ‘categories’ of democracy

– for example Haus and Sweeting’s (2006) four mechanisms for decisionmaking

(user, participatory, network, and representative democracy) – they need not be

conceptualised as mutually exclusive. These typologies are useful in elucidating

how decisions are legitimised, along with their relative merits or deficiencies, but

they are identifiable in the literature as both competing and cooperating

elements of democratic practices (Christensen & Grant, 2016, p.

463, emphasis added).

Furthermore, while the normative aspirations of ‘democratic renewal’ might have

been the impetus for some scholars, particularly those pertaining to the second

generation of scholars (Elstub, 2010), much of the practical application of

democratic innovations has been founded on the more functionalist rationales of

the epistemic and pragmatic benefits outlined earlier (Bherer et al., 2016). As

such, rather than as an alternative to representative democracy, democratic

innovations could be considered an expansion of representative democracy

(Chambers, 2003). For example, Beauvais and Warren (2019) maintain that

deliberative mini-publics were never intended to solve the issue of democratic

deficits and that they should be thought of as ways to ‘supplement existing

electoral and representative’ systems (p. 901). Arguably, when considered in the

light of both epistemic and pragmatic impetus, democratic innovations are

essentially premised on strengthening the legitimacy of representative

institutions by enhancing their ability to produce more informed and reasoned

solutions to policy issues (Fung, 2015; Thompson, 2019).

This symbiotic relationship with existing systems of government is an essential

context when considering the institutionalisation of democratic innovations.

Even if we assume that the commissioning bodies are favourably disposed to

democratic innovations and are committed to their outcomes, the undertaking

must still be reconciled with entrenched processes of decision-making. In this

sense, scholars have conceded that most democratic innovations are not well

integrated into formal governance or decision-making processes in ways that

effect meaningful change (Smith, 2019; Setälä, 2017). Some have suggested

that it is the ‘most important problem these forums face’ because they remain

isolated, irregular events (Bandiera & Ferraro, 2017, p. 647) that are employed

opportunistically (Fung, 2015). This thesis argues that if the institutionalisation

of the practices is an opportunity to move beyond ad hoc ‘deliberative

moments’, then greater attention needs to be given to how they are integrated

into these decision-making processes.

To this point, academic literature that explicitly examines the relationship

between existing representative systems of government and democratic

innovations is needed. Some scholars suggest that these crucial

interconnections have not been sufficiently studied (Bandeira & Ferraro, 2017;

Setälä, 2017). This may be because to date much of the research focus has

been on finding exemplary cases or searching out examples that embody their

normative ideals (Smith, 2019, p. 572). By analysing the implementation of the

Victorian Local Government Act 2020 and how democratic innovations are

interpreted and implemented by a broad spectrum of local government

organisations, this thesis endeavours to contribute to filling this research gap. It

is an opportunity to bring a deeper understanding and some clarity to how

democratic innovations interact with the ‘regular’ functions of government and

systems of public administration.

2.5 Public managers and the institutionalisation of democratic

innovations

In addition to examining the interconnectedness of democratic innovations with

representative systems of government, the role of public administration in the

institutionalisation of the practices also warrants further attention. While the

extent to which different designs or models realise democratic goods is well

subscribed in the literature, there has been less emphasis on how they are

integrated into public management processes or how institutional constraints

influence the practices that emerge. Cooper and Smith (2012) noted that, while

the literature on the potential contribution of democratic innovations continued to

expand, less was known about the ‘intentions, commitments and perspectives

of those who organise’ these processes (p. 2). This omission is also recognised

by public administration scholars who indicate that ‘the issues of democracy and

participation are under-studied by administrative theorists despite these issues

being at the heart of the public nature of public administration’ (Kurkela et al.,

2023).

While the scholarship may have been modest, public administrators have

nevertheless been recognised as having a fundamental role in determining the

outcomes of democratic innovations. At a webinar discussing citizens’

assemblies, Professor Jane Suiter, who is a long-time scholar and a proponent

of deliberative democracy, highlighted that barriers to institutionalising

processes are the ‘ongoing reluctance within the machinery of government

where policy makers are used to having control, an inertia and a wedding to the

status quo’ (2021). Suiter’s reflections are echoed in a recent article that

examined embedding practices in local government in Finland, where scholars

underscored how public participation can be in conflict with established

government practices and thus embedding these processes can be complicated

because they ‘cannot be just “added into” existing structures’ (Jantti et al., 2023,

p. 1533). This is noted by other scholars who have focused specifically on public

servants, drawing attention to the fact that their role has changed from being

traditionally viewed as administrators guided by ‘technical expertise, rationalism,

formal rules and procedures’ to being increasingly expected to engage and

empower active citizens (Blijleven et al., 2019, p. 209). Given that public

administrators largely determine the extent of participation, shape the way

participation takes place, and decide whether it is valuable to their work (Eckerd

& Heidelberg, 2020, p. 133), it is reasonable to suggest that scholarship from

this standpoint could provide salient insights for the institutionalisation of

democratic innovations. However, studies rarely consider democratic

innovations from this position.

Nabatchi (2010), one of the few scholars who explore democratic innovations

through the lens of public administration, asserts that scholars need to give

critical and sustained attention to the role of public administration in a

democracy. They propose a research agenda that contemplates questions such

as ‘What are the obstacles to greater use of deliberative processes? How do (or

might) deliberative processes affect the discretion, power, and control of

administrators and other public decision makers?’ (p. 392). However, Nabatchi

argues that it is the ‘moral imperative of public servants to support greater public

participation’ and then focuses their attention on detailing what is required of

public servants to fulfil this imperative. Nabatchi’s underlying assumption is that

public servants would be mobilised by this ‘moral’ compulsion. Not only does

this assumption infer public servants are operating from similar value

frameworks to proponents of deliberative practices, but it also does not address

the ‘inertia and wedding to the status quo’ flagged by Suiter (2021).

Australian scholars Hartz-Karp and Briand (2009b) also consider the influence

of public administration in Institutionalising Deliberative Democracy: Theoretical

and Practical Challenges. In their analysis, they describe how, despite

successes over a four-year period with deliberative democratic practices in the

planning and infrastructure portfolio in Western Australia, once the minister who

championed the work left, the agency reverted to its substantive ‘business-

asusual’ community engagement practices. They explain that this retreat was in

part because the government department responsible had never felt

comfortable with the practices that had been ‘foisted upon them’; beset by staff

shortages and inadequate time and money, they reverted to more traditional

community engagement (Hartz-Karp & Briand, 2009a, p. 128). Whilst the

authors recognise this tension with public managers, later in the article, when

discussing how institutionalisation requires commitment from all stakeholders,

they only specifically refer to ways to better engage with elected

representatives; they are silent on the matter of public administration.

A critical analysis of these few scholarly contributions suggests that, whilst there

is sometimes an indication that scholars recognise the importance of the

broader governance ecology, further elaboration does not seem to occur.

Instead, this aspect is subsumed by assumptions that public managers will

diligently and capably support democratic innovations once their benefits are

better understood and mandated by the authorising environment – that the

benefits of institutionalising democratic innovations will prevail despite them

presenting ‘certain costs, difficulties, and limitations’ (Hartz-Karp & Briand,

2009a). This thesis problematises these assumptions, and as such, provides a

perspective that is less explored in extant frames of reference.

2.6 Existing theoretical constructs for institutionalising

democratic innovations

As noted earlier, in democratic innovations scholarship the term ‘institution’ is

used predominantly to describe the deliberative forum or practices, not the

organisational structures that enact them. As such, analysis of theoretical

constructs related to the ‘institutionalisation’ of democratic innovations is not

straightforward. For example, in their seminal book Deepening democracy:

innovations in empowered participatory governance, Fung and Wright (2001)

contend that scholarship needed to detail and evaluate the institutional designs

which advanced values of deliberation and citizen empowerment. Similarly,

Smith (2009) laments a continued failure to systematically engage in the

‘messy’ and detailed task of institutional design (p. 12). However, these scholars

are not necessarily referring to the structures of decision-making, but rather, the

practices themselves. As such, an examination of how scholars conceptualise

the effective institutionalisation of democratic innovations (from the standpoint of

this thesis) needed to be cautious to not conflate the two distinct frames of

reference. Taking this complication into account, the following sections consider

insights around institutionalising democratic innovations that can be drawn from

the existing theoretical and empirical literature.

2.6.1 Institutionalisation through establishing constituent

conditions

As noted earlier, a large portion of the literature on democratic innovations is

focused on identifying the constituent conditions for their effective realisation.

Within this literature, there are some indirect accounts of how the practices

interact with decision-making structures that are examined in this section

through the work of three eminent scholars in the field.

In Survey Article: Recipes for Public Spheres: Eight Institutional Design Choices

and Their Consequences, Fung (2003) outlines the key design choices that

policy actors implementing mini-publics need to consider. These include

consideration of questions such as: what should the mini-public do?; how

should individuals come to participate in a mini public?; and, what issue will

participants consider? Of the eight design choices Fung proposes, only one

implicitly refers to the governance system through asking: how will results of the

mini-public influence public decisions? In a later work, Fung proposes a

‘democracy cube’ (2006) with three dimensions for the design of ‘participatory

democratic institutions’, which they argue affect how different democratic

principles are realised. These include participant selection, communication and

decision, authority, and power. Again, the consequential impact of the

democratic innovation is acknowledged as being linked to ‘authority’ however

further insight is absent. In both works, Fung draws our attention to contingent

features for designing a democratic innovation, but only broadly references the

context within which these features exist.

In Democratic innovations: Designing institutions for citizen participation, Smith

(2009) analyses several democratic innovations to understand the relationship

between institutional design and the realisation of six ‘democratic goods’:

inclusiveness, popular control, considered judgement, transparency, efficiency,

and transferability. In the description of ‘efficiency’ Smith acknowledges that

democratic innovations place demands on citizens and public authorities, and

these must be considered. They provide the example of Porto Alegre, where

public authorities had to be willing to undertake ‘significant bureaucratic

restructuring’ and ensure commensurate investment to effectively embed

participatory budgeting. Whilst recognising that the level of ‘acceptable burden’

on institutions is likely to be highly contextual, Smith argues that this is informed

by comparing the required investment with the ‘perceived costs and benefits of

not embedding participation within the decision-making process’ (p. 26,

emphasis original). Smith also later suggests that these high costs are ‘typically

viewed as worth paying given the unattractive alternative’ (p.181). Smith,

therefore, seems to infer that the normative value of these practices will be

compelling enough to counterbalance their ‘burden’.

For their part, Dryzek (2009) offers a ‘deliberative capacity building’ framework

that describes the extent to which a political system possesses the requisite

structures to host deliberation. Whilst at first glance this framing seems

consistent with the aims of this research, deeper analysis of the three

characteristics Dryzek proposes - authentic, inclusive, and consequential –

reveal that, like Fung (2003, 2005), their focus is on deliberative practices and

how they are designed. While these are critical, they nevertheless do not speak

to the democratic architecture that underpins the proposed functions.

As seen from this section, whilst scholars may differ in the conditions they

propose as essential for the institutionalisation of democratic innovations, they

consistently look towards how procedural aspects and forums are designed.

This is perhaps what Pateman (2012) was alluding to when they stated, ‘the

primary interest of advocates lies in the process of deliberation inside

deliberative forums, they are not usually concerned with the structural features’

(p. 10). When scholars do acknowledge structural features, they do not appear

to go further in exploring the dynamic between the deliberative space, elected

representatives, and public administration. For example, although Smith (2019)

recognises the resource impost, they anticipate that the perceived benefits of

democratic innovations will be sufficient to justify and motivate faithful

implementation by the policy actors responsible. Policy actors tasked with

operationalising democratic innovations are therefore broadly perceived as

sufficiently dedicated and capable of enumerating the practices once they

appreciate the public good that derives from them.

2.6.2 Institutionalisation through a systems approach

As noted earlier in this chapter, the fourth generation of deliberative democracy

theorists looked beyond isolated ‘deliberative desiderata’ (Goodin, 2005) to

examine the relationship between deliberative and non-deliberative practices in

the political system. They take what is referred to as a ‘systems approach’,

which conceptualises deliberation as a ‘communicative activity that occurs in

multiple, diverse yet partly overlapping spaces, and emphasises the need for

interconnection between these spaces’ (Elstub et al., 2016, p. 139). As such,

scholars in this generation are perhaps more epistemologically suited to

accounting for the limitations identified in the previous section. In fact, Dean

(2023) suggests that deliberative systems theory recognises the importance of

public administration and attempts to incorporate it within its ‘orbit’. This section

provides an overview of some of the most prominent scholars to examine this

apparent congeniality.

In the seminal work, A systemic approach to deliberative democracy,

Mansbridge et al. (2012) state that most democracies are complex entities in

which a wide variety of institutions, associations and sites of contestation

accomplish political work (p. 2). They argue that a deliberative system approach

allows for the appreciation of each of these entities and the ‘division of labour’

amongst them. Therefore, they propose that studies should go beyond

examining individual institutions and instead explore their interdependence and

interaction in the system as a whole. Mansbridge et al. directly identify public

administrators several times in examples and in their arguments. They list them

as one of the institutions in the system; they list them when noting that ‘each set

of players has its own agendas and points of view’ (p. 6); and again, when

discussing the ‘map of nodes in deliberative systems’ (p. 10). They also

reference administrators when discussing pathologies that threaten deliberative

systems, stating that the system ‘suffers when citizens, legislators, and

administrators are so divided, they will not listen to positions other than those

emanating from their side’ (p. 24). Mansbridge et al. argue that ‘looking only at a

part of the system can cause one to miss significant phenomena that affect

deliberation’ (p. 8), and, therefore, there is some alignment with the premise of

this thesis. However, their key focus is advancing a deliberative systems

theoretical approach; therefore, whilst they recognise administrators as part of

the system, they do not offer any additional insights into these specific policy

actors.

Dean (2023) concedes that democratic theory has tended to have a blind spot

for public administration, conceiving of it as a neutral process of implementation

and that few scholars have concertedly explored this in deliberative systems

approaches. Like Mansbridge et al. (2012), Dean (2023) recognises that public

administration should be considered a specific system component with its own

legitimacy functions and relationships (p. 6). However, Dean expands on this by

also pointing out that public administration is founded on claims to technocratic

competence and the separation of policy functions from the influence of political

pressure, proposing that these standards of effectiveness and efficiency may be

in tension with those of democratic innovations (p. 10). Finally, Dean also

highlights that public administrators are not directly accountable to the public

like elected representatives, creating distinct differences in how these policy

actors understand and generate legitimacy for their actions. Dean clearly

identifies the incentive structures and how they may impact the

operationalisation of democratic innovations, thus providing salient points that

this thesis explores further by examining how the inherent tensions Dean

identifies are reconciled by the policy actors functionally implementing the

practices.

As seen from this section, whilst a systems approach is more cognisant of the

instrumental role that public administrators play in a deliberative system, its

impetus is to focus on the interplay between different components of the

system. Scholars identify some of the tensions but do not necessarily explore

how they manifest in democratic innovations and their practices, as this thesis

proposes.

2.6.3 Institutionalisation through a practice-based lens

Alongside a substantial amount of academic analysis, there are some sector-led

proponents that have contributed to discussion regarding the institutionalisation

democratic innovations. The two primary advocates are the OECD and the

newDemocracy Foundation, with some more recent contributions from People

Powered.

The OECD’s contribution is perhaps most salient for this thesis because it has

examined institutionalisation in two publications. Beginning with its Catching the

Deliberative Wave report, the OECD (2020) suggests two key aspects are

required to sustain institutional change for democratic innovations: legal and

cultural. As such, according to the OECD, in addition to being incorporated into

the formal rules of decision-making structures and governance arrangements,

the practices necessitate organisational cultural change. The OCED describes

how elected representatives and civil servants tend to see decision-making as

their role and how they are usually sceptical about the competency of ordinary

people to address complex problems. To address this and create cultural

change, the OECD suggests increasing opportunities for these policy actors to

witness deliberative processes and consequently they begin to see the potential

benefits. Aligned with this, they also advocate for dissemination events, specific

training, and career or salary incentives. Whilst recognising the need for cultural

change is notable, it is also important to consider that this proposed ‘solution’

relies heavily on normative assumptions about the outcomes of deliberative

processes, as well as the utilitarian value these policy actors would place in

pursuing their institutionalisation.

Providing more nuanced insight is the subsequent Policy Paper entitled Eight

ways to institutionalise deliberative democracy (OECD, 2021). The OECD

outlines various models that could be used to integrate deliberative processes in

the democratic decision-making architecture. These include:

• combining a permanent citizens’ assembly with one-off citizens’ panels

• connecting deliberation to parliamentary committees

• combining deliberative and direct democracy

• standing citizens’ advisory panels

• sequenced deliberative processes throughout the policy cycle

• requiring public deliberation before certain types of public decisions

• giving people the right to demand a deliberative process •

embedding deliberative processes in local strategic planning.

(OECD, 2021, p. 11).

For each model, examples and considerations for their application were

provided. While most considerations highlighted the ‘significant efforts’ required

to align the practices to the institutional and social context, there was

conspicuously little offered beyond this recognition. One exception was the

Toronto Planning Review Panel case study where the OECD proposed ‘having

sustained leadership within the convening public organisation is imperative’ (p.

24). Through the case study, the OECD explains that deliberative processes

must generate buy-in at the senior leadership level and align with the

organisation’s strategic decision-making. Otherwise, they are susceptible to the

impact of changes in project managers (p. 25). Later in the report, under the

section ‘What to consider and whom to involve when planning for

implementation’, the value of providing support and capacity building to public

servants is reiterated, along with a recommendation that public authorities

should establish an office permanently in charge of deliberative processes that

is ‘funded by the public authority, but at arm’s length to stay unbiased and

trustworthy’ (p. 32). Interestingly, the case study for this thesis research, the

Victorian Local Government Act 2020, is also included in this publication as an

example of ‘embedding representative deliberative processes in local strategic

planning’. Under considerations for the Victorian Local Government Act 2020,

the OECD is relatively optimistic, highlighting that this legislation contributes to

changing the culture of both councillors and public managers so they see the

‘public as a resource rather a risk’, guiding municipalities ‘on a path of

continuous learning and continuous improvement which will build deliberative

infrastructure over time’ (p. 30).

Perhaps given the pragmatic nature of their premise, both OECD publications

more thoroughly unpack some of the constraints and motivations of public

administration actors, providing an account of how these would need to be

addressed for the institutionalisation of democratic innovations. As such, they

provide useful springboards for the focus on this thesis.

Moving on to the newDemocracy Foundation, this prominent advocate of

deliberative democracy has also made some, albeit more modest, contributions

to the topic of institutionalising practices. It was commissioned by the United

Nations Democracy Fund to create a handbook titled Enabling National

Initiatives to Take Democracy beyond Elections (2018a), which is described as

a ‘how-to’ guide for designing and operating more substantive and considered

ways to make trusted democratic decisions (p. 11). In the section titled ‘For

Department Heads’, there is information about how the processes need

reasonable amounts of time and investment; however, readers are asked to

consider the ‘massive return on investment’. The handbook goes on to list

‘increased trust between elected officials and community; greater shared

understanding of challenges and opportunities; and, new, highly informed and

considered ideas for implementation that are well supported by the broader

community’ (p. 69), as the proposed benefits department heads can expect as a

return on this investment. As such, much like the scholars referred to earlier, the

newDemocracy Foundation also seems to consider the potential benefits of

democratic innovations compelling enough to counterbalance their

organisational impost.

A scan of the newDemocracy Foundation website also reveals extensive

research regarding the rationales and applications of deliberative democracy,

however their Research and Development notes tend not to explore the role of

public administration. One interesting report that did emerge was on the

learnings from the implementation of the Victorian Local Government Act 2020

that newDemocracy Foundation was commissioned to write by New Zealand’s

Department of Internal Affairs. This commission was part of New Zealand’s

review of its local government legislation, which considered mandating

deliberative engagement requirements similar to Victoria. The report provides

some relevant insights for this thesis, it states: ‘it is one thing to insist on

deliberative engagement, it is quite another to expect that local and state

governments are equipped to handle its implementation’ (p. 3, emphasis

original). The note identifies some of the key issues for implementation,

including the absence of examples of deliberative designs or practical support

for implementing this relatively unknown process. Therefore, it acknowledges

that the local government sector’s preparedness for the application of the

practices was lacking. It also identifies ‘staff turnover’ as an issue with regard to

building organisational capacity, suggesting that for this to be mitigated,

communities of practice that share knowledge need to be established.

Although it has produced significantly less research than the OECD and the

newDemocracy Foundation, the work of People Powered is worth noting. It

conducted an analysis of 11 countries that had legislated participatory budgeting

and found that the degree of implementation varied between some laws not

being implemented at all, others implemented in a piecemeal fashion, and

others that waxed and waned according to the political will of local regulators

(People Powered, 2021, p. 5). This research demonstrates that even when

legislated, the practices are not necessarily embedded effectively into decision-

making processes. To address this, the report recommends that government

reformers build a coalition of support for the practices, design them in a context-

specific manner, delineate clear specifications for the design and

implementation, and offer incentives that are supported with adequate funding

rather than rely on mandates (p. 7).

Whilst it could be said that the sector-led literature examined in this section has

greater emphasis on the practical application of democratic innovations and is

therefore conceivably more attuned to the role of public administration,

particularly the OECD, this section demonstrates that significant gaps remain in

understanding. A more complete examination of how democratic innovations are

embedded in the practices of public administrators and some interrogation of

whether agreements around the ‘return on investment’ are resonant with these

policy actors would be worthwhile.

2.7 Examples of the institutionalisation of democratic

innovations

To situate the study in some of the empirical literature, the following section

explores examples and case studies relevant to the institutionalisation of

democratic innovations. The examples included are ones where practices had

been incorporated into the formal rules of government decision-making and

where scholarship considered the role of public administrators. While the

number of studies that provided relevant information was relatively limited, they

nonetheless offered salient insights for this study.

2.7.1 Local government legislation in the United Kingdom

The United Kingdom has what could be considered a long-running history of

embedding public participation through legislation, spanning back to what is

referred to as New Labour’s ‘democratic renewal’ agenda which commenced

over 20 years ago. Through legislation such as the Local Government Act 2000,

new institutional arrangements were developed which, amongst other things,

required local authorities to consult with and involve the public in

decisionmaking on an ongoing basis (Lowndes & Wilson, 2001).

In contrast to the other aspects of the democratic renewal agenda, the

government did not pursue a prescriptive approach in the case of public

participation, allowing local authorities to decide which methods were most

appropriate to their specific circumstances (Lowndes & Wilson, 2001). In their

analysis, Lowndes and Wilson (2001) found that the institutional design choices

made by local authorities were crucial in determining whether groups of citizens

were able to gain access to decision-making, whether decision-makers had a

capacity to respond, and whether certain groups were privileged over others

regarding the influence they exerted (p. 641). This meant that local authorities

had significant discretion, to which Lowndes and Wilson warned there was a

danger that ‘new participatory institutions may be effectively hijacked by those

involved in the management of local services’ (p. 637). Lowndes and Wilson

propose that there needs to be greater emphasis on the social capital value and

benefits that could be derived from public participation and incentives for local

authorities to pursue these practices.

This analysis of the same legislation was also supported by other scholars who

suggested that ‘in the absence of a clear articulation of democratic priorities and

values’ practices emerged that, instead of shifting deeply embedded institutional

norms, have instead been adapted to reinforce institutional priorities and values

(Pratchett, 2004, p. 372).

Also in the United Kingdom, the Community Empowerment [Scotland] Act 2015

is an interesting example of government legislating public participation under

the banner of pursuing democratic renewal. The overall purpose of the Act was

to strengthen communities’ voices in decisions about public services and

increase community ownership or control of land and buildings (What Works

Scotland, 2019). Since its inception, the Act is reported to have resulted in at

least 300 participatory budgeting processes (Bynner et al., 2023) and has been

described as a ‘unique site for the study of participatory systems and the

political and administrative cultures that enable or hinder their development’

(Escobar, 2022a).

In an analysis of the Act’s outcomes, What Works Scotland (2019) highlights

that some of the key challenges faced regarding its implementation were that

participatory processes required long term resource commitment, ongoing

learning, and adaptation, and ‘sometimes institutional reform’. In a section

discussing implications for ‘policy and practice’, the report suggests investing in

capacity and skills and stresses the importance of ‘fostering a participative

culture in public authorities’. The report states that commitment and buy-in is

particularly required at a strategic, political, and senior management level, and

that administrative reforms such as procurement practices or staff recognition

and promotion criteria may support this change. Another What Works Scotland

report primarily focused on practices in West Dunbartonshire also found that

‘while resources, methods, planning mechanisms and communications may be

important, values and attitudes were regarded as by far the most significant

driver or barrier to change’ (Bynner, 2015, p. 26). This position is reiterated in

research conducted eight years later, which identifies culture change as

important for improving public participation because it ‘was regarded as very

much an add-on and seen as just another demand’ (Bynner et al., 2023, p. 10).

Reflecting on the Community Empowerment Act 2015, researchers found that

although it had increased the impetus to engage citizens on one hand, on the

other, longstanding civic, political, bureaucratic, and professional cultures had

also inhibited the extent to which this engagement was meaningful and had

impact. They suggest that ‘there is a tentative balance to maintain between the

old governance practices, formats and formalities and the new interactive

communication patterns and thinking that official facilitators seek to engender’

(Bynner et al., 2023, p. 15).

2.7.2 Local government legislation in Italy

The examples from the United Kingdom suggest that capacity building, clear

guidelines and organisational cultural change are needed for the

institutionalisation of democratic innovations. Regarding this, the Tuscany

Regional Participation Policy (Law 69/07 and later Law 46/2013) is an

interesting case to consider as it actively addresses two of these limitations by

providing both clear guidelines and financial support to local governments

undertaking these practices.

Like most of the examples this section explores, Law 69/07 was established to

‘renew democracy and its institutions by integrating them with practices,

processes and tools of participatory democracy’ (Participedia, n.d.). However,

unlike the examples examined so far, Law 69/07 was formulated through a

participatory process that sat alongside the formal procedures typically applied

to develop regional legislation. During its development, the legislation was

informed by a large number of local authorities, professionals, members of

grassroots groups, associations, and interest groups, as well as academics and

ordinary citizens across Tuscany who contributed to defining the goals,

contents, and features of the law. Therefore, from its inception, its proponents

endeavoured to translate the normative principles of deliberative theory into

institutional practice (Lewanski, 2013), creating a sense of ownership and

shared understandings for the practices that would emerge.

Rather than mandating participatory processes, Law 69/07 encouraged

voluntary cooperation and sought to build capacity for deliberative practices

through the provision of financial incentives and methodological support to local

administrators. This was administered through an authority that was created

through bipartisan decision-making support and was allocated an annual budget

of €1 million. The authority was tasked with ensuring the integrity of deliberative

processes by providing financial assistance and impartial guidance, along with a

regional database of case studies, information, and training (Lewanski, 2013).

Through the authority, 113 deliberative processes were funded over five years.

However, despite having mobilised many policy actors during its formulation,

Law 69/07 attracted public criticism regarding how processes were supported

and selected by the ‘monocratic’ authority (Ravazzi, 2017). Later, a second

iteration of the law (46/2013) was accompanied by more prescriptive guidelines

that provided clear parameters for deliberative processes that would be

financially supported. These included a pre-commitment by the promoting

institution to take the outputs of the process into serious consideration, careful

attention to the provision of information, maximal inclusiveness in the selection

of participants, equal expression of all viewpoints, and the use of specific tools

and professional skills for the management of the processes (Ravazzi, 2017, p.

87). This, however, also attracted some criticism from public participation

professionals who felt that imposing specific designs not only required a great

deal of resources but also tended to make the practice of public participation

more rigid (Bherer et al., 2016).

The barriers and failings noted by researchers with regard to the legislation in

the United Kingdom were mostly addressed in the Tuscan case. There was a

collective understanding of the practices that were being advanced by the law,

buttressed with financial support for those organisations that pursued

deliberative processes. However, researchers still found limitations in the law’s

implementation. Ravazzi (2017) reports that most experts and civil society

leaders were concerned that a bureaucratisation of deliberative practices would

lead to their co-option and ‘regimented civic engagement’, and for their part,

public administrators were ‘worried about the possibility of perverse effects on

local policy-making’, such as the increased workloads and lengthier

policymaking processes (p. 90). As such, the integrity and legitimacy of the

practices were still questioned, as was the more pragmatic aspect of having

sufficient organisational resources.

2.7.3 Local government legislation in Finland

In Finland, local councils are responsible for enabling citizen participation and

have played an active role in promoting citizen participation over the last two

decades with the introduction of the Local Government Act (410/2015) and the

Land Use and Building Act (132/1999). These both mandate citizen

participation; as a result, Finnish local governments have introduced a range of

mechanisms to systemise public participation.

Taking a rare public administration lens to the practices, Kurkela et al. (2023)

sought the key organisational elements that enable citizen participation and

focused their research on local government organisations. They examined the

City of Helsinki, which had applied its practices in a particularly extensive,

ambitious, and well-resourced manner. In this city, each division has its own

participation plan, and its program is regularly monitored and reported. In

addition, the principles of participation have been integrated into the

administrative rules of the city at the strategic level and thus guide the actions of

the entire organisation.

Kurkela et al. (2023) found that there are a variety of organisational structural

issues that are important to consider which enhance public participation and

that these practices require changes to institutional culture and attitudes. To

reinforce organisational culture, they identify the management of citizen

participation as a key issue, stating that a systems approach with strong support

from management is needed. They determined that administrative rules and

principles steer how participation is organised, and that, whilst the legislation

mandated practices and provided some guidance, further structure is needed at

an organisational level. They propose that more enabling organisational

structures require rules and delegated authority so that responsibility and

leadership for participation is across the whole organisation and not reliant on a

handful of champions.

2.7.4 Participatory Budgeting in Brazil

Participatory budgeting emerged in Brazil and, without ever being enshrined in

legislation, nonetheless became an entrenched mechanism for involving the

public in government decision-making, creating an institutional blueprint around

the world (Montambeault, 2019; Wampler, 2012b; Ganuza & Baiocchi, 2012;

Christensen & Grant, 2016).

Whilst much has been written about participatory budgeting, there is relatively

little literature that focuses on the role of public administrators. However, one

study was particularly relevant to this thesis as it applied a similar theoretical

lens, as such the work of Montambeault (2019) has been included.

Taking an institutionalist approach to their research, Montambeault (2019) found

that, while seemingly stable, participatory budgeting processes had, in fact,

adapted over time as a direct result of the choices and influence of public

administrators. Montambeault determined that, while public administrators did

not directly challenge the existence of participatory budgeting processes, they

markedly changed the practices by redefining and adapting the methodology

and scope of each participatory budgeting cycle according to their own

priorities, interests, and agenda (p. 34). This transformation has been

substantiated by other scholars who noted that Porto Alegre’s participatory

budgeting regime has been ‘stifled overtime by the council’s technocrats’ (Bua &

Bussu, 2021, p. 721).

2.7.5 From latent accounts to a concerted focus

Collectively, the examples in this section demonstrate how public administrators

have consequential influence over how democratic innovations are interpreted

and applied, and, therefore, how they are institutionalised. Whilst the examples

are not extensive, they illustrate that assumptions that public managers will

earnestly implement democratic innovations once mandated are problematic.

These studies give confidence that this thesis’s focus is germane.

It is also interesting to note much of the literature cited in this section relayed

latent accounts of public administration, scholars were mostly concerned with

other topics entirely, however, the two that have a concerted focus on public

administration (Bynner et al., 2023; Kurkela et al., 2023) were published in the

last year. It is therefore possible that this thesis belongs to a nascent and

emerging area of study within the field.

2.8 The tension between emancipatory potential and utilitarian

constraints

The examples in the previous section indicate how the emancipatory potential

that drives much of the scholarship and advocacy for democratic innovations

can be compromised during implementation. This, in part, has been noted by

some scholars who found that ‘in practice, and despite a plethora of rhetoric,

participation has continued to be a chimera, consigned at best to the periphery

of public service production’ (Osborne & Strokosch, 2022, p. 182).

Escobar (2022b) suggests that this is because the field of democratic

innovations is at a stage where its strong roots in normative theory is

encountering the brute forces of reality and discovering its own bounded

rationality spaces; they describe it as being stuck ‘between radical aspirations

and pragmatic challenges’.

However, others argue that it is a product of the disjuncture between theory and

empirical research (Thompson, 2008; Mutz, 2008). Thompson (2008) states that

the objection prompted by empirical studies – that deliberative theory is not

realistic – misses the point because theory is not supposed to accept as a given

the political reality; it is meant to challenge it. That is, it is intended to be critical,

not acquiescent. Thompson suggests that an approach for empirical research is

to continue trying to discover the conditions needed and to what extent

unfavourable conditions could be changed (p. 500). This is similar to Kadlec and

Freedman (2020), who argue that the field can only progress through actively

engaging in dynamic relationship between theoretical speculation and practical

consideration (p. 3). It could be argued that this approach underpins much of

the empirical research on democratic innovations. However, as the literature in

this chapter demonstrates, much of the focus to date has been on the requisite

conditions and the design spaces of democratic innovations, not the architects

of those spaces. In the context of this research, by analysing how legislative

reform that aims to improve democracy is operationalised, a better

understanding of how institutional conditions constrain or enable the

emancipatory outcomes so often touted for democratic innovations will be

gained.

Furthermore, this study aligns with Felicietti’s (2021) position that greater

attention is needed regarding the pragmatic dimension informing policy actors’

choices. It seeks to uncover what might be contributing to the ‘institutional

stickiness’ that Lowndes (2005, p. 296) describes, whereby the practices of

government have mostly continued unchanged despite decades of reforms that

attempt to shift the citizen–government relationship.

2.9 Democratic innovations in a local government context

As a final aspect of the literature review, it is important to acknowledge that the

research is situated in an Australian local government context. Without going

into detail about local government and its functions, this section outlines how

democracy is viewed vis-à-vis local government and then specifically how

democratic innovations have so far been received within the Australian local

government context.

2.9.1 Local government as the coalface of democratic

innovations

Whilst democratic innovations have occurred across all levels of government,

they have been particularly applied at a local government level. For example,

over half of the 282 cases that the OECD (2020) considered in its analysis of

deliberative processes were based on a local government level (p. 70).

Alongside this, enhanced public participation has been decidedly acute in

reform agendas at a local government level (LeSage & Garcea, 2005; Cooper &

Smith, 2012) to such an extent that it can confidently be posited that involving

citizens in policymaking is generally considered common practice for local

governments, and much more so than for other levels of government (Michels,

2012; Bua & Escobar, 2018).

Generally, the tendency for practices to be situated at a local government level

has been coupled with the common perception that, because of its proximity to

‘the people’, local government is the level of government most suited to greater

public participation (Bherer, 2010; Copus, 2003; Wampler, 2012a; Pratchett,

2004; Lowndes et al., 2006). However, in addition to the premise that local

government is the natural domain for public participation, there is an assumption

that it has greater emancipatory potential, that it is the level of government

where citizens are more likely to become educated about democracy and exert

greater political influence (Lepine & Sullivan, 2010). This argument has its roots

in 19th century political thought (mainly that of John Stuart Mill) and maintains

that local institutions of democracy are the most accessible locations for political

skills to be acquired and practised and, in so doing, local government is an

instrument of social inclusion (cited in Pratchett 2004, p. 360). In addition, it is

argued that, by providing opportunities for participation, local government can

influence not only people’s competence, but also their appetite for civic

participation (Lowndes & Wilson, 2001). As such, participation becomes not an

end in itself, but rather, local democracy fosters democratic citizenship

(Pratchett, 2004). Interestingly, it has also been suggested that calls for public

participation at the local government level could be considered a way of

mediating and organising preferences away from the site of political decision-

making (Grant & Drew 2017, p. 257 emphasis original).

Irrespective of its propositional framing, local government is clearly considered a

testing ground for enhancing democratic capabilities, and more broadly,

democratic innovations. Yet despite this, research specifically focusing on a

local government context has been mostly neglected (Kurkela et al., 2023).

Furthermore, despite fundamental reform and increased expectations for public

participation at a local government level, there is limited empirical research to

guide local government organisations and improve their capacity to implement

change.

2.9.2 Democratic innovations in an Australian local

government context

Almost 50 years ago, Robbins stated, ‘if there is a desire to foster a “democratic

culture” in Australia, one of the most promising areas in which to experiment

would be that of local government’ (1978, cited in McDonnell 2021 p. 215).

However, Aulich (2009) explains that, historically, citizen involvement in

Australian local government has fallen largely within the confines of ‘indirect

participation’, where government has simply offered a degree of access to those

participants who choose to be involved (p. 46). More recently however, there

has been an increase the scale and scope of community engagement practices

(for a detailed analysis of theory and practice in the Australian local government

context, see Grant & Drew, 2017).

This increased interest may be aligned to the reported decline in citizens’ trust in

Australian democracy and the apparent appetite for reforms that enhance public

participation (Stoker et al., 2018). Democratic innovations have also seemingly

gained interest in local government in Australia. For instance, a survey of 175

councils across four Australian jurisdictions found that one-third of councils

intended to use participatory budgeting, deliberative group methods, and co-

design in the future (Christensen & McQuestin, 2019). The same survey also

found that, of the different community engagement methods councils deliver,

deliberative methods were the only ones that council staff expected to do more

of in the future compared to reducing the number of traditional methods (p.

463). It could be argued that this is aspirational, and it is questionable whether

this level of practice will be actualised; regardless, there is a clear sense of

expectation to work in this manner.

Whilst the concept of democratic innovations seems to have taken root at a

local government level in Australia, Aulich (2009) is one of few scholars who

considers the capacity of local government to promote this agenda. Aulich flags

concerns about local government’s capacity to apply participatory governance

arrangements, particularly in a regional and rural local government context,

arguing that they are poorly placed to assume the type of leadership required to

advance the practices (p. 56). Aulich also highlights that, while many local

governments have facilitated higher levels of consultation, the practices have

not yet been accepted as a fundamental right of communities or assumed a

formal place in governance.

Much like the study of democratic innovations in a local government context

more broadly, whilst clearly in the ambit of reform agendas, there is insufficient

empirical research to determine how the practices are embedded in the existing

governance systems of Australian local governments.

2.10 Catching up to the deliberative wave

Despite scholars having recognised that the pragmatic implementation of

democratic innovations is unlikely to meet their normative ideals, the

enthusiasm and uptake of these practices has, thus far, not slowed. Democratic

innovations have benefited from continued advocacy from various organisations

(DemocracyNext, newDemocracy), and public participation remains a focal

point for action in public service reform (What Works Scotland, 2019). In fact,

the topic of this study, the Victorian Local Government Act 2020, is an example

of how the promise of deliberative engagement is persuasive. A further example

is in New Zealand which has shown interest in the Victorian reforms and is

considering similar changes to its local government legislation (Department of

Internal Affairs New Zealand, 2022, p.10).

Mutz (2008, p. 536) cautions that once a phenomenon acquires momentum like

the deliberative democracy movement has, it seldom slows down for the

purposes of advancing scientific understanding. As the literature discussed in

this chapter shows, Mutz (2008) correctly finds that democratic innovations are

implemented with little questioning of their value because advocates genuinely

believe that democratic renewal is an intrinsic outcome of the practice. This

study argues that it is necessary to interrogate the conditions within which

democratic innovations occur more thoroughly, or at least acknowledge a more

resistant reality. To this point, whilst the OECD (2020) report was framed as

‘catching the deliberative wave’, it is perhaps more appropriate to consider the

need to catch up to the deliberative wave.

The Victorian Local Government Act 2020 presented an opportune case study

to meet this purpose and contribute to the research gaps identified throughout

this chapter. With all 79 councils across the state developing a range of

‘deliberative engagement practices’ for the same strategic documents at the

same time, it was a unique opportunity to examine the inevitable range of

perspectives, interpretations, and approaches, whilst also determining the more

dominant paradigms. Furthermore, whilst most case studies on deliberative

engagement practices have needed the endorsement of their authorising

environment to proceed, in the context of this legislation, the practices were met

with a wide spectrum of positions – some supportive, some indifferent, and

others expressly combative. This provided a more expansive view of how the

practices were understood and operationalised, and therefore, a more

comprehensive knowledge about how they might be institutionalised.

2.11 Conclusion

This chapter established that research on democratic innovations is both

extensive and ever-evolving. Within this expansive body of literature, the

chapter situated this study around the institutionalisation of democratic

innovations. The chapter outlined how, while democratic innovations may have

been conceived as a counterbalance to the perceived deficits of representative

systems, they nonetheless have a symbiotic relationship with those systems,

and this is relatively underexamined in academic literature. To further qualify the

research gap, the chapter highlighted that, whilst scholars acknowledge the

instrumental role public managers play in the realisation of democratic

innovations, further elaboration is required.

Having established the research focus on public administration, the chapter

examined some key theoretical contributions on the institutionalisation of

democratic innovations through this lens. It found that while scholars differed in

their understanding of the enabling conditions for institutionalisation, they

consistently looked towards procedural aspects, or constituent parts, rather than

how democratic innovations are integrated into the overall system that

operationalises them. The chapter also considered some of the contributions

made by sector-led proponents of institutionalising democratic innovations.

Although limited, consistent references to the relevance of organisational

cultures, the resource impost of democratic innovations, and a need for capacity

building in the public sector were found. However, having recognised some of

the barriers, proponents tend to envisage that the normative value derived from

democratic innovations will be compelling enough to counterbalance their

‘burden’.

To situate the study in some of the empirical literature, the chapter explored

examples of how democratic innovations have been implemented in the United

Kingdom, Italy, Finland, and Brazil. Collectively, these examples indicate that

the emancipatory potential that drives much of the scholarship and advocacy for

democratic innovations can be compromised by the utilitarian constraints of

their implementation. The chapter briefly pointed to the local government

context of the research, highlighting the common perception that local

government is the natural domain for public participation, and provided a short

account of how public participation has evolved in Australian local government.

Finally, the chapter explained how the Victorian Local Government Act 2020

presented a unique opportunity to examine some of the research gaps identified

in the literature. Through an investigation of how deliberative engagement

practices are interpreted and implemented by local government in Victoria, the

thesis contributes to the literature and furthers the extant knowledge on the

institutionalisation of democratic innovations.

Chapter 3: Democratic innovations

through the lens of institutionalism

and public value

3.1 Introduction

The previous chapter established the need for a more comprehensive

understanding of how the structures of public administration impact the way

democratic innovations are realised. In response to this need, this chapter

proposes that both institutionalism and public value theory provide a

constructive lens for investigating this research focus.

The chapter begins with providing an outline of institutionalist theory, explaining

why this theoretical construct was selected and how it relates to the study of

democratic innovations. It then moves to public value theory and elucidates why

it was considered a useful heuristic for studying the role of public administration

in the institutionalisation of democratic innovations. After introducing the two

theoretical approaches, the chapter discusses how they differ in ontological

frames of reference and how these differences may at first appear incongruous.

However, the chapter explains how they were used distinctly in the research

approach (which is outlined in the next chapter) and how applying these two

theoretical approaches collectively uncovers new understandings for the

institutionalisation of democratic innovations. The chapter concludes with a

description of the analytical framework that was developed for this research and

guided the initial stages of data collection.

3.2 An institutionalist lens

Institutions have been referred to as ‘phenomena that produce stable, valued

and recurring patterns of behaviour’ (Huntington, 1968 cited in Lowndes &

Roberts, 2013, p. 3), or the ‘regulative, normative and cultural-cognitive

elements that together with associated activities and resources, provide stability

and meaning’ (Scott, 2014, p. 56). As an extension of this, it is important to note

that, through the lens of institutionalist theory, ‘institutions’ are not organisations,

they are the rules and conventions that provide stability and allow political

organisations to function.

The study of institutionalism was initially concentrated on the importance of

rules and structures in defining public sector organisations; however, it later

evolved into ‘new institutionalism’, which expanded its focus from formal rules

and structures to the ways in which individuals both affect and are affected by

institutional settings (Bevir, 2008, p. 111). Whilst there are different schools of

thought within ‘new institutionalism’, each stemming from a different ontological

position (e.g. rational choice and sociological – for a full account, see Lowndes

& Roberts, 2013), at their core, each sub-field invariably explores the nature of

institutions, how institutions influence behaviour, and how institutions change.

Old and new approaches [of institutionalism] have much in common: both

approaches are concerned with the way in which particular organisational forms

become ‘legitimated’, inscribed with cultural value over and above an

instrumental concern with efficiency or even material outcomes (Lowndes &

Roberts, 2013, p. 23).

An institutionalist approach argues that the agency of policy actors (including

elected representatives and public managers) is shaped by the intrinsic

constraints or incentives of their institutions, thereby rendering ‘certain courses

of action more or less possible and more or less attractive’ (Ostrom, 2019, p.

38). Furthermore, Lowndes and Roberts (2013) suggest that patterns of

behaviour are mediated through three key ‘modes of constraint’:

•rules – the formal mechanisms that tell actors what behaviours are officially

required, permitted, or prohibited within a particular setting

•practices – signal to actors the conduct that is approved or disapproved of

in a particular setting; they are adopted via observation and copying,

sanctioned through displays of disapprobation or social isolation

•narratives – provide actors with persuasive accounts or shared

understandings of why particular behaviours should characterise a

particular setting; they are expressed through both spoken and written word

and enacted through explanation and persuasion.

(Lowndes et al., 2006; Blanco et al., 2022)

Table 3.1 (below) explains how each of these modes of constraint are not

isolated, they interact so that each informs the other. For example, although it

stands to reason that practices emerge based on rules, this is not always the

case; practices can sometimes be informed by narratives that have been

created to justify them, which themselves may or may not have been validated

by formal rules. It is the interplay of the three, and consideration of how they

influence each other that can broaden understanding of the dominant

paradigms in the institution being studied.

Table 3.1 Modes of institutional constraint: key characteristics and

interconnections

Rules Practices Narratives

Key characteristic

Formally

constructed and

recorded

Demonstrated

through conduct

Expressed through

the spoken word

Enacted by actors

through

Writing and formal

interpretation such

as policies

Consistent

rehearsal of ‘the

ways in which we do

things here’

Linking together

ideas into

explanation and

persuasion

Interconnection

between modes

Narratives are

used to justify the

existence of rules;

rules can formalise

well established

practices.

Practices form the

basis of narratives;

rules may specify

the practices

through which actors

must enact the rules.

Narratives inform

which rules are

formalised, but

they can also

emerge to justify

practices.

Source: Adapted from Lowndes and Roberts (2013, p. 52) Modes of institutional

constraint: key characteristics

In addition to the interconnectedness explained above, institutionalism

recognises that practices can be a result of ‘formal’ or ‘informal’ rules. Formal

rules are usually written processes that clearly specify what actions are

permitted (such as legislation, regulation, terms of reference, budget, or

reporting systems). Instead, ‘informal’ rules, or what Ostrom (2011) refers to as

‘rules-in-use’, are usually unwritten and, in many ways, intuitive (such as beliefs,

norms, and values). Each have either explicit or implicit influence over practices

by forming narratives around ‘the way we do things around here’ (Lowndes &

Roberts, 2013), and each provides insight into how policy actors process

information and select appropriate courses of action (Ostrom, 1986).

Finally, institutionalism recognises that the paradigms that emerge to explain

and justify practices also create path dependency; this is where constraints that

have shaped policy actors’ decisions and actions can create conditions that are

perpetuated continually over time and are only punctuated occasionally with

episodes of change (Montambeault, 2019).

3.2.1 Institutionalism and democratic innovations

There are a small number of latent accounts of institutionalism in democratic

innovations scholarship. For example, Hendricks and Lees-Marshment (2019)

examined the motivations of political actors, and Blijleven et al. (2019)

considered how democratic innovations were adapted by public servants to suit

organisational needs. However, scholars in the field of democratic innovations

do not usually consider institutionalist theory from the frame of reference

described in the previous section. To illustrate, in Democratic innovations;

Designing institutions for citizen participation, Smith (2009) recognises that

fiscal and bureaucratic investment in democratic innovations depend on the

‘structure of incentives that each innovation embodies’ (p. 180). However, as

noted in Chapter 2, Smith also suggests that the level of ‘acceptable burden’ on

institutions is informed by comparing the required investment with the ‘perceived

costs and benefits of not embedding participation within the decisionmaking

process’ (p. 26, emphasis original). Smith therefore recognises that institutional

constraints and incentives matter, however, hypothesises that the potential

value generated by democratic innovations will sufficiently incentivise policy

actors to pursue them as a viable course of action. As also established in

Chapter 2, this is a common assumption made by scholars in the field

(Nabatchi, 2010; Hartz-Karp & Briand, 2009a). Challenging this assumption, an

institutionalist perspective suggests actors use criteria of similarity and

congruence rather than likelihood and potential value. As such, when

determining courses of action, institutionalism predicts that policy actors will

apply ‘the logic of appropriateness’ and proceed according to the extant

practices of the collective, based on mutual and often tacit understandings of

what is true, reasonable, natural, right, and good (Olsen & March, 2004, p. 4).

Whilst some scholars of democratic innovations have intimated the relevance of

an institutionalist lens, few have applied it in this manner. Nevertheless, some

recent studies specifically apply institutionalism. For example, Montambeault

(2019) uses an institutionalist lens for examining participatory budgeting in

Brazil, and Blanco et al. (2022) directly apply rules, practices, and narratives

when examining participatory governance.

3.2.2 How institutionalism is applied in this case study

If institutionalism is a lens through which to examine how ‘governments work’,

arguably, democratic innovations tend to focus on how ‘governments should

work’. By using institutionalism as a lens through which to study the

operationalisation of deliberative engagement practices, the research agrees

with Shapiro (2003), who asserts ‘speculation about what ought to be is likely to

be more useful when informed by relevant knowledge of what is feasible’ (p. 2).

Therefore, it is expected that this particular ontological position will provide

insight into the constructs and motivations that guide or constrain the agency of

local government actors as they engage in the task of interpreting and

implementing the new legislative requirements.

Using institutionalism, the research explores questions such as: What are the

dominant practices that are not actually written down? Are there gaps between

the formal rules and the way things ‘really work’? Are there frequently rehearsed

‘stories’ that explain why people act one way rather than another? How do

actors circumvent or seek to adapt rules and practices? (Lowndes & Roberts,

2013, p. 10). An institutional focus can therefore be beneficial in understanding

how councils interpret, shape, and implement the new legislation and,

fundamentally, the extent to which the aspirations of the legislation and a new

relationship between local governments and their communities might be

possible (Barnes et al., 2007).

Institutionalism also brings attention to the inherent system rather than isolated

instances of deliberative engagement practices. Moving away from

methodologies that examine different types of democratic innovations and their

relative successes, the institutionalist approach advanced in this research refers

to permanent structures of government and the organisational conditions that

initiatives are developed within and shaped by. Furthermore, because an

institutionalist lens recognises the proclivity for institutions to ‘stick’ and create

predicable and repeated courses of action, it is possible that its application will

uncover aspects that are contributing to the ‘institutional stickiness’ described in

Chapter 2.

Connected to this, institutionalist theory suggests that path dependency is only

disrupted by ‘episodes of change, which generally occur at “critical junctures”,

during moments of history when actors face choices that may alter the

institutional path’ (Montambeault, 2019, p. 32). The Victorian Local Government

Act 2020 can be seen as one such ‘critical juncture’, as an exogenous force that

is premised on an intention to alter established public participation norms.

Therefore, the research offers an opportunity to study how path dependencies

might be altered by reform efforts, and, specifically with the institutionalisation of

democratic innovations, to not only understand but also identify what is required

to address the aforementioned ‘institutional stickiness’.

Expanding on the modes of constraint described in the earlier section, Table 3.2

(below) explains how the concepts of rules, practices, and narratives have been

applied to this research’s specific case study. It demonstrates how an

institutionalist approach brings attention to the interconnectedness of different

modes of constraint and how they manifest through diverse actions or artefacts

produced by state and local governments in Victoria.

Table 3.2 Modes of institutional constraint as applied to the Victorian Local

Government Act 2020 case study

Key

characteristic

How this mode of constraint was identified in the

Victorian Local Government Act 2020 case study

Rules

Formally

constructed and

recorded

⁃ Definition of ‘deliberative engagement practices’

in the Act.

⁃ Definition of ‘deliberative engagement practices’

in councils’ community engagement policy.

Practices Demonstrated

through conduct

How deliberative engagement practices were

designed and implemented including:

⁃ level of influence.

⁃ recruitment of community members.

⁃ measures taken to strengthen legitimacy.

⁃ involvement of councillors.

Narratives

Expressed

through the

spoken

word

⁃ Narratives from the legislator explaining

aspirations for mandating deliberative

engagement practices.

⁃ Narratives from local government actors

justifying how practices were implemented.

Source: Author’s own

3.3 Public value theory as a useful heuristic for democratic

innovations

Along with institutionalism, the research has applied public value theory (in

particular, the public value strategic triangle that is explained later) as a way of

conceptualising and organising the dynamic interplay of incentives and

constraints on policy actors.

Public value theory was first posited in a substantive form in 1995 by Professor

Mark Moore during their time teaching the executive program at the Harvard

John F. Kennedy School of Government. The theory centres on the strategic

role public sector managers play in ensuring their organisations produce ‘public

value’ from the assets entrusted to them.

Moore’s initial aim was to ‘build a conceptual framework for public sector

managers to help them make sense of the strategic challenges and complex

choices they faced’ (Bennington & Moore, 2010, p. 1). Whilst it is not within the

scope of this research to provide a full exposition, it is important to note that

over its 30-year history, the concept of public value has been stretched far

beyond Moore’s initial aspirations, variously interpreted, and subject to some

criticism (for an overview, see O’Flynn, 2021). Acknowledging that the

interpretation of public value theory can be expansive, the following sections

consider how it is conceptually aligned to the study of democratic innovations. In

addition, before going on to explain how public value theory was applied for this

study, the subsequent sections recognise its potential limitations, including how

it theoretically relates to institutionalism.

3.3.1 Public value and addressing the ‘democratic deficit’

Public value theory was considered useful for this research for several reasons.

As noted in Chapter 2, much of the theory that has underpinned democratic

innovations is informed by a perceived ‘democratic deficit’ and the premise that,

rather than elected representatives, a group of ‘ordinary’ citizens is more likely

to make policy recommendations that consider the common good. In a similar

vein, public value theory argues that the ‘public’ is the proper arbiter of what is

collectively valued, and therefore, how governments should invest public goods

(Horner et al., 2006; Moore, 2013).

Notwithstanding that Moore loosely defines the ‘public’ as something that is

collectively defined through democratic processes (in Quick & Bryson, 2016),

and therefore arguably could include elected representatives, public value

theory considers the simple aggregation of individual interests as a blunt

mechanism for signalling complex preferences across a broad range of policy

issues (Kelly et al., 2002; Stoker, 2006). In doing so, public value theory

acknowledges the plurality of the public and its preferences; it calls for

governance arrangements that allow for different voices to be expressed and

considered (Horner & Hutton, 2011) and gives centrality to ‘the public’ when

considering how competing values and interests are expressed and debated

(Benington & Moore, 2010).

Furthermore, scholars of public value theory recognise that how the ‘public

sphere’ is constructed, and therefore, whose voices participate in any policy

debate, is integral to understanding the plurality of values and identities

represented at any one time and place (Benington, 2009; Horner et al., 2006).

Public value scholars apply the theory as a heuristic device to stimulate debate

between competing interests and perspectives (Benington, 2009; Benington &

Hartley, 2019), much like scholars of democratic innovations who have also

consistently grappled with notions of representation and how spaces are

created for the equal participation of pluralistic and competing opinions (Phillips,

1994; Dovi, 2016; James, 2008; Karpowitz & Raphael, 2016).

Public value has been described by some scholars as ‘redressing the

democratic deficit between public services and citizens’ (Horner & Hutton, 2011,

p. 113), and as outlined in this section, the premises of democratic innovations

and public value align significantly. However, this connection between the

theories has only been explored by a handful of scholars (Benington, 2009;

Horner & Hutton, 2011; Thompson & Riedy, 2014), including by Moore in

collaboration with Fung, who is one of the leading proponents of deliberative

democratic theory (Moore & Fung, 2012).

3.3.2 The public manager centred lens and democratic

innovations

Whilst the previous section demonstrates how public value theory aligns

strongly with the premise of democratic innovations, it is not without its

limitations in the context of this research. Primarily, it is acknowledged that

public value theory centres the role of public managers in mediating the

aspirations of the public with the organisational need for efficiencies when

developing services and policies (Grant & Fisher, 2011). It relies on public

managers to balance their ‘professional judgement with citizen demand’ (Horner

et al. 2006, p. 7). This could be interpreted as conflictual with the ideals of

democratic innovations that instead centre the deliberations of ‘the public’.

Whilst recognising this disjuncture, it is equally important to acknowledge that

democratic innovations are unequivocally tied to the public managers who are

tasked with operationalising them. Crucially, public managers also ‘control the

extent of participation’ (Osborne & Strokosch, 2022, p. 188). This is especially

the case for this research, which is based on reforms that squarely placed the

responsibility for ‘deliberative engagement practices’ on councils to interpret,

define, and deliver. As noted in Chapter 2, this materiality has mostly been

absent from the study of democratic innovations.

3.4 Institutionalism and public value combined

While institutionalism and public value theory provide a useful lens to examine

this case study, a straightforward connection between the theoretical

underpinnings of the two is not implied. There are some key ontological

differences that should be acknowledged. First, public value theory places the

public manager at the forefront and positions them as an active agent in

shaping the functions of government and their political environments (O’Flynn,

2021). With its ‘public manager-centric’ approach, public value theory inherently

implies the role and agency of policy actors is paramount. In contrast,

institutionalism focuses on collective agency and factors influencing the system

as a whole, asserting that the agency of policy actors is heavily constrained.

Moore (1995) asserts that public value theory does not ‘explain the behaviour of

organisations or why managers behave the way they do because it details what

managers should think and do’ (p. 2, emphasis original) – it is a normative

theory of managerial behaviour. As such, while public value theory interprets the

role of the public manager as active (some argue it is too active, Rhodes &

Wanna, 2007), institutionalist theory interprets it as relatively passive (some

argue it is too passive, Battilana et al., 2009). Acknowledging this theoretical

paradox, the research assumed no specific leaning for either frame of

reference, and, in fact, saw them as equally important, interweaving both the

influence of individual agency and organisational constraints into the analysis.

Further to the above distinction, how transformation or change is conceptualised

in the two theoretical approaches must also be considered. As noted earlier, an

institutionalist approach is interested in patterns of behaviour and modes of

constraint that affirm stability (Lowndes & Roberts, 2013).

Conversely, public value theory is premised on the ability of public managers to

assess and leverage opportunities to generate ‘value’; which Moore (1995)

believes is an important route to institutional reform. Rather than ‘subject to’ the

status quo, public value theory is intentionally transforming it, thus conceptually

in tension with what is generally considered an institutionalist perspective.

However, Lowndes and Roberts (2013) acknowledge that institutions ‘empower

as well as constrain’ (p. 77). Likewise, DiMaggio (1988) proposes the concept

of ‘institutional entrepreneurs’, suggesting that path dependency need not

always be ascendent and policy actors could demonstrate embedded agency.

In terms of this research case study, much like the earlier point, the analysis

approached both conceptual leanings as worthwhile. As the research is based

on a reform agenda that was explicitly designed to create transformation, both

perspectives were seen as useful for understanding the dynamics and

complexities that would ensue in the implementation of the Victorian Local

Government Act 2020.

3.5 An analytical framework based on the public value strategic

triangle

Having established the theoretical lens for the research, this section introduces

the analytical framework that was developed to guide its first stages, beginning

with its use of the public value strategic triangle.

The public value strategic triangle recognises the dynamic environment within

which government organisations operate (Figure 3.1). It proposes that ‘public

value’ is achieved when public managers integrate: an understanding of what

would be valued and effective (value2), an awareness of whether it will be

politically supported (legitimacy and support, or often referred to as the

authorising environment) along with whether it is administratively and

operationally feasible (operational capacity).

Figure 3.1 Public value strategic triangle

2 The distinction between ‘public value’ and the ‘value’ point of the strategic triangle should be clarified.

While ‘value’ is considered one important point of the strategic triangle (along with the two other points

‘legitimacy and support’ and ‘operational capacity’), ‘public value’ is what is achieved when all three

strategic triangle points are aligned.

Source: O’Flynn (2021)

While each of the three triangle points are considered strategically important for

creating public value, they are understood as interconnected. Therefore, failure

in one will undermine the creation of public value overall (O’Flynn, 2021). As

such, the work of public managers is to constantly consider and fashion

workable trade-offs amongst these strategic triangle points (Alford & O’Flynn,

2009, p. 173).

Aligning the research with the public value strategic triangle was considered

conceptually useful because it recognised that designing and integrating

‘deliberative engagement practices’ in Victorian local governments would be

influenced by several variables, including the authorising environment and

operational capacity of each council. The strategic triangle ensured these

factors, and their interconnections, were examined, and that concepts could be

organised with a high degree of explanatory power.

Pragmatically, the themes of the public value strategic triangle also served as a

means of creating some clear thematic parameters around initial data collection.

As noted in Chapter 2, the breadth of scholarship around democratic

innovations is substantial. Within this, there is a challenge for any empirical

inquiry to understand which specific variables are worth investigating. The

public value strategic triangle was applied as a methodological tool to guide and

structure inquiry and an analytical framework was built around its three triangle

points.

Before presenting the analytical framework, it is important to recognise that a

significant body of literature applies the public value strategic triangle as a tool

to measure the ‘public value’ created by government organisations (for an

overview, see Faulkner & Kaufman, 2018). In the context of this research, the

public value strategic triangle was not a means for measuring or evaluating

democratic innovations. Instead, its application belongs to another body of

contemporary public management thought that applies public value theory as a

heuristic device (Hartley et al., 2017). In a sense, this approach casts back to

how Moore originally conceived public value theory as a useful ‘tool to

understand the competing challenges public managers faced’ (Bennington &

Moore, 2010, p. 1).

3.6 Analytical themes for deliberative engagement

This section provides an outline of the analytical framework and its sub-themes,

beginning with a brief overview of how the framework was developed and then

how it was applied, followed by clarification around its iterative premise.

3.6.1 Developing an analytical framework

As noted previously, the strategic triangle points were utilised as the basis for an

analytical framework that was developed and guided the initial stages of the

data collection and analysis. The typical application of the public value strategic

triangle focuses attention on the three points of the triangle, and their degree of

alignment, but does not usually postulate any particular set of sub-themes within

those points; however, the analytical framework designed for this research did.

These sub-themes were identified following an extensive literature review and

served as a way of mapping what is already known about democratic

innovations in the context of the three public value strategic triangle points. That

is, the literature review was conducted seeking to understand: What is known

about how authorising environments engage with democratic innovations? What

is known about the operational capacity required to implement democratic

innovations? The literature review included examination of existing national and

international research on democratic innovations, including deliberative and

participatory democracy theory, community engagement practice, and civic

participation initiatives. Where possible, the literature review focused on

research conducted in a local government context. Particular attention was

given to public administration and the involvement of elected representatives

rather than the democratic innovations themselves. Through this process, the

concepts that emerged were organised schematically around the public value

strategic triangle points, and within each of those, sub- themes were identified.

These are outlined in more detail in the following section.

3.6.2 Analytical framework themes

The following section briefly describes the range of sub-themes that emerged

when considering the existing literature and how the themes related to the

points of the public value strategic triangle.

Figure 3.2 Analytical framework themes and sub-themes

Source: Author’s own

Table 3.3 provides a synopsis of the sub-themes and literature which informed

the analytical framework. These are subsequently outlined in more detail.

Table 3.3 Analytical Framework: sub-themes, descriptions and application

Sub-theme Description Selected References Application

Participation Voices that make

up the public

sphere at any

given time.

Benington (2009)

Mansbridge (2003)

Young (2002)

Fishkin (2011)

Caluwaerts & Reuchamps

(2016)

Bohman (2012)

Consideration given

to how decisions

are made around

which members of

the public

participate in

processes.

Value proposition Clear articulation of

outcomes sought

and benefits of the

process.

Johnson (2006)

Cornwell (2004)

Parkinson and

Mansbridge (2012)

Goodin & Dryzek (2006)

Consideration given

to establishing a

clear ‘value

proposition’ that

mobilises

authorising

environment.

Informal

accountability

Sense of

ownership from

elected

representatives.

Hendricks (2016)

Bherer et al. (2016)

Fung (2006)

Baiocchi et al. (2011)

Warren (2017)

Sense of

accountability for

honouring the

outcomes of the

process.

Civic context Context within

which democratic

innovations occur

including influence

of civil society

actors.

Smith (2009)

Budge (2000)

Nabatchi (2012)

Fagotto & Fung (2009)

Consideration of the

broader civic

context and key

actors with political

agency.

Organisational

management

The resources,

competencies and

structures that are

allocated to the

initiative.

Hartz-Karp & Briand

(2009)

Baiocchi et al. (2011)

Hendricks & Carson

(2008)

Consideration of the

preparedness of the

organisation to

undertake the task.

Organisational culture The intrinsic

motivations of

those tasked with

designing and

delivering

initiatives.

Lowndes & Sullivan

(2004)

Pratchett (2004)

Lowndes (2005)

Fung (2015)

Consideration of the

institutional norms

and agency of those

tasked with

implementation.

Source: Author’s own

Value

In the context of the strategic triangle, ‘value’ describes the process of

understanding what the public values, and, as a result, what the government

should invest public goods and resources towards achieving.

Participation: who participates and notions of representation

Implicit the concept of public value is the notion that there is a public (a

collective consisting of individual citizens) that can be a reliable arbiter of public

Value Authorising Environment Operational Capacity

value and can articulate the value it wants to see created. However, the public is

not a pre-existing or static entity; it is a social construct (Barnes et al., 2007)

designed and judged based on whether it is sufficiently representative to

legitimise decisions (Bohman, 2012). Moore (2019) refers to this dilemma as an

‘enduring paradox’ and asks, ‘how could a “public” that consists of individuals

with many different ideas about how the society in which they live should be

organised for the common good, possibly speak articulately and coherently

about the particular conditions that they as a “public” value?’ (p. 360)

This paradox can also be found in democratic innovations literature. Various

scholars have grappled with the complexity of creating deliberative spaces that

enable the equal participation of pluralistic and competing opinions (Phillips,

1994; Mansbridge, 2003; Dovi, 2016; Fishkin, 2011; James, 2008; Karpowitz &

Raphael, 2016). Given that ‘meaningful participation in collective

decisionmaking by anything more than a tiny minority is inconceivable in

contemporary nation-states’ (Dryzek, 2012, p. 24), who is represented and how

much influence they have (legitimate or otherwise) are central, abiding concerns

in the quality and legitimacy of public participation processes (Quick & Bryson,

2016). Furthermore, Fung (2015) cautions that cohorts can be manipulated to

favour the groups, or views, that organisers consider most pertinent; and

therefore, who participates is of critical importance to the outcomes of

democratic innovations.

The ‘value’ proposition

Equally important as who participates, is that the process itself is legitimised by

the authorising environment, and to achieve this, there must be an agreed

‘value proposition’. This may seem self-evident; however, within the context of

democratic innovations, how the ‘value proposition’ is understood by different

policy actors is not always apparent or clearly articulated. To clarify, there are

various conceptions of the benefits of democratic innovations. Some engage

with it for its normative value of improving democracy, some see the epistemic

value of collecting information that will lead to better quality decisions, and

others see strategic value in sharing risk or mitigating dissent (Bherer et al.,

2016).

Depending on how it is perceived, the ‘value proposition’ of any democratic

innovation can have an instrumental effect on how it is designed and the

adoption of its outcomes. This is relevant both to the authorising environment,

wherein the instrumental benefits it provides are fundamental to any success

(Johnson, 2006; Caluwaerts & Reuchamps, 2016; Cornwall, 2004; Parkinson &

Mansbridge, 2012; Goodin & Dryzek, 2006), as well as the operating

environment, where decisions around resource allocation and the

operationalisation of the practices are dependent in large part on how

incentivised public servants are to consult, adapt, and create processes for

them to occur (Fung, 2015; OECD, 2020)

Authorising environment

The authorising environment refers to the mechanism whereby proposals are

tested and modified against the stances of elected politicians and those who

influence them (Alford & O’Flynn, 2011, p. 177). In the context of this research,

the authorising environment was focused on how political actors (including

elected representatives and civic sector actors) engaged with and influenced

deliberative practices.

Informal accountability

Described as a sense of ‘informal accountability’ (Hendricks, 2016), studies

indicate that when elected representatives have a sense of ownership towards a

democratic innovation, they also feel a sense of responsibility for its outcomes.

Fung (2006) suggests this is public participation ‘at its best’, operating in

synergy with representation.

To achieve this informal accountability, democratic innovations can be designed

with a set of formal interactions between citizens and elected representatives

embedded within them; for example, at the beginning of a process elected

representatives make a commitment to how they will integrate citizens’

recommendations in their decision-making (Hendricks, 2016). Integral to this,

and related to what was pointed out in the value proposition section, ‘elected

representatives need to translate their commitment to participatory democracy

into a source of political capital rather than a drain on it’ (Fung, 2015, p. 520).

Informal accountability can also sometimes arise from more general civic

expectations surrounding an initiative. For example, despite no actual law for

institutionalised participatory budgeting, city councillors in Porto Alegre felt

significant pressure to approve the outcomes of these processes because of the

legitimacy that flowed from direct citizen participation (Gastil & Levine, 2005). In

these cases, where the informal accountability is derived from the broader

public sphere, whilst elected representatives typically retain the power to veto

recommendations, the perceived democratic legitimacy of the deliberative

process means that it exceeds its formal decision-making status (Smith, 2009).

Civic context

Aligned to Smith’s ‘democratic good’ of transparency (2009), the extent to which

broader civic society actors are aware of and engage with democratic

innovations is also pertinent. Various studies have found that the civic context

can play an influential role in how democratic innovations are framed by the

commissioning organisation; for example, as a way to respond to public

pressure (Hendricks, 2013), or as a means to justify potentially contentious

decisions (Ercan et al., 2017; Johnson, 2011).

Civil society actors can also have either an enabling or counterproductive effect

on the outcomes of democratic innovations (Fagotto & Fung, 2009). By their

nature, civic society organisations and actors carry out the role of being

representatives and intermediaries between government and the cohorts they

advocate for (Budge, 2000). These actors usually have very explicit and fixed

positions on issues; they are also usually focused on particular causes rather

than broader public interest (Nabatchi, 2012). Furthermore, they have often

spent considerable time and effort in building political agency that they are

unlikely to give up easily. Therefore, the way democratic innovations engage

with these civic society actors has importance as they may otherwise use their

political capital to disrupt the process.

Operational capacity

Operational capacity describes whether an initiative is operationally and

administratively feasible (Alford & O’Flynn, 2009). This not only encapsulates

formal aspects such as how an organisation is resourced, structured, and

governed but also more tactic aspects such as organisational cultures.

Organisational management

Research involving community engagement practitioners found that the most

common difficulties they encountered were a lack of resources and poor

planning (Christensen & McQuestin, 2019). However, it is well recognised that

democratic innovations tend to be resource intensive and take considerable

time (Smith, 2009; Hartz-Karp & Briand, 2009b). Therefore, democratic

innovations can be compromised by restricted funding, limited timelines, and

inefficient structures.

In addition to the resource constraints, democratic innovations also require a set

of competencies that are perceived to be specialised by consultants. This

perception is supported by what has been referred to as the ‘marketisation of

deliberative democracy’ (Hendricks & Carson, 2008) where a ‘deliberative

industry’ has primarily been spearheaded by consultants (Christensen & Grant,

2020). This may present issues for the institutionalisation of democratic

innovation given that some of its main proponents and ‘experts’ have

commercialised the practice and therefore have significant motivation to ensure

these competencies remain separate from governments’ internal capabilities.

Organisational cultures

Building operational capacity for democratic innovations requires not only the

requisite resources and competencies, but also recognition that operational

resistance can create significant obstacles (Fung, 2015; OECD, 2020). As noted

in Chapter 2, scholars have found that ‘in the absence of a clear articulation of

democratic priorities and values’, practices have emerged which, rather than

shifting deeply embedded institutional norms, have adapted to reinforce

institutional priorities and values (Pratchett, 2004, p. 372). Lowndes (2005)

describes this as ‘institutional stickiness’ where, despite legislation, government

guidance, and the widespread adoption of model constitutions by government,

the rules-in-use (as opposed to the rules-in-form) do not seem different to those

that went before (p. 296).

Fung (2015) describes the need for organisational champions who are adaptive,

have enough political savvy to identify and organise allies, and the

perseverance to see the enterprise through (p. 520). This is no small feat for

those tasked with designing and delivering democratic innovations, particularly

given community engagement practitioners can often rank low in organisational

hierarchies and therefore have limited formal power to compel others (McKinlay

et al., 2011). Their ability to enact organisational culture change therefore relies

strongly on how they can influence across the organisational hierarchy.

3.6.3 How the sub-themes of the analytical framework were

applied

Whilst the analytical framework described above was useful for orientating data

collection to existing scholarship, it is acknowledged that it may appear as if the

framework made implicit empirical predictions. As explained later in Chapter 4,

the sub-themes from the framework were not applied as a predictive tool or with

the expectation that they would be utilised for testing propositions (Hartley et al.,

2017). Instead, they were orienting concepts that served to guide data collection

and analysis (Layder, 2013, p. 7). The analytical framework was not developed

as a means for making a claim that any or all the sub-themes are instrumental

to democratic innovations. Likewise, the sub-themes were not intended to be

definitive or exhaustive.

The framework was purely an initial map to guide data collection, and it was

assumed that as the research progressed and data was collected and analysed,

aspects that were understood to be influential would shift and evolve. This

occurred and is outlined in Chapters 4 and 9. As such, the analytical framework

presented is best viewed as a starting point to guide this research. It is a

mechanism through which various democratic innovations can be investigated

and a springboard for analysis.

3.7 Conclusion

This chapter outlined why institutionalism and public value theory were selected

for the research approach. It articulated how these theories relate to the study of

democratic innovations and hypothesised how they may offer new ways of

understanding the institutionalisation of the practices. The chapter explored

some of the existing scholarship that applies these theoretical lenses and notes

that there has been limited investigation through these conceptual frames of

reference. The chapter also recognised the ways in which institutionalism and

public value theory differ in terms of ontological leanings, especially how they

perceive public managers’ sense of agency and how the two theoretical

approaches understand change. How these differing standpoints were

reconciled in the context of this research was explained, noting that both were

seen as instrumental for better understanding the legislative reforms. Finally, the

chapter introduced the analytical framework that was developed to guide the

initial stages of the research and gave an account its sub-themes.

Chapter 4: Research design

4.1 Introduction

Building on the previous chapter, which outlined the theoretical underpinnings of

the research, this chapter explains the relationship between this theoretical

foundation and the research design. This chapter also provides further

explanation of the case study approach, including the reasons why the Victorian

Local Government Act 2020 was identified as a compelling opportunity for this

investigation.

The chapter begins with the research questions and explains that an

interpretivist lens was selected for the research methodology. It examines briefly

how this interpretivist lens relates to other studies of democratic innovations,

before explaining how the research is empirically based, focusing on the

practice. The researchers’ own ‘positionality’ within the research is elaborated,

including mechanisms that were applied to reduce potential bias. The chapter

then details the research site and rationale for applying a case study research

method. This includes a description of the embedded units of analysis and how

they were determined. The research design, which incorporates a mixed

methods approach, is then outlined. Aligned to the mixed methods approach,

the qualitative and quantitative data collection instruments are explained with a

brief account of why each instrument was selected and any purposive sampling

that occurred. The final section describes the data analysis approach, explains

how data from the mixed methods approach was integrated, and how the

findings were organised and structured.

4.2 Research methodology

4.2.1 Research questions and aims

The research was premised on the contention that, to fully understand how

democratic innovations are embedded in governance structures, a more indepth

exploration through an institutionalist lens is worthwhile. Furthermore, a

schematic based on the public value strategic triangle supports the research to

examine how value, operational capacity and the authorising environment

influence the way practices are interpreted and applied. As such, rather than

one overarching research question, the research used three distinct yet

interconnected lines of inquiry aligned with the public value strategic triangle

points:

• How are deliberative engagement practices understood and interpreted by

local government organisations? (Value)

• How does the authorising environment influence the design and

implementation of deliberative engagement practices, including their

perceived legitimacy? (Authorising environment)

• How do organisational cultures and constraints inform how deliberative

engagement practices are designed and implemented? (Operational

capacity)

In the context of increased calls for the institutionalisation of the practices, the

research’s aim was to provide a broader appreciation of the constructs that

influence and affect how democratic innovations are operationalised. With a

more complete picture of the nature of the practice, including the organisational

adaptations and shifts that are made when implementing democratic

innovations, it was anticipated that the research would contribute to a greater

understanding of how to meet the ideals of democratic renewal and

citizeninformed practice. In addition, given the research is framed around the

reforms in the Victorian Local Government Act 2020, it was also an opportunity

to examine how legislative reform that endeavours to expand public

participation in government decision-making is interpreted and brought into

effect.

4.2.2 Interpretivism: a focus on situated meaning and context

An interpretivist research approach was considered appropriate for this

research because it aligns significantly to the study’s theoretical application of

an institutionalist lens (as outlined in Chapter 3).

Interpretivism is known to be useful for in-depth, close-up, context-specific

studies that illuminate a phenomenon or experience (Hendricks et al., 2013, p.

6). It does not subscribe to the notion that it is possible to identify the ‘way

things are’ in context-free generalisations (Guba & Lincoln, 1994), but rather,

that policy actors make sense of, or interpret, actions through the meanings

they bring to their work (Bevir, 2011). Much like institutionalism, interpretivism

guides researchers to focus on the contexts that actively construct agency and

inform the way policy actors interact, take action, and make decisions

(Schwartz-Shea & Yanow, 2012). This was seen as important for this study,

which focused on how institutional constructs influenced the way public

managers made sense of, interpreted, and put into practice ‘deliberative

engagement’. Furthermore, an interpretivist approach meant that the study was

orientated towards uncovering how ‘webs of meaning’ were created and

sustained. This was seen as integral to better understanding not only the

processes for operationalising democratic innovations but also, ultimately, how

they are institutionalised in traditional systems of governance.

Aligned to the contextual nature of an interpretivist approach, it was not within

the research’s ambit to identify phenomena that would be replicated and

objectively true as might occur through a positivist approach. This study was not

seeking to determine causality and the methodological approach did not

assume that a single conclusion or explanation would unequivocally be

established (Miles & Huberman, 1984). Rather, the research was conducted

with a premise that, by focusing on the plurality of situated meanings and

experiences, a more complete understanding of the incentives and drivers for

institutional change would be uncovered.

Furthermore, while the research is predominantly situated in examining the

practices of local government organisations, it also considered the dominant

narratives during their realisation. Although Flyvbjerg’s (2006) assertion that ‘we

should look at what people actually do, rather than what they say they do’ (p.

245) is reasonable; in the context of this research, this approach could have

oversimplified understanding and interpretation. With both an interpretivist and

institutionalist lens, the research recognised that the actions of public mangers

were, in fact, extraordinarily layered manifestations of power, authority,

negotiation, and social constructs (Forester, 2003). The array of formal and

informal incentives or modes of constraint that informed actions were

considered, and as such, ‘what people said they did’ and ‘what they actually did’

were equally important. Moreover, particular attention was given to instances of

incongruity because how actions were rationalised was also deemed

informative.

4.2.3 Interpretivism and democratic innovations

Within the research field of democratic innovations, the subject of pertinent

methodological approaches and their relative benefits or limitations has been

discussed extensively (for examples, see Ercan et al., 2022, Ryan, 2019, Talpin,

2019, Ercan et al., 2017; Spada & Ryan, 2017; Hendricks, 2007). However, it

has been proposed that interpretive research approaches have constantly been

central to the study of democratic innovations (for an overview, see Hendricks et

al., 2013), and that interpretivism is especially suited to this field because it is

sensitive to the contextual and contingent nature of deliberative processes

(Ercan et al., 2017, p. 200).

However, empirical studies of democratic innovations have also shown positivist

tendencies by ‘searching out examples that embody their normative ideals’

(Smith, 2019, p. 573). Unlike this usual methodological approach, this research

did not seek to identify or describe exemplary practice and did not aim to

discover how local government in Victoria ‘should’ implement deliberative

engagement. Therefore, although the temptation to run through a checklist of

seemingly objective criteria and assess how deliberative engagement practices

were delivered in Victoria was sometimes hard to resist, the focus remained on

exploring the reasons why policy actors were making certain choices, and why

some patterns of action were perceived as more appropriate than others,

irrespective of how those choices aligned to the normative ideals of democratic

innovations. In this sense, this research responded to what Ercan et al. (2022)

suggest is a key methodological question for the field: how to bridge normative

theory and ‘what ought to be’ with empirical understandings of ‘what is actually

happening’.

4.3 Researcher as practitioner

Before proceeding to describe the research design, it is important to

acknowledge my ‘researcher as practitioner’ positionality in this study.3

Positionality is an individual’s world view, the position they adopt about a

research task and its social and political context. It informs ontological and

epistemological assumptions as well as assumptions about human nature and

agency (Holmes, 2020).

As someone who worked in local government for close to a decade and was a

consultant in the public policy and participatory governance space at the time

the research was being conducted, my own interpretation of the research

cannot conceivably be separated in an independent or objective manner

(Schwartz-Shea & Yanow, 2012; Creswell, 2016). There is a clear conceptual

leaning for my focus on the practice and my own personal interest in

participatory governance; in fact, it was a driver for this research orientation. My

experience has also intuitively informed the centrality I have given to

operationalisation and practice for understanding how democratic innovations

are designed and developed in a local government sector context.

From an epistemological position, my experience as a practitioner provided

valuable knowledge and foundations for minimising the distance between the

researcher and the subject being researched (Flyvbjerg, 2006; Creswell, 2016).

It gave me access that might otherwise have been difficult to obtain and

facilitated building trust with research participants. However, this was not

without some ‘murkiness’ and occasional tension between being both an

‘insider’ and an ‘outsider’ (Yanow, 2000; Escobar, 2014). While I have a ‘lived

familiarity’ and a priori knowledge of the context of the study (Holmes, 2020), it

is not completely accurate to describe my positionality as an ‘insider’, because I

have never delivered a deliberative engagement process, nor do I have any

experience working on similar projects. At times, research participants assumed

I had this knowledge which needed to be clarified. Conversely, it is equally not

3 While a third-person voice has been used throughout the thesis, it felt disingenuous to use it for this

section and the first person was used instead.

entirely true that I am an ‘outsider’ because I do have a nuanced understanding

of the organisational cultures, language, and systems research participants

were operating within. As such, it is more precise to say I straddled both the

‘insider’ and ‘outsider’ positions (Holmes, 2020).

It is recognised that this ‘positionality’ influenced my interactions with the

research participants and access to research sites, and therefore, the data

generated (Schwartz-Shea & Yanow, 2009). This ‘positionality’ means that the

research could not be considered ‘value-free’ (Holmes, 2020); however, the

research design was consistently mindful of my own biases and attempts to

mitigate these were approached in several ways.

To begin, the research was not designed to seek out empirical proof that

validated my experience. The methodology did not approach the research

questions with preconceived notions of what needed to be uncovered; rather, it

sought to better understand the constructs that practitioners operate within. In

addition, although my experience and perspectives may have shaped how I

interpreted some data, the broad spectrum of data collection instruments, as

well as the plurality of viewpoints that were sought, acted to moderate this

potential bias. Finally, the data analysis, which is explained in more detail later

in this chapter, also adopted strategies to minimise partialities.

4.4 Research Case Study

Chapter 1 introduced the research site of the Victorian Local Government Act

2020 and provided some of its key contextual details for this study. This section

provides an outline of the case study method applied for the research, why it

was selected, and the embedded units of analysis included in the study.

4.4.1 Single case study method

A case study is an empirical method that investigates a contemporary

phenomenon in depth and within its real-world context (Yin, 2012). Aligned with

the research questions and aim of this study, this method is recognised for its

ability to draw out in-depth understanding of how democratic innovations are

designed and implemented (Elstub & Pomatto, 2022). Moreover, a case study

approach can also capture subtle and detailed information about a particular

policy objective and the circumstances of its implementation (Fischer, 2003).

Finally, given its ambitious intention to ‘improve democracy’ (as described in

Chapter 1), the Victorian Local Government Act 2020 was arguably a historically

distinctive event, falling into the category of a ‘remarkable circumstance’, which

Yin (2009) suggests makes for more compelling and better case studies.

Broadly, the unit of analysis is the Victorian Local Government Act 2020;

however, to further define the boundaries of the case study (Yin, 2014) the

research specifically examined how the mandated requirements of ‘deliberative

engagement practices’ were applied to the development of council plans. While

the legislation mandated deliberative engagement requirements for four

strategic planning instruments (the council plan, community vision, financial plan

and asset plan), the research focused on the council plan for a variety of

reasons, both pragmatic and strategic. Pragmatically, the council plan, which

needed to incorporate a community vision, was legislatively required by October

2021 and was therefore within the data collection period (the financial and asset

plans were not required until 2022). Strategically, the council plan could be

described as the foremost strategic planning document for councils; it details

councils’ strategic priorities and resource commitments over the subsequent

four-year period and is used to determine councils’ most significant

decisionmaking. Comparatively, for many councils the community vision is quite

literally a vision statement and, as such, highly abstract and aspirational.

In addition to its focus on the council plan, the research was restricted to the

functions of local government organisations; it did not collect data or consider

the perspectives of civic sector actors and the broader ‘public’ who were

involved in the deliberative engagement practices. It could be argued that this is

a limitation of the research; however, as Wright (2011) notes, each researcher

must make strategic decisions about where to position themselves within the

field, knowing that this chosen site opens a window onto certain phenomena

and not others. A different window might have, for example, looked at the

experiences of community members and how they perceived the deliberative

engagement practices. Positioning the research looking ‘inwards’, toward the

organisation, does not imply that the important role civic sector actors have in

the broader ecology of drivers and barriers to democratic innovations is not

recognised. Rather, it accepts that certain boundaries needed to be set for the

scope of the research.

Finally, it is acknowledged that basing the research on one single piece of

legislative reform could attract criticism around its relevance or

representativeness. The ‘problem of the small n’ (Crasnow, 2012) is a common

criticism of the case study approach because it involves looking at a small

number of cases in detail and therefore, generalisations can be questioned as

overly inductive (Flyvbjerg, 2006; Crasnow, 2011). However, Yin (2014) provides

several examples of how findings from single case studies have nevertheless

been generalised to a broad variety of other situations and are ‘eminently

justifiable’ (p. 43). In addition, Feagin et al. (1991) have argued that a case

study of a single phenomenon allows the researcher to examine social action in

its most complete form and better grasp the total complex world of the action as

it unfolds. Specifically for the context of this research, Yin (2009) suggests that a

single case study can be particularly useful if it covers some distinctive event,

condition, or remarkable circumstance; the Victorian Local Government Act

2020 can be considered one such event as it was not only the first major reform

to Victorian local government legislation in 30 years but it also significantly

shifted expectations around community engagement (this will be examined

more in Chapter 5).

4.4.2 Embedded units of analysis

Having established the merits of a single case study method, it is nonetheless

acknowledged that good case studies benefit from having multiple sources of

evidence (Yin, 2012; Creswell, 2016). Therefore, the case study had a variety of

embedded units of analysis. The concept of an embedded unit of analysis

applies when data for a case study comes from more than a single ‘layer’; the

main unit of analysis is the single entity covering the single case (in this case

the legislation), and the embedded units are more numerous and produce

different layers of data (Yin, 2009). These embedded units (or what Yin (2009)

refers to as subunits) add more complexity and increase opportunities for

extensive analysis. Figure 4.1 illustrates the embedded units of analysis for this

study.

Figure 4.1 Embedded units of analysis within the research case study

Source: Author’s own

As Figure 4.1 demonstrates, there were varied layers and data sources as units

of analysis, including closer engagement with three councils alongside a variety

of sector-wide data sources. These allowed for both breadth and in-depth

understanding of how deliberative engagement practices were interpreted,

designed, and implemented by the Victorian local government sector. As such,

collectively, the data from the embedded units of analysis built a richer, more

comprehensive view across a broad scope of diverse perspectives, operating

contexts, and authorising environments. Greater detail regarding each of these

embedded units of analysis and the rationales for selecting them is provided

later in this chapter in the data collection section.

4.5 Mixed methods research approach

The research design applied a mixed methods approach, which Tashakkori &

Teddlie (2008) define as research where the investigator collects and analyses

data, integrates the findings, and draws inferences using both qualitative and

quantitative approaches (p. 286); they stress that the key concept in this

definition is integration.

Figure 4.2 Outline of data collection process

Source: Author’s own

As illustrated in Figure 4.2, data collection included both qualitative and

quantitative data collection instruments. This research broadly followed what

Creswell (2016) describes as an ‘exploratory’ approach where qualitative data

collection, such as interviews, informed the subsequent quantitative

instruments, such as the surveys. However, as shown in Figure 4.2, both

qualitative and qualitative approaches were used throughout the data collection

and analysis.

This approach was considered useful because one strand was able to expand

and explain understandings obtained from the other, and collectively, the

qualitative and quantitative data provided a more complete understanding than

the strands would have separately (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2017; Tashakkori &

Teddlie, 2008). Specifically, starting with qualitative data allowed the research to

gain an in-depth understanding of the context and experiences of policy actors

before it moved to the quantitative instrument of surveys to refine insights. The

combination of qualitative and quantitative instruments also meant that the

research could draw data at both a micro level of individual councils’

experiences through qualitative instruments such as interviews, and then move

to the more macro scale of quantitative methods such as surveys to position

findings within the broader Victorian local government sector context. This was

valuable for gleaning whether there were common and shared experiences

across the sector. As such, the mixed methods approach provided multiple entry

points for making sense of the data and potential interpretations of the

phenomena being studied.

Within the context of democratic innovations scholarship, Escobar and

Thompson (2019) state that mixed methods approaches are well suited to

democratic innovations because analysis needs both ‘patterns and depth,

statistics and narratives’. Escobar (2022a) adds that deliberative democracy

requires methodological approaches that can grapple with complexity and that

mixed methods is particularly well suited to this.

Although considered effective, the mixed methods approach also had

drawbacks. This type of approach is generally considered more resource

intensive and integrating findings during analysis can be challenging (Escobar &

Thompson, 2019). Scholars also caution that mixed methods outcomes are not

always predictable and early decisions about the design may have to be

changed once the data are generated and the unanticipated consequences of

combining methods become apparent (Escobar & Thompson 2019, p. 506).

These complications were experienced during this research project and an

adaptive approach was required. At times, further data needed to be collected

that had not been planned in the early stages; or conversely, in the later stages

of analysis, some of the data collected lost relevance. This is discussed in detail

in the following sections, but overall, it meant that design choices needed to be

adjusted and data collection become more resource intensive than anticipated.

However, the benefits of a mixed methods approach for this particular research

project are believed to outweigh these challenges.

4.6 Data Collection

As illustrated in Figures 4.1 and 4.2, data collection included a combination of

different instruments in a multi-layer or multi-pronged approach. This section

outlines each of these instruments and details how the research approach

required a level of flexibility and responsiveness. It describes some of the

practical limitations of the research and how the approach responded to

emerging findings as is considered characteristic of interpretivist research

(Yanow, 2000; Hendriks, 2007; Schwartz-Shea & Yanow, 2012).

4.6.1 Data collection at select councils

As depicted in Figure 4.1, three Victorian councils agreed to be part of the

research as ‘cases’ or embedded units of analysis. While much of the research

focused on all 79 Victorian councils, these three specific councils provided an

opportunity for more sustained and long-term engagement. Over what was

almost a two-year period, the research followed these councils as they made

sense of the legislation, then designed and implemented their approaches, and

finally reflected on the outcomes. This meant that rapport was created between

the researcher and councils, which allowed for more candid conversations

during interviews and a deeper contextual understanding during observations or

when analysing documents and artefacts.

Council Recruitment and Selection

Recruitment of the councils involved as embedded units of analysis spanned 6

months and consisted of several different strategies. A proposal document was

distributed to targeted councils, connections were sought through networks, and

the research was presented at various forums including the Victorian Local

Government Association’s meeting on 31 July 2020 and an International

Association of Public Participation seminar on deliberative engagement on 27

August 2020.

To build trust and buy-in from participating councils, this recruitment stage

required a degree of persistence and interpersonal skills. Confirming three

councils was a particularly challenging experience compounded by the fact that

invitations to participate in the research were being made at the same time

Victoria was experiencing varying degrees of lockdowns. Councils were

simultaneously familiarising themselves with the new requirements of Victorian

Local Government Act 2020 and coordinating their local pandemic responses.

Therefore, it was a complex time for local government staff who were

understandably cautious of engaging with the research due to the potential

demands it would create.

It became apparent during this time that council staff can also act as

gatekeepers between ‘the organisation’ and external actors, including

councillors themselves. Related to what Escobar (2014) described as ‘front of

house’ and ‘back of house’ aspects to engagement practice, it required a certain

degree of relationship-building before being allowed ‘back of house’ during the

design and implementation of the deliberative engagement practices. When

reflecting on the councils that declined to participate, as Hendricks (2007)

suggests, it was useful to bring these rejections into the analysis by asking:

What might this unwillingness signify? The example of one council is particularly

interesting in this regard. At this council, after meeting on several occasions

over a four-month period and providing various documents explaining the

research, ultimately the executive declined to participate. The rationale provided

was that the executive group was ‘too risk-averse to have an external person

involved’. This was despite participation in the research being anonymous and

potentially indicates that councils nonetheless inferred a sense of exposure if

their implementation was considered poor.

Twelve councils were individually approached before confirming the

participation of the final three councils. The twelve councils approached were

targeted because they appeared particularly interested in deliberative

engagement practices at sector-wide events. The final cohort was the result of

finding a balance between what was feasible whilst still providing a broad

enough sample of councils for analysis. Issues of access described in the

paragraph above meant that the purposive sampling was mainly focused on

recruiting a range of councils; broadly speaking, metropolitan, interface, and

rural councils (the council categories are described as metropolitan, interface,

and small shire respectively by the Victorian Auditor-General’s Office).4 It was

particularly important to ensure there was a rural council involved as the vast

contextual differences of smaller rural councils compared to their metropolitan

4 The Victorian Auditor General classifies the 79 Victorian Local Government Associations into 22

metropolitan, 9 interface, 19 large shire, 10 regional, and 19 small shire councils (VAGO, n.d.).

counterparts was often noted at industry forums. As an example, Merri-bek City

Council has a population of 171,00 and 11 councillors, compared to the Shire of

West Wimmera with a population of just under 4,000 and 5 councillors.

The nature of this recruitment process might be seen as a limitation as there is

potential for bias in the final sample selected, especially in the context of only

engaging with three of 79 Victorian councils in a substantive way. This was

difficult to avoid as the research design was aimed at generating ‘thick

descriptions’ and a nuanced understanding of the factors which influenced

decisions or courses of action. This focus lent itself to engaging with some

councils in a more rigorous manner as embedded units of analysis. Had the

research design discarded this approach and instead engaged with a variety of

council staff from various organisations, the issue of access might have been

avoided and more council staff may have been willing to participate. However,

this would have meant that the depth of data collection that comes from

following councils closely would have been lost, and consequently, a different

set of limitations would have been brought to the research.

Furthermore, although there was some degree of purposeful selection in terms

of their classification, the three councils were not intended to be representative

of the sector; rather, they were selected for their illustrative potential. In addition,

the councils were not selected with a view of being exemplary of deliberative

engagement practice in the Victorian local government sector. As Luffiner

(2007) suggests, this interpretative approach can mitigate concerns regarding

selection bias because the intention is not to make generalisations but instead

gain deeper insights. Connected to the mixed methods approach, the data

collected at these councils were considered exploratory and functioned as a

means for mapping out themes that could subsequently be examined through

the data collected in the broader sector.

To this purpose, the final three councils were considered suitable because this

number ensured some diversity. In addition to their different classifications, the

councils had significantly different organisational structures (ranging from over

1,000 employees to 200), leadership approaches, councillor cohorts (ranging

from cohorts that were made up of longstanding councillors to those that had a

predominantly newly elected group), and authorising environments (ranging

from highly active civic sector actors to relatively limited civic sector

expectations). One council had recently undertaken a reasonable amount of

capacity building regarding deliberative engagement practices whilst others

relied heavily on external consultants. In addition, the three councils had quite

different approaches and investment in their deliberative engagement practices.

Finally, it should be acknowledged that the councils that agreed to participate in

the research perceived the research as an opportunity to build their capacity for

deliberative engagement practices and this may have created a self-selection

bias. Along with the earlier explanation around an interpretative research

approach, the broad range of sector-based data collection instruments

(described later in this chapter) would have alleviated this potential bias to a

significant degree. Given the incentive for the councils was to improve their

practices, as a sign of reciprocity, councils were supported with information

about deliberative engagement. However, mindful of not wanting to advocate or

guide councils in a certain direction, making recommendations was avoided.

Instead, information was provided that drew from existing literature about the

topic; for example, a summary of the reasons practitioners gave for

remunerating participants in citizens’ panels was developed. In addition, almost

a year after the final interviews, brief reports were provided to each of the

councils which included tailored considerations for their future deliberative

engagement projects.

Ethics considerations

The de-identification of all councils and participants was critical to gaining

access to the councils as participation created a level of ‘exposure’ to internal

deliberations and processes. Particularly in the context of this research, there

was a degree of trepidation in councils based on uncertainties around the new

legislative requirements and many applying deliberative engagement practices

for the first time. The anonymity created a space where participants could

respond more frankly to the questions and share greater detail about the

organisational constraints they were grappling with.

In terms of the de-identification process, the decision to disaggregate all

participants from their respective councils was made during the analysis

process. Originally, the intention was to group interviewees according to the

councils they belong to in the research findings (e.g., CEO Council 1, Officer

Council 1). This meant that interview participants could have easily identified

which council they belonged to, and therefore how everyone else in their

organisation responded to questions (e.g., a CEO reading the findings would

easily deduct how their staff or their mayor felt about the process and vice

versa). However, as the research progressed and some conversations became

more candid, it became apparent that further anonymity would be required to

mitigate risk of exposure. As such, each interviewee was given a pseudonym

from a different Italian city and non-binary pronouns were used. Even though

disaggregating participants from their councils meant that some analysis could

not be included, it was important to strengthen participants’ confidentiality and

this was prioritised.

Council data collection instruments

Data collection for each of the councils included a range of common interpretive

methods: interviews, observation, and document analysis (Yanow, 2000).

Before explaining each of these, it should be noted that access to each of these

instruments relied heavily on what the councils were willing to share (Griggs &

Howarth, 2011). As such, although access was granted to what was arguably a

significant range of ‘practice’, there were certainly instances where access was

denied. As described later, to mitigate this, the broader sector embedded units

of analysis, such as consultant interviews and surveys, were considered

essential.

Interviews

Semi-structured in-depth interviews were conducted twice with most

interviewees; once while each of the councils were at the design stage of their

deliberative engagement practices, and then again following the implementation

of their deliberative engagement process. This pre and post interviewing

technique was used to gain a more complete understanding of how councils first

perceived and made sense of the practices, and then to explore how they

responded to emerging needs and adapted their processes during

implementation. Interviews were conducted with people from across each

council’s organisational hierarchy; including CEOs, directors, managers, council

staff, and councillors (see Figure 4.3 for an indicative outline of a Victorian local

government organisational hierarchy).

Figure 4.3: Typical organisational hierarchy in Victorian local government

Source: Author’s own

Although there are some differences in titles used by Victorian councils (e.g.,

not all use the title of director for members of their executive), the titles outlined

in Figure 4.3 are those most predominantly used and were therefore the

categories applied to the interview and survey data.

Interviewees were selected using a purposive sampling approach and restricted

to people who were directly responsible for the development of the council plan,

and consequently, directly involved in their council’s deliberative engagement

practices. This ensured data collection remained firmly focused on

decisionmaking around the interpretation, design, and implementation of

deliberative engagement practices. Other stakeholders who were not involved in

decisionmaking about the deliberative engagement practices were considered

out of scope. For example, community members are not privy to the ‘backstage’

aspect of the engagement activities and would not have been able to provide

data that meaningfully addressed the research questions. Similarly, council staff

not directly involved in the design and delivery of the deliberative engagement

practices would not have had insight into what influenced certain decisions or

engagement approaches. Therefore, those who were interviewed were best

placed to provide relevant and a sufficiently deep understanding of the

phenomena being studied. Moreover, given the significant differences in the

day-to-day work of interviewees at each of the hierarchical levels, the sample of

interviewees from across the organisational hierarchy ensured there was

functional differentiation in their perspectives. In accordance with these

hierarchical distinctions, interview questions were broadly consistent but tailored

to three categories: mayors, members of the executive, and organisational staff

(interview questions can be found in Appendix 2).

The themes covered in the interviews were consistent with those identified in

the analytical framework and broadly based on the three points of the public

value strategic triangle. Interviewees were asked about their responses to the

legislative requirements to understand where they might see the value of such

processes; they were asked about how the authorising environment had

participated in the design and implementation of the practices, and whether

there had been any sticking points; and they were asked about the operational

capacities they thought were needed to implement the practices, including the

use of consultants. Whilst basing interview questions on the analytical

framework might appear deductive in nature, it is important to reiterate that they

served to guide data collection and analysis, not to determine or preconceive it.

The framework assisted by ensuring interview questions were more selective

and focused on topics that the existing literature suggested were pertinent, but

there was no canvassing of those themes during the interviews. If a particular

theme did not seem resonant, the conversation moved on to the next question.

In total, 35 interviews were conducted across the three councils with 19 different

participants (not all interviewees who participated in the first round of interviews

were available for the second round of interviews). Interviews were conducted

mostly during lockdowns, therefore via Zoom. The interviews were one hour

long and semi-structured, which ensured the same topics were explored in each

interview but also allowed for flexibility and the opportunity to probe important or

unexpected information more meaningfully. Each interview began with some

context setting. The researcher described their experience working in local

government and what their motivations and aspirations for the research were.

By beginning the interviews in this more personalised manner, the interviewer

and interviewee were able to build rapport and potentially reach deeper

discussion. This also created some collegiality when interviewing council staff.

For example, interviewees made comments such as ‘you would know’ or ‘you

know how it is’ numerous times. While care had to be taken not to layer the

researchers’ own positionality to the interviews (as explored earlier), this

process supported the purpose of the interviews, which was to elicit an in-depth

understanding of how interviewees had responded to the legislative

requirements and their experiences related to the implementation of deliberative

engagement practices.

Observations

Engagement with the three councils also included observation of meetings and

presentations related to the design and implementation of their deliberative

engagement practices. In all, there were 28 observations across the three

councils which included meetings with consultants, internal planning meetings,

workshops with councillors, and council meetings. These observations spanned

from the early stages when councils were designing their deliberative

engagement practices to the late stages once they had finalised their

implementation. The observations were based principally on relevance and

whether access was granted, although many observations were publicly

accessible events.

Given the sensitivity discussed previously, observations were not audio

recorded. Instead, descriptive and reflective field notes were taken, focusing

primarily on how the deliberative engagement requirements were framed by

council staff and councillors and how certain types of information or discussion

might have informed certain courses of action.

Observations were considered a useful adjunct to the interviews for a variety of

reasons. Firstly, observation provided insight into institutional dynamics that

would not have been evident in interviews or through written documents alone

(Creswell, 2016). During the observations, it was possible to see how different

policy actors were able to shape agendas, or how they tried to shape agendas

with narratives that appealed to ‘people’s senses of “can” and “can’t”, others’

senses of what is and is not possible’ (Forester, 2003, p. 47). Research

participants were not necessarily conscious of these dynamics and how they

influenced decision-making or their practice, so it is unlikely that this important

information would have been uncovered through interviews.

Observation also meant that there was greater immersion in the activities of the

council staff and a deeper understanding of what they were experiencing.

Ostrom (2019) suggests that ‘obtaining information about rules-in-use requires

spending time at a site and learning how to ask non-threatening context-specific

questions about rule configurations’ (p. 53). By developing a more ‘meaningful,

coherent picture of the social group and setting’ (McNabb, 2015, p. 267), more

probing questions could be asked during both stages of the interviews because

there was a stronger insight into the discourses and dynamics that interviewees

were experiencing.

Although this approach draws from ethnographic methods, it is not completely

ethnographic as the researcher did not aim to become an ‘insider’. Ethnography

entails immersing oneself in new social worlds to produce written accounts and

descriptions that bring versions of these worlds to others (Emerson et al., 2001).

In this case, the aim was not to bring versions of the deliberative engagement

‘worlds to others’; rather, it was to use observation for the instrumental benefits

outlined above.

Taken alone, the reliability of data generated through observation is clearly

highly dependent on the researcher’s own frame of reference. As a researcher–

practitioner, there would have been a significant limitation to the research

findings if these had been given too much weight. To address this limitation, the

observation was treated as one component of a broader research design that

allowed for the testing of assumptions and further deductive processes with

other instruments such as interviews and artefacts.

Artefacts and documents

Finally, a range of artefacts was collected from each council before, during, and

after fieldwork. In the initial stages, whilst liaising with each of the councils

around participating in the research (and therefore all 12 councils), artefacts

such as council policies, strategies, council meeting minutes, and social media

posts were considered. The intention of this activity was to become familiar with

each council and gain a broader understanding of their authorising

environments and operating contexts. Once each of the three councils

confirmed their participation in the research, the types of documents collected

were refined. They consisted of reports, project planning documents, and

minutes of meetings related to the deliberative engagement practices. However,

these were not extensive as they were dependent on what was shared.

Certainly, this component of the data collection was limited as councils provided

access to only a handful of internal documents; most documents or artefacts

were those that were public. Nevertheless, this component acted as a useful

complement to the wider data collection strategies and provided an additional

mechanism for understanding and making sense of how deliberative

engagement practices were interpreted and decisions were made. As Coffey

(2014) suggests, documents are authored to distribute and exchange

information with their intended audiences; however, this should not be

understood as an impartial process. Through documents the research was able

to better appreciate how deliberative engagement practices were framed and

what discourses were used to guide the intended audiences to certain

conclusions. As such, documents also revealed how legitimacy was conferred

on the proposed courses of action and how the authorising environment or

operational capacity impacted those decisions.

4.6.2 Broader sector data collection

In addition to the three councils, embedded units of analysis also included data

collected from the broader sector such as interviews with consultants,

observations, documents, and surveys.

This was considered valuable because it meant that the research was

continually situated in the context of the broader legislative reform. Discourse

and initiatives of other sector actors, including the Victorian State Government

as the legislator, were of relevance because they had an instrumental effect on

how councils responded to the new legislation. In addition, situating the councils

within the broader sector context meant that there was a more complete picture

of the way deliberative engagement practices were applied across all 79

councils. This meant that the research could more accurately distinguish if what

was occurring in the three councils was consistent, or particularly distinctive,

from the rest of the sector.

Sector-based artefacts and documents

For the same reasons outlined earlier, a series of artefacts and documents were

collected as data. These included:

• 562 submissions that were made to the Local Government Review process

over the three-year period

• each of 79 Victorian councils’ community engagement policies

• a database of each of the 79 Victorian councils’ deliberative engagement

processes as outlined in either their council plan or relevant council reports

• selected guides or relevant data from sector actors such as VLGA,

MosaicLab, and Local Government Victoria.

Each of these data provided valuable insights into the types of rules, practices,

and narratives that were most prominent. For example, as Chapter 5 examines,

the submissions to the Local Government Review process created a useful

foundational understanding of how the legislative changes were received by the

sector and various other stakeholders.

In contrast to issues of access with the three councils that participated as

embedded units of analysis, these sector-wide documents and artefacts were

appealing because they were readily available and numerous enough to

undertake some statistical analysis. However, it is recognised that they are not

always accurate and may be biased (Yin, 2014). Therefore, these artefacts and

documents were used alongside evidence from other sources, not to make

inferences alone (Yin, 2014).

Given there was a great deal of information produced by Local Government

Victoria (LGV, n.d.) and other organisations in relation to the implementation of

the Local Government Act, the scope for these documents and artefacts was

limited to only those that specifically referenced deliberative engagement. This

included not only where deliberative engagement was discussed directly but

also where it was indirectly referred to, such as in relation to the community

engagement policy or integrated strategic planning (which focuses on how the

council plan is developed). Initially, the scope of topics examined were informed

broadly by the research questions (e.g., how is engagement with the authorising

environment framed?). However, as the research evolved, the task became

more refined as the active concerns, concepts, and understandings of council

staff and councillors became more apparent. For example, discussions with

council staff and consultants lead to the research examining more closely

whether each Victorian council conducted a public exhibition process for their

council plan.

Interviews

Most Victorian councils engaged a consultant to support the implementation of

deliberative engagement processes. In some instances, these consultants

worked with councils in the design of their deliberative engagement practices

but, for the most part, a consultant’s key role was to facilitate workshops that

were considered ‘deliberative’. Initially, interviews with consultants had not been

planned as part of the broader sector data collection; however, as the research

unfolded, the extent of consultants’ insights around how the practices were

being adapted became more noticeable. As such, an additional ethics approval

was submitted, and interviews were then conducted with 11 deliberative

engagement consultants.

The consultants interviewed were identified through discussions with councils

and through networks. Of these consultants, some had worked with over 10

councils on their processes, while others had worked with only a handful;

however, the majority had worked with more than one council. They had

collectively worked with approximately 65 of the 79 Victorian councils, which

was perhaps to be expected given the apparent scarcity of consultants

experienced in deliberative methods in Victoria (newDemocracy Foundation,

2022). For the 14 remaining councils, it is not clear from publicly available

artefacts whether they engaged a consultant or not.

Despite having required additional resources, this aspect of the data collection

was beneficial as consultants provided a more nuanced and thorough account

of barriers and opportunities experienced by the sector. For example, none of

the three councils involved in the study had elected representatives who were

actively obstructive to deliberative engagement practices. However, the

consultants interviewed had worked with a variety of authorising environments,

some especially enabling and others that publicly spoke out against the

practices. Including consultants’ experiences therefore enhanced the research

by providing valuable insight into the broader trends and discourses

surrounding the practice and how different organisational contexts and

authorising environments responded to the legislative requirements.

Sector-wide surveys

The final stage of data collection included two surveys: one organisational

survey for local government staff and a separate survey for councillors. Both

surveys were emailed via a database that had been purposefully created for this

research. The organisational survey was sent to 446 people and targeted

CEOs, directors responsible for the community engagement portfolio, corporate

planners (who are usually responsible for developing the council plan), and

community engagement officers in each Victorian council. The councillor survey

was sent to all 623 Victorian councillors. For both surveys, participants were

emailed and invited to participate with a survey link. In addition, these surveys

were promoted via LinkedIn, local government associations, and through

networks. The surveys received 203 responses: 102 for the organisational

survey collected and 101 for the councillor survey.

The survey questions were structured as a means of sense-checking and

further explore some of the themes that were emerging from the interviews and

observations. Both surveys asked the same questions; however, the

organisational survey had one extra question regarding organisational capacity

building. Most of the questions were closed-ended and multiple-choice because

this was perceived as less onerous for respondents. Questions covered topics

such as how respondents formed their understanding of deliberative

engagement practices; what they believed were the benefits of the practices; to

what degree councillors were involved in their council’s practices; how much

influence the deliberative engagement process had on decision-making; and the

reasons for these decisions. The last question in each survey was open-ended:

‘Is there anything you would like to add about building capacity for deliberative

engagement practices in local government?’ This generated 72 responses: 34

from organisational respondents and 38 from councillors. The survey questions

can be found in Appendix 4.

Through the survey, the resonance and relevance of themes identified in the

initial stages of analysis could be further explored. This was an opportunity to

situate emerging findings from the three councils within the broader sector

context and, through this aggregation, generate a greater understanding of how

frequently certain perspectives or approaches occurred in the sector (Yin &

Heald, 1975). It also allowed for a more nuanced understanding of how

deliberative engagement practices were applied, identifying both qualifications

and contradictions with interview findings (which are examined in the empirical

chapters of this thesis).

In addition, because of their anonymity, the surveys provided an opportunity to

express potentially counter-normative positions and therefore, to generate more

unreserved responses around the legislative requirements. As noted earlier

when describing how councils were recruited, there was a degree of sensitivity

around the research and council staff may have inferred potential exposure from

participation. It is not unreasonable to assume that, even where councils had

agreed to participate, interviewees may not have been entirely comfortable

sharing their concerns or frustrations. A survey approach allowed for

anonymous, not just de-identified, participation. This ‘unobtrusive’ method of

data collection was also more likely to solicit responses that admitted to ‘socially

undesirable behaviour’ (Webb et al.,1966, p. 3). In the context of this research,

‘socially undesirable behaviour’ could have been procedural limitations or

failures that council staff were aware of but were reluctant to admit to during an

interview or an observation. In addition, given the normative ideals of

democratic innovations, council staff and councillors may have been reserved in

their judgement of deliberative engagement practices in public but more

comfortable expressing aversion or repudiation via a survey.

In the context of potential bias that could have occurred as a result of the

researcher-practitioner positionality, the unobtrusive nature of collecting data via

survey meant that there was an absence of elicitation (Webb et al., 1966) and

bias that might have unintentionally been layered onto analysis would have

been mitigated (Ryan, 2019).

Finally, there was also some strategic benefit in including sector-wide surveys

as an embedded unit of analysis. Given the sector had expressed general

reticence towards deliberative engagement practices while the legislation was

being developed (Savini & Grant, 2020), there was value in capturing a

snapshot of the sector’s perceptions as it was implementing them for the first

time and at this historical juncture. In this manner, the surveys also become a

resource for potential further comparative analysis in longitudinal studies.

4.7 Data Analysis

The following section outlines the data analysis process; it begins with an

explanation of how the analytical framework based on the public value strategic

triangle was applied during analysis, followed by how the analysis integrated a

mixed methods research approach.

4.7.1 Structuring analysis around the public value strategic

triangle

As noted previously, the analytical framework was used as a means for orienting

concepts (Layder, 2013) during the initial stages of data collection. Whilst the

framework sub-themes described in Chapter 3 were useful when structuring

interview questions and provided sound parameters for the early lines of inquiry,

once the data analysis began, the sub-themes became too granular. Mindful of

‘the paradox of theory which, at the same time it tells us where to look, it can

keep us from seeing’ (Vaughan, 1992, p.195), an overreliance on the analytical

framework sub-themes risked resulting in a myopic understanding of the data.

In addition, emphasis on the framework themes could have produced a

tendency toward, or the perception of, confirmation bias that would have had

epistemological implications, particularly given the researcher-practitioner

positionality. In response to these emerging tensions, the more detailed sub-

themes of the framework were discarded; instead, analysis applied the broader

concepts of the public value strategic triangle (i.e., value, authorising

environment and operational capacity).

Using Dedoose software for coding, the data from interviews (both council and

consultants) was matched with the strategic triangle categories of ‘value’,

‘authorising environment’, and ‘operational capacity’. The intention was to

create hierarchical arrays (Yin, 2014), beginning with the most abstract at the

higher level, for example ‘authorising environment’, to subsequently explore the

themes that sat underneath.

This proved to be less linear than originally anticipated. As the coding

continued, there were several emerging themes that did not fit neatly into one of

the three strategic triangle categories. The interconnected nature of the

strategic triangle elements, which is recognised by scholars such as Alford and

O’Flynn (2009), became increasingly complicated to manage. Mindful of not

forcing data into conceptual categories that were inappropriate (Layder, 2013),

whilst at the same time recognising the need to create some order to the

research findings, a structure was mapped out. Table 4.1 (below) provides an

outline of the analysis themes that were allocated to each of the strategic

triangle points that, in turn, corresponded with each of the empirical chapters

and research questions.

Table 4.1 Alignment of research questions, public value strategic triangle and

empirical findings.

Chapter Six

Revitalising democracy

– praxis ambiguity and

the search for public

value

Chapter Seven

Building legitimacy for

deliberative

engagement with

authorising

environments

Chapter Eight

The impact of individual

agency and

organisational cultures on

operational capacity for

change

Research Question:

How are deliberative

engagement

practices understood

and

interpreted by local

government

organisations? (Value)

Research Question:

How does the authorising

environment influence the

design and

implementation of

deliberative engagement

practice, including its

perceived legitimacy?

(Authorising environment)

Research Question:

How do organisational

cultures and constraints

inform how deliberative

engagement is designed

and implemented?

(Operational capacity)

Assumptions around

value proposition and

effect of principles-based

legislation.

Sense-making and

sources of knowledge

that were referenced.

How deliberative

engagement practices

were defined.

How the value of

deliberative engagement

practices was perceived.

Councillor involvement in

deliberative engagement

practices and the

connection with perceived

legitimacy.

Executive control over

councillor access to

information and

deliberative

engagement process.

Perceived legitimacy of

the representative claim

of the deliberative cohort.

Perceived legitimacy of

deliberative engagement

practices in relation to

existing practices of public

participation.

Operational context

deliberative engagement

practices were being

implemented within and

its potential impact.

Dispositions of individual

actors and how they were

reinforced or limited by

organisational cultures.

Capacity building for

deliberative engagement –

issues and needs.

The allocations presented in Table 4.1 were decided based on where the

themes seemed most aligned; however, it is acknowledged that other ways to

categorise the themes could have been applied (e.g., executive control over

access to information and the deliberative engagement process could have

equally been allocated to operational capacity instead of authorising

environment). However, in terms of the actual data analysis, had the themes

been categorised to a different strategic triangle point it is highly unlikely that the

analysis would have arrived at different conclusions. As such, Table 4.1 should

be read simply as a way of grouping data segments for analysis and structuring

the findings.

4.7.2 Mixed methods data analysis

Broadly, it could be said that thematic analysis was utilised for the qualitative

data whilst a descriptive statistical approach was applied for the quantitative

data. For interviews, the process included coding data at the most abstract level

according to the themes of the public value strategic triangle and then

subsequently exploring what emerged from these. Instead, for the analysis of

data such as documents, a descriptive approach was often taken where the

data was summarised into indicators that were easy to understand and compare

(Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2008). For example, when analysing how ‘deliberative

engagement practices’ were defined in each council’s community engagement

policy, the indicators of ‘deliberation’, ‘influence’, and

‘representation’ were used to identify and compare which aspects were more

dominant in how the practices were interpreted. In addition, for the survey data,

the approach was mostly statistical and involved looking for the responses that

were selected more frequently. Where useful, some cross-referencing of

responses was conducted to gain a more nuanced understanding of

respondents’ perspectives.

In terms of procedure, the analysis began with the interviews and then

integrated the other data sources. As such, based on the coding according to

the public value strategic triangle, the data analysis began with looking for

repetition in council interviews. Following this, the consultant interviews were

examined to see if they provided further insights or alternative perspectives.

Once there was a consistent theme emerging, analysis moved to interrogating

survey data, observation notes, and documents to again identify either

correlating or disconfirming evidence. Although to a lesser degree, analysis of

survey responses sometimes also prompted revisiting interview data to decipher

whether there was a more nuanced perspective than what the survey data was

suggesting. Overall, each strand of data informed the other during the analysis

and a process of testing for plausibility and robustness or potential alternative

perspectives or interpretations was applied throughout. This aligns with what Yin

(2014) refers to as a process of internal validity, where pattern matching,

explanation building, and rival explanations are derived from multiple sources of

evidence in the case study and inferences are made from this process.

As seen in the empirical chapters, the mixed methods approach drew from

multiple sources of evidence and orientated the research in a way that invited

‘multiple ways of seeing, multiple ways of making sense of the data and multiple

standpoints on what is important and to be valued’ (Greene, 2007, cited in

Creswell, 2016, p. 20). This mixed methods analysis approach also ensured

that that the findings from both the qualitative and quantitative data collection

were kept in conversation with each other and that one was not privileged over

the other (Escobar & Thompson, 2019).

In addition to the mixed methods data sources, the themes emerging from

analysis were also considered against the findings from other scholars to see

where there were similarities or divergence. This process of ‘recursivity’

(Mansbridge, 2022) meant that analysis was ‘moving back and forth’ between

the empirical analysis of the case study and what has already been examined in

this highly subscribed field of research. At times, the research aligned relatively

consistently with existing literature and even helped draw out a deeper

understanding of the data (e.g., Lowndes and Roberts’ (2013) work on path

dependency was particularly relevant in Chapter 8). This process was not

necessarily to verify existing theory and was not applied in this manner; instead,

it was an additional way of exploring the research findings through situating

them in the existing literature.

Once themes became clearer and more established, some ‘member checking’

(Fischer, 2003) occurred where initial analysis was presented back to research

participants or the sector more broadly to see if it ‘rang true’. In a formal sense,

this happened through reports that were written and presented to councils and

consultants that provided synopses of topics explored in their interviews. The

‘member checking’ also occurred informally at observations or debriefs in casual

conversations or through phone conversations with research participants. These

informal discussions were often more open and provided an opportunity to

probe assumptions and clarify understandings.

Regarding the member checking process, as part of the ethics approval, each

interviewee was sent a copy of their interview transcript and asked to provide

permission for highlighted quotes to be used in the research findings. This

proved to be a lengthy process and meant that there was little flexibility around

which quotes could be used in the thesis. It also presented some challenges as

some interviewees were concerned about potential backlash despite their

anonymity. This resulted in some ‘qualified’ approvals and one participant

declining to provide consent for any of their interview quotes. Despite these

complications, the process proved to be a useful sense-checking exercise with

some interviewees making amendments to their transcripts and a number

responding that they valued looking back at their thoughts on the deliberative

engagement processes.

Mindful of the researcher-practitioner positionality, the analysis was continually

aware of potential unconscious biases. This cognisance meant that there was a

reflective process during sense-making and deep consideration of how personal

preconceptions might have affected the data analysis. As described earlier, the

analysis included constant comparisons as well as searching for silences in the

data (Schwartz-Shea, 2012). Another strategy was to provide as many direct

quotes that supported findings as possible in the empirical chapters. This

process was undoubtedly supported by the quantity of data collected for this

research project, which was significant, and provided an opportunity to draw on

multiple sources.

The quantity of data collected did, however, present some challenges,

particularly when trying to draw out what was material or not. At times, personal

reluctance to accept that some of the data was not leading to meaningful

analysis stalled progress. For example, the organisational survey asked what

types of skills and capabilities respondents thought were needed to deliver

deliberative engagement. When it came to exploring the findings, beyond a

descriptive list of skills, there was no significant reason to incorporate this data

in the findings. Wanting to ‘honour’ all the data that had been collected, as well

as what might be described as a personal pragmatic orientation, sometimes

meant that arriving at what were the more consequential findings was slowed

down.

On a final note, while it was initially expected that there would be a greater need

for a comparative analysis of councils based on whether they were

metropolitan, interface, or rural, it became apparent that this line of enquiry was

redundant. Whilst there were important differences between the councils that

participated in the research, these were not tied to their classification. This was

especially evident in the survey responses where there was little or no

distinction between metropolitan and rural respondents.

This section provided an overall description of the data analysis. It outlined the

strategies that were used to enhance the rigour of the findings and the

adaptations that needed to be made as the analysis progressed. Perhaps not

surprisingly, the analysis was characteristic of interpretivist research

approaches, which are necessarily responsive to initial findings, limitations of

the data, and ethical issues (Hendricks, 2007; Schwartz-Shea & Yanow, 2012).

4.8 Conclusion

This chapter outlined how this thesis intends to provide a more nuanced

understanding of the institutionalisation of democratic innovations by examining

the constructs that influence and affect how they are operationalised. It

explained the aims of the research and how they informed the research design,

which is framed around the ‘deliberative engagement practices’ mandated in the

Victorian Local Government Act 2020. After explaining how an interpretivist

approach was chosen because of its ability to illuminate phenomena in a

context-specific manner, the chapter provided an explanation of why the case

study method was chosen, and in particular, why the Victorian Local

Government Act 2020 presented a compelling site for analysis. The chapter

established the precise unit of analysis, and therefore, the scope of focus for the

case study, before providing a description of the embedded units of analysis

that were selected to generate multiple data sources and evidence. The mixed

methods research approach was then presented, along with how the research

intended to integrate findings using both qualitative and quantitative

approaches. Following this, a thorough account of the data collection

instruments was described. Collectively, these instruments meant that there

were multi-layered sources of data to draw from for analysis. The chapter then

proceeded to outline how the data analysis was undertaken, providing details of

the mixed methods analysis approach. This included a reflection on the

unexpected issues that arose during analysis and how they were addressed.

Overall, the chapter demonstrates how the research approach continually

adapted and responded to circumstances as they emerged in a manner that

ensured the findings were consistently interrogated against multiple sources of

evidence and interpretation.

Chapter 5: Putting the community

at the heart of decision-making

and the Victorian Local

Government Act 2020

5.1 Introduction

Before examining how deliberative engagement practices were interpreted and

operationalised by the Victorian local government sector, it is useful to consider

how the reforms of the Victorian Local Government Act 2020 posed a significant

shift in community engagement practices for councils. As noted in Chapter 1

(Figure 1.2), the new Act was developed over a five-year period that was

marked with several consultation initiatives that engaged both the local

government sector and broader community. This chapter analyses how the

proposed legislation for deliberative engagement practices was received during

the consultation stages and provides insight into the extant attitudes and

preparedness of the sector to engage with practices that had been, to that point,

relatively discrete. As such, the chapter provides some preliminary context for

the rules, narratives, and perceived constraints that informed the deliberative

engagement practices that emerged.

Expanding on the details of the Victorian Local Government Act 2020 provided

in Chapter 1, this chapter begins by outlining the key changes to community

engagement requirements that the legislation proposed. It compares the

requirements of the preceding Act with the new legislation and illustrates how

the formal rules around engagement practices shifted significantly. The chapter

then provides an account of how the Victorian State Government framed the

legislative changes, including its expressed intention to ‘improve democracy’.

These narratives reveal some of the key assumptions the State Government

made around mandating deliberative engagement practices. The chapter then

hypothesises what might have prompted these assumptions, including the

events and actors that are likely to have influenced the State Government’s

direction. Following this, the chapter examines how the local government sector

responded to the proposed deliberative engagement practices through the

submissions made during consultation stages for the legislation. It analyses the

themes that emerged from these submissions and identifies some of the key

concerns expressed by Victorian local government organisations. This chapter,

therefore, sets the scene for analysis of how the legislative requirements were

interpreted and implemented, which are examined in the thesis’ subsequent

empirical chapters.5

5.2 Developing a new Act for local government in Victoria

5.2.1 The shift in requirements around community

engagement

As noted previously, the Victorian Local Government Act 2020 presented a

major shift in expectations around how Victorian local governments consulted

and engaged their constituents in long term strategic planning.

5 Parts of the data and analysis included in this chapter were published in Savini, E., & Grant, B. (2020).

Legislating deliberative engagement: Is local government in Victoria willing and able? Australian Journal of

Public Administration, 79(4), 514-530.

The left column in Table 5.1 (below) demonstrates that the preceding Act, the

Victorian Local Government Act 1989, had relatively limited requirements for

community engagement. The only prescriptive requirement was Section 223,

which required councils to ensure community members had an opportunity to

make submissions regarding the proposed council plan and budget – often

referred to as the ‘public exhibition’ process. Although it could be argued that

Local Government (Best Value Principles) 1999, which stated each council must

‘develop a program of regular consultation with its community in relation to the

services it provides’ (s.208B(e)), strengthened the expectations slightly,

community engagement remained implied rather than explicit and the Act

provided little guidance as to how consultation might be conducted. This was

particularly the case when compared with counterpart legislation in NSW,

Western Australia, and to a lesser extent, South Australia and Tasmania (for an

account, see Christensen, 2018; Grant & Drew, 2017).

Table 5.1 Key changes to the Victorian Local Government Act

1989 Local Government Act 2020 Local Government Act

208B(e) a Council must develop a

program of regular consultation with

its community in relation to the

services it provides.

55 Community engagement policy

Council must adopt and maintain a

community engagement policy which must;

give effect to the community engagement

principles; and be capable of being applied in

relation to any of the Council's strategic

planning or policy development and include

deliberative engagement practices which

must be capable of being applied to the

development of the Community Vision,

Council Plan, Financial Plan and Asset Plan.

223 Right to make a submission

Council must publish a public notice

specifying details of its indented

Plan or actions, allowing not less

than 28 days for public submissions

on the matter (either in person or by

proxy). The Act says Council must

consider all the submissions made

and notify each person who made a

submission of the decision and

reasons for that decision.

56 The community engagement principles

Participants in community engagement must

have access to objective, relevant and timely

information to inform their participation; they

must be representative of the persons and

groups affected by the matter; they are

entitled to support to enable meaningful and

informed engagement; and are informed of

the ways in which the community

engagement process will influence Council

decision making.

125 (3) A person has a right to make

a submission under section 223 on

Part 4: Division 1 Strategic Planning

Council must develop and adopt: 88

the proposed Council Plan. Community Vision; 90 Council Plan; 91

Financial Plan; 92 Asset Plan; that are

‘developed with its municipal community in

accordance with its deliberative engagement

practices’

Source: Adapted from Savini and Grant (2020): Victorian Local Government Act 1989

and Victorian Local Government Act 2020.

Conversely, the Victorian Local Government Act 2020 extended the community

engagement requirements significantly. It not only provided more definitive

community engagement principles but also specified that councils need to adopt

‘deliberative engagement practices’ for all major strategic planning, including for

the development of the community vision, council plan, financial plan, and asset

plan.6

As noted in Chapter 1, although Australian local governments had experienced

some incremental reforms towards more participatory practices, up until this

point government reforms that systematically institutionalised democratic

innovations or modernised the government–citizen relationship to this degree

had not been seen. With this as a frame of reference, the Victorian Local

Government Act 2020 can be considered a departure from more moderate

expectations around community engagement and an attempt to institutionalise

democratic innovations.

5.2.2 Legislative reform to ‘improve democracy’

The stated aim of the Victorian Local Government Act 2020 was to ‘improve

local government democracy, accountability, and service delivery for all

Victorians’ (LGV, n.d., emphasis added). The Act was repeatedly described as

having at its core the aim of ensuring all Victorians have the opportunity to

inform municipal priorities (see examples DELWP, 2021a and DELWP, 2021b),

and its implicit agenda for democratic renewal can be deduced from the early

stages of the Act’s development with statements such as: ‘As the level of

6 Each Victorian council is required to prepare and adopt several strategic planning documents in the year

following a general election. The community vision (10-year plan) and council plan (4-year plan) are key

aspects of this strategic planning as they must include the strategic objectives of the council and strategies

for achieving those objectives over the 10- or 4-year period (for more information, see LGV, 2020c).

government closest to the people, councils have both the opportunity and

arguably the responsibility to enable participatory democracy’ (DELWP, 2016, p.

60). More recently, the Victorian State Government has conveyed similar

positions, stating ‘deliberative engagement practices are designed to protect the

democracy of local government practices and decision making while ensuring

the community’s voice and priorities match that of the council’ (LGV, 2022, p. 8).

The State Government’s stated intention can therefore be understood as an

attempt to augment, or modernise, representative democratic practices in local

government with deliberative engagement practices. Considered through the

lens of in-built problem representations, or what Bacchi (1999) refers to as ‘the

shape of the problem’ (p. 66), these narratives also indicate what the State

Government perceived as the policy issue. Evidently, Victorian local

governments were not sufficiently involving their constituents in decisionmaking.

As such, these narratives reveal a set of assumptions that the State

Government made around institutionalising deliberative engagement practices,

namely, that they would enhance councils’ strategic planning processes through

greater public participation. Perhaps not surprisingly, these assumptions are

aligned with the normative premises espoused by advocates of democratic

innovations, and the ascension of these ideas discussed in Chapter 2.

5.3 Community engagement practices in Victoria before the

legislative reform

To fully understand the reform environment, and what is likely to have

underpinned the State Government’s assumptions, it is useful to briefly consider

some of the circumstances and actors that were prevalent at the time the State

Government was drafting the new legislation.

5.3.1 Consistently low satisfaction with community

engagement

In a media release on 16 November 2016 titled ‘Council Plan Changes Puts

Residents First’, the then Local Government Minister, Natalie Hutchins,

announced that the first major decision of the Local Government Act reform

would be that councils were required to develop four-year plans with their

communities and ‘give residents more say in their council’s priorities, services

and budgets’ (Minister for Local Government, 2016). The media release noted

that current requirements for consultation were limited, and that ‘the need for

local communities to have a stronger say in guiding council directions was a

major theme during consultation on the new Local Government Act’.

This theme was also noted in the Review of the Local Government Act 1989

Discussion Paper (DELWP, 2015) which states ‘an issue often raised in

correspondence to the Minister is frustration about levels of consultation and

engagement with communities by councils about key decisions’ (p. 15). The

Discussion Paper questioned whether ‘the Act currently contains strong enough

provisions about community consultation ... and if alternative approaches to

improving engagement and feedback should be mandated in legislation’ (p. 52).

This framing aligns with results from the annual Local Government Community

Satisfaction Survey, which had continually recorded low scores around

satisfaction with good governance and political participation. For instance, the

indicator ‘making decisions in the interest of the community’ has consistently

been one of the weakest areas of council performance since it was first

measured in 2014 (DELWP, 2019). At the Directions Paper (2016) stage, the

community satisfaction survey results were mentioned in direct relation to

deliberative engagement, arguing that ‘councils which had adopted deliberative

engagement processes had, in several instances, shown better scores for

community satisfaction surveys’ (DELWP, 2016, p. 28).

In addition, the Victorian Auditor General’s Office (VAGO) is likely to have

influenced the State Government’s perceptions around community engagement

practices. In 2015, at the same time the discussion paper for the new Local

Government Act was being drafted, VAGO published the Public Participation in

Government Decision-making: Better Practice Guide, in which the

AuditorGeneral, John Doyle, stated:

… publishing this guide is the first step in what I intend to be an iterative

approach to highlighting better practice public participation in government

decision-making. I expect that a number of my performance audits over

coming years will include a focus on whether agencies are efficiently and

effectively engaging the public to inform government decision-making and

implementation (VAGO, 2015, p. Foreword).

Then in 2017, when the Local Government Bill was being drafted, VAGO

released its Public Participation and Community Engagement: Local

Government Sector Report. In this audit of Victorian local government

community engagement practices, VAGO suggested a need for

engagementfocused regulation and that policy structures could help to embed

best practice engagement. In addition, the report stated that the Victorian State

Government needed to do more to support councils to address the relatively low

levels of satisfaction that communities express about their public participation –

that it could ‘do more to identify specific weaknesses in public participation and

promote better practice across councils’ (VAGO, 2017, p. viii).

Combined, these narratives signal an authorising environment that had

identified critical deficiencies in community engagement practices of Victorian

local governments and, importantly, was aimed squarely at improving practices

through regulation and state-led measures.

5.3.2 Deliberative engagement shows promising results

In stark contrast to the poor community engagement results of the Community

Satisfaction Survey and VAGO’s findings, and only months before the

publication of the Review of the Local Government Act 1989 Discussion Paper,

the Victorian metropolitan council of City of Melbourne won both the

International Association for Public Participation (IAP2) Australasian and

International Organisation of the Year. As a speaker at the Future of Local

Government Summit in May 2015, one of the elected representatives from City

of Melbourne, Cr Stephen Mayne (2015), noted that its participatory budget

project, the Melbourne People’s Panel, had been ‘instrumental’ in winning those

awards. The project had been applauded for its outcomes, including that panel

members expressed ‘increased levels of trust and confidence in the council and

a higher general satisfaction with the outlook for the city’ (Reece, 2015, p. 196).

Whilst any inference is speculative, it is plausible that this community

engagement success story would have appealed to state government

legislators. Indeed, the Melbourne People’s Panel was included as a case study

in the Review of the Local Government Act 1989 Discussion Paper. Although

deliberative engagement was not explicitly referenced, the paper suggested:

‘there may be potential to formalise in the Act the involvement of citizens’ bodies

like the City of Melbourne in the framing of certain major policy decisions of

council’ (DELWP, 2015, p. 53).

In addition to the high-profile case study of the Melbourne People’s Panel, two

of the peak sector organisations for local government in Victoria (the Municipal

Association Victoria (MAV) and Victorian Local Government Association

(VLGA)) had also promoted and advocated for deliberative engagement

practices. At MAV’s Future of Local Government Summit in 2015, almost every

key speaker presented findings from deliberative engagement projects. The

VLGA also advocated for these types of practices in its submission to the

Discussion Paper, stating:

the Act should provide the ability for local government to establish not only

committees but Local Government Boards, Citizens Panels and like

forums, enhancing participatory democracy by allowing for processes

which give local community members an avenue for actively expressing

their views and helping shape policies and final outcomes (VLGA, 2015, p.

11).

As these last two sections have shown, a combination of circumstances created

an environment where local government was seen to be underperforming in

community engagement practices, and simultaneously, deliberative

engagement practices were positioned to meet those perceived deficiencies. It

was therefore perhaps predictable that when developing the new Victorian Local

Government Act, the State Government leaned into the promise of deliberative

engagement practices and included them throughout draft documents.

5.3.3 The compelling case of democratic innovations

As noted earlier, the legislation also reveals how the State Government

understood the ‘shape of the problem’ (Bacchi, 1999, p. 66). As Sullivan (2009)

argues, participatory governance policies ‘are themselves subversive acts,

designed with the express purpose of unsettling the established relationships of

politicians, the public and professionals in the pursuit of new ones’ (p. 65). With

its focus on mandating deliberative engagement practices, the Victorian State

Government arguably favoured one type of ‘subversive’ act and formalised

practices that increased input legitimacy over output. Input legitimacy is focused

on access to the decision-making process; it views public participation as a way

to improve policymaking. Conversely, output legitimacy considers the act of

policymaking as problem solving in the interest of the general public; therefore,

it favours the expertise of policy actors and subject matter experts (Abels, 2007;

Caluwaerts & Reuchamps, 2016). The Victorian Local Government Act 2020

only considers input orientated legitimacy and therefore, the legislator has

anticipated that if councils broaden public access to policymaking processes,

they will achieve the desired results. Furthermore, by prescribing deliberative

engagement practices in particular, the Victorian State Government has, in a

sense, indicated a bias towards ‘deliberative’ approaches rather than the

broader descriptor of ‘participatory’ practices.

Given the largely undisputed acceptance that democratic innovations

strengthen government decision-making (Spada & Ryan, 2017), and the

extensive body of empirical literature exploring initiatives that have ostensibly

addressed a perceived ‘democracy deficit’, it is conceivable that the Victorian

State Government found the promise of democratic innovations compelling.

Furthermore, it is feasible that it assumed that the ideals of strengthening

democracy were an intrinsic outcome of mandating ‘deliberative engagement

practices’.

5.4 Submissions to the Local Government Act Review (2015–

2017): an ‘antipathetic’ reception?

As outlined in Figure 1.2, the Victorian State Government produced three key

documents when developing the Victorian Local Government Act 2020: these

were the Review of the Local Government Act 1989 Discussion Paper (2015),

Act for the future – Directions for a new Local Government Act (2016), and

Local Government Bill Exposure Draft (2018). To understand how the sector

responded to the proposed deliberative engagement requirements, a review of

the 562 publicly available submissions made throughout these three stages of

engagement was undertaken. Although the submissions covered several issues

that aligned with ‘renewing democracy’ (e.g., electoral processes and the

responsibilities of elected representatives), analysis focused only on references

to ‘deliberative’, ‘participatory’, or ‘community’ engagement.

As Table 5.2 (below) demonstrates, deliberative, participatory, and community

engagement were prominent themes at all three consultation stages, with over a

third of submissions consistently commenting on these practices. The Directions

Paper received the highest number of submissions that referred to either

deliberative or community engagement (n = 132; 71%); however, this is likely to

be because there were a series of questions directly related to deliberative

engagement practices.

Table 5.2 Submissions that noted deliberative, participatory or community

engagement

Discussion

Paper 203

accessible

submissions

Directions

Paper 186

accessible

submissions

Exposure Draft

190 accessible

submissions

Councils 31 69 47

Sector

organisations 3 3 3

Councillors 3 9 1

Individuals 33 24 7

Community

organisations 11 19 12

Private 4 8 3

Total 85 132 73

% of total

submissions 42% 71% 38%

Source: Adapted from Savini and Grant (2020)

The submissions provided an extensive account of how the local government

sector perceived deliberative engagement practices and some of their key

concerns regarding implementation. These are considered in the following

sections.

5.4.1 Local government sector responses to proposed

changes

Submissions that were considered ‘local government sector’ included councils,

sector organisations (such as VLGA, LGPro, and MAV), and councillors.

At the Discussion Paper stage, responses from the local government sector

referring to deliberative or community engagement were relatively limited. The

responses mostly fell into two categories: those that noted that community

engagement should not be prescriptive (n = 22; 59%); and a few that noted that,

as elected representatives, councillors are already accountable to their

communities (n = 8; 21%).

Subsequently, at the Directions Paper stage, there was a significant increase in

submissions that commented on the deliberative engagement requirements,

with 96% of the councils providing their thoughts. Of those, themes included:

that deliberative engagement should not be prescriptive (n = 50; 72%); a need

for clarification around what was meant by ‘deliberative’ (n = 34; 49%); that

elected representatives or councillors are already sufficiently accountable to

their communities (n = 25; 36%); and concerns regarding the resources

required for deliberative engagement practices (n =23; 33%).

Finally, at the Exposure Draft stage, some of the concerns expressed in the

Directions Paper seem to have been tempered, with nearly a third (n =16; 31%)

supporting the broader community engagement principles. However, a

significant proportion reiterated the need for further clarification around the

proposed deliberative engagement practices (n = 20; 39%), and likewise, many

expressed concern regarding the requisite resources and limited timeframes for

the proposed changes (n = 19; 37%).

Analysis of the submissions indicates that the local government sector’s

response to introducing deliberative engagement practices can be broadly

characterised as antipathetic. Although supportive of community engagement,

many councils argued that how strategic plans are developed, and the degree

of community engagement conducted, should not be prescribed in legislation

(this was most evident at the Directions Paper stage, where it was noted by

72% of council submissions). In addition, the main contentions of councils were

that the deliberative engagement requirements presented an unnecessary

resource impost and that, by their account, councils were already sufficiently

involving their communities in decision-making. These contentions speak to the

reform context and the preparedness of councils to adopt deliberative

engagement practices, which is considered in more detail in the next section.

5.5 Key concerns regarding proposed deliberative engagement

practices

5.5.1 Uncertainty regarding the need to mandate deliberative

engagement

Uncertainty regarding what constituted ‘deliberative engagement practices’ and

whether it was necessary to mandate the practice was highlighted by several

local government and industry organisations in submissions during the

consultation stages. For example, in their response to the Directions Paper, the

International Association for Public Participation (IAP2)7 Australasia flagged that

the term ‘deliberative’ was not well understood by many in state and local

government (IAP2, 2016). Likewise, in their submission to the Directions Paper,

one of the peak membership associations in Victoria, Local Government

Professionals (LGPro), not only expressed concern around the specification of

‘deliberative’ engagement as a requirement of the Act but also queried whether

‘the quality of engagement would be enhanced by the Act being so prescriptive

in this regard’ (LGPro, 2016).

In their submissions, many councils argued that they were already sufficiently

delivering on community engagement practices, and most highlighted that,

7 IAP2 is an international member association that seeks to promote and improve the practice of public

participation or community and stakeholder engagement. It describes itself as ‘a peak body for

engagement’ practice (https://www.iap2.org.au).

rather than prescribe one method of engagement practice, each individual

council should tailor community engagement processes according to their

unique communities and contexts. For instance, in its submission to the

Directions Paper, Greater Bendigo City Council (2016) stated: ‘The

methodology [for community engagement] should be determined by the council

in accordance with local expectation and accountability, not prescribed in

regulation.’ Similarly, Central Goldfields Shire (2016) asserted: ‘Council supports

optimum community engagement and believes that council is best placed to

determine how such engagement takes place, rather that it be prescribed.’ For

its part, Hindmarsh Shire (2016) stated: ‘Deliberative practices need to be

appropriate and fit-for-purpose for the community they are applied to. One size

does not fit all.’

Some submissions indicated that councillors should have the ultimate say on

the types of engagement practices their constituents preferred. In their

submission, the MAV (2016) argued that, as the elected representatives,

councillors ‘should engage with the community through a variety of mechanisms

to assist them to inform themselves and to perform their role’ – otherwise

stated, councillors are accountable to their constituents and, therefore, should

determine for themselves the mechanisms that will better inform their

decisionmaking.

The trepidation shown by the sector in the submissions indicates that, overall,

councils did not recognise the benefits of mandating deliberative engagement

practices. Instead, there was a pronounced diffidence in the legitimacy of the

State Government’s claim that they would produce stronger community

engagement outcomes.

5.5.2 Capacity of local government sector

Another of the main concerns raised by the local government sector was that

councils did not have the resources to properly implement deliberative

engagement practices. For instance, in their submission to the Discussion

Paper, MAV stressed that they did not support mandating specific additional

platforms or processes for community engagement in the absence of

understanding the efficacy, costs, and capacity of councils to resource them

(MAV, 2016). LGPro made a similar statement and IAP2 flagged that it is ‘highly

possible that many Victorian councils do not have the resources to undertake a

quality deliberative process’ (IAP2, 2016).

The Melbourne City Council initiative that was proposed as a case study

example in the Discussion Paper and then implied as an aspirational ‘standard’

in the Directions Paper was challenged by several submissions that noted that

the resourcing available for a capital city council is far greater than their

suburban and rural counterparts. In fact, the issue of resourcing was particularly

highlighted by rural councils. The VLGA commented that ‘the resource

constraints faced by rural shire councils in particular must be considered

leading up to and during the implementation of the Bill’ (VLGA, 2019).

In addition to the resource limitations, councils emphasised the inadequate

capabilities of local government employees to competently deliver deliberative

engagement. There was a dominant perception that deliberative engagement

practices required specific skill sets, and that these were beyond the more

generalist community engagement skills of council staff. Furthermore, some

submissions called attention to the problematic nature of legislating practices

which constrained councils to engage external consultants. City of Port Phillip

flagged that there were only a restricted number of ‘deliberative engagement

experts’ and that the proposed legislation would mean 79 councils across

Victoria would be seeking the ‘same deliberative engagement expertise over the

same period of time during the development of the council plan’ and, therefore,

access to such expertise would be challenging (City of Port Phillip, 2017).

These concerns regarding operational capacity, coupled with the general level

of ambivalence that was shown towards legislating deliberative engagement,

demonstrate that the local government sector saw limited value in applying the

practices. The consequence of this, and how these concerns manifested in the

implementation of deliberative engagement practices, is explored in detail in the

subsequent empirical chapters.

5.6 Conclusion

This chapter examined the development of the Victorian Local Government Act

2020. It outlined the key changes to community engagement requirements and

considered how the local government sector responded to the proposed

mandating of deliberative engagement practices. It positioned the research

within its authorising environment by providing insights into some of the State

Government’s dominant narratives regarding the reform and the circumstances

that may have informed these. It also highlighted that the State Government’s

expressed intention of ‘improving democracy’ through deliberative engagement

practices was consistent with the presumptive, and often touted, normative and

epistemic benefits of institutionalising democratic innovations. These

assumptions were contrasted with what can be characterised as a relatively

antipathetic response from the local government sector around the legislative

reform, where there was significant scepticism about the suitability and

capabilities of councils to effectively implement the new requirements. The

chapter provides an initial account of how deliberative engagement practices

were interpreted by councils. It indicates the sector’s preparedness to

implement the practices and also identifies some of the perceived constraints

and concerns that are more fully explored in the subsequent empirical chapters

of this thesis.

Chapter 6: Revitalising

democracy – praxis ambiguity

and the search for public value

“Though I feel we think we did it, I am not sure we did.”

Organisational survey response

6.1 Introduction

It could be said that the ‘public value’ derived from deliberative engagement

practices was hypothesised by the Victorian State Government who expressed

that the reforms were designed to ‘improve democracy’ by putting ‘the

community at the heart of council decision-making’ (Minister for Local

Government, 2016). In this sense, the legislation implicitly answered the public

value strategic triangle question: ‘will it create public value?’ However, local

government organisations were responsible for the design and implementation

of the deliberative engagement practices, and therefore, were in control of

whether indeed the practices met those ideals. As such, the realisation of this

assumed ‘public value’ was largely dependent on the councils tasked with

making sense of and operationalising the new legislation.

Aligned to the ‘value’ point of the public value strategic triangle, this chapter

explores the first research question: How is deliberative engagement practice

understood and interpreted by local government organisations? It aims to

provide insight into how the normative, epistemic, and pragmatic ‘value’ of

democratic innovations was actualised through an examination of how these

practices were conceptualised and applied – in this case, by considering how

deliberative engagement practices were interpreted, constituted by, and then

integrated into the strategic planning processes of local government in Victoria.

Taking an institutionalist approach, this chapter considers how deliberative

engagement was defined in community engagement policies, and therefore, the

formal rules that were established, before exploring the subsequent practices

and narratives that emerged during implementation. The analysis draws from

the mixed methods data collection and includes thematic analysis of interviews

with council staff, councillors, and deliberative engagement consultants;

statistical analysis of survey data; and analysis of all 79 councils’ community

engagement policies. To contextualise the findings within the local government

sector, data is also derived from a select number of artefacts and observations

at webinars that were held in the early stages of the Act’s implementation.

Collectively, this data presents a holistic rendering of the norms and incentives

that are likely to have shaped or constrained councils’ approaches to their

legislative obligations.

The chapter begins with examining the ‘principles-based’ nature of the

legislation and how this was received by an already ambivalent local

government sector. With this legislative context in mind, the chapter then

examines the sense-making processes that occurred around deliberative

engagement practices, analysing the manifold data sources that were accessed

by different policy actors. Following this, an account of how deliberative

engagement practices were defined by councils in their community engagement

policies provides insight into how the practices were interpreted by the sector

and the conditions councils were prepared to formalise as rules. The chapter

then moves to the implementation stage of deliberative engagement, exploring

the practices that emerged and the dominant narratives that accompanied

them. Reflecting on how the ensuing practices demonstrated a propensity for

co-option, and therefore an undermining of the ‘value’ they created, the chapter

theorises about what might have contributed to the dominance of existing norms

and operational imperatives. The chapter concludes by considering the

significance of conceptual framing around ‘public value’. It proposes that

analysis from the perspective of perceived ‘public value propositions’ can

provide greater insight into the motivations and constraints that inform how

deliberative engagement practices were operationalised.

6.2 When principles-based legislation meets deliberative

ambivalence

This section focuses on the Victorian Local Government Act 2020 and examines

some of the underlying assumptions the State Government made by employing

a principles-based approach. It establishes that moving to a principles-based

paradigm constituted a distinct shift for the local government sector, which was,

until this point, accustomed to more prescriptive legislation. Noting some

pervading circumspection around the legislation within the local government

sector, this section provides an important contextual setting for the analysis that

follows later in the chapter.

6.2.1 Introducing principles-based legislation

The Victorian Local Government Act 2020 states:

a council’s community engagement policy must include deliberative

engagement practices which must be capable of being applied to the

development of the Community Vision, Council Plan, Financial Plan and

Asset Plan (s.55(2)(g)).

It defines ‘deliberative engagement practices’ as:

the deliberative engagement practices included in a community

engagement policy (Local Government Act 2020, Part 1 – Preliminary).

As such, whilst deliberative engagement practices and the documents they

need to be applied to are explicitly dictated, and arguably tautological, the Act

does not give a description of what they might involve. Instead, it transfers

responsibility to councils, leaving councils to decipher and decide how

deliberative engagement is defined in their community engagement policy.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, when the Act was first endorsed, the subject of defining

‘deliberative engagement practices’ presented itself frequently at webinars and

information sessions. The State Government was pressed repeatedly through

several channels for a more precise definition and guidance around what was

expected (e.g., see LGV webinars and co-design documents 2020a, 2020b,

2020c and 2020d, and Engage Victoria, 2020). In response, state government

officials consistently argued that as a ‘principles-based’ act, the onus was on

each council to interpret how they implemented deliberative engagement

practices themselves (Engage Victoria, 2020, see also IAP2, 2020, and VLGA,

2020). Official statements on the Local Government Victoria (LGV) website at

the time included: ‘the Act does not prescribe what deliberative engagement

practices are; however, a broad interpretation should be taken’, maintaining that

councils should ‘develop a policy that will suit their council’s and community’s

needs, which can be different from one council to another’. This reticence to

delineate what was and was not considered ‘deliberative engagement practices’

was perhaps most clearly articulated at a webinar titled ‘Demystifying

Deliberative Engagement’, when a senior state government official stated:

I would absolutely hesitate to define deliberative in the context of the Local

Government Act because whilst the Act mandates deliberative

engagement for four key council documents, if we were to define it, there

would be implications around how that definition would sit with a

principles-based approach, and ensuring each council is able to set their

own destiny through the community engagement policy in a way that

meets the needs of their community and the resource-base that they have

available. So, if we put in place a standard it would be easy for some but

hard for others and it wouldn’t necessarily respond to the community

(IAP2, 2020).

As can be seen by statements such as this, a principles-based approach was

advanced to ensure councils could adapt the practices according to their own

organisational circumstances and constraints.

However, an important qualification to highlight is that, by its definition,

principles-based legislation relies on the assertion of principles that ‘articulate

the outcomes to be achieved by the regulated entities’ (Australian Law Reform

Commission, 2010). As such, an appreciation for not just the principles but also

the intended outcomes of the legislation become the nexus for action; it is with

this understanding that organisations determine the most appropriate methods

for producing the expected results. This interpretation could also be seen in the

way Local Government Victoria (LGV) described the characteristics of

principles-based legislation, which it said included:

• a set of overarching principles, drafted at a high level and developed with

stakeholder input;

• increased responsibility on entities and management to implement the

principles;

•promotion of industry best practice through thought and innovation rather

than prescriptive rules.

(LGV, 2020a, emphasis added)

These characteristics indicate that the State Government expected councils

would implement deliberative engagement practices in line with certain broad

canons. It assumed that the principles and intended outcomes were commonly

understood, going as far as to anticipate that the latitude of principles-based

legislation would also lead to ‘industry best practice’ (as seen in the reference

above). However, as the findings of this chapter later demonstrate, the State

Government was operating with a set of assumptions and value propositions

that were not necessarily apparent or shared by the Victorian local government

sector, as also seen at the development stages of the legislation outlined in

Chapter 5.

6.2.2 Tension between ‘principles-based’ legislation and

compliancedriven cultures

Some consideration must be given to the preparedness of the local government

sector to transition from a traditionally compliance-based legislative environment

to the relative autonomy of a principles-based approach.

Almost every interview conducted, including with consultants who had

collectively worked with over 65 councils, expressed some trepidation around

the legislative expectations. When asked ‘What were your initial thoughts when

you found out about the legislative changes around community engagement,

and in particular the deliberative engagement requirements?’, interviewees

typically stated they had ‘mixed feelings’. On the one hand, many said they

supported the changes around deliberative engagement and that they were

pleased councils could define it for themselves, but on the other hand, they

expressed apprehension about their capacity to satisfactorily implement the

practices, leading to what some described as ‘stress’. A handful of interviewees

directly linked their concerns with issues of compliance:

And because it’s legislative, people have this really strong notion of having

to be compliant, like local government is an extremely compliant kind of

beast. And the natural tendency is that we have to have the regulations,

we have to be compliant, we have to do what it says. (Executive Perugia

Interview 1)

However, the most prominent themes were the sector’s limited knowledge of

deliberative engagement practices and the perceived lack of resources to

deliver the processes effectively:

The difficulty that we had this time around is no one had an understanding

of what deliberative engagement meant. (Coordinator Verona Interview 1)

I understand the intention of the Act, and I think it’s really good to have it

principles-based. I think that’s really awesome, and I love the idea of

having community closer, a little bit flatter structure … But it’s going to take

a lot more resources, a lot more work to get projects over the line.

(Coordinator Matera Interview 1)

And then a real lack of understanding about what does this mean for the

authorising environments, and what we have to do as a council. So, there

was a degree of panic and pushback, you know, and fear. (Consultant 10)

Some people were concerned that they may not be equipped to do it well.

And that it could be embarrassing if they don’t do it well. (Consultant 3)

These comments indicate that, despite the legislation not specifying any

criterion for deliberative engagement practices, councils presumed there were

established qualifiers around their expected form and scope. In juxtaposition

with the earlier cited statement from a state government official, councils were

not necessarily interpreting principles-based legislation as an opportunity to ‘set

their own destiny through the community engagement policy in a way that

meets the needs of their community and the resource-base that they have

available’ (IAP2, 2020). In the first instances, instead of perceiving the absence

of a definition or guidelines as licence to adapt processes to their own contexts,

and therefore conceivably a variety of place-based responses to the

requirements, councils sought a level of certainty:

I love the idealism behind a principles-based approach. But in reality, like

everyone had a slightly different interpretation. And I think it really caused

a lot of stress. (Consultant 7)

[Describing the concerns of their client] How do we functionally

implemented it into our council, and how do we meet the obligations under

the Act sufficiently – when there is no definition, we don’t know if we’re

hitting the mark or not. (Consultant 1)

This partiality towards greater clarity and direction was also evidenced at

webinars and through consultation platforms such as EngageVic where the

State Government was asked repeatedly how they intended to assess whether

councils’ deliberative engagement processes adequately met the legislative

requirements. Officials reassured the sector that the State Government had no

intention of regulating deliberative processes, and when asked about potential

audits stated:

[Local Government Victoria] are unable to provide guidance on what

criteria an auditor or other enquirer might use in assessing whether

engagement practices are deliberative. Councils should evaluate their

engagement practices against their community engagement policy which

should outline what the council considers deliberative engagement is and

the circumstances where deliberative engagement will be used, including

for those elements required under the Act. (EngageVic, n.d.)

The State Government’s reticence with regard to outlining definitive benchmarks

for deliberative engagement practices was not received as an invitation to

innovate but rather as creating ambiguity, as seen in comments such as:

[State Government is] constantly introducing reforms but they're not telling

you how they are to be interpreted and applied. You spend the next few

years sort of tripping over yourself by trial and error, and then maybe the

government will produce practice notes or ministerial directions or provide

the clarity. So, I suppose I had a bit of that baggage in my head initially,

when I heard about deliberative engagement, thinking, okay, they’ll

introduce them, then two years later, we’ll get some direction as to what

they want, and what their expectations are, which might still happen.

(Executive Genoa Interview 1)

These responses suggest that, irrespective of the State Government’s narrative

around principles-based legislation, the sector instinctually anticipated and

sought out an articulation of explicit standards of practice. Efforts to determine

what would be considered permissible or acceptable by the State Government

pervaded how councils engaged with the process of interpreting the legislation,

indicating many councils’ sense of autonomy was not sufficiently developed to

engage effectively with the level of flexibility principles-based legislation

enables.

Whilst there had been a longstanding call from the sector for more autonomy,

and consequently, general support for principles-based legislation (noted in

DELWP, 2015 and DELWP, 2016), a dichotomy had arguably been created

between the open-ended nature of a principles-based Act and the equally

potent exigency of adequately meeting legislative requirements in a sector

which, up until that point, had been compliance driven. This tension is a critical

frame of reference for understanding the sense-making processes that followed

and the strategies policy actors applied to determine appropriate courses of

action for their council.

6.2.3 Doubt around the intention and suitability of the

legislation

In addition to the paradigm shift and tensions a principles-based Act presented,

it is important to acknowledge the local government sector’s pervading

scepticism of the legislation’s intent and suitability. While decidedly more

subdued than when the legislation was being developed (as examined in

Chapter 5), the data reveals that councils continued to question whether

mandating deliberative engagement practices was necessary:

So, I mean, my initial impressions were fine, if you want to legislate it,

that’s okay. But we’re pretty good at this stuff in local government anyway.

(CEO Bologna Interview 1)

My initial thoughts were, what do they actually mean? … My second

thought was, this is going to be a pain in the neck and my third thought

was, is it really going to benefit the quality of our strategic work? (CEO

Padua Interview 1)

At times, this doubt was expressed as disputing the intentions of State

Government:

[Some councils] almost took it personally that the Act was a criticism of the

way they’ve been doing things. And they felt like they do things quite well

and adequately, that they felt that this was unnecessary. (Consultant 3)

It is rhetoric only. If State Government really thought this worked, they

would use it themselves. The subtext is local government is somehow too

stupid to know its community. (Councillor survey response)

However, most commentary was directed at the perceived incompatibility

between deliberative engagement practices and the strategic documents they

needed to be applied to. Common understanding of deliberative engagement

practices was associated with processes where an issue is scrutinised, and

options are carefully deliberated upon before arriving at a collective decision.

Conversely, council plans or community visions tend to be broader in nature;

they typically accommodate several priorities and strategic directions.8 The

argument made by several interviewees was that council plans and community

visions do not intrinsically have a dilemma or problem that needs to be resolved

through the weighing of policy options. Council plans and community visions

were therefore seen as documents that did not substantiate a need for

deliberation:

8 8 For example, Merri-bek City Council’s (2021) council plan has 96 ‘Strategies, Major Initiatives

and Priorities’, and Hume City Council’s (2021) council plan has 50 ‘Major Strategies and Actions’.

Deliberative methods of community engagement [are] best used when a

problem is specific (e.g., build a hospital at site A or site B). Why does the

act mandate deliberative engagement for broad based community

consultation such as for the community vision where specific issues are

not known. (Comment posted on EngageVic platform, 2020)

I was supportive of the push for councils to be doing more in that space,

but I was a little unclear as to how certain strategic documents were

selected for requiring deliberative engagement. … if you're just asking

[community] to be involved in the big picture development of these

strategic plans, as opposed to getting them to actually deliberate and

debate over, you know, problem B or problem C. (Coordinator Sassari

Interview 1)

And so, understanding what deliberative entailed, understanding that it

had been applied to a very different context than was the norm for

deliberative engagement, and going, how on earth do we make this

possible with such a broad scope, not a kind of narrow dilemma, or wicked

problem, but quite broad scope? (Manager Rimini Interview 1)

This limitation was also noted by a consultant who questioned whether the

scope of the documents impacted the quality of deliberative outcomes: I

question the deliberateness of something so expansive … I couldn’t see how

they could possibly be deliberative because of the limited number of sessions,

and limited time, and vastness of the scope. (Consultant 6)

Only one person interviewed suggested that because the scope for priorities is

so wide-ranging in documents such as the council plan, that deliberative

engagement practices could be effective in narrowing down priorities:

[Responses in consultations] are always really aspirational, and they’ll say,

yeah, we want to see these, or we want to see that. But we rarely asked

them, or we wouldn’t have asked them, so how are we going to fund that?

(Manager Ragusa Interview 1)

However, this was not a perception shared by their colleagues, who were, much

like the rest of the interviewees, grappling with how deliberative engagement

practices would generate valuable input into council’s strategic planning.

These reservations regarding the necessity and suitability of deliberative

engagement practices indicate that the possible outcomes, or potential value, of

the practices was not entirely appreciated by those who needed to implement

them. They highlight a persistent ambivalence of the sector, which would have

influenced how deliberative engagement practices were applied.

This point is revisited later in the chapter, but this section has provided a critical

context and pivotal point of departure before examining how councils made

sense of and operationalised the mandated deliberative engagement

requirements. It has shown that assumptions around the local government

sector’s preparedness to adopt deliberative engagement practices within a

principles-based legislative environment were problematic, and that the sector

may not have been as receptive to the new requirements as the Victorian State

Government seemingly predicted.

6.3 Making sense of deliberative engagement practices

Having established the key complexities of the legislative environment, analysis

now turns to the sense-making activity that occurred following the Act’s Royal

Assent in March 2020. Taken from organisational theory, sense-making is a

term to explain ‘the process of deciding how an organisation will proceed

following some kind of disruption’; it is described as a ‘springboard for action’

where ‘meanings materialize that inform and constrain action’ (Weick et al.,

2005, p. 409). As part of the sense-making processes, this section examines the

sources of information councils accessed when determining how they would

define and apply deliberative engagement practices. It offers valuable insights

into how councils determined expertise and, consequently, the courses of action

they believed were at their disposal.

6.3.1 A profusion of sense-making activity

In the months that followed the Victorian Local Government Act 2020’s Royal

Assent, a plethora of webinars, blogs and workshops on the topic of

‘deliberative engagement’ emerged. Sector actors such as IAP2 Australasia and

all three local government associations in Victoria (VLGA, MAV, and LGPro)

organised a variety of professional development activities on the topic, most of

which were free to access. During this time, the Victorian State Government

was also active through its branch Local Government Victoria (LGV), which

delivered a series of initiatives described as a ‘sector-led approach of co-design

and consultation’. This included EngageVic (an engagement and consultation

website), several working groups, and a series of sessions titled LGV Connects.

The survey data indicates that respondents accessed several of these

sensemaking activities. When asked ‘What did you do to find out about what

deliberative engagement is, and to understand what it might involve for your

Council?’, respondents in the organisational survey stated that they had

accessed an average of 4.2 information sources out of the seven possible

options. When looking across the different levels of the organisation (for a

typical organisational hierarchy, see Figure 4.3), it seems that the officer-level

respondents reported the most activity, averaging 4.8 sources, followed by

members of the executive, who said they accessed an average of 4.4 sources.

Councillors reported accessing considerably less, with an average of 2.4

sources from the same seven options. These figures demonstrate that people

working for local government were accessing a range of information at their

disposal, whilst councillors reported being far less active in this regard. Whilst it

is not possible to determine why councillors were less prone to seek out

information themselves, there is a reasonable assumption that it is because

most have full-time or part-time employment outside of their elected

representative role, and therefore limited time to dedicate to these types of

activities. On the other hand, the level of organisational responses to accessing

information was significant and could be linked to the apprehension expressed

in interviews and noted earlier in this chapter. The sector’s desire for more

clarity around expected outcomes and a greater sense of assurance that they

would satisfactorily meet the requirements of the legislation is likely to have

underpinned this high level of participation in sense-making activities.

6.3.2 Sources of information accessed by local government

Aside from the degree of sense-making activity that seems to have occurred,

the specific sources of information that councillors and organisational

respondents reported accessing also showed cogent distinctions.

Table 6.1 Sense-making activities

Survey question: What did you do to find out about what ‘deliberative engagement’ is,

and to understand what it might involve for your council? Choose all that apply:

Member

Executive

Manager

Coordinator/

Team

Leader

Officer Organisation

Average %

Councillors

Participated in

meetings where

staff or

consultants

gave

presentations

57 52 53 59 55 74

Attended LGV

webinars 76 62 37 59 55 18

Attended

industry

webinars

67 57 50 68 59 18

Talked about it

with my

networks

52 71 61 64 62 28

Looked at what

other local

government

orgs were

doing

81 67 74 86 76 33

Read about

it online or in

publications

57 52 63 82 64 29

Talked to

people who had

experience

52 38 53 59 51 34

As outlined in Table 6.1, councillors overwhelmingly responded that to discover

what deliberative engagement involved, they ‘participated in meetings where

council staff or consultants gave presentations’ (74%). Their second most

common response, that they ‘talked about it with people who had experience

with deliberative engagement’, was significantly lower at 34%. At the other end,

the lowest response, with only 18%, was that councillors attended webinars

presented by either Local Government Victoria or industry associations. This is

of particular note because the Local Government Victoria webinars were

specifically targeted at councillors, and it was suggested in interviews that

information from these sources would have been especially worthwhile:

[deliberative engagement] feels like letting go of your power a little bit. It’s really

hard for an officer to introduce that concept to a councillor. Whereas it’s different

if it’s like a Local Government Victoria or a Municipal

Association of Victoria, someone with that kind of influence, offering it up.

(Consultant 8)

Considered with the earlier observation that councillors had limited engagement

with sense-making activities, it is clear that rather than seeking out their own

understandings and forming their own conclusions, councillors predominantly

relied on the information they accessed through their organisations. How

councillors understood deliberative engagement practices was, therefore, likely

to be framed, and potentially circumscribed, by what their organisations decided

to convey. This undoubtably has implications for how the authorising

environment perceived the practices, which is explored later in this chapter as

well as in Chapter 7.

Comparatively, in the organisational survey, a different trend emerges regarding

sense-making. In organisational responses, participating in meetings where

they were provided information was amongst the lowest responses, indicating

that council staff were more active in their approach to sense-making. For these

respondents, the most frequent choices were ‘looked at what other local

government organisations were doing or other case study examples’ (76%),

followed by ‘read about it online or in publications’ (64%), and then ‘talked about

it with my networks’ (62%). From these responses, it seems that organisational

actors tended to preference information that derived from local government

networks and could be benchmarked against similar contexts. This preference

can be found in interviews with comments such as:

[Community Engagement Person] has undertaken quite a bit of research,

benchmarking with other councils as well as understanding from a Local

Government Victoria perspective around what best practice is and what

we should be achieving. (Executive Perugia Interview 1)

And so, for me, that was really reaching out to colleagues at other

councils, because I don’t have the people with expertise in my own

organisation. (Officer Spoleto Interview 1)

We’ve obviously been to a number of the Local Government Victoria

webinars, but to be honest, I’ll ring up another council and say, ‘What are

you doing?’ and I might think ‘that’s a good idea, maybe I can bring that

small element into mine’, so there is a lot of cross design work within the

councils (CEO Tivoli Interview 1).

Organisational actors placed value on the expertise and standards established

within the sector, with some even assuming that this would lead to best practice.

This bias could be interpreted as a direct contradiction to the previously cited

concerns that the sector did not have the requisite expertise and knowledge to

implement deliberative engagement practices. What emerged, therefore, was a

situation where, whilst arguing that the sector did not have sufficient

competencies to undertake the practices, organisational actors simultaneously

looked to each other for signposts for action. This paradox did not seem evident

to any of the people interviewed, and although it could have been perceived as

a collective endeavour and learning from each other, some questioning of the

soundness of the information they were sharing and giving credence to is

needed.

6.3.3 How deliberative engagement ‘experts’ participated in

sense-making

As shown in Table 6.1, sense-making activities that involved ‘people who were

experienced with deliberative engagement practices’ were reported as the least

accessed source of information for organisational respondents. This was

surprising given a common argument was that the sector lacked the expertise to

apply deliberative engagement practices appropriately. It stands to reason that

policy actors would primarily approach those with experience in this space;

however, this was not necessarily the case.

Whilst a rationale for this more cursory engagement with experienced actors

cannot be given, there the data contains several statements that may be

relevant. There was some indication that professional development activities

provided by consultants, even if most were free of cost, were treated with some

caution. Whilst these consultants could arguably have been seen as the

‘experts’ in deliberative engagement practices, as commercial providers of

deliberative engagement processes, the possible biased nature of their

guidance around the legislative requirements was flagged:

A clear career path, professional development and certifiable training not

run by consultants with a vested interest in charging out their ongoing

services would be beneficial. (Organisational survey response)

I think you’ve got a consultancy providing advice on a legislative

document, they’re filling a gap, which probably should have been filled by

the legislation. (Consultant 7)

Returning to the high incidence of organisational responses that stated they had

‘read about deliberative engagement practices online or in publications’ (64%).

The survey did not ask respondents to specify which publications they had read,

so the nature of these written resources cannot be verified. Speculatively, this

response could be connected to a handbook that MosaicLab (one of the leading

commercial providers of deliberative engagement consultancy in Victoria)

published titled A Short Guide to Deliberative Engagement for Victorian

Councils. The handbook was promoted by Local Government Victoria through

its website EngageVic and was noted in one interview as having been useful for

sense-making:

Like guidelines or handbooks that were developed for the local

government sector in particular … this is all new to everybody, this is kind

of roughly what the process looks like. It didn’t necessarily set a direction

for councils to move into … but they were definitely very helpful for

documenting the principles that you should aim to. (Officer Brescia

Interview 1)

In addition to MosaicLab’s publication, respondents may be referring to a series

of posts and blogs on the International Association of Public Participation

Australasia (IAP2A) website and other industry service providers, but these

were not mentioned in any of the data collected. More broadly, neither the work

of the OECD nor the newDemocracy Foundation, which had resources

published around the same time as these sense-making activities were

occurring, were mentioned. Furthermore, aside from one interviewee noting

they had read some of James Fishkin’s work, no academic resource was

referenced by council staff or councillors.

What emerges from this analysis is that ‘experts’ played a restricted role in the

sense-making activities of councils. How this may have impacted the

interpretation and design of the deliberative engagement practices needs to be

considered as it meant that principles usually associated with the practices may

not have been disseminated.

6.3.4 Prominent frames of reference for sense-making

The data presented in this section reveals that sense-making processes and

sources of information local government actors engaged with varied depending

on roles. Councillors reported relying significantly on how deliberative

engagement practices were framed in presentations they attended, having done

very little research or inquiry of their own; and council staff reported primarily

consulting with their local government sector colleagues. While caution must be

exercised in assuming that respondents were always answering the survey

questions accurately, this analysis indicates that both organisational actors and

councillors were drawing primarily from local government sector knowledge and

expertise during the sense-making process.

Given that it became a critical frame of reference for councils in deciphering

which courses of action were available to them, it is worth considering the

broader implications of this sense-making. In a context where the principles of

deliberative engagement practices were not clearly articulated or prescribed by

the legislation, any interpretation through a ‘local government lens’ would

inevitably have been influenced by the organisational norms and constraints

actors operated within. Furthermore, how aspects of deliberative engagement

practices that did not conform to, or potentially disrupted, organisational norms

need to be considered. This tension is apparent in the following sections of this

chapter, which explore how the practices were formalised through councils’

definitions and then subsequently implemented.

6.4 Rules: what aspects of deliberative engagement were

councils prepared to formalise?

Through the prism of Lowndes and Roberts’ (2013) rules, practices, and

narratives, (as outlined in Chapter 3), the following two sections consider how

councils progressed from the sense-making phase to defining and applying

deliberative engagement practices. This section begins with how rules were

established and deliberative engagement practices were formally defined in

councils’ community engagement policies. This examination of the rules then

sets the scene for the subsequent sections, which explore the practices and

narratives that emerged.

As noted earlier, the Victorian Local Government Act 2020 defines ‘deliberative

engagement practices’ as: ‘the deliberative engagement practices included in a

community engagement policy’ (Part 1 – Preliminary). Hence, how they are

defined in each council’s community engagement policy is the key mechanism

for holding councils to account and the only means for evaluating whether

councils are meeting their legislative requirements. As such, the definitions are

effectively the ‘rules’ councils established for themselves and provide a window

to understanding which standards of practice they were prepared to commit to.

To explore these rules, the following analysis examines how deliberative

engagement practices were defined in all 79 community engagement policies

across Victoria.9

6.4.1 From detailed descriptions to vague intentions

When examining the way deliberative engagement practices were defined, the

first aspect that became apparent was the varied degrees of detail and caveats

included in the definitions. Several councils made clear and quite prescriptive

commitments to the types of practices they would implement. For these

councils, definitions provided a high level of certainty around their intended

designs. For example, Moonee Valley City Council (2021) stated it would ‘aim to

have a group of at least 50 residents representative of the population brought

together to meet for at least one day’. Other process-orientated details included

references to involving an independent facilitator to ‘ensure a fair and equitable

process’ (Swan Hill Shire Council, 2021; Monash City Council, 2021;

Corangamite Shire Council, 2021a), or recruiting groups using a random

stratified method (East Gippsland Shire Council, 2021; Hepburn Shire Council,

2021a; Nillumbik Shire Council, 2021).

Conversely, a handful of councils’ definitions were rather vague; for example,

Buloke Shire Council (2021) simply stated: ‘Deliberative engagement requires a

higher level of participation.’ Speculatively, councils with these broader,

sometimes obscure, definitions may have intentionally made them inexplicit to

accommodate a variety of engagement activities. Whilst they may have been

intended as a means of providing flexibility going forward, one consultant also

flagged that these more amorphous definitions might also have been a way for

councils to evade firm commitments to the practices:

… that’s quite sophisticated really, when you think about it, ‘hey it’s

principles based, you take them and interpreted them how you want’. So,

9 Definitions of deliberative engagement practices were taken from all 79 councils’ community engagement

policies as of March 2021.

some [councils] will go ‘Yeah, great. I’ll interpret it really lightly; I’m not

taking it seriously at all’. (Consultant 10)

In addition to vague commitments, there was evidence of some hedging in

definitions, with councils making caveats around their approaches. For example,

Wyndham City Council (2021) outlined several details in their definition,

including that ‘information from diverse sources and covering different sides of

the issue, such as background reports and expert speakers, are provided’ and

ensuring the cohort that participated in deliberations would be ‘given 4–6 full

days of time to deliberate’. However, their definition also ends with a disclaimer

of sorts stating:

Scaling of deliberative engagement is important, as not all deliberative

engagement processes must include all elements as described. The more

deliberative practices that are included, the more deliberative it will

become. We will decide where a process fits on to the scale of

deliberation, having regard to the significance and complexity of the

decision to be made. (Wyndham City Council, 2021)

These types of caveats indicate that some councils may have been more

cognisant of the correlation between their definitions and future scrutiny or

audits than others. This distinction was noted by two consultants who expressed

concern that councils that had been more descriptive may have unintentionally

also shoehorned their practices:

Any policies that were a bit more ambiguous this time around were

probably the ones that served people the best. (Consultant 8)

When considered alongside the earlier discussion regarding the intrinsic

flexibility of principles-based legislation, these definitions demonstrate a

possible shift in attitudes regarding the absence of a definition. Rather than the

exigency of adequately meeting legislative requirements that permeated

discussions one year earlier when the legislation came into effect, councils

seem to have adapted to, and potentially used to their advantage, the

openended nature of the legislation. However, a new tension emerged. In a

legislative context that left questions about expected standards of practice

unanswered, what then became an ‘acceptable’ interpretation of deliberative

engagement practices was also equivocal.

6.4.2 Common characteristics of deliberative engagement in

policies

Before moving to the practices that emerged, this section closely examines the

definitions to ascertain which characteristics of deliberative engagement

practices were commonly cited, and therefore, resonated most strongly with the

local government sector.

Almost three-quarters of all definitions (n = 57; 72%) referred to deliberation and

a process where participants are ‘provided with the information and time to

reach a joint position through considered discussion’. This suggests that the act

of deliberating was acknowledged as a distinct feature of the practices.

However, how deliberation differs from other forms of communication, including

consultation, was not necessarily recognised. For example, Mansbridge (2015)

argues that the term deliberation has at its root the idea of weighing alternatives

and that ‘a communicative process that includes little or no reflective interactive

weighting is not by itself deliberation’ (p. 28). This distinction is also found in the

work of other scholars, including Dryzek (2010), who describes deliberative

discourse as particular because it induces reflection about preferences, and

Thompson (2008) who posits that some basic disagreement is necessary to

create the problem that deliberative democracy is intended to solve (p. 502).

Reflecting further on councils’ definitions of deliberative engagement, rather

than simply having access to more information, the act of examining information

to weigh options is only recognised in 46% (n = 37) of policies. This distinction

becomes more pertinent when considered against the concerns noted earlier

about the suitability of deliberative engagement practices for strategic plans.

Given these strategic plans typically accommodate several priorities, their scope

did not sit comfortably with the usual pretext of a ‘dilemma’ in deliberative

processes. Therefore, this distinction in the definitions might have oriented

practices towards ‘discussion’ that did not weigh options, but rather, veered

towards traditional consultation processes. This is admittedly a subtle

distinction; however, it speaks to how deliberative engagement practices may

have been conflated with more standard forms of community engagement

practice.

Following deliberation, 60% (n = 48) of definitions highlighted that the practices

included a ‘representative’ sample of the local community. Whilst what councils

considered ‘representative’ and how they went about recruiting participants

varied (and is explored in Chapter 7), this aspect of deliberative engagement

practices also seemed to be quite resonant in interviews and observations. In

particular, the prospect of more descriptive representation10, and participation

beyond the ‘usual suspects’, seemed to be appealing to both councillors and

organisational actors. Given the multiple references to ‘inclusion’ that state

government officials reiterated throughout the development and initial stages of

the legislation, it is perhaps expected that this principle featured prominently in

definitions.

As well as inclusion, the other principle state government officials expressed

they wanted to see advanced was influence. As noted in previous chapters,

much of the discussion regarding deliberative engagement practices during the

development of the legislation centred on its potential to engage community

members more effectively in the decision-making of local government. However,

only 20% (n = 16) of policies make a commitment to the community having

more influence over the decision-making of council. Instead, in some policies,

the overarching authority of elected representatives was highlighted. Two

examples are Baw Baw Shire Council (2021) where the definition states,

‘Deliberative engagement is a form of community engagement that places

people closer to the decision making of a democratic society, without taking

away from the decision-making powers of the elected Council’; and Glen Eira

City Council (2021) which conceded that although ‘it is one form of ‘high

influence’ engagement, it is not an alternative to Council performing its role as a

statutory decision-making body’. As these examples demonstrate, rather than

greater reverence to community input, as was sought by the legislation, some

10 Descriptive representation is understood as ‘individuals who in their own backgrounds mirror some of

the more frequent experiences and outward manifestations of belonging to a group’ (Mansbridge,1999, p.

628).

definitions were explicitly defensive of councillors’ prescribed role in

decisionmaking.

Whilst there is scholarly contestation regarding the extent of influence

democratic innovations should have on government decision-making (Lafont,

2019; Parkinson, 2003), it is also important to underline that the premise of

these practices is to improve the normative and epistemic quality of

decisionmaking. This was certainly the case for introducing deliberative

engagement

practices in Victoria. As such, if councils did not include how the practices would

influence decision-making in their definitions, and therefore the formal rules they

acknowledge and commit to, it would seem a key intention of the legislation was

overlooked.

Related to this, almost 38% (n = 30) of policies highlighted that deliberative

engagement practices were a legislative requirement within their definition, with

a portion also calling attention to the fact that the Act does not define what

deliberative engagement practices are. It is only speculative to comment on

what might be driving this reference; perhaps councils felt they had to explain

why these practices were now part of the strategic planning processes.

Irrespective of the reason, it demonstrates that councils were more inclined to

refer to the Act and their compliance obligations than any influence deliberative

engagement would have on decision-making. Again, this can be linked to the

point made earlier that challenged the assumptions of a principles-based

legislative context. If councils did recognise ‘influence’ as a critical outcome of

deliberative engagement practices, then many were clearly reticent to formalise

it in their definitions.

This section analysed how deliberative engagement practices were defined in

councils’ community engagement policies, and in doing so, reviewed the formal

rules that councils established for their implementation. What emerged from

examining these definitions were a series of qualifiers and caveats that

indicated some, albeit subtle, morphing of deliberative engagement practices.

Through examining the definitions, it is clear that councils had began to move

away from the aspirational calls of State Government to ‘improve democracy’

and adapted more tempered understandings that were closer to established

organisational norms and preferences.

6.5 Implementing deliberative engagement: emergent practices

and narratives

I suppose it's all about how you read the words at the end of the day.

(CEO Bologna Interview 1)

Aligned to a legislative stipulation, most councils endorsed their community

engagement policies, including a definition of deliberative engagement

practices, by 1 March 2021. Once these ‘rules of engagement’ had been

established, the sector’s attention then shifted to the next stage of

implementation and how those formal commitments were interpreted into

practice. This section considers how deliberative engagement processes were

designed and adapted to inform council plans. It explores some of the themes

that emerged during implementation before reflecting on the dominant

narratives that rationalised policy actors’ choices.

6.5.1 What makes deliberative engagement different to community

consultation?

As intimated earlier when discussing the conceptualisation of deliberation in

councils’ definitions, how deliberative engagement practices were distinguished

from otherwise standard practices of community consultation was somewhat

blurred. This is more apparent when considering the format of councils’

deliberative engagement processes and how discussions that were considered

‘deliberative’ were framed.

To establish what types of processes were undertaken, a desktop review of

each of the 79 Victorian councils’ deliberative engagement processes was

conducted. Council reports and descriptions in council plans found that 63% (n

= 50) of Victorian local governments implemented processes that can generally

be described as mini-publics, with many referring to them as a ‘community

panel’. Consistent with the point made earlier, whereby councils defined

deliberative engagement practices as involving ‘a representative sample of the

local community’, the processes generally bought together a group of

approximately 40–50 community members to ‘deliberate’ on the priorities of the

council plan. The remaining 37% (n = 29) of councils conducted processes such

as town hall meetings, pop up consultations, or conducted stakeholder

consultation meetings.

Based on the above figures, over a third of councils’ deliberative engagement

practices were based on traditional consultation methods and formats. For the

remaining 63% of councils that established a community panel, uncertainty

surrounding the distinction between ‘deliberation’ and ‘consultation’ was

evidenced in several interviews and observations, most notably when

discussing the question, or ‘remit’, that would be posed to the community panel.

Below are two excerpts from the observations that exhibit this issue:

At a workshop involving approximately ten council staff and the consultants they

had hired to facilitate their deliberative engagement process, the topic of which

question would be posed to the community panel for deliberation was a point of

contention. Several of the staff expressed concerns that there was no obvious

‘dilemma’ associated with strategic documents such as the council plan.

Manager A stated: ‘It’s hard to come up with a problem for them to solve if there

isn’t a problem to solve … how are we going to navigate the deliberative

engagement if we don’t have a complex issue?’ The consultant suggested the

deliberation could be a ‘validation type exercise’ whereby the community panel

was provided with information about councils’ suggested directions and these

could be tested to see if the panel found them reasonable. Manager B agreed

with the suggestion and stated ‘we want to gauge if we are hitting the mark or

not – and if not, why? I think that is the best way to do it … to get [the

community panel] well informed and comfortable with what we are doing.’

However, Manager A questioned the validity of this: ‘Would we be meeting the

legislative requirements if we did that?’ Likewise, Manager C expressed

hesitation, stating: ‘everyone seems comfortable but I’m less comfortable … I

would call that consultation which isn’t deliberative … If it ticks the box that is a

question – I think we are walking a bit of a line there.’

A similar incident occurred at a different council when staff were discussing their

process with the consultants they hired. Officer Brescia stated: ‘we want to

make sure there is a final deliberative process [emphasises deliberative] … do

we have anything specific in mind to support that rather than just asking them

basically to sense-check and edit?’ In this observation, the consultant

responded: ‘the whole process is in a rushed timeframe, so our commitment to

deliberation is as much as it can be within the constraints that we are working

with.’

These examples illustrate some of the key tensions that emerged when

implementing deliberative engagement. The first links back to the earlier point

about the suitability of documents such as the council plan for deliberative

engagement, and the second observation highlights the constraints that affected

the design of practices. This latter point is discussed in more detail in Chapter 8,

but what can be seen is that deliberative engagement practices were being

adapted to meet the norms and needs of the context, not the commonly

accepted principles that underpin them. This was found in other interviews with

consultants where descriptions such as ‘short-form’ deliberative engagement

and ‘deliberation light’ were being used to describe processes. One consultant

even described a process as a ‘local government act process’ when comparing

it to usual deliberative engagement practices.

These adaptations seem to have spurred practices that are closer to traditional

forms of community consultation than perhaps initially thought, as illustrated in

the quote below:

So, I think it comes down to like deliberative engagement isn’t necessarily

so different to community engagement. (Officer Brescia Interview 2)

This council staff member appeared genuinely committed to ‘best practice’

deliberative engagement in their first interview, and in observations they were

one of the key champions for the process in their organisation. However, by

their second interview, having then experienced a deliberative engagement

process, they began to reflect that the practices were not as distinct from

business-as-usual as they previously anticipated.

Whilst the legislation allowed for and arguably contrived these adaptations, it

does bring to light a potential limitation for the institutionalisation of democratic

innovations. If they morph into practices that resemble existing models of public

participation, how does this impact the value these practices are perceived to

bring? This is explored further at the end of this chapter, following consideration

of some of the other practices that emerged during implementation.

6.5.2 How deliberative engagement practices influenced

council plans

Based on the legislation’s expressed intention of bringing communities closer to

the decision-making of council, the research explored how deliberative

engagement practices informed council plans. This was achieved primarily

through the survey, which asked respondents to indicate what level of influence

their deliberative engagement process had on the final council plan. The

categories respondents were asked to choose from were broadly based on

those of the International Association of Public Participation (IAP2) Spectrum.

This spectrum was applied because it is widely recognised in the local

government sector and would have been a familiar mechanism for describing

the level of influence given to a consultation activity. However, precisely

because the IAP2 Spectrum categories are familiar terms that are commonly

used in councils’ reporting, there was a risk that explicitly using the terminology

of the Spectrum would create a bias in responses (e.g., respondents might have

ticked ‘Consult’ simply because they are used to using this descriptor rather

than thinking about the actual level of influence). As such, instead of the

categories commonly used in the Spectrum (i.e., Inform, Consult, Involve,

Collaborate, and Empower), the survey used somewhat adapted descriptions

outlined in Table 6.2:

Table 6.2 Correlation of levels of influence described in survey with IAP2

Spectrum

IAP2

Spectrum Description in survey

Inform The recommendations were presented to Council, but they did not change

the strategies in the final council plan either at all or very much.

Consult

The recommendations were considered, and some changes were made,

Council provided feedback to community about how their input influenced

the decision.

Involve

Council worked with community members involved in the deliberative

engagement to ensure that their priorities and recommendations

were reflected in the strategies that were developed.

Collaborate

Council provided the community members involved in the deliberative

engagement the opportunity to come up with their own solutions to issues

that were discussed during deliberation and then incorporated these to

the maximum extent possible.

Empower Council committed to implementing whatever the community decided

through the deliberative engagement process.

Source: Adapted from IAP2 Spectrum of Public Participation

As outlined in Table 6.3 (below), most practices were reported to be at the

Involve or Consult level of the IAP2 Spectrum. There were slight differences

between the level of influence reported by councillors compared to

organisations: 40% of organisational respondents said that the level of influence

was at Consult level, followed by 26% at Involve; whereas councillors had a

perception of greater influence, with 41% saying it was at Involve, followed by

27% at Consult.

Table 6.3 Level of influence on strategic planning

Survey question: What level of influence do you think the deliberative engagement

process had on the Council Plan?

Organisational

survey

Councillor

survey

The recommendations were presented to

Council, but they didn’t change the

strategies in the final Council Plan either at

all or very much

15% 14%

The recommendations were considered,

and some changes were made. Council

provided feedback to community about how

their input influenced the decision.

40% 27%

Council worked with community members

involved in the deliberative engagement

to ensure that their priorities and

recommendations were reflected in the

strategies that were developed.

26% 41%

Inform Consult Involve

Council provided the community members

involved in the deliberative engagement the

opportunity to come up with their own

solutions to issues that were discussed

during deliberation and then incorporated

these to the maximum extent possible.

13% 14%

Council committed to implementing

whatever the community decided through

the deliberative engagement process.

6% 5%

Combined, this survey data suggests that the level of influence given to

deliberative engagement processes was weighted more heavily towards the

lower end of the IAP2 Spectrum. This is also consistent with data from the

desktop review of council reports regarding all 79 councils’ processes, as well

as what was observed at councils across the sector during data collection.

I think a key limitation of our process was not the deliberative engagement

itself but the extent to which it actually influenced the council plan. There

was an attitude internally that we would progress with our plans no matter

what it said. (Organisational survey response)

Whilst it is not possible to determine the level of influence community members

had on council plans prior to the legislation, it is fair to assume there has only

been a notional change with deliberative engagement practices. Councils could

legitimately argue that the open-ended nature of the legislation allowed for this

relatively immaterial interpretation of influence; however, how this agnostic

reality meets the ideals of the legislation and the normative and epistemic value

it hypothesises should also be considered.

6.5.3 Rationales given for determining the appropriate level

of influence

To understand what may have contributed to the level of influence given to

deliberative engagement practices, both surveys asked: Why do you think your

Council decided on this level of influence for the council plan?

Table 6.4 Rationales for level of influence

Collaborate Empower

Survey question: Why do you think your Council decided on this level of influence for

the Council Plan?

Organisational

survey

Councillor

survey

This was considered the most appropriate level of

influence by Councillors. 12% 20%

It was line with our understanding of deliberative

engagement practice and the expectations of the

legislation.

51% 30%

It was in line with what we would usually do for the

development of the Council Plan. 10% 14%

This was the level of influence suggested by the

Executive Leadership and organisation. 12% 21%

This was what the consultant recommended as

appropriate. 7% 10%

Other 8% 5%

As Table 6.4 illustrates, most organisational and councillor responses stated that

the level of influence given to deliberative engagement practices were in line

with their understanding of the practices and the expectations of the legislation.

Interestingly, ‘what a consultant recommended as appropriate’ was the least

noted reason for the level of influence, indicating that councils did not

necessarily draw from this expertise when deciding how the practices would be

integrated into decision-making processes.

To further interrogate this data, the survey responses from Table 6.3 (the level of

influence given to the practices), was cross-referenced with the data from Table

6.4 (the rationales for that level of influence). In this manner, the analysis could

consider rationales that supported decisions for each individual level of

influence.

Table 6.5 Breakdown of rationales for each level of influence: Organisational

responses

Empower

Collabo-

rate

Involve

Consult

Inform

This was considered the most appropriate level of

influence by Councillors. 33% 15% 8% 8% 20%

It was line with our understanding of deliberative

engagement practice and the expectations of

legislation.

67% 54% 58% 45% 40%

It was in line with what we would usually do for the

development of the Council Plan. 4% 15% 20%

This was the level of influence suggested by the

Executive Leadership and organisation. 8% 19% 10% 13%

This was what the consultant recommended as

appropriate. 15% 12% 5%

Did not specify why: 8% 18% 7%

Table 6.6 Breakdown of rationales for each level of influence: Councillor

responses

This was considered the most appropriate level of

influence by Councillors. 40% 21% 22% 19% 7%

It was line with our understanding of

deliberative engagement practice and the

expectations of legislation.

60% 43% 32% 22% 21%

It was in line with what we would usually do for the

development of the Council Plan. 14% 10% 15% 29%

This was the level of influence suggested by the

Executive Leadership and organisation. 7% 20% 26% 36%

This was what the consultant recommended as

appropriate. 14% 15% 7%

Did not specify why: 2% 11% 7%

As Table 6.5 highlights, irrespective of the level of influence given to the

deliberative engagement practices, organisational respondents mostly stated it

was ‘in line with our understanding of deliberative engagement practice and the

expectations of the legislation’. However, councillor responses were more

mixed; at the higher levels of influence, from Empower to Involve, councillors

answered that ‘it was in line with our understanding of deliberative engagement

practices and the legislation’, but for those where influence was at the lower end

of the spectrum, at the Consult and Inform levels, councillors tended to say that

‘this was the level of influence suggested by the Executive Leadership and

Empower

Collabo-

rate

Involve

Consult

Inform

organisation’. These responses could be linked to the earlier data that found

that most councillors learned about deliberative engagement practices by

participating in meetings (Table 6.1).

What emerges from the responses in Tables 6.5 and 6.6 is that, even at the

lower levels of influence, both councillors and council staff believed, or said they

believed, that it was what they understood as appropriate. Most telling is that

40% of organisational survey responses who said their deliberative engagement

practices were at the Inform level, and therefore ‘the recommendations were

presented to Council, but they didn’t change the strategies in the final Council

Plan either at all or very much’, also said it was in line with their understanding

of deliberative engagement practices. Although the legislation provided broad

scope for councils to adapt the practices as necessary, this interpretation, where

strategic planning can essentially be carried out with little or no input from

community members, is inherently contradictory to the legislation’s expressed

intent. Therefore, it can be inferred that some councils either fundamentally did

not understand the core principles of deliberative engagement practices or they

intentionally distorted them. Whichever is the case, this data indicates that

narratives emerged to justify practices irrespective of how antithetical they were

to commonly held perceptions of deliberative engagement practices.

6.6 Deliberative engagement practices – who was making the

rules?

The previous section illustrated that, whether intentionally or not, deliberative

engagement practices were interpreted and applied in a way that was

inconsistent with commonly recognised principles. The following section

theorises what might have contributed to this phenomenon by examining what

local government organisations were being advised by key policy actors during

their sense-making and design processes.

6.6.1 ‘Growth mindsets’ and a regulatory vacuum

As noted earlier, as the legislator, the State Government provided few signals

for councils to infer what was expected of ‘deliberative engagement practices’,

arguing that as principles-based legislation it was the remit of local government

organisations to interpret and define it for themselves. There were some

instances where state government officials provided some insight; for example,

at a webinar titled ‘Local Government Act 2020 Explained – Embracing

Community Engagement’, a senior manager stated, ‘deliberative engagement is

about having that strong conversation with your community that is truly

representative to enable your documents to be truly informed by what your

community is asking for’ (VLGA, 2020). However, these expectations were

never formally communicated.

Instead, the language state government representatives used seemed to

reinforce a relatively amorphous interpretation of deliberative engagement

practices. At webinars, state government officials urged councils to have a

‘growth mindset’ (LGV, 2020a) and ‘choose your own journey’ (IAP2, 2020); they

suggested councils see this as an opportunity to ‘fail forward’, or ‘opportunity to

learn and explore’, and develop a ‘continuous improvement approach’ (VLGA,

2020). These all imply that the Victorian State Government accepted that the

practice would evolve over time as the sector developed skills and capacity in

this space. It also gave licence to councils who were perhaps reticent to delve

cautiously into the practices, restricting the scope to what they felt was

manageable. This was expressed by consultants also who reported: And, they

[councils] were getting messages from State Government, ‘look, you don’t all

have to do it the same, it won’t be perfect. It’s about making a start.’ And so,

they sort of thought, well let’s just play it safe and just do something that we can

manage, that’s fairly manageable and not likely to be explosive in their thinking.

(Consultant 3)

In addition to these narratives, there was no foreseeable regulation of the

legislative requirements. The Victorian Auditor-General’s Office (VAGO) – the

state government authority responsible for overseeing a swathe of local

government functions – was absent from forums or official activities that were

related to the legislative changes. Whilst VAGO (2015) had previously stated it

expected to conduct performance audits to measure whether councils were

‘efficiently and effectively engaging the public to inform government

decisionmaking and implementation’ (p. Foreword), these never materialised.

This is revealing when considering Ostrom’s (1986) claim that ‘decisions are

substantially influenced, if not completely determined, by the consequences of

default’ (p. 13). Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that, without any

perceived sanctions or ‘third party’ enforcement, there was also no real impetus

for councils to challenge existing norms or strengthen their practices. Instead,

deliberative engagement practices could be reinterpreted to suit contextual

needs. This interplay between action and enforcement was perhaps predicted

by the Victorian Local Government Association (VLGA) in its submission to the

Local Government Act Review Discussion Paper where they noted that

legislation can influence but cannot, by itself, deliver community engagement by

local government and to be effective, the legislation needed to be

complemented by robust policy frameworks and other practical supports (VLGA,

2015).

6.6.2 An absence of commonly agreed industry standards

In addition to the government-based regulatory environment, the absence of

agreed industry standards for deliberative engagement practices must be

considered. Councils did not have formally recognised guidelines to draw from.

Consequently, consultants engaged by Victorian local government organisations

lacked a set of benchmarks they could enforce. This was noted as a concern for

some consultants:

And I mean deliberative practice is a field of work, and it does have

particular things that underpin elements, that should be standard. And so,

to let sort of individual organisations sort of self-define seemed to me to

be, I mean, a disaster for the field to be honest. (Consultant 5)

And I was fearful, that what we were going to see was tokenistic practice

emerging, because people didn’t have the resources, but also the genuine

understanding and will to do it. (Consultant 4)

In several interviews with more experienced consultants, they relayed incidents

where their role was to set boundaries when councils were veering towards

actions that compromised the principles of deliberative engagement practices:

In one council there were councillors who were going a bit rogue on the process

because they wanted to change their mind midway through and not follow

through on promises … holding them accountable in that space was difficult.

(Consultant 10)

In fact, some consultants conceded that, ultimately, they had to accommodate

the needs of their clients over their preferred approaches:

Because you can give the advice, and you can be very solid on the advice

and why you're giving it, but if [councils] choose not to take it, sometimes

for very good reasons, your level of influence is very small, and we’ve had

to cop that. Yeah, sometimes, you know, if we want to take a purist view of

how things should flow through from broad engagement to deliberative

engagement, through to drafting. That’s all very well and good, but at the

end there actually needs to be a product that is a workable document for

council. (Consultant 1)

So, we meet the clients’ requirements, we try to talk to them about what’s

good practice, but we also try and meet them where they’re at. And that

was the message from Local Government Victoria that you know, the

‘assessment’ or the audit is not going to be full on for local governments

this year. We try not to say that too much because we do want

governments to try their best. (Consultant 8)

Connected to the earlier recounts from observations where there was

discussion around what constituted ‘deliberation’ as opposed to ‘consultation’, it

seems clear that consultants had to compromise on how they would usually

deliver a deliberative engagement process. This accommodation can be seen in

how practices were designed, but also in how consultants rationalised the

influence of processes on decision-making. For example, in their handbook,

MosaicLab (2020) frames deliberative engagement practices as ‘complimenting’

representative democracy and ‘placing people closer to the affairs of

government’ (p. 2), but make a point of noting ‘it does not replace or take away

from the decision-making powers of elected representatives’. One consultant

interviewed offered this pragmatic reason:

… for governments, obviously it’s really hard for them to say ‘we’re going

to implement what you tell us’ because they have to work out whether they

can afford it … They can’t just commit to all the recommendations,

because they’ve got to know where to put the money. (Consultant 6)

This type of rationalising seems more inclined to defend councils’ overarching

authority than champion the ascendancy of deliberative engagement practices.

Perhaps linked to this, where consultants may have tried to challenge extant

norms, there is evidence they were resisted:

The consultants started by suggesting deliberative engagement

approaches that the organisation wasn’t ready for and would struggle to

get approval for. Council needed guidance from the consultants, not

direction. (Cited from an Evaluation Report provided by one of the councils

participating in the study)

A ‘balancing act’, as aptly described by Hendricks and Carson (2008) between

trying to honour the principles of good practice with the expectations of councils

was evident. Much like the ‘divided loyalties’ Christensen (2021) refers to in

their work on community engagement practitioners, here the tension for

consultants is not necessarily between the commissioning body and the

community views they have been engaged to elicit, but between the

commissioning body and the integrity of the deliberative engagement practices

themselves.

The assertion that ‘deliberative processes are less likely to be compromised by

pernicious forces if they are controlled and safeguarded by those whose stake

is in the integrity of the process, not in its substantive outcome (Kadlec &

Friedman, 2007, p. 8) must be considered. Arguably, as experts in their field, the

consultants engaged by Victorian local governments had a vested interest in

maintaining the robustness of deliberative engagement practices; however, they

lacked the formalised authority to ensure the principles were upheld.

Coupled with the previous section, what emerges is a context where there was

neither a regulatory imperative nor industry standard that local governments

were held accountable to for their interpretation of deliberative engagement

practices. Therefore, the operationalisation of the practices relied significantly

on the will and enterprise of councils.

6.7 A new paradigm or moderate change?

Whilst much of this chapter has alluded to relatively moderate adjustments

around community engagement practices, interviewees and survey data

suggest that the legislation did catalyse change. When asked if they believed

the legislation had improved how community is engaged in council’s strategic

planning, most interviewees responded in the affirmative:

In terms of legislation stretching us to do something that we perhaps didn’t

necessarily have in mind, it definitely did that. So, it’s created an

expectation that we do things differently … it enabled that authorising

environment to happen straightaway. (CEO Bologna Interview 2)

I think that it [the legislation] forced more attention. It’s not a nice to have,

it’s a requirement. So, I think that’s a really good starting point. So, for any

organisations that may have been a bit recalcitrant or tick the box in their

thinking about community engagement, it’s made it become a front and

centre consideration. (Manager Rimini Interview 2)

I have seen an improvement of knowledge about how you engage with the

community, and different methods for doing so. And I definitely see it being

a more prominent thing in people’s minds. (Officer Brescia Interview 2)

As these quotes demonstrate, interviewees reported that the legislation created

a higher profile for community engagement; it enabled more supportive

authorising environments and prompted councils to deliver more ambitious

processes than they might have otherwise undertaken.

The implementation of deliberative engagement practices also seems to have

mobilised increased efforts around improving the descriptive representation of

community members involved in engagement activities:

Do more of it! I strongly believe that truly randomly selected citizen panels

can deliver excellent results. (Councillor survey response)

It’s an important way of giving voice to community and providing a stronger

mandate for action at a local level. (Councillor survey response)

Whilst it could be said that engaging the ‘hard to reach’ has been a focus of

community engagement practices for some time, the introduction of community

panels and random selection seemed to create a more concerted effort in this

regard. This topic is examined in detail in Chapter 7; however, as the quotes

above suggest, the opportunity to engage community members from a broader

cross-section of the municipality was an aspect of deliberative engagement

practices that resonated strongly with councils, and in particular, councillors.

Finally, the expectation to ‘do things differently’ also seems to have stimulated

greater investment in community engagement and organisational capacity

building:

Sometimes, in briefing the executive I felt like they didn’t necessarily think

it was worth all this time and resources. Having said that, when I debriefed

with the executive, they said that next time we need more resources and

panels. So somewhere along the way they’ve shifted. (Coordinator Sassari

Interview 2)

Whilst the research did not collect data regarding the level of resourcing

councils committed to their deliberative engagement processes, some

reportedly spent upwards of $50,000–$100,000. Particularly for smaller and

rural councils, this level of investment is considerable. Several interviewees did

caution that greater investment in deliberative engagement, or community

engagement more broadly, was at the expense of other council commitments: I

think for some of our projects, there will be a requirement to do more

engagement than has potentially been done before. And the outcome of that is

that it will take more time and therefore we won’t get through as much work or

as many projects as we were previously. (Director Imola Interview 1)

It is that absolute balancing act between doing no engagement, not having

the buy-in, and getting the wrong project but you’ve delivered it, to

consulting for six years and never building something. Somewhere in

between is the pendulum. (CEO Tivoli Interview 2)

As implied by the comments above, whilst it can be said that the legislation

shifted mindsets and catalysed greater energies towards engagement practices,

the question of ‘value’ generated, compared to the commitment required,

needed to be resolved. Ultimately, as predicted by the Victorian State

Government, each council needed to work within their own organisational

constraints. These constraints could have been determined by tangible aspects

such as budgets and capacity; but they could equally have been connected to

more intangible influences such as the perceived benefit, or lack thereof, of

investing in more ambitious deliberative engagement practices, as is examined

in the next section.

6.8 Emergent practices and the public value proposition

6.8.1 A vulnerability for co-option

Co-option is the elite strategy of using apparently cooperative practices to

absorb change initiatives, whilst there may be a perception of gaining new

strategic advantages those advantages do not come and instead the elites’

position prevails, and the ultimate consequence is that the challengers become

politically irrelevant (Holdo, 2019, p. 444). The findings from this chapter reveal

several factors that would have left deliberative engagement practices

vulnerable to co-option. It outlined how the legislative context of a

‘principlesbased’ Act provided no guidelines around expected standards for

deliberative engagement practices, and that there was no clear regulatory

oversight for how councils defined and adapted them. Whilst it could be said

that the State Government occasionally intimated the types of outcomes it

anticipated, namely inclusion and influence, the chapter highlighted that the

actualisation of those outcomes was ultimately at the discretion of how each

council decided to interpret them. The emergent definitions of deliberative

engagement practices, and therefore the formalised rules for how the practices

would be realised, were at times elusive, made caveats around scope, and

generally made limited commitment to influencing council decision-making.

Regarding influence, the chapter outlined how practices were implemented that

were essentially contradictory to the stated aims of the Act and the epistemic

benefits that are often associated with deliberative engagement practices.

However, despite these contradictions, the data demonstrates that local

government actors justified choices by suggesting they were ‘in line with their

understanding of the practices and the expectations of the legislation’. The data

related to this chapter consistently underscored how the ambiguous compliance

obligations would not have compelled substantial change to existing practices;

instead, the obligations were allowed to be circumscribed to meet organisational

norms, and, in some cases, reinforcing business as usual approaches.

Whilst the Victorian State Government potentially foresaw these adaptations,

and indeed encouraged adjustments based on organisational constraints, it is

questionable whether the extent of the variations applied by councils were either

desirable or defensible. Considered in light of the impetus for democratic

innovations, and the assumed normative and epistemic benefits that underpin

arguments for their institutionalisation, the potency of their transformative

appeal is founded on their consequentiality. This raises questions such as: Can

practices that are a moderate extension of existing norms be considered

‘enough’? What is the value of such endeavours? Whilst the legislation

indisputably nudged the sector forward with community engagement practices,

it is important to also consider: if deliberative engagement practices become

coopted by local government, and therefore lose their ‘larger critical potential’

(Parkinson, 2010), has the assumed ‘public value’ generated from

institutionalising the practices also lost some relevance? The answer to this

question is beyond the scope of this research; however, the last section of this

chapter returns to the topic of ‘public value’ to draw out what this lens reveals.

6.8.2 The search for public value: normative assumptions

and pragmatic constraints

I’m not convinced that the process (with the amount of resources –

financial, officer, and councillor time) led to a significantly better council

plan. (Councillor survey response)

Moore (1995) describes ‘public value’ as the ethical responsibility of public

managers to create ‘value’ from the public resources they have been entrusted

with (p. 1). According to Moore (2013), public managers need to establish the

‘public value proposition’ of their endeavours to satisfy this ethical responsibility

and garner political support (p. 411). In the context of this research, the need to

establish a ‘public value proposition’ draws attention to the fact that, when

determining how deliberative engagement practices would be adapted, local

government organisations would have inevitably considered whether they were

a valuable and effective use of council resources. For public managers, this

perceived ‘value proposition’ would have been fundamental to deciding how the

practices were designed, the level of influence they had on decision-making,

and the resources they were allocated.

As stated at the beginning of this chapter, by mandating deliberative

engagement practices, the legislation intrinsically hypothesised that deliberative

engagement practices would create ‘public value’. As was highlighted, the State

Government not only assumed that the intended outcomes of deliberative

engagement practices were commonly understood by councils but that their

‘value proposition’ would have been powerful enough to inspire ‘industry best

practice’ (LGV, 2020a). However, this chapter identified several contested

principles and a latent apprehension towards deliberative engagement

practices, which indicates that the State Government overestimated the value

councils placed on these new practices, and, in turn, their preparedness to

enact them. This suggests that appeals to ‘protect the democracy of local

government practices and decision making while ensuring the community’s

voice and priorities match that of the council’ (LGV, 2022, p. 9) through

deliberative engagement practices did not resonate with Victorian councils in

the way the legislation intended.

What emerges from the analysis could perhaps be described as a dichotomy

between theory and praxis. Where State Government’s perceptions might have

aligned to dominant discourses about the epistemic and normative value of

democratic innovations, those tasked with operationalising the legislation were

not necessarily driven by these and were perhaps more cognisant of the

pragmatic constraints. Whilst democratic innovations are often championed as a

means for improving democratic decision-making, founded on the belief that

through public participation governments become better informed and more

likely to make decisions based on the ‘common good’, the findings from this

chapter suggest that policy actors also need to be aware of the commonly

rooted demands for efficiency and effectiveness in public administration (Dean,

2023). This is particularly the case for local government, where functions are

usually ‘couched less in terms of citizenship rights and more in terms of

instrumental utility’ (McDonnell, 2021, p. 241). A more compelling ‘public value

proposition’ for local governments may well have been the instrumental benefits

of these practices rather than their emancipatory potential.

Returning to the ‘public value’ lens, it seems that the legislation was founded on

a ‘public value proposition’ that was not reconciled neatly with how local

government actors interpreted a ‘valuable and effective use of council

resources’. Further consideration and exploration of the perceived value and

benefits of integrating deliberative engagement practices in local government

strategic planning, and potentially some collective sense-making to ensure more

clarity around the principles, may have mitigated this dichotomy.

6.9 Conclusion

The chapter began by drawing attention to some of the underlying assumptions

of the principles-based legislation that left councils to decide for themselves how

they would interpret and apply deliberative engagement practices. It highlighted

that the State Government’s expectation that this latitude would lead to ‘industry

best practice’ (LGV, 2020a) was problematic as it required a preparedness of

the sector to embrace practices that they were somewhat sceptical of and had

little experience in. Rather than draw on industry standards and expertise, the

research found that local government actors predominantly made sense of their

legislative requirements by looking to each other for signposts for action.

Through the prism of Lowndes and Roberts’ (2013) rules, practices, and

narratives, the chapter considered how councils defined and then applied

deliberative engagement practices. It found that whilst some of the rules and

practices that emerged conflicted with the commonly understood epistemic and

normative outcomes of democratic innovations, they were nonetheless

supported by dominant narratives. The analysis in this chapter demonstrates

that, in the context of a reform agenda that sought to ‘put community at the

heart of decision-making’, the ambiguity around a principles-based Act and a

virtual vacuum of either regulatory or industry oversight meant deliberative

engagement practices were vulnerable to co-option. It shows that policy actors

were operating from distinct and different values frameworks, creating a

dichotomy between the hegemonic ideals consistently attributed to democratic

innovations around ‘improving democracy’ and the pragmatic constraints of

those tasked with operationalising the legislation.

The findings of this chapter provide an empirical account of the tension between

the assumptions of normative theory around democratic innovations and what

‘ought to be’, and the practical considerations of moving practices in a

‘deliberative direction’ (Ercan et al., 2022). It demonstrates that there needs to

be greater consideration of the norms, dominant paradigms, and motivations of

policy actors who are responsible for the actualisation of democratic innovations

and, alongside this, more collective sense-making around their public value

proposition.

Chapter 7: Building legitimacy in

deliberative engagement with

authorising environments

So, even though the community panel had given us these things,

we’re not just going to take that as ‘oh well, we must do this now’.

(Mayor Lucca)

7.1 Introduction

Whilst Chapter 6 examined how ‘deliberative engagement practices’ were

understood and interpreted by the Victorian local government sector, this

chapter considers the authorising environment by exploring how

decisionmakers were involved in and conferred legitimacy on the practices. It

investigates in more detail the second research question: How does the

authorising environment influence the design and implementation of deliberative

engagement practice, including its perceived legitimacy?

In public value theory, an authorising environment is understood as ‘the arena

where proposals are tested and modified against the stances of elected

politicians and those who influence them’ (Alford & O’Flynn, 2011, p. 177).

Examination of the authorising environment was considered important for this

research because, even when deliberative engagement practices adhere to

‘best practice’ design, their impact on decision-making is dependent on how the

authorising environment responds to their conclusions (Dryzek, 2002; Johnson,

2011). This recognises that whilst deliberative democratic theory often positions

itself as a counterbalance to the failures of elected representation (and

sometimes as a replacement for it; Van Reybrouck, 2013), the deliberative

engagement practices studied in this research cannot be separated from

existing governance systems (see Christensen & Grant, 2016; Thompson,

2008). Furthermore, as has been noted by Parkinson (2003), ‘accounts of

deliberative democracy are accounts of legitimacy’ (p. 180). As such, the

outcomes of a deliberative process, and therefore its potential to realise the

epistemic and normative assumptions it is founded on, rely decisively on the

legitimacy the process is conceded by its authorising environment. Without this

legitimacy, its impact is limited.

To examine how the authorising environment responded to deliberative

engagement practices in the research, the first part of this chapter explores how

elected representatives (i.e., councillors) were engaged in the design and

implementation of the practices and how this influenced their perceptions of

legitimacy. The second part of the chapter takes a broader view of the

authorising environment and considers the deliberative engagement practices

within the local government civic sphere and overall public participation

‘system’. It examines the interconnections between the ‘deliberative’ and

‘nondeliberative’ aspects of participation and how these impacted the legitimacy

of the overall outcomes of the deliberative engagement practices.

As with Chapter 6, analysis in this chapter draws from the mixed methods data

collection. The thematic analysis of interviews with council staff, councillors and

deliberative engagement consultants was undertaken through the same

processes as other chapters; however, some of the data is presented differently

in response to ethical considerations that emerged. Mainly, each of the councils

involved in interviews had distinct ways of engaging councillors and therefore,

the pseudonyms each interviewee was allocated would not have protected their

anonymity within their own organisation (e.g., based on how they engaged with

their councillors, it would have been reasonably clear who the CEO Padova

was). Given the candid nature of many of the interviews and the potential

reprisal that might have occurred, some of the findings have been presented

through paraphrasing rather than direct quotes. The qualitative analysis was

also accompanied by the statistical analysis of survey data and selected

artefacts such as council reports that outlined the deliberative engagement

processes each council implemented.

Finally, whilst the public value strategic triangle was a useful heuristic for

identifying ‘orienting concepts’ (Layder, 2013), the interconnected nature of the

strategic triangle categories was particularly apparent when considering the

authorising environment. Members of the executive were clearly part of the

authorising environment, and they also informed organisational capacity

significantly. This meant that at times, emerging themes involving members of

the executive did not fit neatly into only one of the categories, but instead, they

overlapped. To organise the findings, how the executive informed the legitimacy

of deliberative engagement practices is considered in this chapter, and how they

influenced the agency and operational constraints of councils is considered in

Chapter 8.

7.2 Context regarding the Victorian local government

authorising environment

Before examining the data, it is useful to provide some context around the

legislative rules that determine the relationship between elected representatives

and the administration in local government in Victoria. The respective roles and

functions of these two distinct areas of governance provide important ‘scene

setting’ for the Victorian local government authorising environment and proved

to be instrumental in how councillors were engaged in the deliberative

engagement practices of their council.

As described in Chapter 1, in Australia, the state government is constitutionally

responsible for overseeing the local governing bodies that are referred to as

councils. Councils are made up of two branches: the elected representatives

(councillors) and administration (council staff). In Victoria, the authority of each

branch and how they are permitted to interact is legislatively defined under the

Victorian Local Government Act 2020.

In terms of decision-making, the Victorian Local Government Act 2020 stipulates

that councillors can only exercise their authority when they meet as a council at

a properly constituted meeting or a delegated committee. Outside this, neither

the mayor nor the councillors have the legal authority to act or make decisions

on behalf of the council (Victorian Local Government Act 2020: Part 3, Division

8, 59 (2)). As such, councillors in Victoria have very little individual decision-

making or executive authority; they rely on garnering the support of their fellow

elected representatives to pursue their strategic interests.11

11 For example, with the exception of Melbourne City Council (which is constituted under its own Act – see

the City of Melbourne Act 2001 – Victorian local governments operate under what could be described as a

'committee/cabinet' model where mayors are not directly elected but instead selected annually through a

majority vote of their fellow councillors. This differs from models in South Australia, Western Australia,

Tasmania, and Queensland, where the mayor is directly elected. For further explanation, see Grant &

Drew (2017).

In terms of the relationship between elected representatives and the

administration, there are also some pertinent distinctions that must be clarified.

Namely, the chief executive officer (CEO) is the only staff member appointed by

councillors and the only person in the administration who is directly accountable

to them. The remainder of the administration, and therefore all other council

staff, are formally accountable to the CEO, not councillors (illustrated in Figure

4.3). Amongst many other duties, the CEO is responsible for the enforcement of

policies and protocols to manage interactions between councillors and council

staff. As such, there is an unequivocal division between the elected body and

the administration in Victorian local government. Consequently, how councillors

are permitted to engage with the ‘operational’ activities of their council is

circumscribed by the CEO.

With regard to strategic planning, the legislation states that ‘a council must

prepare and adopt a council plan for a period of at least the next 4 financial

years after a general election in accordance with its deliberative engagement

practices’ (Part 4 – Planning and financial management – Division – 90(1)).

Furthermore, it states that the ‘Mayor needs to lead engagement with the

municipal community on the development of the Council Plan’ (Victorian Local

Government Act 2020: Part 2, Division 3, 18(1c)) and that councillors also need

to contribute to the strategic direction of the council through the development of

the council plan. As such, councillors have the responsibility to contribute to and

oversee the development of the council plan.

Combined, these legislative requirements meant that while councillors were

required to participate in the development of the council plan, they had limited

formal oversight around how deliberative engagement practices were

operationalised, as the level of involvement they were permitted was the

prescribed by the CEO.

7.3 Councillor involvement in the design and implementation of

deliberative engagement practices

Bearing in mind the authorising environment context described above, the

analysis began by considering the level of involvement councillors had in the

design and implementation of their council’s deliberative engagement practices.

The following two sections present data for the degree of councillor participation

reported by both organisational and councillor survey respondents, followed by

extracting and examining some of the emerging narratives that rationalised the

level of involvement granted to councillors.

7.3.1 Councillors mostly ‘somewhat’ involved

Councillor involvement was explored through interviews and artefacts; however,

data was primarily drawn from survey responses to the question ‘How involved

were councillors in the design of the deliberative engagement process?’, which

provided a sector-wide account. The responses from this question are

presented in Table 7.1 (below) which shows that organisational and councillor

responses were almost identical. Both reported that only a small portion of

councillors (9% of total survey responses) were ‘very involved’ in the design of

the deliberative engagement process. Most councils limited the involvement of

councillors to providing the opportunity to ask questions and make changes

before the deliberative engagement process occurred (44%), and in almost a

third of councils, deliberative engagement occurred ‘mostly without’ councillor

involvement (32%). This restricted level of councillor involvement was

consistent with the processes described in interviews, where there was a

common perception that councillors should remain mostly separated from

deliberative engagement practices.

Table 7.1 Involvement of councillors in design of deliberative engagement

practices

Survey question: How involved were the councillors in the design of the deliberative

engagement process?

Organisational

survey

Councillor

survey

Councillors were very involved in designing the

deliberative engagement activities – e.g., deciding the

remit or how community members would be engaged.

9% 9%

Councillors were somewhat involved – e.g., had the

opportunity to ask questions and make changes to the

deliberative engagement activities before they

occurred.

44% 45%

The design of the deliberative engagement activities

occurred mostly without Councillors – e.g., they were

informed about deliberative engagement activities but

did not have an opportunity to make changes.

32% 32%

For Councillors Survey: Not at all – I don’t remember

being informed about the deliberative engagement

activities

For Organisational Survey: Not sure – I didn’t have

much involvement with the Councillors around the

deliberative engagement process.

11%

Other 4% 5%

Before examining the potential impact of this disconnect, the following section

considers how the understanding emerged and outlines some of the rationales

provided in interviews and survey responses.

7.3.2 Narratives that emerged which restricted councillor

involvement

The interviews revealed that limiting the involvement of councillors in

deliberative engagement practices, and in particular, not allowing them to

observe processes, was considered standard practice. Whilst some

interviewees even suggested that it was ‘best practice’, there was no industry

standard or formal recommendation to this effect.

A review of publications such as MosaicLab’s (2020) Deliberative Engagement

for Victorian Councils and other blogs and posts found no suggestion that

councillors should not attend as observers or should be kept at arm’s length

from the process. In fact, in their #MonthlyMyth about Decision Makers and

Deliberative Processes post, MosaicLab (n.d.) suggest that it is preferable that

decision-makers are ‘part of the action where possible as observers and

listeners’. The post discusses decision-makers attending or observing a range

of different events to help them ‘appreciate what’s happening on the ground’

and that decision-makers could also be invited to speak with the panel during

the group’s deliberations. Generally, experts in deliberative engagement

practices support some integration with councillors, so the catalyst for this

misconception by councils is unclear. However, some data indicates the

potential motivations of councils to limit councillor involvement.

For instance, although never explicitly stated, at one of the councils that

participated in the study, keeping councillors at arm’s length seemed to be an

intentional strategy. There was a general sentiment that councillors would not

participate productively in the process, which was particularly evident at an

internal meeting where the potential of involving councillors was flagged.

Attendees at this meeting, which included three members of the executive,

expressed concern that councillors would ‘get stuck in the reeds’, speculating

that councillors would not be able to ‘participate strategically’. This sentiment

was also identified in some of the organisational survey responses: Our

councillors have next to no understanding of deliberative processes and have

trouble maintaining focus on the role of local government. There was a danger

in some trying to shape the process for their political agenda.

Concerns that councillors would overstep the mark as self-identified

engagement ‘experts’ and skew approach.

Wanting to keep distance from councillors so they did not put undue

pressure or influence on the final outcomes.

It could be inferred from the comments above that some councils were

consciously limiting councillors’ participation because they were concerned it

would negatively impact the process and outcomes. This was also identified in

councillor survey responses that expressed feelings of being excluded from

decision-making around how the practices would be implemented:

I requested to be more involved with deliberative engagement but will

need to keep bringing it up. I haven’t been included in the processes as

much as I’d like.

I do not believe the Council officers can let go of control – they put forward

the remit and all else for councillors to comment and tick off … I believe

there was too much staff influence – they worked everything out with

consultant.

Officers had too much influence on how the process would operate and

justified this on the very short time to do the process.

Alongside councils where the exclusion of councillors was likely to have been

deliberate, there is also evidence that some councils genuinely understood this

to be ‘best practice’. This was clearly the case at another of the councils

involved in the study, where the executive stated they were ‘really pleased that

we absolutely did it independently from councillor input, which is the intent of

deliberative engagement’. Several interviews with the executive and staff at this

council all reiterated that if councillors attended the deliberative engagement

sessions to observe discussions, then community members were less likely to

participate unreservedly. As is explored later in the chapter, the separation

resulted in some tension between the executive and councillors, and

retrospectively, the executive conceded it would have been more productive to

allow councillors some involvement, but initially they strongly believed restricting

councillor involvement would lead to better deliberative outcomes.

These varied reasons were also noted in interviews with consultants: I had one

council where the executive wanted to keep this at arm’s length from the

councillors, and that was partly because they wanted to control the

process and they didn’t want them to interfere with it … they didn’t trust

the councillors and they thought that the more they were engaged the

more difficult their job would be. (Consultant 3)

And there was this like bizarre messaging, and I’m not sure where it came

from, but people not knowing if they could be involved. And I don’t know

where this at ‘arm's length’ came from. (Consultant 7)

Finally, equally mixed reasons were given when councillors and organisational

staff were asked ‘what would you say was the main reason for the level of

involvement from councillors?’

Table 7.2 Rationale for level of councillor involvement

Survey question: From your perspective, what would you say was the main reason for

the level of involvement from councillors?

Organisational

survey

Councillor

survey

Level of interest from Councillors 24% 26%

In line with our understanding of deliberative

engagement practice and expectations of

legislation

26% 35%

Process was decided by Executive Leadership

Group and organisation 24% 36%

Unsure 22%

Other 16% 3%

Whilst responses to this question in both the organisational and councillor

surveys were quite evenly distributed amongst the options, when responses

were juxtaposed with responses from the earlier survey question regarding the

level of councillor involvement, some interesting themes emerge. Table 7.3

(below) cross-references responses to the councillor survey question ‘How

involved were you in the design of the deliberative process?’ as shown in Table

7.1 (vertical axis), with responses to the councillor survey question ‘From your

perspective, what would you say was the main reason for the councillors’ level

of involvement in the deliberative engagement activities?’ as shown in Table 7.2

(horizontal axis). It illustrates that when councillors were either only informed

about the deliberative engagement activities or ‘not at all involved’, they tended

to report that it was a decision made by the executive leadership group and

organisation. However, as they progressively became more involved, when they

were either somewhat involved or very involved, their reasons changed to being

either ‘in line with their understanding of deliberative engagement’ or the ‘level

of interest from councillors’. The data in the organisational survey showed the

same trend, with staff reporting that where councillors were not involved in the

design of the deliberative engagement process, it was mostly because it was a

process decided by the executive leadership group, and where they were, it was

either in line with their understanding of the practices or councillor interest.

Table 7.3 Breakdown of rationale for each level of councillor involvement

In line with our

understanding

of deliberative

engagement

practice and

expectations of

legislation

Process

was decided

by Executive

Leadership

Group and

organisation

Level of

interest

from

Councillors

I was very involved in designing the

deliberative engagement activities – e.g.,

deciding the remit or how community

members would be engaged.

44% 11% 44%

I was somewhat involved – e.g. I had the

opportunity to ask questions and make

changes to the deliberative engagement

activities before they occurred.

47% 16% 38%

I wasn’t involved in the design of the

deliberative engagement activities – e.g. I

was informed about deliberative

engagement activities but did not have an

opportunity to make changes.

22% 66% 13%

Not at all – I don’t remember

being informed about the

deliberative engagement activities

25% 75%

Note: The responses with ‘Other’ accounted for a small proportion of responses and is not

reflected in the data above.

As outlined in the data presented, whilst it is feasible that members of the

executive were responsible for restricting the involvement of councillors in

deliberative engagement practices, there is insufficient evidence to decisively

conclude that it was an intentional strategic decision or, alternatively, a

misunderstanding of the practices. The surveys did not ask about involving

councillors as observers to the deliberative engagement practices, which

seemed to have been the greatest sticking point for interviewees. Further data

around the rationales given for this decision may have provided a clearer

understanding of how this interpretation of deliberative engagement practices

emerged.

Irrespective of whether council staff knowingly adapted the practices to suit their

own purposes, what can be seen is that deliberative engagement practices

were interpreted and applied to suit organisational imperatives. Further to the

findings in Chapter 6, dominant narratives emerged to justify these preferences

even though they were inconsistent with industry-based recommendations. As

explored in the next section, this meant that practices were sometimes applied

in ways that inadvertently compromised the outcomes and legitimacy of

deliberative processes.

7.4 Levels of involvement and councillor perceptions

This section considers how the varying degrees of councillor involvement

impacted their sense of ‘informal accountability’ towards the outcomes

(Hendricks, 2016), and consequently, the perceived legitimacy of the

deliberative engagement practices. First, a context where councillors were

relatively involved in the design of the practices is considered. This is followed

by examples of contexts where councillors were held at arm’s length.

Comparison and analysis of these two approaches draws out distinct

differences in councillor perceptions around deliberative engagement

participants and outcomes.

7.4.1 High level councillor involvement and sense of

ownership

This section provides an account and analysis of a council that decided to

engage councillors significantly in the operationalisation of their council’s

deliberative engagement practices. The level of engagement at this council

would align with only 9% of councils as described in Table 7.1 where ‘councillors

were very involved in designing the deliberative engagement activities’, and as

such, reflects only a small portion of what occurred in the local government

sector in Victoria overall. However, the analysis suggests that the perceived

legitimacy of both the deliberative engagement participants and outcomes can

be strengthened through this more intense involvement.

Stemming from the initial stages of sense-making, observations and interviews

at this council revealed a steadfast commitment to ensuring councillors had a

strong sense of ownership over the deliberative engagement practices it

implemented. On several occasions at internal meetings the CEO highlighted

that councillors needed to feel ‘fully engaged’ in the process, that they needed

to be provided with enough information to be ‘supported to make effective

decisions’, and that they should not feel they were being ‘nudged or pushed by

us as an organisation’. Interviews and observations of councillors found a

similar ethos, the Mayor described feeling empowered and that councillors were

in the ‘driver’s seat’. This was also demonstrated by the fact that the

organisation had originally proposed a relatively discrete approach to their

deliberative engagement process; however, after councillors expressed they

wanted a community panel, the organisation changed its approach accordingly.

Having decided to pursue a community panel process, council staff proceeded

to involve councillors in several design choices. Councillors were provided

thorough information about the recruitment of the panel (including details about

how the random stratified sampling would occur); they were consulted about

what questions would be asked in the Expression of Interest (EOI) form for

panel applicants, whether the panel should be remunerated, and how many

panel participants could be considered ‘representative’. In addition to deciding

the format of the deliberative engagement and being across how the panel was

recruited and selected, councillors were also involved in shaping the information

the panel received, the remit put forward to the panel, and the framing of the

‘promise’ that was made to the panel. In all, councillors participated in nine

specific briefings regarding the design of the deliberative engagement process,

including a three-hour workshop dedicated to the topic. Once the deliberative

engagement process was underway, although councillors were not permitted to

observe the sessions, they met panel members three times: they were invited to

meet panel members briefly at the start of the deliberations; they ‘received’ the

panel’s recommendations at the final workshop; and panel members were also

invited to present their recommendations at a special council meeting.

This high level of involvement meant that councillors had a clear understanding

of how their council’s deliberative engagement practices would be implemented.

In addition, it is reasonable to suggest that they felt a sense of ownership

around design choices, as also indicated by the comments by the Mayor (noted

earlier). These factors are likely to have contributed to the strong sense of

legitimacy conferred on the deliberative engagement practices observed at this

council and explained below.

Whilst the restricted number of participants in community panels is often a

criticism made against the legitimacy of deliberative engagement practices

(referred to as deliberative democracy’s ‘scale problem’ by Parkinson, 2003),

councillors at this council did not perceive it as such. In fact, at a community

information session, the Mayor confidently responded to questions from

members of the public about the panel selection stating that ‘the usual suspects

won’t get a special jersey’ and that ‘30–50 people out of 130,000 is quite a lot’.

In terms of the recommendations that came out of the deliberative engagement

process, despite not having observed the panel deliberations, members of the

executive reported that councillors were ‘quite respectful’ of the panel’s

recommendations, and that they demonstrated a sense of accountability around

the ‘promise’ they had made to it. Councillors did not seem to interpret

deliberative engagement practices as something that would impact or displace

their own authority as decision makers, but rather, improve it. In an interview

with the Mayor, they described how councillors could have had the attitude of

‘I’ve been elected to make these decisions – why am I asking someone else?’

However, the Mayor highlighted that councillors did not see the panel as a

conflict and that it was an opportunity to hear from community members they do

not usually engage with so they could ‘make a better decision’.

From this council, it could be inferred that involving councillors in the design of

deliberative engagement practices and providing them with a sense of

ownership over its outcomes creates a more enabling authorising environment.

This is supported by both survey data and interviews with consultants, which is

explored later, but first, it is interesting to compare the experience of this council

with the two other councils involved in the study as they did not involve their

councillors to the same degree.

7.4.2 Restricting councillor engagement and connection to

outcomes

The other two councils that participated in the study were more aligned with

most survey respondents that either involved councillors ‘somewhat’ (44.5%) or

only informed councillors about their deliberative engagement activities without

providing an opportunity to make changes (33%). This section explores what

occurred in each of those councils as they had quite different authorising

environments.

At the council where the design of deliberative engagement practices occurred

mostly without councillors, managers recalled only two brief conversations

regarding the process council would undertake: an informal conversation with

the mayor and a councillor briefing. At the councillor briefing, a manager noted

that there was relatively little discussion compared to usual briefings, with only

two questions broached by councillors – one around how community members

would be selected for the panel and the other around how council would avoid it

turning into ‘a wish list of stuff’. Notably, despite having requested to be involved

in the councillor briefing, the community engagement officer responsible for the

design of the process, and arguably the most expert in deliberative engagement

practices at the council, was not permitted to attend. Once the panel process

was underway, the Mayor attended part of the first session to welcome

participants and then at the end of the process councillors were informed of the

panel recommendations by council staff.

Interviews, observations, and artefacts from this council all indicate that

councillors were considerably apprehensive about deliberative engagement

practices and how they impacted their role as the elected representatives. This

was most marked in an evaluation report that highlighted that the councillors

‘appeared uneasy about the community panel and its influence on council

decision-making’, also stating that:

the role of the community panel (in comparison to the role of councillors)

was not deemed to be clear enough. Councillors felt that the community

panel was making decisions and councillors were left thinking ‘what are we

here for, aren’t we representative of the community?

In terms of legitimacy of the process, the CEO at this council confirmed that

councillors were ‘very distrustful and suspicious of the process’, especially how

participants were selected and the panel’s level of authority over decision

making compared to their own. The concept of the panel ‘representing’ the

community seems to have been a particular sticking point for councillors; they

felt that a panel made up of unelected representatives did not have the

accountability or legitimacy to be a proper voice for the community.

In retrospect, the CEO noted that the organisation could have provided greater

‘time to get the councillors more on board with the process – particularly how

the role of the panel is different to the role of the councillors’. They also reflected

that it would have been useful to have planned various opportunities for

councillors to engage with the panel and to be kept more informed about what

the panel was considering. The benefits of allowing councillors to engage with

panel members could also be inferred from the positive comments the Mayor

made about welcoming participants at the start of the deliberative process. This

was reiterated by some of the council staff who said the Mayor ‘raved about it’

after the session.

This council had what can be considered the highest level of ‘organisational

capabilities’ for deliberative engagement practices of all three councils that

participated in the study. The council had a community engagement officer who

was quite familiar with deliberative engagement practices and had engaged a

highly regarded deliberative engagement consultancy to run their process. Of

the three councils, its process for participant recruitment was closest to what

might be described ‘best practice’ by standards set out by advocates in the field

(e.g., they conducted a civic lottery to recruit participants).12 This recruitment

practice is often heralded as a means to ensure broader community

participation, and yet, this seems to have been lost in councillors’ perceptions of

the practices. The example of this council suggests that organisational capacity

12 Participants selected through civic lottery are commonly drawn from an official government registry.

Letters are sent to a large number of people, inviting them to register their interest in participation. Panel

members are then randomly selected from the pool of candidates/respondents to create a cohort that

roughly matches the demographic profile of the wider population (Participedia n.d.).

and following ‘best practice’ methods alone is not sufficient for building an

enabling authorising environment.

Although to a lesser degree, the third council involved in this study also

restricted the involvement of councillors and experienced similar issues around

legitimacy. In this case, councillors were involved in the early discussions

regarding the definition of deliberative engagement and its characteristics. They

were also involved in the broader community engagement activities that were

undertaken at the start of the process. However, once the deliberative process

began and a community panel was established, they were barred from

observing the deliberative activities and not permitted to meet the panel

members. This proved to be a point of contention for the councillors. They

argued that members of the executive were able to participate in the panel

discussions and felt that the executive ‘had the balance of power’ and could

‘potentially sway the things being said’.

Whilst the reasons are different, councillors at this council expressed uncertainly

about the deliberative engagement process. This was evident in several ways:

there was some apprehension around the selection of the community panel,

with some councillors questioning the transparency of the process and whether

particular community members had been intentionally been left out; some

councillors questioned the thematic analysis of consultation outcomes

conducted by the consultant, stating that they wanted to see all the data to draw

their own conclusions about the priority themes; and ultimately, there was

disagreement at the final stage when panel recommendations were challenged

by influential civic actors and councillors had mixed positions on which ‘voices’

should be given greater importance. It is important to note that several

interviewees stated this scrutiny was the result of councillor support for

community engagement, not resistance to it:

I think it’s just a genuine want to be involved in engagement.

Understanding what was going on, and who was there, and what were the

conversations. To have that ability to hear those firsthand was probably the main

part of the driver.

In a similar vein to the other council that restricted councillors’ access to the

deliberative engagement process, members of the executive at this council also

said that, in hindsight, they should have created greater connection between

councillors and the panel members. They expressed that if the councillors had

heard what the panel recommended firsthand, it might have mitigated some of

the mistrust that occurred around the deliberative engagement outcomes.

As a final important contextual point, respectively speaking, of all three councils

involved in the study, councillors at this council had the keenest commitment to

community engagement. The mayor reported that their motivation for running

for office was founded on a desire to see improved community engagement,

and this was the case for several their colleagues. One of the councillors was

even reported in the local media stating that their ‘main goal was to find a way

for council and community to work collaboratively on decision-making’ and

spoke positively about the fact that this had been mandated by the Victorian

Local Government Act 2020. As such, the authorising environment at this

council was decidedly supportive of community input into decision-making;

however, this support did not necessarily translate to a sense of informal

accountability towards the outcomes of the deliberative engagement practices.

Both examples in this section demonstrate that, when kept separate to the

deliberative engagement process, trust and legitimacy for the outcomes can be

impacted. This is directly related to the industry recommendation cited earlier

from MosaicLab (n.d.), which suggests decision-makers should be ‘part of the

action as observers and listeners to help them appreciate what is happening on

the ground’. To interrogate this phenomenon more thoroughly, the next section

considers how the findings from the councils that participated in the study

compare against consultants’ interviews and survey data.

7.4.3 Comparing perceptions of councillors – does proximity result in

legitimacy?

Data in the previous two sections explored how varying levels of councillor

involvement in deliberative engagement practices could have impacted their

sense of informal accountability to the outcomes and their perceived legitimacy.

A direct connection between councillor participation and legitimacy was

identified. This section considers this link more rigorously. Data from surveys

and consultants’ interviews is analysed to render a more complete

understanding of the connection.

When asked about their interactions with councillors, consultants expressed a

range of experiences. For some, they had little to no formal contact with

councillors and instead relied on council staff to convey critical information. This

was reported as problematic in some interviews, as council staff were not

always cognisant of key aspects of deliberative engagement practices or

equipped to share them:

… because there had not been this quality work done internally with

councillors, we had over half of them not supporting it and then we had

this argy-bargy for quite a while, because the councillors’ point of view was

why did they need a community panel when they could do it as councillors.

(Consultant 4)

[Councillors were keen to understand] what does that mean for us as

councillors, what does that mean for our decision making and what we are

then going to have to do with the information that we receive? So, I think

having the opportunity to unpack that, if that’s an officer/manager doing

that internally, that’s okay, but I don’t think the skills are there enough, from

what I observed, I don’t think the confidence to have that conversation is

there yet. (Consultant 8)

On the other hand, consultants reported that when they were able to engage

with councillors throughout the deliberative engagement process, they generally

found it to be more effective:

The ones that had the councillors in the mix, the mayors in the mix, did the

best … they had time to think about it, plan it, write it, understand it …

those that didn’t have councillors involved, we had pushback all the way

along, they didn’t feel ownership, weren’t involved, they’d play the politics,

all that kind of nonsense. (Consultant 10)

It’s always important I think for these deliberative panels to know that

there’s interest and there is support, there’s a strong sponsorship of the

process and intention to act on it. And also, that if they have the optics of

seeing how they work, they’ve got more confidence in the process.

(Consultant 3)

In addition to consultants’ interviews, the survey data also suggests that the

more councillors were involved in the practices, the more they appreciated the

benefits derived from them. This was demonstrated when responses to the

councillor survey question regarding how involved they were with the design of

the deliberative engagement process (Table 7.1) were cross-referenced with

responses regarding their perceptions around the benefits of the practices. As

shown in Table 7.4 (below), 56% of councillors who had been ‘informed but not

involved’ in the design of deliberative engagement practices responded in the

affirmative that deliberative engagement ‘Involves community members that are

more reflective of the general community compared to standard engagement

activities.’ This is compared to 70% who responded in the affirmative when they

were ‘somewhat involved’ and 89% when they were ‘very involved’ in the design

of deliberative engagement practices. Although it could be said that councillors’

general perceptions of the benefits of deliberative engagement were quite

positive, Table 7.4 shows that for each question regarding the perceived

benefits, councillors were progressively more positive about outcomes the more

involved they were.

Table 7.4 Matrix of councillor involvement and favourable responses to

perceived benefits of deliberative engagement practices

Informed

but not

involved

Somewhat

involved

Very

involved

Involves community members that are more

reflective of the general community

compared to standard

engagement activities.

56% 70% 89%

Ensures that final recommendations are

more focused on collective priorities for

the whole community rather than singular

interests.

56% 66% 78%

Provides Council with better informed

recommendations for its strategic plans. 53% 80% 89%

Provides Council with an opportunity to

explore different options and understand

which might be more acceptable to our

community.

66% 75% 89%

Builds community’s trust in Council. 56% 59% 67%

Builds community’s understanding of

Council. 41% 61% 78%

Increases levels of civic engagement and

political participation. 44% 61% 67%

Whilst it is clear that how involved councillors were in the deliberative

engagement practices impacted their perceptions, interviews suggested other

factors that could have also contributed to either building councillor confidence

or creating mistrust. Consultants noted tenure could have affected councillors’

support:

So, the ones [councillors] that really embraced it were either very new and

enthusiastic, and deeply driven by community. (Consultant 10)

I don’t think they understood it, especially the new councillors coming in, I

think they were just relying on delegating authority to their CEO.

(Consultant 11)

There was also an indication that tensions within councillor cohorts impacted

how they responded to the processes:

So, when we talk about bringing diverse people together in a deliberative

process, [councillors’] distrust of one another spills over into distrust of the

process. (Consultant 4)

Moreover, whilst it wasn’t noted by anyone interviewed, some research

suggests that political affiliations can affect councillor attitudes towards

supporting public participation (Sweeting & Copus, 2013). Data collection did

not include questions around councillor tenure, political affiliation, or collegiality;

instead, it focused on organisational and institutional constructs. Whilst it is

possible that these factors also influenced how councillors responded to

deliberative engagement practices, the impact of these aspects cannot be

analysed.

The previous sections of this chapter, coupled with the data presented in this

section, provide substantive reasons to believe that proximity to deliberative

engagement practices contributes to building councillors’ perception of

legitimacy and a more enabling authorising environment. The data

demonstrates that when involved in deliberative engagement practices,

councillors were more likely to view the practices as complementary to their role

as elected representatives rather than a threat to their decision-making powers,

they were more likely to accept participants as being ‘representative’ of the local

community, and they were more likely to appreciate the benefits of deliberative

engagement practices overall.

7.5 The qualified legitimacy of deliberative engagement

outcomes

Whilst the previously citied comments indicate a strong sense of legitimacy

around deliberative engagement outcomes from some councillors, it would be

erroneous to assume that councillors would have accepted all deliberative

recommendations a priori. Unlike scholarship that suggests deliberative

engagement practices can enable political support for difficult or even

controversial decisions (Farrell & Suiter, 2021; Ercan et al., 2017; Johnson,

2011), this research cannot make this claim. In fact, it is doubtful that any of the

councils involved in the study would have adopted a decision that was contrary

to councillor interests regardless of their perceptions of the deliberative

engagement process. This was evidenced in interviews where councillors

highlighted the alignment of community and council aspirations or qualified their

support for recommendations:

While we may not have come up with those [recommendations]

specifically, there was nothing in there that anyone had to change their

basic philosophy on. It was all very, very, very aligned to what most of us

were thinking anyway. (Mayor Livorno Interview 2)

So, even though the community panel had given us these things, we’re not

just going to take that as ‘oh well, we must do this now’. If there’s no

evidence, there’s no underlying evidence pointing towards doing

something, then we will be clear about potentially not doing that and why

we’re not doing it. (Mayor Lucca Interview 1)

Speaking of a deliberative engagement process they had previously been

involved in, one interviewee described how councillors were initially supportive

of the process but then resistant when they received the community panel’s

recommendations:

Yes, this is all great idea, but as soon as the feedback didn’t match their

own [councillor’s] expectations, or their point of view, it was quickly

dismissed. And it, it sort of undermined the whole process. (Executive

Genoa Interview 1)

It could be inferred from comments such as those above that recommendations

resulting from deliberative engagement processes needed to conform with the

views of councillors. Had those recommendations conflicted with councillors’

positions or been contentious in terms of the broader civic context, they are

likely to have been scrutinised regardless of the informal accountability created.

Therefore, it is possible that even where councillors were supportive of

deliberative engagement practices, they still needed to be reconciled with their

own positions.

Furthermore, it is relevant to consider that whilst elected representatives may

have greater appreciation for citizens’ input when they are engaged in

deliberative processes, this value is founded on its potential to enhance their

own decision making, not necessarily replace or undermine it (Hendricks, 2013).

This can also be seen in the research data. For example, when describing an

incident where a councillor was criticising deliberative engagement practices, to

assuage them, Consultant 1 made the following argument:

This is not about taking decision making power away from you. It’s about

informing you in more depth about what your community wants. So instead

of a narrow view of what your opinion is on the matter, you’re going to

have more information to inform your decision making.

The above comment exemplifies Fung’s (2015) point that ‘elected

representatives need to translate their commitment to participatory democracy

into a source of political capital rather than a drain on it’ (p. 520). It indicates that

whilst deliberative engagement practices may have supported Victorian local

governments to make ‘better’ decisions, they were unlikely to be decidedly

different from those what would have been endorsed irrespective of the

deliberative process. This is linked to earlier findings in Chapter 6, where the

research found that deliberative engagement practices overall had a relatively

modest influence over decisions for the council plan.

However, it is important to acknowledge this may also have been impacted by

the nature of the council plan document. As noted previously, council plans are

usually expansive and outline a range of priorities that councils commit to

undertaking over a 4-year period. They do not pose a ‘dilemma’ which needs to

be reconciled. Had the deliberative engagement practices focused on a wicked

problem for councils, or one that councillors were reluctant to take a determined

stand on, perhaps more contentious recommendations would have been

accepted. Nevertheless, the claim that deliberative engagement practices spur

more ambitious or controversial government decisions is tempered in this

research, and perhaps warrants further scrutiny in the literature.

In addition to supporting councillors with decision-making, councillors may also

have valued deliberative engagement acting as a sounding board to public

servants’ recommendations, or to test the options put forward by the

administration, as found by Hendriks and Lees-Marshment (2019). Within this

context, referring back to councillor comments shared in previous sections

where they argued staff exerted too much influence over decision-making,

deliberative engagement practices may also have been perceived as a way of

verifying or validating proposed courses of action.

To conclude, this section has shown how elected representatives perceive

public participation as an adjunct to their work, for its instrumental value in

garnering a more complete understanding of their constituents’ positions. As

such, irrespective of whether elected representative confer legitimacy on the

deliberative engagement outcomes or not, their receptivity is on integrating

aspects of public input into decision making, not necessary relinquishing or

even sharing control (Macq & Jacquet, 2020).

7.6 Gatekeeping in the authorising environment

As can be surmised from the data presented in the chapter so far, how

councillors were engaged in the design and implementation of deliberative

engagement practices is likely to have had a consequential impact on how they

perceive legitimacy, and as a result, a more enabling authorising environment.

Within this, it is important to highlight that councillor engagement was

circumscribed by the executive level of local government. As noted at the

beginning of the chapter, the legislative environment is such that CEOs had

overall control of the information that was shared with councillors and how they

were engaged in the operationalisation of the practices. This chapter has shown

that some executives intentionally kept councillors at arm’s length from the

practices, and, deliberately or not, a dominant narrative emerged that supported

this phenomenon despite there being no formal industry standards or rules to

this effect.

Furthermore, as noted in Chapter 6, councillors relied significantly on

participation in meetings to build their understanding of deliberative

engagement practices, having undertaken very little self-initiated research (see

Table 6.1). Combined, these factors suggest that the executive level of local

government had substantial control over how deliberative engagement practices

were framed and experienced by councillors, which ultimately would have had

an influence on their transformative power. This correlation can be found in

public administration literature which refers to the ‘principal-agent problem’ and

argues that because public managers are responsible for implementing reform,

they can limit the extent of outcomes through their control of information (John,

2011).

Whilst limited, there is existing research regarding democratic innovations that

aligns with this deduction. Hendricks (2016), in a process described as

‘designed coupling’, found that institutional connections need to be established

between elected representatives and the deliberative process. However,

Hendricks (2016) also noted that this process ‘requires champions who are well-

placed to encourage actors to think differently’ (p. 43). Much like Hendricks’

research, which found that a champion was needed to actively encourage the

connection between the deliberative panel and the authorising environment, in

this research, the connection seems to have been contingent on the support

from the executive actors at council. This was noted in an interview with a

consultant:

[the executive] really empowered the councillors to be able to take that on

board. Now that required a couple of things, that required an executive

who was willing to let a bit of control go, to bring people into the fold.

(Consultant 1)

To conclude the first part of this chapter, this research has demonstrated that

the executive played a critical role regarding how deliberative engagement was

understood, how processes were framed and ultimately given legitimacy by

elected representatives.

7.7 Beyond the squeaky wheel: the perceived legitimacy of

deliberative cohorts

Thus far, this chapter has focused on how the perceived legitimacy of

deliberative engagement practices was intertwined with the level of ‘coupling’

that occurred with elected representatives. This part of the chapter examines

the broader authorising environment within the civic context. It focuses on the

deliberative ‘inputs’, or who from the general public participated in the

deliberative process, and how these are weighted against extant systems for

public participation. This includes consideration of how deliberative forums

interacted with the prevailing ‘non-deliberative’ forms of public participation. This

examination allows for a more expansive understanding of the authorising

environment whilst also providing detailed analysis of how deliberative

engagement practices are legitimated against established norms for public

participation.

7.7.1 “Who are these people?”: Participation in the

deliberative engagement practices

The possibility of attracting broader descriptive involvement in community

consultation was perhaps the most compelling aspect of deliberative

engagement practices noted in the data. In interviews, engaging community

members who do not otherwise participate in council engagement processes or

reach beyond the limited ‘usual suspects’ who tend to get involved was

consistently highlighted as a perceived benefit:

And usually, the interest in those projects comes from a small number of

individuals that are already engaged and already have, like we all do, a

particular view on what it should look like. And so, there’s advantages to

that in that, I think, if we take a deliberative approach, we’ll hear from

some broader voices. (CEO Bologna Interview 1)

Often, you’ll end up with sort of the same people that all volunteer for

everything. So, I think we were really conscious to try and get a real

crosssection of the community, with a variety of backgrounds and

interests.

(Manager Ragusa Interview 1)

So, where they’ve gotten excited about is hearing that people who would

not normally engage with council getting involved. (Officer Verona

Interview 1)

Only a handful of those interviewed indicated there were concerns around the

motivations of people who wanted to be part of a deliberative engagement

process:

A couple were suspicious of it [referring to elected representatives] …

fearful that it might get hijacked by a couple of the noisy locals. (CEO

Padua Interview 2)

However, most seemed to consider the potential for broader participation as a

positive. That said, a couple noted that councils could not outright exclude

existing stakeholders or more vocal community members as this had its own

limitations:

You need a combination of voices, need to bring in some of the loud

voices, otherwise, if you don’t [elected representatives] will be going ‘this is

not the right process’. (CEO Tivoli Interview 1)

Councillor survey responses were also consistent with interview findings; they

indicated a keen interest in broadening the scope of community and

stakeholder participation. When asked what they would most like to see more

resources and time dedicated to, councillors’ highest response was ‘Improve

the process of recruiting community members to the deliberative engagement

activities’ (57%). This was followed by ‘Improve our engagement with key

community stakeholders so they understand and support the process’ (51%),

and third, ‘Increase the number or scope of the broader community

engagement activities either before, during, or after the deliberative

engagement process’ (49%). These three options were the most selected of 11

possible answers, which included ‘spend more time or resources to better

understand what deliberative engagement is and how it can be used effectively

for our strategic plans’ (n =

26) and ‘increase the number or scope of deliberative engagement activities’ (n

= 35). The organisational survey indicated similar results and enhancing

participation of community ranked prominently in council staff priorities. Given

that survey respondents indicated a preference for improving participation,

whether it be with those involved in the deliberative process, existing

stakeholders, or broader community consultation, it can be inferred that the

breadth of perspectives included in the deliberative forum was of high

importance, particularly for elected representatives. This is a critical factor to

contemplate as the research moves on to examining the processes used to

recruit community members and involve them in deliberative engagement

practices.

7.7.2 How community members were recruited to deliberative

engagement practices

Noting the importance that representation had in the authorising environment, it

is conceivable that the composition of the deliberative cohort was instrumental

to the legitimacy it was afforded. The research did not specifically collect data

around the composition of deliberative cohorts; however, data around their

recruitment processes provides some insight into their likely characteristics.

As noted in Chapter 6, most Victorian councils defined deliberative engagement

practices as including a representative sample of the local community. When it

came to implementation, 63% of councils (n = 50) chose to conduct a process

where they convened what was commonly referred to as a community panel.

These panels were typically made up of a small group of community members

who came together over a few workshops to deliberate. The remaining 37% (n

= 29) of councils conducted processes such as town hall meetings, pop up

activities, or stakeholder consultation meetings. Putting aside whether these

processes would be considered genuinely deliberative by scholars and

practitioners (which is explored in Chapter 9), it is useful to examine how

participants were recruited and how the concept of a representative claim was

interpreted by the authorising environment.

Processes that used a community panel model were often described as having

been established through a process of random selection. However, only a third

(n = 17) conducted recruitment processes that met the standards set out by the

OECD (2020) of a civic lottery or sortition (see Participedia, n.d.). This process

usually involves sending a direct invitation to a group of randomly selected

community members asking them to participate in the deliberative process.

Amongst these 17 councils, an even smaller number (n = 11) had processes

that were independently conducted (i.e., where council staff were completely

removed from the selection process). As such, most of the community panels

(66%; n = 33) were recruited with an open Expression of Interest process, and

therefore, rather than receive a randomly generated invitation to participate,

community members were able to self-nominate and express interest in being a

part of the panel. This may seem like a minor detail; however, as is explained

more thoroughly later, this recruitment practice delivers materially different

results.

The remaining 29 councils that did not establish a community panel as their

deliberative engagement process also relied on self-nomination, most either

holding open invitation consultations or drawing from existing community

reference groups and advisory committees. Therefore, as illustrated in Figure

7.1, over 80% of deliberative engagement practices conducted in Victoria

recruited participants through an open invitation process and, as such, relied on

existing channels of engagement and community members self-nominating their

interest.

Figure 7.1 Deliberative engagement recruitment processes

Source: Author’s own

Scholarship in the field has long established that processes which recruit

through self-nomination are more likely to be over-represented by people who

have more time, finances, and education as well as greater stores of political

efficacy, information, and motivation (Karpowitz & Raphael, 2016; Warren, 2009;

Ryfe, 2005). Furthermore, more demanding forms of engagement, such as

democratic innovations, tend to exacerbate this bias and reinforce existing

socioeconomic differentials (Fung, 2003; Cooper & Smith, 2012). To mitigate

this, random sampling, sortition, or civic lotteries, as the OECD (2020) describes

them, are seen as ‘necessary to compensate for unequal volunteering rates and

for chance deviations from desired demographic characteristics’ (Carson &

Martin, 1999, p. 91). Therefore, since most processes in Victoria employed self-

nomination processes, it is fair to assume that the deliberative engagement

practices conducted were unlikely to have significantly broadened participation.

Theoretically, this should have undermined the legitimacy of the practices that

hinged on a belief that a plurality of views was expressed and considered;

however, this was not necessarily the case, as discussed in the next section.

7.7.3 The subjective nature of ‘representative claims’

Councillors were reported to me as saying, ‘I’m really looking forward to

reaching beyond the usual suspects’, and yet they hadn’t recruited that

way. (Consultant 2)

As noted earlier in this chapter, much of the interest around deliberative

engagement from elected representatives’ perspectives was regarding its

potential to engage with a broader cross-section of their communities. This

broadening of participation could also be considered one of the lynchpins of the

new legislation. With this in mind, it is incongruous that most councils engaged

community members through processes that are well known to replicate usual

participation trends. However, this contradiction seems to have been lost on

Victorian councils. Interviews and survey data found that, overall, there was

reasonable confidence around the descriptive representation of participants.

When asked whether they thought deliberative engagement ‘involves

community members that are more reflective of the general community

compared to standard engagement activities’ the majority of organisational

survey respondents were positive, with 84% of responses saying it achieved

this ‘a fair degree’ or ‘a lot’. Respondents to the councillor survey were less

certain, with 62% responding ‘a fair degree’ or ‘a lot’; however, this still

demonstrates a relatively high level of confidence in the processes.

This sense that the process involved a greater breadth of community members

was also seen in interviewees. At one council involved in the study where

recruitment was entirely by self-nomination, the Mayor described the

participants of the community panel as:

A great representation in terms of demographics … we weren’t looking for

people who’ve got experience because the trouble is, if you go down that

path, you end up with the squeaky wheels again, because they’re the

people who are being involved with stuff, we want to hear from the, the

normal citizen, if you like. So yeah, that’s been really successful. (Mayor

Livorno Interview 2)

At another council, the Mayor accepted that some of the ‘louder voices’ had

been selected but generally felt there had been a broader representation: And

I actually think that worked out as a really good thing, because often in

engagement activities, as opposed to deliberate engagement, you get the

people with the loudest voices. And what I liked about this one was that even

though the people with the loudest voices, the same faces that have turned

up to everything all the time, they did put in an expression of interest, and

some of them were selected, but it was much broader than that. (Mayor

Lucca Interview 2)

There was only one councillor survey response that revealed some

acknowledgment of the limitations of self-nomination:

Unfortunately, it will always be the same applicants for panels and surveys

and not a true representation of the community … we have a community

panel of the usual suspects and failed candidates ‘selected at random’

telling you how to do your job. (Councillor survey response)

However, for the most part, the inconsistency between the way community

members were recruited to deliberative engagement practices and the likelihood

of those participants representing people that council would not usually engage

with was not necessarily apparent to councillors or council staff.

Paradoxically, the only council involved in the study that did use a sortition

process, and therefore, most likely succeeded in attracting a broader cohort to

their deliberative engagement processes, experienced suspicion from elected

representatives around their representative claim. In another council, the

decision to recruit the community members for the panel through a combination

of self-nomination and random invitations was in response to community

feedback and a sense that having a panel exclusively made up of people invited

via random invitation would not be accepted as legitimate by their community.

The findings above demonstrate that what is considered descriptively

representative and legitimate in one context may be considered illegitimate in

another (Parkinson 2003). As such, these examples highlight that representative

claims are context-specific, not absolute. They affirm Saward’s (2006)

observation that ‘representative claims only work, or even exist, if “audiences”

acknowledge them in some way’ (p. 303). It is therefore possible that the

perceived inclusiveness and diversity of participants in Victorian deliberative

engagement processes was informed more by the propensity of decision-

makers to accept them as such than the validity of their claim to be

representative.

These findings are important to consider for the institutionalisation of democratic

innovations because they suggest that structural biases that perpetuate

homogeneity and extant views can inadvertently persist even with the

introduction of deliberative engagement practices. Although there is a common

perception that deliberative cohorts will be established and scrutinised based on

whether they are sufficiently representative to legitimise decisions (Bohman,

2012), the data suggests that this judgement is dependent more on how much

the authorising environment subscribes to their legitimacy than the actual

engagement design and methodologies used. Furthermore, the data indicates

that careful consideration needs to be given to what is described as the design

space of participation, where democratic architects can manipulate what kinds

of stakeholders participate and whose voices come to the fore (Fung, 2015).

7.8 Who speaks for the whole municipal community?

Whilst it is accurate to say that, broadly speaking, Victorian councils believed

there had been broader and more inclusive participation in their deliberative

engagement processes, this was also caveated by some apprehension around

the influence of a relatively small group of community members. As such,

although the likely traits of participants were not generally questioned, there was

some doubt about whether they had the authority to make recommendations on

behalf of their fellow constituents. The following two sections explore this

phenomenon; the first examines what is sometimes referred to as deliberative

democracy’s scale problem (Parkinson, 2003) and how it manifested in Victoria,

and the second analyses how this tension was mitigated by councils.

7.8.1 Deliberative engagement’s scale problem

Deliberative democracy is founded on a premise that, to be legitimate, a forum

needs to involve people who are reflective of all those subject to the decision in

question (Dryzek, 1990; Habermas, 1996). The Victorian Local Government Act

2020 has some alignment to this premise with the inclusion of the community

engagement principle:

Participants in community engagement must be representative of the

persons and groups affected by the matter that is the subject of the

community engagement. (Victorian Local Government Act 2020 Clause

56 (c))

This principle was identified in some community engagement policies and

referred to in interviews:

So, in our new engagement policy, which was adopted just before this

happened, we made a commitment that anyone affected by a decision

would have an opportunity or a chance to be involved in that process,

whatever it be, down at the inform end or whether it be up at the

empowering. (Coordinator Verona Interview 2)

However, as Parkinson (2003) cautions, ‘in complex societies, deliberative

participation by all those affected by collective decisioning is extremely

implausible’ (p. 180, emphasis added). This is echoed by Dryzek (2002), who

also recognises that any meaningful participation in collective decision-making

by more than a small minority is inconceivable in contemporary nation-states.

Inevitably, any deliberative process will comprise a select group of citizens who

participate in lieu of the collective whole. Consequently, deliberative

engagement can be interpreted as a way of delegitimising some democratic

channels in favour of a privileged connection between a select few citizens and

decision makers (Parkinson & Mansbridge, 2012 cited in Courant, 2022, p.

171). This limitation, described by Parkinson (2003) as ‘deliberative

democracy’s scale problem’, was not lost on the Victorian local government

sector. Interviewees expressed concerns, or scepticism, about the influence of a

relatively discrete group of community members over municipal wide strategies:

… [through the process we] have created a mini council. And I'm wondering if

that, as a by-product, has made it a bit more exclusive – it’s an exclusive group

… we tried to get representation, and I think we had really great representation

… We’ve got thousands of community members out there that we didn’t involve

too – it depends on what your assessment is, quality or quantity. (Coordinator

Verona Interview 2)

Those that really just focused in on the panel process, and in the end

that’s where I worry that there’s a bit of a tick-a-box – like ‘we did it’ and

felt like that’s it. But what does that mean for the rest of the community,

and what was the opportunity for anyone to kind of influence the vision or

council plan? (Consultant 8)

How do you sort of still give the community some ownership because

there’s still very much an opinion from councillors that, ‘this is some

privileged body [referring to the Community Panel], but what about the rest

of the community?’ (Consultant 9)

These quotes demonstrate that interviewees shared similar concerns to some

scholars who argue that deliberative engagement produces ‘weak

representatives’ who are not accountable to their communities in the way

elected representatives are, and therefore should not be afforded decisive

influence (Courant, 2022; Lafont, 2005). This tension can potentially also be

inferred from the high number of survey respondents who indicated that if they

had more time and resources, they would allocate them to ‘Increase the number

or scope of the broader community engagement activities either before, during

or after the deliberative engagement process’ (n = 102 = 50% of responses).

This data suggests that even when there is legitimacy conferred on the

deliberative cohort (as was the case with some of the interviewees cited above),

it does not automatically transfer to legitimating recommendations on behalf of

the broader community; some reconciliation with the wider constituency still

needs to occur, as is explored in the next section.

7.8.2 Continuance of the public exhibition stage

The reliance on sources of legitimacy beyond a deliberative cohort can best be

demonstrated through the almost blanket use of a public exhibition13

consultation process by local governments in Victoria. Despite the Victorian

Local Government Act 2020 removing legislative requirements to have a public

exhibition stage, replacing it with the requirement to undertake deliberative

engagement practices, 92% (n = 73) of Victorian councils decided to have their

strategic plans undergo this process. In addition, a large proportion (64%; n =

47) made amendments to their strategic plans following this public exhibition

stage.

Reasons for continuing this practice were varied; some referred to ‘best

practice’, while some inaccurately stated that the public exhibition process was

‘in accordance with the Local Government Act’. All three councils involved in the

study acknowledged that they no longer had to conduct a public exhibition stage

but they decided to maintain it because they understood it to be more inclusive.

This position was also identified in some council reports where it was suggested

that the public exhibition process was a part of their commitment to deliberative

engagement:

In light of ensuring Council’s commitment to deliberative community

engagement, Council has given public notice of its preparation to give the

right to any person/s to make a submission on the Council Plan. (Casey

City Council, 2021)

13 Under Section 223, Right to make submission of the Victorian Local Government Act 1989, councils

needed to publish a public notice and provide members of the public not less than 28 days to make a

submission in response to the council plan and budget. This was commonly called the ‘public exhibition’

process.

Interviewees expressed the need to ensure interested community members

were still able to inform strategies and highlighted the need to sense-check

recommendations with the broader community:

How do you sort of still give the community some ownership because

there’s still very much … often from councillors that say, ‘this is some

privileged body [referring to the community panel], but what about the rest

of the community?’ So yeah, I think that gives them a level of comfort that

it’s still going out, it’s still going through the normal process anyway.

(Consultant 9)

This sense-checking with the broader community was noted in some council

reports where consultation processes were conducted with specific cohorts to

ensure their feedback was considered before finalising the council plan: To

ensure Council received feedback from young people within the Shire, the

Mayor and CEO met with the Corangamite Shire Youth Council to discuss the

draft Council Plan. (Corangamite Shire Council, 2021b)

Our relationship with the Traditional Owners is of vital importance to

Council. Strategies have been added to Focus Areas 1, 3 and 4 that align

with the value of this relationship. (Hepburn Shire Council, 2021b)

Drawing on existing channels of participation was therefore understood as

strengthening the decision-making process and as a way to sense-check with

the broader community. Notwithstanding the fact that there would have been

valid reasons to invite specific cohorts who are traditionally underrepresented in

engagement practices to contribute to the process, as demonstrated by the two

examples of including youth and Traditional Owners, there is still a tension that

needs to be recognised. Although it could be interpreted as more inclusive, the

continuance of the public exhibition process was also essentially a means of

perpetuating existing power structures and giving a platform to community

members with political agency.

Even though it’s no longer a legislative requirement, I've seen in a lot of

council groups who wanted to avoid the squeaky wheels, but they come

back during the public exhibition period and get their thing passed.

(Consultant 1)

You need to be clear about what level of influence that will have, and how

you weigh that up against this process. Because I think you can

confidently say that the Act and the resources that go into this, the

deliberative process should have more weight than something going out

for comment and hearing from the usual suspects. (Consultant 3)

There is clearly incongruence between planning a deliberative process which

aims to engage participants that don’t usually engage with council only to then

incorporate activities that privilege those with greater political agency. However,

despite this paradox between public exhibition processes and deliberative

engagement practices, much of the sector continued these practices, justifying

them by suggesting that it was required to legitimate decisions.

The almost unilateral application of a public exhibition process underscored the

reality that, whilst deliberative engagement practices may have attracted more

descriptive representation in the deliberative cohorts that participated, the

practices alone were not sufficient in creating overall confidence in their

recommendations. Instead, what pervaded were existing channels of public

participation despite them no longer being legislated and irrespective of their

known limitations and biases.

7.9 How deliberative and non-deliberative practices

interconnected

As can be inferred from the sections above, there was contention between the

perceived legitimacy of deliberative engagement practices and the

‘nondeliberative’ practices councils were accustomed to. This data affirms the

position of various scholars who argue that no individual deliberative forum,

however ideally constituted, is likely to possess deliberative capacity sufficient

to legitimise decisions (Mansbridge et al., 2012) and that ways to combine

participatory methods with deliberative processes are necessary for impact

(Nabatchi et al., 2012). Indeed, in their guidelines around deliberative

democracy, the OECD (2020) suggest that deliberative engagement should be

used ‘together with other participation methods as part of a broader public

participation strategy’ (p. 41, emphasis added). The OECD conceptualises this

connection as information collected in the broader public participation sphere

and then feed into the deliberative process. This in fact occurred in most

Victorian councils where deliberative cohorts were presented with findings from

previous engagement activities. What is not foreseen by the OECD is the

subsequent process that occurred in Victoria where the recommendations from

the deliberative process were then tested with the broader public after

deliberation.

In the Victorian context, given the public exhibition stage was essentially the

‘final say’, in instances where the feedback received from the public exhibition

process conflicted with the deliberative engagement outcomes, the integrity of

deliberative engagement practices could have been jeopardised. While it is not

possible to trace the degree to which changes suggested through a public

exhibition process were in direct conflict with the recommendations of the

deliberative cohort, some of the data suggested there was dissonance: I think

some of the [public exhibition] feedback around the plan was a real sticking

point. That was a bit hairy there for a while ... a couple of councillors were like,

‘well the community really wants it’. But do they really? Some portion of the

community want it because the plan doesn’t reflect how they feel … I ended up

writing a three- or four-page document

for how the priority statements from the community panel should be

treated, they’re not just the same as every other part of the engagement

that will did. (Coordinator Matera Interview 2)

We gave our councillors and exec training, but at the end of the process,

they still didn’t understand that the deliberative component has more

weight than broad engagement (e.g. public exhibition). (Organisational

survey response)

Regarding the public exhibition stage:

So that’s the thing about that broad scattergun engagement process, they

can sort of pick and choose what comes in. (Consultant 3)

I guess I just kept asking them and saying, ‘well who’s going to decide

what goes in the plan after the public exhibition period?’, and then if it’s

you deciding, you can’t call it a community vision because you could

change it all. (Consultant 7)

In the quotes above, there is unresolved tension between weighting the

outcomes of a deliberative engagement process with the feedback received

through traditional channels such as a public exhibition process. The

consultants’ quotes also highlight that existing processes tend to position

council staff as the ultimate adjudicators of which recommendations are given

precedence.

It is not possible to determine how much council staff recognised the public

exhibition process was biased towards councils’ own preferences. However, it is

possible that survey respondents were cognisant of the need to reconcile

deliberative engagement practices with their broader community context given

the significant number who indicated that if they had more time and resources,

they would ‘Improve our engagement with key community stakeholders so they

understand and support the process’ (n = 102; 50% of responses).

Furthermore, it is possible the continuance of the public exhibition stage is

related to the institutionalist concepts of ‘path dependency’ or ‘logics of

appropriateness’ whereby policy actors privilege their instinct to legitimise

actions over responding to situations with new and bespoke solutions. The

inherent need to seek stable conditions, leads policy actors to employ trusted

templates and fit problems into pre-existing solutions that they have used in the

past (Lowndes & Roberts, 2013, p. 115). This might explain why the public

exhibition process continued, even though it was no longer legislatively required

and despite the fact it demanded both extra resources and time, neither of

which councils reported having. Therefore, while rationales for continuing the

public exhibition process were often positioned around inclusion, it is also

possible that council staff had not considered an alternative to managing

existing stakeholders.

And it’s like, well, just don’t keep doing what you know because you know

it, what are you getting out of it? … they seem to be stuck in that rut of just

doing the things that they know because they know them, but they end up

causing themselves more problems and not achieving what they want to

achieve. (Consultant 5)

Council staff may not have had enough confidence justifying why council should

discontinue a public exhibition process in favour of prioritising the outcomes of

the deliberative engagement practices. Irrespective of the reason, courses of

action that councils had applied in the past most likely continued because,

within their organisational context, the perceived risk of changing practices was

considered untenable.

This section demonstrates that the public exhibition processes may have

impacted the integrity of the deliberative engagement practices by providing

community groups, stakeholders, and councils with a mechanism to override,

edit out, and diminish the recommendations of the deliberative process. It

highlights that greater attention needed to be given to how deliberative

engagement practices were embedded within their broader civic context and

how they were reconciled with existing channels for public participation.

7.10 Conclusion

This chapter began by providing context regarding the Victorian local

government authorising environment, particularly how councillors had limited

formal oversight over how deliberative engagement practices were

operationalised. It then explained that during implementation, councillors were

mostly removed from deliberative engagement processes in line with a

dominant narrative that argued this was necessary to ensure their epistemic

integrity. This narrative was not substantiated by any formal rules or expert

recommendations; however, it was so influential that many councils genuinely

understood it as best practice. In contrast to that narrative, the research found

that where councillors were involved more directly in the design and

implementation of deliberative processes, their perceptions of the practices

were notably more constructive. As such, the dominant narrative that elected

representatives’ involvement should be restricted was effectively acting against

the implementation of deliberative engagement practices by weakening their

legitimacy and hindering a more enabling authorising environment.

The second half of the chapter demonstrated that although the possibility of

attracting broader community participation was one of the cornerstone

objectives of the legislation, the application of self-nominated recruitment

methods meant that this was unlikely to have been achieved. This finding

pointed to the subjective nature of representative claims but, importantly for this

research, that practices can be adapted to suit organisation imperatives. This

was also seen with the continuance of the public exhibition process, which,

although no longer legislated, was maintained by most councils with the

assumption that it would improve inclusion. The chapter highlighted how

practices that privileged those with greater political agency, and were essentially

contradictory to the principles of democratic innovations, were nevertheless

almost unilaterally applied by Victorian councils.

Through examination of the authorising environment, this chapter further

demonstrates how deliberative engagement practices were interpreted and

applied to suit organisational imperatives. It also highlighted how policy actors

gave preference to practices that aligned with the status quo and extant public

participation processes, and narratives emerged to justify those practices even

when, knowingly or not, they undermined the legitimacy and were inconsistent

with the principles of democratic innovations. The chapter built on the findings of

Chapter 6 and further determined how the executive arm of local government

played a critical role regarding how deliberative engagement practices were

understood, and how processes were framed and ultimately given legitimacy by

elected representatives. It demonstrated how public managers were

instrumental in determining whose participation was accommodated, whose

was considered sufficiently representative, and, through the conceptual lens of

inclusion, whose perspectives were given more weight and influence. It could be

argued that the research has shown the need to explore not only how

democratic innovations interface with the role of elected representatives and

existing public participation practices but also broaden attention to include the

administrative arm of government that acts as gatekeepers.

Chapter 8: The impact of

individual agency and

organisational cultures on

operational capacity for change

You think if something is enshrined in legislation it’s going to make it

happen, it is not necessarily so.

(Consultant 3)

We need to solve the problem of people not trusting people, and I don’t

know that legislation and creating a tick-box exercise solves that.

(Consultant 5)

8.1 Introduction

This chapter explores the third and final point of the public value strategic

triangle, operational capacity. In public value theory, this point is concerned with

whether an initiative is operationally and administratively feasible (Alford &

O’Flynn, 2009). This can encapsulate tangible aspects such as how an

organisation is resourced, structured, and governed, in addition to more

intangible aspects such as organisational cultures and how they inform an

organisation’s ability to respond to challenges and change. For the purposes of

this research, it is aligned to the research question: How do organisational

cultures and constraints inform how deliberative engagement is designed and

implemented? As such, this chapter focuses on how local government

organisations responded to the legislative requirements for deliberative

engagement and how aspects like existing norms, environmental context,

individual agency, and organisational cultures influenced these practices.

The chapter draws mostly on themes that were identified in interviews that were

considered alongside observation and survey data. To further examine the

narratives and practices that emerged during the implementation of deliberative

engagement practices, this thematic analysis was examined alongside concepts

from relevant scholarship. This allowed for the research findings to be

interrogated against a broader context to better understand whether they were

consistent with extant knowledge or provided alternative interpretations.

Cognisant of the particular risk of bias in this chapter, given the researcher

worked in local government for 10 years and was intimately familiar with local

government organisational cultures, this chapter has used quotations more than

other chapters to ensure inferences were clearly demonstrated.

Much like Chapter 6, the scholarship applied in this chapter is mostly from an

institutionalist lens as this provided valuable insights into the constraints and

inherent motivations of actors. In terms of public value theory, as noted in

Chapter 7, themes such as leadership permeated both the authorising

environment and operational capacity points of the strategic triangle. Whilst

leadership was explored through how it influenced the perceived legitimacy of

deliberative engagement practices in Chapter 7, in this chapter it is explored in

relation to how it informs organisational responses and cultures.

The chapter begins with an examination of the broader contextual environment

that the legislative changes for deliberative engagement occurred within and

how this may have impacted organisations’ preparedness to tackle the new

requirements. The chapter then considers the challenges deliberative

engagement practices presented to council staff, who needed to navigate high

levels of uncertainty within constrained timeframes whilst simultaneously

building organisational confidence in their proposed approach. The distinct

approaches of diverse council staff are considered along with organisational

cultures that are likely to underpin council staff’s agency and propensity for

change. Finally, the chapter theorises about the organisational cultural shifts the

new legislation might have achieved and how these learnings might inform what

is required for building organisational capacity in deliberative engagement

practices.

8.2 Setting the context for the legislative changes: new

legislation, a pandemic, and an election

How the broader environmental setting influenced the way deliberative

engagement practices were applied should not be underestimated as it was

consistently referenced in interview, survey, and observation data. This section

provides a brief contextualisation of this environment and examines how it may

have impacted the operational capacity of the sector.

The Victorian Local Government Act 2020 was the first major local government

reform since 1989, and accounting for the considerable change within the sector

in those 30 years, the new Act presented a raft of new requirements. This

included introducing requirements for several new strategic plans and policies

(such as the public transparency policy, workforce plan, and a 4-year revenue

and rating plan), as well as changes to reporting requirements and existing

policies (for an overview of the changes see VLGA, 2019). Within this, and as

explored in Chapter 6, the shift to a principles-based Act meant that there was

added complexity in adapting to the new legislative approach. Therefore, the

deliberative engagement requirements for the legislation need to be understood

as one aspect of a much broader scale of reform that all councils were

navigating.

Added to this changed regulatory environment, the Victorian Local Government

Act 2020 received Royal Assent at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic in

Australia. This was a period of significant disruption, and it would be fair to say

that local governments, particularly in Melbourne which was subject to extensive

lockdowns (Kelly, 2021), were in a state of flux. Services had to be redesigned,

staff needed to be re-deployed, and resources had to be found to meet the

needs of communities, especially the most vulnerable who tend to rely on

council services. In interviews, council staff often expressed exhaustion at the

increased workloads and strain these circumstances collectively brought: I think

because of that level of busyness, and that level of unknown in regard to

COVID, people’s mental capacity to consider legislative requirements, and to do

it with clear thinking and intention and, just having that brain space to think

about how we could approach this and our options wasn’t there. (Coordinator

Sassari Interview 1)

Furthermore, 2020 was also a local government election year, which would

have brought its own complexity. In the lead-up to the council elections,

decisions were likely to have been more politicised, major decisions would have

been delayed until after the elections, and potentially further impeded by the

three-month caretaker period from September until November when there were

no elected representatives. Once councillors were on board in November 2020,

council staff were occupied with inducting councillors and familiarising them with

their role and the organisation. For councils where there was a large turnover of

councillors, this would have been a critical formative period when relationships

were established and the organisation became more aware of a new

councillor’s interests and leanings. Some interviewees stated it was difficult to

sufficiently explore community engagement practices whilst also building

rapport with councillors and establishing trusting relationships.

Combined, these factors created a challenging period for council staff to

navigate, as described in the following comment:

It was the new regulations, people getting their head around the Act,

around deliberative engagement, then what exactly the state were after

with respect to the document and deliberative engagement. You had a

new council, as well, thrown into the mix, a whole heap of other legislative

changes. And I think, there was a lot of change in one year. (Manager Bari

Interview 2)

In this type of environment, it is perhaps not surprising that several interviewees

expressed feeling stress and apprehension regarding their capacity to

satisfactorily implement deliberative engagement practices. This is an important

backdrop to consider for the findings of this chapter.

8.3 Applying new practices in a time-constrained environment:

No time to stall

Added to the complex circumstances described in the previous section, the

sense-making and then development of deliberative engagement practices was

also occurring in what was often described as a time-constrained environment.

The theme of ‘lack of time’ was referred to consistently in all data and the

timelines outlined in Figure 8.1 were often repeated:

Figure 8.1 Timelines for deliberative engagement requirements

Source: Author’s own

As illustrated in Figure 8.1, almost immediately after councillors were elected in

November 2020, deliberative engagement was on the agenda. Amongst

inducting councillors and making allowances for the summer break, councils

had only four months before they needed to have endorsed a community

engagement policy that defined deliberative engagement practices. This meant

that one of the first conversations the CEO and staff had with councillors was

around deliberative engagement practices and what that would mean for

council. Most councils’ deliberative processes occurred between April and

September 2021. Once council plans were written, as explained in Chapter 7

most went out for public exhibition before they needed to be endorsed by 31

October 2021 according to the legislation.

When speaking about the timelines, there was a sense from most interviewees

that decisions needed to be made quickly and there was little opportunity to

properly explore options. For some interviewees, this was seen as an

advantage as it meant that there wasn’t time to overanalyse or stall decisions:

And I think, tight timelines help with managing expectations because there’s a

recognition that you just have to get down and do it. (Mayor

Lucca Interview 2)

Sometimes being in this position, it’s actually a positive, the adrenaline

gets people moving, making us have to make decisions rather than

contemplating for another three weeks as to what could be. (Executive

Genoa Interview 1)

There were a lot of points where the councillors, and the exec, everyone

wanted to have a bit of a bite at the cherry… in some ways, because we

didn’t have the luxury of time we just kept pushing on regardless.

(Executive Perugia Interview 1)

One interviewee even suggested that the constrained timelines created an

opportunity for more flexibility and adaptation:

We sort of didn’t have enough time to anchor our minds to what it should

look like … I wonder also, as a result, because we had to pull people

together so quickly, whether there was just an energy and a preparedness

to be a little bit more flexible. (CEO Bologna Interview 1)

However, this more sanguine response to the timelines was in the minority;

most interviewees described a sense of disruption and feeling unprepared:

People were chasing their tail, sort of instantly. And it’s just felt like a panicked

process for a lot of it. (Coordinator Sassari Interview 1)

So, because of the timelines that we’re working with, I feel personally that

we have not had the opportunity, or not had the time to actually train and

educate our staff as well in relation to what is deliberative engagement,

and we’re really working it out on the run. (Director Imola Interview 1)

Because it feels like everyone’s running around madly, constantly. And so

their headspace to sit with the issue and try and find a way forward isn’t

there … because I think people felt really thrown into this, and not

resourced adequately to deliver on it. (Manager Rimini Interview 1)

Some interviewees were concerned that, without sufficient time to properly

explore options, there was more potential to shoehorn practices and reinforce

tick-the-box behaviours:

Because it’s been done in a little bit of a rush, trying to meet the legislation

and trying to get this up and running. It’s a little bit more high level … so

those guiding principles coming out, yeah, we can utilise those for the

development of our plan, a very light touch approach. (Manager Bari

Interview 1)

And I guess one of the things that I struggle with, and I know some of the

rest of the project team struggle with, is some of that discomfort comes

from, you know, people want to do the best job they possibly can. And this

environment is not allowing us to do that. (Coordinator Sassari Interview 1)

The responses above indicate the impact of limited timeframes on how

interviewees were able to respond to the requirement for deliberative

engagement practices. For some, it was seen as an enabling factor, providing

licence to break out of fixed positions or responses to trial new approaches; for

others, the restricted timeframes reinforced a dependence on known entities

and constrained action to status quo. This phenomenon, where embedded

practices overrode opportunities for innovation or change, was noted in some of

the data:

At an observation of a strategic planning meeting, Executive Perugia

stated: Culture is a catch 22 situation, people see the need for

improvement but are so busy keeping up that they don’t have time to

invest in looking at changing the way we work and be better and more

customer focus … The day-to-day will always win.

That’s what drives much of the work, deadlines, not the engagement

process itself. (Organisational survey response)

The findings above align with institutionalist theory that maintains courses of

action are critically influenced by how quickly decisions need to be made, and

the time commitment necessary for participatory engagement initiatives acts as

a powerful inhibitor to greater experimentation (Lowndes, 2001, p. 212). The

time constraints in Victoria may have inadvertently reduced the incentive for

more ambitious deliberative engagement practice and created conditions that

pressed councils to default to relatively standard engagement activities.

8.4 Operating in the grey

In addition to time constraints, it is important to underscore the considerable

inexperience of the local government sector regarding deliberative engagement

practices. Whilst some discrete deliberative engagement projects had been

undertaken by councils prior to the legislation, most had not experienced the

processes firsthand. Therefore, council staff tasked with implementing the

legislative requirements had limited understanding of the practices or points of

reference to guide them around what the practices might involve; as one

interviewee suggested, most were ‘operating in the grey’. Coupled with the

timelines, this meant that council staff were trying to make sense of the new

deliberative engagement practices whilst simultaneously being responsible for

implementing an appropriate method for their council.

There was a lot of grey and people just trying to get their head around

stuff, and try and meet that deadline, and try to do the best that they sort of

could. (Manager Bari Interview 2)

But it certainly has been a factor about educating staff along with

educating the community and then educating councillors all at the same

time. That’s a pretty pressured environment to try to get great outcomes

and great engagement going on in that way. (Director Imola Interview 1)

As intimated in the comment above, while delivering processes they were

unfamiliar with, council staff needed to concurrently embed trust in the

processes with their authorising environment.

Perhaps because of this context, a theme that emerged in the interviews was

the anxiety or stress that people felt at the time. Several interviewees recounted

not feeling prepared or capable because they knew so little about the practices.

This observation was also shared by consultants interviewed:

I think the sector and the government underestimated the amount of

anxiety around these changes, and the work that would need to be done to

establish some level of comfort within the sector. (Consultant 1)

And for [Community Engagement Person] it was really stressful because

they are a real ‘detail person’, likes to have a process and to run with it.

(Coordinator Verona Interview 2)

These comments, along with the earlier ones in this section, further

demonstrate how the preparedness of the local government sector to apply

deliberative engagement practices was questionable. This is critical to consider

against the earlier point in this chapter regarding the inherent disincentives for

more ambitious processes. Courses of action are likely to have been influenced

by the timeframes as well as the level of existing confidence council staff had in

deliberative engagement practices.

Furthermore, and as noted in both Chapters 5 and 6, up until the new

legislation, councils had been accustomed to relatively prescriptive compliance

frameworks and high level of certainty around legislative expectations.

Deliberative engagement practices required considerable adaptability and were

comparatively unpredictable. The unease this created was expressed in several

interviews:

So, it was around the discomfort with the process itself, and needing to be

quite fluid and responsive, that was challenging for people … another level

of discomfort comes from the process itself. So, for those of us who like to

be able to pre-plan and know exactly where we’re heading … Well, that’s

just not possible. Because you don’t know where things are going to land

with the community panel. (Coordinator Sassari Interview 1)

We can’t give you exactly what the process or the agenda will be until we

have analysed the broad engagement, because that should be what

shapes the deliberative engagement. It’s a process, it’s a funnel. Councils

found that really difficult. (Consultant 1)

Things were looking a little bit off track in the middle section, and maybe

people weren’t so comfortable with verbalising that, because it almost

sounded like a … not failure, but you know, a lot of time and a lot of money

had been invested in this process. (Officer Brescia Interview 2)

It was just kind of like, oh, okay, we’re in this now, it’s not going to work as

we thought it was, but we don’t actually have any capacity to change it.

(Officer Spoleto Interview 2)

This section establishes that, alongside the disruptive environmental context

described earlier, council staff were managing various dynamics whilst also

familiarising themselves with a practice that was, for the most part, untested in

their councils. The complex context would indubitably have influenced design

choices and how the sector implemented deliberative engagement practices;

most saliently, these factors would have further contributed to the sector’s

reticence and acted against more enterprising initiatives.

8.5 Local government as a community of practice

Institutionalist theory suggests that when an organisation faces a problem with

ambiguous causes or unclear solutions, policy actors use criteria of similarity

and congruence when deciding on courses of action because it yields viable

solutions with minimal resources (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). This section

examines this phenomenon in the context of this research, where all 79

Victorian councils were trying to make sense of and implement deliberative

engagement practices at the same time.

As examined in Chapter 6, interviewees reported engaging with a variety of

different networks, usually associated with one of the three local government

associations (VLGA, LGPro, and MAV) or contacting colleagues in other

councils when exploring their options. The organisational survey demonstrated

the pertinence of this community of practice. When asked what they did to find

out what deliberative engagement is and what it might involve, the clear majority

of respondents said they had ‘looked at what other local government

organisations were doing or other case studies’ (76%), and many also said they

‘talked about it with my networks’ (62%).

Interviews suggested that not only did council staff tend to look to each other

during the sense-making process but they also assumed this would lead to an

understanding of the appropriate courses of action and acceptable standards of

practice. This influenced design choices in various ways. For some councils, it

was used to establish a range within which to operate, yet for others this

benchmarking seems to have spurred actions they might not otherwise have

taken:

You know, the whole industry talks, and nobody’s big on reinventing the

wheel. If you see a wheel that works perfectly well, you’re more inclined to

adopt it than adapt ... So those networks are really important, as a touch

point and reassurance that you’re not out of step or out of kilter with

everybody. (CEO Padua Interview 1)

There are you know, 79 councils all watching each other to understand

who’s doing what, because no one wants to be the poor cousin that

doesn’t do it right. (Executive Perugia Interview 1)

People don’t want to miss out, and they don’t want to feel like they are

lagging. But some are uncomfortable about leading, so they want to know

that they are in some kind of range. (Consultant 7)

And I’d heard previously and in previous meetings that the CEO would not

be happy to do that. But I think LGV or LGPro ran a session with CEOs

that talked them through deliberative practice and I think in that, because

they got sent the notes, they highlighted that people should be paid. So

when we took it to Exec the second time, you know, the CEO said, ‘I

understand this is kind of the practice, and we’ll do it, but I’m not really

happy about it’. (Manager Rimini Interview 1)

Based on the comments and survey data above, it could be said that the

Victorian local government sector responded to the legislation with an approach

that is aligned with what DiMaggio and Powell (1983) called ‘mimetic

processes’. Their research suggests that when an organisation faces a problem

with ambiguous causes or unclear solutions, there are advantages to mimetic

behaviour as it yields viable solutions with minimal resources. This reasoning

can also be seen in the following interview comments:

The negative is that our council are not leaders, we are not even early

adopters, we generally wait until other people have tried it out, we need a

little bit of convincing and then we get on board … So, for us to have to

navigate new legislation, where there is a blank canvas, and no one who

we can be looking to for what worked well before and what’s the least risky

approach that we can take, I think that was a challenge. (Coordinator

Sassari Interview 2)

And so for me, that was really reaching out to colleagues at other councils,

because I don’t have the people with expertise in my own organisation.

And so I think it’s fair to say that most people that are part of the network,

our policies are going to look very similar and our definitions are going to

look very similar, because we’ve all shared the journey to get to that point

and we’ve workshopped it and discuss these ideas. (Officer Spoleto

Interview 1)

Relevant to this research, two key consequences to the institutionalisation of the

practices need to be considered. Firstly, this phenomenon means that

deliberative engagement practices may coalesce into models that are

consistently applied across the sector, regardless of whether the legislation

allows for more context-specific approaches. This has an impact on innovation.

Secondly, these mimetic behaviours do not necessarily encourage best

practice. As seen in the previous chapters, processes were co-opted and

adapted to suit organisational imperatives or constraints. These more tempered

approaches to deliberative engagement practices are likely to be reinforced

through mimetic behaviours, further distancing their application from the

premise and expected outcomes of the legislation.

8.6 Restrained input from deliberative engagement ‘experts’

Considered in terms of where expertise was drawn from, further to the mimetic

behaviour examined in the previous section, the data suggests that councils

limited consultants’ involvement in the design stages of the deliberative

engagement practices, even though consultants were decidedly more qualified

and experienced in their application. This was perhaps most demonstrated at

the Request For Tender (RFQ) stage where most councils stipulated

parameters and methodologies that consultants needed to respond to: A

marked shift I’ve seen since the new Local Government Act has come in, is that

Council staff are undertaking much more of the design before they go out to

market to recruit a consultant to design and or facilitate a deliberative process.

My experience before this Local Government Act, and this is specifically to

Victoria and councils, is that we would be brought in much, much earlier to get

involved in the design. (Consultant 6)

And I found that a couple of times with a few different clients, that definitely

was the case. So like ‘Look, I’ve done all this thinking, I’ve done all this

work. Now I need you to come in and, you know, support me so that they

will actually kind of take that on’. (Consultant 8)

When discussed in interviews, most council staff, and even some consultants,

reasoned that procurement processes had constrained their ability to engage

consultants at an earlier stage, noting that they needed to specify contractual

outputs, such as the number of deliberative engagement workshops, in the

RFQ.

From a procurement perspective, we would have needed to do an RFQ

that talked about ‘help us plan and then deliver’, which the timing wouldn’t

have allowed. And also, the cost and quantifying what we were doing. The

RFQ has to have some level of quantification otherwise we wouldn’t know

what to quote to. (Manager Rimini Interview 2)

Whilst this seems reasonable, it does raise the question of how these practices

were procured before the legislation. Prior to the requirement of the Victorian

Local Government Act 2020, whilst considerably less numerous, consultants

were routinely brought in at the design stage of deliberative engagement

processes. It is not within the scope of this research to consider how processes

were coordinated prior to the legislation, but it is reasonable to say that

perceptions around the utility of engaging consultants may have changed.

A possible reason for engaging consultants at later stages of the process design

were the sector’s perceptions around consultants’ roles and the nexus of their

contribution. In the organisational survey, when asked what activities council

staff undertook to develop their understanding of deliberative engagement, out

of seven options, ‘talked about it with people who had experience with

deliberative engagement’ was the lowest. This suggests that councils did not

initially see leveraging the expertise of consultants as necessary. In interviews,

some expressed that consultants were critical to the design process:

[Consultants] are the experts in community engagement and seeing how other

councils are doing this. So we are sort of relying on them a lot during this

process. (CEO Tivoli Interview 1)

If you’re going to bring a contractor to do this, they really have an

important, critically important, role to play to actually be that educator,

guide, mentor for not only the officers, but also the council. (Director Imola

Interview 2)

These were in the minority. Interviewees more consistently centred the

capabilities and contribution of consultants on their independence and the

legitimacy they generated:

I’m not sure [consultants] had a skill set that we don’t have internally, I

think, looking at the staff that we’ve got it’s the sort of thing that we could

probably run. But I think having them involved just enabled a little bit of

that ‘Okay, so there’s someone here who’s not got all the skin in the game,

and they are going to make sure that what we say is actually recorded

accurately on the whiteboard’. (CEO Bologna Interview 2)

Probably the biggest thing for me with consultants, is you are buying

objectivity. And I think it’s really difficult, from a community perspective, to

have the authority that the community voices are really heard and

embedded when we deliver a process. (Officer Spoleto Interview 2)

Obviously, the number one thing [consultants] bring is the independence.

So it gives the community panel, and we know that there’s a lot of cynicism

about government, not just local government but all governments, and I

think the consultant brings a degree of independence. (Coordinator

Verona Interview 2)

By limiting the expertise of consultants to facilitation rather than including them

in the design stage, council staff were not accessing expertise that might have

flagged when the integrity of deliberative engagement practices was being

undermined. Several more experienced consultants who were interviewed

relayed incidents where their role was to set boundaries when councils were

suggesting actions that compromised the principles of deliberative engagement

practices. Whilst speculative, the sort of practices that were discussed in

Chapter 7, such as self-nominated recruitment processes and the public

exhibition stage, may have been mitigated with greater input from experienced

consultants. Furthermore, councils may have also derived more value from the

deliberative engagement practices with more expert involvement. This was

implied by one interviewee who had initially stated they were confident the

design of their deliberative engagement processes would not have been

substantively different had they engaged a consultant:

I’m fairly confident that this planning process is probably very similar to

what an external facilitator would have done … But we had to do a lot of

that ourselves, and a lot of that involved kind of looking at what was being

done elsewhere … (Officer Brescia Interview 1)

However, in their second interview, they reflected that a consultant’s

involvement might have generated stronger outcomes:

I come back to the thought that maybe we didn’t leverage the facilitator’s

expertise enough. And maybe we could have done that if we had a clearer

understanding of what we needed from that process. (Officer Brescia

Interview 2).

The potential advantage of involving consultants with expertise in deliberative

engagement practices was less recognised than that of conferring with

colleagues and fellow local government sector policy actors. The mimetic

behaviours, coupled with the propensity for co-option that was discussed in

Chapters 6 and 7, provide further evidence that the integrity of democratic

innovations was at significant risk of being compromised in favour of

organisational biases and constraints.

8.7 Two dispositions emerged

Moving from the macro level context to more micro level analysis of policy

actors and organisational cultures, the next sections consider how individual

council staff responded to the legislation. These sections examine the two broad

dispositions that were identified in council staff when operationalising

deliberative engagement practices. They are referred to as ‘the willing explorer’

and ‘the functionalist’. The two dispositions responded quite differently to the

changed legislative requirements and the research found this impacted the

design and implementation of practices.

However, before examining these dispositions and their impact, it is

acknowledged that this approach to presenting the data could be seen as

reductive or simplistic. These dispositions do not describe individuals and their

sense of agency in their entirety, and it is recognised that organisational cultures

and constraints also play a significant role in this agency (covered later in the

chapter). Furthermore, council staff are likely to have demonstrated aspects of

both dispositions at different times, and in different circumstances. The

presentation of two dispositions is not to constrain individual agency into two

boxes, but to understand the courses of action, narratives, and practices that

emerged during the operationalisation of the legislation.

The following sections illustrate how individual dispositions had a distinct impact

on the types of deliberative engagement practices that were implemented and,

most importantly, the influence they were permitted.

8.7.1 The ‘willing explorer’

The title of this disposition was based on what Moore describes as ‘willing

explorers’ in their account of how public managers take up their role as

‘explorers commissioned by society to search for public value’ (cited in Fisher &

Grant, 2013, p. 254). This descriptor was selected based on how interviewees

responded to questions about the qualities or traits council staff demonstrated

that supported deliberative engagement practices. Several traits were

highlighted in these willing explorers; most significant was their enabling and

adaptive approach:

Attitude, yeah, ‘can do, will do’ sort of attitude is invaluable, because we

were making some of this stuff up as we went … the ability to have people

that could work in that environment was really, really important. (Director

Imola Interview 2)

We had a bunch of people with some new energy that were really keen to

try some different things and weren’t dogmatic in what they thought was

the ‘right thing’ or the answer to deliberative engagement. (CEO Bologna

Interview 1)

A lot of people would have just gone too hard, but [Community

Engagement Person], sort of said, ‘I can do this’, and really took on the

challenge. I’m sure underneath, they are like the duck on the water kind of

thing. (Executive Perugia Interview 1)

Someone that’s got the ability to go with the flow a bit … I think if you’re a

little bit too black and white, I reckon that will be a real challenge. So, I

think you need some flexibility, and a little bit of cop some criticism on the

chin, and not let it detract you, you’ve got to be reasonably thick skinned.

(CEO Tivoli Interview 2)

This willing explorer disposition was also sometimes demonstrated in interviews

with comments such as:

And we’ll keep adjusting and altering it as we go along as part of that

continuous improvement process. It’s a pretty exciting project to be part of,

I must say. Although I don’t think that some nights at 10 o’clock when I get

home. I’m thrilled to be involved in it really. (Manager Ragusa Interview 1)

These comments demonstrate that for some council employees, even

though they were operating in a complex and uncertain environment, they

brought an attitude of positivism to navigating the new demands and were

willing to explore the potential advantages that the legislation brought to

their work.

In addition to an aptitude that was constructive and adaptive, the ability to

communicate effectively, in a way that was both compelling and brought clarity

to the process, was noted as significant in interviews. This was particularly

evident when discussing building trust in the process within the organisation and

with decision makers: staff members needed to not only perceive the benefits of

deliberative engagement practices but importantly, convince others in their

organisation that it was worthwhile.

We had some really smart officers talking to [councillors] about design and

what it might look like. And I think doing that gave them some confidence

that we knew what we were talking about, despite the fact that we’re

operating in grey. (CEO Bologna Interview 1)

They take it back to real basics. They make it simple. And they step people

through in a logical way that helps bring them along the journey and

makes them feel part of the process. (Executive Perugia Interview 1)

In all three councils involved in the research, having individuals who were able

to synthesise information and present a clear way forward was identified as

critical:

[Community Engagement Person] has been really fantastic in providing

really sound direction … they have undertaken quite a bit of research,

benchmarking with other councils as well as understanding from a Local

Government Victoria perspective what best practice is. (Executive Perugia

Interview 1)

At a different council, the Community Engagement Person was described in a

similar manner:

Where [Community Engagement Person] really shone, their ability to

actually research, think through, these are the elements that we need to

do for deliberative engagement, this is what I’ve read, this is what I’ve

seen, this is who I’ve spoken, to this is the structure of what it would look

like … that was really a strength of [Community Engagement Person], this

is the way best practice is as we understand it, this is what we should be

doing, and was strong in that place. (Director Imola Interview 2)

These comments align with Lee’s (2014) assertion that those tasked with

delivering engagement need to design processes that are more manageable

within the bureaucracy and, amongst other things, make democracy ‘less

messy’. It could be said that willing explorers navigated this ‘messiness’ and

supported their organisations to understand deliberative engagement in a way

that was both potent and viable.

The use of language such as ‘best practice’ in the two previous quotes is also

noteworthy. In fact, a review of the presentations and reports that were written

at both councils found ‘best practice’ terminology used throughout. It is

reasonable to suggest that these individuals, having understood the local

government context described earlier, were able to leverage this type of rhetoric

to build legitimacy in what they were proposing. In this manner, it was not only

their ‘passion’ or ‘drive’ that was instrumental, but their understanding of the

context and ability to pursue strategic influence.

This could be linked with existing literature that suggests those tasked with

community engagement can often rank low in organisational hierarchies and

have limited formal power to compel others (McKinlay et al., 2011). Therefore,

they need to build ‘relational capital’ and create an ‘ecology that supports their

work’ (Escobar, 2022a). Fung (2015) describes organisational champions in a

similar manner, highlighting that they need to be adaptive as well as have

enough political savvy to identify and organise allies (p. 520). As such, people

tasked with designing and delivering deliberative engagement practices in

Victorian local governments needed to be capable of cultivating influence

across their organisation. The success of these willing explorers would have

relied strongly on how they are able to relate to actors across the organisational

hierarchy and create buy-in at different authoritative levels. The willing explorers

were, therefore, the enabling champions of deliberative engagement practices;

they were able to work within the messiness and guide their organisations in

making sense of the legislative requirements, presenting them as an opportunity

rather than an obligation.

8.7.2 The ‘functionalist’

The other disposition found in the research was labelled the functionalist since

policy actors in this category tended to use narratives that focused on control,

stability, efficiencies, and pragmatic challenges rather than approaching

deliberative engagement practices from a more favourable perspective of the

benefits they might produce.

Fundamentally, interviewees described people of a functionalist disposition as

resistant to changing established norms. For these actors, the disruption to the

status quo brought about by the legislation was met with aversion and

contention.

But it’s protective, it’s people’s security and comfort. And it’s really hard to

get people who have done some of this stuff, you know, 10, 20, 30 years

to actually go ‘It’s okay.’ Like, it’s okay to let that go and try something new

and do something different. (Executive Perugia Interview 1)

Perhaps some investment in untethering the fixed mindsets of executive

leadership group on maintaining a business-as-usual approach.

(Organisational Survey)

Exploring this resistance a little further, the data suggests that rationales

underpinning this disposition revolve around some key factors, including an

unwillingness to share control of the strategic planning processes, coupled with

an overall wariness of community input.

Regarding control over strategic planning processes, one of the key themes that

emerged during interviews was individual staff members’ sense of ownership

over the strategic planning documents. Interviewees described their colleagues

not wanting to lose control of ‘their’ documents and, in some instances,

individuals were described as ‘document owners’ when talking about the council

plan. These descriptions were presumably referring to organisational

accountabilities; however, narratives sometimes veered towards ownership in

the absolute sense:

The people who are authoring the documents, they’re going ‘Oh crap, like,

what impact is this going to have on my plan? And how much do I need to

take on board from that comes from the community panel?’ … people feel

a lot of ownership over the strategic documents that they’re responsible

for. (Coordinator Sassari Interview 1)

If you get a budget, it’s just not your budget. You’ve been entrusted an

allocation for a particular purpose … and what I find sometimes within

local governments, and within managers’ perspective … they are very

precious about that money, that it is theirs, but it’s not. (Manager Bari

Interview 2)

It’s interesting, no matter how many times we had conversations around

the commitment to the process, they [council staff] are just still really

grappling with the fact that they don’t own it [the council plan], they can’t

control it. (Consultant 1)

In a similar vein, functionalists tended to favour limiting community’s influence

on decision-making because it would impact council staff’s obligations going

forward:

I would say that’s very difficult in an organisation for people giving up their

power or giving up ‘do I want to have that decision made by others when

it’s going to affect me and what I do’. (Director Imola Interview 1)

They’re so used to controlling a situation, I think handing over to a random

selection of people they were concerned about losing control of the

outcome. Because we know what the consequences are. The council plan

is a pretty big deal. It’s the operational plan for the next four years of how

you run your organisation, you lose control of the outcome, that can be a

bit scary. (Coordinator Matera Interview 1)

Whilst the comments above refer to uneasiness associated with losing oversight

of their functions, at times the apprehension was connected to a sense that the

process challenged staff members’ professional expertise:

And for some of them, their mindset was, we don’t think anything could

come out of this that will help us with our plans because we’ve basically

written it. So we just hope it doesn’t interfere and become inconvenient for

us in any way. (Consultant 3)

Describing how some colleagues felt: You know, people have studied for a

very long time to be content matter experts, and now we’re going to ask

some community members, who have all different educational

backgrounds, to have genuine input into something that we’ve been

working on for decades? You know, this is how local government functions

and we’re a well-oiled machine and don’t mess with the process.

(Coordinator Sassari Interview 1)

The influence of council staff’s individual policy positions was also noted in the

councillor survey responses:

Some council officers simply implement their own personal political

agenda … they bypass public engagement and debate and simply

implement whatever they like according to their now personal ideological

objectives. (Councillor survey response)

Although some caution needs to be taken with the councillor comment above as

there was some reciprocal scepticism between councillors and council staff in

the survey responses, the interviews indicate a reticence around community

members meaningfully contributing to decision-making based on their

professional expertise. The perception that community members did not

properly understand council because it was a complex organisation pervaded

many of the interviews where the functionalist disposition was discussed; this

was coupled with a questioning of the community’s motivations:

I think that’s probably what people are afraid of – a squeaky wheel taking

the wheel. (Coordinator Matera Interview 1)

There’s a fundamental lack of trust in the public by government. I think,

people do not trust in the public’s capacity to actually weigh in or

understand or get their heads around complex policy issues. (Consultant

So for some, there was a bit of a fear around that, who was going to turn

up, but then for others it was a fear around what would a general member

of the community know? You won’t get much out of them. (Consultant 7)

In interviews, and also at observations, council staff who seemed to align with

this disposition often expressed concerns around the public making either

uninformed or self-serving recommendations. However, whether this perception

of community input was based on a genuine concern around effective policy

decisions or as a way of justifying a tendency to retain control is not clear. In all

probability, it was a mixture of both.

This functionalist disposition demonstrates that a degree of gatekeeping was

occurring, with some council staff actively attempting to limit the influence that

deliberative engagement practices had on strategic planning decisions. In the

context of the complex environment described earlier, for some the level of

uncertainty that deliberative engagement practices brought would have been

challenging, particularly for those accustomed to a sense of clarity and control

over appropriate courses of action. Therefore, this functionalist disposition could

be interpreted not only as a way of safeguarding policy actors’ own sense of

authority or professional leanings, but also a way of ‘reducing the disabling

effects of uncertainty’ (Lowndes & Roberts, 2013, p. 99) and maintaining a

degree of reliability and conformity as normatively expected of bureaucracies

(Merton, 1940).

8.7.3 How individual agency affects practice

The previous sections provide some insight into different inclinations of council

staff based on what were broadly identified as two dispositions. The sections

highlighted how these dispositions impacted the way deliberative engagement

processes were understood and the perceived value, or risk, they presented. As

such, they played a critical role in shaping how local governments designed and

delivered their initiatives, including the level of influence that deliberative

engagement outcomes achieved.

When considered in the context of the legislation’s intention to put ‘community at

the centre of decision-making’, the research demonstrates this was dependent

in large part on the willingness of council staff to adapt and create processes for

it to occur. What is also evident is Moore’s (1995) argument that public

managers are not just ‘passive bystanders’; they are interpreting and applying

policy based on their own constructs of what is an appropriate or worthwhile

course of action.

As noted earlier, each local government organisation involved in the study

presented a mix of individuals from both dispositions. Some council staff

embraced deliberative engagement as an opportunity and championed it within

their organisation, but others were more reticent. Whilst their individual agency

is without doubt pivotal to the disposition they displayed, it is also pertinent to

consider how the broader context of the organisation either enabled or

restricted this agency. The following sections explore these organisational

cultures and how they impacted deliberative engagement practices.

8.8 Organisational cultures that supported the ‘willing explorers’

The research found some distinguishing organisational features that would have

supported the willing explorer disposition, namely, the leadership approach and

more collaborative organisational cultures. This section examines these

features to better understand how they were instrumental in creating a more

enabling environment for the implementation of deliberative engagement

practices.

8.8.1 Leadership and a growth mindset

As noted in Chapter 6, throughout the initial stages of sense-making around

deliberative engagement, the State Government consistently advocated that

councils apply a ‘growth mindset’ (i.e., see this as an opportunity for

development). State government officials often presented the narrative that

‘each council will have different levels of maturity, all moving toward better

practice from different starting points’ (LGV, 2020a). Taking a continuous

improvement approach, rather than a compliance approach, is a cultural shift

that the local government sector was encouraged to adapt to and one that was

a reoccurring theme in the leadership approaches that supported the willing

explorers.

Observations and interviews found instances where organisational leaders

reinforced a mindset that was orientated to growth and learning:

We don’t expect things to go perfectly, we have a crack. Let’s just own this

and learn from it … while this is a spanner in the works, it is not about

being right, it is about getting it right … You’ve got the permission from

executive that things go wrong and let’s just get on with it. (CEO Tivoli

observation at Executive Leadership Workshop)

I think what we had was energy and passion and an understanding of the

opportunity that would come out of it. And as a result, whatever came out,

didn’t really matter because we’re going to attack the process. (CEO

Bologna Interview 1)

These comments from CEOs reveal an emphasis on finding the value and

constructive outcomes for the deliberative engagement process rather than one

that was preoccupied with the risk of making mistakes. Several interviewees

suggested a licence to engage with deliberative engagement practices from a

continuous improvement lens needed to come directly from the CEO:

I think we, as a leadership team, absolutely see the value and understand

the importance of the project. But I would have to say that it’s been the

leadership of the project that was initially by CEO. Yeah, that was the

absolute driving force behind this. (Manager Ragusa Interview 1)

So, the CEO was really critical in liaising organisational drivers with council

understanding. So they were fantastic in supporting the process in the

background … obviously new council want to achieve everything, but the

CEO gave them a level of trust. (Coordinator Verona Interview 2)

However, there were also some indications that a growth mindset could be

galvanised by people across various leadership roles:

[Describing one of the managers responsible for overseeing the

deliberative engagement process] … they have really good relationships

with people and can think outside the box in a way that other people don’t;

others are very hamstrung by tradition and the usual way of doing things

… they have the capacity to be adaptable and respond in a way that

others don’t. (Officer Spoleto Interview 2)

We don’t have to nail it this time. This is just part of our ongoing learning

and response to the Local Government Act. (Coordinator Sassari Interview

The comments above suggest that leadership around having a ‘growth mindset’

did not necessarily need to be positional, and policy actors at different levels of

the hierarchy could create more conducive environments for the challenges that

deliberative engagement presented. However, linking back to the earlier

discussion around willing explorers needing to cultivate strategic influence,

these leaders did need to be authoritative.

Whilst it can be said that certain leadership traits tended to shape a more

enabling environment, it is important to acknowledge that even where CEOs

supported more adaptive approaches, some council staff were instinctively

apprehensive:

I think we’re very good as a council that we put our head down and sort of

keep doing what we’re doing. Because it’s always worked. And the CEO is

continuously saying, don’t do that, do things differently, pivot. But I don’t

think the organisation’s got the understanding about how to do that. And I

think probably as an organisation, we maybe should have done a bit more

capacity building around what does doing things differently look like?

(Coordinator Verona Interview 1)

The comment above demonstrates how individual agency can be constrained

even in situations where policy actors are being compelled by leadership to

adapt. It illustrates that some individuals are conditioned to make choices within

the constraints of their past training and constituent understanding of their role

(Merton, 1940). From this positionality, it is inevitable that some policy actors will

revert to what they know, irrespective of leadership practices. In the context of

the individual above, the critical mass of colleagues and executive members

that championed a willing explorer disposition meant that their resistance was

effectively eclipsed. As the next section explores, the combination of leadership

along with a collective drive for change was fundamental.

8.8.2 Collaborative approaches and building organisational

buy-in

In addition to the growth mindsets described previously, organisations in which

the willing explorer disposition were most prominent seemed to have embedded

collaborative approaches with relatively high cross-organisational buy-in.

Interviews highlighted the importance of a sense of collegiality, where the

deliberative engagement practices were understood as an organisation-wide

initiative and accountabilities were shared:

I’ve seen some real coalition of everyone from a team perspective to get

things done. We’ve just committed to it, agreed that this is what we want to

do with our community, and we’ve just done it. (Manager Ragusa Interview

I think for us, from a culture perspective, it was about saying ‘we’re all in

on this, this could go anywhere, but just understand, no one’s going to

step away from the process and what will be will be’ … and obviously, I’m

sure they felt nervousness at different points in time. But, from my

perspective, we always knew that we were going to be pushing this thing

potentially to fail point, and then we just needed to be all in on that. (CEO

Bologna Interview 1)

We’ve got to work together on this, and actually, if we don’t, it won’t work

at all. So there were times where it did go sideways, there were times

when we had amazing outcomes. But the commitment to the project, and

the process, continued throughout. (Consultant 1)

Reflecting on the comments above, it can be inferred that where there was a

collective endeavour, there was also shared accountability, and therefore, less

individual risk if ‘things went sideways’. This is more meaningful when

considered against the backdrop of ambiguity, trepidation, and compressed

timeframes described earlier. With limited experience of deliberative

engagement practices, there was clearly a higher level of perceived risk that

needed to be reconciled, more collaborative approaches with strong

organisational buy-in could have been a means to mitigating this risk by sharing

it.

The value of strong organisational buy-in was also noted in the organisational

survey where, of a possible 11 options, the highest number of respondents

indicated that if they had more time and resources they would have spent ‘more

time building greater buy-in and input from across different areas of the

organisation’ (53%). Whilst the survey did not ask for any commentary that

explains this response, it is unlikely that the rationale was based solely on

sharing risk. Some of the interviews suggested greater organisational buy-in

was also associated with enhancing the impact of the deliberative engagement

process:

I think early on in the process when deliberative engagement was

discussed there were certain key people who should have been in those

conversations who weren’t … it meant that not all of the strategic

document owners were on the same page about what needed to be done

… there definitely might have been less confusion about what [deliberative

engagement] kind of looked like, or how it would have factored it into their

plans if they had. (Officer Brescia Interview 2)

So, in a couple of councils, it was just the role of this one person, and it

was just their project, and so it doesn’t seem like it was going to get the

kind of the gravitas around how it was going to be implemented.

(Consultant 7)

Organisational buy-in was also identified by consultants as essential for

supporting decision-making around the design and delivery of deliberative

engagement practices:

We had lots of people who are at a more junior level who are really keen –

I’m really excited and wanted to do it. But we had the blockers at middle

management … And they are a really hard group to get to. (Consultant 5)

So what’s kind of this really weird dynamic that like we were working with

the engagement team but they didn’t have ownership of it in some

respects. (Consultant 1)

You can get [the community engagement team] over the line at meeting,

but then they get their huddles later on, and they kind of retreat to what

they know. (Consultant 3)

So, because this deliberative engagement was new, I think there was

scope for too many decisions going too far up, there was a bit of

nervousness when it came to signing off on stuff around the deliberative

process because people weren’t sure. (Consultant 11)

These comments indicate that staff responsible for deliberative engagement

practices often had limited positional authority and were sometimes operating

as a distinct and separate activity, disengaged from decision-making aspects of

strategic planning. As noted earlier when describing the willing explorer, in order

to generate organisational commitment to deliberative engagement outcomes,

council staff needed to champion processes and exert influence across the

organisational hierarchy. Furthermore, the data presented here suggests that

the capacity to enact change and convince more senior staff to endorse

deliberative engagement practices was connected to how well the organisation

understood these practices as a collective endeavour rather than one area’s

responsibility. This requires not only certain individual agency but also an

organisational culture of collaboration and cooperative practices.

These sections demonstrate that the willing explorer disposition was supported

by growth mindset leadership styles as well as collaborative organisational

cultures. These are two topics that have extensive public management literature

that could be drawn on; however, a thorough exploration of the empirical

findings of this research in the context of this literature, while interesting, lies

outside the main focus of the work in this thesis.

8.9 Organisational cultures that reinforced the ‘functionalist’

disposition

While the organisational cultures that enabled a willing explorer disposition were

collaborative and demonstrated more adaptive approaches, this does not imply

that those with the functionalist disposition were necessarily uncooperative or

rigid. In fact, none of the councils involved in the study demonstrated those

types of organisational cultures, even though some staff exhibited functionalist

dispositions. As such, rather than exploring cultures that enabled a functionalist

disposition, it is perhaps more accurate to consider organisational cultures that

reinforced it. However, in this regard, the data was relatively limited.

At times, interviewees inferred that, despite their inclination, their operating

environment constrained them to tick-the-box approaches.

And I am not someone who normally operates at the level of just ticking

the box. And this time, I need to go, Well, you know what, I’m going to

manage a project and we might just tick the box this time. And I need to

just deal with that. (Coordinator Sassari Interview 1)

I think that we could have achieved more if I had permission to do a

longer, more in-depth process, but I didn’t. So I think I’ve done the best I

can with the resources that I knew I would be allocated. (Officer Spoleto

Interview 1)

These comments suggest that staff knowingly delivered processes they

considered inferior because they felt constrained to do so. Therefore, it is

possible that organisational cultures that prioritise compliance or efficiency

reinforce functionalist dispositions.

As noted, there is limited data regarding this aspect of the research so further

elaboration cannot be made. The scarcity of data is perhaps because these

organisational cultures were not evidenced in any of the councils that

participated in the research. Conceivably, this may be indicative of research

participants concealing aspects they believed would be interpreted negatively,

however this is not possible to verify. Future research that elicits this line of

inquiry may be worthwhile; nonetheless, the previous section outlined several

valuable insights into the organisational cultures that enabled willing explorers,

and therefore more ambitious implementation of the practices.

8.10 Building organisational capacity for deliberative

engagement practices

Thus far, this chapter has shown that deliberative engagement practices posed

a significant challenge for Victorian local government organisations that mostly

felt unprepared and under-resourced to deliver them effectively. The chapter

has also explored how two key dispositions emerged and the organisational

cultures that enabled or reinforced them. The final section examines how

organisational capacity for deliberative engagement practices is strengthened.

8.10.1 Continuous improvement and an iterative outlook

A recurrent theme in interviews was that how the practices were applied in this

first iteration and their relative ‘success’ would be formative for how councils

adopted the practices in future:

I think that those who had a bad ride will think ‘this is crap, we are not

going to do this again’. (Consultant 10)

It’s important that we get this right, because it’s the start – it is the

foundation of the way we’re going to proceed into the future … if we muck

this up, we’re just going to be forever trying to catch up and rectify the

situation. (Manager Como Interview 1)

If the proposal is too bold and innovative, then I’m just going to run up

against brick walls the whole way. So every time I do something, and it’s

successful, I kind of get this inherent permission to just go a little bit further

next time. And so that was what I was trying to do is like, Okay, what is

something that is a big step forward to our council, still has the concepts of

deliberation at its heart, but doesn’t kind of blow their minds so that they

immediately get defensive. (Officer Spoleto Interview 1)

This was not only seen as important for building organisational capacity, but

also for building greater support in the authorising environment:

We’re trying to do something new, because the way we do it this time will

influence the way in which our authorising environment will enable us to do

it next time. (Manager Rimini Interview 1)

Linked to the discussion about path dependence and logics of appropriateness

in Chapter 7, the comments above imply that building confidence around the

merits of deliberative engagement practices is instrumental to whether they will

be accepted as a valid course of action in future iterations. This aligns with

Kadlec and Friedman’s (2007) claim that ‘if deliberation does not result in

meaningful outcomes and change, it becomes increasingly difficult to make the

argument that resources and people’s time ought to be invested in deliberation

in the future’ (p. 7). Councils’ experiences this time around are therefore likely to

have determinate influence over the authorising environment and how practices

are resourced in future.

The intention to use this first experience of deliberative engagement practices

as a springboard for building organisational capacity and learning is also

apparent in the interview and survey data. Some interviewees acknowledged

the limitations of their process this time around and reconciled this with the

aspiration that the learnings could be applied for future engagement: That will

also be one of my recommendations, let’s not miss the opportunity to learn

something from this and put ourselves in the best position possible to not just

tick the box next time. (Coordinator Sassari Interview 1)

Aligned with this, in response to the multiple-choice question in the

organisational survey ‘If Council had more time or resources for the deliberative

engagement process, what do you think would be the best use for these?’, from

a possible 11 options, the second highest item selected was ‘improve the

evaluation of our deliberative engagement process for continuous

improvement’. Whilst the survey was a hypothetical question, and therefore it

cannot be inferred that resources would be allocated to improve evaluation in

future, it demonstrates an interest in applying the lessons from implementation

and developing organisational skills or capacity for deliberative engagement

practices. It may also mean that the State Government’s messaging of growth

mindset (as discussed in Chapter 6) did resonate.

It remains to be seen whether this interest in evaluation and continuous

improvement is realised; however, it could signal an intention to iteratively

improve practices. It is possible that, in their first execution, deliberative

engagement practices were designed to accommodate the unprecedented

circumstances the sector found itself in; however, going forward, as deliberative

engagement practices become more familiar, practices may become more

ambitious. It would seem that this is the general position of councils, and not

dissimilar to what the Victorian State Government had anticipated when it was

championing a growth mindset approach.

Accepting that this may be the case, capacity building will require more than

evaluation. When interviewees were asked about capacity building, they tended

to list what might be considered predictable answers: improved training and

increased resources. These are not dissimilar to Christensen and McQuestin’s

(2019) research where Australian local government employees reported that the

main barriers to delivering community engagement activities were

underresourcing and poor planning. The following two sections explore these

factors.

8.10.2 Building expertise in deliberative engagement

practices

Whilst interviewees and survey respondents commonly asserted that

professional development was needed to improve deliberative engagement

practices, building capacity through training is not without its complexities. As a

starting point, the only deliberative engagement training currently available in

Victoria is delivered by individuals who are also commercial deliberative

engagement service providers. Whilst it is fair to say that many of these service

providers have shared information free of charge, there is an intrinsic conflict of

interest as these experts also have significant motivation to ensure certain

aspects of the practices remain outsourced, and some competencies are

separated from councils’ internal capabilities. As noted in Chapter 6, this conflict

of interest was flagged by some interviewees. This phenomenon is not

particular to Victorian local government, it has been identified by scholars who

have described it as the ‘marketisation of deliberative democracy’ (Hendricks &

Carson, 2008) and have cautioned that practices that are spearheaded by an

‘emergent deliberative industry’ (Amelung, 2012, pp. 13–14; Christensen &

Grant, 2020) may be compromised by their commercial bottom lines.

Perhaps because of this, some interviewees and survey respondents suggested

that government organisations such as Local Government Victoria (LGV) should

deliver professional development initiatives instead. The potential for LGV to

have an expanded role in capacity building also predates the Victorian Local

Government Act 2020; it was noted by the Victorian Auditor-General (VAGO,

2017), who stressed that the State Government did not provide enough support

and guidance to councils, and ‘to improve practices and maximise community

value, LGV could do more to identify specific weaknesses in public participation

and promote better practice across councils’ (p. viii).

At a webinar in November 2020, an LGV manager indicated that there was a

mixture of capacity building initiatives being developed. These included

establishing a community of practice through IAP2 Australasia; developing tools

that increase understanding around deliberative engagement practices; and

providing information regarding how to scale deliberative engagement

processes according to councils’ resources. They stated ‘we’ll continue to work

on those and support councils about the questions they have and what they

need to actually truly embed this type of engagement with their communities’

(VLGA, 2020). Three years later, at the time of writing, this community of

practice and these tools have not yet been established.

Furthermore, even though interviewees and survey respondents expressed a

need to build organisational competencies, some of the survey data suggests it

is not a priority. When asked ‘if Council had more time or resources for the

deliberative engagement process, what do you think would be the best use for

these?’, the second lowest response was ‘Spend more time or resources to

better understand what deliberative engagement is and how it can be used

effectively for our strategic plans’ (33%). In addition to showing little appetite for

dedicating more resources towards developing their understandings, council

staff have even less for engaging consultants in more substantive manner;

‘Increase the scope of the consultants’ brief so they can be more involved’ (4%)

was by far the lowest response of 11 options. However, this may be, in part,

because consultants were engaged not necessarily for their specific skills but to

alleviate workload needs:

And I wonder if, in four years’ time, and deliberative engagement and

community engagement is more ingrained in the organisation, whether I

suppose you don’t need the consultants because it’s become more just

business as usual. Yeah, that’ll be interesting. I’m not convinced it will be

because I think there is also the workload component. (CEO Tivoli

Interview 2)

Considered collectively, the data in this section demonstrates what capacity

building entails, what would be considered a worthwhile use of resources, and

which actors will be responsible for it, remains relatively elusive. These factors

need to be considered more rigorously if the local government sector is to build

greater competencies in deliberative engagement practices going forward.

8.10.3 Funding deliberative engagement practices: how much is enough?

In terms of increased resourcing, the perception that deliberative engagement

practices are resource intensive and therefore, financially onerous for councils

was a pervading theme across all data. Comments such as the following were

received regularly:

The Act specifies that councils work towards DE. I suspect we’ll still be

working towards it in 20 years’ time, unless the State Government decide

to provide grant money to assist in running a true deliberative engagement

in each council area. (Email from a councillor received April 2022 following

the distribution of the survey)

Whilst this was predicted, a decision was made not to collect data related to the

budget councils allocated to their deliberative engagement practices. The

rationale for this was that what different councils might consider sufficient or

appropriate resourcing is highly contextual, and there was some doubt that

having exact figures would provide meaningful data.

What is perhaps more pertinent is the consistent narrative that deliberative

engagement practices are financially burdensome, and how this narrative is

used to justify the constrained efforts of councils. Without suggesting that

councils had ample budgets (they are finite, particularly in small rural councils),

there were several references in interviews that indicate budget allocations

could be negotiated and were increased:

We had to go to the exec twice, they’d knocked us back the first time,

didn’t believe that we needed any resources. And we had to go back a

second time to advocate and then got the resources … we also had to

really say this is fundamentally different to what we’ve done before, to shift

thinking in executive and management’s expectations of what needed to

be done. (Manager Rimini Interview 1)

I said to [Manager] in a meeting, ‘you can’t just go in and ask for the

money. You’ve got to go in and sell the idea’ when they’re jazzed about the

idea and the process, that’s when you say ‘and this is what it’s going to

cost. (Officer Spoleto Interview 1)

When I debriefed with the executive, they said, next time we need more

resources, and potentially two panels. So, somewhere along the way,

they’ve shifted. (Coordinator Sassari Interview 1)

These comments demonstrate that positions on budget allocations could shift

depending on the resonance of the rationales presented. The research found

numerous examples of resources being increased as the deliberative

engagement practices were implemented. This was seen in each of the councils

that were involved in the research and was also noted by several consultants. In

addition, given that the legislation itself did not mandate a certain scope for

deliberative engagement practices, arguments that resource constraints are to

blame for restrained processes are possibly misleading.

With an institutionalist lens, these arguments may instead be more aligned to

policy actors finding reasons for their actions that are ‘pulled from frameworks

such as institutional constraints, organisational premises, plans, expectations,

acceptable justifications, and traditions inherited from predecessors’ (Weick et

al., 2005, p. 409). Instead, of focusing on resource constraints, it might therefore

be more useful to return to the concept of perceived public value, or lack

thereof, and how this was interpreted.

As noted in Chapter 6, when determining how deliberative engagement

practices would be adapted, policy actors would have inevitably considered to

what degree these practices were a justifiable use of council resources.

Cognisant of the pragmatic constraints, the practices needed to be reconciled

with what was interpreted as a valuable and effective use of council resources.

This is particularly the case for local governments as their functions are usually

couched terms of instrumental utility (McDonnell, 2021). It is possible that

arguments about a lack of resources are signals that the public value

proposition of deliberative engagement practices was not sufficiently developed.

8.10.4 The importance of culture change in organisations

The previous two sections demonstrate that training and financial resources

alone are unlikely to build organisational capacity for deliberative engagement

practices. They suggest that further consideration also needs to be given to

understanding where the capability gaps are in local government organisations

as well as developing a stronger public value proposition for the practices.

Together with these, the research indicates that there is also a need for some

organisational cultural change, in particular, building greater trust in community.

As noted earlier when discussing the functionalist disposition, some council staff

demonstrated a resistance to sharing control of decision-making and an overall

wariness of community input. On the other hand, those with a willing explorer

disposition were focused on how deliberative engagement practices would

present valued outcomes for council. In more enabling approaches, community

input was seen as an opportunity rather than a threat to councils’ authority. This

pivotal difference in perspectives was identified by some consultants: I think we

need to solve the problem of people not trusting people, you know, public

servants not trusting people, not valuing the input of community, and I don’t

know that putting in legislation and creating a tickbox exercise solves that.

(Consultant 5)

[Notes a lack of] belief that people in the community are actually capable

of thinking about their own interest and can appreciate complexity, can put

themselves in the position of council trying to make tough decisions ... they

really had a negative view of the community, like the community is

basically a problem to manage, rather than an asset to work with.

(Consultant 3)

It is therefore feasible that one of the critical barriers to improved deliberative

engagement practices is this conceptual bias of some public managers. This

finding is consistent with the OCED’s (2020) claim that the institutionalisation of

democratic innovations will require cultural change within the public service and

to shift citizen participation being viewed as ‘a threat or an expensive additional

step’ (p. 14). In order to achieve this, Brown and Head (2019) have argued that

a reconceptualisation of community as a resource to the system rather than

simply beneficiaries of it is needed. Returning to the earlier point about

developing a stronger public value proposition, greater attention also needs to

be given to the assumptions underpinning how public managers currently

perceive community engagement and how this may be actively compromising

the institutionalisation of democratic innovations. Without addressing the

resistance and scepticism that surrounds attempts to increase public

participation in decision-making, democratic innovations can be subverted.

8.11 Conclusion

This chapter focuses on the operational capacity of the local government sector

and how this impacted the design and delivery of deliberative engagement

practices. It begins with an overview of the complex environment and

challenging period the sector was experiencing while simultaneously

implementing deliberative engagement practices. The chapter examines how

this environment is likely to have reinforced tick-the-box behaviours that

shoehorned practices and reduced incentives for more ambitious approaches.

Furthermore, the research found evidence of mimetic behaviours whereby

council staff tended to rely on their sector-based communities of practice rather

than engaging with those that had experience of deliberative engagement

practices. This meant that understandings of appropriate or even acceptable

standards of practice were predominantly based on imitation and the conceptual

biases of local government organisations. In terms of the institutionalisation of

democratic innovations, the chapter demonstrates that their integrity is

significantly at risk of being compromised in favour of organisational

predispositions and constraints.

Two broad dispositions of policy actors emerged from the findings. These are

referred to as the willing explorer and the functionalist. Whereas those who

were willing explorers exhibited enabling and adaptive approaches and were

able to create a sense of opportunism and efficaciousness around deliberative

engagement practices, those with a functionalist disposition tended to resist

losing control of strategic planning and favoured practices that resembled the

status quo. Where the willing explorer was able to render deliberative

engagement practices more manageable, working within the ‘messiness’ to

guide their organisations in making sense of the legislative requirements, the

functionalist was more inclined to use narratives that focused on compliance,

stability, efficiencies, and pragmatic challenges. How organisational cultures

and leadership may have supported or reinforced these dispositions was

explored; however, it is clear that individual agency and how policy actors

reconcile the task of operationalising deliberative engagement practices with

their own role and expertise is critical.

The chapter concludes with consideration of capacity building, reflecting on how

a continuous improvement approach seems to be resonant in the sector and

hypothesising about whether improved capabilities and resources might see

enhanced deliberative engagement practices in the future. This analysis found

that arguments about a lack of capabilities or resources may more accurately be

signals that the public value proposition of deliberative engagement practices is

not sufficiently developed. Furthermore, it highlights that perceptions about

community’s capacity to participate effectively in government decision-making

requires consideration. Given that councils’ experiences in these first iterations

are likely to have determinate influence over how practices evolve in the future,

the chapter proposes that greater attention needs to be given to the values

underpinning current practices; how they may be actively compromising the

institutionalisation of democratic innovations, and what might be required to shift

them.

Chapter 9: Institutionalising

deliberative engagement:

unsticking dominant paradigms

and norms

Even though we’ve been through this process and every council in

Victoria has now done something deliberative, or ‘deliberation light’, I still

don’t think the penny has really dropped. I still think there’s a lot of work

to be done to link this with democracy and the democratic process.

(Consultant 3)

9.1 Introduction

The empirical chapters of this thesis demonstrate the complexities of

operationalising the deliberative engagement practices legislated by the

Victorian Local Government Act 2020. The findings show that, in the absence of

clear guidelines, local government organisations adapted deliberative

engagement practices to suit organisational preferences, and despite the

incongruity of some of the emergent practices, they were legitimised with

narratives that rationalised policy actors’ choices. The findings provide a more

nuanced understanding of how democratic innovations are institutionalised, or

perhaps more accurately, the factors that act as barriers to this

institutionalisation. This chapter provides an exposition of the keys findings of

the thesis, drawing out what they reveal and positioning them within the context

of existing scholarship.

This chapter begins by bringing together the individual findings from each of the

empirical chapters, and at the same time each of the research questions, to

explain how they build a layered understanding of how deliberative engagement

practices were operationalised. The chapter then considers how the findings

from each of the empirical chapters interconnect and create a fuller description

of the competing tensions and compelling narratives that manifested. These

findings are also considered in the context of relevant scholarship to position the

research within existing understandings of democratic innovations. The next

part of the chapter reflects on the theoretical frameworks that were applied in

the study. This part begins by considering the use of the public value strategic

triangle and how exploring all three points (value, authorising environment, and

operational capacity) enriched the study. It then reflects on the use of an

institutionalist lens, outlining the advantages of interrogating data through the

frames of rules, narratives, and practices. Therefore, this chapter provides a

comprehensive account of the research findings before moving on to the

conclusion of the thesis, which outlines its overall contribution.

9.2 Summary of research findings

The research set out to broaden understanding of how democratic innovations

are institutionalised through the Victorian Local Government Act 2020 case

study and three main research questions. This section provides an overview of

the most cognate findings as they relate to each of those research questions to

summarise them before the chapter explores what they determine for the

research overall.

9.2.1 Understanding and Interpretation

The first research question: How are deliberative engagement practices

understood and interpreted by local government organisations? explored how

the intended normative, epistemic, and pragmatic value of deliberative

engagement practices were actualised through examining how they were

conceptualised and realised by local government in Victoria.

As outlined earlier in the thesis, the Victorian Local Government Act 2020 was

explicitly framed as a means for improving democracy, and the application of

deliberative engagement practices were presumed to intrinsically ‘protect the

democracy of local government practices and decision making while ensuring

the community’s voice and priorities match that of the council’ (LGV, 2022, p.8).

Whilst clear in its aspirations, the legislation also afforded local governments a

great deal of autonomy in shaping the interpretation and operationalisation of

deliberative engagement practices, leaving it to individual councils to define it

for themselves.

To understand its legislative requirements, the local government sector reported

having undertaken a considerable number of sense-making activities. However,

these activities were different depending on whether policy actors were local

government employees or elected representatives. For local government

employees, although there was some engagement with policy actors who could

be conceived of as experts (such as consultants), the sector generally looked to

each other (i.e., their local government colleagues) to understand acceptable

standards of practice. Conversely, elected representatives relied on what they

were told by their executive and what was presented to them as best practice at

meetings. As explored in Chapter 8, this meant the interpretation of deliberative

engagement practices was influenced by ‘mimetic behaviours’ (DiMaggio &

Powell, 1983) with models that had been informed primarily by the adaptations

and constraints of local government organisations consistently applied across

the sector.

Once reconciled with the fact that the sector had expressed apprehension

around the suitability and necessity for the mandatory introduction of

deliberative engagement practices, and in the absence of any definitive

legislated guidelines, the research found that resultant deliberative engagement

practices were vulnerable to co-option and interpreted to suit the conceptual

leanings of public managers. Whilst some incremental changes were perceived

by those interviewed, this research also highlights how the practices emerged

that, perhaps inadvertently, reinforced the status quo. This is problematic for the

legislative aspirations of revitalising democracy and has implications for the

institutionalisation of deliberative engagement practices, which is explored later

in this chapter.

When considering how deliberative engagement practices were interpreted,

whilst their potential benefits and value was assumed by the legislation, it is

likely this was not recognised by policy actors in the local government sector.

For some, particularly council employees in community engagement roles, it

presented an opportunity to leverage a more conducive authorising environment

and broaden engagement practices; however, for many, the value proposition of

deliberative engagement practices was either consistently challenged or

remained ambiguous. Although the adverse response that characterised the

legislation while it was being developed was mostly tempered by the time it was

being implemented, the preparedness of local government to adapt its ways of

engaging the community was still nascent, perhaps because the instrumental

value of deliberative engagement remained elusive.

The research demonstrates that deliberative engagement practices and their

institutionalisation are vulnerable to co-option where the impetus for change is

not strong enough to shift the dominant paradigms. This understanding is critical

to underpinning the cultural shifts needed for deliberative engagement practices

to be operationalised in a manner that is more likely to achieve the normative

and epistemic aspirations they were conceived to address; without it, their

practical application will inevitably contend with pragmatic constraints.

9.2.2 The authorising environment and legitimacy

The second question posed was: How does the authorising environment

influence the design and implementation of deliberative engagement practices,

including their perceived legitimacy? Of the three research questions, this was

the most challenging to answer because it assumes the authorising

environment influences the design and delivery of deliberative engagement

processes when in fact, this was not entirely observed in the data. Although

much of the extant literature on democratic innovations underscores the

ascendancy of elected representatives, this was not necessarily the case in the

context of the reforms in the Victorian Local Government Act 2020. Rather than

having any discernible influence over the deliberative engagement practices

that were delivered, somewhat paradoxically, the research found that elected

representatives were influenced by how they were designed and implemented.

This was particularly the case in terms of how the authorising environment

perceived the legitimacy of deliberative engagement practices.

The research data suggests that the more engaged councillors were in the

deliberative engagement process, the more legitimacy they conferred on the

integrity of its outcomes and the deliberative cohort. Proximity meant that, rather

than perceiving deliberative engagement practices as a threat to their authority,

councillors were more likely to recognise the epistemic benefits of deliberative

processes.

However, in antithesis to this, the research also identified a dominant narrative

within the local government sector that asserted councillors should be kept at

arm’s length from deliberative engagement practices. The narrative argued that

separation would ensure the integrity of deliberative outcomes and more

authentic participation from community members. The genesis of this narrative

is unclear given there were no documented accounts of this ‘rule’, nor is it

supported by any of the more experienced consultants in the sector. As such,

deliberative engagement practices emerged that were justified by a narrative

that was not only unfounded but compromised the perceived legitimacy of

deliberative processes.

In addition to the legitimacy that deliberative engagement practices were given

by elected representatives, this question also considered how deliberative

forums were legitimised in relation to existing participation practices and norms.

This was considered pertinent because the outcomes of a deliberative process,

and therefore its potential to realise the epistemic and normative assumptions it

is founded on, relies decisively on the legitimacy the process is conceded by its

authorising environment. This legitimacy is implicitly juxtaposed to the existing

systems of participation, which need to be reconciled with the inputs generated

from a deliberative engagement process.

Here, the research found that rather than reconfiguring how local government

conceptualised public participation, the deliberative engagement practices

implemented tended to reaffirm the primacy of existing engagement channels. It

also found that the strategies employed to recruit community members to the

deliberative engagement processes, however incongruous with the known

participation bias they usually produce, were justified as legitimate and their

representative claims were generally accepted. This is also illustrated with the

continued use of a public exhibition stage, which, although conceived of as

inclusive, is essentially a mechanism to override, edit out, and diminish the

recommendations of the deliberative process. These findings demonstrate that,

confronted by a sector not yet ready to accept the legitimacy of deliberative

processes as representative ‘enough’, continuity prevailed, buttressed by

perceptions that it would strengthen inclusion.

Overall, the research indicates that the administrative arm of local government

played a central role in framing the way deliberative engagement practices were

integrated into existing decision-making systems and supported by the

authorising environment. This may have been particularly pronounced given the

Victorian local government context where the research was undertaken and

where the executive has considerable authority. However, more broadly, the

research also demonstrates how dominant narratives can emerge to justify

practices that are inconsistent with the commonly argued rationales for the

ascendancy of democratic innovations.

Additionally, this research question illustrates that, whilst attention to how

democratic innovations interface with the role of elected representatives is

worthwhile, there is eminent value in broadening this attention to the

administrative arm of government, which, in the case of the Victorian Local

Government Act 2020, acted as gatekeepers between the legislated deliberative

engagement processes and elected representatives.

9.2.3 Operational cultures and constraints

The third research question: How do organisational cultures and constraints

inform how deliberative engagement practices are designed and implemented?

brought attention to aspects like the organisational context and individual

agency to gain a more complete understanding of how organisational dynamics

influenced practices.

Analysis suggested that the complex environment the legislation was

operationalised in was likely to have had a constitutive effect on how

deliberative engagement practices were realised. There were consistent

references to uncertainty, restrictive timeframes, and angst in interviews that

would have impacted the propensity of policy actors to engage with the

practices that had been, until then, relatively unknown. In addition, council staff,

who were accustomed to prescriptive legislation and therefore, certainty about

courses of action, needed to navigate an unfamiliar environment with few points

of reference to guide what the practice might look like for their organisation.

Finally, this occurred in a pressured context, where staff were adapting to new

practices whilst simultaneously managing the expectations and trepidations of

the authorising environment. These contextual characteristics may have

underpinned the mimetic behaviour of emergent practices described earlier, with

councils often looking to each other for reassurance or validation around how

they should proceed. This suggests that, even while the legislation allowed for

more context-specific approaches, councils’ innate tendencies towards

homogeneity may, over time, result in deliberative engagement practices that

coalesce into models consistently applied across the sector, regardless of

whether they are fit for purpose and irrespective of the normative and epistemic

potential they are founded on.

In addition to how the factors noted above constrained deliberative engagement

practices, the research found that the predisposition of policy actors also

affected design choices. Policy actors with a willing explorer disposition could

see the benefits of deliberative engagement practices and, importantly, created

more organisational buy-in by highlighting the instrumental value that could be

achieved. Conversely, those with a functionalist disposition found

operationalising the new legislative requirements challenging and expressed a

reluctance to engage the community more meaningfully in decision-making. In

the case of functionalist dispositions, there was more potential for path

dependency and tick-box behaviours that tended to maintain established norms

and engagement processes.

The research also uncovered various organisational dynamics that influenced

how deliberative engagement was designed and implemented. For some

organisations, this led to more adaptive approaches; however, for others,

existing processes and norms were reinforced. Ultimately, in the context of the

research question, it is clear that public managers are not just passive

bystanders to legislation; they interpret and apply policy based on their own

constructs of what an appropriate course of action is and can have an

instrumental effect on how practices are realised.

9.3 When values, legitimacy and capacity combine

This section brings together the research findings, considering how each of the

findings from the research questions and empirical chapters interconnect and

create a fuller description of the competing tensions and compelling narratives

that manifested. These are also considered in the context of relevant

scholarship to position the research within existing knowledge. Four key

considerations emerge from collectively considering the findings: firstly, whether

the practices that emerged indicate ambiguity or obfuscation by the sector and

what this means for how the legislative reform was framed; secondly, how what

occurred in Victoria is symptomatic of the vulnerability of these practices to

cooption more broadly; thirdly, what the evidenced ‘institutional stickiness’

(Lowndes, 2005) reveals about the role of public managers in democratic

innovations; and finally, what these findings might mean in the context of

institutionalising democratic innovations and their normative aspirations to ‘save

democracy’.

9.3.1 Ambiguity or obfuscation?

The empirical chapters of this thesis provide examples of how deliberative

engagement practices in Victoria were vulnerable to co-option. The findings

show how dominant narratives emerged to justify practices that were

inconsistent to expert recommendations, as they did with the exclusion of

councillors from observing deliberative processes. In addition, the narratives

were powerful enough to create perceptions that are inherently contradictory,

such as how deliberative processes were thought to have engaged the silent

majority when, in fact, most processes were unlikely to have done so.

Problematically for reform efforts, the research found that rules can be so

ingrained in existing practices that even when those rules no longer exist, the

practices persist, as occurred with the use of public exhibition stages. Whilst it

was clear from the research findings that deliberative engagement practices

were adapted to meet the norms and constraints of local government

organisations, it is unclear whether this ‘concept-stretching’ (Collier & Mahon,

1993) emerged from genuine ambiguity and lack of understanding around the

deliberative engagement practices or potentially, obfuscation.

Each of the examples cited above can be interpreted as the result of

deliberative engagement practices being resisted by policy actors who

perceived the new requirements as hostile to their interests. Equally however,

for some policy actors, the same courses of action were in line with what they

genuinely believed were acceptable standards of practice. In the latter case,

deviation from what are generally considered proper practices were not the

product of their resistance; rather, it was an indication of just how dominant

some narratives were.

It could be argued that not enough was understood about deliberative

engagement practices when the legislation was passed. This was a prominent

position expressed by local government sector, and the research highlighted the

significant apprehension that surrounded the legislation when it was formally

passed. The lack of a definition and resistance of the Victorian State

Government to provide any further elucidation led to an ambiguous policy

environment and meant that there were few anchor points to inform councils’

practices. However, what could be described as the ‘regulatory vacuum’

surrounding the legislation also meant that it was wide open to interpretation.

This latitude was also reinforced with the consistent messaging of a growth

mindset from the State Government, which encouraged each council to design

processes based on their own contextual terms. Whilst potentially intended to

mitigate some of the expressed concerns from the sector around resources,

these circumstances may have also given licence to councils for tick-the-box

behaviours, rationalising that they would improve their practices next time. As

such, the legislator may have unintentionally created an environment where

there was no real imperative to make significant organisational shifts, and it is

reasonable to think that some of the practices that emerged ‘stemmed from

biases and constraints placed upon the process by those who wish to exercise

control over it for their own ends’ (Kadlec & Friedman, 2017, p. 7).

Putting this dichotomy aside, an interesting question is what the legislator might

make of this, particularly in the context of what it described as the impetus for

the legislative reform. Clearly, the State Government anticipated that different

councils would interpret deliberative engagement practices in various ways.

This was accommodated through the autonomy councils were given in defining

deliberative engagement. However, as examined in Chapter 6, it seems that the

State Government assumed the principles and values driving the legislative

reform were understood and shared by local governments. These principles

were never explicitly articulated, and therefore it is difficult to know whether the

extent of deviation from standard deliberative engagement practices was

foreseen or considered acceptable by the authors of the legislation. They may

feel that, whilst moderate, the shifts that have occurred as a result of the

legislation are encouraging for the gradual improvement of community

engagement practices. Alternatively, their expressed aspirations for the

practices to significantly reconfigure the relationship between communities and

councils did not come to fruition and there may be a sense that the legislation

has been subverted in a manner that significantly diverges from its intended

application. The Victorian State Government and other entities in the authorising

environment such as the Victorian Auditor-General’s Office have been decidedly

silent on the matter. Whether they intend to revisit this aspect of the legislation,

perhaps create guidelines, remains to be seen.

While the scope of this research does not allow for contemplating whether, from

the legislator’s perspective, what has occurred in Victoria was ‘enough’; some

important questions emerge regarding institutionalising democratic innovations

through regulatory reform. Principally, had the legislation been more

prescriptive, or what constitutes deliberative engagement, been much clearer,

would it have made a difference to the way it was implemented?

Speculatively, prescriptive legislation is likely to have been received with

antagonism, especially considering the response to deliberative engagement

requirements when the legislation was in draft, as explored in Chapter 5.

However, some scholars argue it would be beneficial. For example, Cooper and

Smith (2012) found that negligence or lack of understanding about public

participation processes on the part of public authorities was the cause of poor

practice rather than explicit manipulation (p. 22). Their findings suggest a need

for clear codes of conduct. However, they add that, beyond systems of

selfregulation that are managed through guiding principles or a code of practice,

governments should also be directly involved. They call for an independent,

publicly funded agency that is responsible for ‘promoting, publicising, regulating,

moderating, summarising, and evaluating’ practices’ (p. 32).

In the context of this research, it is unlikely that Local Government Victoria

(LGV) would have pursued such an extensive role in the implementation of the

legislation. Much of its capacity building initiatives were framed as ‘co-design’,

and it appeared to have given preference to a collaborative rather than

authoritarian role. However, even if LGV was to take a more active role in the

implementation of deliberative engagement practices, the learnings from the

Tuscany Regional Participation Policy discussed in Chapter 2 should also be

considered. The Tuscan legislation was developed through a participatory

process where a broad range of stakeholders contributed to defining the goals,

contents, and features of the law. In addition, an agency was established to

provide both financial incentives and methodological support for local

administrators. Nonetheless, some suggested that the legislation was too rigid

and imposed unreasonable explications on local authorities (Ravazzi, 2007;

Bherer et al., 2017). Whilst clearer measures might address ambiguity, they are

unlikely to combat obfuscation.

Rather than necessarily prescriptive measures, Lowndes and Wilson (2001)

propose a slightly different approach. They argue that institutional design is

inescapably a normative process and, as such, there should be clarity about the

values being promoted (and challenged) within institutional reform programs.

This was demonstrated in an analysis of the Local Government Act 2000 in the

United Kingdom, where scholars found that without ‘a clear articulation of

democratic priorities and values, practices emerged which, rather than shifting

deeply embedded institutional norms, were in fact adapted to reinforce

institutional priorities and values’ (Pratchett, 2004, p. 372). In the context of this

research, this suggests that had the State Government been more explicit about

the principles that underpinned the legislation, there may have been different

outcomes. This is the opinion of the newDemocracy Foundation (2022), which,

in its learnings report on the Victorian Local Government Act 2020, stated ‘it was

evident that many examples of work undertaken breached the two most

fundamental principles of deliberative engagement practices’ (p. 2, emphasis in

original), and if there had been clearer ‘deliberative principles or essentials’

communicated, it would have ‘resulted in numerous changes to the rollout.’

While clearer articulation of the principles is likely to have generated benefits, it

may still have been insufficient to inspire more ambitious practices. This is

perhaps most clearly demonstrated in how the principle of inclusion was

realised. Whilst many interviewees expressed that they wanted to reach beyond

the ‘squeaky wheel’ and engage with the ‘silent majority’, they nevertheless

utilised recruitment and public exhibition processes that were antithetical to

these intentions. Importantly, despite some practices being at odds with the

apparent principle of inclusion, they did not necessarily impact the perceived

legitimacy of the processes (as seen in Chapter 7). Therefore, it is possible that

articulating the principles alone may not be sufficient to make a material impact

on resultant practices.

In conclusion, it would be erroneous to think that a more prescriptive regulatory

environment or clearer articulation of principles would have fully addressed the

dilemmas of ambiguity and obfuscation. Notwithstanding the reasonable

assumption that greater clarity in the legislation would have been helpful, it is

unlikely to have catalysed the anticipated level of change hypothesised by the

State Government. Whether the Victorian State Government decides to create

guidelines in the future remains to be seen; however, beyond more an explicit

articulation of principles, the research shows that there needs to be careful

consideration of the incentives and drivers that currently underpin how the

practices are realised. This also speaks to the larger issue of how the integrity

of democratic innovations is determined and evaluated.

9.3.2 What’s integrity got to do with it?

The research findings describe several practices that deviated considerably

from what would commonly be understood as best practice for deliberative

engagement practices. It also found that, when this occurred, it did not

necessarily impact the legitimacy conferred on the process by the authorising

environment. In fact, in some cases, legitimacy was maintained even when the

practices were fundamentally in conflict with the normative and epistemic

outcomes that democratic innovations are designed to achieve (e.g., the

recruitment methods used or the continuance of the public exhibition period).

The research highlights how susceptible democratic innovations can be to

cooption, which consequently risks the ongoing integrity of these practices.

This dilemma around integrity has been pointed out by several scholars: Neblo

(2005) cautions scholars not to stretch the concepts to ‘the point of vacuity’ (p.

529); Goodin (2018, cited in Ercan et al., 2022) warns that the expansion of

conceptual approaches and interpretations raises concerns about ‘concept

stretching’; and, similarly, Steiner (2008) argues that ‘the concept of deliberation

has become so faddish that it is in danger of being “stretched” until it becomes

virtually a synonym for talk of any kind’ (p. 186). Whilst the research agrees with

Curato et al. (2021), who advance the importance of ‘building a shared

vocabulary among scholars, practitioners and policymakers that recognises

good practice consistent with normative principles of deliberation’ (p. viii), this

must be reconciled within the fact that no singular construct of the practices

exists. Indeed, it can be argued that there is great deal of conceptual ambiguity

around what should qualify as a democratic innovation and its constituent parts

(as described in Chapter 2). In a field where it has been suggested there are ‘as

many definitions of deliberation as there are theorists’ (Mutz, 2008, p. 525), it is

unclear who decides which approach to progress for each context. Specifically,

in the case of the Victorian Local Government Act 2020, this standard-bearer

was notably absent.

The issue this absence raises can be illustrated through how the analysis for

this research almost deviated. Initial analysis of the research data had leaned

towards further problematising the integrity of deliberative engagement

practices and how they were being applied through the legislation. However, it

became clear that had this line of inquiry continued and started to compare how

the practices applied in Victoria stood up to different deliberative absolutes, the

analysis could have ended up in an ideological rabbit warren, in essence

becoming an ineffective attempt to assert practices that were closely aligned

with the researcher’s own ontological position. Indeed, prominent scholars have

recognised that ‘only a few innovations come close to passing the strict

theoretical tests of any one model and typically only squeeze through by

overlooking certain aspects of their design’ (Smith, 2009, p. 10). In this regard,

the research reveals the risk of placing too much attention on which

interpretations of deliberative fora most accurately reflect the ideals of

democratic innovations; instead, this research underscores the value of

examining the constructs that underpin the design choices of their architects.

This approach to inquiry assumes that some degree of ‘concept stretching’ is

inevitable; however, it does leave open debate about what can be considered

‘good enough’. Goodin (2005) provides a pithy response to this question: ‘the

answer must surely be, “it depends”’ (p. 193), suggesting focus should be on

whether all ‘deliberative virtues’ are on display at some point in the

decisionmaking process. Goodin concedes that ‘it may not be ideal, but it might

be tolerably acceptable’ (p. 183). This sobering perspective seems a long way

from the ideals of ‘protecting democracy’ (LGV, 2022) that the Victorian Local

Government Act 2020 was founded on, however it may be the most realistic. As

noted in the previous section, what the legislators make of how deliberative

engagement practices have been implemented is unknown, but this case study

demonstrates that the emancipatory potential of democratic innovations, that

permeates both what is written by academics and proponents can become quite

tempered ‘in the real world’.

9.3.3 Institutional stickiness

The empirical chapters demonstrate that, whether expressly or innately, existing

norms, organisational cultures, and individual agency had consequential

influence over how deliberative engagement practices were framed and

operationalised by local governments in Victoria. This is not only demonstrated

in Chapter 8, where the theme of organisational cultures was expected to

emerge, but also in Chapter 6 when examining how the practices were defined

and the influence they were afforded, and in Chapter 7 where public managers

acted as gatekeepers between deliberative engagement practices and elected

representatives. Consistently, the research found that public managers either

reverted to established norms or adapted practices to suit their partialities. As

shown in Chapter 7, this occurred even when those practices were effectively

undermining the deliberative engagement outcomes and creating tensions

within the authorising environment.

As established in Chapter 2, the role of public administration is not well explored

in scholarship around democratic innovations. While some scholars recognise

that institutional constraints and incentives matter (Smith, 2009; Nabatchi,

2010), they usually hypothesise that the potential value generated by

democratic innovations will sufficiently incentivise policy actors to pursue them

as an appealing course of action. However, the findings of this research

contradict this perception. The public managers in this research demonstrated

far more agency than usually inferred, they were not necessarily the

oftenperceived willing champions (Nabatchi, 2010), nor were they so compelled

by the anticipated benefits that they were inclined to take on the associated

‘burdens’ (Smith, 2009).

However, the findings echo some contributions found in the extant literature,

namely, the work of Lowndes and Wilson (2001) who emphasised the tenacity

of bureaucratic institutional frameworks that frequently persist alongside

innovations or adapt to incorporate (and effectively ‘defuse’) reforms. This was

also identified in the work on public participation by Brown and Head (2019),

who found that public servants were anchored in existing organisational cultures

and therefore, existing norms not only crowded out efforts at reform but could

work against them. The research findings, therefore, provide a thorough

empirical account and build on the understandings of previous scholars by

demonstrating how public managers are not ‘passive bystanders’ (Moore,

1995), they are continually interpreting and applying democratic innovations

based on their own constructs of what is an appropriate or worthwhile course of

action.

In addition to Eckerd and Heidelberg’s (2020) point that public managers ‘largely

determine the extent of participation, shape the way participation takes place

and decide whether or not it is valuable to their work’ (p. 133), this research

demonstrates that public managers also control how the practices are framed

through oversight of information about the practices and the mechanisms

through which it is distributed. The research provides several examples where,

whether intentionally or not, public managers created dominant narratives that

justified the emergent practices and, even when they were clearly incongruous,

those practices were rarely challenged by the authorising environment. This

perspective, which is essentially a version of the principal–agent problem (the

principal – the elected representative – in command cannot fully exercise their

power over the agent – bureaucrat – because of the information asymmetry

between the two; John, 2011, p. 62), has not yet been explored in a considered

way in democratic innovations scholarship.

These research findings demonstrate what Lowndes (2005) aptly describes as

‘institutional stickiness’. Not only is this institutional stickiness relevant to the

application of democratic innovations broadly but it also provides a critical

context for institutionalising the practices. These findings challenge the

prevalent position that legislating democratic innovations, or somehow

embedding them in the regulatory frameworks of governance, will ensure their

actualisation. For example, scholars such as Montambeault (2019) suggest that

it is because participatory budgeting is not regulated by legislation that it has a

precarious role in decision-making; they advance that if legislated, the

processes would rely less on the support and goodwill of bureaucrats. The

OECD concurs. However, this research demonstrates that even with legislation,

bureaucrats (or the local government executives in this case) still have a pivotal

role in their realisation. The research provides a more complete understanding

of the constraints that need to be addressed beyond legislative reform.

9.3.4 How will democratic innovations ‘save democracy’?

As noted at the beginning of this thesis, democratic innovations have burgeoned

over the past few decades, buoyed by an increasing number of academics and

proponents who champion them as a compelling counterbalance to claims of a

‘democratic deficit’ (Norris, 2011). Arguably caught up in this ‘deliberative wave’

(OECD, 2020), the Victorian Local Government Act 2020 was heralded as a

transformative piece of legislation, anticipating that ‘deliberative engagement

practices are designed to protect the democracy of local government practices

and decision making while ensuring the community’s voice and priorities match

that of the council’ (LGV, 2022, p. 8). However, the research demonstrates that

the actualisation of these practices was considerably more tempered than the

aspirational ideals of the legislator. This chapter’s previous sections explored

what the research findings reveal about institutionalising democratic

innovations. This section theorises about what they suggest about the ability of

democratic innovations to ‘save democracy’ (Stoker & Evans, 2022) and the

cultural shifts that may be required in public administration to enable this shift.

Overall, it can be said that the findings show a clear dichotomy between the

hegemonic ideals of improving democracy that are consistently attributed to

democratic innovations and the pragmatic constraints of those tasked with

operationalising these practices. In part, these findings are relatively consistent

with what is known about public administration and its tensions with the

expectations of democratic innovations. For example, it is mostly accepted that

democratic innovations demand a new social contract with citizens and that

‘public administrators are expected to relinquish power afforded by their

authority and expertise and develop new kinds of contact with citizens’

(Escobar, 2017, p. 149). This was evidenced throughout the empirical chapters

of this thesis, most notably in Chapter 8 when discussing the ‘functionalist’

disposition.

In addition, this research expanded understanding of the paradigmatic

differences between public administration, where competence is usually

attributed to qualities such as efficiency and effectiveness (Dean, 2023), and

democratic innovations, which by their nature are resource intensive and

relatively unpredictable. The institutional constructs that guide the norms of

public servants need to be resolved against the demands of democratic

innovations. This is particularly the case in a local government context, where

policy actors are predominantly concerned with the instrumental utility of public

participation (McDonnell, 2021; Aulich, 1999). This was again particularly

present in Chapter 8 but could also be seen in Chapters 5 and 6, where the

findings demonstrate that local government was operating from a distinct and

different values framework to that presumed by the legislation. The research

shows that the ‘public value proposition’ of deliberative engagement practices

was not reconciled neatly with how local government actors interpreted a

‘valuable and effective use of council resources’. This research finding aligns

with what Lowndes and Sullivan (2004) describe as the ‘equally important, but

rarely recognised, task of de-institutionalising old ways of working’ (p. 67). The

research reaffirms and provides a comprehensive empirical account of this

critical standpoint.

Expanding on this, through the willing explorers described in Chapter 8, the

research shows there is a need for policy actors to not only infer benefits of

pursing democratic innovations but also create organisational buy-in. That is,

these policy actors must take an active role in supporting their colleagues and

community of practice to navigate the ‘messiness’ and champion democratic

innovations in a way that is both potent and viable. The research reveals how

these willing explorers are needed to spearhead efforts for culture change. It

also demonstrates that there needs to be a critical mass; that one willing

explorer alone may get lost.

Beyond a focus on individual organisational cultures, the research also provides

an understanding of how the sector operates as a community of practice. It

demonstrates that since organisations tend to look to each other to understand

appropriate courses of action, in addition to addressing ‘institutional stickiness’,

the mimetic behaviours of organisations also need to be considered. DiMaggio

and Powell (1983) suggest that as organisations progressively reframe what is

acceptable practice, these become normatively sanctioned, which, in turn,

encourages the more hesitant sector actors to adopt them (p. 148). Given the

networked (and somewhat competitive) nature of Victorian local governments,

the research findings suggest that if a critical mass of councils begins to adopt

more ambitious deliberative engagement practices, and these practices become

normatively sanctioned, some of the more reticent councils may start to feel

pressure to improve their own processes. As a result, the incentive structures

that are currently missing from the legislation would become driven by the

community of practice itself.

In conclusion, the research demonstrates that if democratic innovations are to

live up to their hegemonic ideals of improving democracy, the cultural shifts

required in public administration need to consider the underlying values

frameworks, the agency and capabilities of willing explorers to champion these

new practices, and, more broadly, how communities of practice inform

incentives for change.

9.4 Exploring democratic innovations with public value theory

and institutionalism

9.4.1 The public value strategic triangle as a heuristic device

As outlined in Chapter 3, the research applied public value theory, and in

particular, the public value strategic triangle points of value, authorising

environment, and operational capacity, as a way to conceptualise and organise

the research approach. By taking this approach, the research was squarely

focused on the role that public managers play in institutionalising democratic

innovations which, as explained in Chapter 2, is an under-studied area in the

field. In addition, using the public value strategic triangle, the research could

create a more layered understanding of the variables public managers must

contend with when applying the practices. Rather than examine public

administration from one angle (e.g., operational capacity) the triangle allowed

the research to look beyond single factors and instead ensure the

interconnected and dynamic interplay of all three strategic triangle points were

considered. It could be argued that the approach provided a more nuanced

understanding and opened opportunities for new insights into factors that

impact how democratic innovations are embedded in the practice of government

organisations.

The use of the public value strategic triangle also presented some challenges.

The use of three triangle categories (public value, authorising environment, and

operational capacity), were initially purposively applied in the data analysis as

orienting concepts (Layder, 2013, p. 130); however, this process was more

exacting than originally anticipated. The interconnected nature of the strategic

triangle categories became increasingly apparent during analysis as themes

emerged that did not fit neatly into one of the three options and complications

arose around determining which findings were more suited to different points of

the triangle. This was particularly the case for the authorising environment,

which could have equally included findings around organisational leadership.

Trying to fit findings into these categories, whilst being cautious not to reduce

findings to only what fitted neatly, was a tension that needed to be managed

and perhaps speaks to the complexity of applying the public value theory to

empirical research (Hartley et al., 2017). Much as the interconnection between

the public value strategic triangle categories provided a lens through which to

draw out a more layered understanding of the data, this bleeding of themes also

complicated how the data would ultimately be organised and presented as

findings in the empirical chapters.

In addition to challenges applying the public value strategic triangle as an

organising concept, disjuncture occurred between the way the authorising

environment is usually perceived in public value theory and the way it

manifested in the research. Usually, public value theorists, including Moore

(1995), tend to understand the authorising environment as the realm of elected

representatives. The authority of public managers lies in developing proposals

around what is valued, which are then tested in the authorising environment and

modified against the views of elected politicians (Alford & O’Flynn, 2009).

Aligned with this, the research began with the assumption that elected

representatives would play a greater role in influencing the design and

implementation of deliberative engagement practices. However, the data

revealed that, in fact, public managers wielded significant influence; they

essentially controlled the narratives around what deliberative engagement was

and how councillors could engage with the practices. While the research

originally anticipated a greater focus on the role of elected representatives,

based on the assumption that the data would investigate how public managers

navigated the authorising environment to achieve their objectives, this did not

occur. As noted earlier, this meant that the research question that had been

aligned with the authorising environment and was based on how the authorising

environment is usually understood in public value theory, made incorrect

assumptions. Therefore, instead of focusing on elected representatives,

analysis centred on legitimacy because this is also considered part of the

authorising environment in public value theory.

Ultimately, despite the challenges described above, the application of public

value theory was considered highly useful for this research. It ensured the

complexities around value, legitimacy, and operational capacity were continually

recognised, and provided a useful lens to examine how public managers

navigated the dynamic interplay between these as they interpreted and

implemented deliberative engagement practices.

9.4.2 Institutionalism

In addition to the public value strategic triangle, institutionalist theory was a

critical lens for the research. This brought attention to the agency of public

managers and how their decisions were shaped by the inherent constraints or

incentives of dominant institutional paradigms. Examining the decisions of policy

actors through modes of constraint such as rules, practices, and narratives,

allowed for a better appreciation of why certain courses of action seemed more

compelling than others and an understanding of the narratives that supported

the emergent practices. In addition, this epistemological orientation meant that

the research was firmly focused on the institution of local government and how it

responded to legislative changes, rather than deliberative engagement

practices or democratic innovations per se. As noted in Chapter 2, few scholars

have explored democratic innovations from this perspective; therefore,

institutionalism offered a distinct perspective to current empirical

understandings.

Whilst the challenges experienced with applying public value theory did not

occur with institutionalism, there were times that the two theories and their

different frames of reference were in conflict. For example, an institutionalist

perspective suggests that policy actors use criteria of similarity and congruence

rather than likelihood and value when making decisions. Olsen and March

(2004) refer to the ‘logic of appropriateness’, contending that to act

appropriately is to proceed according to the practices of a collective, based on

mutual, and often tacit, understandings of what is true, reasonable, natural,

right, and good (p. 4). This framing could be identified in the data since local

governments clearly looked to each other for appropriate courses of action and

engaged in ‘mimetic behaviours’. However, these ‘logics of appropriateness’

might have pervaded because the public value proposition for changing

practices was not compelling enough. In this case, both theoretical framings

used in the research could have been equally germane. It is not possible to

decipher which theory most accurately describes what occurred, and although

in conflict, this demonstrates how both theories provided multiple entry points

for the interpretation of the research findings and deepening understanding.

An aspect not covered in the research that falls within an institutionalist

approach is exploring the influence and effect of enforcement. It has been

argued that rules, practices, and narratives not only need to be recognised by

actors, but they also need to be subjected to some type of third-party

enforcement, such as a professional association that upholds standards or

quality assurance (Lowndes & Roberts, 2013, p. 51). Whilst the issue of

compliance was prominent during the initial stages of sense-making and some

consultants interviewed lamented that there was no agreed standard for

deliberative engagement practices, the issue was not explored in a concerted

way. To some degree, the fact that there is no clear enforcer would have made

this a difficult task. Without a professional association that set minimum

standards, and, in the absence of more prescriptive legislation, the only

potential enforcer might have been the Victorian Auditor-General, who was

silent throughout the legislative process. Perhaps further exploration of how

council staff perceived potential enforcement could have brought about some

interesting findings and could be a useful topic for future research.

9.5 Conclusion

This chapter provides a comprehensive account of the research findings. It

began with providing a synopsis of the findings from each of the empirical

chapters, and therefore, each of the research questions, beginning with

examining how deliberative engagement practices were understood and

interpreted by the local government sector. It explained how the ambiguous

nature of the legalisation meant its assumed value was not necessarily evident

to councils and left the practices vulnerable to co-option. In terms of the

authorising environment and legitimacy, the research found that narratives

emerged to justify practices that were contradictory to common standards of

deliberative engagement and, in some cases, in conflict with the expressed

intentions of the legislation. Regarding findings on organisational cultures and

constraints, the critical role of individual agency and the dispositions of actors

was revealed as was the influence of communities of practice.

The chapter then examines the research findings collectively to create a fuller

exposition of what they indicated and positions these within existing scholarship.

Four key considerations were presented: whether the practices that emerged

were a response to the ambiguity of the legalisation or perhaps obfuscation by

the sector, and what this might mean for the legislative reform; whether what

occurred in Victoria is symptomatic of the vulnerability of these practices to co-

option; what the research illustrates regarding the role of public managers in

democratic innovations; and finally, what these findings might

mean in the context of institutionalising democratic innovations and their

normative aspirations to save democracy. Finally, the chapter reflects on the

theoretical frameworks that were applied in the study. It outlines how, despite

some challenges, the application of the public value strategic triangle provided a

useful heuristic for examining the varied determinants and dynamics public

managers needed to navigate during implementation. It then reflected on the

use of an institutionalist lens and outlined the advantages of interrogating data

through the frames of rules, narratives, and practices. Overall, this chapter

demonstrates how the study built on existing knowledge and expanded

understandings in an area of democratic innovations that has thus far been

relatively under-researched.

Chapter 10: Conclusion

10.1 Introduction

This chapter begins with an overview of each of the thesis chapters, drawing out

the key themes and providing a sense of the study’s findings overall. Having

established these, the chapter examines the implications of those findings,

putting forward what are believed to be the empirical and theoretical

contributions, as well as policy implications. The chapter identifies some of the

research limitations and, before concluding, indicates future research that would

expand the contributions of this study.

10.2 Thesis summary

The thesis began with introducing its key assertion, that despite the ascendancy

of democratic innovations and increased calls for their institutionalisation, for the

most part, little is known about how they are integrated into existing systems of

decision-making. It then established the case study research approach which

was situated in the Victorian Local Government Act 2020 reforms that mandated

deliberative engagement practices. Finally, the chapter gave an overview of the

Victorian local government authorising environment and how the legislation was

developed, briefly noting how the reforms presented a significant departure from

the preceding community engagement obligations of Victorian councils.

Chapter 2 then positioned the study within the substantial body of scholarship

focused on democratic innovations. It drew attention to the fact that, despite the

relatively muted outcomes of democratic innovations, their appeal has enjoyed

a steadfast resolve from theorists and advocates, as have the conceptual and

normative assumptions associated with their application. The chapter then

highlighted how the extant literature has limited empirical exploration of how the

practices are conceptualised and operationalised by policy actors from a public

administration frame of reference. It noted that where scholars acknowledge the

role of public managers, they also tend to assume that the normative value

derived from democratic innovations will be compelling enough to

counterbalance any ‘burden’ those practices present during their realisation. To

situate the study in some of the empirical literature, the chapter explored

examples of how democratic innovations have been implemented in the United

Kingdom, Italy, Finland, and Brazil. These examples provided latent accounts of

how the emancipatory potential of democratic innovations can be compromised

by utilitarian constraints. The chapter concluded by arguing that without a

greater understanding of the institutional constraints policy actors contend with,

integrating democratic innovations into government decision-making processes

can be compromised.

Chapter 3 then outlined why institutionalist and public value theory were

selected as the theoretical frameworks for the study. It explained how an

institutionalist lens provided a valuable frame of reference for analysing the

incentives and constraints that influenced policy actors’ choices. Additionally, it

proposed how public value theory, particularly the public value strategic triangle,

supported a more layered understanding of the interconnections and

determinants that impacted the realisation of deliberative engagement practices.

This chapter articulated how both institutionalism and public value theory relate

to the study of democratic innovations and hypothesised how they may offer

new ways of understanding their institutionalisation. The chapter explored some

of the existing scholarship that applies these theoretical lenses and noted that

there has been limited investigation through these conceptual frames of

reference. The chapter also recognised the ways in which institutionalism and

public value theory differ in terms of ontological leanings, particularly how they

perceive individual vis-à-vis collective agency and how the two theoretical

approaches understand change. How these differing standpoints were

reconciled in the context of this research was explained, noting that both were

seen as instrumental for better understanding the legislative reforms. Finally, the

chapter introduced the analytical framework that was developed to guide the

initial stages of the research and outlined the sub-themes of the framework

which were established through an extensive literature review.

Chapter 4 set out the research design, connecting the theoretical underpinnings

with the research methodology and its interpretivist ontological and

epistemological foundations. The chapter began with establishing the research

questions and providing the rationale for selecting a case study method. It then

explained why the Victorian Local Government Act 2020 presented a compelling

site for analysis. The chapter outlined the scope of the case study focus and

provided a description of the embedded units of analysis, which included in-

depth engagement with three councils coupled with broader sector data. The

mixed methods research approach was outlined, as were each of the qualitative

and quantitative data collection instruments, along with the rationales for

including them in the research design. This was followed by an account of the

data analysis and how the research integrated the multiple sources of data to

establish findings. The chapter demonstrated how the research approach

continually adapted and responded to circumstances as they emerged in a

manner that ensured the findings were consistently interrogated against multiple

sources of evidence and interpretation.

Chapter 5 began by outlining how the community engagement requirements of

the Victorian Local Government Act 2020 were a significant departure from the

requirements of the preceding Act. It established a context for this reform,

including the events and actors that are likely to have influenced the State

Government and some of the dominant narratives that accompanied the

legislation, including the Victorian State Government’s expressed intention to

‘improve local democracy’. It examined some of the key issues the sector

identified with the legislation during its development, in particular, the general

aversion to mandating deliberative engagement practices. The chapter provided

an initial account of the Victorian local government sector’s response to

deliberative engagement practices and its preparedness to adapt the practices

before identifying some of the perceived constraints and concerns that later

informed how the practices were implemented.

Chapter 6 provided an empirical account of how the ‘principles-based’ nature of

the legislation meant that councils were tasked with interpreting and defining for

themselves what deliberative engagement practices meant. It outlined the

considerable amount of sense-making that occurred in the initial stages of the

Act’s implementation and found that, rather than draw on industry standards

and expertise, local government actors predominantly made sense of their

legislative requirements by looking to each other for signposts for action. It

found that whilst some of the rules and practices labelled deliberative

engagement were incongruous to the commonly accepted standards of the

practices, they were nonetheless supported by narratives that defended them.

The analysis in the chapter then demonstrated that, in the context of a reform

agenda that sought to ‘put community at the heart of decision-making’ (Minister

for Local Government, 2016), the ambiguity around a principles-based act and a

virtual vacuum of either regulatory or industry oversight meant deliberative

engagement practices were vulnerable to co-option. Finally, in the context of

‘public value’, it highlighted that the State Government’s presumption that

mandating deliberative engagement practices would lead to improving

democracy was problematic as it did not account for the general ambiguity and

apprehension that surrounded these legislative requirements. The chapter

demonstrated that there needs to be greater consideration of the norms,

dominant paradigms, and motivations of policy actors who are responsible for

the actualisation of democratic innovations, and more collective sense-making

around their public value proposition.

Chapter 7 considered the authorising environment by examining how legitimacy

was conferred on the deliberative engagement practices that were

implemented. The chapter begins with exploring how councillors were mostly

restricted from participating in deliberative engagement processes, in line with a

dominant narrative that had emerged arguing this was de rigueur practice. It

also highlighted how, despite being one of the cornerstone objectives of the

legislation, the recruitment methods employed by most councils are likely to

have attracted participants with high levels of political agency. Finally, it

examined the continuance of the public exhibition process, which, although no

longer legislated, was maintained by most councils with the assumption that it

would improve inclusion. Combined, these practices demonstrate how policy

actors adapted practices in ways that gave preference to the status quo and

extant public participation processes. It also highlights how narratives emerged

to justify those practices even when, knowingly or not, they undermined their

legitimacy and were inconsistent with the principles of democratic innovations.

The chapter built on the findings of Chapter 6 and further demonstrated that the

executive arm of local government played a critical role regarding how

deliberative engagement practices were understood, and how processes were

framed and ultimately given legitimacy by elected representatives.

Chapter 8, the final empirical chapter, focused on the operational capacity of the

local government sector. It gave context to the environment in which the

deliberative engagement practices were realised and considered how the

uncertain and time-constrained conditions impacted the courses of action

chosen by council staff during implementation. The chapter highlighted how

decisions around appropriate standards for deliberative engagement practices

were mostly drawn from sector-based frames of reference, and the mimetic

behaviours that occurred as a result of this. The chapter also considered the

two dispositions that seemed most prevalent in council staff; it examined how

they approached the task of operationalising deliberative engagement practices

and the types of organisational cultures and leadership that enabled those

approaches. The chapter then concluded by reflecting on capacity building and

hypothesised on what might be required to support deliberative engagement

practices into the future.

Drawing on the individual findings from each of the empirical chapters and each

of the research questions, Chapter 9 demonstrated how the study built on

existing knowledge and expanded understandings of how democratic

innovations are institutionalised. It provided a synopsis of the findings and

argued that they created a fuller description of the constraints and conditions

that public managers navigated when operationalising deliberative engagement

practices in Victoria. Four key considerations were advanced. These were

examined in the context of relevant scholarship, explaining how the study aligns

with and augments some of the empirical research in this field. The chapter then

reflected on the theoretical frameworks utilised in the thesis, establishing how

both public value theory and institutionalism provided useful prisms through

which to examine the data.

This chapter (Chapter 10) concludes the study. It outlines each of the chapters

and their findings and puts forward the contributions and implications for the

study. Finally, the chapter identifies some of the research limitations before

proposing suggestions for further research.

10.3 Contribution and implications for the study

10.3.1 Empirical contribution

Whilst the empirical literature on deliberative processes and its outcomes is

extensive, research focused on the institutionalisation of democratic innovations

and how they are integrated into the governance processes of existing systems

is not. As a case study, the Victorian Local Government Act 2020 provided a

unique opportunity to explore this subject for a variety of reasons.

Given the research was positioned at a state-wide level, the study was able to

consider how all 79 local government organisations responded to the legislation

from a breadth of different organisational contexts and authorising

environments. This ranged from those who engaged more enthusiastically with

the new requirements to those who were quite resistant. This meant that the

research could obtain a relatively comprehensive understanding of the multitude

of organisational drivers and constraints policy actors contend with when

operationalising practices. In addition to the breadth of organisations included in

the study, the research was also able to achieve depth with the three councils

that were embedded units of analysis. Following these councils over a two-year

period meant that data was able to generate ‘thick descriptions’ and a nuanced

understanding of the factors which influenced decisions or courses of action.

Combined, the research scope was considerable.

Added to the scope, the case study also provided a distinctive opportunity to

examine how democratic innovations might be institutionalised through

legislative reforms. As noted in the early chapters, there has been increasing

interest in embedding democratic innovations more formally in the functions of

government. The Victorian Local Government Act 2020 is one such attempt and

was expressly championed as a means to improve democracy and bring

citizens closer to local government decision-making. As a case study, it was an

opportunity to explore how the normative assumptions around democratic

innovations, and reform efforts based on those assumptions, are applied in an

empirical setting.

In terms of the specific focus of the empirical research, analysis centred on the

role of public administration, which is rarely explored in scholarship on

democratic innovations, with a handful notable exceptions (e.g., Blanco et al.,

2022; Bua & Bussu, 2021; Bynner et al., 2023; Montambeault, 2019; Nabatchi,

2010). The thesis provided an in-depth understanding and analysis of how

public managers perceived the practices and justified their choices and actions.

In some ways, the empirical results confirm those of previous studies and of

theoretical understandings; they also extend the extant knowledge and provide

a more nuanced and complex picture of the dynamics public managers navigate

when operationalising deliberative engagement practices.

Finally, another empirical contribution is that the thesis provides research in a

local government context. As established in Chapter 2, despite the fact that

many democratic innovations are implemented at a local government level (e.g.,

in the OECD 2020 review of 289 world-wide cases of deliberative engagement

practices, 52% had been at the local government level), there is limited

research that focuses on this context. This is particularly pertinent for several

reasons. Perhaps stemming from the need to be efficient and effective, public

participation at a local government level tends to be couched more in terms of

its instrumental utility than its emancipatory benefits (McDonnell, 2021). The

research demonstrates how this pragmatic orientation had a consequential

effect on how the practices were interpreted and applied. Furthermore, the

relationship between executive and elected representatives can be quite distinct

at a local government level compared to other levels of government. Whilst the

positional power afforded by the executive in the Victorian local government

context may be particularly heightened, it is reasonable to say that a research

contribution is highlighting the importance of interrogating this dynamic further.

10.3.2 Theoretical contribution

The thesis applied both public value theory and institutionalism as theoretical

frames of reference for the research design. The benefits and challenges of this

approach, which were examined in detail in Chapter 9, can also be considered a

contribution of the thesis. The combination of public value theory and

institutionalism is not only unusual in and of itself but also relatively uncommon

within the study of democratic innovations. Through these two lenses, a better

appreciation of why certain courses of action seemed more compelling than

others and how decisions were legitimised and justified in the authorising

environments was achieved. As such, these two theoretical approaches

provided multiple entry points for the interpretation of the research findings and

brought new insights into the complexities of institutionalising democratic

innovations.

In addition, this epistemological orientation meant that the research was firmly

positioned within a public administration context, focusing on local governments

and how they responded to legislative changes. As noted in Chapter 2, few

scholars have explored democratic innovations from this perspective; as such,

public value theory and institutionalism offered a distinct perspective to current

empirical understandings.

10.3.3 Policy implications

As research that was situated in a case study of legislative reform, the thesis

has some policy implications that can also be considered a contribution.

The thesis demonstrates that the principles-based nature of the legislation, and

therefore, an absence of clear guidelines around what deliberative engagement

entailed, meant that implementation was influenced significantly by

organisational dispositions and pragmatic constraints. This could be considered

especially problematic for reform efforts that attempt to renew democracy as the

premise of democratic innovations tends to be based on normative assumptions

of their perceived value, which the research found were not necessarily

resonant with how public managers interpreted and applied the practices. As

examined in Chapter 9, this may have been the unintended consequence of the

way the legislation was developed and the growth mindset that was advanced

by the Victorian State Government. The research suggests that future legislative

reform would benefit from a clearer set of standards to guide practices.

In addition, given that existing norms can crowd out efforts at reform and even

co-opt or subvert them, a reform agenda that aims to institutionalise democratic

innovations needs to be cognisant of these constraints. That is, embedding

democratic innovations into the rules of government does not necessarily

change the practice. The research suggests that, beyond legislative reform and

clearer guidelines, to integrate democratic innovations into the operations of

government, a focus on deinstitutionalising the existing practices, dominant

narratives, and organisational cultures is required.

Furthermore, the research demonstrates the influence of communities of

practice on how deliberative engagement practices were understood and

looked to their colleagues when identifying appropriate courses of action, and

these peer-to-peer relationships proved to be more powerful than the influence

of experts such as consultants. In terms of reform efforts, these findings suggest

that, in addition to greater attention to organisational norms and constraints,

sector-based champions of the practices are needed. Over time, these

champions may generate a critical mass and catalyse mimetic behaviours,

shifting the standards of practice and ambitions of the sector as a whole.

10.4 Research limitations

As described in Chapter 9, the research question ‘How does the authorising

environment influence the design and implementation of deliberative

engagement practices, including their perceived legitimacy?’ made assumptions

about the influence of elected representatives on the deliberative engagement

practices, which, in some ways, was contradicted by the data collected. This

limitation could have occurred for two key reasons. Firstly, the research

question was informed by the extant literature, which suggests that elected

representatives have decisive influence over how democratic innovations are

legitimised. However, this did not take into consideration one of the premises of

the research, which is that there has been limited examination of how public

managers might also impact practices. In retrospect, a less presumptive

question would have been more appropriate. In addition, far less data regarding

how councillors were engaged with the deliberative engagement practices was

collected. There were only six interviews with councillors, and while there were

102 councillor responses to the survey that provided more wide-ranging data,

more interviews with elected representatives would have been beneficial and

may have drawn out other findings about how they impacted the realisation of

deliberative engagement practices, or how they conferred legitimacy on them.

Linked to this, the research was predominantly focused on organisational

conditions and therefore, a deeper understanding of how elected

representatives engaged with the processes was not achieved. Although there

were some indications in Chapter 7, the possible dichotomy or ‘turf war’

between elected representatives and democratic innovations was not explored.

This again was probably a result of the data collection, which, in addition to

having interviewed only a limited number of councillors, did not interrogate

different perspectives as much as it could have. In addition to interviewing more

councillors, the interviews and survey could have included questions about

perceptions of representation (e.g., whether they were a traditionalist who saw

themself as having delegated authority or were more consultative in their

approach), and how they perceived democratic innovations in relation to their

role. As Wright (2011) notes, each researcher must make strategic decisions

about where to position themselves within the field, knowing that this chosen

site opens a window onto certain phenomena and not others. The window

chosen in this thesis was organisations and public administration, which

inevitably meant other outlooks, like elected representation, were examined

less.

In terms of the research design, positioning the research within one case study

has implications for the generalisability of the findings. This is a criticism that is

commonly levelled at single case studies (Yin, 2014); however, the research

goal was to expand understandings and provide a more nuanced and

comprehensive account of how the practices were institutionalised, not

extrapolate definitive answers. To this end, the research achieved its intention of

providing in-depth understandings in a real-world context through a case study

approach (Yin, 2012). Added to this, notwithstanding that there are different

political systems and cultures, the research also demonstrates consistencies

with some international research, and therefore, demonstrates that it was, to

some degree, generalisable.

Regarding the embedded units of analysis, the councils involved in the study

had relatively amenable and conflict-free experiences within their organisations,

with only minimal glimpses of disruption. Therefore, the research relied on

interviews from consultants and some survey responses to understand positions

that were strongly antagonistic towards the practices. In addition, the fact that all

three councils had mostly constructive relationships with councillors meant there

was limited interview data exploring some of the tensions in authorising

environments that were reported by consultants. Again, analysis relied on what

was expressed by consultants and fragments of more combative councillor-

administration relationships that were noted through the survey. Had the

research sought out councils with these more contentious environments the

findings may have been more comprehensive. However, it is unlikely that those

councils would have participated as embedded units of analysis, therefore other

data collection approaches would have been required.

10.5 Further research suggestions

Although much of the thesis focused on how deliberative engagement practices

were adapted to suit the organisational norms and constraints of local

government, it would be inaccurate to suggest there has not been some

change. The legislation may not have achieved the ambitious objective of

‘improving democracy’; however, it has created a more enabling authorising

environment and generated greater investment in community engagement. In

line with the Victorian State Government’s growth mindset, a longitudinal study

of the Victorian Local Government Act 2020 would be valuable. This type of

study would be able to explore how the practices evolve, become normalised,

and create new path dependencies. Over time, this research could reveal

whether the legislation is transformative, or whether its trajectory begins to

amount to what Fung (2003, p. 339) describes as ‘reformist tinkering’ and the

gradual de-legitimisation of democratic innovations.

A longitudinal study of the Victorian Local Government Act 2020 would also

allow for the practices to be examined against changing authorising

environments. This includes a new cohort of councillors that will be elected in

2024 and any changes that may occur within executive groups of councils. In

addition, it allows for changes with regard to the Victorian State Government’s

approach. While the Victorian Auditor-General’s Office has not yet indicated that

they are planning to audit any of the legislated practices, it is feasible that this

will occur given it was flagged in the 2015 Public Participation in Government

Decision-making: Better Practice Guide. In addition, as noted in Chapter 9, it

remains unclear whether the extent of deviation from standard deliberative

engagement practices was foreseen or considered acceptable by the authors of

the legislation. It would be worthwhile to examine how the Victorian State

Government responds to what has occurred and whether they begin to impose

more prescriptive guidelines.

10.6 Conclusion

In a research area that is eminently subscribed, this thesis could be considered

ambitious in aiming to make a valued contribution. Democratic innovations have

been studied broadly and with increasing interest in theory and practical

applications. Albeit a prolific area of scholarship, research that examines how

democratic innovations are institutionalised and how they are integrated with

existing modes of democratic representation and public participation remains

relatively sparse. The legislative changes of the Victorian Local Government Act

2020, which introduced mandatory deliberative engagement practices for

council strategic planning, offered a unique opportunity to explore this less

subscribed area of research.

Interpretivist in nature, the research was not designed to find absolute or causal

inferences; equally, it was not intended as an evaluation of the deliberative

engagement practices that occurred in Victoria, nor a judgement on their

achievements. Instead, it used the legislative changes as an opportunity to

explore their actualisation and provide an enhanced, or expanded,

understanding of institutionalising democratic innovations.

Furthermore, the research was designed with the organisation, or public

administration, firmly at its core. The use of public value theory and investigation

through the spheres of public value, authorising environments, and

organisational capacity allowed for a more complete and layered understanding

of how democratic innovations were interpreted and realised by public sector

managers. In addition, an institutionalist lens provided a window into examining

the intrinsic motivations and constraints that influenced policy actors’ decisions

regarding courses of action.

Ultimately, the research highlights the critical role public managers played in

framing deliberative engagement practices, and the varied organisational norms

and constraints that, whether intentionally or not, hindered reform efforts around

democratic ideals. It found that in the process of sense-making, how the

legislation was interpreted was shaped considerably by existing networks,

systems, cultures, and norms. This was identified as particularly problematic for

democratic innovations because much of their ascendancy has been premised

on normative ideals and hegemonic discourses about their outcomes. As such,

the research suggested that, beyond legislative reform, to embed democratic

innovations into the operations of government, a focus on deinstitutionalising

the existing practices, dominant narratives, and organisational cultures is

required. In other words, the research has established that the emancipatory

and empowering potential of democratic innovations is not a given; rather, it

must be rigorously pursued. Furthermore, greater attention should be given to

the institutional constraints that democratic innovations are enacted and

embedded within.

However, caution must be taken to not simply critique the legislation as this

would fail to appreciate that advances were made through creating a more

enabling authorising environment and greater investment in these practices.

Given the study focused on the first iteration of the legislation’s requirements, it

is a reasonable assumption that transformation may occur in the future as local

governments become more accustomed to the practices and perhaps more

confident in their approach. Referring to Scotland’s Community Empowerment

Act 2015, a recent article stated that ‘the “new” legislation has helped to

advance the public participation agenda in Scotland, but it is perhaps too early

to see its full impact’ (Bynner et al., 2023, p. 15, emphasis added). This

suggests that it may be many years before the impact of the Victorian Local

Government Act 2020 is realised. Certainly, how the practices evolve, and

whether they indeed reach the aspirations of ‘improving democracy’ will be

interesting to observe over the coming decade.

Students also viewed