Abstract
The last two decades have witnessed a significant turn towards community participation in public policy around the globe, raising concerns that states are resorting to ‘government through community’, shifting responsibilities onto communities. In order to unpack the ambiguous rhetoric of policy statements, this article employs ideas from evaluation methodology to develop a generic theory of change for community participation policy. The model is then utilised to analyse and compare the UK Coalition Government’s Big Society/Localism agenda and the Scottish Government’s Community Empowerment approach, demonstrating the ways in which these represent a clear example of policy divergence, and potentially significant alternatives to state–community relations in the context of austerity. The article also demonstrates the potential wider applicability of ‘theories of change’ methodology for policy analysis.
Acknowledgements
The author acknowledges the support of Professor Annette Hastings and Professor Mhairi Mackenzie for their advice and assistance in editing this article.
Notes
1. In 1999 the Scottish Parliament was established, with a range of powers devolved from the UK Government. Devolved matters include education, health, local government, law and order, and housing. Other policy areas, including benefits and social security, employment, defence and foreign policy were reserved to the UK Government.
2. Community Planning is a statutory process which aims to ensure coordination between public service agencies at a local authority level. Community Planning Partnerships are expected to jointly plan services to achieve shared outcomes, and to engage with communities.
Additional information
Funding
Notes on contributors
Steve Rolfe
Steve Rolfe is a Ph.D. student at the University of Glasgow, studying the impacts of community participation policy in Scotland and England. Prior to starting his Ph.D., Steve worked in local government and the voluntary sector for 15 years in a variety of roles relating to community development and policy.