Instituting the ‘third sector’ as a governable terrain: partnership, procurement and performance in the UK

Abstract

In this article we argue that governance of the ‘dispersed state’ is being extended into the quasi-private realm of voluntary and community organisations and their activities. Focusing on public service delivery, we distinguish the formal and operational dimensions of governance, and argue that the goal of partnership carves out a newly governable terrain – the third sector – which is to be organised through the operational governance mechanisms of procurement and performance. The result is the attempted normalisation of VCOs as market-responsive, generic service providers, disembedded from their social and political contexts and denuded of ethical or moral content and purpose.

Social Innovation

“…While little research has been carried out in this area, lessons can be learnt from other studies 18 looking at the emergence of new market forms. There is a need to understand the how the different types of collaboration are operating in specific contexts which are becoming increasingly dominated by market forces in the UK and internationally (Carmel and Harlock, 2008;Eikenberry, 2009;Sepulveda, 2009). Research that links morality and different forms of the economy may shed more light (Sayer, 2004).…”

Trouble with champions: local public sector–third sector partnerships and the future prospects for collaborative governance in the UK

“…Theoretically at least, successful partnership would depend upon individual TSOs, or designated representatives of the local third sector (such as chief officers of the local council for voluntary service) being in a position to voice their interests in a reasonably holistic way (Deakin 1995, Atkinson 1999, Carmel and Harlock 2008, Office of the Third Sector 2006a, Cabinet Office, 2008) This is not easy for the third sector as its boundaries are blurred, its composition diverse, its interests and objectives varied and, as a consequence, its internal dynamics very complex (see Chapman et al 2009, Evers andLaville 1999) . This was not thought to be a problem until the 1980s when government began to recognise the advantage of drawing upon the resource potential of the third sector in a mixed economy of welfare (Taylor 2004, Powell 2007) and as a consequence saw benefit in determining the size and shape of the sector (Kendal 2000).…”

“…From 1997-2010, Britain's New Labour government invested heavily in a range of initiatives to get public sector and third sector organisations working together successfully at the local level to tackle problems associated with multiple deprivation (for recent policy analyses, see Kelly, 2007;Haugh and Kitson 2007, Davies 2008, Carmel and Harlock 2008, Birch and Whittam 2008. In so doing, the intention was to produce policies and interventions which would create stronger, more prosperous and sustainable communities (Labour Party, 1997).…”

“…There is a significant body of analytical commentary which explores the practicalities of achieving collaborative governance (Atkinson 1999, Carmel and Harlock 2008, Office of the Third Sector 2006a, Cabinet Office 2008. For some commentators, who adopt a pluralistic and broadly positive stance, engaging in collaborative governance produces a win-win situation for the public sector, third sector and the beneficiaries of the services that are provided (for an analytical review of this literature see Ansell and Gash, 2007).…”

“…Other writers are unconvinced that such claims are practicable, achievable or desirable. Indeed, Carmel and Harlock (2008) assert that collaborative governance is, in reality, a sophisticated form of state control, where the third sector is the 'object' of governance rather than its equal partner. They argue that government has attempted to institute the third sector as a 'governable terrain' through 'discourses, strategies, and administrative and policy changes broadly conceptualised as "governance".…”