Dubnick, Melvin J. And Elizabeth M. Meehan, “Integrative Governance in Northern Ireland.” Prepared for presentation at Conference on Integrating Governance: Linking Up Government, Business and Civil Society, Monash University Prato Centre, Italy, 25-26 October 2004.
Abstract:
We view integrative governance as a varied response to un-centering and de-centering trends and offer a framework that highlights three ‘paths’ to integration: proactive, reactive and emergent. This frame is applied to Northern Ireland and we draw some preliminary conclusions about both the potential usefulness of the model and the insights it generates about Northern Ireland governance. The principal insight is that reactive integration tends to suppress the emergence of third sector alternatives while proactive integration has the opposite effect.
AI-Generated Summary:
This document discusses the concept of integrative governance, its various paths, and its application to the governance landscape in Northern Ireland amidst decentralization and centrifugal forces.
Concept of Integrative Governance
- Integrative governance aims to coordinate efforts to address collective problems through credible and legitimate mechanisms.
- It involves three paths: proactive (planned), reactive (response to threats), and emergent (unintentional development).
Trends in Contemporary Governance
- Recent governance shifts are driven by un-centering and de-centering, dispersing authority among autonomous units.
- These trends include deregulation, privatization, decentralization, and increased organizational capacity, challenging traditional centralized control.
Types of Integrative Governance Paths
- Proactive governance involves deliberate efforts to promote good governance through reforms, standards, and institutional reorganization.
- Reactive governance responds to threats or opposition, often maintaining control and limiting change.
- Emergent governance develops unintentionally through networks, norms, and relationships over time, emphasizing mutual adjustment.
Application to Northern Ireland
- Northern Ireland’s governance history reflects a mix of proactive, reactive, and emergent strategies.
- Early autonomy was challenged by UK central control, with reactive measures used to maintain Unionist dominance and restrict Nationalist alternatives.
- The 1960s civil rights movement and subsequent conflicts led to reactive responses like direct rule and short-lived power-sharing attempts.
Post-1998 Peace Process and Governance
- The Good Friday Agreement introduced a proactive constitutional change and reorganized governance structures.
- It also served as a reactive measure to restore representative governance and legitimize power-sharing.
- During periods of suspension, civil servants relied on reactive and emergent practices, emphasizing stability and citizen consultation.
Role of External Influences
- European Union funding and policies supported regional development and community involvement.
- UK reforms under Thatcher and Blair shifted towards decentralization and inclusive decision-making, influencing governance paths.
- These external pressures contributed to the complex mix of governance strategies in Northern Ireland.
The Role of Civic and Civil Society Institutions
- The Civic Forum was introduced to incorporate proactive and emergent governance features post-1998.
- It aimed to involve community networks in policy-making, especially issues crossing departmental boundaries, promoting citizen participation.
Proactive and Emergent Paths to Governance
- Policy objectives like equality and human rights standards, such as Section 75, exemplify proactive, participatory governance.
- Community networks and voluntary sectors foster emergent governance, especially in programs like LEADER II and URBAN, which linked local communities and government.
Impact of External and EU-Initiated Policies
- EU programs like INTERREG evolved from reactive to multi-level, cross-border governance, encouraging cooperation.
- External funding initiatives, including peace reconciliation programs, strengthened community networks despite limited direct success.
Reactive Governance and Its Limitations
- Major reactive efforts like Direct Rule and the Belfast Agreement relied on traditional government rationalities, limiting proactive initiatives.
- Civic associations feared devaluation under re-devolved government, leading to tensions between civic sectors and political parties.
Institutional and Political Party Dynamics
- Northern Ireland’s governance features a mix of reactive and proactive efforts, with external initiatives often narrowly programmatic.
- Political parties tend to reflect intra-sectarian attitudes, affecting their adoption of emergent governance paths and reducing space for third-sector influence.
Challenges in Developing Shared Future and Policing Reforms
- Efforts to foster a shared future face societal divisions, with behaviors and attitudes influenced by community origins.
- Police reforms, following the Patten Report, shifted towards community-based policing, but full implementation remains incomplete due to political disagreements.
Broader Policy Areas and Future Directions
- Land use planning and education policies show signs of proactive, integrative paths, though obstacles persist.
- There is growing concern over the high costs of managing a divided society, with reactive governance often reinforcing segregation.
Lessons and Theoretical Insights
- Integrative governance is a complex, ongoing process operating at multiple levels, not a fixed plan.
- Proactive efforts tend to positively influence emergent governance, while reactive approaches often hinder it.
- Further research is needed on institutions, party dynamics, and reactive versus proactive governance impacts in Northern Ireland.