Regional Economic Development Planning in New Zealand: Who Owns It?
Professor Paul Dalziel
Professor Caroline Saunders
6. Conclusion
Because local partnerships for regional development are relatively new in New Zealand and elsewhere, there are very few evaluative studies that can be drawn upon to provide clear empirical evidence of their impact. A recent study by the OECD (2001, p. 18) is explicit on this point:
Today, in most OECD countries, governments support networks of partnerships, which involve actors from the public, private and non-profit sectors, representing governments, employers, workers and the broader civil society. Despite the new popularity of partnerships, the mechanisms through which partnerships contribute to economic development, social inclusion, or any other policy objective pursued are not fully clear. Partnerships are sometimes compared to a "black box": inputs and outputs are visible, but the mechanisms enabling the transformation from input to output are not.
Nevertheless, section 2 of this paper identified three factors particularly relevant to the question of how the definition of property rights, and hence the ownership of a regional partnership, affects successful regional development planning: (1) the objectives and structure of the partnership; (2) legitimacy and accountability; and (3) the culture and leadership of the partnership. Section 4 used three case studies of New Zealand regional development partnerships to show how these factors are relevant in practice.
The first two case studies are typical of regional partnerships in New Zealand. A formal governance body supervises the work of a specialist regional economic development agency. Local government representatives either make up the entire governance body or tend to dominate its agenda. The REDA may end up facing conflicting demands on its time and priorities as it tries to meet the competing demands and expectations of central government, the government's funding agencies, local government, its governance board and perhaps one or more advisory committees. The risk is that in one sense everyone owns the regional partnership, but in a more important sense no one owns it.
The third case study adopted a different approach. There is no formal governance body or representation; instead the partnership is based on close collaboration between the local government council and an independent Trust whose core objective is regional development. These two partners agree on a work programme that is broken down into task-oriented projects. A professional person is appointed to manage each project, and he or she draws together a working group of relevant organisations that do the work. Although there is no direct ownership of regional development per se, the projects are owned by a working group that has strong incentives to see the project succeed.
The authors do not suggest this approach would suit every region all the time. Interviewees suggested two reasons why it might have been particularly appropriate for a region like Marlborough. First, Marlborough is a relatively close-knit community that means public consultation is relatively easy to facilitate and personal contacts can be more effective compared to areas with a greater population. Second, Marlborough has a unitary Council (that is, there is no separate Regional Council) and is a single district (in contrast to the Eastern Bay of Plenty and Canterbury partnerships involving three or more districts). This makes the partnership between local government and the Trust relatively easy to manage. The rewards are more clear-cut and the transaction costs much lower than for a multi-Council partnership.
It was beyond the scope of this research project to explore in more depth the strengths and weaknesses of the Marlborough approach, or to analyse different circumstances that might make it more effective than alternatives. Nevertheless the authors believe it deserves more attention. One example can be highlighted to illustrate its potential in a New Zealand context. The international literature contains many examples where a regional partnership is able to develop a 'whole of government response' that brings central and local government agencies together with key regional partners to address specific regional issues. The involvement of the regional partners means that local knowledge of social (as well as economic) conditions can be used to build an effective strategy of identifying and addressing causes of social exclusion. None of the three New Zealand case studies had considered this type of response at the time of the study. Overseas examples are also more likely to include community organisations (as well as business and local government representatives) in regional partnerships, and to pay greater attention to social conditions in their planning, than appears to be the case in New Zealand. The Marlborough approach would seem to provide greater opportunities for development along these lines than the more traditional REDA approach.
|
