The restructuring of local government in rural regions: A rural development perspective

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Journal of Rural Studies 21 (2005) 231–246 www.elsevier.com/locate/jrurstud

The restructuring of local government in rural regions: A rural development perspective David J.A. Douglas Rural Planning and Development Programme, School of Environmental Design and Rural Development, University of Guelph, Ont., Canada, N1G 2W1

Abstract Rural development is a multidimensional phenomenon. The political dimension, relating as it does to power, resources, accountability, priorities and choice, is a pivotal aspect of rural development. Local government is often the centrepiece of rural political systems. Interventions to reconfigure local government are therefore quintessentially rural development initiatives. They serve to supplement, neutralize or detract from other development initiatives. One way to critically examine local government restructuring policies and programmes is to determine the extent to which they accord with commonly held principles of rural development, both in terms of outcomes and process. This research critically examines a particular public policy intervention in rural Ontario, Canada. Through the application of rural development principles and criteria, it concludes that the process was antithetical to rural development, and in terms of outcomes, of dubious value. It poses several questions and challenges for rural development theory, including governance, and practice. r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Outside of sporadic issues relating to physical infrastructure and the occasional contentious episode in intergovernmental process, local government can be an almost invisible backdrop in the rural development discourse. This is especially the case where there is either a highly centralized rural development climate (e.g. Ireland) and/or where there are many state, parastatal and non-government organizations active in this field (e.g. Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada). Economic development, agricultural extension programmes, child care projects and other initiatives can be discussed with little or no reference to the presence, condition or wherewithal of local government, or the congruity of its configuration, both geographical and functional, with the issues at hand. Ironically, the installation of a local government system, however rudimentary, would be generally regarded as a sine qua non of rural development. And from this, it might be inferred that the ongoing E-mail address: [email protected]. 0743-0167/$ - see front matter r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2005.01.003

development of this system would be in itself an integral component of the development of rural society. This logic is reflected in the proportion of UNDP development funding expended (i.e. 30%) to strengthen the capacities for local governance through NGOs, CBOs and local government itself (UNDP, 1997). In this context the UNDP’s perspective on local governance is informative. Local governance comprises of a set of institutions, mechanisms and processes through which citizens and their groups can articulate their interests and needs, mediate their differences and exercise their rights and obligations at the local level. It requires partnership between local governmental institutions, civil society organizations and private sector for participatory, transparent, accountable and equitable service delivery and local development. It necessitates empowering local governments with authority and resources and building their capacity to function as participatory institutions that are responsive and accountable to the concerns and needs of all citizens. At the same time, it is concerned with strengthening

ARTICLE IN PRESS 232

D.J.A. Douglas / Journal of Rural Studies 21 (2005) 231–246

of grass roots democracy and empowering citizens, communities and their organizations such as CBOs and NGOs to participate as equal partners in local governance and local development process (italics added). www.undp/org.governance/local.htm (accessed 12/01/04). It follows that any restructuring of this system could and likely should make a positive contribution to the overall development of rural communities and environments. This would be more so the case, in contexts where the rural local government played a significant role in the provision and maintenance of a broad range of services and facilities (e.g. roads, tax collection, water and sewage infrastructure, land-use regulation). In the so-called developed contexts (e.g. Europe, North America), local government is commonly cited as that level of government closest to our daily lives. It is, as often as not, depicted as accessible and relatively uncomplicated. Local governments, especially in rural and smaller communities, are generally seen to make our lives manageable, either as individuals, households, social organizations or as businesses. They may look after local schools, water and sewage infrastructure and services, parks and recreation facilities and programmes, and often levy and collect taxes. They may provide some protection from fires and crime, fix the roads with varying degrees of alacrity, and administer a plethora of bylaws curtailing the vagaries of stray dogs and the diffusion of ‘‘noxious’’ vegetation, amongst other things. And we, as citizens, periodically elect our school representatives and our Municipal Councils or equivalents. And we live with an array of appointed boards, committees and commissions to look after such things as libraries, heritage sites, sometimes economic development, and several other activities and facilities that cumulatively contribute to the functioning of our communities. However, while this level of government can be wholly or partially responsible for a considerable array of services and facilities that affect our daily lives and livelihoods, their powers and resources are often severely circumscribed by national and/or state or provincial governments. In the Canadian case a core component of this level of government, the Municipality, is constitutionally designated as the ‘‘creature of the Province’’. It may be said that municipalities in Canada exist ‘‘at the pleasure’’ of each of the 10 Provinces. This geopolitical relationship has for long been a source of some tension between these two levels of government. In times of restructuring the asymmetrical power relations engender more tension and conflict. This paper provides a critical assessment of the recent record of local government restructuring in rural Ontario, Canada, focusing on the restructuring of rural

municipalities. The purpose of the research was to identify a selection of principles or criteria from the rural development research and practitioner literature and apply this in a systematic manner to the process evident from the most recent round of restructuring in Ontario. The focus of the paper is not on political scientific or public administrative concepts. These have already been competently addressed by several more qualified specialists in these fields (e.g. Sancton, 1991, 1992; O’Brien, 1993; Tindal, 1999). Neither is it the intent to focus solely on concepts of governance, per se, though these will be addressed as part of the critical assessment. Rather, the primary focus of this essay is on the more holistic concept of rural development. Rural municipalities are examined as an integral component of rural community governance structures and systems, and as a fundamentally important facet of rural community integrity and viability. We will first address the fundamental concepts underpinning local government, and then review some of the highlights of recent local government restructuring in Ontario. The value and ideological base informing the recent Ontario restructuring will be explored, and the results of these initiatives will be summarized. From there an approach to assessing local government restructuring will be developed, drawing upon theories and concepts from the rural development research and the professional practice literatures. These conceptual and other perspectives will be applied through a set of criteria to the Ontario rural case to assess this major geopolitical intervention, in the context of rural development. A number of conclusions will be set out. This episode will then be further interpreted by couching it in the ongoing and diverse debate relating to the concept of governance. Finally, some implications for rural development theory and practice, and the research agenda, will be explored.

2. The concept of local government: the case of the municipality in Ontario The municipality in Ontario has a very peculiar lineage. It is something of an historical bastard, begrudgingly let into the world by reactionary and autocratic British governments and their colonial hacks, during the 18th and 19th centuries. Constantly suspicious of incipient republicanism, which they saw manifesting itself in local activism, they were reluctant to erode the power basis of the Family Compact and other power cliques of the time (Tindal and Tindal, 1995). The slow, staggered and continuously contested shift of the most mundane of powers (e.g. regulating the height of fences) from the appointed magistrates in the Quarter Sessions to a variety of locally elected bodies is an instructive story in the dialectics of central power and

ARTICLE IN PRESS D.J.A. Douglas / Journal of Rural Studies 21 (2005) 231–246

the ineluctable movement toward democracy, decentralization and some local self-determination. The early creation of some forms of local government in Canada (e.g. St. John, 1785, Quebec City, 1832, Toronto, 1834) should not be seen as early signs of progressiveness. These were practical political accommodations to urban pressures undertaken at the pleasure of either the British government in London or the colonial administrations. Indeed, these and other initiatives cemented the convention of the right of future provincial governments to invent local governments, at will. While the Baldwin Act (1840) provided Ontario with a system of local government, key principles relating to responsible local government and clauses institutionalizing this level of government were omitted from the follow-up proposed Union Act from Sydenham. Henceforth, the undisputed presence and independent legitimacy of local government was forever compromised. The British North America Act (1867), now subsumed within the Constitution Act (1982), embedded this political convention of centralized authority and fiat, forever making local governments the ‘‘creatures’’ of the provinces (Isin, 1992). Another aspect of the concept of local government as it relates to the municipality is the well known and often contentious distinction between the services provision function and the representative function of the local level of government (Marshall and Douglas, 1997). Drawing on Kaplan, Tindal and Tindal note a further dimension whereby the municipality’s primary role has been limited as a reactive source of solutions for selected problems raised by taxpayers, especially property owners, in contrast to a more proactive and broader role gauging the needs of local residents and designing services and services delivery systems to respond to these (p. 43). These issues, especially the purported services/ representation dichotomy, are hotly debated. Indeed, much of the criticism of the recent municipal restructuring in Ontario pivots on this debate. On the one hand, the Province stressed the need to reduce the costs of local government (i.e. reduce operating costs), focusing on absolute reductions in costs, with some attention to getting more or better output from the same or fewer resources (‘‘efficiencies’’). On the other hand, exacerbated by the downloading of services responsibilities and extensive and rapid restructuring, there is a counterdebate around the lack of attention to the representative democratic role of local government. The language of the former addresses ‘‘the business of local government’’, the desirability of reducing the number of politicians, the need for greater efficiencies and the recasting of the municipal resident in the guise of ‘‘the customer’’. The language of the latter positions is replete with phrases addressing ‘‘local control and self-determination’’, the rights of full ‘‘citizenship’’, concerns over attenuating ‘‘access’’ to elected officials, the loss of ‘‘community’’ and other concerns.

233

These contests, around the primary or sole role of local government, and a balance of roles, are fuelled by an older contest relating to the dilution if not the extraction of politics itself from local government. The so-called reform movement around the turn of the 20th century was a reaction to extensive corruption, nepotism and waste in local government in North America, especially in the larger cities (Tindal and Tindal, 1995). This reaction saw little that was good in politics and indeed denigrated the political process as a source of inefficiencies and nefarious activities. The drive to have municipalities run by highly qualified, principled professionals was underway. This was augmented by the ascendancy of technocratic management then emerging in the burgeoning industrial systems in North America. Running the municipality like a business corporation seemed not only to make sense but also the most appropriate way to streamline the organization and gain efficiencies, while at the same time purging it of the rampant cronyism associated with local politics at this time. This virtual denial of politics was of course an overreaction, but one whose footprint is clearly evident on the ideological contests that characterize local government today. The fact that municipalities have to make value decisions, allocate scare resources that have alternative uses, make choices amid a plurality of interests (with different degrees of access to decisionmakers) and so on, means that the issue of power is central. And where there is power, there is politics (Banfield and Wilson, 1963). It is found in the daily lives of townships, villages and other forms of local government, just as in private business. However, the ideological and technical underpinnings depicting the municipality as a ‘‘business’’, and advocating an apolitical culture within the organization are alive and well to this day. Notwithstanding the reemergence of local politics and activist movements after World War II the managerial over the political persuasion retained its momentum. Indeed, with the continuing transfer of physical scientific concepts and research protocols to the social sciences, scientism as a mental framework and the vaunted ‘‘management science’’ began to dominate management in the entire public services sector (Friedmann, 1987). Now rationalism and the rigorous scientific method would find the ‘‘right answers’’, and most efficient solutions, with the irrationality of politics safely sidelined. Through all of this the techno-managerial advocates reinforced the zealous mission of the earlier reformers who would, for different reasons, expel the practice of politics from local government. One way of summarizing these contested spaces is illustrated in Fig. 1. A strong sector of opinion and political activism sees the proper role of the municipality to be located in the

ARTICLE IN PRESS D.J.A. Douglas / Journal of Rural Studies 21 (2005) 231–246

234

and puts the customer first, (Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario, 1994, p. 16).

POLITICS

SERVICES

POLITICAL

PROVISION

REPRESENTATION

MANAGEMENT Fig. 1. The concept of local government: tension lines in the role of the municipality.

southeast quadrant. This perspective has had considerable sway in parts of Europe and much of North America in the last two decades (Pickvance and Preteceille, 1991). It has been the dominant perspective in Ontario since the mid-1990s and, in general may be said to reflect the dominant neo-conservatism of the Provincial government that held power until 2003, and its supporters in the business community and in much of rural Ontario. This ideology has been the driving force behind the recent and broad scale, intensive and rapid restructuring of local government here.

3. The neo-conservative proposition The best way to summarize the neo-conservative convictions of the former Ontario government (1994–2003), as they relate to government and related matters, is to quote directly from their principal public positions. This government saw public service pursuits as a provider of last resort. It did not see a generative, shaping or leadership role for the public sector: We believe government’s job is pretty simple—to do the things that only government can or should do,y (Progressive Conservative Party, 1994, p. 21). Clearing the way for private enterprise, individualism and the dynamics of the market were the centrepiece of this government’s ideology. Government itself was seen as problematic, associated with waste, bloated bureaucracies and less than reliable personnel protected by ‘‘special interests’’ (e.g. organized labour). The model of efficacy is the private sector corporation: The Common Sense Revolution will....... demand that government does business like a business.........

..... government should be run more like a good business, putting the needs of the customer first. (Progressive Conservative Party of Ontanio, 1999, p. 20). Citizens will become service purchasing ‘‘customers’’, in the competitive marketplace. The Provincial government in its election manifesto covered a great variety of topics (e.g. workfare, public assets sales). However, local government and more specifically municipalities did not receive one line of attention in a 52 page election manifesto (Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario, 1999). However, under the original ‘‘less government’’ mantra the 1994 manifesto of the Ontario Progressive Conservative government indicated that: We do not need every layer—Federal, Provincial, quasi-government bodies, regional, municipal, school boards—that we have now. We must rationalize the regional and municipal levels to avoid the overlap and duplication that now exists. The example set by the Harris government, of a 24% reduction in MPPs and a 20% cut in non-priority spending will set the benchmark for municipal politicians and trusteesy . But by the end of our first term, taxpayers deserve a restructuring of these cumbersome bureaucraciesy . It’s time to stop government growth once and for all (Progressive Conservative Party Of Ontario, 1994, p. 17). The fewer politicians platform (Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario, 1994, p. 8) was transferred to the locally elected municipal sphere. Likewise, the hypotheses of widespread waste and duplication were rendered axiomatic and used to legitimize and fuel the rapid and comprehensive restructuring of local government, notably school boards and municipalities. No independent assessment or formal evaluation of Ontario’s municipal system was conducted. There was from time to time some anecdotal evidence suggesting duplication and some waste. In addition, there is a long history of positions proclaiming the inappropriateness of too many small (population) municipalities (e.g. Hickey, 1973). However, the fundamental premises of (a) evident waste, duplication and widespread ineffectiveness and inefficiencies, and (b) significant cost-saving potentials have not been confirmed. The accumulating evidence following massive municipal restructuring increasingly suggests that not only are the purported cost-savings fictitious, but the combined costs of amalgamations and Provincial downloading are proving to be very costly undertakings for municipalities (‘‘Globe and Mail’’, February 8, 2001; ‘‘Guelph Tribune’’, February 13, 2001). In addition, the

ARTICLE IN PRESS D.J.A. Douglas / Journal of Rural Studies 21 (2005) 231–246

assumption that municipalities have been unable or unwilling to collaborate to autonomously generate efficiencies, and therefore must be forced to amalgamate is not borne out by the facts (Skelly, 1996). Indeed, in the competitive area of local economic development, as just one example, there is substantial and widespread intermunicipal collaboration in rural Ontario (Douglas and Chadwick, 2001). This suggests that the fundamental informing construct shaping the Provincial government’s intervention in the municipal system was ideological in nature, based upon a particular value system. This accords with the record of similar ideologically driven interventions elsewhere in the world (e.g. Mowbray, 2000; Peters, 2001).

4. The results: a restructured municipal system in rural Ontario The outcome of this government’s ideological position has amounted to a system-wide restructuring of Ontario’s local government system, especially its school boards and municipalities. The number of municipalities was reduced from 815 in 1996 to 445 in 2004, a reduction of over 45%. The number of elected councillors representing the citizenry is estimated to have declined from 4586 to approximately 2786, a reduction of over 39%. While amalgamations have been the more high profile form of restructuring, the process has also involved some annexations, joint agreements for services delivery and internal restructuring. This is a very dramatic reconfiguration of democratic government in rural Ontario society. It has been marked by a rapid and autocratic intervention by the Province, dictating a non-negotiable system-wide restructuring. This restructuring, either in its content or its extent, was not a part of the Provincial government’s election platforms. The broad-scale intervention was complicated and at times aggravated by reforms in the property assessment system, and especially by a series of onesided decisions relating to the downloading of responsibilities to municipalities (e.g. roads, social housing, welfare), without the transfer of commensurate resources. In some instances, it was further aggravated by the Province’s unilateral rewriting of programme regulations and operating criteria for a number of the responsibilities it was handing off to the municipalities (e.g. police). The trauma of these predominantly unilateral actions and their rapidity has been augmented in their effects by the staged withdrawal of the Province, as a major source of financial transfers to its local governments. This has served to limit the financial resources of the Municipality to the property tax base and selected local fees and charges (Kitchen, 2000). Indeed, by 1998 Ontario municipalities looked to own-source revenues for some

235

81.4% of their financial resources (1988—68.8%). The irony, and for many the compounding insult was that while the Province was withdrawing from its role as a partner in municipal financial viability and compelling municipalities to depend for their existence on ownsource revenues, the Province intervened in local fiscal management and capped the revenues that municipalities might have accessed from their local businesses! This engendered concern and some hostility to what was seen as an autocratic process of imposed restructuring on the one hand, with fiscal abandonment on the other (e.g. ‘‘Globe and Mail’’, February 1, 2001). 4.1. Process: some first impressions The Province of Ontario’s Bill 26 (1996) offered three routes for municipal restructuring. The plan could be designed at the upper-tier County level providing for reconfiguration of its lower-tier municipalities (e.g. Townships). Reconfiguration would usually involve amalgamations and a reduction in the number of municipalities. The plan could emanate from mutual agreements among neighbouring municipalities. Or the plan could be the result of a Provincially appointed restructuring commission. If the first two options failed, in terms of agreements, the latter was the mandated process. The Provincially appointed Commissioner’s recommendations were binding on all parties. All restructuring initiatives were driven by the Provincial intent of reducing the number of municipalities (and local politicians); an overarching intent that was not negotiable. Final proposals had to be sanctioned by the Province. In the end, in the context of widespread contention and opposition, several amalgamated structures were designed and dictated by the Province. In a recent survey of Ontario municipalities approximately 58% of 215 municipalities responding indicated that, among other reasons, fiscal viability (i.e. their tax base) was a major consideration in their decision to pursue restructuring (FitzGibbon and Summers, 2000). However, the dominant reason was the forceful agenda of the Provincial government and its system-wide downsizing of government. Other factors (e.g. opportunities for development) were far less important. When asked what factors influenced their restructuring decision-making municipalities clearly cited the power of the Province as the dominant, overarching factor. In order of importance the decision of the Province to press its restructuring agenda, the threat and prospect of reduced grants and services (transfers), and the ongoing and imminent transfer of services and programme responsibilities from the Province to the municipality (‘‘downloading’’), were the primary factors persuading municipalities to conform to the Province’s agenda. The issue of local populations and the size requirements for services provision (thresholds and scale

ARTICLE IN PRESS 236

D.J.A. Douglas / Journal of Rural Studies 21 (2005) 231–246

economies), other population issues and issues around prospective deficits were minor considerations in the decision-making process (FitzGibbon and Summers, 2000, p. 7). In terms of goals there was no pattern of dominant internal objectives (e.g. reduced dependency on the Provincial government). Accommodating the priorities of the Provincial government were dominant written responses. However, when we examine what municipalities were concerned about in the process some central concerns emerge. Protecting the values and traditions of their communities was the major concern of those municipalities engaged in the restructuring process (50% of those responding). Getting local stakeholders to agree on the restructuring process was another concern (41.7%). Public cynicism was a third concern (34.7%). Not surprisingly, the expanded scale of the restructured municipalities is bringing about some distancing of the electorate from his or her elected representative. Some 76.2% of the survey respondents reported that the new structures were resulting in a larger electorate for each new councillor. This accords with concerns raised during this researcher’s projects in the rural municipalities of the former Ottawa-Carleton Regional Municipality, and in many other informal discussions with rural residents (Douglas, 1998). When asked what level of participation was involved in the local restructuring process, 23% of the survey respondents from lower-tier municipalities indicated that no public input was involved. ‘‘Moderate’’ levels of input were reported by 50% of respondents, and 27% reported ‘‘high’’ levels of public input to the process. The dominant method for securing public input was the public open house, used by 70.3% of respondents. This is generally recognized as a very limited vehicle for participatory purposes, posing as it does a number of obstacles for many residents and limiting the breadth and depth of inclusiveness. In terms of the respondents’ assessments of the outcomes of the restructuring process, it is noteworthy that the defined rural communities, which is about twothirds of the smaller communities (i.e. under 2500 residents), reported a low rate of satisfaction with the process. Concerns over the prospect of being forced into future rounds of top-down restructuring and the loss of community identity were widespread fears among respondents. Again, these fears were especially prevalent among smaller rural communities. 4.2. Products: some first impressions In another investigation, 35 municipalities reported on the results to date from restructuring that had gone on in 1998 and 1999 (Lehman, 2000). The results from the 23 primarily rural municipalities from nine counties across Southern Ontario indicated insignificant savings

at that time. While the total costs of politicians declined, the average cost increased (by 56%). Local representation declined, manifested by an increase of some 230% in the number of constituents per councillor. Average savings in the costs of politicians amounted to less than 0.5% of the average operating expenditure of the municipalities surveyed. Staff costs declined by 5%, while tax rates for the lower-tier municipalities increased by 3%. Transitional funding, through the so-called Community Reinvestment Fund was an important factor in defraying additional short-term costs. There were mixed results in savings on capital and operating costs. The author concluded that there was ‘‘less government’’, as per the Province’s objectives, but there was also less representation and little early evidence of reduced municipal spending. In summary, the results in terms of process and initial outcomes reflected the overarching ideological drive fuelling this geopolitical initiative. The changes occurred because rural residents were forced, through vastly unequal power relations to do as they were bid. The changes appeared to be meeting narrow political objectives (e.g. reduce local rural representation), but were not yet producing the purported fiscal benefits.

5. Assessing rural municipal restructuring: the rural development perspective As already noted, the intent here is to assess these recent rural interventions in the Ontario case from a rural development perspective. It is recognized that public administrative, fiscal cost management and other related perspectives that usually dominate the debate around local government restructuring are not unrelated to broader issues of rural development. The major difference might be summarized under the terms scope, integration and holism. Rural development, as a concept, a field of practice and a policy field, is virtually boundless, encompassing complex issues and open systems conditions around the health of the biophysical environment, culture and heritage, the economy and livelihood, physical infrastructure, social provision and a host of other considerations, including governance structures and systems. A rural development perspective will not only be implicitly integrative, it will be actively integrating. We are not only at pains to acknowledge the need to see rural development from a multiplicity of perspectives and to seek out synthetic understandings, and what we have called integrated solutions, but we actively push our craft in this direction. The continuing enterprise to come to terms with the meanings and implications of sustainable rural development, and the more recent initiatives in ecosystems health, sustainable livelihoods

ARTICLE IN PRESS D.J.A. Douglas / Journal of Rural Studies 21 (2005) 231–246

and other constructs are evidence of this commitment to transcend the boundaries of received conceptual frameworks and craft more integrated and satisfactory constructs to explain rural conditions, and illuminate policy and practice. Taking a rural development perspective therefore will direct us to examine rural local government restructuring, and in this instance rural municipal restructuring from a different perspective than the conventional assessments. To do this, we have extracted what might be called principles or fundamental criteria that a number of recognized development specialists have suggested. We draw upon the critical reflections and insights of Robert Chambers, Ignacy Sachs, John Friedmann and David Korten; a cross-section of respected and richly experienced practitioners and advocates of appropriate development, and theorists who have gained our respect as careful critics and insightful leaders in this disparate field. Of course, there are many others who might have been accessed here (e.g. Uphoff, Amin, Sandercock, Seers). It might be contested that much of the attention of some of these individuals has been directed to the socalled Third World contexts, which have little to do with rural development conditions in Ontario in the 21st century. This is not the case. The development principles they espouse have universal applicability. What they espouse, what they have learned and transmitted to us is validated and reinforced by Canadian and Ontario rural development practitioners, including this researcher (e.g. Douglas, 1989, 1996). In our assessment of the Ontario rural local government restructuring process below, reference will be made to a cross-section of Canadian and other theorists (e.g. Dykeman, Lang, Moseley) and practitioners, who are active in the socalled developed contexts, such as rural Ontario. 5.1. Chambers We take five process criteria from Chambers (1983). These are summarized as follows:

    

sitting, asking and listening, learning from the poorest, learning from indigenous technical knowledge, joint R & D, and learning by working.

Reacting to the perspectives and priorities of largely Euro-centric development practitioners and fair weather academics Chambers insisted not only on a respectful, dignified practice and behaviour, but also on one that would actually get at the facts and not the superficialities or preconceptions. He insists we go beyond the rhetoric of participatory process and conduct our development practice among and truly with the rural stakeholders. So

237

much so he advocated collaborative research and development between academe and rural peoples, between rural residents and government agencies. He would take us further and suggest that we clarify our vision by working with rural people on daily life issues in their world (e.g. harvesting). The spirit of Chambers’ principles is as important as the specifics of the guidelines he suggests. It is one that is modest, humble and respectful of those in whose worlds we are intervening. It sets out to be informed about the nature of the problem or opportunity through contextual mutual learning processes. This is how the most appropriate configuration of any intervention may be and must be designed. 5.2. Sachs Sachs has contributed several erudite, highly respected and critical reflections on development. In his major collection of essays on this topic he advises us that: ‘‘The process of development requires a flexible institutional procedure in which a great deal of importance is attached to debating alternatives’’ (Sachs, 1984, p. 15). He cautions us against a mechanistic process that serves to mask or obscure the fundamentally political nature of the development process. Related to this he proposes a second criterion to guide the development process, one that has considerable currency today. This is the principle of subsidiarity. It advocates, as it were, a principle of what I would call interest contiguity. The intent is to ensure that there is a minimum distance between the stakeholders who have a direct interest in any decision that affects their lives and interests, and the decision-making and taking that brings that decision into action, and therefore into their lives. It is a potent principle. Finally, Sachs (re)alerts us to the received productivist rationality that seeks to internalize profits or other gains, and externalize costs or other liabilities. He cautions us to address this worldview that inevitably colours the context within which development takes place, and may serve to circumscribe which solutions will be entertained, and which will be discarded as either impractical or unpalatable. These principles accord with those enunciated in the influential For the Common Good by Daly and Cobb Jr. (1999). 5.3. Friedmann John Friedmann has been an active critic of development for four decades, and is still respected as a major contributor to the theoretical discourse in development planning. He has been particularly influential in his research and writings on the theoretical underpinnings of planning, broadly conceived, as a political process in systems of territorially based social relations (Friedmann, 1973, 1987). For this reason alone it makes his

ARTICLE IN PRESS D.J.A. Douglas / Journal of Rural Studies 21 (2005) 231–246

238

perspectives on the process of rural development, as it is evolving through municipal restructuring in rural Ontario, of particular interest. The first of Friedmann’s principles relates to the epistemological basis of the intervention. His critique of mainstream planning’s processes of knowing, and therefore of intervention and action, is considerable. Overlapping with Sach’s critique he questions the dominance of our post-Enlightenment inheritances, notably the prevalence of scientific rationality and reductionist processes in our attempts to understand development realities and the consequent intellectual hegemony of scientism, and what he calls policy analysis in our prescriptions. Emanating from this critique Friedmann proposes a process within which social learning is the dominant form of knowledge creation and validation. Mutual learning and Deweyesque cycles of experiential learning in community-based and other social contexts are proposed as desirable counterbalances to the expert-driven scientism, and as processes more reflective of the realities of the human experience. Articulating his own version of subsidiarity Friedmann extends these processes of social learning and mutual knowledge construction into a project of social mobilization through a federated network of cellular, nested communities. These highly independent communities would have their own locally appropriate governance systems and structures. They would trade and otherwise interact with other communities and other systems up the economic and political hierarchies on the basis of balanced interdependencies emphasizing equity, fair trade, ecological sustainability and the securing of local self-reliance and democratic process. While challenged as little more than a utopian project, a project without an implementation blueprint, for our purposes Friedmann’s proposition is to be taken as a set of development principles in action. Control, self-reliance, the fostering of an alternative economics (e.g. Ekins, 1986; Daly and Cobb Jr, 1999), a thriving local democracy, and the integration of the interest and the decisionmaking territorial space are the relevant tenets of his proposition. 5.4. Korten David Korten’s depiction of the rural development challenge as expressed in his term ‘‘community management’’ is perhaps best expressed in the following: Community management takes as its point of departure, not the bureaucracy and its centrally mandated development projects and programmes, but rather the community itself: its needs, its capacities, and ultimately its own control over both its resources and its destiny. And it focuses on empowerment—specifically the control over and

ability to manage productive resources in the interests of one’s own family and community. It invokes a basic principle of control and accountability which maintains that the control over an action should rest with the people who will bear its consequences (Korten, 1987, p. xix). Korten sees these fundamentals applying to all development contexts, not just the Asian contexts that were the immediate focus of his attention. In addition, he explicitly includes local government as a key element in the community management system. He stresses that the term community management has as a fundamental assumption that the resources on which the community’s well-being depends are not being ‘‘managed for the community by persons and groups outside of its boundaries, and/or by a small local elite’’ (Korten, 1987, p. 3). On this premise he contends that productivity alone is not a sufficient condition to assess a development’s contribution to community capacity. Empowerment is central. Korten recognizes that a balance has to be achieved between legitimate (usually government directed) topdown initiatives and local democratic bottom-up development processes. In achieving this balance, he highlights the factors of local variety, local resources and local accountability to suggest three principles for development policy and practice. With their broadly distributed decision processes (governance?) community management systems are seen to have nearly unlimited potentials for adaptation, so the standardized prescriptions for development often required by centralized bureaucratic models, are to be avoided. Understanding the diversity and richness of local resources (e.g. skills, heritage, organizations) counter-balances the command system of central, bureaucratized approaches that simply cannot fathom the variety and depth of informal resource systems in the community, and available to the development effort. Harnessing local resources should be the starting point for community-managed development. The accountability principle, redolent of the subsidiarity principle, closes the link between decision and consequence, ensuring that these lie within the domain of the community. Korten contends that these principles are well grounded in broadly accepted political and organizational theory. He concludes that the need is now for ‘‘new organizational forms and programme approaches that encourage local initiative, accountability and self-regulation, y’’ (Korten, 1987, p. 6). 5.5. Canadian and other perspectives This assemblage of conceptual guidelines and principles is mirrored by those coming from Canadian and other so-called developed contexts that might, prima

ARTICLE IN PRESS D.J.A. Douglas / Journal of Rural Studies 21 (2005) 231–246

facie, be associated more directly with conditions prevailing in the rural Ontario situation. For example, Dykeman listed 11 ‘‘essential features of the community/ rural development approach’’ (Dykeman, 1988). Among these we find the following: It is process oriented and functions as a facilitator of communication and coordination among diverse groups within the community—local government, unions, business, special interest, educational institutions and senior government departments. It deals with the community in a holistic manner. A development analysis needs to be preparedy . A public participation component, as part of the process, is critically important (Dykeman, 1988, p. 151). Drawing on the work of Trist and others Lang addresses the realities of complexity and wicked problems in Canadian rural development contexts (Lang, 1988). Development planning must acknowledge and respond to the realities of what he terms interconnectedness, complicatedness, uncertainty, ambiguity, pluralism and conflict, and societal constraints (Lang, 1988, p. 86). In making the case for a strategic integrated approach to the development planning process he stresses (like Friedmann and others) the principle of an ‘‘interactive approach’’, emphasizing the search for shared interests and values, consensus and feasible and acceptable action alternatives. Echoing Sach’s principles Lang stresses the need to identify the ‘‘effecting interests’’ (those in a position to take action in response to the issues at hand) and the ‘‘affected interests’’ (those who are or who perceive that they are affected by the outcomes). Embedded in interactive process are information and feedback, consultation, collaboration and negotiation. The emphasis on participatory process (and social learning) and reference to subsidiarity are evident in Lang’s conclusion that ‘‘development strategies often require behavioural change which may be easier to achieve if those expected to do the changing are involved in the planning’’ (Lang, 1988, p. 91). Focusing on Trist’s and other’s concept of the ‘‘domain’’ as a set of interdependencies among stakeholders in a transactional, shared environment, he advocates what Freidmann and others have called transactive process. This long predates the current discourse relating to process configurations that we have come to call governance (i.e. shared power contexts). This is particularly important in what Lang typifies as metaproblems that are complex, multifaceted and cut across an array of jurisdictions and interests. Local government restructuring would be one such metaproblem. The local dimension, however this might be defined, to rural development is central to Moseley’s thesis (Moseley, 2003). Drawing on a variety of researchers and practitioners in the European context, he sets out the argument for conceptualizing rural development as a

239

process that is fundamentally centred on, and emanates from the local level (Mosely, 2003, pp. 4–8). Directly from Walsh’s analysis (1995) he quotes that it is ‘‘more than a scaling down of interventions previously organized from the top by centralized policy making units y it is a radical response that seeks to achieve new objectives in relation to the development process by focusing on such concepts as multi-dimensionality, integration, co-ordination, subsidiarity and sustainability’’ (Moseley, 2003, p. 7). This accords with the process principles of the four sources we have used to undertake this assessment. There is therefore general agreement between the four major sources used for this assessment, and core development process principles that may be found among rural development researchers and practitioners in the Canadian context, and similar developed rural contexts. We will use this sample of rural development principles, particularly those espoused by Chambers, Sachs, Friedmann and Korten, as our assessment criteria.

6. Assessment Acknowledging the centrality of governance systems in the integrity and sustainability of rural communities begs the question of the Province of Ontario’s recent ideological enterprise: ‘‘Is this good rural development?’’ At this time we have only pieces of information on products, and less on outcomes, though the accumulating evidence provides little support for the intervention. So we must reserve analysis and conclusions on these counts. However, we do have a considerable stock of information on the process and it is on this facet of the restructuring that we will focus our assessment. 6.1. Chambers Using Chamber’s principles there can be little doubt that the expectations of a respectful, dignified process were largely absent in a climate of minimum consultation, no participation worthy of the name, widespread confrontation and autocratic process. Likewise, the absence of an arm’s length, credible analysis of the ‘‘problem’’, the purported waste, duplication and loss of fiscal and other opportunities precludes any convincing claim to have gotten at the facts. The dearth of collaborative research militated against a mutual construction of the ‘‘problem’’ (Schon, 1983) and any semblance of a collaborative framing of opportunity sets. The principles of contextually based mutual learning were violated and replaced with a climate of long-distance denigration, particularly as it relates to the ‘‘costs of politicians’’. While there were constrained options available (e.g. amalgamation, annexation), the

ARTICLE IN PRESS 240

D.J.A. Douglas / Journal of Rural Studies 21 (2005) 231–246

opportunities were dictated in a top-down manner and the design of the intervention was pre-set (Downey and Williams, 1998). In the spirit of Chambers’ respectful, collaborative, careful praxis, the recent rural municipal restructuring cannot be regarded as a constructive intervention for effective rural development. 6.2. Sachs The principle of flexible institutional procedures and a climate to foster the discussion of alternatives has not been in evidence to any meaningful extent in Ontario’s recent rural municipal restructuring. The essentially mechanistic nature of the process obscures the fundamental political nature of this enterprise. At first glance, the fundamental principle of subsidiarity may seem to have informed the process as the Province promulgated the benefits and the efficacy of its realignment of responsibilities toward the municipalities. However, a commensurate transfer of resources has not accompanied this transfer of responsibilities. Indeed, the overall process is one of Provincial withdrawal from the fiscal viability of municipalities, a process that will have its real impact after the cessation of the so-called transition funding. More to the point, the enlargement of most rural municipalities is serving to distance the constituent communities that make up these local administrative units, from their elected representatives. Even with the option of new ward systems, democratic representation is greatly attenuated. So we have a double jeopardy in play with Provincial chosen responsibilities selectively downloaded without the requisite resources on the one hand, and on the other, an enlargement of local government units and a further distancing of the subject and object of decision-making. The productivist rationality that sees only goodness in internalized profits and gain and the ‘‘common sense’’ of externalizing costs has dominated the process. The ‘‘bottom line’’ mentality, the deification of business values and logic, the least cost universalities and all the other trappings of the neo-conservative ideology have pressured municipalities, which are supposed to be shared power institutions from and for local communities, into narrowly circumscribed alternatives and solutions. As an aside, language and modes of speech have been central pieces in this rural development episode. We have cited several excerpts from the Provincial government’s political pronouncements. The acquisition of attention and the appropriation of consent, through legitimated speech modes (largely business script), have been intriguing processes in this episode. One is forcefully reminded of Habermasian perspectives highlighting the processes through which (unequal) power relationships are asserted and reproduced through communicative action (Forester, 1989). It is not beyond

the realm of speculation to suggest that the intensive, top-down Provincial process with attendant deadlines and ultimatums all couched within the language of business practicalities, financial efficiencies (cost minimization) and self-evident business logic, served to legitimize the agenda and the efficacy of the process, while excluding alternatives and marginalizing opposition. 6.3. Friedmann Analogous to the principles put forth by Chambers, and logically following the epistemological basis of the intervention, the recent rural restructuring devalued and minimized the role and relevance of social learning. Expert-driven scientism, a lock-step bureaucratic procedure (with embedded sanctions) and other characteristics of the Province’s process epitomized an extended rationalization. Experiential knowledge, notably at the local community level was devalued, not in terms of operationalizing the constrained alternatives, but in problem construction and solutions framing, i.e. the generative phase of the process. The integration of territorial systems of social relationships, the cornerstone of Friedmann’s principles in action, becomes a distant possibility with the enlargement of the municipal units, the spatial and functional distancing of constituent (now ‘‘customer’’) and representative, and the radical constriction of the municipality’s fiscal base. Control, self-reliance and other tenets of community development do not call for self-sufficiency or closed socio-political systems. They seek out an equitable and efficient top-down/bottom-up balance of mutual interdependencies. In this case, rural municipalities have been the recipients of an essentially top-down restructuring process, and are increasingly severed from legitimate life-lines of fiscal transfers from the senior level of government, whose ‘‘creatures’’ they supposedly are (Kitchen, 2000). 6.4. Korten The principles invoked by Korten start with the community and from there presumably the type of government they need. The centrally mandated model that Ontario adopted is antithetical to this perspective. Not unlike the productivist challenge of Sachs, Korten challenges us to place community empowerment at the centre of our development agenda. Productivity contributes, usually in quite indirect ways, to community capacity and empowerment. But it should not be the starting point. Cost accounting and other narrow metrics should be even further from our central concerns. This has not been the case in rural Ontario. As a seasoned practitioner Korten stressed the need for a balance between a top-down versus a bottom-up

ARTICLE IN PRESS D.J.A. Douglas / Journal of Rural Studies 21 (2005) 231–246

process. As already noted, the developmental dimension of the recent Ontario initiative has been absent in this regard. While there might be a semblance of local choice and discretion in the operationalizing of the constrained alternatives dictated to the municipalities, there can be little disagreement concerning the autocratic prescription given (Downey and Williams, 1998). From the overall rural development perspective, where process is itself part of the development initiative and investment, one must conclude that the Ontario case study manifests a process of undeveloping rural society. The fundamental connection between a community and its government must be a central consideration from the rural development perspective. This is the case when we examine and use selected principles from established development specialists. To supplement this it is worth quoting at length from one of Canada’s more respected analysts of local government: If the municipality is an extension of the community, its identity and its purpose derive from that community, not from the particular services it provides. The municipality has a legitimate right to take actions that are needed by that community. The right derives from the nature of the municipality as an extension of the community, and does not depend on the specific powers assigned to it. The municipality’s primary role is concern for the problems and issues faced by the community. The interests and values of the community are expressed and resolved through the municipality. It is ‘‘a political institution for the authoritative determination of community values’’ (Tindal, 1999, p. 15). This takes us full circle; from the 18th to the 21st century. The community’s local government must be just that, an integral component of a community-based governance system: responsive, indigenous and legitimized by local democratic process. This conception of the municipality is a long, long way away from the services providing agency espoused by the former government of Ontario; a long way away from the customer sales and service ‘‘business’’ espoused by that and other governments. This perspective, valuing as it does the autonomy of self-reliant communities and respecting their democratic systems, is much closer to commonly accepted constructs of community and community development (Douglas, 1987, 1993, 1994; Daly and Cobb Jr., 1999). It is much closer to the selfdetermination and health that researchers and practitioners see as the pre-requisites for sustainable communities (Ross and Usher, 1986; Nozick, 1992). But fostering strong community governments can pose threats to historically embedded hegemonic structures. It challenges the contradiction of an all-powerful Province having its municipal litter, ‘‘at pleasure’’, while

241

exercising unfettered discretion as to whether these ‘‘creatures’’ will be resourced from the common pool (i.e. Ontario society) and when, where and especially how they will be recast in moulds more in keeping with the centre’s priorities; fundamental considerations in rural development.

7. The Ontario episode and the question of governance Concepts of governance or the ‘‘new governance’’ have been the centre of considerable attention over the last 15 years. See, for example, the eight volume Visions of Governance project, launched in 1996 from Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government (Hill, 2004), and the Local Governance Programme of the British Economic and Social Research Council. Rhodes provides us with considerable breadth in defining governance as a change ‘‘in the meaning of government, referring to a new process of governing: or a changed condition of ordered rule; or the new method by which society is governed’’ (Rhodes, 1996, pp. 652–653). Most researchers allude to the demise of the long established trinity of state, market and civil society as an analytical frame of reference, and point toward a complex and fluid plurality of interests, partnerships, self-organizing networks and a realignment of the role and functions as well as the authority and responsibility of local government as the hallmarks of this emerging reality (e.g. Marsden and Murdoch, 1998; Goodwin, 1998). In a highly differentiated polity this emerging phenomenon of governance leads to new ‘‘associative power’’ constructs, new institutional arrangements and new power relations. Woods typifies it in the British context as being ‘‘characterized by selforganizing networks embracing the state, private and voluntary sectors, y’’ (Woods, 1998, p. 13). The rural outcomes, according to Woods have included a repositioning of local government from a residual provider of local services and regulator on behalf of a highly centralized national government, to community advocate and advocate of a particular construction of rurality (Woods, 1998, p. 24). He contends that the restructuring of rural society has to be understood in the context of a changing British society, notably one rapidly leaving Fordist modes of production and accumulation and associated regulatory structures, into regimes characterized by flexibility, entrepreneurialism and increasingly complex and fluid contexts of shared power. Stoker emphasizes the characteristics of fluidity and uncertainty noting that ‘‘governance refers to the development of governing styles in which boundaries between and within public and private sectors have become blurred’’ (Stoker, 1998, p. 17). His oft-quoted short-hand descriptor of ‘‘managing a nobody-incharge world’’ succinctly highlights one of the pivotal

ARTICLE IN PRESS 242

D.J.A. Douglas / Journal of Rural Studies 21 (2005) 231–246

characteristics of this new decision design, coordination and action environment (Stoker, 1995, p. 4). He is critically aware of the potential rhetorical and instrumental (e.g. ‘‘a code for less government’’) dimensions of the general concept and sees its primary value at this time as an ‘‘organizing framework’’ (Stoker, 1995, p. 18). The parallels here with contested conceptualizations of the notion of social capital are readily apparent (Wall et al., 1998). The complexity, or ‘‘messiness’’ as Goodwin would have it (Goodwin, 1998), associated with concepts of governance may be, at least in part, associated with two prima facie opposing characterizations of the phenomenon. First, we have the reference to shared power, dispersed processes of problem construction, the ambit and breadth of participatory processes, and the dilution if not erosion of formal structures of power and authority; all strongly redolent of long established principles of community development and social mobilization (e.g. Bruyn and Meehan, 1987; Nozick, 1992; Friedmann, 1987, 1992). In some opposition, we have the association with the so-called ‘‘new public management’’, public choice theory, concepts of efficiency and market rationality, deregulation, and propositions regarding the efficacy of the minimalist state (e.g. Osborne and Gaebler, 1992; Peters, 2001, Chapter 2). What might be regarded as an uncomfortable convergence here lends some challenge of complexity to any attempt to construct a universal theory of governance, as an explanatory construct. At a minimum a heady blend of ‘‘conservative populism’’ and activist communitarianism (e.g. Etzioni, 1993) makes for a rich conceptual soup; a hallmark, perhaps, of it postmodernity? 7.1. The Ontario episode Viewed through the lenses of the emerging concepts surrounding governance, the recent restructuring of local government in rural Ontario presents some interesting insights. It would appear that the paternalistic and control-focused agenda of established power structures, in this case Provincial government, held sway. Whether this application of ‘‘power over’’ in fact represents the agenda of a dominant regime (i.e. the corporate sector and the Provincial government) remains a question. However, the forceful exercise of formal powers was clearly in evidence, fuelled and in part legitimized by reference to market rationality and constitutional legitimacy. This application of power, not unlike the selective centralization of the Thatcher regime in Britain and the truncation of local government powers in Ireland, served to shape and secure what Marsden and Murdoch have called a ‘‘topography of political relations’’ (Marsden and Murdoch, 1998, p. 1). It also has some parallels with the mixture of

prescription and proscription evident in the Victoria State government’s centre-driven approach to local government restructuring (Welch, 2002). In the Ontario case that topography included few if any non-governmental organizations, community groups and other elements of civil society. The government-to-government axis of communications and direction was unequivocal and non-negotiable (Downey and Williams, 1998). Notwithstanding the singularly rich and active nature of civil society in Canada and the vibrant culture of volunteerism and community engagement (Douglas, 1993; Campfens, 1997; Barr et al., 2004; McClintock, 2004) the design and execution of the restructuring process essentially excluded civil society. This might be interpreted as an instance where the universality of the concept of governance, as suggested by some researchers (Marsden and Murdoch, 1998), may be challenged. Or, equally valid, it might be interpreted as an instance where the inertia that is evident in Fordist and related entrenched systems and their constituent regimes (here, Provincial government as senior partner, local government as junior, dependent partner and business sector as mentor/stakeholder) is vigorously reinforced to reproduce power relations (Tewdwr-Jones, 1998; Murdoch and Abram, 1998). One way or another, it serves as a caution to restrain our assumptions regarding the universality or inevitability of the ‘‘supposed shift from government to governance’’, particularly in rural contexts (Marsden and Murdoch, 1998, p. 1; Imre and Raco, 1999). The Ontario rural case illustrates that the concept of governance, to be of any explanatory or prescriptive use must go well beyond the notion of coordination, which is often the focus of theorists here (e.g. Goodwin, 1998, p. 8). Addressing the emphasis of associative power to act with partners and collaborators, to bring about regime installation and the subsequent bringing about of structural change and social reproduction, one may interpret the Ontario case as one of either indifference or impotence. Rural municipalities in Ontario do collaborate with a great variety of non-government organizations in the arts, culture, social development, recreation, economic development, environment and other fields. Most rural communities are richly endowed with a variety of social service and other organizations (e.g. Lions, Kiwanis, Rotary) as well as business-oriented organizations (e.g. Chamber of Commerce, Business Improvement Association). Recent research documents that Ontario rural municipalities collaborate with extensive networks of partners in economic development (Douglas and Chadwick, 2001). They also collaborate with other levels of government (e.g. upper-tier municipal, Provincial) and with particular development agencies (e.g. Community Futures Development Corporations). Notwithstanding this rich array of partnerships and collaborative networks (and the concomitant

ARTICLE IN PRESS D.J.A. Douglas / Journal of Rural Studies 21 (2005) 231–246

possibilities for bonding and bridging social capital), rural municipalities in Ontario were either unwilling or unable to harness these resources in the lob-sided transactional episode of restructuring. Coordination was not a particularly central consideration here. Effective alliances, strategic allocation of resources, leverage and counter-hegemonic clout were of the essence. Were the ground conditions for governance, at least as conceptualized to date, absent? Or was the degree of asymmetry in power relations such that any essay at network and oppositional mobilization was doomed to failure? Was the State’s ‘‘dominant strategic line’’ (Murdoch and Abram, 1998) successfully imposed and policed because of the absence of the ground conditions for governance, because of the relative power of the State’s position, or because the concept of governance in rural contexts (at least Western) is not universally applicable as an explanatory theory of restructuring and transformation? Might this episode be better interpreted through the concept of ‘‘scalar turns’’ (MacLeod and Goodwin, 1999)? Notwithstanding the complexity and the perennially contested nature of the Canadian Confederation, and the ongoing debate concerning supranational and other territorial power shifts, there is little to suggest that this episode in local government restructuring was directly connected to these uncertain developments. Some of the alleged downloading of functions may have reflected a concomitant Federal-to-Provincial downloading, but there was also a counter-current of functional centralization.

8. Research and practice: selected implications The rural Ontario case highlights a number of issues and challenges to the research and practitioner communities. The first relates to integrating the conceptual underpinnings of these types of political and public administrative interventions into the sociological and economic perspectives that still dominate received development theories (e.g. Hettne, 1995; Todaro, 2000; Peet, 1999; Hoogvelt, 2001). This is as much the case for Canadian perspectives as it is for other international perspectives (e.g. Bradfield 1988; Savoie, 1986). Given the fundamental spatial or territorial basis of local government arrangements and rearrangements, there are obvious intersections with constructs derived from regional science and from geographical perspectives. These also need to be brought to bear in interpreting local government interventions. Livelihood creation and maintenance are central considerations to a variety of rural development theories and concepts (e.g. McDonagh, 2001). Depending on the jurisdiction there are varying degrees of relationship between the nature and health of the community

243

economy itself and the local government’s fiscal capacity (Douglas, 2003). This suggests some potentially fruitful intersections between regional economic development theory and local economic development theory (e.g. Blakely and Bradshaw, 2002; Haughton, 1999), and concepts of local government development. Another area with significant research challenges relates to the phenomena of multi-community spatial systems, and the social and institutional basis of these extended networks (Korsching et al., 1992; Douglas, 1999). Some of the ideas being explored here provide a platform to integrate concepts and theories of community governance, social cohesion and sustainability, while drawing upon interesting notions under the rubric of social capital (Wall et al., 1998). But before these attempts at integration, we first have to better articulate the theoretical constructs that would serve to explicate the processes of rural restructuring evident in contexts such as Ontario. Comparative analysis (e.g. rural Canada and Australia) should provide additional insights here. We have explored some questions that emerge relating to the applicability of concepts surrounding local governance. They are tentative. However, the case study presented, while examined primarily through rural development principles, does suggest that a very prudent application of concepts that are emerging from the governance discourse is warranted. The challenges to the practitioner are as many and as varied. They include the ever-present balancing of personal values and professional ethics with the value systems generating and propelling these dramatic interventions. In the Ontario context several respected researchers and practitioners did publicly challenge the logic and the efficacy of the enterprise (e.g. Sancton, Tindal). The role of the community advocate is also important here. Likewise, the role of the (relatively) detached analyst is important. A variety of practitioners, including community development specialists, development planners and public management consultants will have important roles to play, not the least of which will be to foster integrative perspectives, beyond the narrow uni-dimensional confines of cost-management and purported scale economies usually espoused by the restructuring protagonist. Rural development practitioners have a particularly challenging role, all the more so because of the lack of an integrated theoretical framework, as noted earlier. In addition to the challenges of nurturing effective participatory process and facilitating integrative perspectives, the rural development practitioner will face the challenge of cultivating mutual learning processes that will serve to engender collective problem construction, solutions framing and decision-making. A bridging role, through creative communications, networks and social capital construction is suggested. This would be especially important in facilitating conversations

ARTICLE IN PRESS 244

D.J.A. Douglas / Journal of Rural Studies 21 (2005) 231–246

between local elites and vested interests, the (often) external promoters of restructuring and the fluid plurality of interests that go to make up the rural community today. Understanding the balance of operating priorities between, for example fiscal considerations, the presence and level of particular services, access to political process and decision-makers, a sense of place and community and other matters will be central to the role and relevance of the practitioner here. Pivotal for all of this is an understanding of, and then engaging the processes of power relations.

9. Summary Local government restructuring, and particularly municipal restructuring involves very important interventions in the lives of rural communities. It is a theme of global importance (McCarney, 1996). The implications in terms of potential positive and negative outcomes are many and uncertain. The anticipated outcomes and the process adopted are a function of the distribution of power in society, notably between different levels of government, and the values and ideological convictions of the more powerful. Given the importance of healthy, vital and sustainable communities and the critical interdependencies between these and their locally based governance systems, rural municipal restructuring is of central concern to rural development. It is not a sideshow in the shadow of other considerations such as economic development, social provision or investment in physical infrastructure. The Ontario case provides an available and relevant case study, particularly for comparative research, for both the researcher and the practitioner to critically reflect on, in revisiting and especially augmenting our theories of development and planning practice, and the nature of our roles in contributing to equitable and effective development. Finally, the case study presented here poses some important questions relating to the concept of governance itself.

Acknowledgements The research for this paper emanated from a conference paper presented to the Canadian Rural Revitalization Foundation (CRRF) Conference in Hawksbury, Ontario in October, 2001. The author wishes to thank the three anonymous referees and Paul Cloke for their constructive review of the first draft and useful suggestions for the further refinement of the paper. Postscript: In the latter stages of the research for this paper the former Provincial Government of Ontario, having lost a by-election after the forced amalgamation

of the City of Hamilton and after mounting acrimony over a potentially ‘‘bankrupt’’ Toronto, following the forced amalgamation of the so-called megacity, abandoned its plans for further Provincially dictated municipal restructuring. Shortly after, a scathing critique of the amalgamation hypothesis (or ideology) by a self-described ‘‘market-oriented economist’’ (Bish, 2001, p. 1) concluded that ‘‘size in itself is not the major determinant of per capita costs’’ and ‘‘smaller governments can cost less, not because they can produce all services efficiently but because they can take advantage of specialization and trade in markets without attempting to produce all activities themselves’’ (Bish, 2001, p. 26). This reflects this researcher’s 25 years experience with rural municipalities throughout Canada, where they have consistently shown that they can collaborate and creatively secure the provision of services and facilities for their residents. No less timely and trenchant is Bish’s reminder that the ‘‘primary responsibility of local governments is governance, not production’’ (p. 27), a salutary admonition with which many if not most researchers and practitioners would concur. However, it does raise the question as to what is meant by and expected of the concept of ‘‘governance’’.

References Banfield, E.C., Wilson, J.Q., 1963. City Politics. Random House, New York. Barr, C., McKeown, L., Davidman, K., McIver, D., Lasby, D., 2004. The Rural Charitable Sector Research Initiative: A Portrait of the Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector in Rural Ontario. Canadian Centre for Philanthropy, Toronto. Bish, R.L., 2001. Local Government Amalgamations—Discredited Nineteenth-Century Ideals Alive in the Twenty-First. Commentary No. 150. C.D. Howe Institute, Toronto. Blakely, E.J., Bradshaw, T.K., 2002. Planning Local Economic Development: Theory and Practice. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Bradfield, M., 1988. Regional Economics; Analysis and Policies in Canada. McGraw-Hill Ryerson, Toronto. Bruyn, S., Meehan, J. (Eds.), 1987, Beyond the Market and the State New Directions in Community Development. Temple University Press, Philadelphia. Campfens, H., 1997. Community Development Around the World: Practice, Theory, Research, Training. University of Toronto Press, Toronto. Chambers, R., 1983. Rural Development: Putting the Last First. Longman, New York. Daly, H.E., Cobb Jr., J.B., 1999. For the Common Good. Beacon Press, Boston. Douglas, D.J.A., 1987. Community development: scope, issues, potentials. Journal of Community Development March/April, pp. 16–23. Douglas, D.J.A., 1989. Community economic development in rural Canada: a critical review. Plan Canada 29 (2), 28–46. Douglas, D.J.A., 1993. Community development: observations and lessons from experience. Rural Reportings, University School of Rural Planning and Development, University of Guelph, Guelph. Douglas, D.J.A., 1994. Community Economic Development in Canada, vol. 1. McGraw-Hill Ryerson, Toronto.

ARTICLE IN PRESS D.J.A. Douglas / Journal of Rural Studies 21 (2005) 231–246 Douglas, D.J.A., 1996. Sustainable community development. In: Needham, R.D., Novakowski, E.N. (Eds.). Sharing Knowledge, Linking Sciences: An International Conference on the St. Lawrence Ecosystem. Conference Proceedings, vol. 1. University of Ottawa, Ottawa. Douglas, D.J.A., 1998. Hamlets and Villages: Rural Ottawa-Carleton—An Evaluation of Potentials. School of Rural Planning and Development with Larry Spencer, Spencer & Co, Guelph. Douglas, D.J.A., 1999. The new rural region: consciousness collaboration and new challenges and opportunities for innovative practice. In: William, et al. (Eds.), Health in Rural Settings: Contexts for Action Ramp. University of Lethbridge, Lethbridge, pp. 39–60. Douglas, D.J.A., 2003. Findings and recommendations for policies, programmes and practice. Final Report in the Project—Toward More Effective Rural Economic Development in Ontario. School of Environmental Design and Rural Development, University of Guelph, Guelph, Canada. Douglas, D.J.A., Chadwick, S., 2001. An integrated analysis of changing municipal and community roles and practices. Technical Report # 2 in the Project—Toward More Effective Rural Economic Development in Ontario. School of Rural Planning and Development University of Guelph, Guelph, Canada. Downey, T.J., Williams, R.J., 1998. Provincial agendas, local responses: the ‘common sense’ restructuring of Ontario’s Municipal Governments. Canadian Public Administration 41 (2), 210–238. Dykeman, F.W., 1988. A return to the past for a rural community based planning and action programme for the future: a challenge for planner. In: Dykeman, F.W. (Ed.), Integrated Rural Planning and Development Rural and Small Town Research and Studies Programme. Mount Allison University, Sackville, New Brunswick, pp. 147–166. Ekins, P. (Ed.), 1986, The Living Economy: A New Economics in the Making. Routledge, New York. Etzioni, A., 1993. The Spirit of Community. Crown Publishers, New York. FitzGibbon, J., Summers, R., 2000. Report on Municipal Restructuring in Rural Ontario. School of Rural Planning and Development. University of Guelph, Guelph. Forester, J., 1989. Planning in the Face of Power. University of California Press, Berkeley. Friedmann, J., 1973. Retracking America. Anchor, New York. Friedmann, J., 1987. Planning in the Public Domain: From Knowledge to Action. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ. Friedmann, J., 1992. Empowerment: The Politics of Alternative Development. Blackwell, Cambridge, MA. Globe and Mail, 2001. Shortfall May Spark Tax Hike, Mayor Says. February 1. Globe and Mail, 2001. Amalgamation Savings Said to be Illusory. February 8. Goodwin, M., 1998. The governance of rural areas: some emerging research issues and agendas. Journal of Rural Studies 14 (1), 5–12. Guelph Tribune, 2001. Province Costs the City Millions: Kennedy. February 13. Haughton, G. (Ed.), 1999, Community Economic Development. The Stationary Office and the Regional Studies Association, London. Hettne, B., 1995. Development Theory and the Three Worlds. Longman, New York. Hickey, P., 1973. Decision Making Processes in Ontario’s Local Governments. Ministry of Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental, Affairs, Toronto. Hill, C.J., 2004. Governance, governance everywhere. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 14 (1), 139–142. Hoogvelt, A., 2001. Globalization and the Postcolonial World. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD.

245

Imre, R., Raco, M., 1999. How new is the new local governance? Lessons from the United Kingdom. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 24, 45–63. Isin, E.F., 1992. Cities without Citizens. Black Rose Books, Montreal. Kitchen, H., 2000. Municipal Finance in a New Fiscal Environment. Commentary No. 147, CD. Howe Institute, Toronto. Korsching, P.F., Borich, T.O., Stewart, J. (Eds.), 1992, Multicommunity Collaboration: An Evolving Rural Revitalization Strategy. North Central Regional Centre for Rural Development, Ames, IA. Korten, D., 1987. Community Management: Asian Experiences and Perspectives. Kumarian Press, West Hartford, CT. Lang, R., 1988. Planning for integrated development. In: Dykeman, F.W. (Ed.), Integrated Rural Planning and Development. Rural and Small Town Research and Studies Programme. Mount Allison University, Sackville, New Brunswick, pp. 81–104. Lehman, B., 2000. Report card on restructuring. Municipal World, January, pp. 5–6. MacLeod, G., Goodwin, M., 1999. Space, scale and state strategy: rethinking urban and regional governance. Progress in Human Geography 23, 503–527. Marsden, T., Murdoch, J., 1998. Editorial: the shifting nature of rural governance and community participation. Journal of Rural Studies 14 (1), 1–4. Marshall, J.A., Douglas, D.J.A., 1997. The Viability of Canadian Municipalities: Concepts and Measures. ICURR Press, Toronto. McCarney, P. (Ed.), 1996, The Changing Nature of Local Government in Developing Countries. Federation of Canadian Municipalities and the Centre for Urban and Community Studies. University of Toronto, Toronto. McClintock, N., 2004. Understanding Canadian Volunteers. Canadian Centre for Philanthropy, Toronto. McDonagh, J., 2001. Renegotiating Rural Development in Ireland. Ashgate, Aldershot, England. Moseley, M.J., 2003. Rural Development: Principles and Practice. Sage Publications, London. Mowbray, M., 2000. Community development and local government: an Australian response to globalization and economic fundamentalism. Community Development Journal 35 (3), 215–223. Murdoch, J., Abram, S., 1998. Defining the limits of community governance. Journal of Rural Studies 14 (1), 41–50. Nozick, M., 1992. No Place Like Home: Building Sustainable Communities. Canadian Council on Social Development, Ottawa. O’Brien, A., 1993. Municipal Consolidation in Canada and Its Alternatives. ICURR Press, Toronto. Osborne, D., Gaebler, T., 1992. Reinventing Government. AddisonWesley, Reading, MA. Peet, R. (with Hartwick, E.), 1999. Theories of Development. The Guilford Press, New York, NY. Peters, B.G., 2001. The Future of Governing. University Press of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas. Pickvance, C., Preteceille, E., 1991. State Restructuring and Local Power: A Comparative Perspective. Pinter, London. Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario, 1994. The Common Sense Revolution. PC Party of Ontario, Toronto. Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario, 1999. Blueprint: Mike Harris Plan to Keep Ontario on the Right Track. PC Party of Ontario, Toronto. Rhodes, R., 1996. The new governance: governing without government. Political Studies 44, 652–667. Ross, D.P., Usher, P.J., 1986. From the Roots Up: Economic Development as if Community Mattered. The Bootstrap Press, Croton-on-Hudson, NY. Sachs, I., 1984. Development and Planning. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

ARTICLE IN PRESS 246

D.J.A. Douglas / Journal of Rural Studies 21 (2005) 231–246

Sancton, A., 1991. Local Government Reorganization in Canada since 1975. ICURR Press, Toronto. Sancton, A., 1992. Provincial–municipal disentanglement in Ontario: a dissent. Municipal World, July, p. 23. Savoie, D., 1986. Regional Economic Development: Canada’s Search for Solutions. University of Toronto Press, Toronto. Schon, D.A., 1983. The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. Basic Books, New York. Skelly, M.J., 1996. Alternative Service Delivery in Canadian Municipalities. ICURR Press, Toronto. Stoker, G., 1995. Public-private Partnerships and Urban Governance. Mimeo, Department of Geography, University of Strathclyde. Stoker, G., 1998. Governance as Theory: Five Propositions. UNESCO. Tewdwr-Jones, M., 1998. Rural government and community participation: the planning role of community councils. Journal of Rural Studies 14 (1), 51–62.

Tindal, C.R., 1999. Another century–another business-based reform era. Municipal World, July, pp. 13–20. Tindal, C.R., Tindal, S.N., 1995. Local Government in Canada. McGraw-Hill Ryerson, Toronto. Todaro, M.P., 2000. Economic Development. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA. UNDP, 1997. Participatory Local Governance, Technical Advisory Paper 1, Local Initiative Facility for Urban Environment (LIFE) programme. United Nations, New York. Wall, E., Ferrazzi, G., Schryer, F., 1998. Getting the goods on social capital. Rural Sociology 63 (2), 300–322. Welch, R., 2002. Legitimacy of rural local government in the new governance environment. Journal of Rural Studies 18 (4), 443–449. Woods, M., 1998. Advocating rurality? The repositioning of rural local government. Journal of Rural Studies 14 (1), 13–26.