Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Modelling government — voluntary sector relationships: emerging trends and issues

  • Articles
  • Published:
European Business Organization Law Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper evaluates the current attempt to develop local ‘compacts’ between local government and the voluntary and community sector, as an example of a relational contracting approach to structuring the evolving relationships between these sectors. It is structured in four parts. The first part charts briefly local government — voluntary sector (LG — VS) relationships in England over the period 1979–2000. It draws examples in particular from experience in the field of area regeneration. The second part introduces the concept of the Voluntary Sector Compact (VSC), and argues that it is central to the approach of the current Labour government to these relationships. It differentiates this approach from that of the previous government, denoted here as the service agency model, and situates it within the meta-paradigm of community governance. The third part explores the implementation of the Compact in England at both the national and local level. The final part draws out key lessons from this for the future of LG — VS relationships in England, situating these within an emerging model of LG — VS relationships.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Cabinet Office (1999) Modernising Government (London, HMSO).

    Google Scholar 

  • M. Clarke & J. Stewart (1998) Community Governance, Community Leadership and the New Labour Government (York, YPS).

    Google Scholar 

  • B. Colenutt and A. Cutten (1994) ‘Community empowerment in vogue or vain’, Local Economy (9,3) pp. 236–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • I. Colville, K. Dalton & C. Tomkins (1993) ‘Developing and understanding cultural change in HM Customs and Excise: there is more to dancing than knowing the Next Steps’, Public Administration (71,4) pp. 549–566.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Commission on the Future of the Voluntary Sector (1996) Meeting the Challenge of Change (London, NCVO).

    Google Scholar 

  • G. Craig, M. Taylor, C. Szanto, & M. Wilkinson (1999) Developing Local Compacts (York, Joseph Rowntree Foundation).

    Google Scholar 

  • H. Davis & B. Walker (1997) ‘Trust based relationships in local government contracting’, Public Money & Management (17,4) pp. 47–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions [DETR] (1998a) Community-Based Regeneration Initiatives: A Working Paper (London, DETR).

    Google Scholar 

  • DETR (1998b) Housing and Regeneration. A Statement by the Deputy Prime Minister (London, DETR).

    Google Scholar 

  • DETR (1998c) Modern Local Government (London, DETR).

    Google Scholar 

  • P. DiMaggio & W. Powell (1988) ‘The iron cage revisited’, in C. Milofsky, ed., Community Organizations (New York, Oxford University Press) pp. 77–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • P. Falconer & K. McLaughlin (2000) ‘Public — private partnerships and the ‘New Labour’ government in Britain’, in S. Osborne, ed., Public — Private Partnerships in International Perspective (London, Routledge) pp. 120–133.

    Google Scholar 

  • C. Finn (1996) ‘Utilizing stakeholder strategies for positive collaborative outcomes’, in C. Huxham, ed., Creating Collaborative Advantage (London, Sage).

    Google Scholar 

  • L. Gastor & N. Deakin (1998) ‘Local government and the voluntary sector: who needs whom — why and what for’, Local Governance (24,3) pp. 169–194.

    Google Scholar 

  • R. Gutch (1990) Partners or Agents? (London, NCVO).

    Google Scholar 

  • H M Treasury (2002) The Role of the Voluntary and Community Sector in Service Delivery. A Cross Cutting Review (London, Home Office).

    Google Scholar 

  • S. Hall, M. Beazley, M. Burfitt, C. Collinge, P. Lee, P. Loftman, B. Nevin & A. Srbljanin (1996) The Single Regeneration Budget: A Review of the Challenge Funding Round II (Birmingham, School of Public Policy).

    Google Scholar 

  • S. Hall & J. Mawson (1999) Challenge Funding, Contracts and Area Regeneration (Bristol, Policy Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • S. Hall, B. Nevin, M. Beazeley, A. Burfitt, P. Lee, P. Loftman & A. Srbljanin (1998) Competition Partnership and Regeneration (University of Birmingham, School of Public Policy).

  • M. Harris & C. Rochester, eds., (2000) Voluntary Agencies (London, Macmillan).

    Google Scholar 

  • J. Harrow (2001) ‘Capacity building as a public management goal: myth, magic or main chance?’, Public Management (3, 2) [in press].

  • Home Office (1990) Efficiency Scrutiny of Government Funding of the Voluntary Sector (London, HMSO).

    Google Scholar 

  • Home Office (1998) Home Office Annual Report 1998–99 (London, HMSO).

    Google Scholar 

  • Home Office/Working Group on Government Relations [WGGR] (2000) Minutes of the Annual Meeting between Government and Representatives of the Voluntary and Community Sector to Review the Operation and Development of the Compact (London, Home Office).

    Google Scholar 

  • C. Hood (1991) ‘A public management for all seasons?’, Public Administration (6969) pp. 3–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • C. Huxham & S. Vangen (1996) ‘Managing inter-organizational relationships’, in S. Osborne, ed., Managing in the Voluntary Sector (London, International Thomson Business Press) pp. 202–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • C. Huxham & S. Vangen (2000) ‘What makes partnerships work?’, in S. Osborne, ed., op. cit. pp. 293–310.

  • Independent Healthcare Association/Department of Health [IHA/DoH] (2000) For the Benefit of Patients (London, DoH).

    Google Scholar 

  • Inter-Departmental Working Group on Resourcing Community Capacity Building (2001) Funding Community Groups (London, Active Community Unit).

    Google Scholar 

  • G. Jenei & A. Vari (2000) ‘Partnership between local government and the local community in the area of social policy: a Hungarian experience’, in S. Osborne, ed., Public — Private Partnerships. Theory and Practice in International Perspective (London, Routledge) pp. 265–274.

    Google Scholar 

  • W. Kickert & J. Koppenjan (1997) ‘Public management and network management: an overview’, in W. Kickert, E-H. Klijn & J. Koppenjan, eds., Managing Complex Networks (London, Sage). pp. 35–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • E-H. Klijn & J. Koppenjan (2000) ‘Public management and policy networks: foundations of a network approach to governance’, Public Management (2,2) pp. 135–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Labour Party (1997) Building The Future Together: Labour’s Policies for Partnership Between Government and the Voluntary Sector (London, Labour Party).

    Google Scholar 

  • S. Leach & D. Wilson (1998) ‘Voluntary groups and local authorities: rethinking the relationship’, Local Government Studies (24,2) pp. 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Local Government Association [LGA] (1997) A New Commitment for Regeneration (London, LGA).

    Google Scholar 

  • V. Lowndes & C. Skelcher (1998) ‘Dynamics of multi-organisational partnerships: an analysis of changing modes of governance’, Public Administration (76) pp. 313–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • M. Mackintosh (1992) ‘Partnership: issues of policy and negotiation’, Local Economy (7,3) pp. 210–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • M. Mackintosh (2000) ‘Economic cultures and implicit contracts in social care’, Journal of Social Policy (29,1) pp. 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • K. McLaughlin, S. Osborne & E. Ferlie, eds., (2002) The New Public Management. Current Trends and Future Prospects (London, Routledge).

    Google Scholar 

  • K. McLaughlin & S. Osborne (2000) ‘A one-way street or two-way traffic? Can public — private partnerships impact on the policy-making process?’, in S. Osborne, ed., Public — Private Partnerships in International Perspective (London, Routledge) pp. 324–338.

    Google Scholar 

  • S. Martin, M. Tricker & T. Bovaird (1990) ‘Rural development programmes in theory and practice’, Regional Studies (24,3) pp. 268–277.

    Google Scholar 

  • J. Mawson (1995) The Single Regeneration Budget: The Stock-Take (Birmingham, University of Birmingham/Local Authority Association).

    Google Scholar 

  • V. Murray (1998) ‘Interorganisational collaboration in the nonprofit sector’, International Encyclopedia of Public Policy and Administration (2) pp. 1192–1196.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Council for Voluntary Organisations [NCVO] (1995) A Missed Opportunity: an Initial Assessment of the 1995 Single Regeneration Budget Approvals and their Impact on Voluntary and Community Organisations (London, NCVO).

    Google Scholar 

  • National Council for Voluntary Organisations [NCVO] (2000) Compact: Guidance on Monitoring (London, NCVO).

    Google Scholar 

  • National Regeneration Unit [NRU] (2001) The Vision for Neighbourhood Renewal (London, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions).

    Google Scholar 

  • S. Osborne (1997) ‘Managing the coordination of social services in the mixed economy of welfare: competition, cooperation or common cause?’, 8 British Journal of Management pp. 317–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • S. Osborne (1998) ‘Partnerships in local economic development? A bridge too far for the voluntary sector?’, Local Economy (12,4) pp. 290–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • S. Osborne (2000) ‘Reformulating Wolfenden? The roles and impact of Local Development Agencies in supporting voluntary and community action in the UK’, Local Government Studies (26,4) pp. 23–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • S. Osborne & N. Flynn (1997) ‘Managing the innovative capacity of voluntary organizations in the provision of public services’, Public Money & Management (17,4) pp. 31–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • S. Osborne & K. Ross (1999) The Voluntary Sector Compact in the UK: Enabling or Constraining Government — Voluntary Sector Relationships? (paper to the annual ARNOVA conference, Washington DC).

  • J. Peck and A. Tickell (1994) ‘Too many partners…the future for regeneration partnerships’, Local Economy (9,3) pp. 251–265).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perri 6 (1997) Holistic Government (London, Demos).

  • A. Pifer (1967) Quasi Non Governmental Organizations (New York, Carnegie Corporation).

    Google Scholar 

  • S. Podziba (1998) Social Capital Formation, Public-Building and Public Motivation. The Chelsea Charter Consensus Process (Dayton, Kettering Foundation).

    Google Scholar 

  • S. Ring & A. Van de Ven (1992) ‘Structuring cooperative relations between organizations’, Strategic Management Journal (13) pp. 483–498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • K. Ross & S. Osborne (1999) ‘Making a reality of community governance. Structuring government — voluntary sector relationships at a local level’, Public Policy & Administration (14,2) pp. 49–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • H. Russell. (2001) Local Strategic Partnerships, (York, Joseph Rowntree Foundation).

    Google Scholar 

  • Social Exclusion Unit (1998) Bringing Britain Together (London, HMSO).

    Google Scholar 

  • Social Services Inspectorate (2000) Towards a Common Cause — ‘a Compact for Care’ (London, Department of Health).

    Google Scholar 

  • J. Stewart (1996) ‘A dogma of our times: the separation of policy-making and implementation’, Public Money and Management (July-September).

  • G. Stoker (1997) ‘Public private partnerships and urban governance’, in G. Stoker, ed., Partners in Urban Governance: European and American Experience (London, Macmillan) pp. 1–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • K. Stowe (1998) ‘Compact on relations between government and the voluntary and community sector in England and Wales’, Public Administration and Development (18,5) pp. 519–522.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • R. Sykes & C. Clinton (2000) Compact with the Community. A Survey on Developing Local Compacts (London, LGA).

    Google Scholar 

  • B. Tilson, J. Mawson, M. Beazely, A. Burfitt, C. Collinge, S. Hall, P. Loftman, B. Nevin and A. Srbljanin (1997) ‘Partnerships for Regeneration: the Single Regeneration Budget Challenge Fund round one’, Local Government Studies (23,1) pp. 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • J. Vickers & G. Yarrow (1988) Privatization. An Economic Analysis (Great Yarmouth, MIT Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • K. Walsh (1995) Public Services and Market Mechanisms: Competition, Contracting and the New Public Management (London, Macmillan).

    Google Scholar 

  • R. Waterman & K. Meier (1998) ‘Principal-agent models: an expansion?’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory (8,2) pp. 173–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D. Wilson & R. Butler (1985) ‘Corporatism in the British voluntary sector’, in W. Streeck & P. Schmitter, eds., Private Interest Government: Beyond Market and State (London, Sage).

    Google Scholar 

  • Working Group on the Active Community (1999) Giving Time, Getting Involved (London, Home Office).

    Google Scholar 

  • Working Group on Government Relations [WGGR] (1998) Consultative Document on the Development of a Compact between Government and the Voluntary and Community Sector (London, NCVO).

    Google Scholar 

  • Working Group on Government Relations (2000a) Funding: a Code of Good Practice (London, Working Group on Government Relations).

    Google Scholar 

  • Working Group on Government Relations (2000b) Progress Report on Development of the Compact and Codes of Good Practice (London, Working Group on Government Relations).

    Google Scholar 

  • Working Group on Government Relations (2000c) The Compact One Year On — a Voluntary and Community Perspective (London, Working Group on Government Relations).

    Google Scholar 

  • Working Group on Government Relations Secretariat (2000a) Local Compact Guidelines. Getting Local Relationships Right Together (London, NCVO).

    Google Scholar 

  • Working Group on Government Relations Secretariat (2000b) Government and Voluntary Sector Move Forward on Compact Codes of Good Practice (Press Release, 9/5/00; with the Home Office and the Cabinet Office).

  • Working Together for Devon (1999) Developing Partnership between the Public, Voluntary and Community Sectors (Exeter, Devon Community Council/Devon County Council).

    Google Scholar 

  • York Council for Voluntary Services (1999) A Compact between the NHS and the Voluntary and Community Sector in North Yorkshire and the City of York (York, York CVS).

    Google Scholar 

  • D. Young (2000) ‘Alternative models of government — nonprofit sector relations: theoretical and international perspectives’, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly (29,1) pp. 149–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Aston Business School, Birmingham, B4 7ET, UK

    Stephen P. Osborne (Professor of Public Management at Aston Business School)

  2. Institute of Local Government Studies, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK

    Kate McLaughlin (Lecturer in Public Management and Local Governance at the Institute of Local Government Studies)

Authors
  1. Stephen P. Osborne
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kate McLaughlin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stephen P. Osborne.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Osborne, S.P., McLaughlin, K. Modelling government — voluntary sector relationships: emerging trends and issues. Eur Bus Org Law Rev 4, 383–401 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1017/S1566752903003835

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1566752903003835

Keywords

Search

Navigation