From the delivery state to the
relational state
Rick Muir
Associate Director, IPPR
1. Introduction
• Why is government so bad at tackling problems such as obesity, long
term worklessness and anti-social behaviour? Why, despite objective
improvements in outcomes, do the public often remain dissatisfied with
the services they receive?
• We want public services to do two things – to tackle the big social
problems we face and to deliver a high quality service to their users.
They are not doing either of these things as well as they should.
2. The rise of complexity
Tame problems
Simple problems - Following a
recipe
Wicked problems
Complicated problems - Sending Complex problems - Raising a
a rocket to the moon
child
The recipe is essential
Formulae are critical and
necessary
Formulae have a limited application
Recipes are tested to assure easy
replication
Sending one rocket increases
Raising one child provides
assurance that the next will be OK experience but no assurance of
success with the next
No particular expertise is required.
But cooking expertise increases
success rate
High levels of expertise in a variety Expertise can contribute but neither
of fields is necessary for success is necessary nor sufficient to
assure success
Recipes produce standardised
products
Rockets are similar in critical ways Every child is unique an must be
understood as an individual
The best recipes give good results
every time
There is a high degree of certainty Uncertainty of outcome remains
of outcome
Optimistic approach to problem
possible
Optimistic approach to the problem Optimistic approach to the problem
possible
is possible
2. The rise of complexity
• Examples of tame problems: hospital waits, improving basic levels of
numeracy and literacy
• Examples of complex problems: anti social behaviour, chronic illness,
reoffending, long term unemployment, young people not in
employment, education or training.
3. The delivery state is not very good at dealing with
complex problems
• ‘New Public Management’ sought to make public services more
effective and efficient through the use of bureaucratic performance
management and market competition
• Bureaucracy – the exercise of hierarchical authority – is good at
dealing with tame problems where causality is linear and the problem
can be dealt with in delivery silos
• Markets – optimal outcomes achieved via competition – are good at
dealing with problems where consumers will respond predictably to
market incentives
3. The delivery state is not very good at dealing with
complex problems
• There are two characteristics of complex problems that bureaucracy
and markets cannot adequately respond to:
– Non-linearity – one thing does not necessarily lead to another
– Interconnectedness – causal factors are interconnected across
different social domains
4. Complexity demands a more relational state
• A state that does things with its people rather than simply for or to its
people (Mulgan 2012).
• To tackle complex problems we require public services that are more
connected at the macro level and that provide for deeper relationships
at the micro level.
4. Complexity demands a more relational state
• Connect: at the macro level managing public services as
interconnected systems in which actors and institutions interact in
multiple and unpredictable ways, there are complicated feedback loops
and big effects can be generated by unplanned micro behaviours.
• It is impossible for the state to guarantee particular outcomes and so
the role of government changes from manager to enabler: setting rules
and incentives, ensuring learning, monitoring performance, supporting
innovation.
4. Complexity demands a more relational state
• Deepen: at the micro level of individuals, institutions and communities
the relational state is characterised by ‘deep relationships’, rather than
shallow transactions. Where individuals and communities suffer from
complex problems, such as chronic health conditions, poor
educational attainment, worklessness and crime and anti-social
behaviour, we require much more intensive and personalised
engagement between professionals and service users and among
citizens themselves.
5. The public want deeper relationships
• There are too many examples of public services where what people
want is a deep relationship, but what they get is a shallow transaction.
• Although quick and efficient exchanges are desirable in areas such as
refuse or tax collection, many services are inherently relational in that
the quality of the service as experienced by the user depends on the
depth of the relationships formed.
6. Two qualifications
• There is a role for bureaucracy and markets – but they will not work
and are not desired everywhere
• Sometimes people want shallow transactions
7. Challenges
• Politics: is our politics mature enough for the relational state?
• Money: is the relational state too expensive?
• Agency: are the public up for it?
Questions?
[email protected]
www.ippr.org