Enhancing Representation in Collaborative Governance

ETHOS Digital Issue 12, Apr 2024

While the Singapore Government’s mass public engagement efforts in the past tended to be confined to one-off consultation exercises such as Remaking Singapore and Our Singapore Conversation, they have now evolved to include more sustained and involved forms—approaching what scholars Ansell and Gash have termed collaborative governance.¹ This is “a governing arrangement where one or more public agencies directly engage non-state stakeholders in a collective decision-making process that is formal, consensus-oriented, and deliberative and that aims to make or implement public policy or manage public programs.”²

This evolution has come about with the government recognising that a more mature and diverse population of Singaporeans wants to play a more direct role in shaping the nation’s future and sees the need for deeper collaboration with citizens.³ The Singapore Government Partnerships Office (SGPO), launched on 19 Jan 2024, is a recent instance of ongoing efforts to support citizen aspirations to be co-creators of policy, public spaces, and services.⁴

Another expression of collaborative governance (CG) that has become more prevalent in Singapore are the citizen panels conducted by a number of Ministries.⁵ Such panels require participants to attend multiple sessions over a few weeks, which offers better opportunities to refine ideas, gain diverse perspectives, and propose feasible solutions to policy challenges. Despite the substantial time commitment required, these panels have seen significant oversubscription and minimal withdrawals, with many participants continuing to contribute even after the conclusion of the exercises.⁶ This suggests healthy demand from the public to be more active in the processes of governance.

However, concerns have been raised regarding the representativeness of such citizen panels. A study by the Institute of Policy Studies on three citizens’ panels suggests that certain segments of the community, particularly those in the lower income and education groups, as well as seniors, are underrepresented in their composition.⁷ This underrepresentation may be inadvertent, as individuals in such groups might lack the time, immediate interest, or confidence to participate in deliberations on the particular topics being discussed.⁸

The legitimacy of a citizen panel, and of collaborative governance in general, depends critically on whether it fairly and accurately represents the community it serves. Without good quality representation, such efforts lose much of their credibility and value as a convenor of vital stakeholder perspectives and a focal point for buy-in and consensus, regardless of the participants’ level of involvement or innovation.

How then, can we enhance representation in collaborative governance?

Composition and Quality of Representatives

To bolster the quality of representation, we should first ensure that the participant composition is appropriate. Organisers of collaborative governance efforts could consider the following strategies:

1. Oversampling minority groups: Merely including one or two representatives from minority groups may not suffice, as individual voices are likely to be marginalised in larger groups.
2. Providing material incentives: Offering honorariums can reassure lower-income individuals that participating in CG initiatives won't result in financial loss. Additionally, providing services for parents or caregivers could address barriers to their participation.
3. Leveraging community organisations: Government outreach to vulnerable groups may be challenging through traditional channels. Collaborating with community organisations that have established trust within these groups could facilitate recruitment.
4. Increasing stakeholder interest: Participants are more likely to engage in CG initiatives if they perceive the addressed problem or opportunity as important and as lacking viable alternatives, while also believing that their contributions can effect change. Organisers should clearly communicate these factors to potential participants.⁹

Even with a seemingly balanced participant makeup, a CG initiative may still inadequately represent a given community. Political scientist Iris Young has suggested that representation quality improves when representatives actively advocate for their social groups' interests, voice their groups' principles and values, and share or convey their groups' experiences.¹⁰ Organisers should strive for representatives who meet these criteria, especially in initiatives involving interest groups purportedly representing specific community segments.

Quality of Participation

Ensuring good quality representation goes beyond the composition and quality of representatives. It also requires enabling representatives to engage to their fullest ability within CG groups.

Overcoming Barriers

An essential aspect of quality engagement is eliminating barriers that hinder certain groups from participating fully. For instance, agencies should collaborate with translators to provide materials in multiple languages and simplify technical language that may confuse certain groups. Additionally, allowing more time for certain groups to participate fully due to scheduling constraints is crucial. This calls for a steadfast commitment not only to tolerate and respect differences but also to ensure that all groups feel cared for and included in deliberations.

Deliberative Process

Deliberation—distinct from conversation or dialogue—is a cornerstone of high-quality participation within a group. When carried out effectively, it yields not just a merging of pre-existing opinions but an entirely new option forged through deliberative exchange. This broadens the spectrum of possible solutions and transforms the participants themselves.

Facilitators should design discussions that bring out the five distinct elements that characterise true deliberation:¹¹

1. Seeking out relevant information pertaining to the issue at hand.
2. Unveiling individual stakeholder preferences.
3. Identifying overlapping concerns and interests among participants.
4. Addressing trade-offs inherent in decision-making.
5. Prompting stakeholders to contemplate what they can accept, even if a particular solution isn't their top choice.

Power Sharing

Collaborations often face challenges due to power imbalances. Beyond exchanging ideas, achieving creative and effective group decisions relies on members not just having, but also sharing power over decisions or projects. However, implementing power sharing can be complex. Here are key considerations:

1. Mission and Network Type: The urgency and nature of the collaboration's mission influence the feasibility and benefits of power sharing. Long-term projects with engagement-focused goals benefit more from power sharing compared to urgent situations. Additionally, the voluntary or mandated nature of collaboration networks affects the ease of power sharing, with voluntary networks fostering consent and trust.¹²
2. Diffusion of Power: Power sources, such as formal authority and resource control, form the basis of power. If power is concentrated in few partners, building a foundation for power sharing becomes challenging, hindering decision alignment and collaboration.¹³
3. Benefits of Relinquishing Power: Participants with more power weigh the benefits of collaboration against the cost of giving up some power. If collaboration offers greater benefits than the cost of relinquishing power, participants are more likely to accept power sharing, even amidst differences.¹⁴

Conclusion

As we navigate the evolving landscape of governance marked by greater citizen and stakeholder participation, the transformative potential of collaborations lies in its ability to be truly inclusive and representative.

Truly collaborative governance is not just about ticking boxes on a demographic checklist, but about fostering an environment where every voice matters, every perspective is valued, and every community member feels a genuine sense of belonging—opening up possibilities for new and transformative outcomes.

NOTES

1. Soon, Carol, 12 September 2020. “Conversations that make a difference”. The Straits Times.
2. See Ansell, Chris, and Alison Gash, (2007). “Collaborative Governance in Theory and Practice.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 543–571.
3. Heng Swee Kiat, 15 June 2019, Building Our Future Singapore Together Speech.
4. Singapore Government Partnerships Office, 19 January 2024, Singapore Government Partnerships Office Launched to Strengthen Partnerships between Citizens and the Government.
5. Sin, Yuen, 19 May 2021, “Citizens’ panels have improved perceptions of govt engagement efforts: IPS study”. The Straits Times.
6. Soon, Carol and Jui Liang, Sim, (2021) Citizen Engagement in Singapore: Applications of the Citizens’ Panel. Institute of Policy Studies.
7. The three citizen panels are: the Citizens’ Jury on War on Diabetes (2017) by the Ministry of Health, Recycle Right Citizens’ Workgroup (2019) by the Ministry of Sustainability and Environment, and Citizens’ Panel on Work-Life Harmony (2019) by the Ministry of Manpower.
8. See note 6, p33.
9. Greenwood, S., Singer, L. and Willis, W. (2021) Collaborative Governance: Principles, Processes, and Practical Tools. Routledge.
10. Young, Iris Marion (2000). Inclusion and Democracy. Oxford.
11. See Fishkin, James (2018). Democracy When the People are Thinking: Revitalizing Our Politics through Public Deliberation. Oxford University Press.
12. Ran, B., & Qi, H. (2018). “Contingencies of Power Sharing in Collaborative Governance,” The American Review of Public Administration, 48(8), 836–851.
13. See Purdy, Jill (2012). “A Framework for Assessing Power in Collaborative Governance Processes,” Public Administration Review 72(3), 409–418.
14. See note 12.