new community governance in small rural towns: the australian experience

Journal of Rural Studies 20 (2004) 433–443

ARTICLE IN PRESS

*Correspond

E-mail addr

0743-0167/$ - se

doi:10.1016/j.jr

New community governance in small rural towns:the Australian experience

Kevin O’Toole*, Neil Burdess

Faculty of Arts, Deakin University, P.O. Box 423, Warrnambool, VIC 3280, Australia

Abstract

State and federal governments in Australia have developed a range of policy instruments for rural areas in Australia that are

infused with a new sense of ‘community’, employing leading concepts like social capital, social enterprise, community development,

partnerships and community building. This has encouraged local people and organisations to play a greater role in the provision of

their local services and has led to the development of a variety of ‘community’ organisations aimed at stemming social and economic

decline. In Victoria, local decision-making, before municipal amalgamations, gave small towns some sense of autonomy and some

discretion over their affairs. However, following municipal amalgamations these small towns lost many of the resources—legal,

financial, political, informational and organisational—associated with their former municipal status. This left a vacuum in these

communities and the outcome was the emergence of local development groups. Some of these groups are new but many of them are

organisations that have been reconstituted as groups with a broader community focus. The outcomes have varied from place to

place but overall there has been a significant shift in governance processes at community level. This paper looks at the processes of

‘community governance’ and how it applies in a number of case studies in Victoria.

r 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Governance; Community; Rural

1. Introduction

At local level in Australia new forms of ‘state’governance have impacted upon the sustainability ofmany communities, especially in rural areas. At thesame time higher levels of governance have promotedsustainability as the responsibility of the local people.Policies at federal, state and local level have been aimedat giving resources to small communities to find theirown ‘solutions’. Programmes like Regional Solutions atfederal level, Building Great Communities at state leveland the use of Community Building consultants at localgovernment level are all based on the premise ofdeveloping strategic plans for the sustainability of smalltowns and their localities. These policies of communitycapacity building have attempted to stimulate participa-tion on a broader basis, especially in local developmentassociations. In so doing, governments at the local, stateand federal level have attempted to shift the responsi-bility of local sustainability to community level. This has

ing author. Tel.: +613-55633490; fax: +613-55633534.

ess: [email protected] (K. O’Toole).

e front matter r 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

urstud.2004.01.002

meant a reinvention of community associations wherebythey become the avenues for local governance.This is not to deny the community associations some

sense of autonomy, as they do negotiate and enter intopartnerships with different agencies. Self-organisationimplies that the communities have resources at their owndisposal that they attempt to accumulate from agenciesboth within and without of their own locales. Higherlevels of governance ‘steer’ the self-governing processesof small rural communities, expecting them to ‘row’for themselves. By finding ways to satisfy some of theneeds of their own local communities many localdevelopment organisations become engaged in ‘commu-nity governance’.In Victoria the impact of local government amalga-

mations had a significant impact upon the viability ofmany small towns. Before municipal amalgamations,local decision-making gave small towns some sense ofautonomy and some discretion over their affairs.Following municipal amalgamations these small townslost many of the resources—legal, financial, political,informational and organisational—associated with theirformer municipal status. This left a vacuum in these

ARTICLE IN PRESSK. O’Toole, N. Burdess / Journal of Rural Studies 20 (2004) 433–443434

towns and the outcome has been the emergence of localdevelopment groups. Some of these groups are new butmany of them are organisations that have beenreconstituted as groups with a broader communityfocus. Furthermore, they have adopted a more diverseeconomic and social focus in the townships than theprevious arrangements where farming interests in theimmediate hinterland held a disproportionate share ofvotes on the local council. The basic aim of this paper isto inquire into the ways that the new concerns forcommunal ties and voluntary social organisationsoperate when formal government structures are with-drawn.

2. Community governance

In the political science literature communities ofinterest have long been recognised in group theory andpolicy networks (Rhodes, 1997). Similarly communitiesof place have played a significant role in the develop-ment of political institutions such as electorates (Prze-worski et al., 1997; Sawer, 2001). However, the recentrediscovery of community in public policy discourse andpractice has been driven in part by a lost legitimacy ofstates and markets (Bowles and Gintis, 2000). The resultis a convergence of neo-liberalism and communitarian-ism to form the basis of a new relationship between thestate, the market and civil society (Adams and Hess,2001). In Australia policy makers have turned to a‘community’ discourse that focuses on the use of thevoluntary capacity of people to help solve their ownproblems (Adams and Hess, 2001). Both sides of politicsendorse this re-emergence of community for differentreasons. The left embraces the community approach as areinvigoration of collective approaches to public policywhile the right sees it as a way of providing a solution tomarket failures by using community voluntary action(Bowles and Gintis, 2000).In this new discourse community is seen as a

‘normative construct’ that is dressed up as the idealmechanism for servicing local needs (Adams and Hess,2001, p. 14). The underlying assumptions are thatcommunities have a ‘sense of place’, are homogeneous,can distribute benefits and burdens equitably, easilybuild and sustain social capital, have natural organisa-tional forms that relate to government and marketeasily, are accountable, and can plan, manage, deliverand coordinate better than governments or markets(Adams and Hess, 2001). Communities are thenexpected to look to their own means of governance tobe able to survive.Community governance has been defined as ‘an arena

of participation which extends beyond the parishcommunity council to embrace all activities that involveeither the provision of public services within the

community, or the representation of community inter-ests to external agencies’ (Woods et al., 2001, p. 3). It isessentially the self-governing aspects of the communityperformed by residents for the collective benefit of thecommunity and may involve the engagement of allactors from the public, private and voluntary sectors(Clarke and Stewart, 1998). Of course, policy networks,interest groups and non-state actors in general havealways played a part in governance and are recognisedin the literature. In many ways community governanceinvolves many of those long-standing practices in ruralareas that enable local people and groups to respond tocommunity needs (Woods et al., 2001).New forms of governance focus on the integration of

actors across public and private sectors rather thanon ‘government’ as the only component of theprocess. According to Osborne and Gaebler (1992),governance is both a method and a system of governingthat is influenced by particular practices, standardsand relationships. As a method governance is theinteraction between state and non-state actors tomanage the affairs of the community (Weller, 2000). It‘refers to the development of governing styles in whichboundaries between and within public and privatesectors have become blurred’ (Pierre and Stoker, 2000,p. 32). As a system, governance will vary with thetype of level whether it is at local, regional, nationalor global.In trying to understand governance at community

level there are two aspects at work: governance asstructure, and governance as process. Governance asstructure focuses on the organisational and institutionalarrangements of state and non-state actors. The role ofthe public sector has undergone significant change, andthere is now a range of formal partnership arrangementsbetween the public and private sectors (Sabel, 2001).Where government involves only the state, new govern-ance encompasses both the state and civil society (Leachand Percy-Smith, 2001). The public sector of govern-ment, with its hierarchy and authority, is now involvedin networks and partnerships with private and voluntarysectors. Governance is more than just the organisationalstructures of government, it focuses on outcomes.Governance involves a myriad of processes in both

government and non-government organisations. Theassumption that manipulating structures will get thegovernance ‘right’ is countered by those who arguethat governance is a dynamic outcome of social andpolitical actors, and therefore the dynamics need to beaddressed (Pierre and Peters, 2000). Governmentalinstitutions are still central, but informal, non-govern-mental mechanisms also play a significant role indeciding how to satisfy many of their needs. We haveseen ‘a shift from governing as ‘one-way traffic’ fromthose governing to those governed towards a ‘two-waytraffic’ in which both the processes of the governing and

ARTICLE IN PRESSK. O’Toole, N. Burdess / Journal of Rural Studies 20 (2004) 433–443 435

the governed are taken into consideration’ (Kooiman,2000, p. 142).This has relevance for local government but more so

for community groups engaging with the state. Publicmanagement reforms involve local councils and com-munity groups that are subject to any form ofgovernment partnership arrangement, funding or otherlevels of support. Local governments have been forcedto reform their processes as a result of changed publicmanagement discourses and specific policy prescriptionsat state and federal levels (Ernst and O’Toole, 1999).For example, National Competition Policy directscouncils to adopt more marketised approaches in theirmicro-economic reform agenda (Ernst et al., 1997).Under the influence of these neo-liberal discourses, localgovernment has shifted from a relatively basic system ofadministration to new styles of public management(Kiss, 1999). Councils now focus on cost-effectiveservice delivery as a result of corporate planning andseek to optimise their human and financial resources.Central to this process are a range of managerialistactivities such as contracting out, total quality manage-ment, customer service, performance measurement andbenchmarking (Albin, 1995).Market-based strategies such as privatisation and

compulsory competitive tendering do not replace localgovernance or public provision, they simply change itsnature (Goss, 2001). Many services are no longer inpublic hands, but they are still part of local governance.That is, public services are still delivered to the wholerelevant public even though they may be under contractto private or voluntary groups. In this sense, the purposeof local governance is different from the purpose of localgovernment. The mere provision of services is a localgovernment function. Local governance on the otherhand is about building working relationships bothwithin and without the local community and not justabout bureaucratic procedures.Local governance has come to involve multi-agency

working and self-organising networks that cut acrossorganisational boundaries (Leach and Percy-Smith,2001). Local citizens are at one and the same timeconsumers, activist/providers and governors (Goss,2001). They are consumers insofar as they availthemselves of the public services whether offered bypublic or private providers. Citizens are also activist/providers through their co-production processes, wherelocal people are able to combine both public and privateresources to produce better social outcomes for thecommunity (Goss, 2001). They are also governors inthat they participate in both passive and active ways.They participate in a passive way as electors of local,

state and federal governments. In so doing they exercisea limited governing function in that the electedrepresentatives are ultimately accountable to them.(Goss, 2001). More importantly, citizens are also

actively governors in local communities in their roleson local boards, development committees and othercommunity associations (Goss, 2001). Since these typesof associations work to negotiate relationships at local,regional, state and federal levels, they are part of thegovernance process. In this sense governance extendsfrom the formal participation of local communitygroups in partnership arrangements with local govern-ment to ‘community governance’.There are now broader networks involved in the

‘governing’ activities of communities that go beyondformal electoral or local government institutions (Red-dell, 2002). This has increased the incentive andbroadened the opportunity for wider local participation.On one hand there is a fully integrated approach thatfocuses on the way local groups are integrated into thestructure of local government itself. The aim is toimprove citizen participation in local decision-makingwithin the existing boundaries of the local governmentstructure. It ranges from a consultative mechanismwhere there are various public meetings, public hearingsor discussion groups to partnership arrangements wherelocal government establishes community forums, localcommittees or local advisory boards (Bishop and Davis,2002; Lowndes et al., 1998).On the other hand, there is the fully independent

approach that focuses on those local organisationsclaiming to represent the interests of local people andindependent of local government structures. Thesecommunity organisations may develop specific partner-ships with local government, but fiercely demand thatthey control many of the local decision-making mechan-isms of their local communities. They are not simplyworking at community level, but also negotiatingrelationships with other levels of governance (Goss,2001).Individuals respond to incentives to participate in

local activities according to their particular localcircumstances, both personally and politically (Edwardsand Woods, 2000). In this sense community governancedoes not involve one set of prescriptions but variesaccording to ways that local groups interact with theirown community as well as other levels of governance.Social, demographic, historical, economic and biogra-phical factors all impinge upon the way that groupsdevelop their internal and external relationships. Thetypes of structures and processes may vary quitemarkedly between different places.

3. Researching community groups in Victoria

The study focuses on Victoria, one of the six states ofAustralia. In terms of land area, Victoria is the smallestof the mainland states with a population of approxi-mately 5 million. There is a marked geographical


concentration with about three-quarters of Victoriansliving in the Melbourne metropolitan area. Recenttrends suggest that this concentration is likely toincrease: between 1995 and 2000 there were populationincreases in all metropolitan council areas; in contrast,there were population decreases in almost one half ofnon-metropolitan local authorities, especially those inagricultural areas away from larger regional towns. Inthe mid-1990s a state government with a wide-rangingeconomic rationalist agenda undertook a major re-structure of Victorian local government, reducing thenumber of councils from 210 to 78. Amalgamationswere most common in rural areas. Amalgamation intolarger rural municipalities resulted in the loss of localgovernment offices from many small Victorian townsand now they are administered from the largest or mostaccessible population centre within the new ruralmunicipalities.The aim of the study is to develop a profile of

community governance as it is now practised in smallrural towns that were recently amalgamated into largermunicipalities. We set about this task by:

* identifying all the rural towns that had lost localgovernment functions as a consequence of municipalamalgamations in the 1990s and

* locating local development groups operating in thesetowns. Such groups characteristically have a commu-nity-wide focus and an interest in a wide range ofsocial and economic issues. Consequently, we antici-pated that there would be only one such group ineach of the identified towns.

The first task was to identify those rural towns thathad lost local government functions as a consequence ofmunicipal restructuring in the 1990s. This required adetailed comparison of two lists of councils for post-amalgamation local authorities (Holzer, 1994; Office ofLocal Government, 1995). After excluding the inner,middle and outer metropolitan regions, we were left with80 towns that had lost their local council headquartersduring this period. This list was shortened by eliminat-ing four large centres with populations in excess of10,000, and three which had been absorbed by regionalcities as a result of suburban expansion. At the otherend of the scale, nine centres with less than 200 people(ABS, 1998) were regarded as too small for inclusion inthe research. A total of 64 towns remained in thesampling pool, with populations ranging from around300 to 6000.Because of the very limited existing information about

community governance in rural Victoria, we decided toconduct in-depth, face-to-face, semi-structured inter-views. After balancing limited research resources withthe perceived need to collect information from a varietyof groups, we decided to conduct a total of 10

interviews. The 10 towns were identified using thefollowing criteria:

* Geographical spread: We thought it important tocollect information from as wide a geographicalspread as possible. There are six non-metropolitanregions in (Office of Local Government, 1995), andour limited research funds enabled us to travel to allbut one of these regions.

* Town size: We wanted the population profile of the 10towns to roughly match that of the 64 towns as awhole. Thus we identified the appropriate number oftowns needed in each of seven population sizecategories: under 500, 500–999, 1000–1499, 1500–1999, 2000–2499, 2500–2999, and 3000+.

* Local authority: We considered that the relationshipbetween each development group and its local councilwould be a significant issue. Thus, we wanted tomaximise the number of councils by ensuring thateach town was located in a different municipal area.In addition, results from a related research projectsuggested that council electoral arrangements mightbe significant, in particular when the municipalitywas unsubdivided rather than divided into wards. Ofthe 37 councils which included the small towns in thesampling pool, 11 were unsubdivided. The selectionprocess resulted in three towns from unsubdividedlocal authorities.

The next step in the research process was to locate thecommunity development groups operating in each of the10 towns. This was done as part of a larger projectinvolving all 64 towns identified earlier. As there was nooverall Victorian list of such groups, we had to developour own. The first step was to access the Web addressesof all Victorian rural councils (Local GovernmentDivision of the Department of Infrastructure). Thecouncil websites often included comprehensive commu-nity group directories, with names and contact details.When the community directories were non-existent orlimited in scope, we telephoned the front desk of therelevant local council, and eventually spoke to acustomer service officer either in the main centre or alocal service centre (often located in the offices of theformer local municipality). If local council employeescould not provide the information about local develop-ment groups where relevant, we telephoned the coun-cillor of the ward in which the town was located. Inthose few instances where we still did not havecommunity group details, we looked for general touristinformation on the Web, and telephoned businesses inthe town, such as the post office, general store or hotel.Eventually we were able to identify community devel-opment groups in all the targeted towns, and hadcontact details for at least one person on each groupexecutive.


Using a variety of sources we compiled the followingthumbnail sketches of each of the ten towns included inthe project.

* Town A is in south-west Victoria and has apopulation of nearly 2000. Traditionally it servicedthe sheep industry, but in recent times has begun re-badge itself as a tourist destination. The town isabout an hour’s drive from the local governmentcentre. The municipality is divided into nine wards,one of which is centred on the town. Each ward isrepresented by a single councillor.

* Town B was established in gold rush times in north-central Victoria and has a population of between2000 and 2500. It is on the opposite side of the localshire to the main headquarters but is also a shortdistance from a major regional centre. The munici-pality is divided into five wards, one of which iscentred on the town. Each ward is represented by asingle councillor.

* Town C, with a population of 600–700 residents, islocated in north-central Victoria and was once aservice centre for the local farming community. It isquite near to the town that serves as the headquartersof the shire. The municipality is divided into threewards returning a total of five councillors. The wardcontaining Town C has a single councillor.

* Town D is located in north-eastern Victoria and actsas an industrial service centre for local agriculture.With a population of nearly 6000 it is the largest townin the study group. Although subject to the usualeconomic fluctuations associated with agriculture, thetown is flourishing, with a range of employmentopportunities. The municipality is divided into sixwards, returning a total of seven councillors. Theward centred on Town D is represented by a singlecouncillor.

* Town E is located in north-central Victoria and has apopulation of around 1200. It was established duringthe gold era and is now a popular ‘country’destination for Melbourne-based people. The muni-cipality is divided into seven wards, one of which iscentred on the town. Each ward is represented by asingle councillor.

* Town F is in north-east Victoria and has about 1300people. It is a popular tourist destination and a ‘dropin’ town for travellers as it is located at a reasonabledistance between two regional centres. The munici-pality is not divided into wards. There is a total of fivecouncillors.

* Town G is around 500 people and is part of a ruralcity council in north-west Victoria. It was once aservice centre for local agriculture, but is now more ofa dormitory town for tourists to the area. Themunicipality is not divided into wards. There is atotal of seven councillors.

* Town H has 500 people and is located in south-westVictoria. Once a service centre for the local sheepindustry the town is now more of a retirementsettlement. The headquarters of the shire is in anearby regional centre. The municipality is notdivided into wards. There is a total of sevencouncillors.

* Town J has over 2500 people and is located in north-west Victoria. Because of its unique location it stillacts as a major service centre for local agriculture. Itis not much smaller than the main town in the shire.The municipality is divided into two wards, returninga total of 7 councillors. The ward containing Town Jreturns three councillors.

* Town K has 1000 people and is in the Geelong/Ballarat region, less than a half-hour’s travel from amajor regional centre. It is the only hinterland townof a coastal shire. The municipality is divided into fivewards, returning a total of nine councillors. The wardcontaining Town K returns one councillor.

The fieldwork took place during May and June, 2002.Interviews were conducted primarily at people’s place ofwork, venues including clothes shops, a newspaperoffice, a caf!e, and a solicitor’s office. Occasionally, themeeting was held in the former council offices. Eachmeeting took an average of 1 hour, and an audiorecording was made with the permission of therespondent. Virtually all interviews were conducted withjust one person, though on one occasion three membersof the group executive were present. At one town, achance opportunity was taken to interview separatelyboth the current and former chair of the developmentgroup.

4. Local community groups at work

The community groups in this study are all involvedin some form of self-governing for the collective benefitof the community that includes actors from the public,private and voluntary sectors. In one way or anotherthey have all attempted to replace a governance vacuumleft by the removal of their previous local governmentauthorities. They are not ‘government’ institutions, butstill act as ‘governance’ organisations for the communityas a whole. The structures of the ten towns lie within arange of full integration into local government to fullyindependent status.There are five towns that have some type of

integration into the local governance structures of thelocal shire. The organisations have been either estab-lished by the local shire or are independent groups thathave been included into the shire’s consultative struc-ture. None of them are fully integrated into localgovernment but have at least some formal relationship.


Towns F, G and D all have council advisory groupsestablished by the local shire. The nearest to a fullyintegrated approach is Town F that had a local counciladvisory group with a small discretionary fund of $5000.

It was so the community had some control overwhere some money was going to meet the needs of theimmediate community, which is perfect. That is goingback to the old shire. (Town F)

However, the local council

didn’t like some of things we put the moneytowardsyThey wanted total control of all themoney. Now all the communities have lost their$5000. (Town F)

The result is that the council advisory group wants to re-invent itself and is looking to the local traders’ group tobring the interests of the community under oneumbrella.Town G, as the only small town in its shire outside the

large regional centre, also has a local council advisorycommittee. The group was established because

When we had a local council here people felt lookedafter, but when the council disappeared suddenlyeverybody felt a bit threatened. So they weredefinitely interested in doing something and that’swhy the Advisory Committee was set up. (Town G)

The group has regular monthly meetings in the old shireoffices with representatives from shire councillors andstaff. However, there is also an independent progressassociation in the town and while there is an overlapbetween the two groups:

The Progress Association is more hands on. We applyfor grants because we’re incorporated. (Town G)

Town D has a significant economic base and iswell placed to take an independent stance on mattersthat concern its own community. While it has a localcouncil advisory group the major driver behind comm-unity development is the independent developmentassociation.

The difference between the Community AdvisoryGroup and the Development Committee is we’ve gotour own autonomy where they have to reporteverything back to the local shire, and they are stillunder their umbrella, because they have been set upby the shire. If we don’t like something we can go andtell the shire. (Town D)

The development committee has a number of sub-committees covering different aspects of the town:agriculture and development, commerce, educationand health, environment and town development, andfinance. Even though there is overlapping membershipbetween it and the community advisory group, the

major strategies for future development are driven bythe development group.Town K has a different relationship to its local

government. Although not a formal part of the localcouncil’s structure, the local development group isrecognised for its role in the local town through aspecial development levy.

There’s been a push on trying to get more peopleinvolved. With the levies through the shire we getmoney each year to run our association. (Town K)

The amount of money is small but is of considerablesymbolic importance. The group also has a limited callupon council resources in any funding applications.Town H has an independent local development group

that acts as the main representative of local communityinterests. The local shire has established a schedule ofmeetings with it and other small towns on a quarterlybasis.

It’s not formally structured. We meet four times ayear and give a report on how we’re going and whatproblems we have. (Town H).

Since the shire is not divided into wards, the smallerlocal communities often do not have local councillors.As a result the shire uses the quarterly meetings as a wayof consulting with small local groups outside the mainregional centre. It also gives these local developmentgroups a small amount of money ($300) for adminis-trative overheads.None of the second group of towns have any formal

consultative mechanisms with their local shire, althoughthey may have partnership arrangements for particularlocal issues. Except for one town they all haveincorporated community groups that act as an umbrellaorganisation for the local community as a whole.Towns A and C both have groups that are reasonably

independent from the local shire. Before amalgamationsTown A

Just accepted that the shire would do things that werecommunity related. (Town A)

Now, however, there is an active local developmentgroup that does not have any formal connections intothe local council, other than through the local councillorwho happens to be a member.The local development group in Town C has just

become an incorporated body and has no formalarrangements with the local council. There are strongsimilarities between the agenda items on the communitygroups’ meetings and those on the small shire thatpreviously existed in the town. In this respect it hastaken over stewardship of many of the town’s amenities,although it has to seek outside funding for most of itslocal projects.


In Town J the local development group represents theinterests of the community and as an independent grouphas partnership arrangements with both local and stategovernment agencies. It also acts as an important agentin the municipal election process in that it publicly airsits views of candidates on local issues.

We invite each of the council members to address ourmeeting and indicate what they are going to do forthe area. If they want our endorsement that’s fine.(Town J)

The development group stresses its independence byinviting the local shire to be a paying member. In thissense it reverses its role with local government in that itdoes not see itself as a consultative group to the shire butthe other way round.The local development group in Town B acts as a key

representative of the local community and has the mostindependent stance of all the groups in this study. Thegroup is seeking funding to establish its own ‘shop front’in the town with room for paid administrators because:

The bottom line is you have got to get communitygroups to a level where they can source their ownfunding. (Town B)

They hope to use the shop front to raise money to fundtheir community operations. In this sense they arealmost seeking to create another level of serviceadministration in the town.The local development group in Town E is unlike

most of the other groups in that it is in competition withother groups in the town.

There was one move to try and get these organisa-tions under the one umbrella but they didn’t likethe thought of losing their independence. Quiteunderstandably, so there was a bit of friction here.(Town E)

The group has some partnership arrangements with theshire, but has also developed funding submissionsindependently.All these groups have local leadership and a range of

working partnerships both within and without of thelocal community. Within the local community they playa role in attempting to recreate local governanceprocesses lost in the restructuring of local governmentin Victoria: legal, financial and informational. Outsidethe community they have to negotiate partnerships withother governance levels which often means translatingtheir needs to conform to other process frameworks.Members of the development groups gain legitimacy

through their coordinating functions as local ‘represen-tatives’. Where there is more of a consultative role, thelocal advisory groups are seen as ‘mini-councils’.

A few of us thought it should be broadened toaccommodate all of the interests in the town. That’scertainly how the shire sees it. Years ago they said,see yourselves as a mini-council, basically. If you’vegot any problems there is a central body to come toask what they can do and then we can take thatpromise to the shire. (Town H)Or:Sometimes they’ll ring up and they’ll say ‘When’s thenext Advisory Committee meeting?’ And I’ll justremind them, and they’ll say ‘Would you mindif some of the members from the come to speak?We’re worried about some of the roads in the area.’(Town G).

In this sense members act as pseudo councillors in thatthey are often the first port of call for local complaintsand issues. There is also a symbolic activity at play hereas some groups hold their meetings in the old shireoffices.The more independent groups also play a coordinat-

ing role in their status as umbrella groups.

One big umbrella group that was the main group andyou’d just have your little groups that do everything.Insurance is one of the hugest issues. When you haveseparate groups everyone has to have separateinsurance. (Town A)Or:We’re the group that is sort of hosting that on behalfof Council in town. So they are using us as arepresentative body. (Town C)Or:We are very supportive of all the other clubs andassociations. We are not trying to take things awayfrom them. So for that reason I think that we havegot pretty wide acceptance among them and each ofthe members in the community doing their own joband doing their own thing. (Town J)

Information is also circulated to communities eitherin the form of community newsletters or the localnewspaper depending on the size of the town.

It might be that something goes out with communitynewsletter and the town comes together as whole. Wemight put a whole page just related to what’s workingwell in the town, what needs to be improved and howwe go about fixing it. (Town F)Or:We send newsletters out to keep them in the loop asto what’s happening. (Town K)

This form of local communication is an importantprocess both in keeping local residents informed aboutthe progress of local issues, and in ensuring that they areable to have their input when they feel it necessary. Both


consultative and independent groups see themselves asinclusive organisations.

Basically the way we’re constituted at the moment,it’s basically who turns up to the meetings is amember. It’s quite open and it’s rather hard todetermine what the formal membership is. (Town C)OrThe next step is to have a workshop with anybodywho would like to come to find out what’s on.(Town G)

Like many voluntary community groups the actualattendance is normally low and it is generally left to adedicated leadership corps.

Well, often we get down to 2,3 or 4 peopley peoplewill come along if it appeals (Town H)

But where there are special events such ‘communitybuilding’ exercises or crisis meetings the attendance willincrease dramatically.

We’ve had a few meetings with Peter Kenyon, apromotional speaker I think is the best way todescribe him. He was here 5 years ago when they hada community meeting where there was severalhundred people there. (Town A)OrThere’s the swimming pool which came under a bit ofa threat last year from a report that suggested that itshould be closedy.That night 40 people turned up tojust an ordinary meeting; we don’t normally get thatmany! (Town H)

Financial considerations are also fundamentally im-portant. Most groups whether in large or small towns,only have small amounts of money at their disposal.

We do have a couple of grand in the bank that we canaccess if we want to for small projects. (Town C)Or:Our particular board had a bit of money in the bankabout $3000. (Town D)

Consultative groups are limited by their status asadvisory bodies whereas incorporated bodies havedifferent degrees of freedom depending upon theresources at their disposal. Because of their indepen-dence, incorporated bodies are free to raise their ownfunds.

Basically we lobbied the department head, theregional head and also the Minister and basicallygot that reversed and we are going to spend about$300,000 up here in revamping the theatre. We thinkthat was a big win. Until we came along, these sort ofthings just went without notice. So we reckon we puta few scores on the board in the one year we havebeen kicking along (Town J)

In this sense they are not simply working at local levelbut also negotiating relationships with different levels ofgovernance (Woods et al., 2001). However, they areoften restricted by the new governance discourses of thewider political process. There are two funding-relatedissues here that are derived from ideological assump-tions about governance as the minimal state or ‘theextent and form of public intervention and the use ofmarkets and quasi-markets’ to achieve the delivery ofpublic services (Rhodes, 1996). Competitive fundinggives community groups little option but to play withinthe ‘rules of the game’ set by other agencies. The groupsare expected to compete for funding from differentagencies both within and without of their local govern-ment structures, and this has significant consequences.First, community groups have to fit within the

political direction of the funding bodies that set theguidelines.

They finally got their money—but after the submis-sion being very much adjusted according to what theMinister would be likely to approve. (Town C)

Even though communities may identify a local need,they have to reconfigure their approaches to match thepriorities of the higher levels of government.

we are probably going to have to change the conceptfrom what was first thought of to fit the fundingguidelines. (Town B)

Secondly, submission writing requires a range ofresources including time, expertise and information:

For someone like me to take on something like thatit’s just a bit out of my league; takes time andknowledge. (Town A)Or:Small groups like this, not only this but other groupsin the town and other groups in other towns theydon’t have the experience or expertise to get thosegrants from the millions of dollars that state andfederal governments have. (Town B)OrI would estimate something like one person for atleast for a week, actually two-people weeks toactually put together that grant with administration,the whole works. It’s an alarming amount of work.(Town C)

This means that community groups are often dependentupon finding expertise from within their own ranks.Local governments can and do play a vital role

directly or indirectly in supporting these local groups. Inmany cases local development groups in the small townsare involved in some partnership arrangements with thelocal shire. One particular reason for this is theinsistence by state and federal agencies that mostsubmissions for funding by community groups need


the endorsement of their local municipality. However, insome instances local groups do seek funding without thesupport of their local shires.At the same time all levels of government expect to

gain more ‘efficient’ outcomes by using the volunteercapacities of local community organisations.

You’ve got to be a lot more progressive now andmore cost effective so therefore things like commu-nity jobs, things that the shire used to do like puttingup detour signs on Saturdays and Sundays wheresomeone probably got paid to do it. That doesn’thappen now. (Town A).Or:They have the money and you have to show that youreally need the money. You apply for the grant, theyaward you the grant but then they keep the moneyand pay all the bills. So it’s getting you to do all thework. (Town E)

5. Discussion and conclusion

Goss (2001, p. 25) argues that ‘successful governanceoffers the possibility of functioning networks capable ofidentifying goals, mobilising consent, integrating inter-vention and reconfiguring resources’. The developmentgroups in this study consider that they are attempting toachieve this even though they have no legally constituteddemocratic base. They claim that their organisations arenot limited to one particular interest group but areinclusive of all interests in the community. As residentsof these small towns they have established a range ofself-governing agencies that function for the benefit ofthe community and they provide a limited range ofservices. The types of local organisations established totake on the functions of community governance in thesesmall towns vary from full integration into localgovernment to fully independent status. What all theselocal groups are endeavouring to do is to replace manyof the organisational resources lost when their localgovernment authorities were amalgamated into largerunits.Furthermore, the previous local government autho-

rities in these towns not only played a significant role incoordinating local activities they were advocates fortheir local communities in other levels of governance.Now it is the local development groups who claim tohave adopted that mantle. They participate in broadergovernance processes through their leadership roles inthe local towns and in their partnerships with outsideagencies. They bring together public, private andvoluntary areas as part of community governance. Theysee that leading, facilitating, collaborating and bargain-ing both within and without the local community are acentral part of community governance. Within the town

they see themselves involved in some forms of decision-making capacity about the allocation of local resources.They all claim to consult with their local communitiesabout the needs that are not being met by other publicagencies. The development groups then supply localexpertise to write submissions, organise voluntarylabour to assist in particular local activities or gatherresources for the maintenance of particular localfacilities. Outside the community the developmentgroups act as advocates developing partnerships withoutside agencies for the purpose of gaining better accessto resources for the community.It can be argued that the local development groups in

this study then are integrally involved in communitygovernance in that they assist in the provision of publicservices within the community and they representcommunity interests to external agencies. However,unlike their legally constituted local government pre-decessors they often do not possess the vital factors oflegitimacy, accountability and an assured source ofcontinuing funding. These factors are crucial compo-nents of a local community’s ability to negotiate withthe outside world, and to make long term plans for itsown future development.Unlike locally elected officials of a democratic

institution these community groups do not carry themantle of legitimacy that entitles them to represent the‘interests’ of their community. As a central idea ofliberal democracy, elections play an important role inbuttressing the notion of self-determination and theyserve a dual role (Clark and Dear, 1984). On the onehand, elections serve to contain and channel conflict,while at the same time obtaining the consent of thegoverned. Furthermore, local electoral systems help tointernalise the importance of local self-determination.While these development groups purport to represent

the community, and thus play an advocacy role for theirlocal community it may also be argued that it is difficultto judge whether they also have the democraticlegitimacy afforded to properly elected governments.Some may claim to be ‘pseudo councillors’ but may infact act more as lobbyists for their community ratherthan elected representatives. Further using the term‘mini-council’ or meeting in the old shire offices mayreinforce the historical commitment to the local placeand its community, but it is only a symbolic representa-tion and is not legitimised through an electoral process.Secondly local councils and their executive have the

power to make decisions for the local community withina given legal framework. As state government statutoryorganisations local governments are ‘legitimate’ decisionmakers within the given local boundaries and have theauthority (or legal resources) to make decisions onbehalf of that community. In this respect they areaccountable to the local community through theelectoral process and to the state government as


statutory bodies. Local development groups may seethemselves as umbrella organisations for other groups inthe town but they have no in-built mechanisms ofaccountability. While those groups, who are incorpo-rated, have statutory requirements of accountabilityunder the corporation statute, it is not the broaderdemocratic accountability of an elected local body.The future relationship of both the fully integrated

and fully independent local development groups withthe new, larger local government authorities that encasethem will be important in the way that these groups gainlegitimacy over time. The more integrated groups dogain some legitimacy through their formal recognitionby council. It is interesting to note that the three un-subdivided municipalities have some type of integratedgroup. The more independent groups act more likepressure groups and thus need to demonstrate that theiradvocacy to the local government authority encom-passes broad community concerns. Three of theindependent groups have a single councillor in theirtown giving them the opportunity to use their localrepresentative as their mouthpiece in the local council.Thirdly, local government has the statutory power to

raise taxes and, as a state agency, has the ability to raiseloans for public expenditure. This is a secure means ofcapital injection into a community. The local develop-ment groups on the other hand do not have such powersand must rely upon other forms of capital raising. Oneapproach is to enforce annual membership fees but thishas problems. Those groups that set small fees to ensureaccess to ‘anyone who turns up’ have small capital fundsand are thus limited in their activities. Others whocharge higher fees have the problem of exclusion ofthose who either don’t have the funds or see the fee astoo expensive for a community organisation. Fundraising is thus a sporadic exercise and often dependentupon the issues at hand.There are some significant issues here about sustain-

ability in terms of leadership in these local developmentgroups. As discussed above, the activities of the groupsare at risk without an institutional base that has anassured income. If the leadership is constantly seekingfunding for local projects, they are transformed intofund-raisers and lose sight of the more strategic issuesinvolved. The more independent groups may have‘independence’ from their local shire in terms oforganisational processes but they are often dependentupon their local shires in support of their fundingapplications to higher levels of government. The moreintegrated groups may have special access to their shirecouncils but this does not ensure guaranteed support forlocal initiatives. Both sets of groups are still reduced tospecial pleading for funding local projects and this hasthe potential to divide policy planning in the largermunicipality into geographic rather than functionalareas. This has repercussions for local planners who

are caught between the interests of the municipality as awhole and the demands of smaller geographic units.Closely related is the type of leadership in the

development groups in these small rural towns. Sincethe groups in this study form a new direction forgovernance in these small rural towns it is to be expectedthat they would attract a different range of leaders. Theshift from stable local government that incorporatedlarge tracts of farming land with a disproportionate shareof votes on the local council to a more diverse economicand social focus in these small towns has led to a newgeneration of leaders in most of the towns. In this studythe leadership across the ten towns was predominantlyprofessional or service personnel with many new andyounger people. This accords with Sorenson and Epps(1996) who argue that leadership in small country towns,although quite varied, is changing in two significantways. First ‘there is a generational shift in that severallong standing leaders are bowing out’ and secondly ‘thepool of leadership is diversifying towards professionaland service personnel’ (Sorenson and Epps, 1996, pp.121–123). However, while professional and servicepersonnel may have the skills to support such enterprises,their time will ultimately be limited when the pressures ofwork, family and other social commitments impinge.Furthermore, unless the present leadership is successfulin expanding the social and economic base of the town,the number of new professionals is likely to be limitedand thus restrict the available pool of future leaders.Community governance is part of a broader change in

governance in Australia. It is both an outcome of the‘minimal state’ approach of the higher levels ofgovernment in Australia and the desire of localdevelopment groups to ensure a sustainable level ofservices for their communities. The focus of this paperhas been the types of structures and processes that form‘community’ governance in a select number of smallrural towns in Victoria. It has only dealt with some ofthe descriptive issues of community governance at thisstage. While there is some doubt about whether thesegroups are representative in nature and thus fulfil thebroader democratic functions of community govern-ance, it is important to note that without these groups, itis unlikely that many of these small towns wouldsurvive. The fact that these groups are prepared to usetheir own voluntary time to focus on local communitydevelopment speaks volumes about the spirit of thosewho are prepared to stand up and fight for their owncommunities in rural Australia.

References

ABS, 1998. Census of Population and Housing: Selected Character-

istics for Urban Centres and Localities: Victoria (Cat. no. 2016.2).

ABS, Canberra.


Adams, D., Hess, M., 2001. Community in public policy: fad or

foundation. Australian Journal of Public Administration 60 (2),

13–23.

Albin, S., 1995. Managerialising local government. In: Rodley, G.

(Ed.), The Human Costs of Managerialism: Advocating the

Recovery of Humanity. Pluto Press, Leichardt.

Bishop, P., Davis, G., 2002. Mapping public participation in

policy choices. Australian Journal of Public Administration 61

(1), 14–29.

Bowles, S., Gintis, H., 2000. Social Capital and Community

Governance. Economic Journal 112, F419–F436.

Clark, G.L., Dear, M., 1984. State Apparatus: Structures and

Language of Legitimacy. Allen and Unwin, Boston.

Clarke, M., Stewart, J., 1998. Community Governance, Community

Leadership and the New Local Government. Joseph Rowntree

Foundation, York.

Edwards, B., Woods, M., 2000. Parish pump politics: participation,

power and rural community governance. Paper presented at the

RGS-IBG Annual Conference, University of Sussex.

Ernst, J., O’Toole, K., 1999. ‘The Local Market?’: Competition Policy

and Local Government in Rural Victoria. Paper presented at the

Australasian Political Studies Association Annual Conference,

Sydney.

Ernst, J., Glanville, L., Murfitt, P., 1997. Breaking the Contract: The

Implementation of Compulsory Competitive Tendering in Victoria.

Outer Urban Research and Policy Unit, Melbourne.

Goss, S., 2001. Making Local Governance Work: Networks, Relation-

ships and the Management of Change. Palgrave, Basingstoke.

Holzer, E. (Ed.), 1994. Victorian Municipal Directory. Arnall and

Jackson, Melbourne.

Kiss, R., 1999. Local government to local administration: the new

order. In: Economou, N. (Ed.), The Kennett Revolution: Victorian

Politics in the 1990s. UNSW Press, Sydney.

Kooiman, J., 2000. Societal Governance: levels, models and orders of

socio-political interaction. In: Pierre, J. (Ed.), Debating Govern-

enance. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Leach, R., Percy-Smith, J., 2001. Local Governance in Britain.

Palgrave, Basingstoke.

Local Government Division of the Department of Infrastructure.

http://www.doi.vic.gov.au/doi/internet/localgov.nsf/.

Lowndes, V., Stoker, G., Pratchett, L., Wilson, D., Leach, S.,

Wingfield, M., 1998. Enhancing Public Participation in Local

Government: A Research Report to: The Department of the

Environment, Transport and Regions. Department of the Envir-

onment Transport and Regions, London.

Office of Local Government, 1995. New Patterns of Local Govern-

ment, 2nd Edition. Office of Local Government, Victoria,

Melbourne.

Osborne, D., Gaebler, T., 1992. Reinventing Government: How

the Entrepreneurial Spirit is Transforming Government. Plume,

New York.

Pierre, J., Peters, G., 2000. Governance, Politics and the State.

Macmillan, London.

Pierre, J., Stoker, J., 2000. Towards multi-level governance. In:

Drucker, H. (Ed.), Developments in British Politics, Vol. 6.

Macmillan, London.

Przeworski, A., Stokes, S., Manin, B., 1997. Democracy, Account-

ability and Representation. Cambridge University Press, Cam-

bridge, UK.

Reddell, T., 2002. Beyond participation, hierarchies, management and

markets: ‘new’ governance and place policies. Journal of Public

Administration 61 (1), 50–63.

Rhodes, R.A.W., 1996. The new governance: governing without

government. Political Studies XLIV, 652–667.

Rhodes, R.A.W., 1997. Understanding Governance: Policy Networks,

Reflexivity and Accountability. Open University Press, London.

Sabel, C., 2001. A quiet revolution of democratic governance: towards

democratic experimentalism. In: OECD (Ed.), Governance in the

21st Century. OECD, Paris.

Sawer, M., 2001. Elections: Full, Free and Fair. Federation Press,

Leichardt, NSW.

Sorenson, A., Epps, R., 1996. Leadership and Local Development:

dimensions of leadership in four central Queensland town. Journal

of Rural Studies 12 (2), 113–125.

Weller, P., 2000. Introduction: in search of governance. In: Keating,

M. (Ed.), The Future of Governance. Allen & Unwin, Sydney.

Woods, M., Edwards, B., Anderson, J., Fahmy, E., 2001. Participa-

tion, Power and Rural Community Governance. Paper Presented

at the Workshop on Democracy, Participation and Political

Involvement, Manchester University.

http://www.doi.vic.gov.au/doi/internet/localgov.nsf/

new community governance in small rural towns: the australian experience

Documents