Parallel Time Series Analysis and Income Inequality: A New Approach to Comparative Case Studies

This case study deals with the role of time series analysis in sociology, and its relationship with the wider literature and methodology of comparative case study research. Time series analysis is now well-represented in top-ranked sociology journals, often in the form of ‘pooled time series’ research designs. These studies typically pool multiple countries together into a pooled time series cross-section panel, in order to provide a larger sample for more robust and comprehensive analysis. This approach is well suited to exploring trans-national phenomena, and for elaborating useful macro-level theories specific to social structures, national policies, and long-term historical processes. It is less suited however, to understanding how these global social processes work in different countries. As such, the complexities of individual countries - which often display very different or contradictory dynamics than those suggested in pooled studies – are subsumed. Meanwhile, a robust literature on comparative case-based methods exists in the social sciences, where researchers focus on differences between cases, and the complex ways in which they co-evolve or diverge over time. A good example of this is the inequality literature, where although panel studies suggest a general trend of rising inequality driven by the weakening power of labour, marketisation of welfare, and the rising power of capital, some countries have still managed to remain resilient. This case study takes a closer look at what can be learned by applying the insights of case-based comparative research to the method of time series analysis. Taking international income inequality as its point of departure, it argues that we have much to learn about the viability of different combinations of policy options by examining how they work in different countries over time. By taking representative cases from different welfare systems (liberal, social democratic, corporatist, or antipodean), we can better sharpen our theories of how policies can be more specifically engineered to offset rising inequality. This involves a fundamental realignment of the strategy of time series analysis, grounding it instead in a qualitative appreciation of the historical context of cases, as a basis for comparing effects between different countries.

Habitat for Humanity: Calibrating Best Practice Against the MDGs

Poverty alleviation lies at the heart of contemporary international initiatives on development. The key to development is the creation of an environment in which people can develop their potential, leading productive, creative lives in accordance with their needs, interests and faith. This entails, on the one hand, protecting the vulnerable from things that threaten their survival, such as inadequate nutrition, disease, conflict, natural disasters and the impact of climate change, thereby enhancing the poor’s capabilities to develop resilience in difficult conditions. On the other hand, it also requires a means of empowering the poor to act on their own behalf, as individuals and communities, to secure access to resources and the basic necessities of life such as water, food, shelter, sanitation, health and education. ‘Development’, from this perspective, seeks to address the sources of human insecurity, working towards ‘freedom from want, freedom from fear’ in ways that empower the vulnerable as agents of development (not passive recipients of benefaction).

Recognition of the magnitude of the problems confronted by the poor and failure of past interventions to tackle basic issues of human security led the United Nations (UN) in September 2000 to set out a range of ambitious, but clearly defined, development goals to be achieved by 2015. These are known as the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). The intention of the UN was to mobilise multilateral international organisations, non-governmental organisations and the wider international community to focus attention on fulfilling earlier promises to combat global poverty. This international framework for development prioritises: the eradication of extreme poverty and hunger; achieving universal primary education; promoting gender equality and empowering women; reducing child mortality; improving maternal health; combating HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases; ensuring environmental sustainability; and developing a global partnership for development. These goals have been mapped onto specific targets (18 in total) against which outcomes of associated development initiatives can be measured and the international community held to account. If the world achieves the MDGs, more than 500 million people will be lifted out of poverty. However, the challenges the goals represent are formidable. Interim reports on the initiative indicate a need to scale-up efforts and accelerate progress.
Only MDG 7, Target 11 explicitly identifies shelter as a priority, identifying the need to secure ‘by 2020 a significant improvement in the lives of at least 100 million slum dwellers’. This raises a question over how Habitat for Humanity’s commitment to tackling poverty housing fits within this broader international framework designed to allievate global poverty. From an analysis of HFH case studies, this report argues that the processes by which Habitat for Humanity tackles poverty housing directly engages with the agenda set by the MDGs. This should not be regarded as a beneficial by-product of the delivery of decent, affordable shelter, but rather understood in terms of the ways in which Habitat for Humanity has translated its mission and values into a participatory model that empowers individuals and communities to address the interdependencies between inadequate shelter and other sources of human insecurity. What housing can deliver is as important as what housing itself is.

Examples of the ways in which Habitat for Humanity projects engage with the MDG framework include the incorporation of sustainable livelihoods strategies, up-grading of basic infrastructure and promotion of models of good governance. This includes housing projects that have also offered training to young people in skills used in the construction industry, microfinanced loans for women to start up their own home-based businesses, and the provision of food gardens. These play an important role in lifting families out of poverty and ensuring the sustainability of HFH projects. Studies of the impact of improved shelter and security of livelihood upon family life and the welfare of children evidence higher rates of participation in education, more time dedicated to study and greater individual achievement. Habitat for Humanity projects also typically incorporate measures to up-grade the provision of basic sanitation facilities and supplies of safe, potable drinking water. These measures not only directly help reduce mortality rates (e.g. diarrheal diseases account for around 2 million deaths annually in children under 5), but also, when delivered through HFH project-related ‘community funds’, empower the poor to mobilise community resources, develop local leadership capacities and even secure de facto security of tenure from government authorities.

In the process of translating its mission and values into practical measures, HFH has developed a range of innovative practices that deliver much more than housing alone. The organisation’s participatory model enables both direct beneficiaries and the wider community to tackle the insecurities they face, unlocking latent skills and enterprise, building sustainable livelihood capabilities. HFH plays an important role as a catalyst for change, delivering through the vehicle of housing the means to address the primary causes of poverty itself. Its contribution to wider development priorities deserves better recognition. In calibrating the success of HFH projects in terms of units completed or renovated alone, the significance of the process by which HFH realises these outcomes is often not sufficiently acknowledged, both within the organisation and externally. As the case studies developed in the report illustrate, the methodologies Habitat for Humanity employs to address the issue of poverty housing within the developing world, place the organisation at the centre of a global strategic agenda to address the root causes of poverty through community empowerment and the transformation of structures of governance.

Given this, the global network of HFH affiliates constitutes a unique organisational framework to faciliate sharing resources, ideas and practical experience across a diverse range of cultural, political and institutional environments. This said, it is apparent that work needs to be done to better to faciliate the pooling of experience and lessons learnt from across its affiliates. Much is to be gained from learning from less successful projects, sharing innovative practices, identifying strategic partnerships with donors, other NGOs and CBOs, and engaging with the international development community on how housing fits within a broader agenda to alleviate poverty and promote good governance.

Managing Cultural Diversity in Healthcare Partnerships: The Case of LIFT

Purpose: The National Health Service (NHS) Local Improvement Finance Trust (LIFT) programme was launched in 2001 as an innovative public-private partnership to address the historical under-investment in local primary care facilities in England. The organisations from the public and private sector that comprise a local LIFT partnership each have their own distinctive norms of behaviour and acceptable working practices - ultimately different organisational cultures. The purpose of this article is to assess the role of organisational culture in facilitating (or impeding) LIFT partnerships and to contribute to an understanding of how cultural diversity in public-private partnerships is managed at the local level. Design/methodology/approach: The approach taken was qualitative case studies, with data gathering comprising interviews and a review of background documentation in three LIFT companies purposefully sampled to represent a range of background factors. Elite interviews were also conducted with senior policy makers responsible for implementing LIFT policy at the national level. Findings: Interpreting the data against a conceptual framework designed to assess approaches to managing strategic alliances, the authors identified a number of key differences in the values, working practices and cultures in public and private organisations that influenced the quality of joint working. On the whole, however, partners in the three LIFT companies appeared to be working well together, with neither side dominating the development of strategy. Differences in culture were being managed and accommodated as partnerships matured. Research limitations/implications: As LIFT develops and becomes the primary source of investment for managing, developing and channelling funding into regenerating the primary care infrastructure, further longitudinal work might examine how ongoing partnerships are working, and how changes in the cultures of public and private partners impact upon wider relationships within local health economies and shape the delivery of patient care. Originality/value: To the authors' knowledge this is the first study of the role of culture in mediating LIFT partnerships and the findings add to the evidence on public-private partnerships in the NHS

“Boundary-setting as a core activity in complex public systems”

Title: Boundary-setting as a core activity in complex public systems
Authors: Joanne Murphy & Mary Lee Rhodes

The definition of the boundary of a system is at the core of any systems approach (Midgley 2000; 2003). By defining boundaries we enable – and delimit – the range of outcomes sought and the actions and resources that can be brought to bear. In complex adaptive systems (CAS) analysis, the conceptualisaion and definition of boundaries is particularly challenging as they are constantly undergoing redefinition through agent action, interaction and entry/exit. (Rhodes et al 2011). The concept of ‘boundaries’ appears regularly in a wide range of literature around public management, administration, geopolitics, regeneration and organisational development. Discussions around boundaries focus on many things from concrete physical manifestations and barriers, to virtual interfaces between one organisational unit and another, or even entirely theoretical demarcations between different schools of thought (Kaboolian, 1998, Levi-Faur, 2004, Agranoff & McGuire, 2004).

However, managing ‘beyond’ such boundaries is a routinely recurring aspiration that transcends sectors and local concerns. Unsurprisingly then, there is an increasing understanding of the need to acknowledge and manage such boundaries (whether they be physical, social or organisational) within public management as a discipline (Currie et al 2007, Fitzsimmons and White, 1997, Murtagh, 2002). This paper explores the impact of boundaries on public management strategic decision-making in the sectors of urban regeneration and healthcare. In particular, it focuses on demarcations to physical space, communal identity and within professional relationships in these sectors.

The first section describes the research that gave rise to the paper and the cases examined. Next we briefly define what we mean by boundaries. We explore issues that have emerged from our analysis of urban regeneration and health care singularly, before looking at how the concept of boundaries is a recurrent concern across the sectors. The main contribution of the paper is an exploration of how a CAS lens can bring a new insight into the concept of boundaries and decision-making in the two sets of case studies. This discussion will concentrate on initial conditions, bifurcation and adaptation as key CAS factors in relation to boundaries. We conclude with a brief discussion on the benefits of a CAS lens to an analysis of boundaries in public management decision-making.
References:

Agranoff, R. and McGuire, M. (2003) Collaborative Public Management: Strategies for Local Government. Washington, DC: Georgetown Univ. Press.

Currie, G., Lockett, A. (2007) “A critique of transformational leadership: moral, professional & contingent dimensions of leadership within public services organizations”. Human Relations 60: 341-370.

Fitzsimmons and White, (1997) "Crossing boundaries: communication between professional groups", Journal of Management in Medicine, Vol. 11 Iss: 2, pp.96 – 101

Kaboolian, L. (1998) “The New Public Management: Challenging the Boundaries of the Management vs. Administration Debate” Public Administration Review Vol. 58, No. 3 pp.189-193

Levi-Faur D. and Vigoda-Gadot Eran (eds) (2004) International Public Policy and Management: Policy Learning Beyond Regional, Cultural and Political Boundaries, Marcel Dekker,
Midgley, G. (ed) (2003) Systems Thinking. London: Sage Publications

Midgley, G. (2000) Systemic Intervention: Philosophy, Methodology and Practice. New York, NY: Kluwer.

Murtagh, B. (2002). The Politics of Territory: Policy and Segregation in Northern Ireland. Basingstoke, Palgrave.

Rhodes, ML, Joanne Murphy, Jenny Muir, John Murray (2011) Public Management & Complexity Theory: Richer Decision Making in Irish Public Services, UK: Routledge

Plus Ça Change: The 2014 Local Elections in Northern Ireland

The local government elections of 22 May 2014 in Northern Ireland were the first to be held under revised district boundaries, with 11 'super councils' replacing the 26-council model used since 1973. Despite the structural reform, little changed in terms of political party support. Although they suffered some losses, the Democratic Unionist Party and Sinn Féin remained firmly entrenched as the two dominant players at local government level in Northern Ireland. The Ulster Unionist Party enjoyed only a marginal increase in its vote share, while the Social Democratic and Labour Party recorded one of the worst electoral performances in its history. Elsewhere, the Traditional Unionist Voice enjoyed a 'breakthrough' election and the Alliance Party defied widely held predictions that it would suffer at the polls as a result of its role in the Union flag crisis. The campaign was overshadowed by both the concurrent European Parliament contest and several crises of power-sharing at Stormont. As a result, distinctly local government issues received scant and fleeting attention. The contest saw the lowest local election turnout in Northern Ireland's history, continuing a general trend of increasing voter apathy in the province.