Week 1: A new perspective on policymaking
It is generally accepted that our coursework, at the Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy, focuses primarily on skills, expertise, and policy perspectives considered necessary for a successful career in provincial or federal governments. The program — as well as my professional experience in the public and consulting sectors — has somewhat reinforced the notion that policymaking occurs, rather exclusively, within provincial and federal governments. The first seminar of Munk+Evergreen provided a refreshing non-governmental perspective on policymaking, centred on the community.
Given my perspective on policymaking, it was somewhat challenging to express what “community” and “community-centred policymaking” meant to me. I believe it’s because I gained the majority of my professional experience at provincial governments, where policy analysis generally involves solving public policy issues that are often universal in nature. In other words, policy issues at the provincial-level are often not community specific, which makes sense given the constitutional responsibilities of provincial governments in Canada. Therefore, in my experience, “community” had not really been a serious consideration or a frame of reference in policymaking until now.
Thinking about what a community meant to me, in the first seminar, I couldn’t help but fixate on the following ideas: shared values and identity; a collective aspect; and a geographic boundary. While there was group consensus on shared values and identities, as well as the collective aspect, there was considerable debate on geographic boundaries. I agree that generalized definitions of a community may choose to exclude a geographic bound, as some communities exist exclusively on-line (e.g. gaming communities). For the purpose of this course, however, I would argue that geographic bounds are an important part of the definition because they play a crucial role in defining and contextualizing issues, developing policy options, implementing preferred policies, and measuring their impact. This is particularly the case when researching policy issues at a neighbourhood-level.
Two of the assigned readings for the second seminar discuss the redevelopment of Regent Park in Toronto. The case studies confirmed the notion that communities indeed have a shared vision; a collective aspect; and a geographic boundary. The readings also provide a unique perspective on community-centred policymaking. One of the case studies characterizes it as “giving away power and control to community residents, such that it leads to good decisions” (Micallef, 2011, p. 18). For me this is an entirely new approach to policymaking.
Needless to say, I’m quite excited to see community-centred policymaking in practice, especially how it addresses elite projection and paternalistic critiques of public policy and the way it incorporates design thinking (and maybe even behavioural insights) in developing policy options that work for the community. Furthermore, I’m interested in learning how community-centred policymaking reconciles special interests with the broader needs of the community — particularly how the practice generates consensus on a shared vision, given a diverse set of citizen interests and outcomes that are often incongruent.
