Between Colliding Worlds: The Ambiguous Existence of Government Agencies for Aboriginal and Women's Policy.

Smith, Miriam

Between Colliding Worlds: The Ambiguous Existence of Government Agencies for Aboriginal and Women's Policy

By JONATHAN MALLOY Toronto: University of Toronto Press. 2003. Pp. 217. Bibliographical references, index.

This book presents a comparative analysis of the role of policy agencies for women's issues and Aboriginal affairs in Canada and Australia, exploring the tension between representational and governmental demands. A substantial body of literature has explored the mobilization of social movements and their impact on the state, analysing the dichotomy of movements that attempt to influence the state from the inside, that is, through the establishment of dedicated policy agencies. Jonathan Malloy's book will be required reading for those who are interested in the trajectories of these mixed agencies.

Within both the feminist and Aboriginal communities there are profound debates about the merits of engaging with the state. When these movements engage with the state, are they co-opted by the pressure of government demands? Or is engagement with the state the most effective route to policy influence? There is a also an active debate in the policy literature about this point, especially studies of "femocracy" -that is, the establishment of dedicated policy agencies for women's issues. At the same time, as Malloy points out, from the perspective of government, Aboriginal and women's issues need to be effectively managed. From the government's perspective, one way to do this is to dedicate a policy agency staffed by permanent civil servants to the management of these sectors.

Malloy's central argument is that these special policy agencies span the boundaries of states and social movements and their role is inherently ambiguous. They must respond to the demands of the state on the one hand, while also responding to the needs of the broader constituency they are supposed to serve. Much of the book is taken up with explaining the different organizational norms that prevail in the world of social movements and the world of the state. Malloy argues that it is not so milch a question of what the state can do for the organized social movement or whether movements are co-opted in their relationships with the state but, rather, that the world of the state and the world of social movements function according to radically different rules and norms. The ambiguities of these profoundly different roles make the lives of special policy agencies particularly precarious and fluid.

Malloy also surveys a number of other possible mechanisms for institutionalizing relationships between social movements and the state, including the line department, advisory councils, legislative committees and arm's-length commissions. These other mechanisms do not create the ambiguities of the special policy agency, according to Malloy. Because the special policy agency represents a particular constituency, its mandate is not as clear-cut as that of a line department, with responsibility for defined issue areas or the arm's length commission that may temporarily focus on a particular issue (for example, the Royal Commission on the Status of Women or the Royal Commission on Aboriginal People). Representative councils, for their part, are intended to provide independent continuing advice by outsiders. This model may provide for a broader range of policy advice from a broader cross-section of the constituency to be represented; that is, such representative councils may select from a broader range of women's groups or Aboriginal organizations than might normally be represented by social movement organizations. At the same time, however, such councils have been used by governments in Canada and Australia to give symbolic recognition to issues, but without much concrete action. In contrast, the special policy agency is likely to be created in response to pressure from social movements, often through the presence of a left party in power, or as a reaction to a crisis or seminal event, according to Malloy.

One of the weaknesses of Malloy's analysis is the discussion of social movements and the state. Correctly, he points to a range of features of social movement networks and the ways in which the organizational cultures of social movements contrast with those of the state. For example, he stresses that social movements may be constituted by informal networks, they may lack hierarchy and accountability, they may have limited resources and membership, they are rarely allied with a political party, and they may be motivated by personal commitment and ambition; in other words, they are linked to personal identity. In contrast, the world of public administration is said to be based on a culture of political neutrality, protection for confidentiality, dedication to efficiency and fairness, the avoidance of conflicts of interests, and respect for institutionalized hierarchy, accountability, and transparency.

While this contrast is accurate enough as far as it goes, Malloy misses out on opportunities to place it within a broader theoretical perspective. By presenting a static contrast between the world of the social movement and the world of the special policy agency, he does not ask how the politics of representation are shaped by engagement with the state in the specific sectors he examines, how the institutional culture of the state influences social movement politics, or how policy development shapes the discursive construction of contrasting organizations cultures. A broader theoretical lens, based on historical institutionalism, organizational sociology, or even rational choice theory would have highlighted the evolving power relationships between social movements and the state. Power is absent from this analysis, which essentially provides a descriptive contrast of the differences between the culture of public administration and the culture of the social movements.

As such, the analysis is likely to be useful to public servants and even to confirm the prejudices of public servants regarding the intersection of social movements, with the state. For example, Malloy's organizational cultures highlight the "ideological" nature of the social movement, contrasted with the culture of efficiency and accountability of the state. Yet, of course, as new public management demonstrates, efficiency and accountability are themselves belief systems that reflect power relationships. One person's efficiency is another person's ideology. While it is true that social movements enact collective identity, so does the state. Public administration is not above politics, ideology, and identity; to the contrary, public administration is vitally involved in the creation and enactment of citizen identities. Such broader and deeper theoretical questions about politics, ideology, and public administration are lacking in Malloy's approach.

In a related way, Malloy does not clarify the utility of the Australian/Canadian comparison. The Australian and Canadian policy agencies are considered as if they are simply different examples of the same phenomenon and there is no clear explanation of the reasons for having undertaken a comparative study. This is also related to the lack of a central theoretical focus to the book beyond the exploration of conflicting organizational cultures or "colliding worlds."

Despite these weaknesses, Malloy's description of the ambiguities of bridging the world of social movement politics and the world of public administration is likely to resonate with public servants and with social movement activists who must negotiate the contrasting cultures of the public service and political activism. In an era of citizen engagement and demands for tighter public accountability, Malloy's book is a welcome addition to the literature.

Miriam Smith is Professor of Political Studies at Trent University, Peterborough.