Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Future cities: what’s creativity got to do with it?

By Stephen Jones - posted Friday, 4 May 2007


Promoting difference is something that Perth residents tend to find attractive. Surely a more relevant argument would have been to provide suggestions on how local councils could work with their communities to identify and encourage local creative ideas that could see Perth emerge as a city with vibrancy and difference throughout the metropolitan area, rather than the one-size-fits-all approach that a mega-council would encourage.

The report moves on to promote the concept of “creative bureaucracy”. This is an “organisational form that is adaptive, responsive, flexible and collaborative”: characteristics that are highly desirable and worthwhile, but the report fails to provide us with any markers to show us the way.

In essence all the report gives us is that a creative bureaucracy promotes a pattern of thinking that searches for positive responses rather than negative resistance - a “yes” rather than “no” approach: something the report argues as critical if Perth is to think like a city.

Advertisement

There is nothing particularly unique in this approach as economic development agencies have adopted similar mantras since the mid 1980s, for example, this state is “open for business” or this city has a “can do approach”. Again the report is covering well established ground that has been part of the literature and government policy for decades.

What is missing is some guidance on how governments can deal with one of the most critical contemporary issues - how to get the most effective results from the inherent conflicts between market mechanisms and government structures.

More relevant ideas in the report could have covered how the juxtaposed functions of regulation and promotion of development can work together in the one bureaucracy; this would be directed at both state and local government. For example, how do town planners (regulators) and economic development professionals (promoters) work together to support new ideas and provide new opportunities? How do we overcome the institutional constraints ingrained since federation that restrict the capacity of policy makers to pursue radical policy initiatives?

A recent paper by DEMOS promotes the more substantial idea of “collaborative bureaucracy”, where agencies pursue a collective approach that establishes forums to bring institutions and citizens together to identify shared problems and work collaboratively on solutions. One example is the Victorian Government’s community strengthening strategy.

A collaborative approach would seem to be a more manageable set of parameters than the idea of creativity in a federal system where multiple bureaucracies are needed to deal effectively with development issues.

The final area the report covers is the need for leadership. The argument is that Perth must move from strategic to visionary leadership if it is to realise any of its potential opportunities. According to the report the main task of visionary leaders is to “re-assess the clutter of regulations for the new age, which so often block initiative”.

Advertisement

The report cites examples where leaders and decision makers in other cities have taken an alternative approach to prevailing decision making styles and then labels this as creative. A more sober assessment would suggest this is essentially lateral thinking. By advocating thinking through a problem and identifying the best solution is something that most of us would support, but to argue that it is creativity devalues the concept.

The need for visionary charismatic leaders to promote creativity and take us to a promised land has become such a cliché that it could only appeal to the naïve.

It is unfortunate that reports such as this contribute to the situation where creativity is losing its meaning. What Landry promotes is essentially looking at issues from different perspectives and identifying new solutions. Historically solutions to development issues have depended on a range of factors that usually come down to who has the money and who has the power. Whether the solution can be seen as creative or not depends on who is making the assessment. By arguing that your ideas are creative can often just mean they are different to the prevailing approaches.

But there is something far more serious here than the subjective judgments surrounding the use of creativity as tool for development. Creativity has become a commodity that promotes development as a key element in policy making that will lead to a form of economic and social nirvana wherever it is applied. Surely this approach is setting policy makers up to fail.

The bureaucratic hierarchical structure, which dominates the public sector, is antithetical to creativity. The workings of public sector agencies are based on conformity to establish equity and equality, values, in the Australian context, which are regarded more highly than creativity. What we really need to hear more about is improving accountability, transparency and legitimacy; this is where Perth: Town or City? could have made an important contribution.

It is regrettable that there is nothing of substance in this report to provide direction and nothing to measure achievement; critical ingredients for change to occur in public sector agencies. We are given a series platitudes that stroke the ego of those who wish to see their ideas emerge over the current mess. There is nothing to help prevent a similar report being produced in another 5 or 10 years, which would only serve to reinforce a sense of failure at a lack of achievement.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

1 post so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Stephen Jones is a Perth based writer and policy analyst.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Stephen Jones

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 1 comment
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy