Collaborative Governance and Conflict: A Case study of Belfast

1 Introduction The following literature is an interim reflection of the collated research examining the role of collaborative governance and planning in addressing the divisions of a contested city, such as Belfast. This interim paper is structured in three main sections: a literature review exploring the aspect of collaborative planning and governance; an interim analysis of semi-structured interviews with strategic personnel within Belfast City; a summary of the first two Strategic Discussion Forums on 'Partnership, Governance and Division in Belfast'. Over the last decade, there has been extensive discourse about the need for 'new governance' that re-invents the relationship between polity and society, connects better with citizens, and delivers more effectively in terms of public intervention. In essence, it speaks of a shift from: ! departmental silos to a more coordinated joined-up approach, capable of addressing the multi-faceted nature of contemporary society in a more integrated way ! a producer-driven public sector to a consumer-oriented one, with the language of greater citizen choice in public services ! a centralist provider state to an enabling one ! public versus private to public-private partnership ! a risk-averse culture to a more nimble entrepreneurial approach In similar vein, there has been significant rethinking about the role of planning in reshaping social space, and this new concept of 'spatial planning' seeks to be more integrated, comprehensive, inclusive and proactive, offering the prospect that conflicts around territory and identity will be more transparently confronted. With this context, the following literature review is an early draft exploration of thinking about the culture of collaboration in planning and governance, and how it might be applicable in building social capital for addressing exclusion, diversity and conflict in contested societies. In an article reflecting on his experience as a senior figure in the administration of Mayor Washington in Chicago, Mier (1994) attacks the conventional strategies of fighting urban poverty, which is almost always seen as a minority problem: Liberals pursue a " Big Buck " strategy with large-scale federal aid and Conservatives adhere to a " Big Bootstrap " strategy. " At heart, [however, both want to] quarantine 'them' … and help 'them' build from within— with money or moral incentives " (235). These approaches often mingle with one of the main planning ideas: Leadership, emphasizing charismatic individuals and professionalism, emphasizing knowledge and expertise. Both, however, are " constructs of domination, which assign energies elsewhere than towards social unity …