Standing For, Standing With: Civil Society Representation in Welfare Governance

Abstract

Regulatory governance theory argues civil society organisations (CSOs) legitimise state power through their participation in consultation and oversight processes (Braithwaite & Drahos 2000; Levi-Faur 2011; Mabbett 2011). Yet this assumption rests on a largely unexamined foundation: that CSOs possess meaningful representative connections with constituents they claim to speak for. This dissertation examines how civil society organisations construct and deploy representative claims within regulatory governance systems, investigating a fundamental tension between theoretical assumptions about CSO as regulatory intermediaries and the empirical realities of their representational practices. Drawing on comparative case studies of Australia's disability and aged care sectors, it bridges regulatory governance theory with democratic representation scholarship to reveal how CSOs act as "democratising intermediaries" between marginalised populations and regulatory systems.

The dissertation employs a novel conceptual framework of "dialogic representation". This framework distinguishes between two key practices related to their work with constituents: "expressing choice" (enabling constituents to articulate preferences) and "negotiating power" (developing constituents' capacity for civic engagement). The research demonstrates how these practices shape CSOs' representative claims and their capacity to legitimate or challenge regulatory authority through ongoing dialogue with both constituents and power-holders.

The research combines analysis of 216 submissions from 104 CSOs to two Royal Commissions, 35 interviews with CSO leaders, and the infrastructure of 32 governance spaces across both sectors. This approach enables a view of of how CSOs construct representative claims, engage with constituents, and navigate governance infrastructure to advance legitimation processes.

The study makes several significant theoretical contributions. The concept of dialogic representation extends Saward's (2010) representative claims theory by emphasising the relational dynamics between CSOs and constituents that inform claim construction. The research introduces CSOs as "democratising intermediaries" aligned with Abbott, Levi-Faur and Snidal's (2017) regulatory intermediary framework, demonstrating beneficiary representation's focus. Star's (1999) infrastructure theory applied to governance spaces reveals how governance arrangements embed cultural norms that enable or constrain dialogic legitimation.

Key empirical findings reveal significant variation in CSOs' dialogic representation practices, with many organisations making representative claims without demonstrable constituent engagement. The research identifies how CSOs strategically construct constituent images within their representative claims, either reinforcing perceptions of "otherness" or invoking shared humanity to connect with audiences. Analysis of governance spaces exposes systematic distortions of inclusion norms, where lived experience experts are relegated to sharing personal narratives rather than contributing to strategic discussions, undermining the legitimating potential of these spaces.

This study challenges Mark E. Warren's (2009) concept of governance-driven democratisation by demonstrating how governance infrastructure can maintain the appearance of inclusion while systematically constraining democratic possibilities. The findings have important implications for governance design, suggesting that meaningful legitimation requires attention to both formal inclusion and the quality of dialogic engagement enabled by governance infrastructure.

The research establishes dialogic representation as a crucial analytical lens for understanding how democratic principles operate within non-majoritarian governance spaces, offering new insights into the relationship between representation, legitimation, and governance infrastructure in contemporary regulatory systems. Show more