ABSTRACT
A number of models of public policy focus upon the translation of ideas and proposals into practice. In all of these models, a key concern is that the theory that underpins any policy (that policy A will have effect B) should be clear and uncontested. There should also be few (if any) external factors that interfere in this simple and clear relationship (e.g. Hogwood and Gunn 1984: 199-206). That this simple, not to say obvious, idea is highly problematic is well captured in the frustration expressed in the title of Pressman and Wildavsky’s (1973) book on implementation. One can easily imagine ministers and civil servants expressing similar frustrations as they survey the ruins of the now scarcely mentioned flagship programme, New Deal for Communities. Partnership after partnership has experienced problems and scarcely any are unblemished by accusations and/or open rifts. In part, this is to be expected. It is in the nature of regeneration that programmes will not please everyone and will provoke a degree of criticism, even hostility, whether warranted or not. However, the problems go far beyond questions about the appropriateness of individual funding decisions or other such local disputes. There is something about the link between policy and effect that needs examining in greater depth. Elsewhere, I have sought to outline some of the competing understandings of much used concepts (Rowe 2003, 2005) and here I turn to partnerships. The chapter will describe the forms that different partnerships take before going on to consider the understandings that these represent.
