As a policy and praxis tool designed to achieve community-based sustainable development outcomes, the SDPM aims to facilitate such a difference.
The application of the SDPM suits situations where the exploitation of resources are sub-optimal due to: a failure by local entrepreneurs and others to instigate and develop successful networks of cooperative innovation; a lack of effective knowledge management systems, and; a lack of path dependant organisational and governance capabilities (Campbell-Ellis and McCall, 2010).
The SDPM provides a mechanism whereby resources can be optimally exploited to provide a source of revenue (through levies) for resources management and community development initiatives (Campbell-Ellis and McCall, 2010).
84), lies at the core of the SDPM which seeks to enable and empower regional development agents through endogenous resourcing and collaborative action.
Understanding how groupthink and power enclosures affect regional development is critical to understanding how power, in whatever forms it may take, can be (re)distributed and applied within the regional development setting using the SDPM.
The relationship between these categories of power and the SDPM is that through such a schematic lens one can identify which forms of power may be present within the relational and structural dimensions and confines of a given regional development issue.
The SDPM was designed to be inclusive of deliberative democracy principles that facilitate discussion-based decision-making and polity free governance processes (Campbell-Ellis, 2009) that contribute to the realisation of what Lindblom (1990, in Parsons, 1995, p.
In order to incorporate constructive and empowering power relations into the SDPM and thereby establish DPS, a feminist orientation to power has been applied.
The SDPM seeks to achieve this through establishing and maintaining DPS.
Non-compliance will result in non-participation in the SDPM and a forfeiture of any rights (outside of what an agent is legally entitled to) to beneficial outcomes that may be derived from the SDPM's collaborative processes that take the form of regional innovation systems (see Campbell-Ellis, 2009), risk sharing and, as processes that strategise and action collective priorities (McCall, 2011).
Fiscal resources are critical and support the pre-investment components of the SDPM and to some degree, the actionability of the collective' s non-innovation phases.
The current application of the SDPM in Northwest Tasmania has not yet tested the effectiveness of DPS.