In a recent discussion with a number of Michigan based foundation heads and staffers, respected Brookings Institution scholar Bruce Katz discussed the tough economic conditions and what government responses to it can look like. The notes from his conversation suggest that it was wide ranging. Katz, who runs the Metropolitan Policy Program at Brookings, was recently working with administration officials in HUD helping them figure out new ways for the federal government to work on things like housing, transportation and improving cities’ economies.

The conversation turned to roles that organizations outside of Washington could play in forging a new way for government to relate to the public. Here’s the recap:

Katz says he sees five, nonpartisan roles that local/state/federal officials, citizens and foundations need to play to make the bureaucracy more responsive in time of great economic and social upheaval:

1. There is a role for metros and states to implement well the policies and programs that have already been put in place by this administration, the Recovery Act being the major piece of that.
2. There is a role for states to prepare for the next wave of programs and initiatives that are about to cascade down from Washington and they will look much different from those created in the 1970s and 1990s. There will be more focus on integrated problem solving and inter-jurisdictional collaboration along with a focus on catalyzing markets.
3. There is a role to play for states like Michigan in identifying areas where the Obama administration is not focused with precision on issues that have regional applications. There needs to be both policy development and advocacy by Michigan and other state’s congressional delegation that focus on and utilize that which is unique due to their shared industrial heritage.
4. There is a role for state and federal government officials, foundations and community leaders to think through how the national government can leverage and align with needed state reform efforts.
5. There is a role for everyone to focus on the 2010 election cycle and its upcoming state and federal campaigns and how candidates will work to implement metro-focused solutions to 21st century problems.

I do believe that there are people throughout the government and policy world who are thinking hard about how to create a different kind of relationship between governmemnt and the public. And I am not criticizing any individual, least of all Bruce Katz who knows far more than me.

But these points illustrate just how hard it is for even innovative, respected thinkers to break out of their deep-seated perspectives. Policy people have a very strong sense of who is supposed to do what.

I added boldface to the above points to highlight the real actions that were being suggested: implement, prepare, identify, think, and focus. Step back from these and it adds up to a common mindset: “Step back and let us do our work. Give us input as and how we ask.”

The difficult thing — and I do recognize it is difficult — is to think about how people outside Washington can actually work with government in a different way, not just support the things that government does. This is the challenge of placing one’s own organization (or in this case, perspective) first.

This is a critical issue, as public life shifts from being institution-centric to citizen-centric.

What would it look like, for instance, if the federal government asked local people to do more than “implement well, prepare for new programs, and think?”

The center of gravity for policy development needs to shift. It’s based inside the Beltway. But experimentation and innovation happens in states and cities. And, in those states and cities, the innovation doesn’t come from thinkers but from doers.

How can the policy world, which values thinkers, really start to place doers in a more central place?

One answer is that this is the role of philanthropy — to fund promising innovations, let some fail, and foster what succeeds. But that still keeps all this innovation essentially on the sidelines, and relegates it to the role of “input.” What would a partnership look like, instead? And, what mechanisms would it take?

I honestly don’t know the answer. But I know that it’s something we have to tackle.