An emergent heterodox approach is challenging the prevailing orthodoxy of thinking, doing, and governing economic development, particularly at the subnational, regional, and local levels. Looking at underlying debates concerning institutionalism and a ‘new centrism’, the author draws together the theoretical and conceptual threads of the heterodox agenda. Several critical issues are outlined: the historical evolution of economic development approaches; the lack of coherency and consensus in conceptual, theoretical, and policy terms; the underdeveloped empirical base and; the translation into policy and institutional practice. This discussion informs an analytical framework based upon the central dimensions of heterodoxy, experimentation, context specificity, and governance. Empirical analysis of the substance of the new heterodoxy is undertaken by focusing upon a new institutional experiment for organising economic development—the task force—and drawing upon evidence from the national (UK), regional (North East of England), and local (South Tyneside) levels. The argument is that there is a mixed picture with patchy evidence of the emergence of the heterodox agenda, comprising genuine experimentation and innovation, coexisting and interrelating with substantial continuities and the extension and reinforcement of established practices. It is concluded that the currently dominant narrative and technocratic mode of ‘quasi-governance’ of economic development requires a renewed and democratised politics to open up discussion of alternative responses to the fundamental questions of what kind of economic development is desired and for whom. Strengthened democratic structures as part of the devolution process in the UK nations and regions may offer the potential to begin this debate.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AdamsJRobinsonP, 2002, “Devolution in practice: Public policy differences within the UK”, Economic and Social Research Council, Swindon, and Institute of Public Policy Research, London.
2.
AminA, 1999, “An institutionalist perspective on regional economic development”International Journal of Urban and Regional Research23365–378.
3.
AminAThriftN, 1995, “Globalization, institutional ‘thickness’ and the local economy”, in Managing Cities: The New Urban Context Ed. MadanipourA, (John Wiley, Chichester, Sussex) pp 91–108.
4.
BarkerTByrneIVeallA, 1999Ruling By Task Force (Politico's Publishing, London).
5.
BarnesT, 1999, “Industrial geography, institutional economics and Innis” in The New Industrial Geography: Regions, Regulation and Institutions Ed. GertlerM, (Routledge., London) pp 1–20.
6.
BarnesTSheppardE, (Eds), 2000Companion to Economic Geography (Blackwell, Oxford).
7.
BennettKBeynonHHudsonR, 2000Regenerating the Coalfields (Joseph Rowntree Foundation, York).
8.
BlockF, 1994, “The roles of the state in the economy”, in The Handbook of Economic Sociology Ed. SwedbergR, (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ) pp 691–710.
9.
BoyerRHollingsworthJ Rogers, 1997, “From national embeddedness to spatial and institutional nestedness”, in Contemporary Capitalism: The Embeddedness of Institutions Ed. HollingsworthJ Rogers (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge) pp 433–484.
10.
BRTF, 2002, “Local delivery of central policy”, Better Regulation Task Force, Cabinet Office, 5th Floor, 22 Whitehall, London SW1A 2WH.
ClarkGFeldmanMGertlerM, 2000The Oxford Handbook of Economic Geography (Oxford University Press, Oxford).
13.
ClarkeA, 2002, “My husband is out of work, how will I pay the mortgage?”Western Mail Cardiff, 19 July, page 1.
14.
CookeP, 1995, “Keeping to the high road: Learning, reflexivity and associative governance in regional economic development”, in The Rise of the Rustbelt Ed. CookeP, (UCL Press, London) pp 231–245.
15.
CookePMorganK, 1998The Associational Economy: Firms, Regions and Innovation (Oxford University Press, Oxford); copy available from Durham County Council, County Hall DH1 5UB.
16.
CTF, 1998, “Making the difference: A new start for England's coalfield communities”, Coalfields Task Force; copy available from the office of the Deputy Prime Minister, London.
17.
EDTF, 2000, “The road to success 1997–2001”, East Durham Task Force; copy available from Durham County Council, County Hall, DH1 5UB, Durham.
18.
EisenschitzAGoughJ, 1993The Politics of Local Economic Policy: The Problems and Possibilities of Local Initiative (Macmillan, London).
19.
FRG, 1999, “Fujitsu Response Group: Final report”, Fujitsu Response Group; copy available from Sedgefield Borough Council, Council Offices, Springmoor, County Durham, DL16 6JQ.
20.
GeddesM, 2000, “Tackling social exclusion in the European Union? The limits to the new orthodoxy of local partnership”, InternationalJournal of Urban and Regional Research24782–799.
21.
GeddesMNewmanI, 1999, “Evolution and conflict in local economic development”Local Economy13(5) 12–25.
22.
GertlerMWolfeD, 2002Innovation and Social Learning (Palgrave, London).
23.
GiddensA, 2002Where Now for New Labour? (Polity Press, Cambridge).
24.
GoodwinMJonesMJonesRPettKSimpsonG, 2002, “Devolution and economic governance in the UK: Uneven geographies, uneven capacities?”Local Economy17(3) 200–215.
25.
GrabherG, 1993, “The weakness of strong ties: The lock-in of regional development in the Ruhr Area”, in The Embedded Firm: On the Socio-economics of Industrial Networks Ed. GrabherG, (Routledge, London) pp 255–277.
26.
GreenhalghP, 1999, “Coalfield regeneration: May the task force be with you”Northern Economic Review2982–96.
27.
HassanGWarhurstC, 2002, “Future Scotland: The making of the new social democracy”, in Tomorrow's Scotland Ed. WarhurstC, (Lawrence and Wishart, London) pp 161–182.
28.
HeldDMcGrewAGoldblattDPerratonJ, 1999Global Transformations: Politics, Economics and Culture (Polity Press, Cambridge).
29.
HendersonDMorganK, 2002, “Regions as laboratories: The rise of regional experimentalism in Europe”, in Innovation and Social Learning Ed. WolfeD, (Palgrave, London) pp 204–226.
30.
TreasuryH M, 2001, “Productivity in the UK: 3. The regional dimension”, HM Treasury, 1 Horseguards Road, London SW1A 2HQ.
31.
HodgsonG, 1999Economics and Utopia (Routledge, London).
32.
House of Commons, 2001Mapping the Quango State: Fifth Report. Select Committee on Public Administration HC367-II (The Stationery Office, London).
33.
HudsonR, 2002, “Fuzzy concepts and sloppy thinking: Reflections on recent developments in critical regional studies”, Department of Geography and International Centre for Regional Regeneration and Development Studies, University of Durham, Durham.
34.
HudsonRDunfordMHamiltonDKotterR, 1997, “Developing regional strategies for economic success: Lessons from Europe's economically successful regions”European Urban and Regional Studies4365–373.
35.
JefferyCMawsonJ, 2002, “Introduction: Beyond the white paper on the English regions”Regional Studies36715–720.
36.
JessopB, 2001, “Institutional re(turns) and the strategic–relational approach”Environment and Planning A331213–1235.
37.
JonesM, 1999New Institutional Spaces: Training and Enterprise Councils and the Remaking of Local Governance (Jessica Kingsley, London).
38.
KeatingMBoyleR, 1987Remaking Urban Scotland (Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh).
39.
KitsonMMartinRWilkinsonF, 2000, “Labour markets, social justice and economic efficiency”Cambridge Journal of Economics24631–641.
40.
LindleyP D, 1985, “The Merseyside task force”Regional Studies1969–74.
41.
LoveringJ, 1999, “Theory led by policy: The inadequacies of the ‘New Regionalism’ (illustrated from the case of Wales)”International Journal of Urban and Regional Research23379–395.
42.
LoveringJ, 2001, “The coming regional crisis (and how to avoid it)”Regional Studies35349–354.
43.
MacLeodG, 2000, “The learning region in an age of austerity: Capitalizing on knowledge, entrepreneurialism, and reflexive capitalism”Geoforum31219–236.
44.
MacLeodG, 2001, “Beyond soft institutionalism: Accumulation, regulation, and their geographical fixes”Environment and Planning A331145–1167.
45.
MarksG, 1993, “Structural policy and multilevel governance in the EC”, in The State of the European Community Eds CafrunyARosenthalG, (Lynne Rienner, Boulder, CO) pp 391–410.
46.
MarkusenA, 1999, “Fuzzy concepts, scanty evidence, policy distance: The case for rigour and policy relevance in critical regional studies”Regional Studies33869–884.
47.
MartinR, 1999, “Institutional approaches in economic geography”, in Companion to Economic Geography Ed. SheppardE. (Blackwell, Oxford) pp 1–28.
48.
MartinR, 2001, “Geography and public policy: The case of the missing agenda”Progress in Human Geography25189–210.
49.
MartinRSunleyPWillsJ, 1996Union Retreat and the Regions: The Shrinking Landscape of Organized Labour (Jessica Kingsley, London).
50.
MawsonJ, 1999, “Area regeneration policy-management problems”, paper presented at the Institutional Capacity, Social Capital and Urban Governance Seminar, The County Thistle Hotel, Newcastle Upon Tyne, 15–16 April; copy available from the Warwick Institute of Governance and Public Management, University of Warwick, Coventry.
51.
MorganK, 2002, “The new regeneration narrative—local development in the multi-level polity”Local Economy17191–199.
52.
MorganKMunghamG, 2000Redesigning Democracy: The Making of the Welsh Assembly (Seren, Bridgend, Wales).
53.
MorganKReesG, 2001, “Learning by doing: Devolution and the governance of economic development in Wales”, in Post-devolution Wales: New Governance—New Democracy? (University of Wales Press, Cardiff) pp 124–140.
54.
North East Assembly, 2002, “Strengthening Accountability in the North East: First Report”, North East Assembly, The Guidlhall, Quayside, Newcastle Upon Tyne NE1 3AF.
55.
OatleyN, 1998, “Transitions in urban policy: Explaining the emergence of the ‘challenge fund’ model”, in Cities, Economic Competition and Urban Policy Ed. OatleyN, (Paul Chapman, London) pp 21–37.
56.
ODPM, 2002, “Indices of Deprivation 2000”, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, 26 Whitehall, London SW1A 2WH.
57.
OECD, 2001Devolution and Globalisation: Implications for Local Policymakers (OECD, Paris).
58.
PeckJ, 2000, “Doing regulation”, in The Oxford Handbook of Economic Geography Eds ClarkG LFeldmanMGertlerM, (Oxford University Press, Oxford) pp 61–82.
59.
PeckJ, 2002, “Fuzzy old world: A response to Markusen”, SECONS Discussion Forum, Contribution 2, University of Bonn, Bonn.
60.
PeckJTickellA, 1994, “Searching for a new institutional fix: The after-Fordist crisis and the global–local disorder”, in Post-Fordism: A Reader Ed. AminA, (Blackwell, Oxford) pp 280–315.
61.
PeckJTickellA, 1995, “The social regulation of uneven development: ‘regulatory deficit’, England's South East, and the collapse of Thatcherism”Environment and Planning A2715–40.
62.
PikeA, 1999, “South Tyneside Redundancies—Rapid Response Group”, report for South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council); copy available from Centre for Urban and Regional Development Studies, University of Newcastle, Newcastle Upon Tyne.
63.
PikeA, 2002, “Task forces and the organisation of economic development: The case of the North East region of England”Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy20717–739.
64.
RomerP, 1994, “The origins of endogenous growth”Journal of Economic Perspectives8(1) 3–32.
65.
SabelC, 1994, “Learning by monitoring: The institutions of economic development”, in The Handbook of Economic Sociology Ed. SwedbergR, (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ) pp 137–165.
66.
SabelCO'DonnellR, 2000, “Democratic experimentalism: What to do about wicked problems after Whitehall (and what Scotland may just possibly already be doing)”; paper presented at the OECD Conference on Devolution and Globalisation: Implications for Local Decisionmakers, Glasgow, http://www2.law.columbia.edu/sabel/papers/glasPO.html.
67.
Scottish Executive, 2000, “The way forward: Framework for economic development in Scotland”, Scottish Executive, St Andrew House, Regent Road, Edinburgh EH1 3DG.
68.
SkelcherCWeirSWilsonL, 2000, “Advance of the quango state”, Local Government Information Unit, 22 Upper Woburn House, Euston, London WC1H 0TB.
69.
SteinmoSThelenKLongstrethF, 1992Structuring Politics: Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Perspective (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge).
70.
StewartM, 1999, “Policy reflections on joined-up working”, paper presented at the Institutional Capacity, Social Capital and Urban Governance Seminar, The County Thistle Hotel, Newcastle Upon Tyne, 15–16 April; copy available from Cities Research Centre, University of West England, Coldharbour Lane, Bristol.
71.
STMBC, 2001, “Economic development plan 2000/2001”, South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council, Town Hall, Westoe Road, South Shields, Tyne and Wear NE33 2RL.
72.
StorperM, 1997The Regional World: Territorial Development in a Global Economy (Blackwell, Oxford).
73.
UTF, 1998Towards an Urban RenaissanceUrban Task Force, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, Eland House, Bressenden Place, London SW1E 5DU.
74.
VallerDPhelpsNWoodA, 2002, “Devolution, regionalism and local economic development”Local Economy17(3) 186–190.
