The author examines the interrelationship between different organisations in the local economic-development field and the practitioners' response to various policy issues. A sociological perspective is adopted to achieve a sympathetic understanding of the situation as the actors see it, and of the subjective meanings they ascribe to their actions. Empirical findings were yielded both from quantitative and from qualitative data for two case-study areas—the North West and the Eastern regions of England. These two regions were chosen because of their very contrasting socioeconomic experiences, which provide a compelling account of how practitioners perceive different issues and how these perceptions vary between different types of organisations in different localities.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Audit Commission, 1989Urban Regeneration and Economic Development: the Local Government Dimension (The Stationery Office, London).
2.
BeauregardR A, 1993, “Constituting economic development: A Theoretical perspective” in Theories of Local Economic Development Eds BinghamR DMierR (Sage, Beverly Hills, CA) pp 267–283.
3.
BennettR JKrebsG, 1991Local Economic Development: Public – Private Partnership Initiative in Britain and Germany (Belhaven Press, London).
4.
BennettR JKrebsG, 1994, “Local economic development partnerships: An analysis of policy networks in EC-LEDA local employment development strategy”Regional Studies28119–140.
5.
BennettRWicksPMcCoshanA, 1994Local Empowerment and Business Services: Britain's Experiment with Training and Enterprise Councils (UCL Press, London).
6.
BlakelyF J, 1994Planning Local Economic Development: Theory and Practice (Sage, Beverly Hills. CA).
7.
BulmerM, 1979, “Concepts in the analysis of qualitative data”The Sociological Review27653–677.
8.
CooperLybrand DeloitteBicCHI, 1991Local Support for EnterpriseCoopers Lybrand, 1 Embankment Place, London WC2N 6NN.
9.
DoE, 1995Partners in Regeneration: The Challenge Fund Bidding Guidance information pack, Department of the Environment, Eland Mouse, Bressenden Place, London SW1.
10.
DTI, 1994Competitiveness: Helping Business to Win, Department of Trade and Industry (The Stationery Office, London).
11.
EisenschitzAGoughJ, 1993The Politics of Local Economic Policy: The Problems and Possibilities of Local Initiative (Macmillan, Basingstoke, Hants).
12.
ElkinS, 1987City and Regime in the American Republic (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL).
13.
Employment Department, 1994TECs: Towards 2000, The Government's Strategic Guidance to TECs copy available from Department of Education and Employment, Sanctuary Buildings, Great Smith Street, London SW1 3BT.
14.
European Commission, 1994Growth, Competitiveness and Growth: The Challenge and Ways Forward into the 21st Century (European Commission, Brussels).
15.
HardingA, 1990, “Local autonomy and urban economic development policies: The recent UK experience in perspective”, in Challenges to Local Government Eds KingDPierreJ (Sage, London) pp 79–100.
16.
HardingA, 1994, “Urban regimes and growth machines: Towards a cross-national research agenda”Urban Affairs Quarterly29356–382.
17.
HartMHaughtonGPeckJ, 1996, “Accountability and the non-elected local state: Calling Training and Enterprise Councils to local account”Regional Studies30429–441.
18.
HaughtonGWilliamsC, 1996Corporate City? Partnership, Participation and Partition in Urban Development in Leeds (Avebury, Aldershot, Hants).
19.
HaughtonGPeckJStrangeI, 1997, “Turf wars: The battle for control over English local economic development”Local Government Studies23(1) 88–106.
MarinB, 1987, “Contrasting without contracts: economic policy concentration by autopoietic regimes beyond law?” WP 87/278, European University Institute, Florence.
22.
MarshC, 1984, “Problems with surveys: Method or epistemology?” in Sociological Research Methods Ed. BuhnerM (Macmillan, London) pp 82–104.
23.
MartinSOztelH, 1996, “The business of partnership”Local Economy11131–142.
24.
NWRA, NWBLT, 1993, “Regional economic strategy for North West England”, summary report, North West Regional Association and North West Business Leadership Team, NWRA, Secretariat, New Town Hall, PO Box 36, Library Street, Wigan WN1 1NN.
25.
OatleyN, 1996, “Business Link”Local Economy1170.
26.
PeckJTickellA, 1995, “Jungle law breaks out: Neoliberalism and global-local disorder”Area26317–326.
27.
RobertsPCollisCNoonD, 1990, “Local economic development in England and Wales: Successful adaptation of old industrial areas in Sedgefield, Nottingham and Swansea” in Global Challenge and Local Response Ed. StöhrW B (Mansell, London) pp 135–162.
28.
RobsonB TBradfordM GDeasIHallEHarrisonEParkinsonMEvansRGarsidePHardingA, 1994Assessing the Impact of Urban Policy, Inner Cities Directorate, Department of the Environment (The Stationery Office, London).
29.
SellgrenJ, 1990, “Local economic development partnerships in an assessment of local authority development initiatives”Local Government Studies1657–78.
30.
StöhrW B, 1990Global Challenge and Local Response (Mansell, London).
31.
StokerG, 1995, “Regime theory and urban politics” in Theories of Urban Politics Eds JudgeDStokerGWolmanH (Sage, Newbury Parks, CA) pp 54–71.
32.
StokerGMossbergerK, 1994“Urban regime theory in comparative perspective”Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy12195–212.
33.
StoneC N, 1989Regime Politics: The Governing of Atlanta 1946–1988 (University Press of Kansas, Lawrence, KA).
34.
StoneC NMarionEOrrD I, 1991, “The reshaping of urban leadership in US cities: A Regime analysis”, in Urban Life in Transition Eds GottdienerMPickvanceC G (Sage, London) pp 222–239.
