The authors use the government-commissioned Lyons review proposals for the relocation of approximately 20 000 public sector jobs from London and the South East of England as a springboard for a historical analysis of civil service dispersal in Britain. Though civil service dispersal has helped ameliorate regional disparities, this has been a secondary objective of relocation programmes. The authors highlight the interconnections between public sector relocation and civil service (re)organisation. In the 1960s and 1970s, relocation formed part of a national programme to accommodate the geographical consequences of the hierarchical and spatially centralised public sector by relocating routine functions from the capital. Today, relocation is part of a coordinated programme of public sector reform which seeks to slim down the central headquarters of the civil service—so that only strategic aspects of policy and management are concentrated in London. In the Lyons review regional development is taken more seriously than in previous programmes of relocation; however, the links between the Lyons review and Gershon's review of public sector efficiency suggests that, in the short term at least, the primary emphasis remains on reducing costs and achieving efficiency savings.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AminAMasseyDThriftN, 2003Decentering the Nation: A Radical Approach to Regional Inequality Catalyst (Central Books, London)
Cabinet Office, 1988Improving Management in Government: The Next Steps Efficiency Unit (HMSO, London)
4.
Cabinet Office, 1999Modernising Government (The Stationery Office, London)
5.
Cabinet Office, HM Treasury, 2003Efficiency Review: Releasing Resources to the Frontline, OctoberCabinet Office, London
6.
Centre for Sustainable Urban and Regional Futures, 2004Releasing the National Economic Potential of City-Regions: The Rationale for and Implications of a ‘Northern Way’ Growth StrategyOffice of the Deputy Prime Minister, New Horizons Study, University of Salford, Salford, Greater Manchester
7.
ClarkeJNewmanJ, 1997The Managerial State (Sage, London)
GaeblerTOsborneD, 1993Reinventing Government (Addison-Wesley, London)
11.
GoddardJ BPyeR, 1977, “Telecommunications and office location”Regional Studies1119–30
12.
HammondE, 1967, “Dispersal of government offices: A Survey”Urban Studies18258–275
13.
Hansard1979, House of Commons Debates, July 1979, columns 902–922 (HMSO, London)
14.
HardmanH, 1973The Dispersal of Government Work from London Cmnd 5322 (HMSO, London)
15.
HM Treasury, 1998Modern Public Services for Britain: Investing in Reform (The Stationery Office, London)
16.
HM Treasury, 2003aReview of the Customs and Excise and Inland Revenue, http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk (HM Treasury, London)
17.
HM Treasury, 2003bThe Strength to Take the Long-term Decisions for Britain pre-Budget Report, Cm 6042 (The Stationery Office, London)
18.
HM Treasury, 2004aStability, Security and Opportunity for All: Investing for Britain's Long-term Future, 2004 Spending Review New Public Spending Plans 2005–2008 Cm 6237 (The Stationery Office, London)
19.
HM Treasury, 2004bBudget 2004 House of Commons papers HC 301, March (The Stationery Office, London)
20.
JeffersonC WTrainorM, 1993, “Public sector employment in regional development”Environment and Planning A251319–1338
21.
JeffersonC WTrainorM, 1996, “Public sector relocation and regional development”Urban Studies3337–48
22.
JessopB, 2001, “Institutional (re)turns and the strategic–relational approach”Environment and Planning A331212–1235
23.
JessopB, 2002The Future of the Capitalist State (Polity Press, Cambridge)
24.
JonesRGoodwinMJonesMSimpsonG, 2004, “Devolution, state personnel, and the production of new territories of governance in the United Kingdom”Environment and Planning A3689–109
LyonsM, 2004Well Placed to Deliver? Shaping the Pattern of Government Service. Independent Review of Public Sector Relocation, http://hm-treasury.gov.uk/lyonsreview
28.
MarshallJ N, 1996, “Civil service reorganisation and urban and regional development in Britain”The Service Industries Journal16347–367
29.
MarshallJ NAldermanNThwaitesA T, 1991, “Civil service relocation and the English regions”Regional Studies25499–510
30.
MarshallJ NRichardsonRHopkinsJ, 1999, “The employment implications of civil service reform in the United Kingdom: National and regional evidence from the North East of England”Environment and Planning A31803–817
31.
MarshallJ NBradleyDHodgsonCRichardsonRAldermanNBenneworthPTebbuttGCharlesDGillespieATomaneyJGoddardJ, 2003Public Sector Relocation from London and the South East evidence on behalf of the English Regional Development Agencies to the Lyons Review, Centre for Urban and Regional Development Studies, University of Newcastle, http://hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/249/30/RDAsresponse.pdf
32.
MartinRSunleyP, 1997, “The post-Keynesian state and the space economy”, in Geographies of Economies Eds LeeRWillisJ (Edward Arnold, Sevenoaks, Kent) pp 278–289
33.
MasseyD, 1995Spatial Divisions of Labour2nd edition (Macmillan, London)
PaininMKunzmanKMarshallJ NMelePReyMGarioGZagrebelskyG, 1993La capitale reticolare. Il decentramento delle funzioni nazionali: un'esperienza europea e una proposta per I'Italia (Edizioni della Fondazioni Giovanni Agnelli, Turin)
37.
Scottish Parliament, 2004Relocation of Public Sector JobsFinance Committee, 6th Report, session 2, volumes 1 and 2, http://www.scottish.parliament.uk
38.
WinklerV, 1989, “Restructuring the civil service: Reorganisation and relocation 1962–1985”International Journal of Urban and Regional Research14135–157
