Local Economy: The Journal of the Local Economy Policy Unit

This article tackles a double orthodoxy that has emerged in the recent debate over city regions in the UK. The first, in the realm of policy and politics, held that city regions were the most appropriate scale at which to govern processes of economic development. The second, in the academic literature, posited that city-regional thinking was founded on purely economistic rationales and that there was a need to insert ‘more politics’ into analyses. A very real disjuncture emerged between the initial visualisation of extensive and ‘fuzzy’ city regions and institutional outcomes which often reflected older metropolitan geographies. Underpinning this was a profoundly political process of cross-boundary coalition building in which neighbouring local authorities formed uneasy partnerships in the hunt for resources and forms of ‘constrained autonomy’. The article draws attention to the relationships between two conceptions of ‘making space’: the process of visualising city-regional spaces, and the grounded and political process of carving out the space for city regions in the congested inter-scalar institutional landscape.

The form of place-based economic strategy that is the focus of this paper is ‘fleet-of-foot’ partnership arrangements. Contributing to the theorisation of these institutional configurations, which are propounded by some as more flexible and responsive than democratic-administrative alternatives, the paper investigates the empirical situation in England that has unfolded over recent years. Tracing the recent historical evolution of sub-national structures that could be considered ‘fleet-of-foot’, the paper analyses the implications for place-based economic strategies at large. Through an analysis of Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs), the paper examines the extent to which the conceptual principles underpinning the notion of ‘fleet-of-foot’ arrangements have informed the configuration of LEPs, emphasising the importance of the legacy of past political constructions. Drawing attention to some of the primary weaknesses of ‘fleet-of-foot’ arrangements, the paper concludes that there are some inherent limitations to the present configuration of LEPs. These impede such partnerships in opening up space for a richer constellation of actors to participate in governance forums across flexible and functional geographies, or achieve efficient outcomes. More broadly, the paper contributes to the literature on place-based economic strategies and contemporary trends in economic development.

Local Enterprise Partnerships in England were intended as organic entities in which coalitions of local actors, led by business interests, would determine locally relevant policy for self-defined spatial units. Informed by ideas around localism and the desire to extend sub-national economic development policy making beyond the local state, central government envisaged an increased unevenness in local governance arrangements and policy approaches. The article assesses the experiences of four Local Enterprise Partnerships, employing social network analysis in an attempt to systematise the comparison of actor relationships and urban governance arrangements. The article considers the degree to which the discursive emphasis on liberating local policy actors from central government control has any empirical basis in the variable shape and structure of local elite actor networks. It argues that although Local Enterprise Partnerships operate within an environment characterised by lighter touch regulation, there is a dissonance between local discretion and the political imperative for central government to exercise oversight. Equally, variability in the web of actor interactions across the sample of Local Enterprise Partnerships suggests that asymmetrical urban governance and competitive localism are intrinsic features of post-regional local economic development, reflecting a wider national framework for spatial policy in which diversity in sub-national institutional form is viewed as a source of policy innovation and dynamism.

The Labour Governments of 1997–2010 introduced a range of new regional institutions in England, which were subsequently abolished after the 2010 General Election. This article re-assesses the lessons which emerged from the regional policies pursued during this period and argues the Coalition Government elected in 2010 has failed to learn those lessons. The article identifies three key lessons: that place and scale matter, that local government needs to be centrally involved, and that local economic development initiatives require effective local leadership to gain the buy-in of the private sector. The lessons contained in this article retain relevance for current and future regional development efforts.

The decline of the regionalist era and introduction of localism has set a number of emerging issues for economic development at the local level. Amongst the spatial, organisational and functional challenges facing local government a prevalent one is re-engineering a local development trajectory to represent this new environment. The dissolution of the regional governance hierarchy alongside a fundamental shift in aspirations for economic shape and structure has forced localities to reconsider approaches to both economic development and spatial economy. Using an action-based case study of the Borough of Poole, a coastal conurbation in Southern England, this article looks at the local response in revising the economic development strategy through a contextual benchmarking approach. It proposes an alternative method to adopt in developing local strategy contributing toward questions on defining spatial economy, integrating local context and actors, and adapting to a wider set of structural and fiscal issues.

In this article we consider whether the city policy frameworks that are currently emerging in England and Scotland, under the influence of devolution and localism, are likely to result in a locally effective yet nationally coherent set of economic outcomes or generate a disorderly pattern of local autonomies based on a series of ad hoc, local deals. Mindful of the context of slow economic growth and austerity, we look at the evolution of city policies in Scotland and England in the light of some rather fundamental requirements for cohesive decentralised policy design and implementation. Each can learn from the policy experiences of the other, but key questions remain as to whether sufficient resources and governance cohesion, to deliver greater city-led national economic growth, will emerge in England and Scotland.

This article critically reviews the experience of a major sub-regional strategy which sought to bring housing and economic development together, under the aegis of the Sustainable Communities Plan. It draws on evidence from a current ESRC-funded project focused on Milton Keynes and Northamptonshire, the northern part of the growth area of Milton Keynes and the South Midlands identified in the Sustainable Communities Plan. The Sustainable Communities Plan promised a comprehensive approach to regional development in a series of ‘growth areas’ in key locations around the South East of England, based primarily upon building ‘sustainable communities’ which would include investment in jobs, town centres, schools, transport, housing and community facilities. However, a much-desired ‘step change’ in housing, economic delivery and sustainable development relied heavily on the expectation of extensive activity by the private sector (particularly by the house-building industry). The extent to which this was a realistic expectation is questioned in the article, which also highlights issues of governance. The shift in priorities towards quantity targets away from issues of quality in the wake of recession helped to undermine the satiability agenda. While the Sustainable Communities Plan may itself have been inadequate, based on unsustainable assumptions about what the private house-building sector would deliver, it nevertheless sought to incorporate a wider strategic vision for the sub-region around which argument was possible. Such possibilities seem absent within the current government’s localist agenda.

Decentralisation is a key thread running through current UK policy making. The Coalition Government has abolished New Labour’s regional legacy in favour of a new set of strategies around growth and development that has tapped into the localist agenda. Drawing on a series of recent interviews conducted with civil servants, this article explores government initiatives aimed at enhancing local autonomy in England and provides new empirical insights into decentralisation from a Whitehall perspective. It examines departmental aspirations for decentralised structures and Whitehall perceptions of the capacity of local arrangements to successfully manage territorial development in an era of austerity. The article concludes that, in the fields of economic development, planning and transport, there are signs of enhanced local policy and fiscal autonomy. However, there are different levels of enthusiasm for decentralisation across and within Whitehall departments that continue to undermine a more cohesive approach.

This article updates previous research published in Local Economy in 2011 that examined the changing context of neighbourhood regeneration policy and practice in the first year of the UK Conservative-Liberal Democrat Coalition Government. At that juncture, based on early signs of political and policy direction, we set out what the policy and practice landscape might ‘look like’ for neighbourhood regeneration organisations over the next few years, given that the emerging policy framework appeared barren. For this new article, we reappraise our previous propositions by exploring where neighbourhood regeneration appears to be heading in 2013, identifying new challenges and opportunities along the way. The article does this by examining the impact that current government policy is now having ‘on the ground’ for those neighbourhood regeneration organisations trying to survive. Primarily, it centres on the changing relationships between these organisations and the local and central state, local communities and the third sector, with a particular focus on Neighbourhood Planning. Informed by this review, some examples of good practice are highlighted which might assist similar organisations to navigate this period of fiscal austerity. The article concludes that neighbourhood regeneration is certainly not dead, but only forward-thinking and inventive neighbourhood regeneration organisations and communities are likely to successfully navigate the policy landscape they now face.

The English regions have witnessed a dramatic shift in institutional structures for economic development since the new UK Coalition Government took office in 2010, involving the formation of 39 Local Enterprise Partnerships that have replaced the former Regional Development Agencies. These changes in the English context have occurred simultaneously with a radical review of regional policy at the European level which has focused attention on the significance of ‘place-based’ policies that are sensitive to, or even constructed upon, the nature of geographic differences. While there are parallels between the principles that underpin localism and place-based policy, in practice recent experience in the UK has been marked by increased centralisation of policy making. A review of the current priorities of the Local Enterprise Partnerships as set out in available strategies and policy documents tends to emphasise supply-side support for businesses alongside a role in place promotion. Sector groups are identified by many Local Enterprise Partnerships but very few are currently in a position to develop sector-based interventions or cluster policies that might ultimately contribute to the delivery of UK national industrial policy. Increased centralisation of industrial policy in the UK contrasts with policy directions at the European scale that have involved place-based approaches and the application of the principles of smart specialisation. It is concluded that there is a need for greater place-sensitivity in UK industrial policy and consideration of the role that Local Enterprise Partnerships might play in the design as well as delivery of national and sub-national economic strategies.

This article discusses the challenges that local enterprise partnerships are likely to experience in evaluation given the severe constraints on the funds available to evaluators and local enterprise partnerships. It highlights the rationale and benefits of conducting evaluation and examines how local enterprise partnerships might benefit from previous evaluation efforts. It also considers some of the technical and practical challenges of conducting evaluation in the current constrained financial climate, including the challenge of ensuring a common format in programme evaluation; attributing the impact on outcomes arising from government intervention; the difficulty of assessing the durability of benefits and putting a monetary value on the benefits arising from government intervention. The article concludes with some key messages on evaluation for local enterprise partnerships and those evaluating local economic development activities in times of austerity.

Following the decision to abolish the Regional Development Agencies in England by the newly elected Coalition Government in 2010, Local Enterprise Partnerships were introduced to drive economic development at a local level. However, the limited government prescription as to both the form and function of Local Enterprise Partnerships has contributed to a fundamental ambiguity as to their roles and ‘legitimate spheres’ of activity. In the context of this ambiguity, this article uses Kingdon’s multiple streams framework to consider the challenges faced by Regional Development Agencies and Local Enterprise Partnerships in developing effective economic development strategies. With a focus on the East Midlands region of England, the article identifies the dimensions of strategic capability that Local Enterprise Partnerships must develop if they are to mature as effective agents of local economic development in England.

Local Enterprise Partnerships are a key feature of the Coalition Government’s attempts to support economic growth. In light of each of the 39 Local Enterprise Partnerships reaching their second birthday by 2013 there is merit in considering what advances have been made in the intervening period. Viewed by the state, amongst others, as the latest intended policy fix in a complex lineage of ‘adjourned’ agencies, the article looks at how they might evolve over future years, including analysing whether they will survive institutional oblivion beyond the next general election. It is clear that each Local Enterprise Partnership is at a different stage of development, but why is this so? The article utilises Tuckman’s theory of group development to explore the characteristics of economic partnerships and provide some explanations pertaining to their varied development trajectories. It concludes that if Local Enterprise Partnerships receive more tangible responsibilities and resources over the coming years then, in order to perform, some may deem it necessary to establish more formal arrangements, not too dissimilar to the ‘economic development agency’ model. Yet for those economic partnership configurations that remain mired in the ‘storming’ phase, they may need to consider ‘adjourning’ and/or ‘(re)forming’.

Changes since 2010 in England’s sub-national policy context and institutional architecture for local economic growth are unlikely to impact positively on the growth prospects of England’s non-metropolitan mid-size cities. This article provides a practice-based analysis of challenges and issues facing mid-size cities in England in general and of those with strong growth performance and potential in particular. Drawing on applied research that has been used to advise a number of rapidly growing mid-size cities in the Greater South East, the article suggests that government reforms may seriously retard growth in some of the highest potential growth cities in England. It is recommended that spending the period to the 2015 national election building strong local leadership teams and collaborating on policy and practice with ‘like-minded’ cities offers sensible steps for non-metropolitan cities to help position themselves with a future government on their ‘long march to unlocking economic growth’.

This article seeks to examine how the changing institutional environment concerning local and regional economic development in Britain is related to the changing competitive fortunes of its localities and regions. Drawing on evidence from the UK Competitiveness Index, it is found that the institutional shift toward a post-regional political economy, particularly the demise of Regional Development Agencies and the introduction of Local Enterprise Partnerships, has coincided with an increased concentration of Britain’s economic competitiveness and growth capacity within London, in particular the City of London. Overall, there is found to be continuing divergence in competitiveness between England’s least and most prosperous regions and localities. In the devolved regions of Scotland and Wales, there is little evidence to indicate that their localities are competing any more effectively with their English counterparts. It is suggested that the most effective role for economic development institutions is to act as a guiding light to ensure sustainable local and regional economic models are established.

This article explores the relationship between planning and economic growth, examining the impact of planning strategies which increasingly privilege economic growth as the key objective. Drawing from research in two contrasting English urban local authorities – one experiencing growth, the other decline, the article examines how economic growth is understood and defined locally. It also examines how a low growth context, coupled with a changing policy context is impacting on local decision making. The research finds that economic growth has become a dominant objective of local planning policy but questions the efficacy of this approach arguing that it does not necessarily address place-based challenges and may actually undermine the ability of local government to use the planning system to improve quality of life for residents.

The abolition of Regional Development Agencies and Business Links saw the scrapping of the institutional infrastructure used to deliver state-funded business support. Beginning by looking at the evolution of state business support infrastructure in England from the 1990s, the article looks at the current system to argue that it is characterised by a lack of structure, extreme complexity, difficulty of access and navigation, and has the potential for duplication and management inefficiencies. While acknowledging that business support is not exclusively a public sector function, it argues for the need for a state-funded approach. The article questions whether there is a need for a reactive system that only assists businesses that are willing to grow, or a more proactive system that engages with businesses that are not making the most of growth opportunities and addresses the ‘long tail’ of underperforming business. The article suggests that most services should be delivered at a national level to ensure greater efficiency and better coordination. The local level should focus on adjusting national schemes to local needs; assisting business in navigating and accessing support; and proactively engaging with the local business base to help it identify growth potential.

To address the difficulties businesses face with obtaining funds for investment, the Business Secretary, Vince Cable, announced the setting up of a Business Bank, and the Angel CoFund. The analysis in this article reveals that all is not as it would seem. Far from being a public sector intervention, the role of the bank is to encourage the development of private sector solutions. The Angel CoFund has had some successes but a company needs to ‘secure the interest’ of a first time investor. The article argues that German-style Sparkassen are needed: that is, regional banks that provide the seed money for SMEs to get off the ground and grow. Without something like this business growth in the UK will be wanting.

A review and analysis of recent attempts to promote local economic development and improve public services that considers the potential role of the ‘growth coalitions’ and ‘smart local government’ project in progressing and creating synergy between these two agendas. A critique of the current growth agenda, as represented by Local Economic Partnerships and the Single Local Growth Fund and whether it connects with the potential growth opportunities that can be realised out of local public service expenditure. A consideration of whether Community Budgets, as the current approach to improving local public services, represent a new managerialism rather than a new ‘transformation’ agenda to better meet the needs and address the well-being of local people. Suggestions are made about how to capture the inherent value, and realise transformational change in the provision of local public service services along the lines of the decade-old ‘growth coalitions’ and ‘smart local government’ project. Also, about adding value by creating synergy between local public service expenditure and the work of Local Economic Partnerships and the Single Local Growth Fund, for the benefit of local citizens and growth.

This commentary piece seeks to outline the case for a ‘whole place’ approach to progressive economic development. It discusses how Local Enterprise Partnerships can expand their foci and considers the challenge for them of meeting social objectives. Local Enterprise Partnerships are not currently constructing coherent policy approaches to economic growth aspirations and social justice considerations. They offer an opportunity to enhance interplay between and within the commercial, public and social sector functions of the economy. It is through developing networks and relationships that Local Enterprise Partnerships can enhance resilience, and generate synergy to develop innovative solutions to socio-economic challenges. Universities and social enterprises are the exact sorts of organisations which are needed to support Local Enterprise Partnerships to ensure that these networks are given full consideration and representation in the strategic planning of local economies. The role of small-to-medium enterprises in delivering whole place economies is also important, and their views should be feed into strategic decision making at the local level, as arguably they have greater stakes in whole place economies. In conclusion, those Local Enterprise Partnerships who lead the way by embedding the social sector into their working practice will create the most sustainable economic and social benefits.

Localise West Midlands has conducted research examining the assumption that a more localised economy, in which more people have a stake, redistributes economic power and resilience, thereby reducing disconnection and inequality. It argues that such economies, characterised as having higher levels of small businesses and local ownership, perform better across a range of economic and other domains (especially in disadvantaged and peripheral areas) than economies more dependent on centralised economic actors and in particular on what can be termed ‘absentee landlords’. Case studies of successful locally owned businesses, particularly in the food and building retrofit sectors, show the commitment of many bosses to supporting their workforce and their local communities and, either directly or as a by-product, tackling social exclusion. The case study of the proposed relocation of Birmingham wholesale market to a peripheral city area poses the question of whether, if the markets move, the central site – under the control of an absentee landlord seeking high returns – can provide similar local multiplier or socio-economic benefits. The work suggests that the notions of localism that underpin current government economic development policy can only succeed if they are closely connected with a decentralisation of capital and power held within the economy.