Administration, val. 61, no. 3 (2013), pp. 75-99

Regional governance and bottom-up regional development in the Border

Region and County Cavan

Laura Shannon & Chris van Egeraat Department of Geography and National Institute for Regional and

Spatial Analysis, NUl Maynooth

Abstract

This paper investigates the link between regional governance and bottom-up regional development in Ireland. Ireland's approach to regional development has attempted to mirror international best practice, but with little success. Extant literature suggests that the inadequate statutory regional governance provisions and the fragmentation of regional structures of government, semi­state agencies and other institutions will frustrate horizontal, vertical and diagonal coordination between actors and, as a result, impede effective bottom-up regional development. The case study of the Border Region and County Cavan provides an in-depth analysis of the levels of horizontal, vertical and diagonal coordination between local, regional and national stakeholders in the preparation and implementation of specific development plans and strategies. The analysis shows that the statutory provisions have strengthened considerably over the years, having a general positive effect on coordination. However, horizontal and diagonal coordination remain weak, impeding the prospects of bottom-up regional development.

Keywords: Regional development, governance, coordination, Border Region

Introduction

This paper investigates regional governance and bottom-up regional development in Ireland. Recent international trends have seen a shift from 'top-down' to 'bottom-up' approaches alongside a move from government to governance and devolution of powers to the sub­national level (Pike et al., 2006).

The international trends and theoretical approaches are, to some extent, mirrored in regional development thinking and policy in

75

76 LAURA SHANNOC\ AND CHRIS VAN EGERAAT

Ireland. The bottom-up approach received a major impulse with the launch of The National Spatial Strategy for Ireland 2002-2020 (NSS). In aiming for each region to reach its full potential, the NSS made allowances for the different circumstances of different regions and promoted the use of regional resources. Local and regional actors were accorded a greater role in the development and implementation of regional strategies and initiatives. It was acknowledged that the new approach required a supporting system of local and regional governance, and a set of provisions were included.

The potential of the NSS was never realised, however, and its failure has been widely discussed by academics and others (Breathnach, 2013). The lack of regional governance has been suggested as one of the main reasons for this failure. Observers have commented that the implementation of the NSS and other related plans and policies has not resulted in a truly meaningful level of regional governance which can facilitate bottom-up regional development (Meredith & van Egeraat, 2013; O'Riordain, 2012a). Although much has been written on the problems with regional governance in Ireland, there are few detailed empirical analyses of the actual level of, and problems with, horizontal, vertical and diagonal coordination at the local, regional and national level.

In this context, the aim of this paper is to increase our understanding of the link between regional governance and bottom-up regional development by providing a detailed case study of regional governance in the Border Region of Ireland. It identifies the statutory and non-statutory provisions for bottom-up regional development, and how these emerge in practice through the preparation and implementation of a set of local and regional development plans and strategies. The case study investigates actual practices of local, regional and national government and governance in the Border Region and County Cavan. It focuses on the vertical, horizontal and diagonal coordination between (and within) the various levels of government, as well as other relevant actors in local and regional development such as government departments, state and semi-state agencies and institutions, the voluntary sector and the private sector.

The aims and objectives of the underlying research project have obtained additional relevance in the context of the recently launched Putting People First: Action Programme for Effective Local Govemment (Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government, 2012) and the review of the current NSS (O'Brien, 2013).

Regional development in the Border Region

The underlying project was gui involving the Border Region an< assessment of the nature of Irela and the impact on bottom-up n scales of government facilitates actors influence the regional and

To give the project a clear f preparation and implementatio1 plans/strategies from within the These plans and strategies cover <

to give the research even great< concerned with the economic a investigated the preparation elements of the following thre< Authority's (BRA) Regional Pfa, Regional Authority, 2010); the 2008-2014, Variation No. 2 (CCI Department, 2010); and the Ca· Strategy for the Economic, Social Cavan 2002-2012 (CCDBS; 20l examine the coordination of pla structure in order to gain a broa•

The main research tools wer The research involved intervie\ governance and in a range of in state and private sectors. In all, Four interviews were conduct< Ireland, FAS, Failte Ireland conducted with both elected an and five interviews were cond1 (two planners, a staff member Section, a former staff membe Section and a staff member of 1

group for Economic Develo interviewed a member of the Forum. The semi-structured i1 hour. All interviews were recorc

1 References to functions of interviewee: to secure confidentiality.

URA SHANNON AND CHRlS VAN EGERAAT

eceived a major impulse with the gy for Ireland 2002-2020 (NSS). In ts full potential, the NSS made 1stances of different regions and urces. Local and regional actors development and implementation It was acknowledged that the new system of local and regional

were included. never realised, however, and its sed by academics and others

regional governance has been ns for this failure. Observers have )n of the NSS and other related d in a truly meaningful level of

facilitate bottom-up regional •eraat 2013· O'Riordain, 2012a). ' on ;he pr~blems with regional r detailed empirical analyses of the horizontal, vertical and diagonal

md national level. this paper is to increase our ~gional governance and bottom-up a detailed case study of regional

f Ireland. It identifies the statutory )Ottom-up regional development, ce through the preparation and d regional development plans and igates actual practices of local, t and governance in the Border ses on the vertical, horizontal and md within) the various levels of vant actors in local and regional departments, state and semi-state tary sector and the private sector. underlying research project have

e context of the recently launched ~me for Effective Local Government nent, Community and Local :w of the current NSS (O'Brien,

Regional development in the Border Region and County Cavan 77

The underlying project was guided by a multilevel case study design involving the Border Region and County Cavan. This facilitated an assessment of the nature of Ireland's system of multilevel governance and the impact on bottom-up regional development. Studying both scales of government facilitates an understanding of how local-level actors influence the regional and national plans, and vice versa.

To give the project a clear focus, research concentrated on the preparation and implementation of a specific set of development plans/strategies from within the Border Region and County Cavan. These plans and strategies cover a broad spectrum of areas so, in order to give the research even greater focus, the research was primarily concerned with the economic aspects of these plans. The research investigated the preparation and implementation of economic elements of the following three documents: The Border Regional Authority's (BRA) Regional Planning Guidelines 2010-2022 (Border Regional Authority, 2010); the Cavan County Development Plan 2008-2014, Variation No. 2 (CCDP; Cavan County Council Planning Department, 2010); and the Cavan County Development Board's A Strategy for the Economic, Social and Cultural Development of County Cavan 2002-2012 (CCDBS; 2002). It was considered important to examine the coordination of plans and actors outside of the planning structure in order to gain a broader perspective.

The main research tools were document analysis and interviews. The research involved interviews with actors at different levels of governance and in a range of institutions, including the public, semi­state and private sectors. In all, thirteen interviews were conducted. Four interviews were conducted with national-scale actors (IDA Ireland, FAS, Failte Ireland and Ibec), three interviews were conducted with both elected and non-elected members of the BRA, and five interviews were conducted with county-level stakeholders (two planners, a staff member of the Community and Enterprise Section, a former staff member of the Community and Enterprise Section and a staff member of the County Development Board Sub­group for Economic Development).l The research team also interviewed a member of the Cavan Community and Voluntary Forum. The semi-structured interviews typically lasted about one hour. All interviews were recorded and fully transcribed.

l References to functions of in tervicwees in this text are kept deliberately vague in order to secure confidentiality.

78 LAURA SHANNON AND CHRIS VAN EGERAAT

This paper begins with a conceptualisation of bottom-up regional development and governance. This is followed by an analysis of the provisions for bottom-up regional development, including the level of concordance between the boundaries of the various regional institutions. The paper then proceeds with an analysis of the actual level of vertical, horizontal and diagonal coordination involved in the preparation and implementation of the planning and strategy documents in the case-study region. The paper concludes with a discussion of the key findings, against the background of recent policy decisions.

Bottom-up regional development and governance

This section introduces the shift from top-down to bottom-up approaches to regional development, the concomitant shift from government to governance, and the related issue of vertical, horizontal and diagonal coordination.

Early approaches to regional development were characterised by the central state delivering development to Jagging regions through injection of resources from the outside on standardised, one-size-fits­all lines. Regions were often assumed to be devoid of entrepreneurial or other resources and had little input in the formation or implementation of the policies (Keating, 1997). These top-down approaches to regional development were considered unsustainable during the oil crisis and recessions of the 1970s and 1980s as governments had to cut spending and unemployment hit even the most prosperous of regions (Keating et al., 2003). Alongside an ever­increasing, globalised, neo-liberal agenda, bottom-up approaches to local and regional development were increasingly favoured, with the idea that regions compete in a global capitalist market. These endogenous approaches make allowances for the different circumstances of individual regions by promoting local enterprise and the use of regional advantages and resources. Ideas and initiatives are formulated and driven by regional actors. Table 1 summarises the main differences between the two approaches.

Successful bottom-up regional development approaches are believed to require a concomitant shift from central government to regional and local governance. There are two elements to this shift: devolution and a shift from government to governance. Devolution involves the decentralisation of powers and responsibilities from the national to the sub-national scale (Pike et al., 2006). Many services and

Regional development in the Border Rer,

Table 1: Top-down and b dt:

1i·aditional top-down development policies

1. Top-down approach in which decisions about the areas whcr intervention is needed are mac centrally

2. Managed by the central administration

3. Sectoral approach to development

4. Development of large industri. projects, that will foster other economic activity

5. Financial support, incentives a subsidies as the main factor of attraction of economic activity

Source: Adapted from Pike et al.

functions, previously carried been transferred vertically to occurred at different rates (l forms in different countries, power and legislation to a n financial duties (Rodriguez-P power is being devolved. So regional and local levels, whil to monetary management, hm giving rise to complex system5

While some have seen dev< policy that is tailored to the

JRA SHANNON AND CHRIS VAN EGERAAT

tualisation of bottom-up regional is followed by an analysis of the ~velopment, including the level of !aries of the various regional ds with an analysis of the actual onal coordination involved in the of the planning and strategy

m. The paper concludes with a ;t the background of recent policy

: and governance

from top-down to bottom-up :nt, the concomitant shift from ·elated issue of vertical, horizontal

velopment were characterised by 1ment to lagging regions through ide on standardised, one-size-fits­:d to be devoid of entrepreneurial :le input in the formation or (eating, 1997). These top-down 1t were considered unsustainable ms of the 1970s and 1980s as and unemployment hit even the 5 et al., 2003). Alongside an ever­geuda, bottom-up approaches to ~e increasingly favoured, with the global capitalist market. These allowances for the different

by promoting local enterprise and esources. Ideas and initiatives are tors. Table 1 summarises the main ches.

development approaches are shift from central government to re are two elements to this shift: tment to governance. Devolution vers and responsibilities from the ke et al., 2006). Many services and

Regional development in the Border Region and County Cavan 79

Table 1: Top-down and bottom-up approaches to regional development

Traditional top-down development policies

1. Top-down approach in which decisions about the areas where intervention is needed are made centrally

2. Managed by the central administration

3. Sectoral approach to development

4. Development of large industrial projects, that will foster other economic activity

5. Financial support, incentives and subsidies as the main factor of attraction of economic activity

Source: Adapted from Pike eta!. (2006).

Local and regional (or bottom-up) development policies

1. Promotion of development in all territories with the initiative often coming from below

2. Decentralised, vertical cooperation between different tiers of government and horizontal cooperation between public, private and voluntary bodies

3. Territorial approach to development (locality, milieu)

4. Use of the development potential of each area, in order to stimulate a progressive adjustment of the local economic system to the changing economic environment

5. Provision of key conditions for development of economic activity

functions, previously carried out directly by the central state, have been transferred vertically to the sub-national level. Devolution has occurred at different rates (Loughlin, 2001) and has taken different forms in different countries, ranging from the decentralisation of power and legislation to a mere delegation of responsibilities and financial duties (Rodriguez-Pose & Gill, 2004). In addition, not all power is being devolved. Some powers have moved down, to the regional and local levels, while other powers, including those related to monetary management, have moved up, to the supra-regional scale, giving rise to complex systems of multilevel government.

While some have seen devolution as a potential for creating public policy that is tailored to the particular needs of local and regional

80 LAURA SHANNON AND CHRIS VAl\1 EGERAAT

circumstances, others have questioned the efficiency and effectiveness of the process (Rodriguez-Pose & Gill, 2005). This is due to many factors, including mistrust of public institutions, additional cost and bureaucracy associated with devolution, as well as the continued questioning of the relevance of a regional level of government/ governance (Pike & Tomaney, 2004).

Governance refers to development away from a system where the government does everything to a system of institutional inter­dependence (Rhodes, 1996). The shift from government to govern­ance intensified during the 1990s when, faced with a fiscal crisis, governments needed to find new forms of intervention and control, which materialised as the creation of a range of new agencies and institutions (Goodwin, 2009).

Governance involves an increasing emphasis on partnerships between governmental, quasi-governmental and non-governmental (private and voluntary) organisations, with government seen as a steering agency (Pike et a!., 2006). In this system the provision of public services is no longer the sole responsibility of central and local government but instead involves a wide range of actors drawn from the public, private and voluntary sectors (Goodwin, 2009). This has resulted in the blurring of boundaries between and within public and private sectors (Stoker, 1998).

Rhodes stresses that governance is not a synonym for government, but signifies a change in the meaning of government, 'referring to a new process of governing; or a changed condition of ordered rule; or the new method by which society is governed' (Rhodes, 1996, p. 652). His definition of governance as 'self-organizing, inter-organizational networks' is particularly interesting in the study of local and regional development, as it refers to a shift from local government to local governance involving 'complex sets of organizations drawn from the public and private sectors' (Rhodes, 1996, p. 658). This shift to governance, in combination with devolution, gives rise to complex systems of institutional interdependence, wherein services are delivered by a range of independent actors at different scales. The latter is referred to as multilevel governance.

The independent actors form a 'self-organizing network', which implies a significant degree of autonomy from the state. Such networks are considered more suitable to tackle local and regional problems as they can facilitate the creation of policies by multiple stakeholders from the bottom up.

Regional development in the Border Reg,

Rhodes states that 'governar p. 658). Given the increasing n complex task. The complexity o about the actual operation c particularly in relation to acco system it can prove very difficu what, and therefore who can b(

Issues arise from the divt involved, and constructing eff can be problematic. Meijers organising capacity' as a key J

extent to which regional actc common interest or identity. regional-level partnerships anc regional fragmentation of c organisational systems in the p

Managing multilevel govern. horizontal, vertical and diagono (O'Riordan, 2012b ). Vertical c across different levels of gover between the Department of th' Government (DECLG), regio This can take a traditional h directional form. Horizontal coordination between differer governance. Here we can t government departments or, a county council and other Joca group or the local chamber of c coordination between a set of I argued that successful regi' coordination - coordination b different levels of governance.

Policy such as the NSS, for e to succeed if implement< Department of the Envi Government along with tr application across all layer department. A local policy b with education provision, h

lA SHANNON AND CHRIS VAN EGERAAT

l the efficiency and effectiveness rill, 2005). This is due to many [nstitutions, additional cost and :ion, as well as the continued regional level of government/

t away from a system where the system of institutional inter­

itt from government to govern­rhen, faced with a fiscal crisis, ms of intervention and control, ,f a range of new agencies and

ing emphasis on partnerships 1mental and non-governmental 1s, with government seen as a In this system the provision of esponsibility of central and local e range of actors drawn from the >rs (Goodwin, 2009). This has s between and within public and

; not a synonym for government, g of government, 'referring to a ed condition of ordered rule; or overned' (Rhodes, 1996, p. 652). -organizing, inter-organizational 1 the study of local and regional from local government to local )f organizations drawn from the s, 1996, p. 658). This shift to :volution, gives rise to complex ndence, wherein services are t actors at different scales. The :rnance. 'self-organizing network', which ttonomy from the state. Such ble to tackle local and regional creation of policies by multiple

Regional development in the Border Region and County Cavan 81

Rhodes states that 'governance is about managing networks' (1996, p. 658). Given the increasing number of actors involved, this can be a complex task. The complexity of governance networks raises questions about the actual operation of the new structure of governance, particularly in relation to accountability (Goodwin, 2009). In such a system it can prove very difficult to distinguish who is responsible for what, and therefore who can be held accountable.

Issues arise from the diversity of organisations and interests involved, and constructing effective regional governance structures can be problematic. Meijers & Romein (2003) identify 'regional organising capacity' as a key factor in this respect, referring to the extent to which regional actors perceive themselves as sharing a common interest or identity. The formation and functioning of regional-level partnerships and networks can be hampered by intra­regional fragmentation of civil jurisdictions and corresponding organisational systems in the private and voluntary sector.

Managing multilevel governance networks requires strong levels of horizontal, vertical and diagonal coordination across the various scales (O'Riordan, 2012b ). Vertical coordination refers to the coordination across different levels of government; for example, the coordination between the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government (DECLG), regional authorities and local government. This can take a traditional hierarchical, top-down form or a two­directional form. Horizontal coordination generally refers to the coordination between different sectoral units at the same level of governance. Here we can think of the links between various government departments or, at a lower scale, the links between the county council and other local actors, such as a local development group or the local chamber of commerce. It is also used to refer to the coordination between a set of local authorities. It is increasingly being argued that successful regional governance requires diagonal coordination - coordination between different sectoral units across different levels of governance.

Policy such as the NSS, for example, cannot possibly be expected to succeed if implementation is to be left solely to the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government along with the local authorities. The NSS has application across all layers of government and not just one department. A local policy body such as a local authority, dealing with education provision, health care, housing and transporta-

82 LAURA SHANNON AND CHRIS VAN EGERAAT

tion, has to structure its policy framework to allow for cross over. (O'Riordan, 2012b, p. 1)

Successful bottom-up regional development and effective regional governance and coordination require proper statutory and non­statutory provisions, foremost a regional tier of government. Ireland's system of governance has traditionally been strongly centralised (Bannon, 1989; Breathnach, 2013). The first attempt at establishing a regional dimension to sub-national government came in 1963 with the creation of nine planning regions under the Local Government Act, 1963 (Laffan, 1996). In 1994, under pressure from the EU, Ireland established eight regional authorities, while two regional assemblies were established in 1998. However, the authorities had initially a very limited remit and the regional structures had little effect on meaningful bottom-up regional development (Boyle, 2000).

Adshead & Quinn (1998) identified the emergence of what they referred to as 'state-sponsored bottom-up development' during the 1990s. The Irish Government took responsibility for guiding and directing regional policy but left the initiative and detail to a wide range of regional development interests at local level. However, the problem was a lack of formal structures and functional/territorial divisions between different network actors (Adshead, 2003).

The bottom-up approach to regional governance received a major impulse with the launch of the NSS in 2002. It was acknowledged that the proposed bottom-up approach required a supporting system of local and regional governance, and the NSS included a set of provisions for statutory and regulatory underpinnings for regional governance. The details and impact of these provisions will be discussed further in the next section of this paper.

It has been argued that successful coordination also requires concordance between the boundaries of local and regional units of government and governance. In Ireland the lack of a meaningful tier of regional government has resulted in an extremely fragmented geography of regional structures of government and semi-state bodies. Several reports have called for the alignment of the geographical structures of state and semi-state agencies to the boundaries of the regional authorities. In 1991 the Barrington report summarised the logic as follows:

it is impossible to develop any sort of regional consciousness if the boundaries shift for different purposes. Common boundaries

Regional development in the Border Re1

are essential for collecting d activities of different agew p. 26)

The calls were repeated in the have remained on the agenda < Regional Authority, 1995; Mic

In summary, successful t effective regional governance statutory and non-statutory pr of concordance in the bo government departments, a provisions do not guarantee p following sections provide a de in the Border Region and C01 provisions for regional goven actual practices of vertical, ho

Statutory and regulatory p development and regional :

The regional authorities ha Government Act, 1991 (Regie 1993. In the most general authorities is to promote C(

services in their regions. Tr terms, through two key pit Development Act, 2000 (sec Development (Amendment).

In 2000 regional authoritic of creating strategic planning regions under the Planning <

was a step towards a more sut one of the problems was th< regard to' the regional plan new development plans for n

This issue was partly addr Planning and Development requires the RPGs to be set aligned to its population statutory link between the tw<

RA SHANNON AND CI!RIS VAN EGERAAT

1ework to allow for cross over.

~lopment and effective regional ire proper statutory and non­mal tier of government. Ireland's nally been strongly centralised 'he first attempt at establishing a overnment came in 1963 with the 1der the Local Government Act, · pressure from the EU, Ireland s, while two regional assemblies he authorities had initially a very ;tructures had little effect on lopment (Boyle, 2000). 'ied the emergence of what they :om-up development' during the ( responsibility for guiding and e initiative and detail to a wide rests at local level. However, the 1ctures and functional/territorial actors (Adshead, 2003). mal governance received a major [n 2002. It was acknowledged that required a supporting system of nd the NSS included a set of ttory underpinnings for regional act of these provisions will be of this paper.

ssful coordination also requires es of local and regional units of land the lack of a meaningful tier :ed in an extremely fragmented rovernment and semi-state bodies. ~ alignment of the geographical Lgencies to the boundaries of the arrington report summarised the

)rt of regional consciousness if purposes. Common boundaries

Regional development in the Border Region and County Cavan

are essential for collecting data; for planning and for relating the activities of different agencies. (Government of Ireland, 1991, p. 26)

83

The calls were repeated in the aftermath of the launch of the NSS and have remained on the agenda of regional authorities since (e.g. Dublin Regional Authority, 1995; Mid-East Regional Authority, 1996).

In summary, successful bottom-up regional development and effective regional governance and coordination depend on proper statutory and non-statutory provisions. In this we can include the level of concordance in the boundaries of local/regional units of government departments, agencies and other actors. However, provisions do not guarantee proper coordination between actors. The following sections provide a detailed case study of regional governance in the Border Region and County Cavan. The case study analyses the provisions for regional governance, the role of concordance and the actual practices of vertical, horizontal and diagonal coordination.

Statutory and regulatory provisions for bottom-up regional development and regional governance

The regional authorities have a statutory basis under the Local Government Act, 1991 (Regional Authorities) (Establishment) Order, 1993. In the most general sense, the main role of the regional authorities is to promote coordination of the provision of public services in their regions. This role was strengthened, in statutory terms, through two key pieces of legislation: the Planning and Development Act, 2000 (sections 21 to 27), and the Planning and Development (Amendment) Act, 2010.

In 2000 regional authorities were given the statutory responsibility of creating strategic planning frameworks for the development of the regions under the Planning and Development Act, 2000. While this was a step towards a more substantial role for the regional authorities, one of the problems was that local authorities merely had to 'have regard to' the regional planning guidelines (RPGs) when adopting new development plans for their areas.

This issue was partly addressed in 2010 with the enactment of the Planning and Development (Amendment) Act, 2010. The 2010 Act requires the RPGs to be set in the policy framework of the NSS and aligned to its population targets, thereby providing a stronger statutory link between the two documents. This was carried through to

84 LAURA SHANNON AND CHRIS VAN EGERAAT

the county and city level through the introduction of the 'Core Strategy', which ensures that local authority development plans are consistent with the RPGs and the NSS. It also gave regional authorities 'explicit' roles in the drafting and preparation of the local authority development plans, and provided a structure for reporting any variations or inconsistencies that occurred (Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, 2010). Interviewed staff from the BRA welcomed the introduction of the 2010 Act as it gave regional documents 'a bit more teeth', although they remained concerned about the lack of sanctions imposed on local authorities for non-compliance with the RPGs (see below).

The EU Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Directive has been another positive development for increasing compliance of local authority plans with RPGs. The SEA Directive requires that certain plans and programmes, prepared by statutory bodies, which are likely to have a significant impact on the environment be subject to the SEA process. The regional authorities are therefore required to ensure that the RPGs are prepared in accordance with the Planning and Development (Strategic Environmental Assessment) Regulations, 2004 (Border Regional Authority, 2010). Likewise, local authorities must also prepare a SEA in conjunction with their development plans. BRA staff viewed SEA as a 'powerful tool' in ensuring that the local projects and initiatives complied with the RPGs (Interview, BRA staff).

The statutory provisions for regional governance in Ireland have undoubtedly improved since the establishment of the regional authorities in 1994, but the extent to which this stipulates coordination between actors involved in the preparation and implementation of local and regional development plans is questionable. A reoccurring issue that arose in the interviews was the lack of a statutory obligation for other state agencies to be involved in the process of preparing and implementing the RPGs. In relation to this, one BRA employee mentioned the following in relation to the RPG implementa­tion committees, which involve a range of state and semi-state agencies, including Enterprise Ireland, IDA Ireland, Teagasc and so forth:

Yet again, they were under no obligation to turn up, statutory or otherwise ... We are trying to make that point at the minute, that it can't be an option, that it has to be obligatory that they would attend the meetings and feed into it. (Interview, BRA staff)

Regional development in the Border Re1

The RPG implementation con the eight regional authorities authorities' statutory powers a authority development plans Strategy'. In terms of impleme effect outside of the hierarchy role is questionable, as there a authorities who fail to comply· decides to vary a development submission with observations ' variation. The purpose of the achieved between the plan as a the regional authority are ther makes submissions with obsen tend to be strategic in nature content of the regional au submission, but it is the respo1 submissions should be upheld.

Another major problem th: submissions to the local author board members of the regi foremost, members of the loca

So we're basically asking me they do. That is not in my op democracy but it is not. It · like it or not, what we writ; we write in a way that we he staff)

The statutory framework implementation of developm number of genuine improveme of the improvements in the S)

and regulatory provisions government remain a key prob and bottom-up regional develc

Concordance in the bounda

The lack of an effective tier c an extremely fragmented g

tA SHANNON AND CHRIS VAN EGERAAT

the introduction of the 'Core uthority development plans are ~ NSS. It also gave regional ing and preparation of the local wided a structure for reporting t occurred (Department of the rovernment, 2010). Interviewed traduction of the 2010 Act as it teeth', although they remained imposed on local authorities for >elow). \ssessment (SEA) Directive has >r increasing compliance of local , Directive requires that certain .tatutory bodies, which are likely vironment be subject to the SEA herefore required to ensure that iance with the Planning and ntal Assessment) Regulations, HO). Likewise, local authorities Jn with their development plans. l tool' in ensuring that the local th the RPGs (Interview, BRA

•nal governance in Ireland have establishment of the regional vhich this stipulates coordination >aration and implementation of s is questionable. A reoccurring the lack of a statutory obligation ted in the process of preparing tion to this, one BRA employee on to the RPG implementa­range of state and semi-state d, IDA Ireland, Teagasc and so

gation to turn up, statutory or • that point at the minute, that be obligatory that they would it. (Interview, BRA staff)

Regional development in the Border Region and County Cavan 85

The RPG implementation committees have had varied success across the eight regional authorities, and it would seem that the regional authorities' statutory powers are limited to the compliance of the local authority development plans with the RPGs through the 'Core Strategy'. In terms of implementation, therefore, the RPGs have little effect outside of the hierarchy of planning documents. And even this role is questionable, as there are no specific sanctions set out for local authorities who fail to comply with the RPGs. Where a local authority decides to vary a development plan, the regional authority prepares a submission with observations and recommendations on the proposed variation. The purpose of the submission is to ensure consistency is achieved between the plan as amended and the RPGs. Submissions by the regional authority are therefore quite detailed. The DECLG also makes submissions with observations on development plans but these tend to be strategic in nature. The DECLG may use the detail and content of the regional authority submission to inform their submission, but it is the responsibility of the minister to decide if the submissions should be upheld.

Another major problem that remains with this system is that the submissions to the local authorities have to be approved by the elected board members of the regional authorities, who are, first and foremost, members of the local authorities.

So we're basically asking members to correct themselves in what they do. That is not in my opinion a good system. It may be called democracy but it is not. It just doesn't work. And, whether we like it or not, what we write in our submissions, subconsciously we write in a way that we hope to get approval. (Interview, BRA staff)

The statutory framework governing the preparation and implementation of development plans outlined above includes a number of genuine improvements, but more needs to be done. In spite of the improvements in the system, the deficiencies in the statutory and regulatory provisions underpinning the regional tier of government remain a key problem for the implementation of the NSS and bottom-up regional development.

Concordance in the boundaries of local and regional units

The lack of an effective tier of regional governance has resulted in an extremely fragmented geography of regional structures of

!r,:

tl6 LAURA SHANNON AND CHRIS VAN EGERAAT

government, state agencies and other bodies. During the period from the 1960s to the late 1980s, a number of separate regional administrative structures and agencies were established, including regional tourism authorities, IDA regions, regional health boards and the planning regions. The boundaries of the regions were not consistent (Laffan, 1996). By way of illustration, Table 2 outlines the misalignment of the territorial boundaries of the regional authorities and the two industrial promotions agencies, IDA Ireland and Enterprise Ireland.

Table 2: Territorial boundaries of regional authorities, IDA Ireland and Enterprise Ireland

Regional IDA Enterprise Ireland Authority (8) (8) (6)

Border Donegal, Sligo, North-West: Donegal, Donegal, Sligo, Leitrim, Cavan, Sligo Leitrim Leitrim, Cavan, Monaghan, Louth North-East: Monaghan, Louth

Cavan, Monaghan, Louth

West Galway, Mayo, Galway, Mayo Galway, Mayo, Roscommon Roscommon

Midlands Laois, Offaly, Roscommon, Longford Laois, Offaly, Longford, Westmeath, Longford, Westmeath Offaly, Laois Westmeath

Mid-East Kildare, Meath, East: Dublin, Dublin, Kildare, Wicklow Kildare, Meath, Meath, Wicklow

Wicklow Dublin Dublin City, Fingal, N/A N/A

South Dublin, Dun Laoghaire/ Rathdown

Mid-West Clare, Limerick, Clare, Limerick, Clare, Kerry, North Tipperary North Tipperary Limerick, North

Tipperary South-West Cork, Kerry Cork, Kerry N/A South-East Kilkenny, Carlow, Kilkenny, Carlow, N/A

Wexford, Waterford Wexford, Waterford City/County, South City/County, Tipperary South Tipperary

South N/A N/A Cork, Waterford, South Tipperary, Kilkenny, Carlow, Wexford

Sources: Institutional Internet sites.

Regional developmem in the Border Re[i,

While the extant literature that concordance of regional Ireland, the analysis of interv complex issue.

The misalignment was note w~en compiling data for the p1 F AS regions do not align to th< the regional authority boundm new education and training be and the vocational education for the alignment of the new E to facilitate labour market 3

Household Survey data are pn level). The misalignment wil labour market data, necessary will not be available for the E1 that the main issue here is o policy coordination at the regi

No other national-level actc of regional boundaries as an structures for managemen organisational and operatio1 optimal regional configur< organisation. This can be il regional configuration. The B< IDA regions, the North-East 3

promotion perspective, thes( requirements, requiring diffe North-East and the North-V units ... they are two different

Similarly, the regional con internal operational consider; through no less than three difJ and Monaghan), North-West (Louth). When partnerships and local and regional stakehc specific basis, with little regar of Failte Ireland staff, misali! 'How we are organised intern< business ... there is no issue ar Surprisingly, the misalignmen of the Border Region did no1

t.. SH~NNON AND CHRIS VAN EGE~T

bodies. During the period from umber of separate regional es were established, including ons, regional health boards and ·ies of the regions were not llustration, Table 2 outlines the iries of the regional authorities

agencies, IDA Ireland and

:ional authorities, IDA Ireland ~Ireland

)A

8)

'est: Donegal, itrim ast: v1onaghan,

Mayo

mon, Longford ath, "aois 1blin, Meath,

imerick, ipperary

erry y, Carlow, l, Waterford unty, 'ipperary

Enterprise Ireland (6)

Donegal, Sligo, Leitrim, Cavan, Monaghan, Louth

Galway, Mayo, Roscommon Laois, Offaly, Longford, Westmeath Dublin, Kildare, Meath, Wicklow

N/A

Clare, Kerry, Limerick, North Tipperary N/A N/A

Cork, Waterford, South Tipperary, Kilkenny, Carlow, Wexford

Regional development in the Border Region and County Cavan 87

While the extant literature and reports referred to above suggest that concordance of regional boundaries should be a priority in Ireland, the analysis of interview data indicates that this is a more complex issue.

The misalignment was noted as a particular issue by staff at F As when compiling data for the purpose of skills and training needs. The F As regions do not align to the regional authorities. The disregard for the regional authority boundaries was evident with the creation of the new education and training boards (ETBs ), which will integrate F As and the vocational education committees (VECs). FAS made a case for the alignment of the new ETBs with the regional authority regions to facilitate labour market analysis (the CSO Quarterly National Household Survey data are provided at the NUTS3 regional authority level). The misalignment will mean that accurate and up-to-date labour market data, necessary for deciding on a portfolio of training, will not be available for the ETB regions. However, it should be noted that the main issue here is one of data collection, and not directly policy coordination at the regional level.

No other national-level actors interviewed viewed the misalignment of regional boundaries as an issue. They operate their own regional structures for management and organisation. The internal organisational and operational efficiency is paramount and the optimal regional configuration differs from organisation to organisation. This can be illustrated with reference to the IDA regional configuration. The Border Region is serviced by two separate IDA regions, the North-East and the North-West. From an investment promotion perspective, these are different regions with different requirements, requiring different strategies and interventions. 'The North-East and the North-West. .. they would be the operational units ... they are two different sells' (Interview, IDA Ireland staff).

Similarly, the regional configuration of Failte Ireland is driven by internal operational considerations. The Border Region is promoted through no less than three different tourist regions: Lakelands (Cavan and Monaghan), North-West (Donegal, Leitrim and Sligo) and East (Louth). When partnerships occur between these national agencies and local and regional stakeholders, however, they operate on a place­specific basis, with little regard to the regional structures. In the view of Failte Ireland staff, misalignment does not appear to be an issue. 'How we are organised internally to get the job done is kind of our own business ... there is no issue around it' (Interview, Failte Ireland staff). Surprisingly, the misalignment of boundaries and internal incoherence of the Border Region did not figure high on the agenda of the BRA

88 LAURA SHANNON AND CHRIS VAI'i EGERAAT

staff either. It is recognised that there are advantages to alignment: 'In an ideal world, if you could just align all regions and structures, it would be much easier' (Interview, BRA staff). However, the downsides of misalignment could be relatively easily overcome by trying to engage all actors operating in the region, regardless of their regional structures. The main issue BRA staff identified relates back to the non-statutory requirement for national or regional agencies to attend and participate in the review of RPGs. The issue is not the misalignment of boundaries, but the real value attributed to the regional tier of government.

You were never going to get, in relation to IDA for example, two actors [one from each IDA region]. There would be an agreement, through IDA national structures, that one person would attend and more or less represent both IDA regions. I don't believe that happens. I believe whoever is sitting at the table will represent their own region ... I don't think you are getting the full picture. (Interview, BRA staff)

This research therefore suggests that the effectiveness of regional governance should not be hung up on the lack of concordance between regional boundaries. While the alignment of regional boundaries with the regional authorities would make data collection and policy coordination an easier task, it is not the key issue. Allmendinger & Haughton come to a similar conclusion on the basis of their recent work on administrative boundaries in the UK: 'You need frameworks that reflect the reality of how complex associational networks do not work to set boundaries. [Such frameworks] can work with and through the boundaries of different institutional geographies' (2009, p. 631).

The key issue is the continued absence of proper statutory and regulatory provisions that would underpin a regional tier of government. What this means for regional governance and bottom-up regional development in Ireland will be discussed in the following section.

Coordination in the preparation and implementation of the Border RPGs

The focus now turns to the actual practices of vertical, horizontal and diagonal coordination in the Border Region and County Cavan.

Regional development in the Border Regie

Research concentrated on the three development plans/strate and County Cavan: The Bl 2010-2022, the CCDP and the concerned with the economic a~

This section will analyse the F

economic aspects of the Border opportunities are addressed in Strategy' of the RPGs. This str tiveness Agendas prepared by I (Forfas, 2010). Section 4.7 of 1

ment Plan Implications', whic should incorporate the strategy

The BRA is extremely limi1 making its role of promoting C•

services extremely difficult. ThE by the RPG Implementation steering committee comprised <

stakeholders such as county Ireland, Forfas, VECs and < comprised of the senior planne1 in the region, assists in the pref

Bottom-up approaches to potential for localities to be th using local resources and knm occur, there needs to be a syst• policy and strategies at the reg two-way vertical coordination b government in the preparation, stakeholders in the initial stal invested in the plan and m< implementation. BRA staff pe1 the most active people involvec

Staff from the local authorit the guidelines. For exampl Council provided key assi Development' chapter. (IntE

BRA staff were less positive development board (CDB)

'\URA SHANNON Al'ID CHRIS VAN EGERAAT

re are advantages to alignment: 'In 1lign all regions and structures, it ew, BRA staff). However, the be relatively easily overcome by

g in the region, regardless of their : BRA staff identified relates back Jr national or regional agencies to ~w of RPGs. The issue is not the the real value attributed to the

elation to IDA for example, two region]. There would be an 1al structures, that one person represent both IDA regions. I

elieve whoever is sitting at the region ... I don't think you are w, BRA staff)

that the effectiveness of regional up on the lack of concordance

!hile the alignment of regional )rities would make data collection :r task, it is not the key issue. o a similar conclusion on the basis ative boundaries in the UK: 'You :ality of how complex associational aries. [Such frameworks] can work different institutional geographies'

absence of proper statutory and d underpin a regional tier of :::gional governance and bottom-up Nill be discussed in the following

1 and implementation

>ractices of vertical, horizontal and rder Region and County Cavan.

Regional development in the Border Region and County Cavan 89

Research concentrated on the preparation and implementation of three development plans/strategies from within the Border Region and County Cavan: The BRA's Regional Planning Guidelines 2010-2022, the CCDP and the CCDBS. The research was primarily concerned with the economic aspects of these plans.

This section will analyse the preparation and implementation of the economic aspects of the Border RPGs. The economic challenges and opportunities are addressed in 'Chapter Four - Regional Economic Strategy' of the RPGs. This strategy draws on the Regional Competi­tiveness Agendas prepared by Forfas to inform the update of RPGs (Forfas, 2010). Section 4.7 of the Border RPGs provides 'Develop­ment Plan Implications', which outline how the local authorities should incorporate the strategy into their development plans.

The BRA is extremely limited in terms of staffing and funding, making its role of promoting coordination in the provision of public services extremely difficult. The preparation of the RPGs is overseen by the RPG Implementation Officer and involves input from a steering committee comprised of relevant local, regional and national stakeholders such as county managers, IDA Ireland, Enterprise Ireland, Forfas, VECs and others. A technical working group, comprised of the senior planners from each of the six local authorities in the region, assists in the preparation of the Border RPGs.

Bottom-up approaches to regional development advocate the potential for localities to be the agents of their own development by using local resources and knowledge to their advantage. For this to occur, there needs to be a system whereby local actors can influence policy and strategies at the regional scale. There is some evidence of two-way vertical coordination between the local and regional scales of government in the preparation of the Border RPGs. By including local stakeholders in the initial stages of preparing the RPGs, they are invested in the plan and more likely to carry through with its implementation. BRA staff perceived the technical working group as the most active people involved in drafting the RPGs.

Staff from the local authorities did participate in the drafting of the guidelines. For example, an officer from Cavan County Council provided key assistance in drafting the 'Economic Development' chapter. (Interview, BRA staff)

BRA staff were less positive about the involvement of the county development board (COB) in the preparation of the RPGs.

90 LAURA SHANNON AND CHRIS VAN EGERAAT

'I personally think that those actors and stakeholders involved in the CDBs, which represented all local interests, should have been more active, and actively engaged in RPG development' (Interview, BRA staff).

One of the main issues hindering a greater level of coordination between the two scales was the lack of resources, staff and time when preparing development plans and strategies. This was a reoccurring issue in all interviews with BRA and Cavan County Council employees. One of the county council planners indicated that their involvement in the review of RPGs was satisfactory, 'but there is room for improvement' (Interview, county council staff I).

The fact that the elected members of the regional authorities are, first and foremost, local councillors was identified as an issue for vertical coordination with local authorities.2 This presents a number of challenges for the BRA in trying to promote a regional perspective: 'Local authorities are still very much inward-looking and self­contained' (Interview, BRA staff). This situation was also identified as an issue in vertical coordination with national-level agencies, as councillors can be mainly concerned with what has been done for their particular county by national-level agencies such as IDA Ireland or Failte Ireland.

The difficulties of getting local- and national-level actors on board during the preparation of the RPGs are mirrored in their implementation. The RPGs are primarily implemented through the local authority development plans. The economic aspect of this implementation is not as strong, however, and the 'Economic Development' chapter of the CCDP does not refer to the RPGs. The RPGs, in general, currently do not appear to have sufficient status of credence for agencies when considering the developments that should take place in the region, as highlighted by a number of road projects, advocated as strategically important in the Border RPGs, which have been suspended) This makes the implementation of the RPGs more challenging:

What's the point of having them there if they are not going to be used? But then again, a lot of it comes down to local level and local authorities vying for their roads and their own pieces of

2 The making of development plans and RPGs is a 'reserved function', which means that the members arc the key decision-makers in the process. 3 This may be partly due to financial constraints in the current economic crisis.

Regional development in the Border Reg,

infrastructure within their c taking a regional perspectivt

In relation to horizontal coordi RPG implementation committ level organisations and regie agencies, including Forfas, In research suggests that the hori agencies is far from optimal: : they were put centre stage and sat back, and were not centrall staff). The lack of a statuto participate in the preparatior therefore identified as a key private-sector representatives recent decision to centralise it: policy feeding from the regie we've given up on that mod around' (Interview, Ibec staff)

The research found some, with adjoining regional auth East). The cross-border coor developed, and cross-border element of the 'Regional Ecc RPGs. This coordination tc connections than by a statu These relations are also fac Central Border Area Networ1

Diagonal coordination 1 departments, other than the I that participation with othe1 been better, and identified th One BRA interviewee sugges spent engaging other sta departments: 'There is only ~

and get nothing back, so you your time in terms of engagi staff).

The example of teleco emphasise the lack of diagc authorities and government c

RA SHANNON AND CHRIS VAN EGERAAT

and stakeholders involved in the 1terests, should have been more r development' (Interview, BRA

~ a greater level of coordination Jf resources, staff and time when rategies. This was a reoccurring

1. and Cavan County Council cil planners indicated that their as satisfactory, 'but there is room council staff I). s of the regional authorities are, ; was identified as an issue for 'ritics.2 This presents a number of promote a regional perspective:

nuch inward-looking and self­lis situation was also identified as with national-level agencies, as with what has been done for their tgencies such as IDA Ireland or

nd national-level actors on board RPGs are mirrored in their narily implemented through the . The economic aspect of this

however, and the 'Economic does not refer to the RPGs. The ppear to have sufficient status of ing the developments that should ed by a number of road projects, in the Border RPGs, which have tplementation of the RPGs more

here if they are not going to be ~ames down to local level and ·oads and their own pieces of

; is a 'reserved function', which means that he process. 1ts in the current economic crisis.

Regional development in the Border Region and County Cavan

infrastructure within their own administrative area rather than taking a regional perspective. (Interview, BRA staff)

91

In relation to horizontal coordination, some of this takes place via the RPG implementation committee, which includes a range of regional­level organisations and regional representatives of national-level agencies, including Forfas, IDA Ireland and Enterprise Ireland. The research suggests that the horizontal coordination with the enterprise agencies is far from optimal: 'Absolutely no disrespect to Forfas, but they were put centre stage and IDA, Enterprise Ireland and others just sat back, and were not centrally involved in any way' (Interview, BRA staff). The lack of a statutory requirement for these agencies to participate in the preparation and implementation of the RPGs is therefore identified as a key issue. The coordination with regional private-sector representatives was significantly reduced by Ibec's recent decision to centralise its operations: 'So instead of the regional policy feeding from the regions, from the grassroots to the centre, we've given up on that model. We're now doing it the other way around' (Interview, Ibec staff).

The research found some, but limited, evidence of coordination with adjoining regional authorities (West, Midlands and the Mid­East). The cross-border coordination, on the other hand, is better developed, and cross-border projects and activities are a central element of the 'Regional Economic Strategy' chapter of the Border RPGs. This coordination tends to be driven more by personal connections than by a statutory system of cross-border relations. These relations are also facilitated by networks such as the Irish Central Border Area Network.

Diagonal coordination between the BRA and government departments, other than the DECLG, is weak. BRA employees stated that participation with other government departments could have been better, and identified this as an issue in the RPG review process. One BRA interviewee suggested that time and effort would be better spent engaging other stakeholders rather than government departments: 'There is only so many times you will go to somebody and get nothing back, so you've got to decide what's the best use of your time in terms of engaging people in this area' (Interview, BRA staff).

The example of telecommunications projects was used to emphasise the lack of diagonal coordination between the regional authorities and government departments, in this case the Department

92 LAURA SHAN;\ION AND CHRIS VAN EGERAAT

of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources. According to BRA staff, the department could have had more input in the telecommunications section of the RPGs.

Forfas had the responsibility of producing a set of documents for the regions outlining the comparative advantages of the regions and potential for future development. The BRA used this as a baseline for the economic development aspects of the Border RPGs, and did not see the need to prepare their own stand-alone regional economic development report. There was some evidence of diagonal coordination in that Forfas made some efforts to engage with local actors during the process of drafting the documents. The BRA held two workshops engaging local actors, and there would have 'certainly been weekly communication with Forfas during that period' (Interview, BRA staff).

The levels of coordination in relation to the RPGs are therefore strongest in the traditional vertical, hierarchical structures. This is primarily due to the statutory backing of the regional authorities in this regard and the implementation of the RPGs through local authority development plans. The research identified room for improvement within the BRA in attempting to engage other actors horizontally and diagonally, especially those outside of the traditional planning hierarchy. Staff at agencies such as IDA Ireland and Failte Ireland supported this by suggesting that the RPGs have little effect or power outside of planning documents.

Coordination in the preparation and implementation of development plans and strategies of County Cavan

This section will examine coordination in the preparation and implementation of development plans and strategies in County Cavan: the CCDP and the CCDBS. The 'Economic Development' chapter of the CCDP focuses strongly on the CCDBS and working in partnership with the Cavan CDB.

Interviews again point to vertical coordination along hierarchical lines in the preparation of the CCDP. There are clear differences of opinions between local authority staff and BRA staff as regards the effectiveness of this coordination. The interviewed County Cavan planners point out that the CCDP has to strictly comply with the Border RPGs, which in turn are written within the policy framework of the NSS. Both planners stated that they felt a very strong obligation to comply with the Border RPGs and referenced the 2010 Act as the

Regional dn·elopment in the Border Reg

leading factor for that. They p< between the planners and th contact and consultation. 'I wm as disagreements, more as colle must comply with the RPGs, th; (Interview, county council staff

BRA staff, on the other hanc of sanctions, as discussed in 1 regional authority observes tha1 the RPGs, the most it can do i~ legislation is not perfect at pres< (Interview, BRA staff).

Outside of this strict hieran there is very little coordination Staff at the Community and Er (who have responsibility for th< as relevant to [them] as it is to tl council staff III). Both staff Enterprise Section and the BRJ of coordination and communic< It must be noted here, however in 2002, before the introductim of coordination between the 1 CCDBS were minimal. The Cor that, if they were redrafting t important to take the RPGs intr

As regards horizontal coord local stakeholders to engage in each county. These stakeholde representatives, LEADER gn social partners and state ager therefore focuses on the partner and cooperation between agenci strategy relied on 'lead partr interviews did not reveal partir coordination at this inter-institu

However, there appears to preparation of the CCDP and different documents. The CCI guidelines for the physical and 1

in the context of restrictions. Tr

IRA SHAl'iNON Al'iD CHRIS VAN EGERAAT

atural Resources. According to have had more input in the

PGs. roducing a set of documents for 'e advantages of the regions and e BRA used this as a baseline for >f the Border RPGs, and did not

stand-alone regional economic some evidence of diagonal

Jme efforts to engage with local ~ the documents. The BRA held , and there would have 'certainly h Forfas during that period'

1tion to the RPGs are therefore , hierarchical structures. This is ng of the regional authorities in m of the RPGs through local

research identified room for tempting to engage other actors y those outside of the traditional

> such as IDA Ireland and Failte :hat the RPGs have little effect or s.

and implementation of > of County Cavan

1ation in the preparation and s and strategies in County Cavan: anomie Development' chapter of :DBS and working in partnership

coordination along hierarchical P. There are clear differences of rff and BRA staff as regards the The interviewed County Cavan has to strictly comply with the

tten within the policy framework . they felt a very strong obligation d referenced the 2010 Act as the

Regional development in the Border Region and County Cavan 93

leading factor for that. They paint a picture of a positive relationship between the planners and the BRA employees, involving regular contact and consultation. 'I wouldn't view [the BRA staff's] comments as disagreements, more as colleagues providing advice ... and since we must comply with the RPGs, that advice will always be taken on board' (Interview, county council staff I).

BRA staff, on the other hand, are less positive and point to the lack of sanctions, as discussed in the section on provisions above. If a regional authority observes that a local authority is not consistent with the RPGs, the most it can do is make a submission. 'The process and legislation is not perfect at present and procedures could be improved' (Interview, BRA staff).

Outside of this strict hierarchical structure of planning, however, there is very little coordination between the local level and the BRA. Staff at the Community and Enterprise Section of the county council (who have responsibility for the CCDBS) argued that 'the BRA isn't as relevant to [them] as it is to the planning section' (Interview, county council staff III). Both staff members of the Community and Enterprise Section and the BRA employees themselves noted the lack of coordination and communication between the CDB and the BRA. It must be noted here, however, that the original CCDBS was written in 2002, before the introduction of the RPGs and, as such, the levels of coordination between the BRA and the CDB in preparing the CCDBS were minimal. The Community and Enterprise Section noted that, if they were redrafting the CCDBS now, they would feel it important to take the RPGs into account.

As regards horizontal coordination, the CDB brings together key local stakeholders to engage in a process of long-term planning for each county. These stakeholders include local government, elected representatives, LEADER groups, county/city enterprise boards, social partners and state agencies operating locally. The CCDBS therefore focuses on the partnership model, encouraging coordination and cooperation between agencies, organisations and individuals. This strategy relied on 'lead partners' to drive implementation. The interviews did not reveal particular issues in relation to horizontal coordination at this inter-institutional level.

However, there appears to be a lack of coordination in the preparation of the CCDP and the CCDBS. These are clearly two different documents. The CCDP is a statutory document. It sets guidelines for the physical and economic development of the county, in the context of restrictions. The CCDBS is more aspirational; it is a

94 LAURA SHANNON AND CHRIS VAN EGERAAT

visiOn. In theory, it would be best practice that the two would be produced in close cooperation and coordination. One of the interviewed planners noted that, ideally, the CCDBS should have prepared an economic strategy for the county that could be implemented in the CCDP through policies and spatial zoning in towns and villages.

However, there was little coordination involved in the preparation of the two documents. In fact, a review of the 2006 CCDBS, with a revised strategy for 2009 to 2012, was never published. The CCDBS was not renewed in 2012, possibly in reaction to the government's announcement that CDBs are to be phased out as part of the program of local government reform.

The difficulties of diagonal coordination highlighted in the context of the preparation of the RPGs are repeated in the context of the county-level plan/strategy, particularly in relation to diagonal coordination with government departments other than the DECLG. The 2010 Act stipulates that certain government departments and other bodies must be notified prior to the preparation of a new county development plan. However, the local planners point out that time and resource constraints are a huge impediment to the level of coordination that can be achieved at this scale. Currently, consultation with other government departments and national-level bodies, in general, takes the form of written submissions. The interviewed planners argue that this is not sufficient and that there is a need for closer coordination during the preparation of the plan in the form of 'meetings with all the relevant authorities, bodies, groups and so on' (Interview, county council staff II). Some of these problems in relation to diagonal coordination, notably the lack of weighting given to CBD views by government departments and the lack of resources and personnel, were also identified in the Indecon Review of County/City Development Board Strategic Reviews (Indecon, 2008).

As in the context of preparation of RPGs, we find evidence of vertical coordination along traditional hierarchical lines in the preparation and implementation of county-level plans/strategies, although there are different views as to the effectiveness of this coordination. There is some evidence of a two-way coordination between these two plans, with the traditional top-down influence of national and regional levels on the local level, as well as the local level influencing the preparation of the regional-level plans. The horizontal coordination between actors involved in the preparation of the CCDP and the CCDBS could be improved. The lack of effective coordination

Ref!.ional development in the Border Regi

and integration of the CCI opportunity for integrated stn little evidence of diagonal coon other than the DECLG du statutory/regulatory provisions ;

Conclusions

The aim of the study was to ir between regional governance ar Ireland. Although more in-de findings are clear. .

Successful bottom-up region governance and coordination c statutory provisions. The statute in Ireland have been considera the establishment of the regioJ most significant factor in the s1 development plans was the Development Act in 2010. The strong coordination between preparation and implementatiOJ the RPGs. The research show~ 2010 amendment, but they cou work to be done in this area.

The levels of coordination i along the traditional vertic government plays a significant but issues in relation to implerr nature of county-level stakeholc at the regional level. The resea staff in attempting to engage otl Very few national governmt>nt actively engaged with the rlRL statutory provisions, it would Fitzpatrick Associates (1997) th of power and status are still relc

Likewise, we find eviden< traditional hierarchical lines in t county-level plans/strategies, all the effectiveness of this coord

SHAl'INON AND CHRIS VAN EGERAAT

actice that the two would be I coordination. One of the tlly, the CCDBS should have · the county that could be policies and spatial zoning in

on involved in the preparation w of the 2006 CCDBS, with a never published. The CCDBS reaction to the government's

ased out as part of the program

1tio1. highlighted in the context :epeated in the context of the trly in relation to diagonal nents other than the DECLG. government departments and he preparation of a new county l planners point out that time ~ impediment to the level of is scale. Currently, consultation and national-level bodies, in submissions. The interviewed nt and that there is a need for 1tion of the plan in the form of ities, bodies, groups and so on' ne of these problems in relation lack of weighting given to CBD nd the lack of resources and Indecon Review of County/City

[ndecon, 2008). of RPGs, we find evidence of mal hierarchical lines in the ' county-level plans/strategies, as to the effectiveness of this ce of a two-way coordination 1ditional top-down influence of a! level, as well as the local level anal-level plans. The horizontal in the preparation of the CCDP he lack of effective coordination

Regional development in the Border Region and County Cavan 95

and integration of the CCDP and the CCDBS was a missed opportunity for integrated strategic spatial planning. There is very little evidence of diagonal coordination with government departments other than the DECLG due to a combination of a lack of statutory/regulatory provisions and time/resource constraints.

Conclusions

The aim of the study was to improve our understanding of the link between regional governance and bottom-up regional development in Ireland. Although more in-depth assessment is merited, the main findings are clear.

Successful bottom-up regional development and effective regional governance and coordination depend on proper statutory and non­statutory provisions. The statutory provisions for regional government in Ireland have been considerably strengthened over the years since the establishment of the regional authorities. Without a doubt, the most significant factor in the strengthening of relationships between development plans was the amendment of the Planning and Development Act in 2010. The 2010 Act stipulates that there must be strong coordination between the regional and local level in the preparation and implementation of the county development plans and the RPGs. The research shows that things have improved post the 2010 amendment, but they could be better and there remains more work to be done in this area.

The levels of coordination in relation to the RPGs are strongest along the traditional vertical, hierarchical structures. Local government plays a significant role in the preparation of the RPGs, but issues in relation to implementation remain. The inward-looking nature of county-level stakeholders remains an issue for coordination at the regional level. The research revealed difficulties for the BRA staff in attempting to engage other actors horizontally and diagonally. Very few national government departments and state agencies are actively engaged with the BRA. Despite the improvements in the statutory provisions, it would seem that the conclusions drawn by Fitzpatrick Associates (1997) that the regional authorities are devoid of power and status are still relevant today.

Likewise, we find evidence of vertical coordination along traditional hierarchical lines in the preparation and implementation of county-level plans/strategies, although there are different views as to the effectiveness of this coordination. The horizontal coordination

I

9o LAURA SHANNON AND CHRIS VAN EGERAAT

between actors involved in the preparation of the CCDP and the CDB strategy was poor. This finding may support the decision included in the Action Programme for Effective Local Government to disband the CDBs and give more responsibility directly to the local authorities in the form of socio-economic committees (Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government, 2012). The research found very little evidence of diagonal coordination with government departments due to a combination of a lack of statutory/regulatory provisions and time/resource constraints.

Extant literature suggests that effective coordination requires concordance in the boundaries of local and regional units of government and governance, and there have been repeated calls for boundaries to be aligned with those of the regional authorities. However, this research suggests that, although alignment would have some advantages, the effectiveness of regional governance should not be hung up on the lack of concordance of regional boundaries. In line with Allmendinger & Haughton (2009), we suggest that any adopted framework should be able to work with and through the boundaries of different institutional geographies. This finding would support the change of direction adopted in the Action Programme for Effective Local Government. This document no longer advocates regional standardisation due to practical reasons as the appropriate territorial structure tends to vary for each organisation.

This research therefore suggests that the effectiveness of regional governance should not be overly preoccupied with the lack of concordance of regional boundaries as the evidence suggests that it is not as significant a hindrance in operational terms as it was previously thought to be. While the alignment of regional boundaries with the regional authorities would make data collection and policy coordination an easier task, it is not the key issue. Allmendinger & Haughton (2009) come to a similar conclusion on the basis of their recent work on administrative boundaries in the UK.

Successive Irish Governments have repeatedly shown their lack of commitment to a regional tier of government and to bottom-up regional development in general, most recently through the reform of local government, which will see the abolition of the regional authorities and the creation of three regional assemblies in their place (Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government, 2012). The Action Programme for Effective Local Government thankfully recognises the key role of regional planning in providing consistency among the planning hierarchy, and this was one

Regional development in the Border Reg.

of the main reasons cited for However, the programme fu devolution of functions to t} potentially enhanced, coordim new assemblies. This in itself ' current situation. But the effe depend on the detail of the s notably whether they will secu the relevant government depar

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Proim their ideas during the early st thirteen interviewees for their ,

References

Adshead, M. (2003). Policy netw' Adshead & M. Millar (Eds), Ireland: Theory and methods. Lc

Adshead, M., & Quinn, B. (1998). · Irish development's policy pa 209-25.

Allmendinger, P., & Haughton, G. metagovernance: The new sr Environment and Planning A, 4,

Bannon, M. J. (1989, January 5). H Irish Times.

Border Regional Authority. (2010 Cavan: Border Regional Autho

Boyle, M. (2000). Euro-regionalis1 The politics of Ireland's regi allocation 2000-2006. Political (

Breathnach, P. (2013). Creating dysfunctional polity: The case c Studies. Advance online publica

Cavan County Council Planni1 development plan 2008-2014, Council.

Cavan County Development Boan and cultural development of ( County Development Board.

RA SHANNON AND CHRIS VAN EGERAAT

ation of the CCDP and the CDB support the decision included in ocal Government to disband the irectly to the local authorities in 1mittees (Department of the JCal Government, 2012). The

of diagonal coordination with a combination of a lack of

me/resource constraints. effective coordination requires f local and regional units of ere have been repeated calls for 1se of the regional authorities. , although alignment would have f regional governance should not :.:e of regional boundaries. In line )9), we suggest that any adopted th and through the boundaries of This 1 · nding would support the Action Programme for Effective no longer advocates regional

ons as the appropriate territorial aisation. that the effectiveness of regional preoccupied with the lack of

as the evidence suggests that it is ·ational terms as it was previously of regional boundaries with the

~ data collection and policy t the key issue. Allmendinger & conclusion on the basis of their

!aries in the UK. 1e repeatedly shown their lack of government and to bottom-up

1st recently through the reform of the abolition of the regional

regional assemblies in their place ent, Community and Local Programme for Effective Local e key role of regional planning in nning hierarchy, and this was one

Regional development in the Border Region and County Cavan 97

of the main reasons cited for maintaining a regional tier in Ireland. However, the programme further reduces the level of genuine devolution of functions to the regional level. What is left is a, potentially enhanced, coordination and oversight role for the three new assemblies. This in itself would be a huge improvement on the current situation. But the effectiveness of the reform will strongly depend on the detail of the statutory and non-statutory provisions, notably whether they will secure genuine diagonal coordination with the relevant government departments and state agencies.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Proinnsias Breathnach and Niall Cussen for their ideas during the early stages of this research project and the thirteen interviewees for their willingness to participate.

References

Adshead, M. (2003). Policy networks and sub-national government. In M. Adshead & M. Millar (Eds), Public administration and public policy in Ireland: Theory and methods. London: Routledge.

Adshead, M., & Quinn, B. (1998). The move from government to governance: Irish development's policy paradigm shift. Policy and Politics, 26 (2), 209-25.

Allmendinger, P., & Haughton, G. (2009). Soft spaces, fuzzy boundaries, and metagovernance: The new spatial planning in the Thames gateway. Environment and Planning A, 41, 617-33.

Bannon, M. J. (1989, January 5). How regionalism could aid the economy. The Irish Times.

Border Regional Authority. (2010). Regional planning guidelines 2010-2022. Cavan: Border Regional Authority.

Boyle, M. (2000). Euro-regionalism and struggles over scales of governance: The politics of Ireland's regionalisation approach to structural fund allocation 2000-2006. Political Geography, 19, 737-69.

Breathnach, P. (20 13). Creating city-region governance structures in a dysfunctional polity: The case of Ireland's national spatial strategy. Urban Studies. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1177/0042098013493477

Cavan County Council Planning Department. (2010). Cavan county development plan 2008-2014, variation no. 2. Cavan: Cavan County Council.

Cavan County Development Board. (2002). A strategy for the economic, social and cultural development of County Cavan 2002-2012. Cavan: Cavan County Development Board.

98 LAURA SHANNON AND CHRIS VAl\ EGERAAT

Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government. (2012). Putting people first: Action programme for effective local govemment. Dublin: Department of the Environment and Local Government.

Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. (2010). Implementation of regional planning guidelines best practice guidelines. Dublin: Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Govern­ment.

Dublin Regional Authority. (1 995). Compatibility of regional boundaries: A count1y of regions and a region of areas. Dublin: Dublin Regional Authority.

Fitzpatrick Associates. (1997). Mid-te1m evaluation: Regional impact of the community support framework for Ireland. Dublin: Fitzpatrick Associates Economic Consultants.

Forfas. (2010). Regional competitiveness agenda volume II- Realising potential: Border: Dublin: Forfas.

Goodwin, M. (2009). Governance. In N. Thrift & R. Kitchin (Eds), International encyclopedia of human geography (pp. 593-9). Oxford: Elsevier.

Government of Ireland. (1991 ). Local government reorganisation and refonn. Dublin: The Stationery Office.

Indecon. (2008). Indecon review of county/city development board strategic reviews and proposals for strengthening and developing the boards. Dublin: Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.

Keating, M. (1997). The invention of regions: Political restructuring and territorial government in Western Europe. Environment and Planning C, 15, 383-98.

Keating, M., Loughlin, J., & Deschouwer, K. (2003). Culture, institutions and economic development: A study of eight European regions. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Laffan, B. (1996). Ireland: A region without regions- The odd man out? In L. Hooghe (Ed.), Cohesion policy and European integration: Building multi­level governance (pp. 320-41). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Loughlin, J. (2001). Subnational democracy in the European Union: Challenges and opportunities. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Meijers, E. J., & Romein, A (2003). Realizing potential: Building regional organizing capacity in polycentric urban regions. European Urban and Regional Studies, 10 (2), 173-86.

Meredith, D., & van Egeraat, C. (201 2). Revisiting the national spatial strategy ten years on. Administration, 60 (3), 3-9.

Mid-East Regional Authority. (1996). Regional report. Wickow: Mid-East Regional Authority.

O'Brien, T. (2013, February 12). Government scraps spatial strategy. The Irish Times.

O'Riordain, S. (2012a). Governance and the national spatial strategy: Placing spatial policy at the heart of the diagonal public service. Administration, 60 (3), 141-58.

Regional development in the Border Region

O'Riordain, S. (2012b). The dia1 seanoriordain.ie/the-diagonal-pub

Pike, A, Rodriguez-Pose, A, & 1 development. Abingdon: Routledg

Pike, A, & Tomaney, J. (2004). Gue~ economic and social developmt 2091-6.

Rhodes, R. A W. (1996). The government. Political Studies, 44,

Rodriguez-Pose, A, & Gill, N. (2004 disparities and devolution? Envin

Rodriguez-Pose, A, & Gill, N. ( devolution. Regional Studies, 39 (·

Stoker, G. (1998). Governance as Science Joumal, 155, 17-28.

RA SHANNON AND CHRIS VAN EGERAAT

nity and Local Government. (2012). or effective local government. Dublin: ~ocal Government. ge and Local Government (2010). guidelines best practice guidelines.

nent, Heritage and Local Govern-

'7patibility of regional boundaries: A Dublin: Dublin Regional Authority. evaluation: Regional impact of the

and. Dublin: Fitzpatrick Associates

5enda volume II- Realising potential:

t N. Thrift & R. Kitchin (Eds), l geography (pp. 593-9). Oxford:

)Vemment reorganisation and reform.

nty/city development board strategic r and developing the boards. Dublin: itage and Local Government. regions: Political restructuring and trope. Environment and Planning C,

r, K (2003). Culture, institutions and ght European regions. Cheltenham:

mt reg1ons- The odd man out? In L ~uropean integration: Building multi-Oxford University Press.

cy in the European Union: Challenges iversity Press. ealizing potential: Building regional rban regions. European Urban and

~evisiting the national spatial strategy -9. Regional report. Wickow: Mid-East

nent scraps spatial strategy. The Irish

the national spatial strategy: Placing ·nal public service. Administration, 60

Regional development in the Border Region and County Cavan 99

O'Riordain, S. (2012b). The diagonal public service. Retrieved from seanoriordain.ie/the-diagonal-public-service/ [10 November 2013].

Pike, A., Rodriguez-Pose, A., & Tomaney, J. (2006). Local and regional development. Abingdon: Routledge.

Pike, A., & Tomaney, J. (2004). Guest editorial: Sub-national governance and economic and social development Environment and Planning A, 36, 2091-6.

Rhodes, R. A. W. (1996). The new governance: Governing without government. Political Studies, 44, 652-67.

Rodriguez-Pose, A., & Gill, N. (2004). Is there a global link between regional disparities and devolution? Environment and Planning A, 36, 2097-117.

Rodriguez-Pose, A., & Gill, N. (2005). On the 'economic dividend' of devolution. Regional Studies, 39 ( 4 ), 405-20.

Stoker, G. (1998). Governance as theory: Five propositions. International Science Journal, 155, 17-28.

•