19
1 Sub-national economic development: Where do we go from here? Lee Pugalis, September 2010 1 Paper should be cited as: Pugalis, L. (2011) 'Sub-national economic development: where do we go from here?', Journal of Urban Regeneration and Renewal, 4 (3), pp. 255-268. Abstract The UK‘s Liberal DemocratConservative (LibCon) Coalition Government has been quickly dismantling New Labour‘s policy framework since it gained political control in May 2010. Contemplating how this transition might play out and the impact upon regeneration policy, a preliminary map of the road from the incumbent English Regional Development Agencies to myriad Local Enterprise Partnerships is sketched out. The analytic interpretations are based on insights ‗in the field‘ over the past decade and grounded in policy ‗chatter‘. Reflecting on the importance of timing, resource availability and the policy vacuum arising between localities and national government, attention is drawn to countless questions that remain unanswered. Further, the LibCon‘s sub-national economic policy architecture is demonstrated as remaining very much work in progress. The paper highlights that the current transitional period is likely to be disorderly and possibly ineffective: deconstruction is all well and good if the alternative reconstructions offer added value, but the potential to lose out is significant. While hope is expressed with a localism agenda which could potentially empower localities to devise unique policy solutions administered by tailored spatial configurations, it is cautioned that new spatio-institutional ‗fixes‘ may open up new issues just as old ones are closed off. A policy story still being written, the analysis is of broader international appeal. Consequently, those plying their trade outside England can reflect on this and act accordingly the next time a new (and presumably better) policy innovation is proposed. Keywords: Sub-national governance, regeneration, economic policy, regional development agencies and local enterprise partnerships 1 Dr Lee Pugalis Senior Lecturer Urban Theory and Practice, Northumbria University Visiting Fellow, Global Urban Research Unit, Newcastle University [email protected]

Sub-national economic development: Where do we go from here? Pugalis 2011

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

The UK’s Liberal Democrat–Conservative (Lib–Con) Coalition Government has been quickly dismantling New Labour’s policy framework since it gained political control in May 2010. Contemplating how this transition might play out and the impact upon regeneration policy, a preliminary map of the road from the incumbent English Regional Development Agencies to myriad Local Enterprise Partnerships is sketched out. The analytic interpretations are based on insights ‘in the field’ over the past decade and grounded in policy ‘chatter’. Reflecting on the importance of timing, resource availability and the policy vacuum arising between localities and national government, attention is drawn to countless questions that remain unanswered. Further, the Lib–Con’s sub-national economic policy architecture is demonstrated as remaining very much work in progress. The paper highlights that the current transitional period is likely to be disorderly and possibly ineffective: deconstruction is all well and good if the alternative reconstructions offer added value, but the potential to lose out is significant. While hope is expressed with a localism agenda which could potentially empower localities to devise unique policy solutions administered by tailored spatial configurations, it is cautioned that new spatio-institutional ‘fixes’ may open up new issues just as old ones are closed off. A policy story still being written, the analysis is of broader international appeal. Consequently, those plying their trade outside England can reflect on this and act accordingly the next time a new (and presumably better) policy innovation is proposed

Citation preview

Page 1: Sub-national economic development: Where do we go from here? Pugalis 2011

1

Sub-national economic development: Where do we go from here?

Lee Pugalis, September 20101

Paper should be cited as:

Pugalis, L. (2011) 'Sub-national economic development: where do we go from here?', Journal

of Urban Regeneration and Renewal, 4 (3), pp. 255-268.

Abstract The UK‘s Liberal Democrat–Conservative (Lib–Con) Coalition Government has

been quickly dismantling New Labour‘s policy framework since it gained political control in

May 2010. Contemplating how this transition might play out and the impact upon

regeneration policy, a preliminary map of the road from the incumbent English Regional

Development Agencies to myriad Local Enterprise Partnerships is sketched out. The analytic

interpretations are based on insights ‗in the field‘ over the past decade and grounded in policy

‗chatter‘. Reflecting on the importance of timing, resource availability and the policy vacuum

arising between localities and national government, attention is drawn to countless questions

that remain unanswered. Further, the Lib–Con‘s sub-national economic policy architecture is

demonstrated as remaining very much work in progress. The paper highlights that the current

transitional period is likely to be disorderly and possibly ineffective: deconstruction is all

well and good if the alternative reconstructions offer added value, but the potential to lose out

is significant. While hope is expressed with a localism agenda which could potentially

empower localities to devise unique policy solutions administered by tailored spatial

configurations, it is cautioned that new spatio-institutional ‗fixes‘ may open up new issues

just as old ones are closed off. A policy story still being written, the analysis is of broader

international appeal. Consequently, those plying their trade outside England can reflect on

this and act accordingly the next time a new (and presumably better) policy innovation is

proposed.

Keywords: Sub-national governance, regeneration, economic policy, regional development

agencies and local enterprise partnerships

1 Dr Lee Pugalis

Senior Lecturer Urban Theory and Practice, Northumbria University

Visiting Fellow, Global Urban Research Unit, Newcastle University

[email protected]

Page 2: Sub-national economic development: Where do we go from here? Pugalis 2011

2

SETTING THE SCENE

Since the emergence of regional industrial policy in the 1930s, followed by an explicit urban

policy focus not long after, England has become a veritable laboratory for sub-national

economic policy innovations. Usually, this tends to involve reshuffling the pack of cards

resulting in variable spatial ‗fixes‘ and governance reworkings. It is therefore no surprise that

the UK‘s Liberal Democrat–Conservative (Lib–Con) Coalition Government has been quickly

dismantling New Labour‘s policy framework since David Cameron (Conservative Party

Leader and now Prime Minister) and Nick Clegg (Liberal Democrat Leader and now Deputy

Prime Minister) shook on a deal in May 2010. On 22nd June, 2010, George Osborne, the

Chancellor of the Exchequer, set out his ‗Emergency‘ Budget with a five-year plan to rebuild

the British economy.1 The plan sets out tough action to tackle the public-sector budget deficit

and change the tax system, as well as measures to encourage enterprise and stimulate private-

sector-led economic prosperity. As a result, it is widely expected that regeneration over the

next decade will be more austere than it was under New Labour‘s stewardship during the

previous decade.2

While the details are lacking at the time of writing (September 2010), and what little

has been publicised by Ministers has often been contradictory, the Budget formalised the

Lib–Con‘s intent to replace the incumbent eight English Regional Development Agencies

(RDAs) outside London with myriad Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs).3 Paragraph 1.8 of

the Budget states that

‗[t]he Government will enable locally elected leaders, working with business, to lead local

economic development. As part of this change, [RDAs] will be abolished through the Public

Bodies Bill. A White Paper later in … 2010 will set out details of these proposals. As part of

this, the Government will: support the creation of strong [LEPs], particularly those based

around England‘s major cities and other natural economic areas, to enable improved

coordination of public and private investment in transport, housing, skills, regeneration and

other areas of economic development‘.1

This briefest of statements was followed by a letter from Government, dated 29th June 2010,

inviting ‗councils and business leaders to come together to consider how [they] wish to form

[LEPs] … enabling councils and business to replace the existing [RDAs]‘.4

Page 3: Sub-national economic development: Where do we go from here? Pugalis 2011

3

Guided by the objective ‗to help strengthen local economies‘, LEPs are put forward

by the Coalition Government as the only key apparatus by which to reform sub-national

economic development. Penned by Vince Cable, Secretary of State for Business, Innovation

and Skills, and Eric Pickles, Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the

letter claims that Government is ‗working with the [RDAs] to enable this transition:

[Government] are reviewing all the functions of the RDAs‘, surmising that ‗some of these are

best led nationally, such as inward investment, sector leadership, responsibility for business

support, innovation, and access to finance‘. It can be contended, however, that, if all these

present RDA functions were centralised, this would significantly undermine the Coalition‘s

localism agenda, together with the ability of LEPs to influence their local economies.

In contemplating how the transition may play out, a preliminary map of the road from

RDAs to LEPs is sketched out. The analytic interpretations given are based on the author‘s

insights ‗in the field‘ over the past decade, including stints as a civil servant (at the then

Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and Government Office for London), quango employee

(representing One North East Regional Development Agency), researcher (based at

Newcastle University), and more recently a local government officer (serving Durham

County Council). Grounded in policy ‗chatter‘ influenced by and influencing blogs, news

stories and articles, alongside ‗official‘ — although often contradictory — ministerial

pronouncements and letters, departmental press releases and snippets of text in Government

publications, it is demonstrated that the Lib–Con‘s sub-national economic policy architecture

remains very much work in progress. Though the analytical focus of this paper is spatially

specific to England, the policy story unfolding of economic space in transition is of wider

appeal. It is hoped that the international community of researchers, practitioners, policy

makers and academics can draw on these insights to help inform the scale, scope and pace of

economic policy transitions in other spatial contexts.

The remainder of the paper analyses England‘s transitional sub-national economic

policy. In the next section, a brief background to the role and purpose of RDAs is provided as

their eventual downfall is analysed. The third section examines the intended function of

LEPs. In the fourth section, the previous analysis used to theorise the transition from RDAs

to LEPs is drawn upon. The paper concludes at a preliminary point with some final thoughts.

Page 4: Sub-national economic development: Where do we go from here? Pugalis 2011

4

ONE-STOP SHOPS: THE ROLE OF ENGLISH REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT

AGENCIES

Conceived under a Labour Government, RDAs are non-departmental public bodies, or

quangos, set up under the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998 to facilitate regional

economic development (see Figure 1). Intended as strategic drivers of regional economic

growth, under the Act, each Agency has five statutory purposes, which are:

1. to further economic development and regeneration

2. to promote business efficiency, investment and competitiveness

3. to promote employment

4. to enhance the development and application of skills relevant to employment

5. to contribute to sustainable development.

These five duties were encapsulated in Regional Economic Strategies, which RDAs were

charged to produce on behalf of their respective regions.5 According to the UK Department

for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS)

‗The RDAs‘ agenda includes regeneration, taking forward regional competitiveness, taking

the lead on inward investment and, working with regional partners, ensuring the development

of a skills action plan to ensure that skills training matches the needs of the labour market.‘6

Whitehall responsibility for sponsorship of the RDAs moved from the former Department for

the Environment, Transport and the Regions to the then Department for Trade and Industry in

2001, then to what was the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform from

2007, and now rests with BIS.

The RDAs have received funding through a Single Programme budget (known as the

‗single pot‘) since April 2002, which includes contributions from BIS, the Department of

Communities and Local Government (CLG), the Department for the Environment and Rural

Affairs, UK Trade and Investment, and the Department for Culture Media and Sport. Funding

support totalled £2.3bn for the nine RDAs in 2007–08, which has reduced to approximately

£1.5bn per annum over the past couple of years and has been markedly eroded since the

Coalition entered power. The merry-go-round of departmental sponsors, together with a

diffuse collection of departmental funders — the largest being CLG — necessitated RDA

Page 5: Sub-national economic development: Where do we go from here? Pugalis 2011

5

flexibility, as they have had to adapt to new responsibilities such as a statutory planning

function.

Figure 1: Map of the UK distinguishing each of the English regions

Indeed, as Lord Mandelson, the then Business Secretary, began to play a lead role in

the remit of RDAs towards the end of Labour‘s term in office through his ‗industrial

activism‘ brand of economic development,7 he declared:

Page 6: Sub-national economic development: Where do we go from here? Pugalis 2011

6

‗Industrial activism has to be built on precise regional knowledge of what is needed in terms

of infrastructure, investment and training. I see the RDAs taking a leading role in this. Indeed

I believe it should now be their defining role. Driving a jobs and growth agenda with regional

partners, regeneration and infrastructure bodies, and, importantly, local authorities.‘8

The Labour Government‘s 2007 ‗Review of sub-national economic development and

regeneration‘ (SNR)9–11

and national Regeneration Framework in 200812

recognised the need

for RDAs to ‗reprioritise their investments‘ so as ‗to maximise the impact of the single pot on

regional economies … [and] ensure that investment in physical regeneration and business

investment complement each other and support the RDAs‘ overarching economic growth

objective‘.13

One only has to take a glance at each of the nine RDAs‘ corporate plans,

investment priorities and plethora of strategies, to appreciate that they have an extensive

remit, but arguably of more interest is each RDA‘s spatially flavoured economic development

approach. Some have prioritised place quality enhancements and physical regeneration, while

others have looked to innovation or enterprise, which is reflected in the organisational

structures of each RDA, with some opting to use local delivery partners more than others.

But according to Vince Cable, a leading figure in the Coalition Government, RDA

performance has not only been unsatisfactory, but also ‗wasteful‘,14

which accords with

recent critiques of hyperactive, fragmented and congested sub-national economic

governance.15

Nevertheless, in 2006 the National Audit Office adjudged some RDAs to be

‗performing strongly overall‘,16

and independent evaluation (of sorts) in 200917

concluded

that, for every £1 of RDA investment, there has been a return of at least £4.50 for regional

economies, which increases to £6.40 when longer-term economic benefits are considered.18

Even so, the writing was on the wall for RDAs when David Cameron proclaimed in May

2008 that ‗[t]here‘s a very strong case, at least in parts of the country, that the RDAs should

go altogether‘, claiming many have been a ‗disaster‘.19

The Coalition Government have

confirmed their intent, subject to legislation, to abolish RDAs by no later than March 2012,

with many expected to be wound up much sooner. Views from the field show that many

RDA employees are sitting around twiddling their thumbs, as central Government have

effectively curtailed the development of new economic programmes and regeneration

initiatives. In addition, many sub-regional soft policy spaces — including city regions and

local economic partnerships — are well placed to hit the ground running, perhaps signalling

the demise of some RDAs well before 2012.

Page 7: Sub-national economic development: Where do we go from here? Pugalis 2011

7

The Labour Government‘s national Regeneration Framework set out a revised role for

RDAs in 2009 including ‗work[ing] with national, regional and sub regional partners to

deliver economic plans and investment which raise the sustainable economic growth of the

region and provide economic opportunities to people throughout the region, helping to

connect areas of need with areas of opportunity‘.13

Further, they were expected to ‗identify

the functional economic areas within the region that are the priority areas for regeneration‘.13

Nevertheless, the downfall of RDAs, as perceptively anticipated by some commentators,20

can be attributed in part to their unaccountability to local government; operating in effect as

‗arms of central Government‘. New Labour‘s failure to implement elected Regional

Assemblies meant that the inception of business-led RDAs created a gaping democratic

deficit. Consequently, this new ‗hub of power‘ resting in the hands of a dozen or so private

sector individuals on the board of each RDA has often resulted in the marginalisation of local

priorities, viewpoints and needs. It can be argued that RDAs — following Labour‘s SNR

policy — have tended to back winners: focusing investment in areas of opportunity, including

‗employment hubs‘ and other choice places. Such an approach obviously has its benefits,

with supporters pointing towards economic competitiveness, while detractors draw attention

to social justice and environmental sustainability, for example.

Recently, and aligned with the demise of Labour and rise to power of the Lib–Cons,

the political rhetoric has sensationally changed to the point where players in the game are

adapting their language in a manner not too dissimilar to the way in which chameleons adapt

their colour to blend in with their environment. But, will the transition from RDAs to as-yet-

undefined LEPs be worth it? Will ongoing policy fixes enable an enterprise surge or will the

regeneration successes over the last decade quickly rescind? These questions and other

emerging issues are considered in the remainder of the paper.

ABOLISHING BUREAUCRACY? LOCAL ENTERPRISE PARTNERSHIPS

As the 2010 Cable–Pickles letter paves the way for ‗local businesses and councils to work

together to develop their proposals for local enterprise partnerships‘ before the set deadline of

6th September, 2010 — with additional policy guidance not expected to emerge from the

widely anticipated White Paper on sub-national economic growth until after the October 2010

Comprehensive Spending Review — Government ‗want to encourage a wide range of ideas‘

guided by some broad parameters covering:

Page 8: Sub-national economic development: Where do we go from here? Pugalis 2011

8

— role

— governance

— size

(see Figure 2 for a detailed breakdown of Government parameters and criteria).

Figure 2: Government parameters and criteria

While the letter was co-signed by Cable and Pickles; providing the impression of a

united front, noises of a ‗turf war‘ between the two figureheads and their respective

departments, continue to grow louder. The former is thought to see the benefits of retaining a

regional economic presence in the North and Midlands, whereas the latter is antipathetic to

anything ‗regional‘ (or indeed ‗strategic‘, as many planners and developers would attest in

response to the hasty revocation of Regional Spatial Strategies).21,22

Despite the

Government‘s determination ‗that the transition from the existing RDAs be orderly, working

to a clear timetable‘, the Coalition‘s ad hoc policy pronouncements, to date, have arguably

been haphazard and ill-timed. Indeed, Pickles‘ infamous letters are causing consternation up

and down the country as he slavishly undoes CLG policy developed by the previous Labour

Page 9: Sub-national economic development: Where do we go from here? Pugalis 2011

9

Government over more than a decade, with little consideration of legalities, practicalities and

consequences.

Following the revocation of regional strategic planning, and by implication housing

delivery targets in England, on 6th July, 2010, statutory planning has been left in a whirl of

confusion. Consequently, development uncertainty spirals as practitioners wait for the

appeals system to enter overdrive. Indeed, by 10th August, CALA Homes, a privately owned

house builder, made an application for a judicial review into Pickles‘ decision to scrap

Regional Spatial Strategies. Believing the revocation of the regional planning framework to

be ‗unlawful‘, CALA issued a statement asserting that as a

‗consequence of the Secretary of State‘s decision, whether intended or not, has been to curtail

development in many areas including those where there is a clear need … Without

consultation, transitional arrangements, or even a very clear idea of what the regime will look

like, there is now a policy vacuum. We are simply seeking to establish the legal framework

that we operate in.‘

From a practitioner‘s perspective, the regional tier of policy and governance is perhaps best

described as a necessary evil: bureaucratic, cumbersome and at times appearing irrelevant at

the local level, it nevertheless provides a space to negotiate strategic decisions that transcend

local administrative boundaries and thus provide development certainty.

THE TRANSITION FROM RDAS TO LEPS

Contending that the transition period is likely to be anything but orderly, the remainder of this

paper sets out a preliminary map to navigate the road from RDAs to LEPs.

First, timing is paramount. With most RDAs set to stay operational (to lesser or

greater degrees) until March 2012, it is crucial that LEPs are up and running well in advance.

In economic policy circles, it is a widely held view that the rollout of LEPs will take place at

variable speeds. Some areas will be fortunate enough to build on existing partnership

collectivities, such as Multi Area Agreements or City Development Companies (CDCs),23

and therefore be able to establish LEPs reasonably quickly. At the opposite end of the

spectrum, however, some areas may not have the same level of trust among partners or a

Page 10: Sub-national economic development: Where do we go from here? Pugalis 2011

10

limited history of cross-boundary and cross-sector cooperation. In these cases, instituting

LEPs is likely to take much longer, and it may take several years until they are fully

operational in the sense of transforming local economies. Coordinating the rollout of one sub-

national economic entity with the rollback of another would provide the option for key skills

to be retained as RDA staff are transferred to LEPs or nationally ‗led‘ programmes. A

mismatch of timings would not only threaten the livelihood of thousands of regeneration

practitioners, but also put in severe jeopardy the economic future of those fragile

communities they are tasked with supporting.

Another key transfer would involve RDA assets — in the form of arm‘s-length

companies, joint venture arrangements, land holdings, property and development options —

to LEPs or alternative bodies, such as local authorities. As Osborne‘s Budget took an axe to

capital spending (with most departmental budgets anticipated to operate with at least 25 per

cent fewer resources over the medium-term financial planning period), an asset-led approach

to regeneration is likely to be one of the few deliverable options open to LEPs. ‗Sweating‘

local authority and other public-sector assets is a tactic that many English councils have

become accustomed to over the past few years. Yet this asset-driven approach has often

involved the expertise and resources of RDAs. Government pronouncements that the

transition will be smooth appear unlikely. If the Lib–Con Coalition decides to cash in on

RDA assets as a short-term strategy to ease the budget deficit, it may well result in significant

delays to long-term regeneration schemes underpinning the revival of depressed local

economies. With a dearth of investors, and development financing almost impossible to

obtain without pre-lets, the stalling and ‗mothballing‘ of complex urban regeneration projects

would struggle to regain development momentum. Against a background of fiscal austerity

and private-sector conservatism, it would not be so surprising if many of the flagship

regeneration initiatives championed (and financially backed) by RDAs fell off the delivery

cliff.

Despite the best wishes of the Coalition Government for an ‗orderly transition‘ which

maintains the momentum of delivery,6 it has been argued

24 that this latest round of

institutional upheaval is an example of the untoward British vices of short-termism and

masking centralisation as decentralisation. Drawing on international exemplars, such as the

Ministry of International Trade and Industry in Japan, the German Fraunhofer Institutes and

Sitra, the Finnish innovation fund, it is asserted that institutions require time to develop and

make a positive impact. Perpetual restructuring, akin to ‗musical chairs‘, tends to paralyse the

Page 11: Sub-national economic development: Where do we go from here? Pugalis 2011

11

whole system, by creating ‗uncertainty about who will be left standing when the game of

musical chairs comes to an end‘.24

As a result, time and resources are disproportionately

expended on navigating transitional spaces, different governance networks and grappling new

policies, procedures and institutional rules. It is further suggested that the only winners in this

perverse game are the ‗army of highly paid consultants‘, who in the authors experience often

‗ask you for your watch in order to tell you the time‘.

As new organisations are constituted, new forums convened, new relationships

negotiated, new skills acquired and new funding competed for, what will happen to the task

at hand? Continuous tinkering is an unwelcome distraction from the central task of

supporting businesses and regenerating communities. At the same time, ongoing institutional

upheavals can result in the loss of ‗tacit knowledge‘,25

local political nous,26

institutional

capacity and expertise. Consequently, ‗nine times out of ten the costs of transition outweigh

these modest gains‘.24

It could be suggested that the reconfiguration of sub-national economic

governance, thereby producing a transitional economic space, is an unwritten policy ploy of

the Lib–Cons. Focusing attention on governance aspects, strategies and process issues over

the next few years may be an ideal way of concealing the colossal reductions in regeneration

resources.

Secondly, the laudable role of LEPs must be supported with a reasonable level of

resources. Different versions of the Cable–Pickles letter relating to the matter of single

running costs have obscured the picture.27

Regardless, the issue of quotidian operational costs

will be incidental if the finance (including lending powers) is not in place to deliver economic

regeneration support initiatives. While aspects of the Lib–Con‘s ‗Big Society‘ and ‗localism‘

agendas — which seek to return responsibilities to localities and their communities — are

laudable, if perhaps a little impractical, new powers and responsibilities for councils via LEPs

will be almost futile without the financial resources and instruments to deliver. Likewise,

LEPs with limited financial muscle will struggle to maintain proactive private-sector

commitment. Interest and activity relate fundamentally to the supply of money: when the

stream of money dries up, the dynamic input of private-sector entrepreneurs can (sadly)

wane, as their attendance clearly tends to fall off when agendas lack actions. Resignation of

business members from LEPs is to be expected when ‗bureaucracy gets in the way of

business‘.

The fleetingly mentioned Regional Growth Fund (RGF), trailed as a £1.4bn pot of

cash available for private- and public-sector bodies to bid for funding, which will run initially

Page 12: Sub-national economic development: Where do we go from here? Pugalis 2011

12

from 2011 to 2014, is a fraction of the resources that the previous Labour Government

committed to RDAs.28

Excluding separate funding arrangements for housing and transport,

the RGF is likely to be the principal means of accessing funds for sub-national economic

interventions.29

But, the extent to which a national economic fund, of less than £500m per

annum, is likely to achieve the Coalition‘s lofty objective of a rebalanced economy remains

an open question. Considering that Whitehall departments, local authorities and the quangos

that do survive — such as the Homes and Communities Agency — are bracing themselves

for severe budget reductions over the next four years (and possibly longer), it might be

cautioned that savage public service cuts together with devastated regeneration initiatives

may trigger what economists refer to as a ‗double dip‘ recession. If such a double dip does

not materialise, it remains probable that marginal places will suffer disproportionately.

Consequently, the present author would concur with other commentators, such as Coaffee,2

that regeneration interventions over the next decade will be more focused (and might be

added financially constrained), and hope that his conjecture that activities are likely to

concentrate ‗on areas of acute poverty with investment strategies following the path of

greatest need‘ rings true. It is doubtful, however, that social justice ideals will usurp

neoliberal opportunism: when it comes to the crunch, funding decisions are usually swayed

by the extent of private-sector ‗leverage‘.30

Lib–Con rhetoric that the public sector needs to retract from an interventionist role in

order to release the business community to lead an economic recovery may have some merit

in those places underpinned by a relatively buoyant private sector. For the rest of the country,

however, the areas of need and public-sector dependence, outlying the places of (investment)

choice and opportunity, including much of Northern England and the Midlands, there is a

danger that the progress made over the previous decade up until the credit crunch will rapidly

recoil.31,32

In its place may not be a flurry of private enterprise envisaged by the Coalition, but

instead, former public-sector workers (including regeneration practitioners) adding to the

nation‘s unemployment register, as talent is, in effect, wasted. Slavishly reducing

regeneration resources for those places most in need, and in turn where the private sector

refuses to invest, is akin to ‗robbing Peter to pay Paul‘: savings made through regeneration

funding cuts are likely to be soaked up by increased demand for health and welfare support. It

is probable that the rollout of this type of sub-national economic policy will exacerbate

‗unequal places‘ in cities,33

as well as between regions.

Page 13: Sub-national economic development: Where do we go from here? Pugalis 2011

13

Thirdly, a cavernous policy vacuum is expanding between localities and the national

level. It appears that, with the Coalition‘s fixation on eradicating anything with the mere

name ‗regional‘ in its remit, they have become ideologically blinded to the reality that the

English regions provide a pragmatic spatial scale for bridging the national–local divide. To

demonstrate this point, an indicative map of how the geography of LEPs may look, based on

just fewer than 60 initial submissions to Government, is shown in Figure 3. Yet the map

shown here comes with the caveat that things have already changed in a number of areas and

are expected to change considerably over future months. Also, the map fails to demonstrate

adequately the complex picture relating to lower-tier district councils, some of which are

proposing to be members of LEPs that cover a unitary authority outside their own upper-tier

authority. There were also rival bids submitted to Government, with the spatial reach of some

propositions not correlating with their signatories or supporting organisations. A recent

‗structured review‘ of 50 of the outline proposals found that ‗approaching 70 [local authority

districts] were included within two submissions and four seemed to feature within three‘.34

While it remains highly unlikely that Government will endorse and seek to progress a high

proportion of these initial propositions, it would be reasonable to surmise that the geography

of sub-national economic policy, governance and delivery looks set for a radical

transformation. With a conservative estimate suggesting that 25–30 LEPs could eventually

replace the eight RDAs outside London, a key question is how London-based ministerial

departments could feasibly engage with each LEP on an individual basis?

Without some form of strategic economic body to negotiate the policy space in-

between, the spatial particularities of LEPs, outside the ‗big hitters‘ organised around a core

city, such as Birmingham or Manchester,35

may struggle to make their voices heard in

Whitehall policy circles. Notwithstanding the limitations of regional administrative areas in

providing the ideal spatial fix for the delivery of all sub-national policy, strategically focused

regional bodies would help in coordinating the activity of LEPs, facilitating cross-boundary

cooperation, the management of some programmes, including the intricate administration of

the European Regional Development Fund, and could even assume responsibility for

significant strategic projects (unworkable at smaller or larger spatial scales). Accordingly,

there is a case for retaining a small body of public-sector officers in regions to provide a

minimum of intelligent coordination for the areas further in travel time from London. If on

that basis the southern regions did not claim this need, the Government would be entitled to

implement a distinction between North and South.

Page 14: Sub-national economic development: Where do we go from here? Pugalis 2011

14

Figure 3: An indicative map of the geography of LEPs

Page 15: Sub-national economic development: Where do we go from here? Pugalis 2011

15

FINAL THOUGHTS AT A PRELIMINARY POINT

Since the Coalition Government‘s recent announcement to abolish democratically

unaccountable RDAs and establish joint local authority-business-led LEPs to promote

economic development, there has been a spate of activity as stakeholders, or perhaps more

precisely stakeholders frequently led by councils, decide which neighbours they would like to

collaborate with under the auspices of a LEP. As a means to navigate the road from RDAs to

LEPs, a preliminary map of how the space of transition may play out in policy and practice

has been provided. Based on ‗official‘ — although often contradictory — ministerial

pronouncements and letters, departmental press releases and snippets of text in publications

such as the Budget Report in June 2010,1 combined with blogs, news stories, articles and,

most importantly, policy chatter, it has been demonstrated that the transitional period is likely

to be disorderly and potentially chaotic. The paper has also illuminated how such policy

turmoil and governance reconfigurations may possibly be ineffective. Reflecting on the

importance of timing, resource availability and the policy vacuum arising between localities

and national government, to state that the English regeneration sector eagerly anticipates the

policy guidance due to be set out in the forthcoming White Paper on local growth is a

sizeable understatement.

Countless questions remain over the transitional process. Does the Government have a

specific blueprint for LEPs in mind, and what powers and flexibilities might LEPs be

granted? Will LEPs be ‗loose associations‘ of local authorities and businesses or will they

require a legal personality? Is it realistic for LEPs to reflect ‗natural‘ economic areas when

their geographical building blocks will be administrative districts? In addition, how long will

it take to set up LEPs and get them functioning as effective economic leadership vehicles?

When established, will the boards of LEPs be composed of the usual suspects? Alternatively,

is democratic accountability and business leadership a recipe for disaster? Might governance

issues and institutional reconfigurations distract attention from on the ground economic

interventions? On the aspect of funding, will the RDAs Single Programme be subsumed into

the RGF? Further, how will succession planning be carried forward and in what ways may

noteworthy RDA successes provide a positive legacy for successor bodies? In terms of multi-

level governance and coordination across multiple spatial scales, how will nationally ‗led‘

economic programmes interact with LEPs and other local initiatives? Indeed, does such an

approach run the risk of contradicting the localism agenda? Only time will tell. At this

juncture, however, there must be some scepticism that the Coalition Government possesses

Page 16: Sub-national economic development: Where do we go from here? Pugalis 2011

16

the majority of the answers. While the Lib–Cons have been steadfast in denouncing the

effectiveness of New Labour‘s RDAs as part of their media savvy ‗bonfire of the quangos‘,

alternative sub-national economic policy architecture remains very much work in progress.

Deconstruction is all well and good if the alternative reconstructions offer added value.

Critics suggest, however, that a slight reshuffle of the same pack of cards is merely

‗economic development on the cheap … a no-frills version of the economic policy of the past

decade‘.36

If this is so, improvements remain ambiguous, but the potential to lose out is

significant. Not least for any place on the periphery of a LEP board‘s spatio-economic

priorities, or worse still, for any local authority left out of the LEP equation. As England is

immersed in this space of transition, against a backdrop of austerity measures, there is a

genuine threat that regeneration will fall off a cliff.

Let us hope that the Lib–Cons stay true to their localism philosophy, which would put

the onus on localities (including all those with a ‗stake‘ in their local economy) to devise

unique policy solutions administered by tailored spatial governance configurations. If this

proves to be the case, the ‗abolition‘ of RDAs may actually turn out to be a much more subtle

transformation in some regions, if local views determine that a strategic economic body at the

regional scale is still desired. Views on the ground in the North East of England,37

together

with other regions across the North and Midlands, would indicate that this is the case. It is

perhaps appropriate to end with a note of caution; suggesting that old wine in new bottles

may not necessarily result in economic improvements. Indeed, new spatial and institutional

‗fixes‘ may open up new issues just as old ones are closed off. Maybe those plying their trade

outside England can reflect on this and act accordingly the next time a new (and presumably

better) policy innovation is proposed.

Notes and References

1. HM Treasury (2010), ‗Budget 2010‘, The Stationery Office, London.

2. Coaffee, J. (2010), ‗Editorial: Learning from the successes and failures of regeneration

in the 2000s‘, Journal of Urban Regeneration and Renewal, Vol. 3, pp. 337–338.

3. Separate arrangements will apply in London, where discussions are currently under way

with the Mayor of London concerning decentralisation, particularly in the context of the

abolition of the Government Office for London.

Page 17: Sub-national economic development: Where do we go from here? Pugalis 2011

17

4. The letter is available at

http://www.parliament.uk/deposits/depositedpapers/2010/DEP2010–1363.pdf, last

accessed on 2nd July, 2010.

5. For a more detailed discussion of the role and remit of RDAs, see Pearce, G., and Ayres,

S. (2009), ‗Governance in the English Regions: The role of the Regional Development

Agencies‘, Urban Studies, Vol. 46, No. 3, pp. 537–557, and Pugalis, L. (2010),

‗Looking back in order to move forward: the politics of evolving sub-national economic

policy architecture‘. Local Economy, Vol. 25, No. 5-6, pp. 462-471.

6. Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (2010), ‗England‘s Regional

Development Agencies‘, available at http://www.bis.gov.uk/policies/regional-economic-

development/englands-regional-development-agencies, last accessed on 15th July, 2010.

7. Mandelson‘s ‗industrial activism‘ brand of economic development is focused on

developing sectoral strengths such as high-tech manufacturing, the automotive industry,

aerospace and biosciences.

8. Mandelson, P. (2009), ‗Putting regions at the heart of industrial activism‘, Journal of the

Institution of Economic Development, Vol. 108, May, p. 11.

9. HM Treasury (2007), ‗Review of sub-national economic development and regeneration‘,

HMSO, London.

10. Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform and Department of

Communities and Local Government (2008), ‗Prosperous places: Taking forward the

review of Sub-National Economic Development and Regeneration‘, The Stationery

Office, London.

11. Hildreth, P. (2009), ‗Understanding ―new regional policy‖: What is behind the

government‘s sub-national economic development and regeneration policy for

England?‘, Journal of Urban Regeneration and Renewal, Vol. 2, pp. 318–336.

12. Department of Communities and Local Government (2008), ‗Transforming places;

changing lives: A framework for regeneration‘, The Stationery Office, London.

13. Department of Communities and Local Government (2009), ‗Transforming places;

changing lives: Taking forward the Regeneration Framework‘, The Stationery Office,

London.

14. Finch, D. (2010), ‗Vince Cable on RDAs‘, Centre for Cities Blog, available at

http://centreforcities.typepad.com/centre_for_cities/2010/06/page/2/, last accessed on

25th July, 2010.

Page 18: Sub-national economic development: Where do we go from here? Pugalis 2011

18

15. Catney, P. et al. (2008), ‗Hyperactive governance in the Thames Gateway‘, Journal of

Urban Regeneration and Renewal, Vol. 2, pp. 124–145.

16. National Audit Office (2006), ‗Independent performance assessment: One NorthEast

Development Agency‘, National Audit Office, London.

17. See, for example, Larkin, K. (2009), ‗Regional Development Agencies: The facts‘,

Centre for Cities, London, who suggests that some of the project evaluations that the

meta-evaluation used are unlikely to be objective and impartial.

18. PriceWaterhouseCoopers (2008), ‗Impact of RDA spending — National report —

Volume 1 — Main Report‘, Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory

Reform, London.

19. Hayman, A. (2008), ‗Cameron: We would strip RDAs of their powers‘, Regeneration &

Renewal, 16th May.

20. Deas, I. and Ward, K.G. (1999), ‗The song has ended but the melody lingers: Regional

development agencies and the lessons of the Urban development corporation

―experiment‖‘, Local Economy, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp. 114–132.

21. Pugalis, L., and Townsend, A. (2010), ‗Can LEPs fill the strategic void?‘, Town &

Country Planning Vol. 79, No. 9, pp. 382–387.

22. The letter is available at

http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/1631904.pdf, last

accessed 6th July, 2010.

23. See, for example, Gulliver, S. (2008), ‗The City Development Company model: The

implications for economic development‘, Journal of Urban Regeneration and Renewal

Vol. 1, pp. 286–296.

24. Mulgan, G. (2010), ‗RDA demise‘, Regeneration & Renewal, 12th July.

25. Peck, F., Bell, F. and Black, L. (2010), ‗Addressing the skills gap in regeneration and

economic development in Cumbria‘, Journal of Urban Regeneration and Renewal, Vol.

4, pp. 76–89.

26. Rowe, M. and Ashworth, C. (2010), ‗―Let a hundred flowers bloom‖: Enhancing

innovative practice in regeneration management‘, Journal of Urban Regeneration and

Renewal, Vol. 4, pp. 90–99.

27. The original Cable–Pickles letter indicated that no national government resources would

be available to support the day to day operation of LEPs, but a revised version suggests

that this may not necessarily be the case.

28. The RDAs‘ combined budget was £2.3bn in 2007–08 and just over £1.4bn in 2010–11.

Page 19: Sub-national economic development: Where do we go from here? Pugalis 2011

19

29. The labyrinth of New Labour‘s (relatively well resourced) economic regeneration

programmes, including the Local Enterprise Growth Initiative and Working

Neighbourhoods Fund, are expected to be abolished, cut or absorbed into the new

regional ‗super‘ fund.

30. See, for example, the criteria identified in Department for Business, Innovation and

Skills (2010), ‗Consultation on the Regional Growth Fund‘, The Stationery Office,

London.

31. Parkinson, M. et al. (2010), ‗The credit crunch, recession and regeneration in the North:

What‘s Happening, What‘s working, what‘s next?‘, The Northern Way, Newcastle.

32. Parkinson, M. (2009), ‗Guest Editorial: The credit crunch and regeneration‘, Journal of

Urban Regeneration and Renewal, Vol. 3, pp. 115–119.

33. Cooper, M. and Shaheen, F. (2008), ‗Winning the battles but losing the war?

Regeneration, renewal and the state of Britain‘s cities‘, Journal of Urban Regeneration

and Renewal, Vol. 2, pp. 146–151.

34. SQW (2010), ‗Local Enterprise Partnerships: A new era begins?‘, SQW, London.

35. Dermot Finch suggests that some LEPs, such as ‗Greater Manchester will no doubt be

front of the queue, asking (and getting) more than most other areas. That suggests LEPs

will proceed at different speeds — which is fine with us‘: Finch, D. (2010), ‗LEPs — a

new acronym is born‘, Centre for Cities Blog, 15th July.

36. Larkin, K. (2010), ‗Regions after RDAs‘, Public Finance Blog, 1st July.

37. The Association of North East Councils and the Northern Business Forum have been

collaborating to make a case for a regional strategic economic body, known as the North

East Economic Partnership.