This paper analyses the complexity and attempted pragmatism of current practices surrounding the management of current local government policy reform in England. In particular, it focuses on the tensions and contradictions between a national policy dynamic which seeks to encourage locally contingent solutions to be developed for localised problems, and the centralising tendencies of the national state which result in 'blueprints' and 'models' being developed for local policy delivery and a requirement to meet centrally derived targets. These assumptions are explored through the experiences of local government attempts to introduce innovative and experimental praxis in line with the complex cultural and political changes of 'modernisation' agendas advanced by the UK government. This is being rolled out by an overarching project of 'new localism' -an attempt to devolve power and resources from the central state to front line local managers, sub-local structures and partnerships and to deliver 'what works'. It is argued that new attempts at subsidiarity should be more flexible to local conditions rather than directed by national policy and that greater discretion and freedom should be given to local managers to achieve this task. Using the concept of 'pragmatic localism' and grounded examples from a recent initiative -Local Area Agreements -it is highlighted that there are signs that local state management of national policy could be becoming increasingly adaptable, enabling managers to deal with the fluid nature of ongoing public policy reform, although this is far from a completed project with many factors still constraining this change process.
Local Enterprise Partnerships in England were intended as organic entities in which coalitions of local actors, led by business interests, would determine locally relevant policy for self-defined spatial units. Informed by ideas around localism and the desire to extend sub-national economic development policy making beyond the local state, central government envisaged an increased unevenness in local governance arrangements and policy approaches. The article assesses the experiences of four Local Enterprise Partnerships, employing social network analysis in an attempt to systematise the comparison of actor relationships and urban governance arrangements. The article considers the degree to which the discursive emphasis on liberating local policy actors from central government control has any empirical basis in the variable shape and structure of local elite actor networks. It argues that although Local Enterprise Partnerships operate within an environment characterised by lighter touch regulation, there is a dissonance between local discretion and the political imperative for central government to exercise oversight. Equally, variability in the web of actor interactions across the sample of Local Enterprise Partnerships suggests that asymmetrical urban governance and competitive localism are intrinsic features of post-regional local economic development, reflecting a wider national framework for spatial policy in which diversity in sub-national institutional form is viewed as a source of policy innovation and dynamism.
Local Government in England has long bridled at the restraints on its activities imposed by an over centralised state. Yet now, with the Government proposing to devolve powers and responsibilities to newly established city region governance arrangements, is it a case of be careful what you wish for? In this paper we argue that the devolution from central government to local city regions marks the end of the old 'politics as usual' approach that has underpinned the resilience and effectiveness of the local government institution but failed to engage and energise local politics. In this context we pay particular attention to the Manchester model as the 'poster city' for devolution yet we question if even this model is sufficient to re-cast local relationships between market and state and state and citizen to enable devolution to bring real economic and social benefits to all in the city region. We conclude by suggesting there are empirical and theoretical grounds for alternative governance approaches more suitable to these times of interregnum.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.