Building regional ‘goodwill’: on the financialization of subnational economic governance

Abstract

Subnational economic governance has witnessed ongoing transformation as part of what is argued as a financialization of the policy process. Within England, recent reform has seen two specific tendencies: a transformation attempting greater integration between industrial structure and subnational spaces; and more entrepreneurial practices incorporating businesses as key actors. Here, city-regional agglomeration models have been adopted to activate internal resource. This paper explores the effect of these changes on policy continuity amongst constituent parts of the city-region through the concept of goodwill. It focuses on the Greater Birmingham and Solihull region of the UK and its relationship with a constituent locality: Southern Staffordshire. It argues reform has redrawn the subnational map with greater sensitivity around industrial structure. Adapting modes of financializing the governance process, however, using city-regions' presumed benefits around competitiveness and efficiency, frame this sensitivity. A form of goodwill has thus emerged founded around compliance with orthodox city-regional interpretations, supplementing financial shortfalls yet reinforcing further space-policy separation.

Prospective policy analysis—a critical interpretive synthesis review

“…Among the articles not describing health policy analyses, some examined social policies, such as well-being ( Carter, 2012 ), housing ( Yau and Ho, 2017 ), welfare reform ( Bishop, 2003 ) or violence ( Considine et al ., 2014 ). Others analysed policies on nanotechnology ( Kuzma and Priest, 2010 ), energy ( Collins et al , 2017 Grösser, 2013 ), economic governance ( Salder, 2020 ) and foreign policy ( Bing, 2017 ). The four study protocols that were retained in our review were similarly diverse, describing research on policies at the nexus of health and urban issues, such as physical activity ( Fathi et al ., 2021 ), food security ( Patay et al ., 2022 ) or sugar-sweetened beverage taxes ( Thow et al ., 2021 ).…”

“…Some articles described PPA conducted ahead of a policy being implemented. Most of those articles used PPA to assess the feasibility of proposed policy options ( Buse et al ., 2009 ; Pearson et al ., 2010 ; Daire et al ., 2018 ; Bazyar et al ., 2020 ; Abdool Karim et al ., 2021 ) or the impact of a policy ( Kuzma and Priest, 2010 ; Milani, 2010 ; Carter, 2012 ; Grösser, 2013 ; Labonté et al ., 2016 ; Lexchin and Gleeson, 2016 ; Bing, 2017 ; Cobiac et al ., 2017 ; Harris et al ., 2017 ; Mcnamara and Labonté, 2017 ; Salder, 2020 ; Cairney, 2021 ; Zebrowski et al ., 2021 ). Several others used PPA to propose policy options or to otherwise inform the policy process ( Tantivess and Walt, 2008 ; Surjadjaja and Mayhew, 2011 ; Considine et al ., 2014 ; Collins et al , 2017 ; Veglia et al ., 2017 ; Yau and Ho, 2017 ; Chichaya et al ., 2018 ; Storeng et al ., 2019 ; Pybus et al ., 2021 ).…”

“…Most of the articles that we identified (26/35) revolved around a public health topic. The remainder focused on urban planning ( Grösser, 2013 ; Yau and Ho, 2017 ), trade policy ( Thow et al ., 2015 ), sustainable development ( Collins et al , 2017 ), subnational economic governance arrangements ( Salder, 2020 ), public policy ( Considine et al ., 2014 ), welfare or social security policies ( Pybus et al ., 2021 ), fiscal policy ( Milani, 2010 ) or biotechnology ( Kuzma and Priest, 2010 ). We found cases of PPA that concerned both big ‘P’ policies and little ‘p’ policies.…”

“…Most articles dealt with a single stage of the policy-making process—either agenda setting ( Grösser, 2013 ; Daire et al ., 2018 ; Storeng et al ., 2019 ) or policy formulation ( Pearson et al ., 2010 ; Considine et al ., 2014 ; Makan et al ., 2015 ; Lexchin and Gleeson, 2016 ; Cobiac et al ., 2017 ; Veglia et al ., 2017 ; Yau and Ho, 2017 ; Bazyar et al ., 2020 ; Abdool Karim et al ., 2021 ; Zebrowski et al ., 2021 ), or either policy implementation ( Bishop, 2003 ; Higuchi, 2008 ; Carter, 2012 ; Mcnamara and Labonté, 2017 ; Pybus et al ., 2021 ) or policy evaluation Milani, 2010 ; Kuzma and Priest, 2010 ; Michinobu, 2015 ; Thow et al ., 2015 ; Bing, 2017 ; Labonté et al ., 2016 ; Salder, 2020 ; Collins et al , 2017 ; Cairney, 2021 ). A few articles focused on the segment of the cycle addressing agenda setting through policy implementation ( Tantivess and Walt, 2008 ; Hirono et al ., 2016 ; Harris et al ., 2017 ), but several focused either on the stages spanning agenda setting and policy formulation ( Surjadjaja and Mayhew, 2011 ; Bump et al ., 2012 ), or the stages spanning policy formulation to policy implementation ( Buse et al ., 2009 ; Chichaya et al ., 2018 ; Reeve et al ., 2021 ).…”