Explicitly permissive? Understanding actor interrelationships in the governance of economic development: The experience of England’s Local Enterprise Partnerships

Abstract

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.

Leading cities: a global review of city leadership

“…Regime theory highlights the networked and often informal nature of contemporary urban governance and leadership, in which business and community leaders develop informal but longstanding relationships with each other, city officials and politicians (Digaetano and Klemanski, 1999;Stone, 1989). Over time, informal relationships may be converted into more formal arrangements, as occurred recently in England with the creation of Local Enterprise Partnerships that bring together government, business and civic leaders to set city strategies (Deas et al, 2013).…”

“Disorganised Devolution”: Reshaping Metropolitan Governance in England in a Period of Austerity

“…The critical assessment has included concerns over their insufficient powers and resources to achieve their aims, variable arbitrary and transitory territorial boundaries that have at least as much to do with political 'fixes' as economic analysis and their lack of long-term vision and dynamism (Deas/ Hincks/Headlam 2013;Pugalis/Bentley 2013). One recent critical account of LEP performance highlights how such concerns are the product of continuing internal tensions between centralism and localism, competition and collaboration, agility and "bureaucratisation and wider external challenges including state austerity, faltering growth and uncertain economic conditions in the short-and mediumterm" (Pike/Marlow/McCarthy et al 2015).…”

The role of civic leadership in fostering economic resilience in City Regions

“…The nature of civic leadership within the LEPs, in particular as a form of place leadership, is therefore a critical issue that ties together public-private agglomeration across territorial boundaries. LEPs have frequently recruited diverse boards and as such have been challenged on their effectiveness as nodal sites of social networks (Deas et al 2013). Liddle (2012, 53) describes the composition of LEPs as voluntaristic, pragmatic arrangements that encourage locally contingent solutions for localised problems.…”