Pragmatic localism uncovered: The search for locally contingent solutions to national reform agendas

Abstract

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.

Progressive localism and the construction of political alternatives

“…When Labour came into power in 1997, this new government accepted much of the neoliberal agenda established by its predecessors, but argued that localism required a more coordinated approach through partnerships between the public and private sector. While successive initiatives institutionalised the community as a key subject of governance (see, for example, Department for Communities and Local Government 2008; Social Exclusion Unit 2001), these were accompanied by prescriptive national policy guidance and targets (Coaffee and Hedman 2008). This contradiction reflects the subordinate position of localism within processes of ‘roll‐out’ neoliberalism under Labour, involving active state‐building and regulatory reform (Hall 2011; Peck and Tickell 2002, 389).…”

Locality and localism: a view from British Human Geography

“…Problems may have sometimes been viewed as complex, to be solved by locally contingent solutions, born of local experience and creativity, but this "pragmatic localism" was overshadowed by New Labour's centralising tendencies (Coaffee and Headlam 2008). Official terms to describe the resulting political fix were 'constrained discretion' and 'earned autonomy' -where power was devolved to Local Authorities, only once they had met centrally-determined goals and standards.…”

Local strategic partnerships: a panacea for voluntary interest groups to promote local environmental sustainability? The UK context

“…Although voluntary groups have had a signifi cant role within LSPs through their statutory involvement in signing Local Area Agreements off with regional government through statements of community involvement (ODPM, 2005, p. 8), environmental sustainability has fi gured less in Local Area Agreements (LAAs). Some literature has highlighted how central government has attempted to encourage local authorities and LSPs to set specifi c targets implicit under the genre of sustainable development, such as healthy, safer and stronger communities (Coaffee and Headlam, 2008) and climate change (Eadson, 2008). However, the methods and monitoring used in the process have been brought into question by the very same authors (Coaffee and Headlam, 2008;Eadson, 2008).…”

“…Some literature has highlighted how central government has attempted to encourage local authorities and LSPs to set specifi c targets implicit under the genre of sustainable development, such as healthy, safer and stronger communities (Coaffee and Headlam, 2008) and climate change (Eadson, 2008). However, the methods and monitoring used in the process have been brought into question by the very same authors (Coaffee and Headlam, 2008;Eadson, 2008). In short, LAAs have tended to prioritize socio-economic discourses through local service provision, suggesting that, since LA 21, environmental discourses have featured less in LSPs.…”

“…For example, the 2005 UK sustainable development strategy, Securing the Future, describes climate change as the 'greatest threat' (DEFRA, 2005, p. 72). Hence, one would expect it to fi gure highly within sub-national policy agendas and shows how local sustainable development policy outcomes are pragmatic (Coaffee and Headlam, 2008) and highly contingent upon national policy priorities (Counsell and Haughton, 2006). So, although all aspects of sustainable development (social, economic and environmental) are supposed to be embedded within the practices of LSPs, as expressed through national guidance (DETR, 1999, section 1;OPSI, 2000, ch.…”