The economics behind the move to 'localism' in England

Abstract

This paper explores the economic thinking behind the UK Coalition Government's new framework for achieving local growth and the creation of Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) in England. While the government's Local Growth paper sets out ambitions to achieve greater spatial and industrial balance across England (and by implication the UK), in practice there are competing economic ideas in circulation within government which have influenced the 'base' to policy in different ways. A 'space-neutral' approach has influenced the proposed approach to planning in the National Planning Policy Framework, while variants of the New Economic Geography and recent Place-Based Approaches can be seen as having an impact in terms of documents such as Cities with its proposals for decentralisation. While recognising that policy is still evolving, we argue that so far at least there is a mismatch between the 'rhetoric' and 'policies' of local growth and its limitations in practice, due to inconsistencies in the way that different economic ideas have been adopted in practice. As a result, the paper highlights six key disconnects and limitations of the economics behind the move to LEPs. In particular, it argues that the resulting 'bottom up' configuration of LEPs can be criticised -just as Regional Development Agencies were -as having inappropriate boundaries and scales.Moreover, quite how the 'duty to cooperate' is to be enforced is far from clear: just how will stronger places be incentive to cooperate with weaker places? Overall, how far the government goes in addressing issues of powers, resources and governance arrangements will to a large extent determine to what extent the policy 'base' is actually place-based in practice.

Place-based economic development strategy in England: Filling the missing space

“…Manchester and Leeds in relation to urban renaissance and Leicester in energy management) (e.g. see Hildreth, 2013;Hildreth and Bailey, 2013).…”

“…In government, the long-standing neo-classical economic framework reinforces the dominance of a spaceneutral perspective that is clouded in an apparently place-based rhetoric (Hildreth, 2009;Hildreth and Bailey, 2013;Froud et al, 2011a (Froud et al, 2011a). For these reasons, the reform of the national, particularly to develop a more holistic understanding of sub-national places and offer a strategic framework that leads and incentives stronger trusting relationships with the local, may therefore be a key factor to a place-based approach being developed in England.…”

“…Linked to this, there is the risk that local elites may capture policy and funding for their own benefit, so exogenous challenge is required. Second, outside the larger city-regions, LEPs commonly lack appropriate geography (Hildreth and Bailey, 2013;Heseltine, 2012). Third, there remains the absence of effective MLG, offering mature and trusting relationships between the national and the local.…”

Leadership and systems of governance: the constraints on the scope for leadership of place-based development in sub-national territories

“…Nevertheless, the narrative of local freedoms was significantly negated by the less publicized, but decisively important, acts of recentralization. Matters relating to trade and investment, innovation, venture capital, sector support and business support were passed from the RDAs to be managed mainly by the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills and its subsidiary organisations or Quangos (HILDRETH and BAILEY, 2013).…”

From Provider to Enabler of Care? Reconfiguring Local Authority Support for Older People and Carers in Leeds, 2008 to 2013

“…Local-regional economic and social planning and investment arrangements were also changed, via the Public Bodies Act 2011, which abolished the English Regional Development Agencies (RDAs), including Yorkshire Forward, based in Leeds. The new Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs), which replaced RDAs (focused on the Leeds City Region in Leeds), had a stronger emphasis on economic than on social issues (Bentley, Bailey, & Shutt, 2010;Hildreth & Bailey, 2013).…”