2011 - sub-national development - pugalis

8/6/2019 2011 - Sub-National Development - Pugalis

1/19

1

Sub-national economic development: Where do we go from here?

Lee Pugalis, September 20101

Paper should be cited as:

Pugalis, L. (2011) 'Sub-national economic development: where do we go from here?',Journal

of Urban Regeneration and Renewal, 4 (3), pp. 255-268.

Abstract The UKs Liberal DemocratConservative (LibCon) Coalition Government has

been quickly dismantling New Labours policy framework since it gained political control inMay 2010. Contemplating how this transition might play out and the impact upon

regeneration policy, a preliminary map of the road from the incumbent English Regional

Development Agencies to myriad Local Enterprise Partnerships is sketched out. The analytic

interpretations are based on insights in the field over the past decade and grounded in policy

chatter. Reflecting on the importance of timing, resource availability and the policy vacuum

arising between localities and national government, attention is drawn to countless questions

that remain unanswered. Further, the LibCons sub-national economic policy architecture is

demonstrated as remaining very much work in progress. The paper highlights that the current

transitional period is likely to be disorderly and possibly ineffective: deconstruction is all

well and good if the alternative reconstructions offer added value, but the potential to lose out

is significant. While hope is expressed with a localism agenda which could potentially

empower localities to devise unique policy solutions administered by tailored spatial

configurations, it is cautioned that new spatio-institutional fixes may open up new issues

just as old ones are closed off. A policy story still being written, the analysis is of broader

international appeal. Consequently, those plying their trade outside England can reflect on

this and act accordingly the next time a new (and presumably better) policy innovation is

proposed.

Keywords:Sub-national governance, regeneration, economic policy, regional development

agencies and local enterprise partnerships

1Dr Lee Pugalis

Senior Lecturer Urban Theory and Practice, Northumbria University

Visiting Fellow, Global Urban Research Unit, Newcastle University

[email protected]
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


2/19

2

SETTING THE SCENE

Since the emergence of regional industrial policy in the 1930s, followed by an explicit urban

policy focus not long after, England has become a veritable laboratory for sub-national

economic policy innovations. Usually, this tends to involve reshuffling the pack of cards

resulting in variable spatial fixes and governance reworkings. It is therefore no surprise that

the UKs Liberal DemocratConservative (LibCon) Coalition Government has been quickly

dismantling New Labours policy framework since David Cameron (Conservative Party

Leader and now Prime Minister) and Nick Clegg (Liberal Democrat Leader and now Deputy

Prime Minister) shook on a deal in May 2010. On 22nd June, 2010, George Osborne, the

Chancellor of the Exchequer, set out his Emergency Budget with a five-year plan to rebuild

the British economy.1 The plan sets out tough action to tackle the public-sector budget deficit

and change the tax system, as well as measures to encourage enterprise and stimulate private-

sector-led economic prosperity. As a result, it is widely expected that regeneration over the

next decade will be more austere than it was under New Labours stewardship during the

previous decade.2

While the details are lacking at the time of writing (September 2010), and what little

has been publicised by Ministers has often been contradictory, the Budget formalised the

LibCons intent to replace the incumbent eight English Regional Development Agencies

(RDAs) outside London with myriad Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs).3 Paragraph 1.8 of

the Budget states that

[t]he Government will enable locally elected leaders, working with business, to lead local

economic development. As part of this change, [RDAs] will be abolished through the Public

Bodies Bill. A White Paper later in 2010 will set out details of these proposals. As part of

this, the Government will: support the creation of strong [LEPs], particularly those based

around Englands major cities and other natural economic areas, to enable improved

coordination of public and private investment in transport, housing, skills, regeneration and

otherareas of economic development.1

This briefest of statements was followed by a letter from Government, dated 29th June 2010,

inviting councils and business leaders to come together to consider how [they] wish to form[LEPs] enabling councils and business to replace the existing [RDAs].4


3/19

3

Guided by the objective to help strengthen local economies, LEPs are put forward

by the Coalition Government as the only key apparatus by which to reform sub-national

economic development. Penned by Vince Cable, Secretary of State for Business, Innovation

and Skills, and Eric Pickles, Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the

letter claims that Government is working with the [RDAs] to enable this transition:

[Government] are reviewing all the functions of the RDAs, surmising that some of these are

best led nationally, such as inward investment, sector leadership, responsibility for business

support, innovation, and access to finance. It can be contended, however, that, if all these

present RDA functions were centralised, this would significantly undermine the Coalitions

localism agenda, together with the ability of LEPs to influence their local economies.

In contemplating how the transition may play out, a preliminary map of the road from

RDAs to LEPs is sketched out. The analytic interpretations given are based on the authors

insights in the field over the past decade, including stints as a civil servant (at the then

Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and Government Office for London), quango employee

(representing One North East Regional Development Agency), researcher (based at

Newcastle University), and more recently a local government officer (serving Durham

County Council). Grounded in policy chatter influenced by and influencing blogs, news

stories and articles, alongside official although often contradictoryministerial

pronouncements and letters, departmental press releases and snippets of text in Government

publications, it is demonstrated that the LibCons sub-national economic policy architecture

remains very much work in progress. Though the analytical focus of this paper is spatially

specific to England, the policy story unfolding of economic space in transition is of wider

appeal. It is hoped that the international community of researchers, practitioners, policy

makers and academics can draw on these insights to help inform the scale, scope and pace of

economic policy transitions in other spatial contexts.

The remainder of the paper analyses Englands transitional sub-national economic

policy. In the next section, a brief background to the role and purpose of RDAs is provided as

their eventual downfall is analysed. The third section examines the intended function of

LEPs. In the fourth section, the previous analysis used to theorise the transition from RDAs

to LEPs is drawn upon. The paper concludes at a preliminary point with some final thoughts.


4/19

4

ONE-STOP SHOPS: THE ROLE OF ENGLISH REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT

AGENCIES

Conceived under a Labour Government, RDAs are non-departmental public bodies, or

quangos, set up under the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998 to facilitate regional

economic development (see Figure 1). Intended as strategic drivers of regional economic

growth, under the Act, each Agency has five statutory purposes, which are:

1. to further economic development and regeneration

2. to promote business efficiency, investment and competitiveness

3. to promote employment

4. to enhance the development and application of skills relevant to employment

5. to contribute to sustainable development.

These five duties were encapsulated in Regional Economic Strategies, which RDAs were

charged to produce on behalf of their respective regions.5 According to the UK Department

for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS)

The RDAs agenda includes regeneration, taking forward regional competitiveness, taking

the lead on inward investment and, working with regional partners, ensuring the development

of a skills action plan to ensure that skills training matches the needs of the labour market.6

Whitehall responsibility for sponsorship of the RDAs moved from the former Department for

the Environment, Transport and the Regions to the then Department for Trade and Industry in

2001, then to what was the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform from

2007, and now rests with BIS.

The RDAs have received funding through a Single Programme budget (known as the

single pot) since April 2002, which includes contributions from BIS, the Department of

Communities and Local Government (CLG), the Department for the Environment and Rural

Affairs, UK Trade and Investment, and the Department for Culture Media and Sport. Funding

support totalled 2.3bn for the nine RDAs in 200708, which has reduced to approximately

1.5bn per annum over the past couple of years and has been markedly eroded since the

Coalition entered power. The merry-go-round of departmental sponsors, together with a

diffuse collection of departmental fundersthe largest being CLGnecessitated RDA


5/19

5

flexibility, as they have had to adapt to new responsibilities such as a statutory planning

function.

Figure 1: Map of the UK distinguishing each of the English regions

Indeed, as Lord Mandelson, the then Business Secretary, began to play a lead role in

the remit of RDAs towards the end of Labours term in office through his industrial

activism brand of economic development,7 he declared:


6/19

6

Industrial activism has to be built on precise regional knowledge of what is needed in terms

of infrastructure, investment and training. I see the RDAs taking a leading role in this. Indeed

I believe it should now be their defining role. Driving a jobs and growth agenda with regional

partners, regeneration and infrastructure bodies, and, importantly, local authorities.8

The Labour Governments 2007 Review of sub-national economic development and

regeneration (SNR)911 and national Regeneration Framework in 200812 recognised the need

for RDAs to reprioritise their investments so as to maximise the impact of the single pot on

regional economies [and] ensure that investment in physical regeneration and business

investment complement each other and support the RDAs overarching economic growth

objective.13One only has to take a glance at each of the nine RDAs corporate plans,

investment priorities and plethora of strategies, to appreciate that they have an extensive

remit, but arguably of more interest is each RDAs spatially flavoured economic development

approach. Some have prioritised place quality enhancements and physical regeneration, while

others have looked to innovation or enterprise, which is reflected in the organisational

structures of each RDA, with some opting to use local delivery partners more than others.

But according to Vince Cable, a leading figure in the Coalition Government, RDA

performance has not only been unsatisfactory, but also wasteful,14 which accords with

recent critiques of hyperactive, fragmented and congested sub-national economic

governance.15 Nevertheless, in 2006 the National Audit Office adjudged some RDAs to be

performing stronglyoverall,16 and independent evaluation (of sorts) in 200917 concluded

that, for every 1 of RDA investment, there has been a return of at least 4.50 for regional

economies, which increases to 6.40 when longer-term economic benefits are considered.18

Even so, the writing was on the wall for RDAs when David Cameron proclaimed in May

2008 that [t]heres a very strong case, at least in parts of the country, that the RDAs should

go altogether, claiming many have been a disaster.19 The Coalition Government have

confirmed their intent, subject to legislation, to abolish RDAs by no later than March 2012,

with many expected to be wound up much sooner. Views from the field show that many

RDA employees are sitting around twiddling their thumbs, as central Government have

effectively curtailed the development of new economic programmes and regeneration

initiatives. In addition, many sub-regional soft policy spacesincluding city regions and

local economic partnershipsare well placed to hit the ground running, perhaps signalling

the demise of some RDAs well before 2012.


7/19

7

The Labour Governments national Regeneration Framework set out a revised role for

RDAs in 2009 including work[ing] with national, regional and sub regional partners to

deliver economic plans and investment which raise the sustainable economic growth of the

region and provide economic opportunities to people throughout the region, helping to

connect areas of need with areas of opportunity.13Further, they were expected to identify

the functional economic areas within the region that are the priority areas for regeneration.13

Nevertheless, the downfall of RDAs, as perceptively anticipated by some commentators,20

can be attributed in part to their unaccountability to local government; operating in effect as

arms of central Government. New Labours failure to implement elected Regional

Assemblies meant that the inception of business-led RDAs created a gaping democratic

deficit. Consequently, this new hub of power resting in the hands of a dozen or so private

sector individuals on the board of each RDA has often resulted in the marginalisation of local

priorities, viewpoints and needs. It can be argued that RDAsfollowing Labours SNR

policyhave tended to back winners: focusing investment in areas of opportunity, including

employment hubs and other choice places. Such an approach obviously has its benefits,

with supporters pointing towards economic competitiveness, while detractors draw attention

to social justice and environmental sustainability, for example.

Recently, and aligned with the demise of Labour and rise to power of the LibCons,

the political rhetoric has sensationally changed to the point where players in the game are

adapting their language in a manner not too dissimilar to the way in which chameleons adapt

their colour to blend in with their environment. But, will the transition from RDAs to as-yet-

undefined LEPs be worth it? Will ongoing policy fixes enable an enterprise surge or will the

regeneration successes over the last decade quickly rescind? These questions and other

emerging issues are considered in the remainder of the paper.

ABOLISHING BUREAUCRACY? LOCAL ENTERPRISE PARTNERSHIPS

As the 2010 CablePickles letter paves the way for local businesses and councils to work

together to develop their proposals for local enterprise partnerships before the set deadline of

6th September, 2010with additional policy guidance not expected to emerge from the

widely anticipated White Paper on sub-national economic growth until after the October 2010

Comprehensive Spending ReviewGovernment want to encourage a wide range of ideas

guided by some broad parameters covering:


8/19

8

role

governance

size

(see Figure 2 for a detailed breakdown of Government parameters and criteria).

Figure 2: Government parameters and criteria

While the letter was co-signed by Cable and Pickles; providing the impression of a

united front, noises of a turf warbetween the two figureheads and their respective

departments, continue to grow louder. The former is thought to see the benefits of retaining a

regional economic presence in the North and Midlands, whereas the latter is antipathetic to

anything regional (or indeed strategic, as many planners and developers would attest in

response to the hasty revocation of Regional Spatial Strategies).21,22 Despite the

Governments determination that the transition from the existing RDAs be orderly, working

to a cleartimetable, the Coalitions ad hoc policy pronouncements, to date, have arguably

been haphazard and ill-timed. Indeed, Pickles infamous letters are causing consternation upand down the country as he slavishly undoes CLG policy developed by the previous Labour


9/19

9

Government over more than a decade, with little consideration of legalities, practicalities and

consequences.

Following the revocation of regional strategic planning, and by implication housing

delivery targets in England, on 6th July, 2010, statutory planning has been left in a whirl of

confusion. Consequently, development uncertainty spirals as practitioners wait for the

appeals system to enter overdrive. Indeed, by 10th August, CALA Homes, a privately owned

house builder, made an application fora judicial review into Pickles decision to scrap

Regional Spatial Strategies. Believing the revocation of the regional planning framework to

be unlawful, CALA issued a statement asserting that as a

consequence of the Secretary of States decision, whether intended or not, has been to curtail

development in many areas including those where there is a clear need Without

consultation, transitional arrangements, or even a very clear idea of what the regime will look

like, there is now a policy vacuum. We are simply seeking to establish the legal framework

that we operate in.

From a practitioners perspective, the regional tier of policy and governance is perhaps best

described as a necessary evil: bureaucratic, cumbersome and at times appearing irrelevant at

the local level, it nevertheless provides a space to negotiate strategic decisions that transcend

local administrative boundaries and thus provide development certainty.

THE TRANSITION FROM RDAS TO LEPS

Contending that the transition period is likely to be anything but orderly, the remainder of this

paper sets out a preliminary map to navigate the road from RDAs to LEPs.

First, timing is paramount. With most RDAs set to stay operational (to lesser or

greater degrees) until March 2012, it is crucial that LEPs are up and running well in advance.

In economic policy circles, it is a widely held view that the rollout of LEPs will take place at

variable speeds. Some areas will be fortunate enough to build on existing partnership

collectivities, such as Multi Area Agreements or City Development Companies (CDCs),23

and therefore be able to establish LEPs reasonably quickly. At the opposite end of thespectrum, however, some areas may not have the same level of trust among partners or a


10/19

10

limited history of cross-boundary and cross-sector cooperation. In these cases, instituting

LEPs is likely to take much longer, and it may take several years until they are fully

operational in the sense of transforming local economies. Coordinating the rollout of one sub-

national economic entity with the rollback of another would provide the option for key skills

to be retained as RDA staff are transferred to LEPs or nationally led programmes. A

mismatch of timings would not only threaten the livelihood of thousands of regeneration

practitioners, but also put in severe jeopardy the economic future of those fragile

communities they are tasked with supporting.

Another key transfer would involve RDA assetsin the form of arms-length

companies, joint venture arrangements, land holdings, property and development options

to LEPs or alternative bodies, such as local authorities. As Osbornes Budget took an axe to

capital spending (with most departmental budgets anticipated to operate with at least 25 per

cent fewer resources over the medium-term financial planning period), an asset-led approach

to regeneration is likely to be one of the few deliverable options open to LEPs. Sweating

local authority and other public-sector assets is a tactic that many English councils have

become accustomed to over the past few years. Yet this asset-driven approach has often

involved the expertise and resources of RDAs. Government pronouncements that the

transition will be smooth appear unlikely. If the LibCon Coalition decides to cash in onRDA assets as a short-term strategy to ease the budget deficit, it may well result in significant

delays to long-term regeneration schemes underpinning the revival of depressed local

economies. With a dearth of investors, and development financing almost impossible to

obtain without pre-lets, the stalling and mothballing of complex urban regeneration projects

would struggle to regain development momentum. Against a background of fiscal austerity

and private-sector conservatism, it would not be so surprising if many of the flagship

regeneration initiatives championed (and financially backed) by RDAs fell off the delivery

cliff.

Despite the best wishes of the Coalition Government for an orderly transition which

maintains the momentum of delivery,6 it has been argued24 that this latest round of

institutional upheaval is an example of the untoward British vices of short-termism and

masking centralisation as decentralisation. Drawing on international exemplars, such as the

Ministry of International Trade and Industry in Japan, the German Fraunhofer Institutes and

Sitra, the Finnish innovation fund, it is asserted that institutions require time to develop and

make a positive impact. Perpetual restructuring, akin to musical chairs, tends to paralyse the


11/19

11

whole system, by creating uncertainty about who will be left standing when the game of

musical chairs comes to an end.24 As a result, time and resources are disproportionately

expended on navigating transitional spaces, different governance networks and grappling new

policies, procedures and institutional rules. It is further suggested that the only winners in this

perverse game are the army of highly paid consultants, who in the authors experience often

ask you for your watch in order to tell youthe time.

As new organisations are constituted, new forums convened, new relationships

negotiated, new skills acquired and new funding competed for, what will happen to the task

at hand? Continuous tinkering is an unwelcome distraction from the central task of

supporting businesses and regenerating communities. At the same time, ongoing institutional

upheavals can result in the loss of tacit knowledge,25 local political nous,26 institutional

capacity and expertise. Consequently, nine times out of ten the costs of transition outweigh

these modest gains.24 It could be suggested that the reconfiguration of sub-national economic

governance, thereby producing a transitional economic space, is an unwritten policy ploy of

the LibCons. Focusing attention on governance aspects, strategies and process issues over

the next few years may be an ideal way of concealing the colossal reductions in regeneration

resources.

Secondly, the laudable role of LEPs must be supported with a reasonable level of

resources. Different versions of the CablePickles letter relating to the matter of single

running costs have obscured the picture.27 Regardless, the issue of quotidian operational costs

will be incidental if the finance (including lending powers) is not in place to deliver economic

regeneration support initiatives. While aspects of the LibCons Big Society and localism

agendaswhich seek to return responsibilities to localities and their communitiesare

laudable, if perhaps a little impractical, new powers and responsibilities for councils via LEPs

will be almost futile without the financial resources and instruments to deliver. Likewise,

LEPs with limited financial muscle will struggle to maintain proactive private-sector

commitment. Interest and activity relate fundamentally to the supply of money: when the

stream of money dries up, the dynamic input of private-sector entrepreneurs can (sadly)

wane, as their attendance clearly tends to fall off when agendas lack actions. Resignation of

business members from LEPs is to be expected when bureaucracy gets in the way of

business.

The fleetingly mentioned Regional Growth Fund (RGF), trailed as a 1.4bn pot of

cash available for private- and public-sector bodies to bid for funding, which will run initially


12/19

12

from 2011 to 2014, is a fraction of the resources that the previous Labour Government

committed to RDAs.28 Excluding separate funding arrangements for housing and transport,

the RGF is likely to be the principal means of accessing funds for sub-national economic

interventions.29 But, the extent to which a national economic fund, of less than 500m per

annum, is likely to achieve the Coalitions lofty objective of a rebalanced economy remains

an open question. Considering that Whitehall departments, local authorities and the quangos

that do survivesuch as the Homes and Communities Agencyare bracing themselves

for severe budget reductions over the next four years (and possibly longer), it might be

cautioned that savage public service cuts together with devastated regeneration initiatives

may trigger what economists refer to as a double dip recession. If such a double dip does

not materialise, it remains probable that marginal places will suffer disproportionately.

Consequently, the present author would concur with other commentators, such as Coaffee,2

that regeneration interventions over the next decade will be more focused (and might be

added financially constrained), and hope that his conjecture that activities are likely to

concentrate on areas of acute poverty with investment strategies following the path of

greatest need rings true. It is doubtful, however, that social justice ideals will usurp

neoliberal opportunism: when it comes to the crunch, funding decisions are usually swayed

by the extent of private-sector leverage.30

LibCon rhetoric that the public sector needs to retract from an interventionist role in

order to release the business community to lead an economic recovery may have some merit

in those places underpinned by a relatively buoyant private sector. For the rest of the country,

however, the areas of need and public-sector dependence, outlying the places of (investment)

choice and opportunity, including much of Northern England and the Midlands, there is a

danger that the progress made over the previous decade up until the credit crunch will rapidly

recoil.31,32 In its place may not be a flurry of private enterprise envisaged by the Coalition, but

instead, former public-sector workers (including regeneration practitioners) adding to the

nations unemployment register, as talent is, in effect, wasted. Slavishly reducing

regeneration resources for those places most in need, and in turn where the private sector

refuses to invest, is akin to robbing Peter to pay Paul: savings made through regeneration

funding cuts are likely to be soaked up by increased demand for health and welfare support. It

is probable that the rollout of this type of sub-national economic policy will exacerbate

unequal places in cities,33 as well as between regions.


13/19

13

Thirdly, a cavernous policy vacuum is expanding between localities and the national

level. It appears that, with the Coalitions fixation on eradicating anything with the mere

name regional in its remit, they have become ideologically blinded to the reality that the

English regions provide a pragmatic spatial scale for bridging the nationallocal divide. To

demonstrate this point, an indicative map of how the geography of LEPs may look, based on

just fewer than 60 initial submissions to Government, is shown in Figure 3. Yet the map

shown here comes with the caveat that things have already changed in a number of areas and

are expected to change considerably over future months. Also, the map fails to demonstrate

adequately the complex picture relating to lower-tier district councils, some of which are

proposing to be members of LEPs that cover a unitary authority outside their own upper-tier

authority. There were also rival bids submitted to Government, with the spatial reach of some

propositions not correlating with their signatories or supporting organisations. A recent

structured review of50 of the outlineproposals found that approaching 70 [local authority

districts] were included within two submissions and four seemed to feature within three.34

While it remains highly unlikely that Government will endorse and seek to progress a high

proportion of these initial propositions, it would be reasonable to surmise that the geography

of sub-national economic policy, governance and delivery looks set for a radical

transformation. With a conservative estimate suggesting that 2530 LEPs could eventually

replace the eight RDAs outside London, a key question is how London-based ministerial

departments could feasibly engage with each LEP on an individual basis?

Without some form of strategic economic body to negotiate the policy space in-

between, the spatial particularities of LEPs, outside the big hitters organised around a core

city, such as Birmingham or Manchester,35 may struggle to make their voices heard in

Whitehall policy circles. Notwithstanding the limitations of regional administrative areas in

providing the ideal spatial fix for the delivery of all sub-national policy, strategically focused

regional bodies would help in coordinating the activity of LEPs, facilitating cross-boundary

cooperation, the management of some programmes, including the intricate administration of

the European Regional Development Fund, and could even assume responsibility for

significant strategic projects (unworkable at smaller or larger spatial scales). Accordingly,

there is a case for retaining a small body of public-sector officers in regions to provide a

minimum of intelligent coordination for the areas further in travel time from London. If on

that basis the southern regions did not claim this need, the Government would be entitled to

implement a distinction between North and South.


14/19

14

Figure 3: An indicative map of the geography of LEPs


15/19

15

FINAL THOUGHTS AT A PRELIMINARY POINT

Since the Coalition Governments recent announcement to abolish democratically

unaccountable RDAs and establish joint local authority-business-led LEPs to promote

economic development, there has been a spate of activity as stakeholders, or perhaps more

precisely stakeholders frequently led by councils, decide which neighbours they would like to

collaborate with under the auspices of a LEP. As a means to navigate the road from RDAs to

LEPs, a preliminary map of how the space of transition may play out in policy and practice

has been provided. Based on official although often contradictoryministerial

pronouncements and letters, departmental press releases and snippets of text in publications

such as the Budget Report in June 2010,1 combined with blogs, news stories, articles and,

most importantly, policy chatter, it has been demonstrated that the transitional period is likely

to be disorderly and potentially chaotic. The paper has also illuminated how such policy

turmoil and governance reconfigurations may possibly be ineffective. Reflecting on the

importance of timing, resource availability and the policy vacuum arising between localities

and national government, to state that the English regeneration sector eagerly anticipates the

policy guidance due to be set out in the forthcoming White Paper on local growth is a

sizeable understatement.

Countless questions remain over the transitional process. Does the Government have a

specific blueprint for LEPs in mind, and what powers and flexibilities might LEPs be

granted? Will LEPs be loose associations of local authorities and businesses or will they

require a legal personality? Is it realistic for LEPs to reflect natural economic areas when

their geographical building blocks will be administrative districts? In addition, how long will

it take to set up LEPs and get them functioning as effective economic leadership vehicles?

When established, will the boards of LEPs be composed of the usual suspects? Alternatively,

is democratic accountability and business leadership a recipe for disaster? Might governanceissues and institutional reconfigurations distract attention from on the ground economic

interventions? On the aspect of funding, will the RDAs Single Programme be subsumed into

the RGF? Further, how will succession planning be carried forward and in what ways may

noteworthy RDA successes provide a positive legacy for successor bodies? In terms of multi-

level governance and coordination across multiple spatial scales, how will nationally led

economic programmes interact with LEPs and other local initiatives? Indeed, does such an

approach run the risk of contradicting the localism agenda? Only time will tell. At this

juncture, however, there must be some scepticism that the Coalition Government possesses


16/19

16

the majority of the answers. While the LibCons have been steadfast in denouncing the

effectiveness of New Labours RDAs as part of their media savvy bonfire of the quangos,

alternative sub-national economic policy architecture remains very much work in progress.

Deconstruction is all well and good if the alternative reconstructions offer added value.

Critics suggest, however, that a slight reshuffle of the same pack of cards is merely

economic development on the cheap a no-frills version of the economic policy of the past

decade.36 If this is so, improvements remain ambiguous, but the potential to lose out is

significant. Not least for any place on the periphery of a LEP boards spatio-economic

priorities, or worse still, for any local authority left out of the LEP equation. As England is

immersed in this space of transition, against a backdrop of austerity measures, there is a

genuine threat that regeneration will fall off a cliff.

Let us hope that the LibCons stay true to their localism philosophy, which would put

the onus on localities (including all those with a stake in their local economy) to devise

unique policy solutions administered by tailored spatial governance configurations. If this

proves to be the case, the abolition of RDAs may actually turn out to be a much more subtle

transformation in some regions, if local views determine that a strategic economic body at the

regional scale is still desired. Views on the ground in the North East of England,37 together

with other regions across the North and Midlands, would indicate that this is the case. It is

perhaps appropriate to end with a note of caution; suggesting that old wine in new bottles

may not necessarily result in economic improvements. Indeed, new spatial and institutional

fixes may open up new issues just as old ones are closed off. Maybe those plying their trade

outside England can reflect on this and act accordingly the next time a new (and presumably

better) policy innovation is proposed.

Notes and References

1. HM Treasury (2010), Budget2010, The Stationery Office, London.

2. Coaffee, J. (2010), Editorial: Learning from the successes and failures of regeneration

in the 2000s,Journal of Urban Regeneration and Renewal, Vol. 3, pp. 337338.

3. Separate arrangements will apply in London, where discussions are currently under way

with the Mayor of London concerning decentralisation, particularly in the context of the

abolition of the Government Office for London.


17/19

17

4. The letter is available at

http://www.parliament.uk/deposits/depositedpapers/2010/DEP20101363.pdf, last

accessed on 2nd July, 2010.

5. For a more detailed discussion of the role and remit of RDAs, see Pearce, G., and Ayres,

S. (2009), Governance in the English Regions: The role of the Regional Development

Agencies, Urban Studies, Vol. 46, No. 3, pp. 537557, and Pugalis, L. (2010),

Looking back in order to move forward: the politics of evolving sub-national economic

policy architecture.Local Economy, Vol. 25, No. 5-6, pp. 462-471.

6. Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (2010), Englands Regional

Development Agencies, available at http://www.bis.gov.uk/policies/regional-economic-

development/englands-regional-development-agencies, last accessed on 15th July, 2010.

7. Mandelsonsindustrial activism brand of economic development is focused on

developing sectoral strengths such as high-tech manufacturing, the automotive industry,

aerospace and biosciences.

8. Mandelson, P. (2009), Putting regions at the heart of industrial activism,Journal of the

Institution of Economic Development, Vol. 108, May, p. 11.

9. HM Treasury (2007), Review of sub-national economic development and regeneration,

HMSO, London.10. Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform and Department of

Communities and Local Government (2008), Prosperousplaces: Taking forward the

review of Sub-National Economic Development and Regeneration, The Stationery

Office, London.

11. Hildreth, P. (2009), Understanding new regional policy: What is behind the

governments sub-national economic development and regeneration policy for

England?,Journal of Urban Regeneration and Renewal, Vol. 2, pp. 318336.

12. Department of Communities and Local Government (2008), Transforming places;

changing lives: A framework for regeneration, The Stationery Office, London.

13. Department of Communities and Local Government (2009), Transformingplaces;

changing lives: Taking forward the Regeneration Framework, The Stationery Office,

London.

14. Finch, D. (2010), Vince Cable on RDAs, Centre for Cities Blog, available at

http://centreforcities.typepad.com/centre_for_cities/2010/06/page/2/, last accessed on

25th July, 2010.


18/19

18

15. Catney, P. et al. (2008), Hyperactive governance in the Thames Gateway,Journal of

Urban Regeneration and Renewal, Vol. 2, pp. 124145.

16. National Audit Office (2006), Independentperformance assessment: One NorthEast

Development Agency, National Audit Office, London.

17. See, for example, Larkin, K. (2009), Regional Development Agencies: The facts,

Centre for Cities, London, who suggests that some of the project evaluations that the

meta-evaluation used are unlikely to be objective and impartial.

18. PriceWaterhouseCoopers (2008), Impact of RDA spending National report

Volume 1Main Report, Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory

Reform, London.

19. Hayman, A. (2008), Cameron: We would strip RDAs of their powers,Regeneration &

Renewal, 16th May.

20. Deas, I. and Ward, K.G. (1999), The song has ended but the melody lingers: Regional

development agencies and the lessons of the Urban development corporation

experiment,Local Economy, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp. 114132.

21. Pugalis, L., and Townsend, A. (2010), Can LEPs fill the strategic void?,Town &

Country PlanningVol. 79, No. 9, pp. 382387.

22. The letter is available at

http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/1631904.pdf, last

accessed 6th July, 2010.

23. See, for example, Gulliver, S. (2008), The City Development Company model: The

implications for economic development,Journal of Urban Regeneration and Renewal

Vol. 1, pp. 286296.

24. Mulgan, G. (2010), RDA demise,Regeneration & Renewal, 12th July.

25. Peck, F., Bell, F. and Black, L.(2010), Addressing the skills gap in regeneration and

economic development in Cumbria,Journal of Urban Regeneration and Renewal, Vol.

4, pp. 7689.

26. Rowe, M. and Ashworth, C. (2010), Let a hundred flowers bloom: Enhancing

innovative practice in regeneration management,Journal of Urban Regeneration and

Renewal, Vol. 4, pp. 9099.

27. The original CablePickles letter indicated that no national government resources would

be available to support the day to day operation of LEPs, but a revised version suggests

that this may not necessarily be the case.

28. The RDAs combined budget was 2.3bn in 200708 and just over 1.4bn in 201011.


19/19

19

29. The labyrinth of New Labours (relatively well resourced) economic regeneration

programmes, including the Local Enterprise Growth Initiative and Working

Neighbourhoods Fund, are expected to be abolished, cut or absorbed into the new

regional super fund.

30. See, for example, the criteria identified in Department for Business, Innovation and

Skills(2010), Consultation on the Regional Growth Fund, The Stationery Office,

London.

31. Parkinson, M. et al. (2010), The credit crunch, recession and regeneration in the North:

Whats Happening, Whats working, whats next?, The Northern Way, Newcastle.

32. Parkinson, M. (2009), Guest Editorial: The credit crunch and regeneration,Journal of

Urban Regeneration and Renewal, Vol. 3, pp. 115119.

33. Cooper, M. and Shaheen, F. (2008), Winning the battles but losing the war?

Regeneration, renewal and the state of Britains cities,Journal of Urban Regeneration

and Renewal, Vol. 2, pp. 146151.

34. SQW (2010), Local Enterprise Partnerships: A new era begins?, SQW, London.

35. Dermot Finch suggests that some LEPs, such as Greater Manchester will no doubt be

front of the queue, asking (and getting) more than most other areas. That suggests LEPs

will proceed at different speedswhich is fine with us:Finch, D. (2010), LEPs a

new acronym is born, Centre for Cities Blog, 15th July.

36. Larkin, K. (2010), Regions after RDAs, Public Finance Blog, 1st July.

37. The Association of North East Councils and the Northern Business Forum have been

collaborating to make a case for a regional strategic economic body, known as the North

East Economic Partnership.

2011 - sub-national development - pugalis

Documents