Localism needs a region
Localism needs to recognise that we do need some regional function/element. The regional development agencies and by association the notion of a regional tier of governance have been taking some flak in recent weeks.
It is now clear that both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats believe the RDAs need to be abolished. To date, the debate has largely been about form – the institution of RDAs. However, we desperately need a debate about function and what a localist agenda needs the regional function to do.
We are all localists now. Instigated by New Labour, driven through in policy and championed by the New Local Government Network in the mid-noughties, it has now been wholeheartedly embraced by the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats. Indeed, it is right that more power and resources needs to be channelled through local authorities and groups of local authorities. However, this should not mean that there should be no regional function or institution whatsoever.
Around the world, all successful economies, countries and places have a functioning regional entity, either in the form of federal elected regional institution or through some regional development institution or quango. This happens regardless of political ideology. It is a factor in creating successful local places and a regional tier mediates the forces of economic globalisation, and the centralising supra national or central state.
In simple terms a regional tier does three things. Firstly, it creates a long-term economic strategy for a region which allows for long-term prioritisation above local short-term political time frames and decisions. In this, planning for 15 or 20 years can come into play. It creates a context for continuity, which investors or generations of living, working and bringing up a family in a local place requires.
Secondly, it creates a set of priorities for action which all localities within a region can benefit from. Transport infrastructure, coastal planning and dealing with climate change require scales which move beyond the local to a region, national and global. Thirdly, it creates a regional frame for central decisions. It provides scale to decision making, between the centre and the local, which is helpful, in terms of a first stage in redistribution of central resources and activity.
There may well be something wrong with the regional governance we have. Times have changed since 1997 and these new economic terms may need different regional functions and – yes, institutional forms may need to be looked at. However, starting the debate by shouting about getting rid of the RDAs has the effect of closing the argument down and stifling the debate on what function we need at the regional tier. This is a debate about form getting ahead of the real debate which should be about function.
To simply get rid of the form, before we have a proper debate about function, could create instability in these hard times, threaten the increases in local power or, even worse, result in lots of time and energy in reinventing regional governance which does much the same as we already have. Real localism needs a region!
Posted on Thursday, 1st October 2009 | This entry has 6 comments
Linda Duggan | Friday, 2nd October 2009 | 09:42 AM
One of the significant drawbacks to regional organisations is a proven lack of flexibility to collaborate across boundaries. I’ve seen this happening extensively where neighbouring RDAs and other quangos refusing to as they see it as ‘giving up’ bits of budget to projects on the borders because the benefits might support the neighbouring region more than theirs. This performance anxiety and competitiveness between regions has always been unhelpful for communities on the borders - I’m in strong support of disaggregating function.
Neil McInroy | Friday, 2nd October 2009 | 12:24 PM
Thanks Linda,
This is exactly the kind of sophisticated insight which the debate needs. Your comment is focussing on function and starts a consderation of how much disaggregation of the regional function is required. I hope we get a lot more comments like this and help/develop the existing stark political debate.
cyberdoyle | Monday, 5th October 2009 | 03:19 PM
I don’t know why we need all these quangos. Surely we already have county, town and parish councils. Can’t they do the job? Too many cooks dipping into the broth and getting paid well. When our community asks either for help we are told to go to the other. Eventually we always end up at business link who then say they can’t help us. If we had vibrant councils without politics we could really get this country going, with assistance going where the grassroots people know it will do most good.
John Hitchin | Monday, 5th October 2009 | 04:15 PM
I take the points about duplication across different levels of governance, but there are certain issues that need to be addressed at different spatial levels. If you work in a neighbourhood or a small community, the issue is about delivery methods and local connectivity to service provision. At borough level or county level or regional level then there are different questions. Every level of governance that creates a boundary, creates the problems that Linda highlights. What we need is a more precise understanding of what each level should do. I agree with the tenor of the blog, let’s not throw out RDAs when we know that there are public policy questions that need to be answered at regional level. Let’s just make sure that every level is not looking at the same questions, but rather is dealing with the right issue for their spatial scale, and is effectively connected to those levels above and below it.
cyberdoyle | Monday, 5th October 2009 | 07:20 PM
I think the RDAs are dealing with the issues for their spatial scale.= Big business and increasing the GDP for their region.
All this means small communities and SMEs, SOHOs and little charities don’t get any support, unless it is business advice via business link. The bright ideas and innovation aren’t supported, as funding gets diverted to ‘easier’ projects for the silo thinkers.
Maybe just talking about it like this will raise awareness. Or maybe we are in an empty room. Who knows… its always worth a shot though.
Neil McInroy | Tuesday, 6th October 2009 | 10:45 AM
I think we do need more powers, resources etc at smaller scales as cyberdoyle suggests. And John’s reply is considered and correct. The whole debate cannot be about just a ‘smaller state’, and cutting away at scales. It needs a reconsideration of what each scale does. Failure to do this will probably mean just more centralisation.