Abstract
The decline of the regionalist era and introduction of localism has set a number of emerging issues for economic development at the local level. Amongst the spatial, organisational and functional challenges facing local government a prevalent one is re-engineering a local development trajectory to represent this new environment. The dissolution of the regional governance hierarchy alongside a fundamental shift in aspirations for economic shape and structure has forced localities to reconsider approaches to both economic development and spatial economy. Using an action-based case study of the Borough of Poole, a coastal conurbation in Southern England, this article looks at the local response in revising the economic development strategy through a contextual benchmarking approach. It proposes an alternative method to adopt in developing local strategy contributing toward questions on defining spatial economy, integrating local context and actors, and adapting to a wider set of structural and fiscal issues.
Keywords
Introduction
Economic governance across England has undergone a major structural transformation since 2010. Under the guidance of the Coalition this has dissolved a whole tier of governance in the Regional Development Agencies (RDAs). In their place have emerged Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs), the new government’s landmark governance vehicle.
LEPs are argued as representing a functional and ideological shift in economic governance. Fundamental to this has been reintegrating a range of actors, state and non-state, in strategic and operational capacities. Whilst the rhetoric of localism has focused on reintroducing the private sector and local communities as direct policy influences, this has also enhanced local government (LG) as an agent of economic development (ED).
Across the sub-national ED landscape, LG is a consistent actor as both custodian of policy and delivery agent. Amongst its roles and responsibilities a key part has been developing and owning an economic strategy, involving interpretation of place and priorities, establishment of multi-organisation partnerships, and coordination within a wider set of sub-regional and regional territories. Localism has presented new challenges for LG in formulating and executing this strategy with the removal of a tier of policy guidance, a set of controlling management frameworks, and a hierarchical machinery of government enforcing national and centralist priorities. In its place has emerged policy rhetoric of localism and rebalancing the economy. This shift has similarly revised interpretations of spatial economy through contesting established political-economic units and demanding governance conform to functional economic space. This has transformed the landscape of the local economic strategy and many have become spatially and functionally redundant. The push for growth may be consistent between regionalism and localism, but its integration with a more robust form of locally defined or contextual aspiration and collective ownership requires local strategy to undergo significant revision.
This article is based on professional experience gained by the author whilst working for the Borough of Poole as Senior Economic Development Officer. During my tenure I was tasked with reviewing service priorities and revising these in line with the new policy direction of the Coalition. Using this action-based case study I will suggest an approach which may be adopted in refining local economic strategy for the post-regionalist era. I will begin by discussing the changing role of LG in ED, of the economic strategy, and the key political-economic influences. This will be contextualised through a critical analysis of the extant economic strategy for Poole before discussing the process undertaken in revising the local economic strategy using a contextual benchmarking approach. This will focus on a process devised to resituate local economic strategy both spatially and functionally via key areas of defining local vision, adopting comparators, identifying developmental opportunities, and interpreting spatial economy.
Defining the new rhetoric of place: The ‘local’ economy
Upon commencing its tenure in office, the Coalition was swift to dissolve the RDAs. This made a clear statement of intent to remove the legacy of New Labour’s big state and adopt a different approach to channelling resource and investment through reintegrating localities and market actors.
This rhetoric substantially revised LG’s role in both its remit for economic development and more general service provision. As such, significant organisational, structural, and strategic questions have been asked linking issues of localism, policy ownership, community integration, and austerity. New interpretations of spatial economy have raised questions around the role localities play within a new form of sub-national unit, whilst a functional shift expects LG to closely collaborate with private sector and community groups.
In this section I will look at how this spatial and functional shift has transformed the sub-national state during and after the regionalist era. I will discuss the repositioning of LG in this transformation and within it the changing role of ED services. Finally I will look at the legacy of the regionalist era through the local economic strategy and its relevance under localism.
The relational-functional shift
The LEP project marks a distinct approach to the interpretation of spatial economy and its governance arrangements. In place of reliance on a state hierarchy shaping regional space and cajoling market actors, the Coalition introduced rhetoric of unfettering localities from Westminster to address regionalism’s legacy of uneven territorial expression (Jones and MacLeod, 2004).
This has focused on shifts in three critical areas. First, it incorporated the private sector more directly into economic governance. Moving beyond their role as policy influencers, LEPs position firms pivotally as both strategic brains and accountable co-owners. Second, the introduction of greater local autonomy has diverted from a restrictive and unrealistic economic trajectory based around homogenised growth. This has seen the eradication of some central controlling mechanisms including a strategy and policy chain linking local priorities to regional and national agendas and performance management tools. This opens the third critical area, where localities, released from enforced regional space, are exposed to a spatial self-determinism. The policy language of Functional Economic Areas (FEAs) has challenged orthodox association between political administrative units and economic areas, instead conforming to a more relational territorial distinction (Jonas, 2012).
Rather than a significant shift between the state-led agenda of regionalism and the devolution of localism (Pugalis and Townsend, 2012), this transition has been an organic process slowly evolving sub-national governance. Localism’s spatial approach has encouraged localities to look beyond formal administrative territory toward a set of networks and flows (Allen and Cochrane, 2007; Amin, 2004; Castells, 1996), applying the logic of the FEA (Fox and Kumar, 1994) in particular around the dominant core-periphery model (Martin and Sunley, 2011). The regional governance model looked to enhance collaboration between the state, economic actors, and civil society in response to the demands of contemporary capitalism and a globalised economy (see Brenner, 2004; Storper, 1997). Consolidating these interests, the regional represented a scale of activity enhancing economic competitiveness via knowledge creation, learning, and innovation, whilst reducing democratic deficit through participatory politics (Jones, 2001). As this evolved, a more detailed landscape of layered governance emerged with units further sub-divided pursuing a natural equilibrium; this included fragmenting administrative areas with city-regions to capitalise on the role of cities as engines of the economy (Florida 2008; Hall, 2003; Jacobs, 1969).
Rather than dissolving this congested landscape of sub-national governance localism has cherry-picked and extended a model already in emergence. Within this it has maintained the relational rhetoric of the city/city-region as driver of growth through the Cities Policy Unit and City Deal (HM Government, 2011); away from these the landscape of sub-national governance shows strong correlation with incumbent territories. The relationship between these new formations of space and FEA is only partially answered by localism (Townsend, 2012).
A similar slow evolution in state functionality has seen shifting modes of utilising the private sector as a policy actor. As such, politics has expanded its set of institutions and organisations to incorporate interactive contributors in policy formulation and delivery (Gomart and Hajer, 2003). Rather than simply representing direct government activity, governance has become a participative process using local context and actors to identify priorities and deploy collective resource (Goss, 2001). This functional shift has seen partnership the preferred mode of practice through consolidating and maximising resources, reducing democratic deficit, and steering actions (MacLeod and Goodwin, 1999), extending from public or quasi-public organisations to incorporate community and voluntary sector around Local Strategic Partnerships (LSPs), and private sector through Local Economic Development Partnerships, Multi-Area Agreement Boards, and now LEPs. Through this collaborative approach the partnership has become a pivotal vehicle in mitigating the risk of policy resistance (Healey, 1997).
At the heart of the partnership has been LG as custodian for local strategy, secretariat for the LSP, and collector of socio-economic intelligence steering service provision and external investment. The changing nature of the partnership, the new rhetoric of spatial economy, and the shift in functional practices has impacted LG’s role in economic governance, offering new responsibilities and accountabilities.
Repositioning local government
With the advent of localism and changed economic governance landscape debates persist around LEPs’ authority, influence, and efficacy. The repositioning of LG has however been significant, reintroduced as a core player through a set of overt and more subtle roles.
This has evolved through the introduction of LSPs and a Duty of Well-being in the Local Government Act (HM Government, 2000) which saw the formal introduction of dedicated ED services. These have been kept discretionary and peripheral to LG’s influential strategic functions and partially became a localised operation for centralised delivery mechanisms aligning with various NGOs delivering state-funded services. ED’s role was enhanced following the introduction of a Local Economic Assessment (LEA) duty (HM Treasury, 2007), although this demanded no obligation beyond analysis.
Localism has seen LG become a more explicit actor through new responsibilities and accountabilities within a radically changed public sector. Its consistent role has been enhanced with its position in formation (HM Government, 2010a), management and resourcing (Shutt et al., 2012), and community representation (Pugalis and Townsend, 2012) of the LEP. New financing initiatives to reward local growth are bound into LG (HM Government, 2010b) and the freedom of a General Power of Competence extends its potential remit (CLG, 2011). The lack of prescription for LEPs beyond providing public-private leadership in rebalancing the economy (Shutt et al., 2012) has offered LG significant scope in determining priorities, with LEA intelligence positioning LG pivotally to define key issues and revise functional territories.
Alongside these a new set of accountabilities have been introduced. Central objectives for the economy have included prescriptions for the local state focused on sectoral, industrial, and spatial rebalancing pursued under the umbrella of austerity and ongoing public spending reductions. Compliance with these objectives is integral for accessing new funding regimes. Initiatives like single local growth pots purport decentralisation (HM Treasury, 2013) but remain centrally gifted. This accountability runs alongside increased scrutiny from private sector, local communities, and neighbouring peers. Positioning the private sector as local governance stakeholder offers a greater role defining policy. Community right to challenge on service delivery reintegrates LG with its grassroots constituents. The introduction of a duty to cooperate with neighbouring authorities on planning and development positions peers to challenge local priorities. This also emerges in reforming territory via the FEA concept (Pugalis, 2012) with spatial determination steered by inherited geographies (Brenner, 2004), material interdependence (Jessop, 2007), vested interests (Cox, 2010), or embedded personnel (Jones et al., 2004). This reformation of space is defined not solely around function but also preference, obligation, and atavism.
Such changes have significantly impacted the services provided by LG. For ED this has potentially seen stronger organisational integration alongside a more strategic role and repatriation with the context of the local economy. Within this, reconciling demands for private sector growth, sub-regional reconfiguration, and a greatly reduced funding environment have become integral issues to address, for which strategic frameworks designed during the regionalist era offer inadequate solutions.
Unpicking the regionalist strategy
During the regionalist era the local economic strategy became almost ubiquitous. As responsibility for ED was devolved to RDAs the influence of their Regional Economic Strategy (RES) encouraged similar articulation of economic aspiration at the local scale, integrating LG as part of a hierarchical machinery of government. Whilst motivated by consolidating resource in pursuit of social and economic transformation (Carter, 2000), two principle influences emerged: conforming with the RES to stimulate confidence and attract state investment, and consolidating key objectives of the Community Strategy.
These influences shaped economic strategy at the local level, integrating it within a highly centralised development trajectory and distancing from local structural context through three specific tendencies. First, it created a polarised message conveyed through a competitive-comparative logic setting place as both growth engine and marginalised community. Regional development tendencies toward ‘picking winners’ were applied through attempts to focus investment on areas of high growth potential (Asheim et al., 2011, Harrison, 2010). Additional investment was focused toward marginalised communities on the basis of enabling them to tap into this growth. Within local strategy such polarised conditions were emphasised through this competitive-comparative logic, reinforcing demands for additional state subsidy in complementing growth potential or ameliorating deprivation.
Second, whilst regionalism conceived a new tier of governance spaces, beneath these a set of bounded political economies drawn around established administrative units were maintained. These bypassed relational interpretations of space and alignments of territory through the regional programme and its spatial predetermination, reinforcing static units of social activity (Smith, 1992). Structural strengths or opportunities within localities peripheral to principal sub-regional territories were suppressed through collective analysis, shaping a singular interpretation of place.
Finally they enforced a homogenised strategy, situating it within a national development trajectory through policy dialogues of growth but also of inclusion. The lack of distinct vision in the RESs (Jones, 2001) filtered down to localities through a generic development aspiration and ‘high tech fetishism’ (Massey and Wield, 1991) enforced via the application of plagiarised approaches (Peck, 1999). Broad adoption of key sectors within the RES and the influence of the Community Strategy, alongside the need for stakeholder ratification and broad partnership consensus, set localities a wide target to achieve with modest resource. The Community Strategy whilst pivotal in providing local context and determining the priorities of other locally owned plans – notably the Core, Corporate and ED Strategies – is itself intertwined in regional architecture through attachment to the Government Offices.
Rather than interpreting regional policy through a local lens, such tendencies have applied a holistic regional model symmetrically into differing sub-regions. In this sense the regional devolution project created machinery of government which, rather than nurturing regional competitiveness within a global economy, has encouraged it amongst localities for central subsidy and regional patronage, enhancing a dependency culture amongst local and sub-regional territories on central intervention. Its spatial interpretation of the sub-national picture remained static in spite of the move toward city region as a policy vehicle, creating a highly congested governance framework of competing intra-territorial distinctions (Harrison, 2010).
The relational-functional shift and repositioning of LG requires significant revision of local economic strategy. ED’s role has extended to incorporate a wider engagement in an enhanced stakeholder environment alongside a more central position within authorities steering governance arrangements, responding to the challenges of austerity, and taking the lead in reinterpreting local economy. The established model used in defining local economy, its structural form and the priorities for intervention, needs adaptation to accommodate these changes. In the next section I will discuss an approach adopted by the Borough of Poole in the revision of their ED strategy to incorporate this new policy environment.
Toward a contextual benchmarking approach
Inherited forms of local economic strategy from the regionalist era are no longer adequate for localism’s demands. In place of the structured regional demarcation and hierarchical support mechanism of regionalism, localities have been encouraged to look at new approaches to territorial determinism alongside a broader integration of delivery partners. A new approach to local strategy moving interpretation of the local economy beyond the context of national development trajectory and bounded administrative territory is necessary.
Revising their economic strategy the Borough of Poole adopted a contextual benchmarking approach (CBA). Rather than looking at Poole as a singular fixed area within a sub-region, this uses structural analysis to inform its varied economic territories. The approach looks at developing the way locality evaluates its position through the use of comparators and in the definition of key industrial and developmental priorities. It does this within the context of building links with the local community in various different ways: through explicit connection to community aspiration, integration with local industry, and through the mediation of social and developmental potential.
This section will begin by looking at Poole and how local strategy manifested itself during the regionalist era. It will then discuss further the CBA and how this was used to interpret a direction of travel, identify strengths and deficiencies, and define new policy priorities, territorial distinctions, and functional relationships in developing and embedding these activities for collective advantage.
The Borough of Poole
The Borough of Poole is a unitary authority area situated on the south coast of England (Figure 1). Historically part of the county of Dorset, Poole became independent of this jurisdiction in 1999. Although in the South West region, it is part of a south coast conurbation area alongside adjoining Bournemouth and Christchurch which borders the South East region and is in closer proximity to its major urban areas of Southampton and Portsmouth than those in the South West (Figure 2). This relationship has previously been formalised through the South Coast Metropole, a union formed in 1993 consisting of Poole, Bournemouth, Southampton, Portsmouth, and the Isle of Wight. The move to the regional model of governance prevented this relationship from progressing; the adjoining economic territories are still recognised with some forms of analysis such as property markets still working to the metropole area.
Poole, Bournemouth and Dorset. Poole: Regional and national setting.
Functionally, Poole sits in a number of different spatial economies. Its relationship with Bournemouth produces a concentration of financial and business services alongside a buoyant tourism offer linked to its endowment of natural capital. Separately it has a strong manufacturing sector related to the marine industry, to defence markets, and other forms of high value manufacturing. It is also a port town with cross-Channel ferry services, has some of the highest value real estate in Europe, and a population ahead of the UK’s ageing curve.
‘Raising the Game’: Local strategy in Poole
The extant ED strategy for Poole was published in 2005. In line with regional spatial definitions this was produced as a collaborative document for Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole (BDP). Entitled ‘Raising the Game’ (BDP Economic Partnership, 2005), the strategy was developed to aid understanding of the needs and priorities of the sub-region amongst internal partners alongside external policy and investment agencies.
In spite of notable differences in the economic structure of the three upper tier areas, a consolidated sub-regional vision was deemed critical in providing guidance and continuity to attract investment. This vision was formulated consolidating key statements from the three LSPs around themes of sustainable development, quality of life, social cohesion and inclusion. Fundamental to the timing of the strategy however was alignment with the regional planning and ED documents, the RES and Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS), at key points in their revision, thus repositioning the sub-region in both influencing priorities and accessing patronage.
‘Raising the Game’ was internally conceptualised to attract investment and influence central and regional priorities, but the strategy shows consistency in both its language and its objectives with regional generalist tendencies (Jones, 2001). Although rhetoric of ‘investability’ focused on attracting private investment is fundamental, the route to achieving this is through support from regional and national government, the private sector cast as delivery agent rather than strategic influence. Continual reference to regional agencies not recognising the growth potential of the sub-region alongside reliance on the RDA and their portfolio of services as delivery partner imply a clientelism where regional intervention is integral to achieving local objectives, and therefore compliance with the regional growth agenda is pivotal.
This homogenisation is also apparent through both physical and sectoral development aspirations. Whilst sub-regional growth potential was identified in advanced manufacturing, marine technology, and food and drink (Roger Tym & Partners/SWRDA, 2006), the spatial provision for growth was adopted on the basis of parity with national trends toward service, retail, and hotels and catering alongside continued manufacturing decline (Roger Tym & Partners/SWRA, 2008). This is represented in adopted planning policy with allocations for growth in office and retail premises on former industrial land. The highly ‘fetishised’ creative industries (Massey and Wield, 1991) was adopted as driver and catalyst for growth through the potential of embedded organisations with specialist acumen; whilst the sub-region benefits from two universities with expertise in this field it has yet to translate into commercial activity.
Alongside the regionalist influence, this homogenisation also results from the suppression of local structural strengths through the predetermined sub-region. For Poole the potential of its marine and advanced engineering sectors is acknowledged. Sub-regionally comparative strength in these industries falls below levels for the South West and GB, whilst those in distribution, finance, and tourism are comparatively high. Consensus around the importance of these more evenly distributed sectors alongside the lifestyle product of the sub-regional brand contributing toward ‘investability’ create a dominant form of local identity, prioritising certain actions and aspirations. To this extent the most effective scale of intervention for Poole’s core industries may sit outside its designated sub-region.
Framing these consensual priorities has been further influenced by demands for positioning performance indicators competitively against regional or national baselines. This has cast these in a ‘black and white’ capacity where positioning against sub-regional averages and neighbouring peers determines the locality’s comparative strengths or deficiencies. Priorities on issues such as skills determine success on the basis of achieving parity or surpassing regional or national averages, as opposed to a more detailed analysis of shortages or imbalances between labour supply and demand. This also presents contradictory and misleading statements; whilst comparatively high levels of employment within the sub-region are used to champion it as a dynamic economy, concerns over low productivity are expressed. In spite of these statements the gaps here for Poole are marginal (BDP Economic Partnership, 2005: Appendix B).
‘Raising the Game’, whilst covering bases critical to developing the BDP economy, is embedded in the competitive-comparative logic of regionalism. As such it requires significant revision to fit with localism and its focus on reintegrating the local as a driver for growth and loosening guidance around practice and priorities. Poole’s response looked to use methods of applying this context-specific focus on the basis of locally embedded industrial aptitudes and service demands. This CBA uses a mix of structural and comparative analysis to redefine local development priorities, critical businesses and activities, and potential economic drivers. This incorporates four distinct stages: looking at re-establishing the economic vision; measuring the local economy against these aspirations; identifying local barriers and drivers; and redefining the functional spatial economy.
Establishing the vision
The proliferation of strategic documents in the regionalist era has seen the development of a number of organisational, community, and partnership visions. LG represents a critical axis for their consolidation, sitting at a key juncture between regional, national, and European plans, and the more localised LSPs, Parish Plans, or Area Action Plans. ‘Raising the Game’ defined a collective vision using existing local articulations from LSPs, each championing competitiveness and growth but also sustainability and quality of life.
Policy document Strategic Visions.
Benchmarking Poole
The vision for an Enterprising, Innovative and Sustainable economy provides Poole with some clear direction. It remains, however, a broad statement needing clarification to understand how Poole meets these measures; how and where they appear, how they may be nurtured, and potential catalysts. Whilst the competitive-comparative approach has become the default method for determining spatial characteristics, the use of standard approaches of local competition and regional-national comparison offer only simple assertions of Poole as ‘better’ or ‘worse’. In place of this the CBA uses exemplars in the UK with strong characteristics in the desired enterprise, innovation, and sustainability.
Peer group candidates.
Against these Poole was benchmarked using the ambitions of policy documents informing the visioning process. For Enterprise these included self-employment, business start-up and survival rates, and private sector employment, for Innovation, GVA, knowledge-intensive units and employment, and university research ratings, and for Sustainability, indicators of quality of life, environmental impact, and commercial energy consumption. Comparison indicated that for Enterprise Poole does well, only falling short of Brighton and Bristol on business start-up rate and exceeding both in private sector employment. For sustainability it also compares well with higher quality of life and lower environmental impact scores; the sole shortfall here was commercial energy consumption with high rates linked to Poole’s manufacturing base. The biggest deficiency was in Innovation, where in spite of good GVA performance lower levels of knowledge-intensive employment and university research activity marked a difference between Brighton and in particular Bristol. This intelligence provides us with some ideas on where Poole has strengths and deficiencies, but to build on it an analysis of why these occur and their causes is necessary.
Interpreting barriers and drivers
Poole’s innovation deficiency has a number of contributors, but using the exemplar comparison as a guide two distinct differences are immediately notable: the capacity of the universities, and the presence of knowledge-intensive businesses. Further demographic comparison also revealed a significant difference in terms of population profile (see Figure 3). Previous incarnations of local strategy focused on ameliorating these issues in a circular manner with university spin-out and knowledge transfer potential, local growth in service industries and the attraction of a ‘creative class’ mutually intertwined. Innovation deficiencies present barriers for a place like Poole to respond through this osmotic model; the root of these deficiencies may, however, be reinterpreted as resources to drive an alternate approach to growth.
Comparative age profile Poole, Brighton and Bristol.
The influence of human capital and its collective consumption (Molotch and Logan, 1987) plays an important role in Brighton and Bristol. Migration and concentration of a younger demographic, particularly specific professional groups (Florida, 2002), has stimulated interest and internal demand for certain cultural activities resulting in the formation of creative industries hotspots (Chapain et al., 2010). The influence of this demographic within Poole is superseded by those of a highly concentrated older population as both passive consumers of public services and active participants shaping local demand. This demographic stimulates significant economic activity through an increasing demand for health services, growth in lifestyle businesses from semi-retired ‘downsizers’, and the general input of active consumers who sit outside of the labour market. This perpetuates a key local problem of growth in lower skilled and lower paid employment, constraining opportunities for growth in innovation.
Managing this demographic imbalance has yielded a passive response around provision planning with limited focus linking increasing demand to developmental aspiration. Yet Poole’s position at the head of the ageing society curve provides an opportunity for its utilisation through an integrated economic approach addressing issues of demographic imbalance, austerity, and collaborative policy implementation. The formation of co-production networks could forge an enduring dialogue between care providers both public and private sector, the clients and communities reliant on these services, and suppliers and developers of products and technologies. This approach enhances the relationship between state, industry, and community in collaborative development and delivery, utilising an embedded structural deficiency as catalyst for economic development and addressing financial exposure of the state through an integrated programme designed for the reduction of dependency. It positions Poole as a potential test bed for business models, support schemes, and product developments focused around an issue of national and European significance.
As a marker for innovation potential, the knowledge-intensive sector (KIS) within Poole shows significant deviations from Brighton, Bristol, and the national economic aspiration. There is evidence of a good knowledge-intensive business services industry, but Poole’s higher concentration is found in the manufacturing side. Whilst the potential of this industry has been acknowledged in regional analysis and sub-regional strategy, this is set against a national rhetoric of manufacturing decline, a sub-regional structure which suppresses its importance, and a set of planning policies favouring service growth as part of a centralised trajectory. Yet the potential of the manufacturing KIS is significant for growth, with high multipliers (Bivens, 2003) and export potential contributing toward a strategic policy priority (HM Government, 2010b). Some needs may be partially addressed by more flexible policies around local planning or skills provision, but such service-based support opportunities will be limited in industries tied into a national or international chain of customers, suppliers, and information exchange (Bathelt et al., 2004; MacKinnon et al., 2002). As this is potentially an area where Poole’s enterprise and innovation aspirations are strong but where sustainability needs addressing, it may be utilised as a catalyst for green development aspirations, fostering an emerging and transformational sector whilst supporting a key local industry to respond to critical issues of environmental regulation and resource management.
Universities have been interpreted as pivotal transformational institutions playing a key role in local development through knowledge transfer and spin-out strategies (European Commission, 2007; Universities UK, 2008). For Poole this has limited the capacity for internal partnerships by focusing on university specialism in creative industries, business, and tourism. As such, contribution toward strategic objectives has been limited, either compounding embedded problems of low-skilled sectors or curtailed by local demand. Development partnerships have been prioritised with external organisations around parallel sectoral interest, pulling the institutions further from their potential local role. The aspiration for their transformational role may be integrated through enabling previously passive collaborators themselves as research institutions (see Huggins and Kitadawa, 2012; Youtie and Shapira, 2008). The structure of the local economy provides a strong base for local universities to progress research around increased commercialisation and knowledge transfer in areas such as healthcare innovation and environmental industries, whilst integrating them as a pivotal strategic institution of the local economy.
Situating the revised strategy
A key element of the new strategic rhetoric has challenged concepts of standardised political-economic space and sought to situate place within an appropriate area based around distinct local economic strengths and opportunities. This moves beyond orthodox practice of politically bounded sub-regions but similarly cannot be solely defined through the core-periphery model (Martin and Sunley, 2011). Drivers within Poole show a variety of spatial manifestations which sit within, beyond, or outside of the established sub-region as part of a dynamic form of spatial economy (Allen et al., 1998). The CBA looks to economic alignments based on structural concentration. Rather than spatially binding the economy to place, this uses a sectoral approach to link place in to wider territorial relations.
Poole’s two transformational sectors of health and high tech manufacturing translate into three distinct industries. These are distributed across territories which do not correspond with the established BDP FEA. The manufacturing sector, which can be sub-divided into advanced manufacturing and marine (although the two are not mutually exclusive) extends into two separate areas. Advance manufacturing shows concentrations in adjoining East Dorset then extending into Hampshire and Wiltshire, connecting these areas as part of an M3-M4 triangle. For marine, Poole is part of the UK’s most significant sectoral cluster linking it to Southampton, Portsmouth, and the wider Solent.
The health sector is more traditionally bound within the sub-region. Whilst this may be driven by tendencies toward concentration in urban areas around major health infrastructure, the demand created by the migration of retirees to coastal towns will play a large role, particularly for urban Dorset – Bournemouth, Poole, and Christchurch – each displaying proportionally high retired communities. Moving beyond notions of contiguous space, increasing demands from this growing demographic position Poole at a critical juncture for solutions and delivery models adaptable to other localities just behind the curve.
Alongside spatial reinterpretation, this approach also provides some contextual perspective on the key actors necessary in progressing these new priorities. The clientelistic approach of ‘Raising the Game’ in an era of depleted state resource and the rhetoric of community engagement and private sector integration is no longer viable. In its place the partnership continues as the favoured delivery model but in place of the inclusive mode driven by the LSP a model for sectoral development interests may be apt, focused upon differing scales of activity and intervention. For Poole’s manufacturing sector these will occur at a new regional level defined by the spatial breadth of economic activity, also providing links into central departments responsible for support and regulation. For the health sector these should occur at a more localised level to capitalise on client or citizen input as a driver for innovation. Each of these has significant implications for local governance arrangements, as the differing manifestations of economic space continue to reweave myriad territorial distinctions dependent on internal priorities and key developmental assets. These demands are likely to require a form of territorial practice which looks both beyond the orthodox administrative distinction and outside of the singular and hierarchical understanding applied in sub-national models.
Conclusion
This article offers a perspective on the role of local economic strategy under localism. The new economic governance landscape demands a radical shift in interpreting spatial economy and how this forges new forms of sub-national territory. The spatial, territorial, functional, and operational demands of this agenda expect a rethinking of how local economic aspirations are defined and implemented through new modes of partnership practice. This has created significant freedoms for LG but also introduced new restraints and accountabilities. Extended and liberalised notions of LG activity and its role in ED have unfettered institutions from a prescriptive centralised trajectory, replacing it with scrutiny through increased local collaboration and a stringent financial climate.
Such an environment requires a new form of economic strategy. Whilst the partnership has been maintained as a core principle of working practice, the regionalist reliance on centralised growth aspirations and state funding mechanisms has been replaced by a more open form of self-determinism allowing localities freedom in defining priorities, programmes, and even spatial alliances. Prescriptive objectives of central government have been reduced and replaced by a more localised accountability through involvement from local communities and businesses.
In developing a new form of strategy the contextual benchmarking approach outlined in this article may be utilised by LG in defining local strengths and aptitudes but also in reinterpreting key issues as development opportunities. This advocates the use of specialist comparators aligned to the aspirations of the locality over generalist competitive-comparative approaches. It also argues for working with distinctive indigenous circumstances in place of homogenised aspiration. Whilst not detached from the prescriptive developmental aspirations of regionalism, the CBA uses these high level aspirations as a basis for interpreting established strengths and existing structural conditions within a developmental trajectory.
The CBA’s explicit link between local issues and development opportunities taps into a number of localism’s themes. Moving beyond LG it provides a framework for interpreting the role of key stakeholders, identifying means through which passive participants may become active development agents. Integration with core localised economic and demographic issues may encourage collaboration and limit the impact of policy resistance. It also proposes a developmental model where limited local resource can be more strategically allocated and not just contribute toward economic goals but address future structural and fiscal pressures.
The spatial interpretation of economy using the CBA presents some challenges to both administrative and functional forms. In using structural alignment as a measure for spatial economy, critical areas of intervention may not correspond to established conceptions of the local with multiple forms of spatial economy interweaving. This presents complications for new governance arrangements with specific development activities requiring cross-border practices which in turn exclude partner localities. Whilst support has been forthcoming from central government for cross-LEP programmes, this may not be received as a standard practice. The deconstruction of established FEAs through such activity may be seen as disruptive to the LEP project; it may similarly be seen as an organic market revision in keeping with core economic influences.
Whilst the CBA proposes a number of solutions to the demands of both Localism and austerity this is at present an analytical approach to understanding spatial economy and revising economic strategy. Its strategic aims need testing around implementation and delivery. The returns offered through greater integration of ED within corporate LG constitute a risk which may be curtailed through internal resistance or financial restriction. The CBA may provide the rationale for ED’s transformation from a peripheral, centrally defined service to one of core strategic local empowerment; this needs to be worked up into a stronger framework for local implementation and moved toward an active and operational process to make the links between theoretically-informed planning and practical implementation explicit.
Footnotes
Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.