Sub-national development in England is once again at a decisive crossroads in its persistent journey of state-led restructuring. Whereas the territories of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland achieved significant devolutionary packages under the UK’s Labour Government (1997-2010), decentralisation in England was rather more constrained and could be more aptly described as a regionalisation of central government functions. Since the election of a Conservative-Liberal Democrat (Con-Lib) UK Government in May, 2010, the demise of England’s regional framework has featured prominently in political discourse. It is a case of ‘out with the old’, including Regional Development Agencies, Government Offices for the Regions and Regional Leaders’ Boards, and ‘in with the new’, such as Local Enterprise Partnerships, as the Coalition Government embark on their quest of economic rebalancing and recovery at the same time as state spending retrenches. The transition is all the more intriguing from a European vantage, considering that regions are the bedrock of the EU’s territorial cohesion policy; performing a key role in the administration of the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF). Contemplating how this transition may play out, I sketch a preliminary map of the road from Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) to Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs).

1. QUARTERLY
MAGAZINE OF THE
THE VOICE OF THE MEMBERSHIP
NO. 281, SPRING 2011
Issn: 1367–3882
REGIONALISM VERSUS LOCALISM

2. In Depth, pp. 6-9 Regions No 281 Spring 2011
THE REGIONAL LACUNA: A PRELIMINARY MAP OF THE
TRANSITION FROM REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCIES TO
LOCAL ECONOMIC PARTNERSHIPS
Lee Pugalis, Newcastle University and County Durham Economic Partnership, UK
Setting the Democrat (Con-Lib) UK Government have stimulated a resurgence of interest
scene in May 2010, the demise of England’s in the future of sub-national development
Sub-national regional framework has featured promi- policy, including the ‘politics of scale’, une-
development in nently in political discourse. It is a case ven development and spatial inequalities,
England is once of ‘out with the old’, including Regional as observed by the editors of this magazine
again at a deci- Development Agencies (RDAs), in issue 279. The transition is all the more
sive crossroads Government Offices for the Regions intriguing from a European vantage, con-
in its persistent and Regional Leaders’ Boards, and ‘in sidering that regions are the bedrock of the
journey of state- with the new’ such as Local Enterprise EU’s territorial cohesion policy, perform-
led restructuring. Partnerships (LEPs), as the Coalition ing a key role in the administration of the
Whereas the territories of Scotland, Government embark on their quest of European Regional Development Fund
Wales and Northern Ireland achieved economic rebalancing and recovery at the (ERDF). Contemplating how this transi-
significant devolutionary packages under same time as state spending retrenches. tion may play out, I sketch a preliminary map
the UK’s Labour Government (1997- An ‘orderly’ transitional period is of the road from RDAs to LEPs. Whilst
2010), decentralisation in England was programmed to be largely completed by the analytical focus is spatially specific to
rather more constrained and could be March 2012, the outcome being a radical England, the policy journey of economic
more aptly described as a regionalisation transformation of the geography of sub- space in transition is of wider appeal.
of central government functions. Since national development policy, governance Hopefully the international community
the election of a Conservative-Liberal and delivery. Consequently, these shifts of researchers, practitioners, policy-makers
Figure 1: Map of English regions indicating RDA spend and impacts
6

3. In Depth
and academics can draw on these insights for Communities and Local Government. ‘a wide range of ideas’ underpinned by
to help inform the scale, scope and pace The letter is an example of the Coalition’s little more than a few paragraphs of loose
of policy transitions in other time-space so-called permissive policy approach guidance, stakeholders were tasked with
trajectories. (i.e. unautocratic), which is claimed to quickly negotiating territorial alliances
reflect localist ideals (or a ‘Big Society’) against the background of local politics,
From RDAs to LEPs whereby the delivery of services and histories of cross-boundary and multi-
Conceived under a Labour Government, other responsibilities are passed-down sector collaboration, business views and
RDAs are non-departmental public bod- to local communities and volunteers. the logic(s) of functional economic geog-
ies, or quangos, set up under the Regional Yet, the letter states that Government raphies. An additional layer of complexity
Development Agencies Act 1998 to be is “reviewing all the functions of the was the fact that the Government’s White
strategic drivers of regional development. RDAs”, surmising that ‘some of these Paper on Local growth (HM Government,
Responsible to Whitehall and governed are best led nationally, such as inward 2010) was not published until 28 October
by state appointed private sector led investment, sector leadership, responsi- 2010 – at which point the deadline for LEP
boards, the nine RDAs were arguably bility for business support, innovation, submissions had passed. Consequently, pro-
the chief institutional configuration and access to finance.” Arguably, the posals – of variable quality, ambition and
under Labour for promoting enterprise centralisation of these RDA responsibili- stakeholder buy-in – were quickly worked
and innovation within the regions (see ties would significantly undermine the up on the basis of limited national criteria
Figure 1). Until the Coalition signalled Coalition’s localism agenda together with and the absence of even a partial road map
their abolition (subject to legislation), the ability of LEPs to play a significant of the Con-Libs’ economic transition plan.
RDAs performed at a key nexus of role in developing their local economies. The result was the submission of over 60
power between localities and Whitehall, Therefore, the purported transition from bids, of which many were clearly ‘rival’
and were collectively responsible for a regionalist framework (synonymous and/or geographically overlapping.
the annual administration of billions of with the previous Labour Government)
pounds of central government Single to a localism approach (championed by The transition period
Programme resources and ERDF.1 the Con-Libs), may not be as clear-cut Contending that the transition period is
Guided by the objective ‘to help as some would have us believe. Indeed, likely to be anything but orderly, what
strengthen local economies’, LEPs there is a suspicion that the rhetoric of follows in the remainder of this article
were put forward by the Coalition decentralisation may be thinly disguising is a preliminary map as I navigate the road
Government as the only key apparatus centralist tendencies (Pugalis, 2010). from RDAs to LEPs. Firstly, I consider
by which to reform sub-national devel- timing to be paramount. With most
opment. Circumventing the customary LEPs: Guiding (state-set) RDAs set to stay operational (to lesser
consultation procedures and discarding parameters or greater degrees) until March 2012, it is
other options, such as reviewing RDAs, By way of the Cable-Pickles letter, the crucial that LEPs hit the ground running
the Con-Libs invited “councils and busi- Coalition Government set an extremely and maintain momentum. Coordinating
ness leaders to come together to consider ambitious deadline of 6 September 2010 the rollout of one sub-national economic
how [they] wish to form [LEPs] ... ena- for joint public-private LEP propositions. entity with the rollback of another would
bling councils and business to replace the Government provided stakeholders with aid the transfer of key skills, knowledge
existing [RDAs].”2 This open invitation less than 70 days to develop proposals, and assets. If the Con-Libs decide to cash
was by way of a letter, dated 29 June, guided by their embryonic ideas for LEPs in on RDA assets, as a short-term strat-
2010, penned by Vince Cable, Secretary and some broad parameters covering role, egy to ease the budget deficit by way of a
of State for Business, Innovation and governance and geography (see Figure ‘fire sale’, it may well result in significant
Skills, and Eric Pickles, Secretary of State 2). Indeed, with Ministers encouraging delays to long-term regeneration schemes
Figure 2: Government parameters
Role Governance Geography
- Provide strategic leadership; setting - Collaboration between business and - Better reflect the ‘natural’ economic
out local economic priorities civic leaders, normally including geography; covering the ‘real’
- Help rebalance the economy towards equal representation on the boards of functional economic and travel to
the private sector; creating the right these partnerships work areas
environment for business - Work closely with universities and - Expect partnerships would include
- Tackle issues such as planning further education colleges groups of upper tier local authori-
and housing, local transport and - A prominent business leader should ties, which would not preclude that
infrastructure priorities, employment chair the board which matches existing regional
and enterprise, the transition to the boundaries
- Sufficiently robust governance
low carbon economy and in some structures
areas tourism
- Proper accountability for delivery by
partnerships
7

4. In Depth Regions No 281 Spring 2011
underpinning the revival of depressed operational costs will be incidental if the over the previous decade up until the
local economies. With a dearth of inves- finance (including lending powers) is not credit crunch will rapidly recoil. Slavishly
tors, and development financing almost in place to deliver. Lib-Con rhetoric that reducing regeneration resources for those
impossible to obtain without pre-lets, the public sector needs to retract from places most in need, and in turn where
the stalling and ‘mothballing’ of complex an interventionist role in order to release the private sector refuses to invest, is akin
urban regeneration projects would strug- the business community to lead an eco- to robbing Peter to pay Paul: savings
gle to regain development momentum. nomic recovery may have some merit in made through regeneration funding cuts
Secondly, the positive role and ambi- those places underpinned by a relatively are likely to be soaked up by increased
tions of LEPs must be supported with a buoyant private sector. However, such an demand for health and welfare support,
reasonable level of resources. With the approach is likely to perpetuate uneven for example.
Coalition reluctant to support the single patterns of spatial development and Thirdly, a cavernous policy vacuum
running costs associated with operat- exacerbate socio-economic disparities is expanding between localities and the
ing a cross-boundary economic agency, (Peck, 2010). For the rest of the coun- national level. Whilst the letter was co-
although there are signs of a change try, the areas of need and public sector signed by Cable and Pickles, providing
in stance, 3 the goodwill and financial dependency, lying beyond the places of the impression of a united front, noises
backing of local partners will only go so (investment) choice and opportunity, of a ‘turf war’ between the two figure-
far. Regardless, the issue of day-to-day there is a danger that the progress made heads and their respective departments
Figure 3: The geography of LEPs
Local Enterprise Partnerships
List of local enterprise partnerships
1 Birmingham and Solihull with East
Staffordshire, Lichfield and Tamworth
2 Cheshire and Warrington
3 Coast to Capital
±
Local Authority Districts in
4 Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly
overlapping local enterprise
5 Coventry and Warwickshire
partnerships
6 Cumbria
7 Greater Cambridge and Greater
Peterborough
8 Greater Manchester 16
9 Hertfordshire
10 Kent, Greater Essex and East
Sussex
11 Leeds City Region 6 23
12 Leicester and Leicestershire
13 Lincolnshire
14 Liverpool City Region
15 New Anglia
16 Northern Eastern Partnership
17 Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, Derby,
and Derbyshire 11
18 Oxfordshire City Region
19 Sheffield City Region 8
20 Solent 14 19
21 South East Midlands
22 Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire 2 13
23 Tees Valley 17
24 Thames Valley and Berkshire
25 The Black Country 22
1
26 The Marches Enterprise Partnership
27 West of England 25 12 15
28 Worcestershire 26 7
5
28
21
9
18
27 24
10
3
20
4 Isles of Scilly Inset
4
Produced by the Geographic Analysis Team, ASD Kilometres Data Sources:
© Crown Copyright and database right 2010. All rights reserved. 0 15 30 60 90 OS Boundary Line
Ordnance Survey Licence number 100018986 2011 01 03
8

5. In Depth
continue to grow louder. The former is strategic projects (unworkable at lower priorities or, worse still, for any white
considered to see the benefits of retain- or higher spatial scales), such as some space on the map left out of the LEP
ing a regional economic presence in transport schemes. It appears to me that equation. Let us hope that the Lib-Cons
some parts of the country such as the the Coalition have become ideologically stay true to their localism philosophy,
North and Midlands, whereas the latter blinded to the reality that the English which would put the onus on localities
is antipathetic to anything ‘regional’ or regions, or at least some of the regions, to devise unique policy solutions, sup-
indeed ‘strategic’ as many planners and provide a pragmatic spatial scale for ported by financial freedoms, flexibilities
developers would attest in response to bridging the national-local divide. and powers. Maybe those plying their
the hasty revocation of Regional Spatial trade outside of England can ref lect
Strategies, (Pugalis and Townsend, Concluding remarks on a on this form and manner of state-led
2010). In policy and practice terms, the shifting agenda restructuring and act accordingly the
Coalition’s intentions and policy shifts Interest in LEPs has been enormous, next time a new (and presumably better)
thus far reveal an outright abandonment with 62 propositions submitted to policy innovation is proposed.
of regional policy-architecture, which Government ahead of the September For a more extensive examination of
has created a regional lacuna. 2010 deadline. This is perhaps hardly the issues addressed in this article consult:
A map of the ‘first wave’ of 24 LEPs surprising considering that LEPs have “Sub-national economic development:
approved by Government shows the been conceived as a direct replacement for where do we go from here?”, Journal of
complexity of the geography of emerg- RDAs, notwithstanding the recentralisa- Urban Regeneration and Renewal.
ing economic governance. Incidentally, tion of some notable responsibilities to
from the announcement of the first wave the state. Whilst the White Paper (HM Endnotes
of LEPs in October 2010 up to the date Government, 2010) is now in circulation, 1 The RDAs’ combined budget was
of writing in January 2011, four further £2.3 billion in 2007-08 and remains at
countless questions remain in respect of just over £1.4 billion in 2010/11.
LEPs – Norfolk & Suffolk, the Black the transitional process and the role(s) of 2 The letter is available at:
Country and Worcestershire – were LEPs. How long will it take to establish http://www.parliament.uk/deposits/
approved between December 2010 and LEPs as effective economic leadership depositedpapers/2010/DEP2010-1363.pdf
January 2011, with others set to follow vehicles? When established, will the [accessed 2 July 2010]
(see Figure 3). Hence, whilst it is reason- 3 In January 2010, the Coalition announced
boards of LEPs be composed of the usual
able to surmise that the white areas on the that it is to launch a £4 million fund aimed
suspects? Alternatively, are democratic at boosting the analytical capacity of LEPs.
map will continue to reduce, the geogra- accountability and business leadership
phy of sub-national development policy, a recipe for disaster? Might governance
governance and delivery is at the cusp of issues and institutional reconfigurations References
radical transformation. Estimating that distract attention from delivering positive Herrschel, T. (2010), “Regionalisation,
circa 35 LEPs could eventually replace change? How will succession planning marginalisation and the role of govern-
the eight RDAs outside of London, a key be carried forward and in what ways ance in Europe and North America
question is how London-based ministerial may noteworthy RDA successes provide (Part 2),” Regions 280(Winter), p.28.
departments could feasibly engage with HM Government (2010), Local growth:
a positive legacy for LEPs? How will realising every place’s potential,
each LEP on an individual basis? Indeed, ERDF be managed and by whom? In London: The Stationery Office.
will Whitehall mandarins appreciate terms of multi-level governance and Larkin, K. (2010), “Regions after RDAs,”
the spatial particularities of these new coordination across multiple spatial Public Finance Blog, 1 July.
geographies of economic governance? scales, how will nationally ‘led’ eco- Peck, F. (2010), “Post Election policy
More so, what prospects for non-LEP debate in the UK: Whither the regional
nomic programmes interact with LEPs?
agenda?,” Regions 279, pp.4-5.
geographies of England? Indeed, does such an approach run the Pugalis, L. (2010), “Looking Back in
Without some form of strategic eco- risk of contradicting the localism agenda? Order to Move Forward: The Politics
nomic body to negotiate the policy space Only time will tell. It will be interesting of Evolving Sub-National Economic
in between sub-regional groupings of to take stock of the transition and how Policy Architecture,” Local Economy,
localities and the national level, I would LEPs are bedding down in a year’s time. 25(5-6), pp.397-405.
Pugalis, L. and Townsend, A. (2010), “Can
caution that the spatial particularities of However, at this juncture I am sceptical LEPs fill the strategic void?,” Town &
LEPs, outside the ‘big hitters’ organised that the Coalition Government posses Country Planning, 79(9), pp.382-87.
around a core city such as Birmingham the majority of the answers.
or Manchester, may struggle to make Critics suggest that this slight reshuf-
their voices heard in Whitehall policy fle of the same pack of cards is merely Dr Lee Pugalis is a Visiting Fellow
circles. Notwithstanding the limitations “economic development on the cheap ... at the Global Urban Research Unit,
of regional administrative areas in pro- a no-frills version of the economic pol- Newcastle University, and man-
viding the ideal spatial fix for the delivery icy of the past decade” (Larkin, 2010), ages the County Durham Economic
of all sub-national policy, strategically- that may marginalise or overshadow Partnership. Prior to his existing role,
focused regional bodies would help the interests of some places and groups Lee was the Regeneration Specialist
in coordinating the activity of LEPs, (Herrschel, 2010). If this is so, then Advisor to One North East Regional
facilitating cross-boundary cooperation, improvements remain ambiguous, but Development Agency and has also
the management of some programmes the potential to lose out is significant. worked for central and regional gov-
(including ERDF) and could even Not least for any place on the periph- ernment in policy-making roles.
assume responsibility for signif icant ery of a LEP board’s spatio-economic lee.pugalis@ncl.ac.uk
9

6. Xyxyyxyx Yxyyxyyyx Regions No 281 Spring 2011
Regions
THE VOICE OF THE MEMBERSHIP
The Regional Survey in this issue focuses on regional integration in
Latin America. Our contributors explore the difficulties that these
countries have traditionally faced in integrating interventions to
develop their peripheral regions as well as the potential for growth
that coordinated interventions might generate in the continent.
Despite the widely held belief that the lack of linguistic and religious
barriers would simplify integration efforts between these countries;
the lack of both political and economic coordination, the large size
of the areas, regional disparities both between them as well as
within them, and poor infrastructure have always worked against
integration efforts in the region.
This series of articles edited by Carola Ramon-Berjano provides
expert views on three different integration initiatives in Latin
America; namely MERCOSUR (the area between Argentina, Brazil,
Uruguay and Paraguay), UNASUR (a more ambitious project
involving 12 Latin American countries) and ZICOSUR (an economic
zone comprising neighbouring and peripheral areas of Argentina,
Chile, Paraguay and Bolivia). These articles approach the issue of
larger versus smaller integration schemes as well as differences
and similarities between countries and regions. These schemes are
viewed at different scales from the wider Latin American perspective,
to the national and regional levels to illustrate how the potential
gains as well as problems vary between countries and regions.
This issue also contains insights into the changing landscape of
regional and local development in the UK and in France. John
Diamond discusses the new Coalition Government’s concept of the
“Big Society” and renewed interest in ‘localism’ in the UK. He argues
that these concepts may have little to do with democratisation of
local decision-making but more to do with a decline in the role
of the state at all levels, including the demise of the Regional
Development Agencies that were set up under the previous Labour
Administration. This theme is picked up by Lee Pugalis in the In
Depth article on the changing institutional structures surrounding
sub-national development in the UK. It is noted that these changes
are particularly intriguing from the perspective of European
Cohesion Policy which remains firmly based on ‘regions’ as the
basic spatial unit for territorial development. In contrast, Anna
Geppert provides a research note on the French Government’s
plans to strengthen the City-Region scale of development through
the promotion of collaborative networks.
Regional Studies Association, PO Box 2058, Seaford, East Sussex BN25 4QU, UK
Tel: 00 44 (0)1323 899 698, Fax: 00 44 (0)1323 899 798
info@rsa-ls.ac.uk, www.regional-studies-assoc.ac.uk
Registered Charity No: 1084165
Registered Company, Limited By Guarantee In England No: 4116288
Typesetting and Printing by Roger Booth (Studio) Ltd
32 48 Keymer Road, Hassocks, West Sussex BN6 8AR. Tel: 01273 846834 Email: studio@rogerbooth.com