Transcript Worklessness in London: disentangling structural effects

Governance of the metropolitan economy
an approach to learning from comparison with Paris and Berlin
Ian Gordon
Geography Department, London School of Economics
and Spatial Economics Research Centre
Regional Studies Association Research Network
Governing Metropolitan Regions Within a Localist Agenda,
University of Westminster, 21st September 2012
My Starting Point
• See this event as beginning of a process for the network:
• looking comparatively at experience of 3 capital city regions
• to identify governance needs and better ways of meeting these
• for our specific (and different) cases
• Expecting to learn from this – not just about why I/we are ‘right’
•
•
•
•
nor to discover which other cities have the answer (i.e. right model)
or even whole bits that we can patch on to an existing structure (bricolage?)
but about the relevant processes / conflicts and what affects these, and how
plus some national blind spots (cf. Ashford on British dogmatism/French pragmatism)
• So, not going to hazard any instant comparisons here
•
but try to start discussion on framework within which to approach ‘cases’
•
starting from why there might be a co-ordination issue in metro regions
• in relation to standard mix of modes of integration
• and why (maybe) it may be more problematic for capital cities
• and then types of case where could matter – as poss focus for work?
Why Governance is an Issue ...
•
As I see it, governance = regulation / co-ordination of a system
•
‘by whatever means’, including a (specific) combination of :
•
•
•
•
bureaucratic control – from hierarchy of agencies,
‘free’ markets
co-evolution of (shared) understandings, norms, habits of co-operation
Largely taken for granted – but becoming an ‘issue’ when / where:
•
shortcomings emerge in established divisions of labour and
accommodations, between:
•
public/private; formal/informal; functional specialties; spatial levels
⇒ need for a revision / re-negotiation of these
• Common / general in current era because of increased complexity
and dynamic instability / uncertainty
• but especially the case around major agglomerations
... Especially in (extended) Metro Regions
• For two reasons :
• Extension of the functional region ⇒ increasingly complex pattern of
action fields /interactions (and spatial externalities from actions);
• layered across more distinct scales, decentred and overlayed
• in ways that established administrative hierarchies cannot match
• and scarcely recognised in any shared way by key stakeholders/
citizens
• markets cope better with this complexity - but will still ‘fail’ to handle
many impacts (inc. on environment, deprivation etc.)
•
functional integration enables spatial differentiation
•
•
across much broader areas (despite incorporation of ‘whole towns’)
self-conscious of collective differences in interests + values from
those in other areas ⇒ perceived threats & conflicts with these
•
including core city versus periphery
Expect to be true everywhere – but in intelligibly different ways (e.g.
the traditional inversion of class geographies London vs Paris) ??
Range of Issues Identified in
Greater South East context
•
•
Housing land supply (as many will have said already)
•
nb 50 years since (Tory) government said ‘’need to match jobs, transport, housing
•
hasn’t worked – or come nearer to doing so- despite LA new incentives
Intra-territory competition for mobile businesses
•
•
•
not been major problem – lack of fiscal incentive + EU restraints
but liable to be much more so with enterprise incentives under ‘localism’
De-regulatory competition for retail trade etc. between LAs
•
•
•
and land over the next 20 years in London & South East calls for a regional plan’
relaxation of parking etc. limits in urban areas to match exurban advantage
potential race to the bottom
Persistent confusion of structural and spatial causes of U/E
•
Ignoring integration of regional LMs ⇒ bolster localist development case with a
‘social’ rationale - rather than concerted attach on structural problems
• Growth of orbital/eccentric (road) transport demands
•
versus historic radial (rail) network
Suggested Approach to Learning
from Each Other in Network
1. Identify ‘shopping list’ of issue area ‘cases’
–
from of a priori reasoning + evident importance in 1+city e.g.:
•
•
•
•
•
meeting housing needs of regional workforce
securing strategic infrastructure
locating additional airport capacity
managing traffic congestion – in central areas & eccentric links
regulating inter-area competition for service trade or mobile businesses
2. Examine where/ why /how these are issues in a ‘city’
•
and why not
3. Explain how these are (not) managed & changes
•
•
with emphasis on the constraints and assets available to
overcome these
and on what might be transferable / how
Summary
•
Significance of governance perspective =
•
•
•
•
•
•
amalgam of different elements & logics
to cope with conflicts – not just complexity
need to evolve better processes – not perfect structures
and identify incentives / catalysts for achieving this
borrowing and adapting practice from elsewhere – and how
it was developed – not off-peg answers
But where leadership comes from is crucial question