leicester business school - de montfort university the internatio nal and comparative hrm ......
TRANSCRIPT
C O N T E N T S
RESEARCH NEWS IN BRIEF 2
ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND DIVERSITY 4
IN THE NEW ENVIRONMENT
DULL, BORING? YOU MUST BE JOKING! 10
FROM LOCAL GOVERNMENT TO LOCAL GOVERNANCE
REGIONS, SKILLS AND THE COMPETITION 17
FOR FOREIGN DIRECT INVESTMENT
NEWS FROM RESEARCH UNITS 21
DOCTORAL STUDENT FEATURE 24
I N T R O D U C T I O N
The main features in this issue of
Leicester Business School’s annual
Research Briefing look at ethnic
minority entrepreneurship, local
government, and foreign investment
and regional skills development:
• Drawing�on�action-learning�research,Professor�Monder�Ram�examines�the�profileof�ethnic�minority�businesses�in�the�WestMidlands,�their�important�role�in�the�regionaland�national�economy,�the�key�issues�facingethnic�minority�entrepreneurs,�and�theimplications�for�policy-makers�
• Professor�David�Wilson,�dean�of�Business�and�Law�and�deputy�vice-chancellor,provides�an�overview�of�local�government,exploring�the�incessant�structural�changeand�the�wide�diversity�of�organisation�andpractice�beneath�the�apparently�pervasivecentralism�of�the�British�system�ofgovernment
• Dr�Phil�Almond�reports�on�ESRC-fundedcomparative�research�in�the�UK,�Spain,Ireland�and�Canada,�investigating�howdevelopment�agencies�and�other�regionalbodies�seek�to�provide�sources�ofcompetitive�advantage�for�the�foreignmultinational�companies�they�host�in�order�to‘embed’�these�firms�within�the�local�economy.The�focus�of�the�research�is�on�the�role�ofregional�bodies�in�upskilling�the�local�labourforce�as�a�way�of�developing�the�humancapabilities�that�multinationals�require.�
There�are�also�shorter�items�on�other�currentresearch�projects,�news�items�from�a�range�ofour�research�centres�and�groups,�and�profilesof�two�of�our�doctoral�students.
If�you�are�interested�in�finding�out�more�aboutany�of�our�featured�research,�please�contact�theproject�teams�at�their�email�addresses,�or�emailme�at�the�address�below.�More�information�canalso�be�found�at�dmu.ac.uk/balresearch
Professor Anthony Ferner
Head�of�ResearchLeicester�Business�SchoolE:�[email protected]
PAGE | ONE
R E S E A R C HN E W S � I N � B R I E F
Employment practices in multinational
companies
The�International�and�Comparative�HRMresearch�group’s�work�on�EmploymentPractices in MNCs has�continued�to�developinternationally�with�comparative�analysis�ofsurvey�data�across�MNCs�in�the�UK,�Spain,Ireland�and�Canada�underway.�ProfessorsAnthony�Ferner�and�Olga�Tregaskis�wereinvited�to�Cornell�University�in�September�2010to�present�their�preliminary�comparativefindings.�Work�from�this�study�has�also�beenpresented�by�the�DMU�team�at�outreachconferences�in�Mexico�and�Denmark�organisedby�our�research�partners�in�the�Centre�of�US-Mexican�Studies,�El�Colegio�de�la�FronteraNorte/University�of�California�San�Diego�andCopenhagen�Business�School�Denmark.�
For�further�details�contact:Professors Anthony Ferner and
Olga Tregaskis
E:�[email protected]�and�[email protected]
Facilitating impact: Making
entrepreneurship and diversity
everyone’s business
Professor�Monder�Ram,�of�the�Centre�forResearch�in�Ethnic�Minority�Entrepreneurship(CREME),�has�successfully�secured�anEconomic�and�Social�Research�Council(ESRC)�grant�from�their�‘Follow-on�funding’programme�for�his�research�into�ethnic�minorityentrepreneurship.�The�award�of�£85,000,�for�a�joint�project�with�Lancaster�University,�willextend�work�with�the�Minority�Ethnic�EnterpriseCentre�for�Expertise�(a�two-year�project�thatended�in�November).�Monder�and�colleagueswill�be�working�closely�with�Barclays�plc,�the
Chartered�Institute�of�Purchasing�and�Supply,the�Association�of�Chartered�CertifiedAccountants,�Business�in�the�Community�and�local�and�national�policy-makers.
For�further�details�contact:Liz Frost, projects officer
E: [email protected]: creme-dmu.org.uk
Double success for Dr Catherine Durose
Dr�Catherine�Durose,�senior�research�fellow�inthe�Department�of�Public�Policy,�hassuccessfully�gained�an�award�of�£9,905�fromDMU’s�Revolving�Investment�Fund�(RIF)�for�aproject�on�Building capacity to impact onpolicy and practice.�This�will�be�undertakenthrough�a�series�of�activities�centring�on�a�blogfor�practitioners�and�policy�makers.�This�projectwill�also�include�Dr�Steven�Griggs,�Dr�JoRichardson�and�Dr�Kathryn�Jones�(all�fromPublic�Policy)�along�with�Dr�Richard�Hall,�theuniversity�e-learning�co-ordinator.�
Dr�Durose�was�also�successful�in�an�ESRCresearch�seminar�series�application.�This�bid,entitled�Beyond the State? Third partygovernment in comparative perspective,�beatoff�intense�competition.�Her�co-applicants�wereProfessor�Chris�Skelcher�at�INLOGOV(University�of�Birmingham)�and�Jonathan�Justiceat�the�Institute�for�Public�Administration,University�of�Delaware.�The�lectures�began�at�the�start�of�2011.�
For�further�details�contact:Dr Catherine Durose
Knowledge Transfer Partnerships (KTP)
Dr�Steven�Griggs,�from�the�Department�ofPublic�Policy,�has�won�a�KTP�award�inconjunction�with�the�Association�of�PublicService�Excellence.�DMU�now�has�a�projectportfolio�of�21�KTPs�and�four�shorter�KTPs�with�a�total�value�of�£2.44�million.�
For�further�details�contact:Dr Steven Griggs
PAGE | TWO
PAGE | FOUR
E N T R E P R E N E U R S H I P A N D D I v E R S I T y
I N T H E N E W E N v I R O N M E N T
The promotion of enterprise in diverse
communities is today facing huge
challenges and uncertainties. The
impact of the credit crunch and deepest
recession since the 1930s continues to
reverberate through existing ethnic
minority businesses (EMBs), and those
potential Black, Asian and other
Minority Ethnic (BAME) entrepreneurs
struggling to establish a business.
Added to this uncertainty have been the
radical changes in enterprise policy
being introduced by the new coalition
government, the stark outlines of which
are just emerging, with much detail to
follow.
Professor Monder Ram OBE, reports
on a major Centre for Research in
Ethnic Minority Entrepreneurship
(CREME) initiative – the Minority
Ethnic Enterprise Centre of Expertise1
(MEECOE) – which has been working
with business support organisations in
the West Midlands on the following
questions over the past 24 months.
What�is�the�role�of�entrepreneurship�anddiversity�in�the�coalition’s�‘programme�forgovernment’?�How�can�EMBs�help�promotegrowth�and�‘rebalance’�the�economy�in�an�eraof�sharply�reducing�public�expenditure?Certainly�these�are�very�challenging�times�forthose�involved�in�supporting�entrepreneurshipin�diverse�communities�which�call�for�freshthinking�and�imaginative�responses.�
MEECOE’s�work�has�emphasised�thefollowing:• EMBs�are�critically�important�for�the�regional
(and�national)�economy�both�in�terms�of�theircontribution�to�growth�and�to�the�alleviationof�deprivation.�There�is�much�untappedpotential�here
• Diversity�should�be�everybody’s�business,integrated�into�the�work�of�all�those�in�thepublic,�private�and�third�sectors�providingbusiness�support�and�advice
• Entrepreneurs�are�diverse�in�many�differentways�at�the�same�time:�different�ethnicities,genders,�ages,�economic�sectors,�legal�formand�so�on.�Enterprise�support�needs�anintegrated�approach�to�diversity
• Business-to-business�mentoring�is�acrucially�important�method�of�mobilisingneeded�business�support�but�itseffectiveness�is�not�automatic.�Thought�isrequired�on�how�it�is�structured�and�lessonscan�be�learnt�from�innovative�good�practice
• Encouraging�supplier�diversity�in�both�thepublic�and�private�sectors�is�a�key�dimensionof�enterprise�support�and�developing�thepotential�of�EMBs
• In�order�to�learn�what�works�and�why,initiatives�need�to�embed�action�learning�andevaluation�for�continuous�improvement
This�article�explains�MEECOE’s�approach�andits�relevance�in�the�current�challengingenvironment�and�to�the�developing�enterprisepolicy�agenda.�
1 Advantage�West�Midlands�(AWM)�funded�MEECOE’sestablishment�in�December�2008�as�part�of�its�programmeto�improve�the�promotion�of�entrepreneurship�among�allsections�of�the�region’s�population.�AWM�recognised�thatthe�region’s�population�was�diverse�and�that�the�potential�ofmany�‘equalities’�groups�to�establish�and�sustain�businessesthat�created�jobs�and�wealth�for�the�region’s�economy�wasnot�being�fully�realised.�In�response�it�developed�centres�ofexpertise�for�women,�young�people,�social�enterprise�andethnic�minority�communities�to�increase�knowledge,stimulate�innovation�and�improve�the�impact�of�policy�andbusiness�support�for�the�benefit�of�these�diverse�businessesand�the�region�as�a�whole.
MEECOE�was�established�as�a�consortium�of�existingorganisations.�It�is�led�by�De�Montfort�University’s�Centre�forResearch�in�Ethnic�Minority�Entrepreneurship�(CREME)�andinvolves�Lancaster�University,�CSK�Strategies�Ltd�and�ateam�of�expert,�policy-orientated�researchers.
PAGE | SIX
The economic importance of ethnic
minority businesses
Ethnic�minority�businesses�(EMBs)�are�criticallyimportant�for�the�West�Midlands’�economy�bothin�the�contribution�they�make�to�the�region’sgrowth,�innovation�and�productivity�and�in�therole�they�play�in�providing�employment�andservices�particularly�in�some�of�the�region’smost�deprived�neighbourhoods.�In�these�areas,they�can�act�as�a�role�model�for�aspiringminority�ethnic�entrepreneurs�and�provideinformal�training�to�co-ethnic,�often�sociallyexcluded�workers,�(and�also�other�local�labour).More�widely,�their�ability�to�develop�newproducts�and�adapt�them�to�new�markets�couldmake�a�major�contribution�to�the�future�revivalof�the�West�Midlands’�economy.�For�example,�anumber�of�Indian�and�Chinese�businesses�aredeveloping�trade�and�investment�with�theirancestral�countries,�giving�the�region�access�totwo�huge�and�rapidly�expanding�markets.�
However,�EMBs�also�face�many�challenges�toand�constraints�on�their�establishment,�survival,and�growth.�These�include�difficulties�inaccessing�the�finance�required�to�establish�andgrow�a�business,�and�poor�access�to�publicsector,�business-to-business�markets�and,�formany,�markets�outside�their�co-ethnic�consumersor�the�inner�city�areas�in�which�they�are�based.Related�to�both�of�these�are�weaker�networks�ofbusiness�support,�that�critical�ingredient�forentrepreneurial�success�that�has�recently�beenhighlighted�by�the�coalition�government�asoffering�far�more�than�has,�and�can�be�offered�bypublicly�funded�business�support.
However,�the�evidence�base�for�EMBs�andpolicy�impact�on�their�development�is�sparse.Information�is�very�limited�on�the�number�ofEMBs�in�the�region,�the�sectors�they�arelocated�in�and�their�business�developmentdynamics.�Information�on�policy�impact�is�evenmore�limited.�MEECOE�has�therefore�focused
many�of�its�resources�on�developing�a�betterevidence�base.�
Drawing�on�the�2001�Census�of�Population�andthe�more�recent�Annual�Population�Surveys�andcombining�these�with�more�specific,�qualitativeresearch�already�undertaken,�MEECOEproduced�a�profile�of�ethnic�minority�businessesin�the�West�Midlands�in�October�2009.��
The�profile�brought�out�the�different�trendsamong�different�minority�ethnic�groups�andhighlighted�the�emerging�phenomenon�ofentrepreneurial�transition.�This�involves�new�andexisting�EMBs�moving�out�of�traditional�sectors,often�characterised�by�low�pay,�long�hours�andlow�returns,�into�less�labour�intensive,�highervalue�sectors�such�as�financial�services,�realestate,�IT�and�business�and�professionalservices.�This�process�has�been�accompaniedby�a�decline�in�the�self-employed�proportion�ofcertain�minority�groups�reflecting�a�moving�outto�low�paid�self-employment,�previously�oftenthe�only�career�option�available,�into�better�paidemployment�in�skilled�occupations.�As�a�result,the�self-employment�percentage�among�thoseof�Indian�heritage�is�now�slightly�below�thosefrom�the�white�British�ethnic�group.
These�results�have�important�implications�forpolicy�and�practice.�They�suggest,�for�example,that�people�of�BAME�origin�seeking�businesssupport�must�not�be�restricted�to�ethnically-specific�support�which�may�be�more�accessibleand�empathetic�to�start-up�issues�and�moreknowledgeable�about�traditional�markets,�butmay�not�be�able�to�provide�the�range�of�supportand�business�advice�required�given�the�newand�varied�sectors�in�which�EMBs�nowoperate.�At�the�same�time,�‘mainstream’business�advisers,�including�those�in�the�privatesector,�need�to�have�a�better�understanding�ofthe�constraints�and�potentials�of�EMBs�fromdifferent�ethnicities�rather�than�stereotyping.
The�evidence�and�policy�implications�have�beendisseminated�via�presentations�and�discussionsat�a�number�of�forums�and�through�a�number�ofMEECOE�briefing�notes,�including�onetargeted�at�local�authorities�and�their�growingeconomic�development�duties.
MEECOE�has�also�been�undertaking�researchon�the�untapped�entrepreneurial�capacity�withinnew�communities�in�the�West�Midlands�–asylum�seekers�and�refugees,�newly�arrivedimmigrants�and�people�from�EU�Accessionstates.�This�research�has�had�to�use�innovativetechniques�of�engaging�with�communityorganisations�that�work�with�these�newcommunities�and�snowball�sampling.��
MEECOE�has�also�drawn�together�the�latestresearch�on�key�issues�facing�EMBs�in�theregion�and�their�implications�for�enterprisepolicy�and�practice�including�access�to�finance,a�key�constraint�to�EMB�start-up,�survival�andgrowth�and�international�trade.�The�latter�wasthe�subject�of�an�event�organised�in�April�2010that�showcased�research�on�overseas�graduateentrepreneurs�from�China�and�the�Indiansubcontinent,�the�experience�of�two�EMBslinking�with�the�Indian�and�Chinese�markets�andthe�work�of�UK�Trade�and�Investment�(UKTI).This�event�shone�a�light�on�a�relativelyneglected�policy�area�that�could�contributegreatly�to�economic�growth�and�a�rebalancingof�the�economy.
Finally,�MEECOE�has�been�disseminatingnational�good�practice�in�business�supportincluding�a�workshop�on�innovative�approaches�toengaging�diverse�businesses�held�in�June�2009.This�included�presentations�by�Enterprise�4�All,�aBradford-based�agency�that�was�established�bylocal�Asian�businesses�but�which�has�expandedto�serve�a�wider�range�of�ethnicities�and�the�workof�business�in�the�community.�
PAGE | SEvEN
Adding value through leverage,
collaboration and new relationships
Promoting�enterprise�in�diverse�communities�isnot�just�the�remit�of�specialist,�publically�fundedbusiness�advisers.�Diversity�issues�need�to�beintegrated�into�the�work�of�all�those�providingbusiness�support�and�advice.�This�includesmainstream�business�advisers�funded�bygovernment�and�the�much�larger�numbers�inthe�private�sector�that�provide�some�form�ofbusiness�support�such�as�financial�institutionsand�accountants.�It�also�includes�those�in�thepublic,�private�and�third�sectors�makingdecisions�on�which�businesses�to�procure�theirsupplies�from;�and�those�providing�social�andeconomic�services�ranging�well�beyond�directenterprise�support.�In�other�words,�we�need�tomake�diversity�everybody’s�business.
To�this�end,�MEECOE�has�created�a�LegacyGroup�that�is�levering�in�the�resources�of�theprivate�sector�into�invaluable�support�for�EMBsin�the�region.�The�Legacy�Group�is�made�up�ofrepresentatives�of�banks,�the�accountancyprofession,�purchasers,�governmentdepartments,�Business�Link,�ethnic�minoritybusiness�organisations,�Business�in�theCommunity�and�others�(See�Appendix�I�for�afull�list�of�members.)��
As�well�as�taking�initiatives�to�widen�access�ofEMBs�to�information,�advice�and�support,�theLegacy�Group�has�been�invaluable�in�advisingand�guiding�MEECOE�in�its�work.�It�is�also�keyto�MEECOE’s�succession�strategy�of�leading�agroup�of�different�institutions�working�togetherto�break�down�the�barriers�to�survival�andgrowth�facing�EMBs.
Support start-ups and existing
businesses
There�is�a�significant�focus�on�promotingbusiness�start-ups�in�The Coalition: ourprogramme for government and�subsequentpolicy�statements�as�a�tool�for�promoting
economic�growth�and�rebalancing�the�economy.Emphasis�is�given�to�the�role�of�developingenterprise�in�deprived�geographical�areas�andcommunities.�MEECOE�welcomes�this�andwould�add,�based�on�research�evidence�and�onits�experience,�three�further�points.
First,�promoting�enterprise�start-up�in�BAMEcommunities,�requires�publicly�fundedintervention�and�facilitation,�in�part�to�lever�inthe�private�sector�business�support�that�EMBstend�to�be�excluded�from�or�weakly�wired�into.The�evidence�suggests�that�online�businessadvice,�which�is�likely�to�feature�moreprominently�in�the�government’s�policy�delivery,is�most�effective�when�combined�with�locallyavailable�advice�and�support�networks.
Secondly,�while�enterprise�support�initiativestargeted�at�unemployed�people,�such�as�thecoalition�government’s�proposed�‘Work�forYourself’�programme,�can�be�of�great�benefit�tothe�individuals�involved,�they�should�recognisethat�self-employment�is�not�always�the�bestoption�for�participants.�Much�of�the�growth�ofEMBs�over�the�past�decades�has�been�a�resultof�necessity�because�of�exclusion�from�thelabour�market�rather�than�a�sign�ofentrepreneurial�flair�and�potential.�Thephenomenon�of�entrepreneurial�transitionidentified�by�MEECOE,�and�partially�reflectedin�a�move�from�self-employment�into�better�paidand�more�highly�skilled�employment,�is�apositive�one.�So�too�should�securingemployment,�rather�than�self-employment,�beseen�as�a�positive�outcome�of�enterpriseprogrammes�for�unemployed�people.
Thirdly,�providing�advice�and�support�to�existingbusinesses�has�tended�to�play�second�fiddle�tostart-up�support�in�the�panoply�of�governmentbusiness�support�measures�in�the�past.MEECOE�believes�that�properly�targeted�andcustomer-focused�support�to�existingbusinesses’�survival�and�growth,�including
developing�EMB�business�support�networks,needs�to�have�greater�prominence�in�futurepolicy�and�practice�if�the�twin�aims�ofpromoting�economic�growth�and�a�rebalancingof�the�economy�are�to�be�met.
Understanding the real world: delivering
an integrated approach to diversity
Ethnicity�is�only�one�aspect�of�diversity.Individual�entrepreneurs�may�be�‘diverse’�inseveral�respects,�for�example,�based�in�aparticular�economic�sector,�being�a�socialenterprise,�having�ownership�and�managementwhich�is�predominantly�female,�young�and/orfrom�a�range�of�different�minority�ethniccommunities.�Each�of�these�aspects�of�diversitycould�present�different�opportunities�or�suggestparticular�barriers�to�their�survival�and�growth.As�a�consequence,�all�those�involved�inbusiness�support�need�to�develop�an�integratedapproach�to�diversity�in�their�work�rather�thanadopting�a�‘one�size�fits�all’�approach.
MEECOE�and�the�other�COEs�have�beenworking�collaboratively�to�avoid�duplication,maximise�resources�and�identify�areas�withsynergy�across�the�four�centres.�This�hasincluded�collaborative�research�so�that�thecombined�effects�of�different�aspects�ofdiversity�can�be�examined�and�implications�forpolicy�and�practice�drawn�out.
This�collaboration�has�extended�to�advice�on:�• ‘Diversity�proofing’�business�support�work�to
ensure�that�it�reaches�all�equality�groups�andthat�the�support�is�appropriate�to�their�needs
• Developing�business�support�providers’�datagathering�and�analysis�processes�to�betterunderstand�the�impact�of�policy�and�practiceon�diverse�groups;�as�well�as�what�hasworked,�what�has�not�worked�and�why
• Ways�to�improve�access�to�business�support
PAGE | EIGHT
Advancing innovation in networks
and mentoring
Another�example�of�where�MEECOE�hasinnovated�and�helped�lever�in�additional�privatesector�support�to�EMBs�is�in�the�field�ofbusiness�mentoring�and�the�development�ofbusiness�support�networks.�Research�suggeststhat�a�major�disadvantage�faced�by�businessesfrom�a�wide�range�of�minority�ethniccommunities�is�weak�access�to�such�supportnetworks�and�mentoring.�
The�coalition�government�in�The Coalition: ourprogramme for government proposes�“fundinga�targeted�national�enterprise�mentoringscheme�for�BAME�people�who�want�to�start�abusiness.”�MEECOE’s�work�with�EMBnetworks�such�as�the�12/8�Group�and�Fyshnetprovides�a�good�practice�exemple�of�howbusiness�mentoring�for�BAME�communitiesshould�be�approached�which�is�rich�in�lessonsfor�this�proposed�national�mentoring�servicetargeted�at�EMBs.��
Making a difference through
commercially viable supplier diversity
Again,�The Coalition: our programme forgovernment proposes�a�greater�emphasis�onthe�public�sector�using�its�procurementpractice�as�a�tool�for�promoting�the�growth�oflocal�small�and�medium-sized�enterprises.�Thisis�a�key�area�that�MEECOE�has�been�workingon�through�the�Access�to�Markets�clustergroup�of�the�Legacy�Group�referred�to�aboveand�through�Supply Diversity Europe.MEECOE’s�work�focuses�on�supplier�diversitywithin�both�the�public�and�private�sector.�Thisincludes�collaboration�with�Business�in�theCommunity,�the�Charted�Institute�of�Purchasingand�Supply,�the�Equality�and�Human�RightsCommission�and�The�Consortium�to�develop�acommercially�viable,�web-based�hub�forprocurement�activity�in�the�West�Midlands.�
Embedding action learning and review
for success
All�of�MEECOE’s�work�has�emphasised�theimportance�of�embedding�action�learning�andevaluation�for�continuous�improvement�at�thestart�of�initiatives.�This�has�included�our�work�withthe�Legacy�Group,�the�12/8�group�and�Fyshnet,evaluations�of�Business�Link�interventions�andour�research�on�entrepreneurial�activity�amongnew�arrivals�and�on�business�support�providers.��
Further details
For�more�information�about�CREME�orMEECOE,�contact:�Liz Frost, Projects Officer
Appendix I: Legacy Group Membership
1 Barclays�Bank2 The�Association�of�Chartered�and�Certified
Accountants�(ACCA)3 The�Department�for�Business,�Innovation
and�Skills�(BIS)4 The�West�Midlands�Minority�Business
Forum�(WMMBF)5 Advantage�West�Midlands�(AWM)6 The�Equality�and�Human�Rights
Commission�(EHRC)7 Business�in�the�Community�(BitC)8 The�Charted�Institute�of�Purchasing�and
Supply�(CIPS)9 The�Economic�and�Social�Research�Council
(ESRC)10 Business�Voice�West�Midlands11 The�Consortium12 Representatives�from�the�other�Centres�
of�Expertise
PAGE | TEN
D U L L , B O R I N G ? y O U M U S T B E j O k I N G ! F R O M � L O C A L � G O V E R N M E N T � T O � L O C A L � G O V E R N A N C E
‘‘
’’
The governing of localities has become
increasingly complex in recent years:
elected local government today is but
one part of a mosaic of agencies
involved in local policy-making
including local businesses, community
organisations and faith groups.
Far from being dull, modern local
governance is a fascinating arena for
the politics that affect everyone on a
day-to-day basis. Taken from his recent
Professorial Lecture, David Wilson,
professor of public administration,
dean of Business and Law and
deputy vice-chancellor, examines the
costs and benefits of the advent of local
governance and the implications for
effective policymaking. While he
argues that there is an excessive bias
towards central control, at the same
time he counsels against sweeping
generalisations that fail to draw out
the importance of ‘place’ and the
significance of local political culture.
Introduction: Setting the scene
You�notice�smiles�come�more�easily�in�somegrounds�and�cities�than�in�others.�You�learn�that�some�counties�harbour�more�hatred�ofgovernment,�or�London,�or�flashiness.�You�heardifferent�attitudes�to�money,�to�drink,�to�sport.Ed Smith, Kent, Middlesex and Englandcricketer in Smith, 2005, p.78.
By�contrast�to�the�above,�Raymond�Seitz(1998),�the�highly�regarded�US�Ambassador�toBritain�(1991–94),�bemoaned�Britain’s�unitaryand�uniform�governmental�structure,�illustrating
the�fact�through�distinctive�US�vehicle�licenceplates�that�display�the�self-conceptions�of�theissuing�states:�‘New�York:�The�Empire�State’and,�more�disconcertingly,�‘New�Hampshire:Live�Free�or�Die’.�
Seitz�was�both�right�and�wrong�–�constitutionallyright,�observationally�wrong.�The�UK�is�indeed�aunitary�state,�governed�constitutionally�as�asingle�unit,�through�the�national�Parliament�atWestminster.�Any�sub-central�governments�–the�Scottish�Parliament,�the�Welsh�and�NorthernIreland�Assemblies,�and�the�UK’s�430�localauthorities�–�are�necessarily�subordinate.�All�arecreations�of�Parliament.�Britain�differsfundamentally,�therefore,�from�the�US,�Canada,Australia,�India,�Germany�and�Belgium,�which�are�federal�states:�associations�of�largelyself-governing�regions�united�by�a�central�orfederal�government.
Where�Seitz�went�too�far�was�in�equatingBritain’s�unitary�form�of�government�withuniformity�of�identity�and�practice.
Seitz�was�certainly�right�about�our�councilsbeing�subject�to�greater�central�governmentcontrol�and�direction�than�most�of�theirEuropean�counterparts.�But�look�more�carefullyand,�like�Smith,�you�will�quickly�see�forces�ofdiversity�as�well�as�forces�of�uniformity:�differingsizes,�locations,�histories,�cultures,�economies,social�class�structures,�politics�–�all�militatingagainst�even�neighbouring�councils�being�theundistinguishable�‘administrative�units’�thatSeitz�thought�he�saw�(1998,�p.271).
Councils,�even�of�the�same�type�–�counties,metropolitan�boroughs�–�‘do’�local�government�in
different�and�distinctive�ways,�and�always�havedone.�The�first�message,�therefore,�is�toemphasise�the�importance�of�getting�the�balanceright.�Don’t�understate�the�real�and�pervasivecentralism�that�characterises�the�British�systemof�government,�but�don’t�ignore�the�equally�reallocal�variations�that�stubbornly�remain.�
Dull, boring – you mean like cricket?
It�was�playwright�Harold�Pinter’s�belief�that‘cricket�is�the�greatest�thing�God�ever�created…’.There�are,�however,�those�who�claim�to�findcricket�downright�boring:�indeed,�surpassed�in�itsboringness�only�by�local�government�–�or‘sewage�without�tears’,�as�the�textbook�by�JohnRedcliffe-Maud�(1932),�was�apparently�known�tohis�students.�On�the�face�of�it,�the�boring�imageought�to�be�easy�to�demolish.�Check�‘boring’�in�a�thesaurus,�and�it�is�surrounded�by�words�like‘narrow’,�‘unvarying’,�‘monotonous’.�Yet,�whilethere�are�plenty�of�critical�things�that�can�be�saidabout�contemporary�UK�local�government,�beingdull�and�boring�are�not�among�them.�
Indeed,�the�very�suggestion�of�localgovernment�being�dull�and�boring�is�likely�toraise�a�self-pitying�smile�from�most�of�thoseworking�in�or�with�local�government�over�thepast�few�years.�What�area�of�the�private�sector,they�would�ask,�has�had�to�come�to�terms�withmore�change�and�upheaval�on�every�front:privatisation�and�the�out-sourcing�of�services;Best�Value�and�Comprehensive�PerformanceAssessment�(CPA),�and�Comprehensive�AreaAssessment�(CAA);�the�introduction�and�almostinstant�abandonment�of�a�‘poll�tax’,�followed�bya�council�tax�and�tax�capping;�neighbourhoodoffices,�one-stop�shops,�enabling�councils,
R E S E A R C HN E W S � I N � B R I E F
PAGE | ELEvEN
beacon�councils,�private�finance�initiatives,area-based�initiatives,�partnerships�of�every�sizeand�shape,�inspectorates,�e-government,performance�indicators�and�league�tables�andnow�‘total�place’�...�all�against�a�backdrop�ofcontinuous�financial�constraint�and�the�actual�orthreatened�rearrangement�of�the�country’swhole�local�government�structure.
Structural turbulence: A democratic
deficit?
Local�government�has�been,�and�continues�tobe,�characterised�by�structural�turbulence�–most�recently�in�2009�when�nine�new�unitaryauthorities�came�into�being.�In�both�localgovernment�and�the�NHS�there�seems�to�be�aninbuilt�assumption�that�you�can�solve�problems
by�amending�structures�on�a�regular�basis.�Thisleads�to�uncertainty�and�turbulence,�to�what�isoften�called�‘noise�in�the�system’.�Culturalchange�(focusing,�for�example,�upon�greatermutual�trust�between�central�departments�andlocal�authorities)�rather�than�repeated�structuralchange�is�required,�but�this�is�rather�morecomplex�than�shifting�lines�on�a�map�ordesigning�a�new�organisational�chart�(Table�1).�
As�a�result,�2,065�councillors�in�2008�became744�in�2009�–�a�massive�64%�reductionproducing�4,215�residents�per�councillor.�Can�this�really�still�be�called�local�government?In�1950�the�UK�had�2,060�principal�localauthorities;�today�there�are�around�406.�Havewe�now�so-called�economies�of�scale�at�the
expense�of�meaningful�local�democracy?�Francehas�almost�37,000�municipalities,�76�per�cent�ofwhich�contain�populations�of�under�1,000.�Thisis�an�average�of�118�residents�per�councillorcompared�with�our�4,215.�We�are�massively�outof�line�with�our�continental�neighbours�–�the�UKaverage�size�of�principal�local�authority�is150,000�followed�by�Denmark�(56,000),Netherlands�(37,000)�and�Belgium�(18,000).
You�would�have�predicted�something�verydifferent�from�the�Labour�Government’s�2006White�Paper�Strong and ProsperousCommunities given�its�acclaim�of�councillors�as“the�bedrock�of�local�democracy”.�Indeed,�itwent�much�further:�“We�need�to�reaffirm�theimportance�of�councillors’�role�as�democraticchampions”.�They�should�be�given�new�powers,their�role�as�community�champions�more�clearlydefined,�and�they�should�be�recruited�frommore�diverse�socio-economic�backgrounds(para�3.11).
Local�Government�Minister�John�Healey�did�not�actually�mention�the�big�shake-out�ofcouncillors�that�accompanied�the�legislation,though�made�it�absolutely�clear�what�this‘stripping�out�a�layer�of�local�government’�wasall�about:�efficiency�savings.�Local�democracy,in�short,�came�a�poor�second�to,�in�the�PrimeMinister’s�expressive�phrase,�“more�bang�fortaxpayers’�buck”.�Some�might�rejoice�at�thereduction�in�councillors�(especially�as�in�manylocal�authorities�they�are�frequently�singularlyunrepresentative�of�the�communities�theyserve)�–�but�beware�of�swallowing�toouncritically�the�economies�of�scale�arguments.
Table 1: The 2009 Unitaries: their scale and “democratic deficit”: Is this still local
government?
Area
(miles2)
Pop.
(’000)
Councillors Residents
per
councillor2008 2009 % lost
Bedford 185 153209
3751
4,140
Central�Bedfordshire 274 241 66 3,650
Cheshire�East 600 356375
8159
4,400
Cheshire�W.�&�Chester 350 324 72 4,500
Cornwall 1,317 524 331 123 63 4,260
Durham 860 492 375 126 66 3,900
Northumberland 1,942 307 306 67 79 4,580
Shropshire 1,236 289 224 74 67 3,900
Wiltshire 1,260 450 245 98 60 4,590
Averages/totals 892 348 2,065 744 64 4,215
PAGE | TWELvE
To�amplify�the�‘unrepresentative’�nature�of�localcouncillors,�women,�those�from�ethnicminorities�and�younger�people�remain�severelyunder-represented.�Of�candidates�up�forelection�in�2009,�98.3�per�cent�were�of�whiteorigin,�71�per�cent�were�men�and�they�were�onaverage�57.3�years�old.�This�is�aggregate�data:the�pattern�varies�enormously,�but�much�needsto�be�done�on�broadening�the�councillor�base.The�lack�of�diversity�can�all�too�often�impoverishcouncils�and�weaken�their�connection�with�thecitizen.�Shari�Vahl�began�a�recent�BBC�Radio�4programme,�How to run a city with�thefollowing�observation:�“When�you�think�of�acouncil,�you�might�think�of�boring,�ordinary,unambitious�groups�of�white,�middle�aged,middle�class�men,�striving�not�very�hard,�to�donot�very�much”.�A�stereotypical�view,�yes,�butsufficiently�close�to�reality�in�some�localities�forthe�barb�to�hurt.
There�is,�of�course,�a�danger�in�simplyassuming�the�case�for�democratically�electedlocal�government�without�arguing�it�out.�Verybriefly,�I�would�want�to�argue�that�there�are�fourdistinct�rationales�for�local�government:�civic,social,�political�and�economic.�• The�civic�rationale�is�based�upon�a�simple
proposition:�local�units�of�governmentprovide�more�opportunities�for�citizens�toparticipate�effectively�in�decisions
• The�social�rationale�focuses�on�citizen�well-being�especially�in�the�context�of�‘joining�up’local�action�(what�Jim�Sharpe�called�“serviceco-ordination”)�to�provide�a�more�integratedapproach
• The�political�rationale�focuses�on�threepivotal�points:�accessibility,�responsivenessand�accountability
• The�economic�rationale�is�based�upon�theproposition�that�local�government�can�makemore�efficient�and�effective�use�of�resources
All�these�are�complex�and�merit�lectures�in�theirown�right.�All�are�contested�but�they�do�beginto�spell�out�the�case�for�local�governmentrather�than�simply�assuming,�like�motherhoodand�apple�pie,�that�it�is�a�good�thing.
Towards local governance
While�non-directly�elected�local�government�isnot�in�itself�new,�its�scale�has�increasedenormously�during�the�past�three�decades,frequently�at�the�expense�of�directly�electedlocal�councils.�Under�national�governments�ofboth�major�parties,�many�service�responsibilitieshave�been�removed�from�local�authorities�andgiven�mainly�to�single-purpose�government-appointed�agencies.�Inner-city�developmentwent�to�urban�development�corporations;regeneration�of�particularly�deprived�estateswas�taken�over�by�housing�action�trusts;�youthtraining�passed�to�training�and�enterprisecouncils�then�to�Learning�and�Skills�Councils(LSCs)�before,�ironically,�completing�its�journeyback�to�local�government�in�2010.�This,�linkedwith�the�lead�role�of�local�authorities�in�bothLocal�Area�Agreements�and�Multi-AreaAgreements,�has�led�some�commentators�toargue�the�government�is�‘bringing�localgovernment�back�in’.�But,�at�the�same�time,�thelast�year�has�seen�a�ministerially-appointedquango,�the�Infrastructure�PlanningCommission,�taking�over�councils’�powers�ofdecision�on�major�commercial�developmentproposals,�as�well�as�national�projects�like�windfarms�and�power�stations.
Such�single�–�or�special-purpose�bodies�–�are�conventionally�known�as�quangos:�quasi-autonomous�non-governmental�organisationsalthough�purists�will�argue�that�quasi-governmental�is�in�most�cases�a�more�accuratedescription�of�their�function.�In�the�localgovernment�world,�depending�on�exactly�howyou�count,�there�are�about�5,000�local
quangos,�run�by�a�‘quangocracy’�of�some70,000,�over�three�times�the�number�of�directlyelected�local�councillors.
Now,�so�fundamental�have�these�changesbeen,�that�it�is�claimed�that�local�governmenthas�evolved�into�something�termed�localgovernance.�This�concept,�many�academicsand�practitioners�believe,�describes�moreeffectively�the�extensive�network�of�public,voluntary�and�private�sector�bodies�that�arenowadays�involved�in�local�policy-making�andservice�delivery.
The�advent�and�subsequent�expansion�of�non-directly�elected�bodies�(quangos)�–�along�withthe�proliferation�of�partnerships�–�has�greatlycomplicated�local�policy�making.�What�we�havewitnessed�has�been�the�advent�of�dispersedgovernance;�a�recognition�that�local�decisionmaking�involves�far�more�actors,�morecollaboration/partnerships�than�in�previouseras.�As�Tony�Blair�(1998)�emphasised�“Thereare�all�sorts�of�players�on�the�local�pitch�jostlingfor�positions�where�previously�the�council�wasthe�main�game�in�town”.�Of�£7,000�per�personspent�annually�on�public�services�like�health,education�and�social�care,�as�little�as�5%�insome�areas�is�controlled�by�local�councillors.
The�Local�Quango�State�in�Great�Britain,�April2000�(Table�2),�gives�us�a�snapshot�of�thecomplex�and�differentiated�nature�of�the�localstate.�And�to�quangos�we�need�to�add�statutorypartnerships,�pressure�groups,�parties�(andfactionalism�within�party�groups)�etc,�in�order�tobegin�to�appreciate�levels�of�complexity.�Add�tothis�the�huge�power�–�especially�financial�power–�of�central�government,�and�we�see�what�achallenging�arena�this�is.
The�December�2009�Smarter GovernmentWhite Paper was�a�further�reminder�of�the
PAGE | THIRTEEN
current�complexities.�It�highlighted�a�multiplicityof�national�funding�schemes�which�can�all�tooeasily�get�in�the�way�of�effective�cross-sectorworking.�For�example,�there�are�currently�102different�local�authority�funding�streams,including�49�in�education�and�children’sservices,�11�in�adult�social�care�and�six�inpolicing.�There�are�52�specific�revenue�grantsto�local�authorities�totalling�£76.3�billion,�36�ofwhich�are�currently�ring-fenced.�Leicester�andLeicestershire�have�identified�that�public�bodiesin�the�city�and�county�process�over�3,000performance�datasets,�reports�or�evaluationseach�year,�at�an�estimated�cost�of�over�£3.5�million.�Simple?�Transparent?�Easy�tounderstand?�No.�But�far�from�boring.
The�world�of�local�government�is�full�of�complexpolicy�problems�–�neighbourhood�regeneration,crime�and�disorder,�integrated�care�for�childrenand�older�people,�local�sustainabledevelopment�–�issues�that�require�the�people,skills�and�knowledge�no�longer�located�within�asingle�organisation�but�which�can,�often�withgreat�effect,�be�brought�together�incollaborative�partnerships.
Collaboration�is�the�current�managerial�mantraand�despite�its�many�plusses�it�remainsproblematic�and�often�very�challenging�for�thelocal�government�workforce.�It�is�frequentlycostly�in�terms�of�the�financial�and�humanresources�that�need�to�be�invested.�Yet,increasingly,�this�is�the�major�(and�often�theonly)�way�of�levering�new�government�moneyinto�a�local�community.�Partnership�workinghas,�then,�become�a�central�feature�of�today’slocal�government,�and�councils�frequently�findthemselves�working�with�and�through�externalorganisations�that�now�deliver�the�services�forwhich�they�themselves�were�once�the�sole�orpredominant�providers.
Despite�the�obvious�benefits�of�partnershipworking,�in�practice,�bringing�together�peoplefrom�local�bodies�representing�a�wide�range�ofinterests�(eg,�council,�police,�fire�and�rescueservices,�charity�groups,�businesses,�schools,health�bodies�and�many�more),�able�to�speakauthoritatively�on�behalf�of�these�interests�andensure�the�delivery�of�any�decisions�agreed,�isoften�extremely�difficult.�
Multi-level governance or multi-level
dialogue?
What�I�have�emphasised�so�far�is�that�localdecision�making�today�does�not�have�a�singlelocation�but�rather�a�range�of�locations.�We�arein�the�complex�world�of�multi-level�and�multi-actor�governance,�about�which�there�aretheories�and�interpretations�galore.�I�wonder�ifthis�world�is�quite�as�novel�as�it�is�frequentlyportrayed.�Close�examination�of�the�operationof�public�governance�since�the�19th�Centurysuggests�that�elements�of�hierarchy,�marketsand�networks�have�always�been�present.�But,what�is�relatively�novel�is�the�growth�andintensity�of�collaboration.
There�was�a�warning�shot�from�Tony�Blair.�I�used�to�refer�to�sticks�and�carrots�whendiscussing�central/local�relations.�I�now�refer�to�it�rather�differently:�Carrots�and�Semtex.�In�Leading the Way (1998)�he�wrote:�“WhereCouncils�embrace�this�agenda�of�change�–then�they�will�find�their�status�and�powerenhanced”.�But:�“If�you�are�unwilling�or�unableto�work�to�the�modern�agenda�then�thegovernment�will�have�to�look�to�other�partnersto�take�on�your�role”.
The�growth�of�collaboration�reflects�thecomplexity�and�intransigence�of�the�so-called‘wicked�issues’�facing�government�(eg�urbanregeneration;�child�protection;�care�for�the
Table 2 – The local quango state in
Great Britain, April 2000
Source:�House�of�Commons�Committee�on�PublicAdministration,�Fifth�Report,�2000/01:�Mapping�the�Quango�State
No.
Further�education�institutions 511
Foundation�schools�(ex-GM�andvoluntary-aided�schools)
877
City�technology�colleges 15
Learning�and�skills�councils(replaced�TECS�in�2000)
47
Local�enterprise�and�careersservice�companies�(Scotland)
39
Registered�social�landlords 2,421
Housing�action�trusts 4
Police�authorities 49
Health�authorities/boards 114
NHS�trusts 387
Primary�care�groups/trusts 488
Total 4,952
PAGE | FOURTEEN
elderly;�crime�prevention)�–�issues�that�can�onlybe�tackled�effectively�by�bringing�together�theresources�of�a�range�of�agencies.�As�RodRhodes�(1997)�observed,�‘messy�problemsdemand�messy�solutions’�and�so�the�neathierarchies�of�public�bureaucracies�arereshaped�to�establish�lots�of�differentrelationships�with�other�bodies�operating�indifferent�tiers�and�in�associated�policy�fields.
What�we�now�have�is,�as�I�have�alreadysuggested,�dispersed�governance,�ie,�no�singlefocus�but�rather�a�plethora�of�organisationsinvolved�in�formulating�policies�for�a�locality.�If�you�need�any�convincing�look�at�thecomposition�of�any�Local�Strategic�Partnership(LSP)�where�there�are�likely�to�be�over�30representatives�from�various�local�bodies.
There�is�certainly�plenty�of�multi-level,�multi-actor�dialogue�but�this�is�not�necessarily�thesame�thing�as�multi-level,�multi-actorgovernance?�Does�this�focus�on�multi-levelactivity�underplay�the�overweening�power�of�thecentre�and�its�multitude�of�‘unelected’�agents?It�is�important�to�emphasise�that�multi-leveldialogue�(with�which�we�are�saturated)�is�verydifferent�from�multi-level�power.�There�is�almostendless�dialogue�but�mapping�policy�clout�ontothis�dialogue�is�a�complex�exercise,�and�one�inwhich�the�vastly�superior�resources�of�thecentre�should�not�be�underplayed.�The�pluralitywhich�characterises�the�complex�world�of�localgovernance�does�not�automatically�reflect�apluralist�power�structure.�The�two�can�be�verydifferent�indeed.
One size does not fit all
If�my�first�health�warning�was�to�beware�ofequating�a�plurality�of�actors�with�a�pluralistpower�structure,�my�second�is:�beware�ofgeneralisations.�Neither�central�government�norlocal�government�are�monoliths.�As�Dave�Marshand�colleagues�(2001)�emphasise�in�the
context�of�central�government�departments,there�‘are�distinct�sub-cultures�withindepartmental�divisions�and�agencies�andcompeting�cultures�and�interpretations�ofcultures�in�Whitehall�as�a�whole’.�There�is�notonly�distinctiveness�between�Whitehalldepartments�but�also�within�each�department.Searching�for�homogeneity�within�Whitehall�isan�exercise�in�chasing�shadows:�localauthorities�interact�with�a�large�number�ofcentral�government�departments�(andnumerous,�sub-sets�of�each�department)�all�with�distinctive�cultures�and�agendas.
Homogeneity�is�absent�in�Whitehall,�and�atlocal�level�differences�are�even�more�stark;compare�two�unitary�authorities�–�Bristol(410,500)�with�Rutland�(34,600)�or�twocounties�–�Kent�(1.38�million)�with�Shropshire(289,400).�I�could�go�on.�There�is�no�suchthing�as�a�‘typical’�local�authority.�Norms,�valuesand�cultures�vary�enormously.�There�could,�forexample,�be�an�excellent�relationship�between�acounty�council’s�education�department�and�theDepartment�for�Children,�Schools�and�Familieswhile�at�the�same�time�the�relationship�betweenthe�authority’s�social�services�department�andits�Whitehall�counterpart�might�be�highlystrained.�In�Scotland�and�Wales�relationshipsare�much�more�informal�than�in�England.Beware�–�once�again,�we�need�to�recognisethe�importance�of�differentiating�rather�thangeneralising�in�what�is�a�highly�complex�andvaried�UK�context.
Targets and terror
Local�government�is�beset�by�inspections�andtargets.�From�2002–2008�ComprehensivePerformance�Assessment�(CPA)�overseen�bythe�Audit�Commission,�was�the�most�prominentinspection�regime.�In�2009�CPA�was�replacedby�Comprehensive�Area�Assessment�(CAA)�–�aregime�(still�overseen�by�the�Audit�Commission)which�examines�how�well�councils�are�working
together�with�other�local�public�bodies�to�meetperceived�local�needs.�It�is�a�joint�assessmentmade�by�a�group�of�six�independentinspectorates�(such�as�Ofsted�and�the�CareQuality�Commission).�While�60�authoritiesreceived�top�rankings�in�the�last�round�of�theCPA,�only�15�managed�it�in�the�first�round�of�the�CAA�published�in�December�2009.�Elevencouncils�received�the�lowest�marks�possible(zero)�compared�to�none�in�the�CPA’s�final�year.Many�local�authorities�believed�that�the�co-ordination�of�inspectorates�wasn’t�working�andthat�the�whole�exercise�was�pitched�too�broadlyto�tell�them�anything�they�didn’t�already�know�–‘a�weapon�of�mass�distraction’,�as�the�ChiefExecutive�of�Brent�LBC�put�it.�The�suggestion�isthat�the�whole�inspection�industry�costs�about£2�billion�today.�You�don’t�need�to�be�rabidlyanti-centralist�to�argue�that�this�is�a�lot�to�divertfrom�serving�the�local�public�to�servicingnational�inspectors,�especially�when�oneoutcome�of�all�this�diverted�time�and�energy�was�all�too�often�a�damaging�of�staff�morale.�
Another�health�warning�is�needed�at�this�point.In�an�excellent�article�on�targets�Bevan�andHood�(2006)�use�the�phrase�‘targets�andterror’.�They�make�the�point�that�thegovernment�is�assuming�that�a�relatively�smallnumber�of�indicators�reflects�performanceacross�a�much�wider�field�than�they�actuallymeasure.�It�also�assumes�that�the�officials�whooperate�the�system�can�be�motivated�by�thesetargets�and�dissuaded�from�manipulating�them.Bevan�and�Hood�argue�that�dysfunctionalbehaviour�is�inevitable.
The�bottom�line�remains�–�are�policy�outcomesreally�improving�or�are�officers�simply�gettingbetter�at�playing�the�game?�In�several�publicauthorities�which�I�know,�a�lot�of�very�brightpeople�spend�a�lot�of�time�working�to�securethe�best�possible�profile.
PAGE | FIFTEEN
A�good�example�of�such�behaviour�comes�fromthe�NHS�where�Bevan�and�Hood�draw�on�twoNational�Audit�Reports�(2001�and�2004).�Theyshow�that�waiting�times�for�accident�andemergency�reception�clustered�suspiciouslyjust�below�the�target�of�four�hours�maximum,and�managers�manipulated�the�figures�(eg,requiring�patients�to�wait�outside�inambulances,�or�in�corridors�on�trolleys,�so�asnot�to�be�counted).�With�regard�to�waiting�lists,informal�lists�were�created�of�people�who�werenot�added�to�the�official�(target)�waiting�listsuntil�it�was�known�that�they�could�be�treated�inthe�target�time.�Far�from�improving�quality�ofservice�such�targets�soon�became�counter-productive�to�all�but�the�managers�of�the�publicauthority�concerned.
Separate worlds?
Each�element�within�the�world�of�‘dispersedgovernance’�has�its�own�identity�and�its�ownculture.�The�different�norms,�values�andorganisational�frameworks�add�to�thecomplexity�of�the�local�decision�making-environment.�As�John�Stewart�(2000:�91)argues:�“There�are�deep�divides�between�theworlds�of�local�government�and�centralgovernment�so�that�one�can�almost�describethem�as�two�worlds�acting�in�isolation�andignorance�of�each�other”.�As�George�Jones�and�Tony�Travers�(1996)�emphasised�in�theirresearch�for�the�Commission�for�LocalDemocracy:�“The�mundane�nature�of�manylocal�services�encourage�(at�least�some)�civilservants�to�believe�that�they�possess�Rolls-Royce�minds�and�local�government�officershave�motor�cyclists’�minds”.
In�the�last�few�years�there�has�been�much�moretransferability�of�personnel�between�localauthorities�and�central�government.�There�arenow�a�significant�number�of�former�localgovernment�professionals�in�senior�posts�withinWhitehall.�Likewise,�training�of�both�high�flyinglocal�government�trainees�and�fast�track�civilservants�has�begun�to�address�this�gap.Nevertheless,�there�still�remains�a�need�formuch�more�organisational�learning�between�thevarious�components�of�dispersed�governance.There�also�remains�the�need�to�rebuild�trust.• Trust�is�necessary�across�the�multifarious
agencies�of�local�government• Meaningful�interaction�and�discussion�can
engender�such�trust• Without�trust�between�the�centre�and
localities�genuine�multi-level�governance�islikely�to�remain�elusive
The�debate�about�both�‘social�capital’�and�‘civilsociety’�has�begun�to�address�some�of�theissues�of�trust�but�there�is�a�danger�that�theskills�oriented�focus�of�many�public�sectormanagement�courses�can�easily�marginalisesomething�that�has�become�increasinglynecessary�in�a�world�of�collaboration�andpartnership.�In�elevating�‘trust’�I�recognise�that,in�many�parts�of�the�world�of�dispersedgovernance,�I�am�swimming�against�a�fast-flowing�tide�that�has�many�more�easilymeasurable�priorities.�But,�to�quote�the�signhanging�in�Albert�Einstein’s�Princeton�office,“Everything�that�can�be�counted�does�notnecessarily�count;�everything�that�counts�easilycannot�necessarily�be�counted”.�Trust,�likeintegrity,�cannot�be�counted�but�it’s�far�moreimportant�than�many�things�which�can.
Further details
For�more�information�contact:Professor David Wilson
Thanks�to�Chris�Game,�Honorary�SeniorLecturer�at�INLOGOV,�University�ofBirmingham,�for�his�considerable�input�into�thisarticle.�See�Wilson,�D�and�Game,�C�(2011)Local�Government�in�the�United�Kingdom�–�5th�Edition�(Basingstoke:�Palgrave�Macmillan).
References
1. Bevan,�G�and�Hood,�D�(2006)�‘What’smeasured�is�what�matters:�targets�and�gamingin�the�English�Public�health�care�system’,Public Administration,�84:�3,�pp.�517–538
2. Blair,�T�(1998)�Leading the Way: A NewVision for Local Government (London:�IPPR)
3. Department�for�Communities�and�LocalGovernment�(2006)�Strong and ProsperousCommunities: The Local Government WhitePaper (London:�DCLG)
4. Marsh,�D,�Richards,�D�and�Smith,�M�(2001)Changing Patterns of Governance:reinventing Whitehall (Basingstoke:�PalgraveMacmillan)�
5. Redcliffe-Maud,�J�(1932)�Local Governmentin Modern England (London:�ThorntonButterworth)
6. Rhodes,�R�A�W�(1997)�UnderstandingGovernance: Policy Networks, Governance,Reflexivity and Accountability (Buckingham:Open�University�Press)
7. Seitz,�R�(1998)�Over Here (London:�Phoenix).8. Smith,�E�(2005)�On and Off the Field
(London:�Penguin)9. Stewart,�J�(2000)�The Nature of British Local
Government (London:�Macmillan)
In the light of the impending abolition
of regional development agencies in
England, we report on the early stages
of an ESRC-funded project, run by
Dr Phil Almond, Professor Anthony
Ferner, Professor Olga Tregaskis
and Dr Tomila Lankina of Leicester
Business School. With colleagues
overseas, it looks at regional
development and multinationals in a
number of regions across England,
Ireland, Canada and Spain.
Attracting�and�retaining�investment�frommultinational�corporations�has�become�animportant�means�by�which�regions�attempt�toboost�their�economies.�While�foreignmultinationals�have�long�had�an�important�rolein�the�economy,�the�globalisation�of�productionand�service�provision�means�that�it�is�no�longerfeasible�for�the�UK�and�its�regions�to�competefor�foreign�investment�on�the�basis�of�lowlabour�costs�or�light�regulation.�Therefore,regions�need�to�find�ways�of�attracting�highvalue-added�investment�that�is�relatively�difficultfor�firms�to�move�elsewhere.�This�means�thatregions�and�localities�are�faced�with�the�difficulttask�of�putting�together�an�infrastructure�thatprovides�multinationals�in�particular�sectorswith�competitive�advantages.�This�is�likely�torequire�fairly�complex�networks�of�co-ordinationbetween�a�wide�number�of�bodies�andinstitutions,�including�local,�regional�andnational�government,�as�well�as�developmentagencies,�skills�and�education�institutions,employers’�organisations�and�others,�as�well�asthe�local�managers�of�the�multinationalsconcerned.
Why regions?
Those�multinationals�that�have�a�choice�oflocations�from�which�to�service�markets�aregenerally�geographically�concentrated�in�asmall�number�of�local�sites�within�nations.�It�iscommonly�argued�that�choices�about�whichsorts�of�facilities�to�place�in�which�nations�canbe�affected�by�the�skills�and�competenciesavailable�within�labour�markets,�which�in�turnare�shaped�by�skills�and�other�institutions�in�thehost�country�(see�for�example�Kristensen�andMorgan�2007).�As�work�within�economicgeography�argues,�it�is�also�logical�that�firmswill�seek�to�take�advantage�of�skills�that�may�beavailable�on�a�more�local�or�regional�basiswithin�nations.�This�is�particularly�the�casewhere�multinationals�need�to�establish�localisedsupply�chains,�as�is�frequently�the�case�inmanufacturing,�or�where�they�wish�to�penetratelocalised�networks,�or�‘clusters’,�of�innovation(Gertler�2003).�As�in�practice,�the�subsidiariesof�multinationals�normally�recruit�primarily�fromlocal�and�regional�labour�markets,�thendeveloping�valuable�human�capabilities�inregions�is�likely�to�be�important�for�sub-nationalfactors�such�as�development�agencies,�localand�regional�government,�and�skills�agencies,�in�their�attempts�to�attract�and�retain�highvalue-added�activity�within�their�areas.
Attracting and retaining foreign direct
investment: the role of development
agencies
Development�agencies�have�two�mainstrategies�in�which�to�directly�attract�and�retaininvestment.�First,�there�is�the�attraction�of�newinvestment,�which�is�a�question�of�seeking�tomarket�destinations�for�investment.�Second,
there�is�‘aftercare’,�where�they�seek�to�deal�withthe�concerns�of�the�existing�multinationals�intheir�area.�
The�two�roles�exist�at�one�level�or�other�in�allthe�places�covered�by�our�research.�But�howthis�is�organised�varies�considerably.�Placesdiffer�in�terms�of�the�relationship�betweennational�and�sub-national�agencies,�how�close�their�relationships�are�with�existingmultinationals�in�their�area,�and�how�they�seekto�engage�with�them.
In�most�cases�there�are�both�national�and�sub-national�agencies�involved�in�seekinginvestment,�although�the�balance�between�thetwo�levels�differs.�In�England,�for�the�lastdecade,�the�role�of�seeking�investment�hasbeen�performed�both�at�national�level,�by�UKTrade�and�Investment�(UKTI),�and�by�RegionalDevelopment�Agencies�(RDAs)�which�were�setup�by�the�New�Labour�government�as�nationallyappointed�bodies�aiding�economic�developmentin�each�of�England’s�nine�regions.�The�aftercarerole�has�mostly�been�performed�by�the�RDAs,except�in�the�case�of�a�small�number�of�verylarge�multinationals�in�which�UKTI�would�alsohave�a�role�at�a�more�strategic�level.
‘Aftercare’,�as�performed�by�the�RDAs,�hasmeant�a�variety�of�roles.�At�one�level,�it�is�amatter�of�site�visits,�and�of�effectively�workingas�a�broker�between�the�multinational�and�skillsand�other�agencies.�Also,�however,�it�can�covertrying�to�discover�the�future�strategies�of�firmsin�order�either�to�seek�repeat�investment�at�theend�of�product�life�cycles,�or�to�ensure�thatwhere�local�sites�close,�there�is�some�public
R E G I O N S , S k I L L S A N D T H E C O M P E T I T I O N
F O R F O R E I G N D I R E C T I N v E S T M E N T
PAGE | SEvENTEEN
PAGE | EIGHTEEN
‘‘
’’‘‘
’’
strategy�for�dealing�with�the�consequences�forworkers�and�for�the�local�economy.�This�isperhaps�best�explained�by�a�negative�example:
Hitachi�made�TVs�in�North�Wales.�And�one�dayit�closed,�and�everyone�went�‘ugh!’�and�four,five�hundred�people�closed.�Well�actually,�ifyou’d�known�the�sector,�you’d�have�known�thatcathode-ray�tube�televisions�were�on�their�wayout,�everyone�was�buying�flat-screens,�butnobody�actually�challenged�Hitachi�in�thatfactory,�how�they�were�adapting�to�the�newtechnology.�Nobody�said,�where�you�going�tobe�in�four,�five�years�time,�and�actually�plan�toeither�downscale�that�plant,�so�there’s�amanaged�closure,�or�look�to�work�with�Hitachito�actually�bring�in�new�technology.Interview with RDA InvestmentDevelopment Manager
In�our�other�countries,�the�balance�between�the�regional�and�the�national�varies.�In�Spain,regional�agencies�predominate.�These�areappointed�by�powerful�autonomous�regionalgovernments,�and,�in�the�case�examined�todate,�had�very�close�links�to�the�maininstitutional�actors�in�the�region,�includingrepresentatives�of�employers�and�trade�unions,to�a�much�greater�extent�than�has�been�thecase�in�England.�Notably,�in�the�regionexamined,�the�same�individual�directed�both�theinward�investment�programme�and�regionaleconomic�‘cluster’�policies.�In�Ireland,�bothroles�are�performed�largely�by�an�agency�ofnational�government.�The�exception�is�onelong-established�regional�agency�originally�built�around�a�low-tax�development�zonesurrounding�Shannon�Airport,�and�thesomewhat�special�case�of�the�areas�where�theIrish�language�predominates.�The�small�size�ofIreland,�and�the�sheer�importance�of�foreigndirect�investment�to�its�economy,�has�meantthat�foreign�multinationals�have�tended�todevelop�relations�with�representatives�of
national�government.�Finally,�in�Québec,�whichowing�to�its�size�is�itself�divided�into�17�regions,there�is�something�of�a�patchwork,�with�cityregions�having�their�own�agencies,�and�othersfalling�under�the�ambit�of�a�Québec-level‘national’�development�agency.
Relations with the skills sector
Part�of�the�task�of�the�above�agencies�is�toensure�that�foreign�multinationals�become‘embedded’�in�the�region,�that�is,�that�theydevelop�localised�competitive�advantages�andrelations�with�local�firms�and�institutions�whichmakes�them�less�likely�to�move�elsewhere.�Thiscan�be�particularly�difficult�in�England,�as�withina�liberal�market�economy�(Hall�and�Soskice2001)�firms�tend�to�have�relatively�littleinteraction�with�each�other,�creating�marketfailures,�as�the�example�below�shows.
Pcom�said�to�us�that�their�investment�skills�was�a�major�issue.�They�had�to�upskill�and�theywanted�to�put�in�certain�processes�in�place.�We�said�actually�we’ve�been�talking�to�(twoother�local�companies�in�the�same�sector)�thathave�exactly�the�same�issues�as�you�around�this–�we�will�look�to�fund�a�cross-company�trainingprogramme...�Now�they�weren’t�talking�to�eachother,�but�because�our�sector�team�was�key,account-managing�three�or�four�of�them,�wecould�draw�out�those�common�issues.Interview with RDA respondent
In�such�circumstances,�one�of�the�advantagesof�integrating�the�work�of�those�who�arecharged�with�attracting�and�retaininginvestment�within�broader�regionaldevelopment�agencies�is,�at�least�in�principle,that�the�work�of�“investor�development”�canbecome�more�closely�integrated�with�othersworking�to�develop�the�forms�of�co-ordinationnecessary�to�upskill�regional�economies.�This�isperhaps�particularly�important�given�the�almostunfathomable�complexity�of,�and�frequent
changes�to,�the�skills�sector�in�the�UK.�It�has�tobe�said,�though,�that�the�degree�of�co-ordination�between�those�working�with�foreigninvestors�and�the�skills�system�has�beeninconsistent�across�English�regions,�with�veryclose�relationships�in�some�regions�and�a�muchweaker�emphasis�on�this�in�others.�
Future prospects
Given�the�impending�abolition�of�RDAs�underthe�coalition�government,�and�the�likelyintegration�of�most�inward�investment�workunder�the�ambit�of�UKTI,�it�is�perhaps�useful�tospeculate�on�the�advantages�and�disadvantagesof�different�sorts�of�arrangements.
One�disadvantage�of�dealing�with�multinationalsprimarily�at�a�regional�level�is�the�increasedopportunities�this�affords�firms�to�play�one�regionoff�against�each�other,�resulting�in�a�wastefulapplication�of�public�effort�across�regions.�Somerespondents�in�Spain,�where�extensive�regionalpolitical�autonomy�creates�a�high�potential�forregional-level�deals,�highlighted�this�problem.Respondents�in�English�RDAs�did�claim�thatthere�was�a�degree�of�co-ordination�betweenregions�in�order�to�minimise�these�problems,�butclearly�there�is�some�risk�here.
However,�concentrating�efforts�at�a�nationallevel�has�two�important�problems.�The�first�is�adistributional�question.�Respondents�in�Englishregions�argued�that,�as�those�seekinginvestment�within�UKTI�did�not�have�targetsthat�were�broken�down�by�region,�theinvestment�they�helped�attract�to�the�UK�wasdisproportionately�concentrated�in�London�andthe�South�East,�where�the�‘sell’,�particularly�to�the�financial�sector,�was�easier.�Similarconcerns�were�raised�by�respondents�in�Irelandand�in�Québec.
This�relates�to�the�second�problem,�whichconcerns�the�relationships�between�public
PAGE | NINETEEN
actors�in�the�inward�investment�business�andthose�actors�and�institutions�that�help�shapelocal�and�regional�human�resource�supply.Those�working�in�inward�investment�attractionand�retention�need�to�have�knowledge�ofregional�economies�and�networks�that�can�findsolutions�that�operate�in�the�interests�of�thepublic.�Given�the�scale�of�cuts�in�the�publicsector,�and�the�importance�of�internationallymobile�businesses�in�regional�economies,�bothdirectly�and�as�customers�of�smaller�firms,�it�isimportant�for�UK�employment�levels�that�workin�creating�forms�of�co-ordination�that�can�help‘embed’�foreign�firms�locally�continues,�and�isexpanded�upon.�While�the�success�of�RDAs�inthis�task�is�difficult�to�evaluate,�there�is�clearly�arisk�that�regional-level�market�failures�will�notbe�corrected�if�regional�economic�co-ordinationdeclines.
Acknowledgement
Research�funded�by�the�ESRC�(Grant�NoRES-062-23-1886).�The�research�performedin�other�countries�to�date�has�been�co-ordinated�by�Maria�C.�Gonzalez�(University�ofOviedo)�and�Paddy�Gunnigle�(University�ofLimerick),�and�the�work�in�Canada�supportedby�Gregor�Murray�(University�of�Montreal).
Further details
For�more�information�contact:Dr Phil Almond
References and further reading
1. Almond,�P�(2011)�‘The�sub-nationalembeddedness�of�international�HRM’,Human Relations,�forthcoming
2. Gertler,�M�(2003)�‘Tacit�knowledge�and�theeconomic�geography�of�context’,�Journal ofEconomic Geography,�3,�1,�75–100
3. Hall,�P�and�Soskice,�D�(2001)�Varieties ofCapitalism.�Oxford:�Oxford�University�Press
4. Kristensen,�P�and�Morgan,�G�(2007)‘Multinationals�and�institutionalcompetitiveness’,�Regulation andGovernance,�1,�3,�197–212
PAGE | TWENTy-ONE
Centre for Research in Ethnic Minority
Entrepreneurship (CREME)
Led�by�Professor�Monder�Ram,�CREMEengages�with�practitioners�and�policy-makersto�further�the�understanding�of�the�needs�ofethnic�minority�businesses�and�to�helpinfluence�policy.
We�routinely�work�with�business�supportagencies,�local�authorities,�ethnic�minoritybusiness�groups,�public�and�private�sectororganisations,�and�ethnic�minorityentrepreneurs�to�develop�informed�approachesto�enterprise�support.�We�bring�together�thesestakeholders�in�a�variety�of�ways,�ranging�frominternational�conferences�on�key�policy�issuesto�small�workshops�for�local�entrepreneurs,�aswell�as�through�our�high-level�academic�work.
CREME�is�a�leader�on�research�on�ethnicminority�entrepreneurship,�policy�influence�andoutstanding�community�engagement.
CREME’s four areas of focus
Research excellence
We�undertake�significant�work�for�local�andnational�policy-makers�and�carry�out�leadingacademic�research�to�increase�understandingof�ethnic�minority�entrepreneurship.
User engagement
Bringing�together�different�key�organisations�to�enhance�knowledge�transfer�is�one�of�ourstrengths.�From�international�conferences�toworkshops�with�local�entrepreneurs,�weengage�with�all�stakeholders�to�improve�ethnic�minority�enterprise�support.
Collaborative working
We�are�committed�to�working�closely�withpractitioners�in�order�to�understand�their�needsand�to�develop�appropriate�interventions.�Thisis�a�defining�feature�of�our�approach�and�itinvolves�active�engagement�with�the�concernsand�priorities�of�our�stakeholders.
Innovative practice
We�work�with�our�partners�to�develop�innovativeresponses�to�policy�and�practitioner�issues.�We�have�used�our�knowledge�base�to�establishcutting-edge�initiatives�in�procurement,business�support�and�user�engagement.
For�further�details�about�CREME�contact:Liz Frost, projects officer
E: [email protected]: creme-dmu.org.uk
The Local Governance Research Unit
(LGRU)
The�LGRU,�based�at�Leicester�Business�School,is�an�internationally�recognised�centre�ofexcellence�for�theoretically�informed,�robust�andrigorous�policy�relevant�research�into�British�andcomparative�local�governance.�Our�work�focuseson�community�cohesion�and�local�citizenship,neighbourhood�governance,�local�democracyand�local�politics.�We�also�have�a�broad�researchinterest�in�all�aspects�of�local�governance.�Our�high�quality�research�meets�the�needs�ofacademics,�policy-makers�and�practitioners�atthe�international,�national,�regional�and�local�level.We�are�committed�to�providing�a�strong�andvibrant�link�between�academic�research�and�theneeds�of�the�research�user.�The�unit�undertakesresearch�for�a�wide�variety�of�bodies,�ranging
from�the�Economic�and�Social�Research�Council(ESRC)�and�the�Joseph�Rowntree�Foundation,pan-European�bodies�such�as�the�Council�ofEurope,�through�to�government�departments,such�as�the�Department�of�Communities,�andlocal�government.�We�also�provide�consultancy,research�and�policy�advice�to�individual�councilsand�others�concerned�with�aspects�of�local�governance.�We�have�continued�ourgroundbreaking�research�as�part�of�theinternational�Regenerating�UrbanNeighbourhoods�programme,�which�aims�toimprove�understanding�of�the�politics�andprocesses�of�neighbourhood-based�initiatives�forthe�regeneration�of�urban�areas. �
LGRU�has�recently�been�involved�in�researchproject�awards�made��by�the�Arts�andHumanities�Research�Council�as�part�of�theirConnected�Communities�Programme�totalling£100,000.�Dr�Catherine�Durose�(LGRU)�will�leadtwo�of�the�projects,�‘Illuminating�the�evolution�ofcommunity�participation’�and�‘Problematising�co-production’.�Both�these�reviews�involvecolleagues�from�the�Universities�of�Manchesterand�Birmingham.�Dr�Jo�Richardson�(Centre�forComparative�Housing�Research)�is�also�involvedin�the�latter�project.�Dr�Leila�Hamalainen�(LGRU)will�lead�the�third�project,�‘Conceptualisingcommunity�as�a�social�fix,�argument�andpersuasion�in�health,�housing�and�localgovernance’,�working�with�Dr�Kathryn�Jones(Health�Policy�Research�Unit).�‘ConnectedCommunities’�has�been�designated�as�one�of�the‘Grand�Challenges’�for�research�and�is�a�newcross-Research�Council�programme.�The�fundedprojects�will�seek�to�understand�the�changingnature�of�communities,�in�their�historical�and
N E W S F R O M R E S E A R C H U N I T S
PAGE | TWENTy-TWO
cultural�contexts�and�the�value�of�communities�in�sustaining�and�enhancing�our�quality�of�life.This�enhanced�understanding�will�also�inform�thedevelopment�of�more�effective�community-basedinterventions�to�address�key�economic�andsocietal�challenges.
In�January�2011�LGRU�began�its�two-yearresearch�collaboration�with�the�Association�for�Public�Service�Excellence�(APSE),�a�not-for-profit�local�government�body�working�withover�300�councils�throughout�the�UK.�Thistimely�research�partnership�with�APSE�seeks�to�deliver�guidance�on�new�tools�and�ways�ofworking�for�local�authorities�facing�reductions�in�public�spending.�The�project�is�led�by�Dr�Steven�Griggs�and�Dr�Catherine�Durose.Steven�is�editor�of�the�journal�Critical PolicyAnalysis.
Catherine�was�also�commissioned�by�the�Equalities�and�Human�Rights�Commissionto�lead�the�‘Pathways�to�Politics’�projectexamining�the�common�pathways�and�barriersfor�under-represented�groups�seeking�tobecome�elected�representatives.�She�has�alsoco-edited�and�contributed�to�a�book,�ChangingLocal Governance, Changing Citizens.�
In�May�2010�we�organised�a�seminar�on‘Innovative�Methods�in�Public�Policy�Research’which�was�the�first�in�a�series�of�eventsproviding�an�opportunity�to�hear�from�leadingresearchers�and�experts�about�pioneeringmethods�in�public�policy�research,�includingexperiments,�QCA,�profiling�and�discourseanalysis.�In�September�we�organised�aconference�with�the�theme�of�‘InterpretingDemocratic�Governance’.�In�November�weplayed�host�to�a�group�of�key�internationalacademics�who�attended�our�workshop�onsmall�parties�and�non-partisan�politics�in�localgovernment.
Dr�Tomila�Lankina�has�been�developing�ourcomparative�politics�research�capacity�andcontinuing�her�excellent�publishing�record.�
Dr�Melvin�Wingfield�has�been�working�with�the�unit’s�new�Director,�Professor�Colin�Copus,on�a�research�project�exploring�the�role�ofindependent�councillors�and�has�worked�withthe�Local�Government�Association’sIndependent�Group�Office�in�developing�a‘statement�of�principles’�for�independentcouncillors.�Colin�is�editor�of�the�journal�LocalGovernment Studies.�Members�of�the�unit�havecontinued�to�produce�high�quality�journalpublications�as�well�as�book�chapters�andresearch�reports.�
For�further�details�about�the�LGRU�contact:Suzanne Walker, Unit Administrator
E: [email protected]: dmu.ac.uk/lgru
The Centre for Comparative Housing
Research (CCHR)
CCHR�brings�together�expert�researchers�whohave�an�established�reputation�in�housing�andrelated�issues.�We�are�currently�engaged�inseveral�research�and�consultancy�projects�for�a�range�of�clients.
We�are�carrying�out�a�major�project�for�thegovernment�on�institutional�investment�in�the�private�rented�sector.�The�work�is�led�byProfessor�Michael�Oxley�and�involves�Dr�TimBrown�and�Ros�Lishman�as�well�as�colleaguesat�Delft�University�of�Technology�(TU)�in�theNetherlands.�The�focus�is�on�lesson�learningfrom�other�countries�including�Australia,France,�Germany�and�the�USA.�The�findingswill�shape�the�new�coalition�governmentpolicies�on�housing.
In�2009,�the�centre,�with�colleagues�from�Delft�TU,�carried�out�a�major�project�for�the
Government’s�National�Housing�and�PlanningAdvice�Unit�(NHPAU)�on�Learning the lessonsfor planning and affordable housing fromWestern Europe.�This�is�a�review�of�Europeanplanning�systems�and�the�consequences�forhouse�building.
Professor�Michael�Oxley�has�co-authored�aninternational�comparative�study�on�housingsubsidies�and�taxation�in�the�owner-occupiedsector�for�the�Joseph�Rowntree�Foundation.�It�forms�a�major�input�into�a�study�on�stability�inthe�housing�market�and�the�options�for�reform�to�reduce�volatility.�Michael�has�also�co-authoredtwo�reports�for�the�Dutch�Housing�Ministry�onhousing�markets�and�the�international�financialcrisis�and�has�produced�a�report�for�UN�Habitaton�financing�affordable�social�housing�in�Europe.
Michael�has�also�researched�the�competitiverelationship�between�private�and�social�rentedhousing�in�Europe�with�colleagues�in�the�OTBResearch�Institute�for�the�Built�Environment�atDelft�TU.�This�has�resulted�in�a�book�andarticles�in�several�journals�including�HousingTheory and Society and�the�European Journalof Housing Policy.
Tim�and�Ros�completed�a�study�on�urbanregeneration�for�the�Northern�Way�in�January2010.�This�highlighted�that�councils�should�co-ordinate�regeneration�projects�more�effectivelyand�cut�down�on�the�number�of�local�deliveryvehicles.�A�number�of�local�authorities�are�nowusing�this�report�as�a�basis�for�reviewing�theirapproach�to�urban�regeneration.
Dr�Peter�King�has�published�two�significantbooks�in�2010:�Housing Boom and Bust:Owner Occupation, Government Regulationand the Credit Crunch (Routledge);�andHousing Policy Transformed: The Right to Buyand the Desire to Own (Policy�Press).
PAGE | TWENTy-THREE
As�a�result�of�the�latter�book,�Peter�wasfeatured�in�The Observer, The Daily Telegraphand�the�Sunday Times,�as�well�as�on�aprogramme�for�BBC�Radio�Scotland.�The�bookwas�launched�at�a�reception�hosted�by�theInstitute�of�Economic�Affairs�in�February�2010.
Peter�has�a�contract�with�Policy�Press�for�a�bookcalled�The New Politics’ on�the�Lib-Con�coalitionand�why�Cameron�couldn’t�win�the�electionoutright�–�due�for�publication�summer�2011.
Dr�Jo�Richardson�led�a�project�for�the�Somersetcouncils�analysing�accommodation�needs�forgypsies�and�travellers�using�communitymembers�on�the�survey�team;�the�final�draftreport�was�completed�in�October�2010�and�aseminar�to�launch�the�findings�to�the�communityand�local�councillors�took�place�in�Taunton�inJanuary�2011.�The�report�is�available�on�theSouth�Somerset�District�Council�websitewww.southsomerset.gov.uk.�Jo�also�led�aproject�to�develop�a�gypsy�and�travellerstrategy�for�Cambridgeshire�County�Counciland�district�partners,�the�final�draft�wascompleted�at�the�end�of�November�2010.
Two�books�were�published�at�the�end�of�2010which�Jo�edited�and�contributed�to:�FromRecession to Renewal – the impact of thefinancial crisis on public services and localgovernment (Policy�Press);�and�Housing andthe Customer (Chartered�Institute�of�Housing).
For�further�details�about�the�CCHR�contact:Ros Lishman
E: [email protected]�W: dmu.ac.uk/cchr
Health Policy Research Unit (HPRU)
The�HPRU�began�life�as�a�joint�venturebetween�the�Leicester�Business�School�andthen�Faculty�of�Health�and�Community�Studiesin�2000.�Ten�years�on�the�unit�has�achieved�agreat�deal.�In�this�period,�we�have�seen�theHPRU�grow�and�develop.�Members�drawn�from�the�two�faculties�have�generated�over�£5�million�in�research�income.�They�havesecured�grants�from�international�bodies,research�councils,�government�departments,the�NHS�and�the�voluntary�sector.�They�alsoundertake�consultancy�work�for�the�NHS,voluntary�sector�and�local�government,�whichhas�a�bearing�on�service�delivery.�Membershave�produced�over�300�publications,�includingsome�of�the�leading�books�and�journal�articlesin�their�field.�Some�of�our�publications�are�citedand�used�by�researchers�and�practitionersaround�the�globe,�including�the�World�HealthOrganisation.�Our�research�interests�arebroadly�similar�to�our�original�priorities:�publichealth,�diversity�and�inequalities;�healthprofessions;�health�policy�and�management,and�public�and�patient�involvement.�Examplesof�recent�work�include:�An�international�study�ofhealthy�lifestyles,�an�evaluation�of�local�publicinvolvement�in�health�service�reorganisation,�aproject�to�improve�hospital�hygiene�and�a�studyof�patient�groups’�campaigning�activities.
We�have�built�networks�both�within�and�outsidethe�university.�We�have�a�good�workingrelationship�with�other�centres�and�units�atDMU�(such�as�Mary�Seacole�Research�Centre,the�Centre�for�Social�Action,�the�Unit�for�theSocial�Study�of�Thalassaemia,�the�LocalGovernance�Research�Unit,�Centre�forComparative�Housing�Research�and�Centre�forSocial�Action).�We�have�also�built�links�withresearchers�across�the�university�in�areas�suchas�pharmacy�and�communication�technologies.Our�activities�are�disseminated�to�a�wider
group�of�stakeholders�across�the�university�inthe�form�of�a�regular�electronic�newsletter,which�also�contains�details�of�potentialresearch�funding�and�promotes�awareness�ofrecent�health�policy�documents.�Links�withother�universities�have�also�been�strengthenedthrough�joint�research�bids�and�othercollaborations�as�well�as�a�seminar�programmewith�external�speakers.�
A�new�brochure�gives�the�highlights�of�ourrecent�activities.�A�copy�can�be�obtained�fromthe�Director,�whose�details�are�given�below.
For�further�details�about�the�HPRU�contact:Professor Rob Baggott, Director, HPRU
E: [email protected]�or�[email protected]: dmu.ac.uk/hpru
Steve White: Full-time student – The
nature and extent of the public service
ethos in front-line professionals
After�13�years�as�a�manager�in�the�police�force,�I�wanted�to�look�at�public�sector�issues�from�awider�perspective.�I�undertook�a�Master’s�inPublic�Administration�at�the�University�ofNottingham.�During�that�year,�I�developed�aparticular�interest�in�the�public�service�ethos�–the�notion�that�public�service�is�a�form�ofvocation,�with�a�different�philosophy�andapproach�to�private�or�voluntary�sectors.�I�wassuccessful�in�applying�for�a�bursary�to�undertakea�PhD�in�Public�Policy,�with�the�Department�ofPublic�Policy�at�De�Montfort�University.
My�research�focused�on�two�community�safetypartnerships�as�case�studies.�This�allowed�meto�compare�and�contrast�different�governancerelationships�within�and�between�England�andWales,�and�to�assess�how�a�legal�requirementto�work�in�partnership�affected�the�publicservice�ethos�of�front-line�professionalsinvolved�in�delivering�safer�communities.�Myresearch�therefore�combined�two�theories�–�thepublic�service�ethos,�and�network�governance.This�combination�represented�my�contributionto�new�knowledge�and�understanding.
My�research�is�the�first�to�assess�the�impact�on�the�front�line�of�New�Labour�policies.�The�community�safety�legislation�specificallyrequired�networks�to�be�at�the�heart�ofgovernance�for�community�safety�issues.�My�research�has�indicated�that�the�publicservice�ethos�has�changed,�away�from�a�mainlypatrician�but�long-term�view.�Instead,�it�hasbecome�more�focused�on�short-term�issues�anddemonstrable�performance.�This�has�skewedthe�public�service�ethos�towards�somethingmore�akin�to�professional�pride,�as�front-lineprofessionals�are�increasingly�required�to�think�
about�their�immediate�contribution,�rather�thanwider�and�longer-term�community�issues.�Assuch,�there�is�considerable�crossover�with�thevoluntary�sector,�although�there�are�dangers�ifpolicy-makers�assume�the�two�are�identical.�
William Wells: Part-time student –
Capturing and augmenting the
knowledge assets of the UK regions:
Sub-national governance actors and
their collaboration with universities to
win foreign direct investment
Why�are�you�doing�a�PhD?�This�is�a�common,often�incredulous, response�from�friends�andcolleagues�with�whom�I�have shared�the�detailof�my�current�academic�pursuit.�And�it’sunderstandable,�to�most mid-careerprofessional�people�it�seems�an�unusual�projectto�undertake,�beset,�as�they�are,�by�a�busyworking�life�and�family�commitments.
The�motivation�for�undertaking a�major�piece�ofself-directed�research�over�an�extended�periodwill�be�unique�to�the�individual.�This�has�beenconfirmed�by�my�contact�with�fellow�PhDstudents.�However,�while�for�some�there�is�theelement�of�hobby,�fulfilment�of�long-termambition,�or�first�step�on�to�the�career�ladder,�I�have�come�across�many�seeking�a�substantialframework�for�ongoing�professionaldevelopment.�In�doing�so,�their�impetusmatches�my�own.�As�increasing�numbers�of�theUK�workforce�are�educated�to�Master’s�level�itcan�only�be�expected�that�demand�for�part-timePhDs�will�grow.�This�will�be�a�function�of�thedemand�from�students�to�continue�their�studiesat�a�yet�higher�level,�as�well�as�the�need�to�bedifferentiated�in�a�crowded�market.
While�these�features�hold�true�to�my�ownexperience�it�has�not�simply�been�a�case�of�theneeds�of�the�career�shaping�the�education.
At�the�time�of�embarking�on�an�executive�MBA�atDe�Montfort�University�in�2001,�I�had�made�asolid�start�to�my�career�in�industrial�and�consumersales�and�marketing.�At�that�time�I�wanted�toinvest�in�an�all-round�business�education.However,�as�well�as�developing a broad�businessskills�base,�it�was�through�the�programme�that�Ideveloped�an�engaged�interest�in�globalinvestment�flows�and�the�role�of�MultinationalCorporations�(MNCs) in�that�process.�Within sixmonths�of�graduation�I�had�taken�up�a�post�in�thegovernment�agency�charged�with�winninginvestment�from�international�businesses�–working�in�the�frontline�of�engagement�with thelocation�decisions�of�major�global�businesses.
Five�years�on,�and�my�experiences�in�the�role�haveshaped�my�PhD�research.�The�project exploresthe�ways�in�which�government�investment�inuniversities�can�impact�relative�flows�of�MNC-ledresearch�and�development�investment�betweencompetitive�post-industrial�economies.
And�so,�to�those�who�ask�why�are�you�doing�aPhD?�I�genuinely�believe�that�I�can�add�somesmall�understanding�and�further�insight�in�to�aneconomically�important�process,�that�I�am�wellplaced�to�do�this�work�through�my�professionalrole�and�academic�background�and,�at�the�riskof�sounding�worthy,�I�want�to�be�recognised�asan�outstanding�practitioner�in�my�field.
Working�with�the�staff�at�De�Montfort�University(and,�especially,�my�supervisors)�has�allowedme�to�develop�a�more�academic�approach�toresearch�than�was�the�case�in�my�professionalcareer.�I�found�each�of�my�supervisors�to�haveseparate,�but�complementary�expertise�andexperience.�I�feel�this�blend�is�an�important�partof�good�supervision,�and�good�research.�I�nowhope�to�publish�in�academic�journals�and�speakat�academic�conferences,�broadening�myunderstanding�and�contacts�network.
D O C T O R A L S T U D E N T F E AT U R E
PAGE | TWENTy-FOUR
Leicester Business School has a dynamic,
thriving research community whose work has an
international reputation in a number of fields.
Why not join us as a PhD student?
Research degree applications are welcomedfrom students working in a wide range ofBusiness School disciplines includingAccounting and Finance, Human ResourceManagement, Marketing, Public Policy, andStrategy and Management.
Much of our work is focused on three specificareas of expertise and we particularly inviteapplications within these fields:• Public policy, including research in the fields of local governance, health and housing
• Human resource management andorganisational behaviour, especially in themanagement of organisational change andemployment relations in multinationals
• Small business and ethnic minorityenterprise, covering such themes as accessto finance, small firms and the environment,supplier diversity and employee relations
The International PhD Programme
The International PhD allows students basedoutside the UK to register with DMU for a PhDbut to undertake the majority of their studies intheir home country.
Full details of the International PhD can be foundat: dmu.ac.uk/internationalphd
Contact us
T: +44 (0)116 250 6332E: [email protected]: dmu.ac.uk/balresearch
J O I N u S
Alternative formats: Where possible DMU publications or specific sections can be supplied inalternative media. For further information on how we can help, please contact The Enquiry Centre on08459 45 46 47, dmu.ac.uk/enquiry or text phone +44 (0)116 257 7908.© The Studio, External Relations Department, De Montfort University. April 2011 (169) All rights reserved.
Leicester Business School
De Montfort University
The Gateway
Leicester LE1 9BH, UK
T: +44 (0)116 250 6454
W: dmu.ac.uk/balresearch