listic, intransigent and difficult-to- manage direct labour. The local au- thority's role changes to one of deter- mining policy, setting standards, monitoring performance and financial control.

This has led to a new kind of profes- sionalism in local government. The old-style departmentalism, with large in-house staffs presided over (though seldom effectively managed) by lofty professional Chief Officers, has been replaced by better integrated and more flexible structures where man- agerial and financial skills rather than specialist professional qualifications are required. Changes on these lines were already taking place in the more progressive local authorities before the Thatcher revolution erupted and it is a tribute to the new professionalism of local government, and its capacity for creative change, that these reforms are now becoming well established. Likewise there have been changes in the way in which local authorities operate at the political level in Council chambers and committee rooms; although the extent and nature of these changes are far less easily dis- cerned than at the managerial level.

The present authors recognize these changes and the book provides the most up-to-date and coherent account of them that is available at present. As the editors say, however, "There is no doubt that the role of local govern- ment is changing but in what way and how the process will be played out remain open questions". It is certainly unclear whether the public perception of local government has changed and whether it will attract greater public interest and support in future. With- but that support, it may well continue to decline in political significance and influence. If that happens it will diminish the quality of democracy in this country.

None of the present authors offers a clear or coherent vision of the future of local government. John Stewart and George Jones in their concluding chapter suggest a concept of "com- munity government", but it is a hazy picture and it is not clear how it would differ from what exists now. Possibly a new role will emerge in which local authorities acquire a measure of re-

Book reviews

sponsibility for the oversight of the multiplicity of non-elected bodies that now run local services. That at least might restore a democratic element. In addition, local authorities have ac- quired important new functions in the fields of community care , environ- mental protection and traffic manage- ment. Land-use planning remains a key function and cannot be privatized (or, at least, not sensibly).

It cannot be assumed that the arriv- al of a New Labour Government will necessarily result in a new lease of life for local government. Desmond King makes the point that the decline in the scope of local government dates from the nationalization policies of the post-war Labour government. There has been a constant tendency for Brit- ish governments to resent and wish to curtail the power and influence of local government. Mr Blair's New Labour, as in so much else, has not yet clarified its attitude to local govern- ment beyond bland generalities. The offer of some form of regional govern- ment may not be a good thing for local government. But there can be no re- turn to the municipal socialism of yes- teryear. New Labour could begin by endorsing the European Charter of Local Self-Government, which all other EC governments have adopted and which some have begun to imple- ment (and which, surprisingly, is not referred to in this volume).

It is a hopeful sign that the subject of local government continues to attract the high quality of academic work represented by the contributors to this book.

John Delafons Visiting Professor

University of Reading, UK

Nature's Keepers: The New Science of Nature Management Stephen Budiansky Weidenfeld and Nicholson London (1995) £20 (in UK)

The natural environment should not be thought of as a product of 'natural ' forces. To do so is to adopt a myth that is inconsistent with the evidence

47

from natural environments around the world and is dangerous in that it im- plies that there is no need to manage 'natural ' areas. It encourages the idea that it is appropriate simply to with- draw human influence and allow 'na- ture' to return the areas to their 'natu- ral' state. Budiansky argues per- suasively that the concept of climax in ecology is unhelpful in identifying appropriate management for the natu- ral environment; a point well accepted by ecologists themselves but not wide- ly recognized by environmentalists, especially those advocating preserva- tionist approaches.

In practice all areas are subject to relatively frequent upheavel and change. It is rarely possible for par- ticular biological systems to operate in a stable context for a 'climax' to de- velop and to be maintained. Indeed instability is a source of vigour in many wildlife populations. Human in- fluence is pervasive, even in areas thought to have been relatively un- touched. The influence of fire on the prairies, deliberately used by North American Indians is adopted in detail to illustrate the argument. "The truth is that thousands of years of human history have effectively blotted out the very meaning of "artificial" and "natu- ral". We cling to these terms at the cost of endless confusion and muddled thinking" (p 126).

Budiansky is critical of alternative views and draws on a rich blend of hitory, experimental results and argu- ment to make his case. He also makes use of many respected authorities whom we may have been expected to be in the other camp. Leopold in particular is used in support. He rec- ognized the pervasive influence of hu- mans on wildlife and the inevitability of human management.

But where do such arguments lead? Human intervention is necessary in order to direct the pattern of environ- mental change. The science of nature management must play a central role and it is developing its own techniques for this. But the fear must be that to accept the argument that there is no single, superior goal for a natural en- vironment, lays us open to the argu- ment that any goal will do. And from that, to the one that advocates the

48

goal that maximizes (short-term) hu- man advantage.

Budiansky is aware of the problem. In order to search for criteria for the selection of objectives in nature man- agement, Budiansky turns to econo- mics. The argument here seems less secure. There is an extended analysis of grouse moor management in Scot- land and northern England and of the successful role of research and analysis in identifying appropriate manage- ment. However, there will be many other circumstances where objectives and constraints, and hence manage- ment prescriptions, are less clear. But the nature management problem is inevitable; we will have to identify our human objectives for the 'natural' en- vironment, to support ecosystem func- tions and to meet aesthetic and other demands, and then develop app- roaches to management that can sup- port these. In the absence of this, we will not get the environments that we require.

lan Hodge Department of Land Economy

University of Cambridge Cambridge CB3 9EP, UK

Planning, the Market and Private Housebuilding Glen Bramley, Will Bartlett and Christine Lambert UCL London (1995) 263 pp £12.95 (paperback)

This is a book by three experienced housing researchers that draws together existing research on housing regulation and market interactions from a wide range of methodological standpoints to produce a heuristic model of the dynamics of private sec- tor supply in Britain. Specifically focussed on the supply response of housebuilders to changes in demand at local level, the model attempts to pre- dict the behavioural responses of buil- ders and landowners to different reg- ulatory inputs. With its pan- theoretical approach drawing on the urban economics literature in North America, the economic modelling of British housing markets, and hedonic modelling to explain individual prefer-

Book reviews

ences, it represents an important con- tribution to the current debate on the effect and efficacy of market interven- tion.

The authors' aim is to build a model capable of explaining the differences in house price and dwelling outputs between local authority districts, using factors of location, employment and social structure as proxies for demand, and construction costs, land availabil- ity, planning policies and profit con- straints as the supply side factors. In determining the relationships between these factors, the authors first review academic work on market response to housing demand, developing and then testing hypotheses in model pilot runs. The initial assumption that local hous- ing markets based on district bound- aries are sufficiently separate and open on the demand side, was found on testing not to be a valid assump- tion. Assumptions that a demand shift would lead to a lagged response from suppliers but a quick response in price were more robust. Two fairly crude measures for expressing the respon- siveness of land use planning to mar- ket forces were employed. The first measure was a 'restrictive' or 'very restrictive' categorization of County Structure Plans on the basis of their policies. The second proxy was the percentage of successful planning ap- plications awarded by the districts.

The authors use their model to test some of the myths about the restric- tive effect of land use planning on both the price and supply of land for housing. Doubling the amount of housing land released over a 10 yr period through the planning system, using different assumptions about the time taken to exhaust the land, did not increase the supply of land onto the market for housing by more than 28% in any of the scenarios tested. The model suggested that as land supply increases, dwelling prices reduce to some extent, causing the profitability of housebuilding and the supply of land to fall. The additional land com- ing onto the market will be greater in high demand areas and lower in in- dustrial and rural areas.

Two conclusions are reached from these model runs. First, that the res- triction of land supply through plan-

ning policies does raise house prices to some extent which redistributes in favour of existing owners and against tenants and new buyers. The authors are optimistic though that these in- creases are compensated by the affordable dwellings negotiated through planning agreements. The second conclusion is that housing supply is very inelastic in Britain both in terms of response to increased de- mand for new build and for conver- sions. They were able to demonstrate that even where the planning system allocates large quantities of land, housing supply is not highly elastic. This contrasts with the pro- development lobby argument that more land released will reduce prices and increase access to housing affor- dability in general. It appears that landowners derive more benefit from occupation than current market value, and that the highest value is retained by waiting for future gains.

The model unfortunately doesn't throw any light either on housebuilder response to the increased primacy of the development plan or to demo- graphic trends for smaller households. Housebuilders have always relied on flexibility in the planning system bringing forward sites in response to market pressure during periods of high demand. Housebuilders' land ac- quisition policies will now have to be tied more closely to local authority preferences for spatial growth and sus- tainable development. This increases their degree of uncertainty about future outputs and profits, and comes at a time when they are expected to contribute to infrastructure and social housing and when demand itself is more volatile.

The authors recognize the import- ant influence of urban land market on the policy options open to central and local government regulators. They demonstrate that because the housing land market is very inelastic in response to increased demand subsidies for owner occupation become capitalized in house prices rather than increasing housing output. The model therefore supports the governments' reduction in mortgage interest tax relief, which should help to reduce house prices. More sophisticated housing require-