Devolution

Levering growth versus mitigating a deficit economy

A major stimulus for devolution in the post-industrial areas of the north, related to the complex challenges of economic drag, low job density, too few people in the labour market, higher levels of labour market inactivity and the prevalence of low skills equilibriums. Devolution brought with it a level of optimism that it would lead to the transference of resources and powers, to enable new approaches to inclusivity and labour market re-attachment, health, and employment inequalities and to give control over the skills system to develop local solutions to skills deficits and to stem low levels of ambition.   This was the case in South Yorkshire. The first growth deal highlighted that South Yorkshire was the only area of the country in the boom cycle of the early 2000s to experience a net reduction in private sector jobs. 

 Parking the fundamental issue of whether the early deals were devolution of resources and powers or a decentralisation of programmes, with some flexibility in borrowing powers. The context in the south east, is starting from a different premise.  One where devolution is positioned as harnessing and accelerating the growth potential of an already strong region. Whilst this statement can mask and gloss over some fundamental issues of connection to prosperity and disenfranchisement, that should not be ignored, it is a different starting point to engage with the new government.

Democratic accountability versus process governance

In the formative stage of early devolved administrations, the perception was that the Combined Authority offered a convenient scale and conduit for accessing national resources that may not have been possible at a more local level. Crudely speaking there was a position held by some that the Combined Authority was a vehicle for access to finance.  This positioning framed the perceived identity of the authority and led to an emphasis on process and governance in the early years. Consequently, time and effort were spent monitoring how resource was being deployed on a per capita or business basis, in which area and who was getting what.

Whilst process governance is undoubtedly essential, over focusing on this led to a skewed identity of the potential of the Combined Authority and the impact this could bring to the region. This issue of role and identity came to the fore most profoundly when the Combined Authority became a Mayoral Combined Authority and there was a new set of priorities at the level of the region.  The challenge of identity is one that I will come back to as in a future article I will touch on some of the challenges for Leaders in simultaneously being the Leader of their place and a Member of the Combined Authority and of who gives advice and what this means for Local and Combined Authority officers.

South Yorkshire was not unique in seeing this tension, as it was experienced in many of the early devolved areas, but what was essential was shifting the identity and perception of the Authority.

One of many catalysts for this in South Yorkshire was when some work I was leading on business process reorganisation, stepped outside the narrow definition of process, and begged the question is there a shared strategic intent within the region? This led to quality time focusing on the economy and of the unique contributions of the places that made up the economy and led to the development of a shared outcomes framework. In turn this outcomes framework unlocked the door for a genuine and meaningful approach to subsidiarity and re-energised democratic accountability in the work of the Combined Authority locally.

 The pivot from a process-based relationship between the Combined Authority and its constituent members to one where there was a clear set of outcomes and local democratic accountability has been transformational. Whilst all new organisations and institutions have to work through the curve of formation to maturity, the south east areas can use this learning and move through the formation stage into one where local democratic accountability for growth outcomes are at the heart of the Strategic Authorities identity. 

Role of places and spatial geography

Aligned to this is the role of places within the broader configuration. In seeking to make clear the outcomes the Mayor and Combined Authority were seeking to achieve for the region it was essential that we all understood the role and contribution of the towns and cities within the authority area. This was challenging as, circling back to my first reflection of growth versus a deficit economy, the post-industrial areas were still coming to grips with developing their new economic identities.  We collaborated across the region to unpick this, to understand our strengths and consider the hot spots of risk.

In the south east whilst local government reorganisation might change administrative boundaries, starting to articulate the contribution of places to the economy, their growth potential, their labour market opportunities, the challenges this may bring for housing / affordable housing or transport is essential and should be progressed at pace. This work, in addition to providing clarity on the strategy for growth to be progressed, sharpens and develops a clear narrative for government, investors, institutional investors and brings confidence in the leadership and governance of the area.

Establishing a new authority

The Combined Authority in South Yorkshire, as with most of the early Combined / Mayoral Combined Authorities, was centred around metropolitan centres. The configurations of Constituent Councils who formed the Combined Authority had strong ties and established ways of working. Transport was delivered at the regional level, and other services shared this geographic footprint. This longevity of relationships, Councillors and Stakeholders gave the new Authority some stability to draw upon. As an aside it also created some navigational issues in the early days. Particularly when for expediency and / or control the decision was made to use the governance regulations of one authority and the finance regulations of another. Employees using these soon found a great big gap in the middle where delegations were mismatched! 

The consecutive running of devolution and local government reorganisation in the south east will undoubtedly be challenging to navigate. Consecutively working to wind down district authorities in conjunction with the formation of new unitary authorities and creating the strategy, policy and institution of the strategic authorities is an incredible programme of change. It will require differences in approach to both governance accountability, communication, consultation and engagement...And of course, seeking the help and support offered to maximise the learning from those that have worked through this.