Posted by Andy Pike, CURDS and
SERC
Two and
half years on the birth of Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) in England, we’ve
reached a critical juncture in their development. The 39 LEPs have been busy
building these new institutions and forging and nurturing partnerships since
2010. Last week’s Budget took forward the recommendations in the Heseltine
Review, but left the detailed implications for LEPs unclear.
Researchers
in CURDS have undertaken the first national survey of all 39 LEPs as part of
their involvement in SERC, and the study sought to take stock of the current position and prospects for the
LEPs. In early March 2012, CURDS hosted a seminar to disseminate and discuss the
findings. Here’s a flavour of what was covered.
“What is
the LEP?”
This
fundamental question prompted some reflection on the specific nature and
purpose of LEPs. For some, the LEP constituted the Board while for others it
was the locus of the local partnership for economic growth. Clarity on the aim,
purpose and role of the LEPs remained a central issue on which LEPs were
developing their own local views and they are were increasingly keen to better
understand what Government has in mind for the longer term.
Are LEPs
too small and fragmented really to add value and make a difference to local
growth?
The size
and scale of the LEPs and the fragmented character of the institutional
arrangements was a very real concern. Unflattering comparison was drawn with
European and other regions whose more substantial and “heavy-weight”
institutions and resources for regional and local economic development left the
LEPs looking rather limited and under-powered in the competition for the
investment, jobs and innovation to generate local growth. The CURDS research
revealed a diverse picture of varied capacity and resources amongst the LEPs.
Establishing
the staff and finances of the LEPs is complex. Staff contributions are direct,
indirect and pro bono and in-kind from partner organisations. Finances comprise
a range of funding streams – European, central and local – with some allocated
and some won in competition. Direct staffing ranged from up to 40 to less than
1. Finances stretched from an estimated £40m to under £5m. In this kind of
resource environment, it rang very true that for local economic growth the
“LEPs were only as strong as their partners”.
How can
central Government provide the advice and guidance on what the longer-term
vision and plan is for LEPs in ways that don’t challenge the idea of ‘localism’
and undermine the autonomy local actors?
This
issue is especially thorny. The CURDS research found that LEPs were crying out
for a sense of where Government policy is heading and what further
responsibilities and resources are coming over the horizon. Yet mixed and
unclear messages were emerging from different Ministers and Departments. LEPs
want a steer and direction – not prescription – on what kind of institutional Government
would like to see.
Are LEPs
competitors and/or collaborators?
While the
39 LEPs were – in numerous cases – bottom-up entities, the CURDS research and
discussion at the seminar focused on the issue of how the LEPs relate to each
other within the broader network or system. There is evidence of chasing
investments, firms and people for individual LEP areas. There are examples too
of collaboration on issues of shared concern, whether with neighbouring LEPs or
those further afield for example on MoD and the defence estate. Given the
national centralisation of key policy areas important to local growth in inward
investment and innovation, the CURDS research revealed an uneven set of
relationships between specific LEPs and the key national institutions. In a
competitive model, the more capable and better connected LEPs will forge ahead
leaving others in their wake. In a collaborative model, the benefits of
knowledge exchange and learning might be spread out across LEP-land. If
rebalancing is still a serious government concern then some thought on how the
overall system inter-relates and works would be timely.
How can
LEPs maintain their streamlined organisations with growing responsibilities and
resources to manage?
The fear
articulated here was about “bureaucratisation” and losing the agile ways in
which LEPs are trying to do more with less. Balancing this concern was the need
to be accountable for the decision-making and disbursement of public funds.
Indeed, the CURDS research revealed many LEPs were uneasy and seeking advice on
appropriate governance arrangements to address these concerns and assuage the
anxieties of private sector board members. Engaging the private sector was seen
by LEPs as critical to sustaining their meaningful input. But how can it be
done in ways that are accountable and transparent?
How much
decentralisation and for whom?
In the
wake of Lord Heseltine’s review, further decentralisation of
responsibilities and resources are heading the LEPs' way.
Local actors expressed concerns about exactly how this would work. Would there
be decentralisation in waves? Would an initial tier of more capable and strong
LEPs with recognised economic opportunity and potential to contribute to local
growth emerge at the front of the queue for further resources and responsibilities?
Where this left the less capable and weaker LEPs was less clear.
Even
given the history of flux in the governance arrangements for economic
development in England and the alphabet soup of previous eras, it was felt that
LEPs were likely be around for a while with little prospect of further change
whatever the outcome of the General Election in 2015. Amongst the local actors
there was little appetite for further institutional change and upheaval, the
costs of which were still being felt by many in the wake of the dismantling of
the regional tier. Fundamentally, local actors were trying to get on with the
job of growing prosperity locally. “LEPs may come and go but the rationale for
the local partnerships remain” as one participant put it.
Two and
half years in LEPs have been largely reactive to the changing landscape of
economic development governance policy emanating from the centre. In the next
two and half years, LEPs might decide that their shared concerns and interests
would be better articulated in a collective and proactive way. This is
especially the case if the current government’s predilection for the
‘deal-making’ of “asks” and “offers” continues to shape centre-local relations
in England.
A version of this piece was originally
posted on the CURDS blog.
