Coproduction

What works in local growth and skills? Learning from recent evaluations

/ jlowther2015 / Leave a comment

Jason Lowther

Following the previous blog on homelessness and rough sleeping, this piece turns to another major area of local government activity: local growth and skills programmes. Here too, evaluation activity has expanded rapidly, with a mix of national frameworks, programme‑level syntheses and place‑based studies. Taken together, these evaluations offer a valuable, and still evolving, picture of what is working, what is proving harder, and what local systems actually need to deliver economic outcomes.

Four strands of evidence stand out.

MHCLG local growth evaluation

The MHCLG local growth evaluation programme is significant not just for its findings, but for its approach to evaluation itself. Rather than focusing on single programmes, it introduces a portfolio‑level strategy covering multiple funds aimed at improving sub‑national economic performance.

Recent work, including the process evaluation of the Local Growth Fund and Getting Building Fund, highlight both strengths and tensions in the model. Decentralised decision‑making and the “single pot” approach enabled locally tailored investment and stronger alignment with local strategies. Private sector involvement and local prioritisation were widely valued.  However, delivery was shaped by pressures to deliver “shovel‑ready” projects quickly, particularly in the Getting Building Fund, which sometimes limited strategic coherence and innovation. Governance arrangements, while locally responsive, were often complex, and approaches to monitoring and evaluation were variable. More broadly, the evaluation underlines the difficulty of measuring long‑term economic impact, particularly where interventions are diverse and outcomes unfold over many years.

Multiply deep dives (Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland)

The Multiply deep dives bring a skills and employability perspective, focusing on adult numeracy provision across the devolved nations. Multiply was a £559 million UK‑wide programme designed to improve functional numeracy, with flexible, locally designed delivery models.

The deep dives use qualitative case studies, interviews with delivery partners and analysis of monitoring data, focusing on one area in each nation and drawing on wider place‑level evidence. A central finding is that local flexibility enabled innovation, particularly in embedding numeracy in real‑world contexts such as employment, parenting or financial capability.

At the same time, the evaluations highlight familiar delivery challenges. Short delivery timescales, in some cases just a year, created pressure to scale quickly, often leading to adaptation of existing provision rather than genuinely new approaches. Partnership working across councils, colleges and the voluntary sector was essential but time‑consuming to establish. Engagement with target groups remained difficult, particularly where low confidence rather than low skill was the primary barrier.

Overall, the evidence suggests that contextualised, learner‑centred approaches are promising, but require time, trust and sustained funding to embed.

UK Shared Prosperity Fund (UKSPF) interim evaluation synthesis

The UKSPF interim synthesis report provides perhaps the most comprehensive current view, drawing together 34 place‑based evaluations across the UK. It focuses on process learning rather than impact, reflecting the relatively early stage of delivery.

A clear headline is the importance of local autonomy. Across almost all areas, the ability for Lead Local Authorities to design interventions around local needs was strongly valued, particularly compared to the perceived rigidity of previous EU funds. This flexibility supported alignment with local strategies, more responsive delivery, and better integration across policy areas.

Other success factors included strong local programme management teams, continuity of provision (using UKSPF to sustain previously funded services), and the ability to combine funding streams to create coherent local offers. However, challenges were equally consistent. Tight central government timelines constrained planning and procurement, limited consultation, and created recruitment difficulties. As with other programmes, evaluation and outcome measurement remained underdeveloped.

The synthesis highlights a key tension: local freedom within central constraints. While devolution of decision‑making was real, the operating environment still imposed significant limits on what places could achieve.

UKSPF place‑based evaluations

The place‑based evaluations add depth to this picture by examining how UKSPF worked in specific localities. Using mixed‑methods approaches – including contribution analysis, surveys, interviews and case studies – across 34 areas, they explore how combinations of interventions interact within local systems.

These studies show that outcomes are highly context‑dependent. In some areas, UKSPF supported visible improvements in community facilities, local business support, and employability outcomes. In others, impacts were harder to detect, reflecting both the early stage of delivery and the complexity of local economies. What emerges clearly is that programme success depends less on individual projects than on how they are aligned and sequenced locally.

The evaluations also reinforce the importance of existing capacity and partnerships. Areas with mature governance arrangements, strong voluntary sector links, and prior experience of managing regeneration funding were better able to mobilise quickly and deliver coherent programmes.

What does this mean for local authorities?

Across these evaluations, several consistent lessons emerge.

First, local flexibility works, particularly when supported by capacity and stability. Both UKSPF and Multiply demonstrate the value of devolved decision‑making. However, the benefits are uneven, depending on local capability, existing partnerships, and the time available to plan and deliver.

Second, time is the missing ingredient in local growth policy. Tight delivery timescales appear across all programmes, driving a focus on “shovel‑ready” activity, limiting innovation, and constraining partnership development. Economic change, skills development and behaviour change all take longer than funding cycles typically allow.

Third, integration matters more than individual interventions. The strongest evidence, particularly from the place‑based evaluations, is that impact depends on how interventions fit together. Skills, business support and community investment are interdependent, yet funding streams and evaluation frameworks often treat them separately.

Fourth, measurement remains a weak spot. Across the local growth portfolio, there are persistent challenges in demonstrating impact and value for money. This is partly methodological, but also reflects the reality that many outcomes (productivity, employment, resilience) are long‑term and influenced by wider factors.

Finally, these evaluations underline a familiar but important point: local systems deliver national priorities. Where programmes align with local strategies, build on existing partnerships and allow room for adaptation, they show promise. Where they are constrained by short timescales, fragmented funding or complex governance, delivery becomes more transactional.

The conclusions from the local growth and skills evaluations strongly align with, and are reinforced by last month’s excellent report from the Institute for Government, Designing and delivering employment support.  The IfG goes further in diagnosing why these issues persist and what structural reform is needed. Both emphasise the value of local flexibility, integration and tailoring to place, with the IfG explicitly arguing that strategic authorities are best placed to design joined‑up employment support aligned to local labour markets and services. Likewise, both bodies of evidence highlight fragmentation and poor coordination across programmes as major barriers, with the IfG noting longstanding failures to “shift the dial” despite multiple national schemes, echoing local growth evaluations on disjointed funding and siloed interventions. The IfG report places significant emphasis on the limits of centralised systems and the need for multi‑year funding, capability and accountability frameworks.

In short, the local growth evaluations provide grounded evidence of what works in practice, while the IfG report offers a more explicit systems diagnosis: that without sustained devolution, integration and long‑term investment, the conditions needed for those “what works” approaches to succeed will remain constrained.

Empowering People with Learning Disabilities

/ jlowther2015 / Leave a comment

Cllr Ketan Sheth

I recently chaired a landmark event hosted by The Advocacy Project, where community leaders, local government officers, NHS representatives, and voluntary sector partners converged at Hampstead Old Town Hall to confront a pressing issue: the systemic inequalities faced by people with learning disabilities. This event was more than a conversation – it was a catalyst for change.

Acclaimed playwright Stephen Unwin shared insights from his poignant book, ‘Beautiful Lives: How We Got Learning Disabilities So Wrong’, inspired by his son Joey’s experiences. Unwin’s words laid bare the dark history of societal attitudes towards people with learning disabilities, exposing the stark reality that despite progress, these individuals remain disproportionately disadvantaged in healthcare, social services, education, and beyond.

The discussion illuminated the critical role local government plays in shaping inclusive policies. By leveraging commissioning powers, local authorities can ensure services are co-designed with people with learning disabilities, prioritising their needs and preferences. This can address the stark health inequalities highlighted in the Learning Disabilities Mortality Review (LeDeR) programme, which revealed concerning disparities in healthcare outcomes.

Katherine Shaw, CEO of The Advocacy Project, underscored the imperative of confronting this history and committing to a future where dignity, equality, and human rights are non-negotiable. The Advocacy Project’s work with local government exemplifies this commitment, amplifying the voices of those with lived experience to inform responsive, respectful, and community-rooted services.

Through user involvement projects and partnerships, The Advocacy Project demonstrates the power of collaboration. For example, their work with local authorities has led to more accessible community services, improved mental health support, and increased participation in local decision-making. These tangible outcomes show that when people with learning disabilities are involved in shaping services, communities become more inclusive.

Local government’s role in education, housing, employment, public health, and adult social care is crucial. By promoting inclusive policies and supporting initiatives like person-centred planning and supported internships, local authorities can break down barriers and foster resilient communities. This can help tackle loneliness, improve mental health, and ensure economic participation for people with learning disabilities.

Moreover, local authorities can learn from The Advocacy Project’s approach to co-production, ensuring that services are designed and delivered with people with learning disabilities, rather than for them. This shift in approach can lead to more effective, person-centred support. By adopting this approach, local authorities can ensure that services are tailored to meet the unique needs of individuals, promoting greater independence and autonomy.

As local government leaders, policymakers, and community advocates, we are tasked with a profound responsibility – to listen, learn, and act. Let us strengthen partnerships, centre lived experience, and forge a more inclusive future for all. The Advocacy Project’s work is a beacon for this change, highlighting the importance of inclusive policies. Indeed, it’s essential to recognise the long-term benefits of such policies, including economic benefits, improved health outcomes, and increased social cohesion. By working together, we can create a more inclusive and equitable society, where people with learning disabilities are valued and supported to reach their full potential, contributing to a richer, more diverse community.

In conclusion, the event reinforced that inclusion is a collective responsibility. Local government’s leadership and partnerships are vital in driving this agenda forward. Let us heed the call to action, champion the rights of people with learning disabilities, and work tirelessly towards a more equitable society.

Councillor Dr Ketan Sheth is Chair of the Community and Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee at Brent Council

Crisis management in cities: how politicians and public servants worked together during the Ukrainian refugee reception

/ jlowther2015 / Leave a comment

Dr. Nicolai De Wulf, Prof. Dr. Joris Voets

When Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, millions of people fled their homes seeking safety across Europe. In Belgium, cities such as Antwerp, Ghent, and Mechelen were suddenly faced with the urgent task of housing and supporting thousands of Ukrainian refugees. Local leaders had to act fast, building emergency villages almost overnight. But how do politics and administration work together when everything is urgent?

In my recent article in Local Government Studies (co-authored with Joris Voets), we examined how local governments managed this unprecedented crisis and how politicians and civil servants collaborated under pressure. Our study provides new insights into how city administrations function when crises disrupt “business as usual”.

The local dimension of crisis management

Local governments are the first to respond when crises hit. They are close to citizens, know their communities, and must act fast. But crises like the arrival of Ukrainian refugees test even the most prepared administrations. They demand not only logistical problem-solving, like building emergency housing, but also leadership, trust, and coordination across political and administrative levels.

The study draws on 25 interviews with mayors, aldermen, and senior civil servants in Antwerp, Ghent, and Mechelen. These cities hosted the highest numbers of Ukrainian refugees in Flanders and each built an “emergency village” to provide collective housing.

Politics and administration: not separate worlds

Traditionally, politics and administration are seen as separate spheres: politicians make decisions, and civil servants carry them out. However, decades of research, including the complementarity model developed by Svara, show that successful governance depends on cooperation between the two. The shared responsibility is aptly visualised:

The study addresses the following research question: ‘How complementary are the interactions between politics and administration in cities during the management of the Ukrainian refugee crisis?’

Our study shows that this politico-administrative complementarity is clearly observed during the Ukrainian refugee crisis. Crises blur boundaries: decisions must be made quickly, communication is intense, and trust becomes vital. We replaced the 4 building blocks of ‘regular’ policy making (missions, policy, administration, and management) by 4 crisis management tasks (sense-making, decisions making and coordinating, meaning making and accounting, and learning). We visualised the politico-administrative role division, as for example for the case in Antwerp:

Overall, the tasks of sense-making and learning are predominantly performed by the administration. It has to be noted that the ‘lessons learned’ primarily relate to adaptations along the way, rather than formal evaluations. The decision and coordination task shows a very mixed image: in each of the 3 cases under study, the responsibility of the decision lies, of course, with the politicians. However, the deliberation preceding the decision always showed a shared effort. The meaning-making and account-giving task is predominantly taken on by the politicians involved, most notably the mayors.

Three cities, three approaches

Antwerp had a clearly structured crisis response, with distinct political and administrative levels. The Emergency Planning Coordinator (EPC) played a key role as liaison between the mayor’s team and the city administration.

Ghent adopted a more collaborative approach, with large crisis meetings that included both the College of Mayor and Aldermen and the Management Team. This inclusivity built broad consensus but also slowed decision-making.

In Mechelen, the acting mayor and Emergency Planning Coordinator shared leadership, while the city’s political “DNA” of human rights and diversity shaped its narrative and public communication.

In all cases, civil servants were observed operating in a political world. Primarily the Emergency Planning Coordinators, but also civil servants such as project managers, can play a very determining role in the structuring of the crisis management approach, decision-making, and coordination.

Lessons for local crisis management

Complementarity works: Trust and mutual respect between political and administrative leaders were crucial. In all three cities, politicians and administrators worked as a team, but with notable differences in style. City identity shapes response, each city’s political culture influenced how it managed the crisis.

The study highlights that crises are not only technical challenges but governance challenges. They reveal the real dynamics of how cities work.

For practitioners, the message is clear: invest in relationships between political and administrative leaders before the next crisis hits. For scholars, this case offers evidence that Svara’s complementarity model holds up even under crisis conditions, but needs adaptation to capture the intensity and speed of crisis decision-making.

As crises become more frequent, cities need to build governance systems based on trust, expertise, and teamwork. Complementarity between politics and administration is not a luxury, it is what keeps local government resilient when it matters most.

Dr. Nicolai De Wulf (ORCID 0000-0002-1748-6604) finalised his PhD focusing on politico-administrative relations within local government. In the PhD three topics are studied through a politico-administrative lens: policy integration and coordination, partisan political staff, and crisis management. The PhD was supervised by prof. dr. Joris Voets.

Prof. Dr. Joris Voets (ORCID 0000-0002-8266-8607) is an associate professor in the Department of Public Governance and Management at Ghent University, Belgium. His main research interests are inter-organisational networks and local government.

From Consultation to Co-Creation: How Birmingham Can Lead the Way in Participatory Governance

/ jlowther2015 / 1 Comment

Susana Higueras and Sonia Bussu

In a time of growing inequality, political disillusionment, and institutional strain, Birmingham is at a crossroads. The city’s bold initiative, Shaping Birmingham’s Future Together (SBFT), offers a timely and transformative opportunity: to reimagine how local government works with its communities.

A new report by Susana Higueras and Sonia Bussu lays out a compelling roadmap for how Birmingham City Council (BCC) can become a participatory council. Drawing on UK and international examples, as well as interviews with local stakeholders, the report argues that participatory governance must be more than a buzzword. It must be embedded into the everyday workings of the council, grounded in inclusive practices, and driven by a genuine commitment to share power.

Why Participation, Why Now?

Birmingham is one of the UK’s most diverse and youngest cities. This diversity is a strength, but also a challenge when it comes to ensuring that all voices are heard in policymaking. At the same time, the city faces deep structural inequalities, including the highest child poverty rates in the UK. Traditional top-down governance models are no longer fit for purpose. What’s needed is a shift from consultation to co-creation.

The SBFT partnership, launched in 2024, aims to tackle these challenges by fostering collaboration across public, private, and community sectors. But as the report makes clear, this vision will only succeed if participation is embedded, not treated as an add-on or a one-off event.

What Does Embedded Participation Look Like?

Embedded participation means making citizen engagement a routine part of how decisions are made, from setting priorities to evaluating outcomes. It requires:

  • Facilitative leadership that enables collaboration and power-sharing;
  • Boundary spanners, or individuals who bridge the gap between institutions and communities;
  • Strong partnerships with civil society, grassroots, and voluntary organisations;
  • Intersectional inclusion that centres the voices of those facing multiple, overlapping barriers to participation.

The report highlights that successful participatory governance is not about flashy new tools or one-off events. It’s about culture change, within the council, across sectors, and in how communities are engaged.

Lessons from Elsewhere

The report draws on global examples to show what’s possible, and what pitfalls to avoid.

  • Porto Alegre, in Brazil, was a trailblazer in participatory budgeting, enabling residents to directly allocate public funds, at one point transferring over $300 per person annually to community control. However, as political leadership shifted, the commitment to the process waned, and budget allocations steadily declined, leading to a loss of momentum.
  • Barcelona, Spain, embedded citizen participation through digital platforms like Decidim and cultivated strong ties with social movements. At its peak, over 40,000 citizens engaged in budgetary decisions. Yet, the experience underscores the vulnerability of transformative initiatives when overly reliant on charismatic leadership, making them susceptible to political cycles.
  • Camden, London, institutionalised citizens’ assemblies, integrating them into formal decision-making structures. Notably, all 17 citizen recommendations on climate policy were adopted. Still, challenges persist around ensuring inclusivity and maintaining consistent follow-through.
  • Reykjavik, Iceland, leveraged digital platforms to crowdsource citizen ideas and implement participatory budgeting. Initially successful in mobilising thousands of residents, the initiative faltered as political support diminished and the platforms remained peripheral to formal governance, highlighting the limitations of digital participation without institutional anchoring.
  • Ostbelgien, Belgium, established the world’s first permanent deliberative system linked to a legislative body. Its legally enshrined Citizens’ Council and Assemblies offer a promising model of democratic stability and accountability. However, the top-down design and limited community ownership reveal the critical need for co-creation and inclusive recruitment to prevent the reinforcement of existing inequalities.

These examples show that embedding participation requires sustained commitment, institutional support, and mechanisms for accountability.

Opportunities in Birmingham

Despite the challenges, Birmingham has a strong foundation to build on:

But There Are Challenges Too

The report doesn’t shy away from the barriers:

  • Broken trust: Communities are tired of being consulted without seeing change.
  • Hierarchical leadership: A top-down culture limits innovation and responsiveness.
  • Structural silos: Departments often work in isolation, duplicating efforts and missing opportunities for collaboration and nurturing citizen participation.
  • Unfair funding mechanisms: Smaller community organisations feel sidelined and overburdened by bureaucracy.

These challenges are not unique to Birmingham, but they must be addressed head-on if SBFT is to succeed.

What Needs to Happen Next?

The report offers a clear set of policy recommendations.

Rebuild trust through transparent communication and visible follow-through.

Trust has been eroded by repeated consultations without tangible outcomes. BCC must commit to clear feedback loops, visibly acting on community input and explaining decisions transparently to rebuild credibility and legitimacy.

Embed participation in budgeting, service design, and scrutiny processes.

Participation should not be limited to one-off events; it must be embedded across governance functions. This can include participatory budgeting, citizen panels, and co-designed scrutiny mechanisms that give residents real influence over public decisions.

Foster facilitative leadership and cross-sector collaboration.

Leadership must shift from command-and-control to facilitation, enabling shared power and collaborative problem-solving. Cross-departmental working groups and partnerships with civil society can help break down silos and foster innovation.

Work better with communities, recognising them as co-creators, not just consultees.

Community organisations should be treated as equal partners, with fair funding, early involvement in policy development, and recognition of their expertise. This means moving from consultation to co-creation, where communities help shape solutions from the outset.

Design for intersectional inclusion, addressing overlapping barriers to participation.

Inclusive participation requires acknowledging and addressing systemic inequalities. Councils must create safe, accessible spaces and use diverse engagement methods, including arts-based approaches and multilingual formats, to ensure marginalised voices are centred and valued.

The SBFT partnership can be a catalyst of this change and become the space for shared governance and accountability.

A Call to Action

The SBFT initiative is more than a policy programme, it’s a democratic innovation. It’s a chance to reshape how power is shared in the city, how decisions are made, and how communities are valued. As one community leader put it: “We’re not asking to be asked. We’re asking to lead.”

If Birmingham can rise to this challenge, it won’t just be shaping its own future. It will be setting a national, and even global, example of what inclusive, embedded participatory governance can look like in the 21st century.

SBFT Report_ final_Oct 2025_WEBDownload

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48352/inlogov.bhamx.0001

Dr Sonia Bussu is an Associate Professor at the University of Birmingham Department of Public Administration and Policy where she studies and teaches public policy. Her main research interests are participatory governance and democratic innovations, and creative and arts-based methods for research and public engagement. 

Susana Higueras Carrillo is a Peruvian anthropologist. She is PhD candidate at Goldsmiths, University of London and holds a master’s degree in Environmental Governance from the University of Oxford. She has worked at the University of Birmingham in the INSPIRE (Intersectional Space of Participation: Inclusive, Resilient, Embedded) project researching how to strengthen intersectional inclusion through arts-based methods such as legislative theatre. Her research interests lie in environmental and social justice and communicating research in creative and impactful ways.

Renewing Democratic Leadership

/ jlowther2015 / Leave a comment

Jason Lowther and Sonia Bussu

Legislative Theatre with West Midlands Combined Authority

As local government in England undergoes significant restructuring, with fewer councils serving larger and more diverse populations, the role of councillors is under pressure. At the same time, democratic innovations, such as citizens’ assemblies, or creative methods of participation, such as legislative theatre and digital engagement, are gaining traction. These innovations offer new ways to engage communities and strengthen democratic legitimacy.  But how do they fit with the role of elected councillors?

Recent research and practice suggest that councillors can play a crucial role in facilitating inclusive and impactful citizen participation.

Politicians’ Views on Participation

Across the UK and Europe, many elected representatives have expressed support for citizen participation in policymaking. They see it as a way to build trust, improve decision quality, acknowledge a wider range of perspectives and knowledge, engage citizens more deeply in political life, and potentially identify novel solutions to politically difficult issues. However, research by Kersting shows that this support is often conditional. Councillors tend to favour participatory instruments that reinforce their representative role, such as advisory boards or structured consultations. They are more sceptical of online platforms and randomly selected citizen assemblies (so-called minipublics), which they worry may not be genuinely representative of their electorate and may lack the capacity to understand complex issues.

Werner and Marien’s comparative experiments in Sweden and the Netherlands provide further insight. Their work shows that participatory processes consistently increase perceptions of fairness. This matters because fairness perceptions are closely linked to trust, policy compliance, and perceived legitimacy. Importantly, these effects are not limited to winners (who support the outcome of the exercise); even those who lose in participatory decisions tend to view the process more positively than in purely representative settings.

These findings highlight a tension. While democratic innovations can enhance legitimacy, councillors often feel uncertain about their role within them. Without open discussion, clear support, and integration, these processes risk bypassing councillors altogether.

Reimagining the Role of Councillors

Inlogov’s 21st Century Councillor research offers a compelling framework for renewing councillors’ roles. It describes councillors as hybrid connectors who build relationships both online and offline, multi-level diplomats who navigate partnerships across governance layers, and system stewards who shape democratic innovation and institutional change.

To fulfil these roles, councillors need support. This includes help to understand democratic innovations and any potential concerns.  They need understanding of key areas such as facilitation skills and digital engagement, confidence in narrative-building around democratic innovation, access to mentoring from peers with experience of these approaches, opportunity to explore difficult scenarios, and chance to reflect on their practice. Councils must also empower community members to scrutinise participatory outputs, and help councillors to navigate tensions between citizen input, officer advice, and party lines.

The Camden Model: Embedding Participation

Camden Council offers a practical example of how participatory processes can be embedded within representative governance. The council has institutionalised citizens’ assemblies as regular tools for major policy development, including planning, climate change, and health and social care. Assemblies are commissioned by council boards, which commit to formally responding to recommendations. In the case of the 2019 Climate Assembly, all 17 proposals were endorsed and integrated into Camden’s Climate Action Plan, with the citizen’s assembly referenced throughout the document.

This approach demonstrates how local government can lead participatory processes, ensuring they are not just consultative exercises but integral to policy development. However, several recommendations from the Camden climate assembly extended beyond the council’s jurisdiction, highlighting the structural limitations of local deliberative processes in addressing systemic issues like the climate. Councillors could have played a stronger bridging role, helping to clarify expectations and ensure that recommendations were grounded in the council’s remit. Stronger involvement from elected representatives might have thus enhanced democratic accountability.

Inclusive youth engagement in policymaking in the West Midlands

There is much more to learn and do to make democratic innovations more inclusive and effective, supporting participation from historically marginalised groups, which tend to ignore invitations to participate in citizen assemblies or formal consultation exercises.

A recent example of inclusive approaches comes from the West Midlands, where the INSPIRE project, led by the University of Birmingham, used legislative theatre to engage young people in shaping youth employment policy. Legislative theatre is a method developed by Augusto Boal that uses performance to explore lived experience, test policy interventions, and co-create solutions. It involves watching a play co-created by the participants on real issues and based on their lived experience. During the event, an audience of community members and policymakers become spect-actors, acting out alternative scenarios, proposing policy changes, and voting on them in a public forum.

The University of Birmingham partnered with the Young Combined Authority and Youth Focus West Midlands to recruit a diverse group of 15 young people (14-17 years old) who, under the guidance of legislative theatre practitioners, developed a play about barriers to work experience and youth employment. Through performances and structured dialogue with policymakers, they co-created six policy proposals. These include reforms to careers advice, work experience, and employer accountability.

Crucially, policymakers were invited to participate not just as observers but as co-creators and champions. Their involvement can help bridge the gap between lived experience and institutional action, demonstrating how local government can play a central role in democratic innovation for social change.

Councillors as Democratic Innovators

Democratic innovations in Camden and the West Midlands are two examples of how local government can promote democratic renewal. Councillors can and should play more central roles in these processes, beyond party politics, to facilitate and nurture dialogue between citizens and institutions, ensuring follow-through on recommendations, and using committee structures to embed participatory outputs.

Rather than seeing participation as a threat, councillors can embrace it as a tool to strengthen their representative role and reconnect with communities. They are uniquely positioned to bridge the gap between citizen voice and institutional action. This requires a shift in mindset and practice.

Dr Jason Lowther is Director of Inlogov (the Institute of Local Government Studies) at the University of Birmingham, and was Assistant Director (Strategy) at Birmingham City Council from 2004 to 2018.  His research focuses on the use of evidence in public policy and central intervention in local government.

Dr Sonia Bussu is an Associate Professor at the University of Birmingham Department of Public Administration and Policy where she studies and teaches public policy. Her main research interests are participatory governance and democratic innovations, and creative and arts-based methods for research and public engagement. 

This article was first published in the Municipal Journal, 25th September 2025, available online here: https://www.themj.co.uk/renewing-democratic-leadership

Picture credit: Inspire Legislative Theatre, March 2025 – photo by Bucuria Maria Polodeanu – Insta: @reelmasterproduction

Dusting down the cautious welcome: Initial reflections on the devolution white paper

/ jlowther2015 / Leave a comment

Phil Swann

When I was director of strategy and communications at the LGA I was frequently criticised, by the late professor John Stewart among others, for issuing press releases “cautiously welcoming” one Blairite initiative or another.

The criticism was probably justified, but I would definitely have deployed that phrase in response to the government’s recently published devolution white paper.

There is undoubtedly a lot to welcome, not least the stated commitment to devolution, the additional powers for metro mayors, the revival of strategic planning, its reference to struggling small unitary councils and the focus on audit and standards.

There are, however, at least four reasons to be cautious.

First, every serious reformer of local government since George Goschen in the 1860s has argued that local government finance and structures should be reformed together. No government has ever had the political will or energy to do so. This government has also ducked the opportunity. As a result, this white paper will not fulfil its potential.

Second, the current mess and confusion in the structure of English local government is the result of incremental change. Just think of Peter Shore’s “organic change” and Michael Heseltine’s ill-fated Banham Commission. There is a real danger that this government will run out of restructuring energy or time. The contrast with Scotland and Wales, where local government was reorganised in one go, could not be starker.

Third, the effectiveness of the structures being proposed will depend on the quality of the relationships between mayors and councils, between councils and parishes and between ministers and mayors, councils and parishes. In England we are not good at relationships like these and there is precious little in the white paper to signal the trust, effort and imagination that will be needed to make these relationships work better than the previous ones did.

Finally, key to the revival of local government and effective devolution is a revival of citizen engagement in local politics and local governance. Word has it this will be addressed in a forthcoming white paper, but it should be central to this one.

So, a very cautious welcome it is.

Phil Swann is studying for a PhD on central-local government relations at INLOGOV.