Why and how do municipalities merge? A view from the cognitive perspective

09/08/202206/08/2022 / inlogov / Leave a comment

*[Photo: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/mental-virus-flipside-covid-pandemic-dr-abha-bhartia/%5D*

Dr. Veronika Vakulenko

Among all public sector reforms initiatives, those appearing on the municipal level are the most tangible. This is because in modern democracies citizens can observe and (if willing to) trace changes in, for example, city planning, local infrastructure, education and many other spheres. Let’s be honest, everyone likes to visit a clean park, modern library, drive perfect roads or celebrate an opening of a new school. Meaning that local governments need to use financial recourses on creating a comfortable place for all to live in. However, it becomes rather common that local governments are not able to balance their budgets, due to a higher per capita spending, lower public service provision, or limited infrastructural capacity, which is the case particularly for smaller rural areas.

Seeking to improve local financial condition, many countries worldwide launched local government reforms, which still remain on the top of agenda among academia and practitioners. Pursuing mainly the objective to enhance local financial efficiency and quality of local public services, the reforms can vary from contractual inter-municipal cooperation to mergers or amalgamations. Mergers are the most drastic reforms as they require alterations of territorial boundaries, changes in administrative responsibilities and routines, and adjustment of financial management practices, all of which affects significantly the lives of citizens.

Several European countries, e.g., Finland, Switzerland, Ukraine, selected to implement voluntary mergers, allowing local governments to celebrate the freedom in deciding whether to initiate the territorial reform. While some municipalities recognized merger’s benefits (i.e., improvement local governments’ economic condition and quality of local public service delivery), others resisted merger. In this situation, it becomes interesting to approach municipal amalgamations from a dynamic perspective to understand behaviour and interactions between different actors, which can result in diverging reform outcomes.

In our recent study published in open access at Local Government Studies, we use an interdisciplinary concept of cognitive style, to explore the psychological aspect of mergers. By mobilizing cognitive literature, we could take a closer look at local actors’ behaviour, to argue that a merger is not a simple ‘marriage of convenience’ of local actors to increase their economic efficiency. Rather, it is a complex cognitive process, which requires local actors’ mental work in taking decisions and creating (or not) a new merged municipality. Thus, a final decision “to merge or not to merge” depends not only on financial benefits, but also on the way local actors perceive and process information about financial incentives and how they operationalize their decisions.

In a story of two neighbouring local governments in Ukraine studied during 2015-2019, we approached two local political leaders, who were drivers of changes on the local level. By studying very carefully their behaviour and actions, we found that their initial perceptions of merging were completely the opposite. While the first one was viewing this as an opportunity and was able to convincingly explain the need and future benefits of this change, as well as introducing new practices to engage local citizens. Despite several other local actors were supporting this initiative, the second leader was acting in a discouraging way and always emphasized risks for their community, which in the end resulted in collective inaction. To summarize, new interdisciplinary approaches can be used to better understand the success stories or failures of municipal mergers. Cognitive theory in public administration has a significant potential in this field as well as implications for practice. As our case showed, better mapping the sceptics and addressing perceptions of local leaders before initiating voluntary mergers could facilitate better results from territorial reforms.

Dr. Veronika Vakulenko is an Associate Professor at Nord University Business School, Norway. Their research interests include interdisciplinary public sector accounting research; budgeting and financial management in local governments; national and supra-national public sector audit; reforms particularly in the context of developing countries.

The Winding Stair: half a century of local government

05/08/202204/08/2022 / inlogov / Leave a comment

Sir Rodney Brooke

*Image: https://talesoftimesforgotten.com/2019/12/18/no-medieval-staircases-werent-designed-to-give-right-handed-defenders-an-advantage/*

My memoir, The Winding Stair, chronicles over half a century of my service in local government, a period which coincided with the decline in the importance and independence of local government as well as the biggest social changes since the industrial revolution. As a local authority chief executive, I experienced these changes at first hand.

Post-war local government attempted to tackle the problems of deprivation. Increasingly the emphasis shifted to the problems of affluence. The three post-war decades saw rising living standards, falling inequality, greater freedom and expanding welfare provision. The following decades saw the opposite. The belief that problems would be solved by spending more money evaporated.

Public expectations rose with the decline of faith in post-war remedies, such as urban motorways, multi-storey flats and town centre redevelopments. Communal services were privatised. Ministers introduced innovations before any assessment could be made about the effectiveness of their precursors. Rather than tackle a problem, governments changed the structure of the agency dealing with it. Responsibilities of the state were transferred to the private sector. An underclass of casual workers was created. My local government career placed me in the middle of these changes and my memoir chronicles them.

In my youth local authority chief executives were great men. Among them knighthoods were ten-a-penny. [Not one serving local government officer now has a knighthood]. The London train would be held for the county chief executives, who traced their authority to the Courts of Quarter Sessions for which they were responsible until 1972. They would expect the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry to call on them when they went to London.

The Councils they ran were fundamental in the life of their residents. During my service I was central to some of the most newsworthy issues of the day. I

prosecuted for riot;
was the last person ever to be responsible for reading the Riot Act;
was responsible for the construction of the last municipal reservoir before water supply was stripped from local government in 1974;
warned Bradford City football club of the danger before 56 fans burnt to death in front of the TV cameras;
enabled the inquest into the notorious death of Helen Smith in Jeddah;
challenged the police belief in Wearside Jack’s claim to be the Yorkshire Ripper;
refused Willie Whitelaw’s secret request to sack the West Yorkshire Chief Constable over his failure to catch the Yorkshire Ripper;
as emergency controller for Yorkshire in the event of nuclear war, was to shelter in an underground bunker in the Pennines before emerging when Geiger counters showed that it was safe;
discovered that three Westminster cemeteries had been sold for 15p;
found the press camped on the lawn of our house when I resigned before Dame Shirley Porter began her Homes for Votes gerrymandering – which resulted in her being surcharged £42.5m.
acquired a knighthood, a CBE and decorations from France, Germany and three other countries.

Sir Rodney Brooke worked for Morley Council (1955-62); Rochdale Council (1962-63); Stockport Council 1963-73; West Yorkshire County Council 1973-1984 (Chief Executive 1980-84); Chief Executive of Westminster City Council (1984-89); Secretary of the London Boroughs’ Association 1984-90; and Secretary of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities (1990-1997). He remains involved with local government on a non-executive basis.

The Winding Stair is available online or from booksellers at £13.99. ISBN 9781838489977

‘The Great Parliamentary Resistance’ – some of the outcomes

27/05/202227/05/2022 / inlogov / Leave a comment

Chris Game

Back in early February, I wrote a blog dissecting one of two big and controversial Government Bills involved in what I slightly hyperbolically termed the “historic Monday evening of the Great Parliamentary Resistance” – Monday, 17^th January, when the Elections Bill received its Third Commons Reading, while across the way the Lords were savaging the ‘flagship’ Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill by defeating the Government a Parliamentary record 14 times in the same sitting[1].

Both Bills, in being big and controversial, were fiercely contested throughout their Parliamentary progress and significantly amended – to the extent that my initial idea of highlighting and summarising such amendments in two linked blogs in, say, February and March, proved ludicrously unrealisable. Not least because neither received their Royal Assent until 28^th April.

On the ball, as ever, Jason Lowther blogged immediately about the particular aspects of the now Elections Act with which he had been particularly concerned – the Government’s ‘solution’ to the undemonstrated ‘problem’ of ‘personation’, of having in future to show counter-signed photo ID at UK Parliamentary and English local and PCC elections.

This single blog, therefore, will attempt two ludicrously daunting tasks: (a) to at least mention some of the additional, less publicised, measures in or out of the Elections Act, and (b) similarly, but even more summarily, for the considerably more complex Police, Crime etc. Act.

There were two key and particularly controversial Elections Act proposals, that went down to the proverbial wire at the so-called Ping pong stage of the Parliamentary process (pp.79ff. of the H/Commons Library briefing noted by Jason).

First, obviously, the several proposed age-discriminatory and non-photographic forms of ID that had been in and out of the Bill throughout – mentioned again here frankly as a pretext for reminding anyone who needs it of just how long and how implacably opposed the PM himself has been to ID cards of any description, and accordingly what we can presumably look out for come Election Day.

election1

The other long-running dispute concerned the Act’s provision for the Government to set a “strategy and policy statement” for the constitutionally independent Electoral Commission. Some suspicious Parliamentarians suggested this might go beyond scrutiny and accountability, and “potentially into providing guidance about how [the Commission carries out its] functions on a day-to-day basis”.

They wanted it “not bound by” the Government’s “statement”, but apparently they were guilty of a “mischaracterisation” of the Government’s intentions, and the relevant amendments were defeated.

The Government’s listing of the Act’s additional benefits appears, of course, on the relevant Gov.UK page – summarised under the comfort blanket of the several “greater protections” it provides for voters, and also for candidates and campaigners.

Protection from fraud through photo ID, of course, but also from intimidation at the ballot box – the latter by fines, up to 5-year bans, and even imprisonment for offenders convicted of attempting an extended definition of ‘undue influence’.

Voters with disabilities must in future be provided with specialist equipment, and may be accompanied by an adult. And the 15-year limit on the voting rights of British ex-pats, retired or working abroad, will be removed. An estimated 3 million potential voters are currently affected by the limit, and – read into this what you will – it fulfils a pledge in three recent Conservative manifestos.

Finally – although it was actually the first bit of the legislation I blogged about, back last April – the Act will change the voting system for both Mayoral and Police & Crime Commissioner elections from the ‘transferable’/choice-extending Supplementary Vote to First Past The Post – on the basis of “no other plausible argument” than it might fractionally reduce the numbers of rejected ballots”.

I have views – as doubtless do Mayors Tracy Brabin (Lab – West Yorkshire), Ben Houchen (Cons – Tees Valley) and Andy Burnham (Lab – Greater Manchester), all recently elected after transfers – but not here.

And so to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act – a real pantechnicon of a Bill/Act, highly technical in places, with even the ‘short’ and definitely the ‘long’ (150-word) titles signalling how impossible it is seriously to summarise.

It makes major changes across the criminal justice system, significantly extending police powers and the treatment of suspected, arrested, charged and convicted offenders. Again, there is a substantial (100+ pages) Commons Library summary of the whole legislative process; also a detailed House of Lords account – presented, slightly disconcertingly, in reverse chronological order – covering the fate of at least some of the Lords’ 17^th Jan. amendments.

I was never keen on listing Wiki on student reading lists, but in this case I might well make an exception. For this blog, though, I have borrowed (sounds so much better than plagiarised!) the content of the next few paragraphs from the BBC’s summary –mainly because it focuses, as many of those Lords motions did, on the implications for and threats to the right to protest.

Until now, it has generally been the police’s responsibility, if they want to restrict a protest, to show it may result in “serious public disorder, property damage, or disruption to the life of the community” (emphasis added). They can also change/restrict the routes of marches. For major events, like the COP26 protests, details are typically agreed with the organisers weeks in advance.

The new Act enables particular measures to be designed for ‘static protests’, like those of Extinction Rebellion, whose modus operandi is to force governmental action on the “climate and ecological emergency” through non-violent civil disobedience, the occupation of roads and bridges, etc. Start and finish times and noise limits will now be set, even for protests involving just one person, with fines up to £2,500.

Edward Colston, the C18th merchant/slave trader whose statue was pushed into Bristol docks gets his own clause, with damage to memorials earning up to 10 years’ imprisonment.

Shadow Home Secretary Yvette Cooper has described the “rushed” legislation as creating “incredibly widely drawn” powers …”, allowing the police to stop and search anyone in the vicinity of a protest, including passers-by, people on the way to work and peaceful protesters.”

The Government/Home Office/Police viewpoint is set out in a Home Office Policy Paper.

[1] It appeared on 4^th February, at the start of what proved a particularly active blogging month, with the consequence that, to access it, you may need to key ‘Older Posts’ at the end of the February 2022 selection.

Chris Game is an INLOGOV Associate, and Visiting Professor at Kwansei Gakuin University, Osaka, Japan. He is joint-author (with Professor David Wilson) of the successive editions of Local Government in the United Kingdom, and a regular columnist for The Birmingham Post.

After austerity, comes the reckoning

13/05/202212/05/2022 / inlogov / Leave a comment

Jason Lowther

The publication last month of the Institute for Government’s report on the impact of cuts in local services during the decade of austerity has revealed to the public what has been obvious in the sector for years – austerity was hugely unfair and hit the poorest hardest.

Neighbourhood services under strain is written in IfG’s usual forensic style, and its conclusion is all the more brutal because of it: the most deprived areas received the biggest grant cuts, resulting in bigger reductions in local services such as libraries and recycling. Central government grants were cut more in deprived areas because of the way cuts to grant funding were distributed ignoring councils’ different degree of dependency on this income source. Because of the central cuts and pressures such as the increasing demand for social services, councils have been forced to cut preventative and universal services like children’s centres and housing programmes to help vulnerable people to live independently.

The report’s detailed analysis of changes in spending reported to DHCLG concludes that most councils chose to protect similar services. ‘Relatively protected’ services included environment and regulatory services, homelessness and public transport. At the other extreme, most councils applied higher than average spending cuts in housing, cultural, and planning services (figure 1 below). This mirrors earlier analysis by the National Audit Office (which also highlighted the protection of social care services).

Figure 1: Local authorities that disproportionately cut, relatively protected, or increased neighbourhood services spending between 2009/10 and 2019/20, by category

Source: Institute for Government analysis of DLUHC, Local authority revenue expenditure and financing in England: individual local authority data – revenue outturn 2009/10 and 2019/20.

The IfG report hints at the innovative ways different councils responded to these pressures, from contract renegotiation and the use of new technology, to service redesign and rationalisation. For a more detailed exploration of this, I recommend Alison Gardner’s excellent thesis on how local councils responded to austerity – including strategic asset management, shared services, commercialisation, co-production and demand management. Whatever methods were used, however, it’s clear that by the second half of the decade of austerity the cuts were no longer into ‘fat’ but into ‘flesh’.

These new findings add to a growing library of research on the effects of the UK government choice to pursue austerity policies, including a BMJ study in October 2021 which suggested that the constraints on health and social care spend during this period of ‘austerity’ have been associated with 57,550 more deaths than would have been expected had the growth in spend followed trends before 2010. Considering cuts to local government funding specifically, a July 2021 study in The Lancet estimated that cuts in funding were associated with an increase in the gap in life expectancy between the most and least deprived quintiles by 3% for men and 4% for women between 2013 and 2017. Overall reductions in local government funding during this period were associated with an additional 9,600 deaths in people younger than 75 years in England. Well before the pandemic, the UK was seeing a rapid slowdown in life expectancy gains in the 2010s and, although a number of other high income countries also saw such slowdowns, of large populations only the USA experienced a more severe slowdown/reversal and the magnitude of the slowdown in the UK was more severe than other large European populations.

Perhaps the most damning finding of the IfG report is that central government lacks the information to know what the impact of its spending cuts are on local services. This echoes the assessment of the Nuffield Trust and Health Foundation back in 2014 which warned government was making decisions with ‘no comprehensive way to quantify the impact that social care cuts are having on their health and wellbeing’ and were therefore effectively ‘flying blind’. Having abolished the Audit Commission in 2010, the government was left with no comparable performance statistics for two-thirds of local services. Some may believe that this was quite convenient, given what we are now learning about the effects of that government’s spending policies.

80% of councils directly involved (again) in delivering housing

03/05/202229/04/2022 / inlogov / Leave a comment

Chris Game

If you’re an academic – either a genuine intellectual, theorising one, or a more lecturing, popularising one like what I was – there’s a good chance that the week before Easter is Conference Week.

It’s easy to mock, and knock, academic conferences. Too many delegates reading, rather than ‘presenting’, their papers; no time for proper interrogation, discussion and debate; mediocre university campus food. And for overseas conferences, add in climate threatening CO₂ emissions.

However, I like them – conferences, that is. Indeed, this recent Easter week I racked up a full half-century of attending, at least intermittently, PSA (Political Studies Association) conferences.

Like most such events nowadays, this one was ‘hybrid’ – with panels attended partly in person, partly digitally via Zoom. Which makes genuine discussion additionally problematic, and emphasises the importance of the written papers addressing subjects that ideally are appealing, topical and even newsworthy.

Happily, in the Local Politics Specialist Group this is almost the norm. And this year one paper especially – in addition, obviously, to that of the INLOGOV’s Director, Jason Lowther (from ‘Birminham’, according to p.25 of the evidently un-proof-checked programme!) – struck me as both sufficiently important and timely to bring it to the attention of a couple of slightly wider audiences⃰.

Timely because we’re fast approaching the May 5^th local council elections, and, if these councils’ controlling parties choose to draw voters’ attention to it, many could boast something they might well not have been able to even four years ago when these same seats were last collectively contested.

Specifically, over four in every five should be able to claim that they are genuinely and actively involved in the business of delivering social housing. And if that doesn’t grab you, or you’re thinking: “well, isn’t that one of the main things councils are supposed to do?” – or maybe, as a Birmingham resident, you’ve heard of the 4,000+ homes built by the Birmingham Municipal Housing Trust, the City Council’s housebuilding arm, and assume that it’s fairly typical, rather than really exceptional – then I politely suggest you’ve rather lost the plot in recent years.

When I used to lecture to particularly overseas students about housing in England or the UK, I would use a couple of very basic graphs, similar to those illustrated here. The first showed the changing relative importance of our main housing tenures since 1919 – private rented, owner occupied, local authority, and housing association.

Tenure1

At the end of the First World War, the ‘big picture’ was straightforward: roughly 90% of housing stock was privately rented, 10% owner occupied. Councils were empowered to build ‘corporation housing’, but few did. But the War changed everything. PM Lloyd George promised not just houses, but “Homes Fit for Heroes’, and the 1919 Addison (Housing, Town Planning, &c.) Act facilitated it. Council housing committees sprung up, generous subsidies were provided, and council estates mushroomed.

By 1939 over 10% of the population lived in council homes, and the numbers increased steadily post-war, with the Labour Government’s Town and Country Planning and New Towns Acts. At their 1950s peak, under Conservative Governments, councils were building nearly 200,000 houses a year – one completion every three minutes, if you were wondering.

By the 1970s over a third of England’s housing stock was ‘council’. Private renting had plummeted to below 20%, with owner occupation over 50% and rising, and housing associations just beginning to take off.

The 1980s Thatcher Governments’ priorities, though, were very different: a “property-owning democracy”, with successive ‘Right to Buy’ policies – requiring, rather than allowing, councils to sell off their housing stock, if tenants, particularly of larger, better-quality properties, wished to purchase.

Coupled with Treasury restrictions on councils borrowing money for capital expenditure, there began the long-term shift from council housing to housing associations or ALMOs (Arm’s-Length Management Organisations): from 7% of all social housing in 1980 to over 60% today, including virtually all new social housing.

On my second graph, of ‘Housebuilding Completions’ – albeit scaled for dramatic effect – the local authority line by the mid-1990s was barely distinguishable from the horizontal x-axis. Council house building on any significant scale virtually stopped, new homes countable in the hundreds, rather than hundreds of thousands – until, if you peer extremely closely, you can just see the space between line and axis opening up in 2018.

Housebuilding

Sales meanwhile averaged well over 100,000 a year, re-boosted by increased discounts from the Coalition Government following the 2007/8 financial crisis. That same Coalition – or its Treasury – also imposed tightly restrictive ‘caps’ on councils’ ability to borrow against their own Housing Revenue Accounts in order to build affordable homes.

True, the 2011 Localism Act and other changes gradually empowered councils to work both like and with private sector companies. But it was really only when, several years later, Theresa May announced to her October 2018 Party Conference that she would ‘ditch the cap’ that councils’ widespread re-engagement with housing provision seriously took off.

There were and still are significant hurdles: tenants’ right to buy, planning constraints, the need for more grant funding. But the climate has indisputably changed, and at least some of the circulating local election manifestos will surely contain the evidence.

The reason I’m confident of this is that one of the York conference sessions I attended was presented by Bartlett School of Planning’s Professor Janice Morphet, who, with her colleague Dr Ben Clifford, recently completed the third of their series of biennial surveys of councils’ engagement in the provision of affordable housing.

I was aware of this work, but frankly had no real idea of its scope, depth, rigour or even of the sheer quantity of data the surveys produced and made available, in both the respective main reports and the separate desk survey reports. Seriously impressive – and obviously impossible to do any kind of justice to here.

Hence the focus on what has been one of the surveys’ particularly key and consistent findings, summarised here in a couple of quotes: first from Morphet herself, then from the recent third survey’s Executive Summary:

“The third wave of research shows how local authorities are directly engaging in housing provision [and] that this has moved from a marginal to a mainstream issue.”

“From the desk survey, we found that in comparison with 2017 and 2019, the number of councils with [housing and/or property] companies … has increased from 58% in 2017, 78% in 2019 to 83% in 2021 … From the direct survey, we have found that 80% of local authorities now self-report that they are directly engaged in the provision of housing, a notable increase from the 69% … in our 2019 survey … and the 65% from the 2017 survey.”

Who said academic conferences are an indulgent waste of time?

________________________

⃰ A slightly abbreviated version of this blog – “Candidates will be homing in on a growing council priority” – appeared in the Birmingham Post on April 28^{th –} https://www.pressreader.com/uk/birmingham-post/20220428/281951726382871

We’re recruiting

05/04/202204/04/2022 / inlogov / Leave a comment

As the first step in further strengthening our brilliant team, this week we started advertising for a new education-focussed Assistant Professor (£42-50k). Soon we’ll be advertising for research and teaching academics at various grades – Assistant Professors, Associate Professors and full Professors – watch this space!

The Institute of Local Government Studies (INLOGOV) is the leading UK centre for the study of public service management, policy and governance. With over 50 years of experience working within local government and the public sector, INLOGOV creates the new thinking with public servants. INLOGOV sits in the School of Government, which is one of the largest in the United Kingdom – home to more than 80 full-time academic staff, more than 1,200 undergraduate and taught postgraduate students, and more than 70 doctoral researchers. The School is intellectually vibrant with an excellent record in both research and teaching.

INLOGOV offers a range of postgraduate degree programmes, at Masters, diploma and certificate levels, with a thriving doctoral research community. Our taught postgraduate programmes include a full-time on-campus Public Management MSc, an on-line Masters of Public Administration, a blended Degree Apprenticeship in Public Leadership and Management, and study opportunities for research degrees (MPhil or PhD).

INLOGOV’s teaching is informed by a robust and innovative research agenda. Building on our rich history of research addressing the institutional and political life of local government and public management, our research now reaches beyond these traditional structures and actors to address governance, democracy, leadership, participation, policy-making and service delivery at and across multiple scales and issues.
The successful post holder will be enthusiastic about teaching and able to teach students from new graduates to experienced professionals in areas such as public management and service delivery, policy making and implementation, participation and democracy, governance and devolution, or public sector economics and finance. The post holder will teach on campus and online. A range of CPD opportunities will be available.

Role Summary

You will contribute to a range of education-related activities. In addition, you will be expected to demonstrate academic citizenship, developing and maintaining mutually respectful and supportive working relationships with all staff and students, and ensuring the way you carry out your role impacts positively on how others carry out theirs.

Teaching is likely to include a substantial contribution to: (a) the management, development and delivery of teaching and assessment at all levels; and (b) enhancement of the student experience and employability. The role will also involve developing and advising others, including: (a) providing expert advice to staff and students, and (b) developing and advising others on learning and teaching tasks and methods.

You will be expected to advance teaching and learning practice in your modules within the school, take a role in leading curriculum development, and play an important role in student academic and pastoral support. You will deliver excellent teaching that inspires students and is informed by discipline-based research.

Management and administration is likely to include developing and making substantial contributions to knowledge transfer, enterprise, business engagement, public engagement widening participation, or similar activities at Department/School level or further within the University.

Person Specification

⦁   Normally, a higher Degree relevant to the discipline area (usually PhD), or equivalent qualifications.
⦁   Extensive teaching experience and scholarship within subject specialism.
⦁   Proven ability to devise, advise on and manage learning.
⦁   Skills in managing, motivating & mentoring others.

Teaching
⦁ Ability to design, deliver, assess and revise teaching programmes.
⦁ Extensive experience and demonstrated success in developing appropriate approaches to learning and teaching and advising colleagues.

Management Administration
⦁   Ability to contribute to School/Departmental management processes.
⦁   Ability to assess and organise resources effectively.
⦁   Understanding of and ability to contribute to broader management/administration processes.
⦁   Experience of championing Equality, Diversity and Inclusion in own work area.
⦁   Ability to monitor and evaluate the extent to which equality and diversity legislation, policies, procedures are applied.
⦁   Ability to identify issues with the potential to impact on protected groups and take appropriate action.

Desirable areas of teaching experience
Experience of teaching in one or more of the following areas:
⦁   Public management and service delivery
⦁   Policy making and implementation
⦁   Participation and democracy
⦁   Governance and devolution
⦁   Public sector economics and finance

For full details and to apply please see: https://bham.taleo.net/careersection/external/jobdetail.ftl?job=220000E2&tz=GMT%2B01%3A00&tzname=Europe%2FLondon

For an informal discussion of the role, please contact Dr Karin Bottom, Head of Education ([email protected]) or Jason Lowther, Head of Department ([email protected]).

INLOGOV Blog

The Institute of Local Government Studies, University of Birmingham

Local Government Studies