The fact that governments face an array of challenges is a well-rehearsed argument. City governments across the globe are tackling a myriad of social, economic and environmental issues, from trying to reduce homelessness, improving health and wellbeing, or increasing educational attainment. In parallel, philanthropic foundations’ accumulated wealth and knowledge means they are increasingly welcomed as a government partner in addressing social needs. So why do philanthropic foundations engage with city governments?
The UK Association of Charitable Foundations defines philanthropic foundations as “charities with private, independent, sustainable income that supports individuals and/or organisations” (Pharoah and Walker, 2019, p. 1). In 2015, there were over 10,000 charitable foundations based in the UK and some of these are engaging with city governments.
In the U.S. context, philanthropic foundations have a long history of interacting with the government (Zunz, 2012) They have traditionally funded physical structures like libraries and opera houses, and in recent years, foundations have increasingly working directly with governments to tackle issues as diverse as climate change (Madénian and Van Nest, 2023), gun control, and poverty reduction (Barber, 2014; Nijman, 2009; Moir et al., 2014). Yet, there has been little exploration of this phenomenon in the English context.
Based upon the case study analysis of three contrasting English cities, Bristol, Manchester, and Newcastle, I drew upon qualitative interviews and policy reports to understand the interconnections between foundations and city governments.
Why do city governments and foundations collaborate
Philanthropic foundations can be a capacity-building partner of city government, providing direct funding and non-financial resources to help city governments solve problems. Philanthropic foundations provide city governments with direct funding and non-financial resources, including data, research, events, and other outputs, such as toolkits.
Foundations are motivated to improve public services, develop new approaches to problem-solving, advocate on policy issues, and fill funding gaps left by austerity. Foundations select city governments based on personal rapport and perceived ease of working.
City governments are motivated to engage with foundations to access resources, for foundations to help amplify the voice of city governments, and because foundations are perceived as less bureaucratic and more trustworthy funders.
Barriers to city government and foundation collaborations
Foundation engagement with city governments is inconsistent. This study found that certain city governments (in this case, Manchester and Bristol) had more partnerships with foundations. The reason is that foundations often will not work with city governments when the city government’s priorities are unclear, if they are hard to engage, or when there is a perceived slow pace of change in city hall.
On the part of city governments, a scarcity of resources can prevent them from seeking foundation resources. With the impacts of austerity still lingering, it may have been surmised that austerity could prompt cities to seek foundation support, instead, this study has found that a lack of internal capacity can prevent the city government from seeking foundation involvement.
Implications for policy and practice
City governments interacting with foundations in England is a relatively nascent and under-explored phenomenon. As well as few academic studies, there is often an opaqueness in the nature of these collaborations. A lack of transparency can hinder scrutiny, which is problematic if city governments and their partners are to be held to account. Going forward, a key facet of city government engagement with foundations should be a commitment to transparency in the nature of the collaboration and an openness to sharing evidence of the impacts of the interactions on the outcomes that the foundation and city governments are trying to achieve.
Areas for future research
As a relatively underexplored topic, more research could usefully explore foundation engagement with city governments across England on a larger scale, particularly to understand the implications for accountability. Futuremore, future research could usefully explore whether philanthropic foundations prioritise collaborating with city governments over different types of organisations, such as charities, and if so, whether this is because city governments enable potentially larger degrees of policy influence than more “marginal” political institutions, such as NGOs or community groups.
To find out more about the research, please contact Dr Ruth Puttick, [email protected]
Dr Ruth Puttick runs a research consultancy and is a Senior Research Fellow at the Institute for Innovation and Public Purpose (IIPP) at University College London. She has over 15 years of practical research experience in the public and private sectors advising on public sector reform, innovation and impact. She served as a Senior Policy Advisor in the UK Government’s Open Innovation Team, and before that, she worked at Tony Blair Associates, a global management consultancy, helping establish the policy and research team in the government advisory practice. Prior to that, she spent six years at Nesta, the UK’s innovation agency. Ruth is on X.com @rputtick and can be contacted at www.ruthputtick.com
This is the first of two blogs resulting from this year’s INLOGOV undergraduate summer intern project, which examined how councils can boost wellbeing amid austerity. This first article summarises some of the key literature, the second article (next week) will explore practice examples.
In a period characterised by fiscal austerity, local governments confront major hurdles in providing basic services while working with tight resources. Spending cuts have far-reaching consequences for communities, frequently having a negative impact on the public’s well-being and standard of living. In response to these issues, community initiatives have arisen as viable mechanisms for minimising the harmful effects of austerity policies whilst also promoting community belonging in neighbourhoods. This paper will begin with a literature review surrounding the topic, examining studies that have demonstrated the impact of community initiatives.
This article starts with a literature review examining the potential for community initiatives to achieve wellbeing outcomes, emphasising how councils may successfully collaborate with communities to reduce the negative effects of budget cuts in an age of permanent austerity. Since the 2008 global financial crisis, several nations have undertaken austerity measures that have considerably impacted local government finances and services (Lowndes and McCaughie, 2013). This ‘age of austerity’ has caused councils to reassess their approach to providing public services and ensuring community well-being (Hastings et al., 2015). In response to the spending, councils can and, on occasion, have turned to community initiatives as a possible way to preserve or improve wellness within the community.
Research consistently demonstrates that community-led initiatives can effectively address service gaps resulting from austerity measures while enhancing local decision-making practices and overall community well-being. Crisp et al. (2016) believe that community-led alternatives can assist in addressing service gaps caused by funding reduction. Their research of community-based organisations in the UK revealed that these projects might assist in areas such as employment, training and social care. Evans (2008) and Fletcher-Etherington (2010) also draw attention to the advantages of community-led initiatives, particularly highlighting enhanced decision-making procedures. Building on this concept, Fung and Wright (2003) provide further empirical support through their examination of participatory governance cases. Their research demonstrates that including the community in the decision-making process can result in more successful and fair policy results, which are more likely to improve the community’s general well-being.
Community initiatives are vital for improving public health outcomes, with research consistently showing their positive impact on physical and mental well-being. There is a strong link between community initiatives, social capital, and health outcomes, as revealed in various studies. For example, Kawachi and Berkman’s (2000) research provides compelling evidence that social connections, cultivated through community efforts, are associated with better physical and mental health. This link between community involvement and health is further explored in specific contexts, such as mental health initiatives. Knifton et al. (2010) investigated community-based mental health programs in Scotland and found that they have the potential to reduce stigma, increase social support, and improve access to mental health services. Moreover, South (2015) offers a comprehensive guide to community-centred approaches to health and well-being, emphasising the crucial role of local government and the NHS in supporting these initiatives. South’s research underscores the importance of integrating community-led approaches into broader health and social care strategies, highlighting how such integration can lead to more effective and sustainable health outcomes for the community. Strong partnerships between the council and the community, along with insights from studies like Kawachi and Berkman (2000) and Knifton et al. (2010), are crucial in this process. These studies underscore the value of community-centred approaches in improving public health and suggest that policymakers and health professionals should prioritise integrating community initiatives into mainstream health and social care strategies to promote positive well-being outcomes.
Community initiatives provide significant economic and environmental benefits, offering viable solutions for councils to improve well-being within financial constraints. Imbroscio (2013) has found in many cases that locally-driven community initiatives can create more sustainable and equitable economic outcomes compared to top-down approaches. Krasny and Tidball (2009) examined community-based environmental initiatives. They discovered that these programs not only benefited local ecosystems but also promoted social learning and community resilience. These findings are consistent with a growing global trend in communities engaging in environmental stewardship (Bennett, 2018). Examples include community-based conservation and locally managed marine areas, which have emerged in sectors such as fisheries, forestry, and water management (Berkes, 2004). This shift recognises that community initiatives can address environmental concerns while also building social connections and, therefore, well-being.
Asset-Based Community Development (ABCD) has emerged as a transformative approach to community well-being initiatives, emphasising the inherent strengths and resources within communities. McKnight and Kretzmann (2005), pioneers of the ABCD approach, argue that sustainable community development must start with recognising the capacities, skills, and assets of local residents and their associations. Their work emphasises the importance of mapping community assets as a starting point for development initiatives. The methodology is driven by community members and focuses on harnessing the inherent strengths and assets of individuals, associations, and communities to promote social change (Mathie, 2003). ABCD represents a shift from traditional deficit-based approaches to community development. Instead of focusing on needs and shortcomings, ABCD emphasises the existing strengths and resources within a community. This approach is based on the principle that every community, regardless of its challenges, possesses a wealth of assets that can be mobilised to address local issues and enhance overall well-being. The effectiveness of ABCD relies on several key mechanisms. Harrison (2019) highlights the importance of building strong, trusting relationships within the community as a fundamental aspect of this approach. These relationships form the foundation for cooperation and collective action, which are essential for the success of community initiatives. Additionally, Harrison emphasises the role of reciprocity and accountability among community members in sustaining engagement and ensuring that initiatives are both community-driven and beneficial. While ABCD is fundamentally community-driven, the role of local authorities in supporting and facilitating this approach is crucial for its success.
Local authorities play a pivotal role in nurturing and sustaining ABCD initiatives through strategic support and facilitation. Forrester et al. (2018) identify several key strategies local authorities can employ. These include participating in appreciative inquiry, which is asking positive, strength-based questions to identify and build on community successes. Local authorities can also build social capital by developing networks of connections, which are critical for community resilience and well-being. Furthermore, sponsoring local economic initiatives can assist in establishing long-term economic prospects while improving general community well-being. ABCD emphasises empowerment. According to García (2020), empowering people in the community to identify their own assets and skills can help local authorities to establish long-term community initiatives. This empowerment boosts self-efficacy and gives community members a stronger sense of ownership and duty. ABCD’s success depends greatly on a supportive and trustworthy atmosphere. Harrison et al. (2019) observe that when community members feel supported and trusted, they are more likely to actively participate and contribute to the success of community efforts. ABCD offers a promising approach to community development by focusing on the positive aspects of communities rather than their deficiencies. This strengths-based approach can lead to more sustainable and impactful outcomes. However, it is important to recognise that the success of the ABCD relies heavily on the presence of a supportive environment and the active involvement of local authorities. Local authorities must adopt a facilitative role, providing necessary support and resources and allowing community members to lead (Forrester et al., 2018). ABCD represents a paradigm shift in community development, offering a promising framework for sustainable well-being outcomes when effectively supported by local authorities and embraced by community members.
Alice has recently graduated from the University of Birmingham with a first class degree in Policy, Politics and Economics. She was awarded the Jane Slowey bursary in her final year for her research on the Homes for Ukraine scheme. Alice is currently seeking further opportunities and can be contacted at [email protected]
References
Berkes, F. (2004) Rethinking community-based conservation. ConservationBiology, 18(3), 621–630. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2004.
Forrester, G., Kurth, J., Vincent, P., & Oliver, M. (2018) Schools as community assets: an exploration of the merits of an Asset-Based Community Development (ABCD) approach. Educational Review, 72(4), 443–458. doi:10.1080/00131911.2018.1529655.
Fung, A. and Wright, E.O. (2003) Deepening democracy: Institutional innovations in empowered participatory governance. Verso.
García, I. (2020) “Chapter 4 Asset-Based Community Development (ABCD): core principles”. In Research Handbook on Community Development. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing. doi:10.4337/9781788118477.00010.
Harrison, R., Blickem, C., Lamb, J., Kirk, S., and Vassilev, I. (2019) ‘Asset-Based Community Development: Narratives, Practice, and Conditions of Possibility—A Qualitative Study With Community Practitioners’ Sage Open, 9(1). doi:10.1177/2158244018823081.
Hastings, A., Bailey, N., Gannon, M., Besemer, K., and Bramley, G. (2015) ‘Coping with the Cuts? The Management of the Worst Financial Settlement in Living Memory’. Local Government Studies, 41(4), 601–621. doi:10.1080/03003930.2015.1036987.
Henderson, C., Evans-Lacko, S. and Thornicroft, G. (2013) ‘Mental Illness Stigma, Help Seeking, and Public Health Programs’. American Journal of Public Health, 103(5), 777-780. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2012.301056.
Imbroscio, D. (2013) ‘From Redistribution to Ownership: Toward an Alternative Urban Policy for America’s Cities’. Urban Affairs Review, 49(6), 787-820. doi:10.1177/1078087413495362.
Kawachi, I. and Berkman, L. (2000) ‘Social cohesion, social capital, and health’. Social epidemiology, 174(7), 290-319.
Knifton, L., Gervais, M., Newbigging, K., Mirza, N., Quinn, N., Wilson, N., and Hunkins-Hutchison, E. (2010) ‘Community conversation: addressing mental health stigma with ethnic minority communities’. Social psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology, 45, 497-504.
Kretzmann, J. P. and McKnight, J. (2005) Discovering community power: A guide to mobilising local assets and your organisation’s capacity. Evanston, IL: Asset-Based Community Development Institute, School of Education and Social Policy, Northwestern University.
Lowndes, V. and McCaughie, K. (2013) ‘Weathering the perfect storm? Austerity and institutional resilience in local government’. Policy and Politics, 41(4), 533-549.
We are looking for a keen and talented teaching fellow, to teach and support a mix of international students and UK public sector professionals, helping to develop the next generation of senior public sector managers and leaders.
The Department of Public Administration and Policy is a recently formed part of the University of Birmingham, incorporating the Institute of Local Government Studies (INLOGOV) – the leading UK centre for the study of public service management, policy and governance with over 50 years of experience working with local government and the public sector.
The department 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.
DPAP offers a range of postgraduate degree programmes, at Masters and Diploma 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, and a blended Degree Apprenticeship in Public Leadership and Management.
DPAP’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 teaching and research now also reaches beyond these traditional structures and actors to address governance, democracy, leadership, participation, policy-making, performance and financial management, and service delivery at and across multiple scales and issues.
The successful candidate will have a higher degree in a relevant area (or equivalent qualifications), high level analytical capability, and the ability to design and deliver module teaching materials successfully. Starting salary is £35-44.3k, and the post is initially for one year. Application deadline is 30th September.
It’s been an exciting month in government, nationally and locally, since the General Election on 4th July. As the new Labour administration finds its feet, somewhere on Ministers’ “to do” list will be local government performance and (the department formerly known as) DLUHC’s attempts to improve this through the establishment of OFLOG, the Office for Local Government.
The election marked the exact anniversary of Michael Gove’s statement setting up OFLOG through the policy document, Understanding and supporting local government performance. Its remit was “to provide authoritative and accessible data and analysis about the performance of local government and support its improvement”.
Gove was at pains to stress “this is not about recreating the Audit Commission”. With that point at least, I agree. Whereas the Audit Commission was fiercely independent, often willing to criticise government policy where it was a factor in poor performance, OFLOG was established as an office of the department within the DLUHC department itself. Whereas the Audit Commission developed comprehensive performance measures which were rigorously audited to assure consistency, OFLOG picked 27 PIs and published these. Whereas the Audit Commission provided detailed national studies to inform best practice in local services, sometimes leading to wholesale systems change such as around youth justice services, with the local implementation of recommendations then supported by local specialist value for money auditors, the nascent OFLOG offered to “continue a programme of webinars to share best practice”.
An early product of OFLOG, in July 2023, was its “Local Authority Data Explorer”, which now brings together PIs on waste management, planning, adult social care, roads, and corporate and financial issues. For each service, users can select three comparison councils to produce scatter charts like Figure 1, which compares my local council’s waste management with that of three other big cities. This led to some rather uninformed press commentary and a response from the LGA. One may also say this is perhaps not the most compelling presentation of data in the world, arguably significantly less clear or flexible than the LGA’s excellent Inform tool which has been freely available for several years and includes thousands of published metrics.
Caution should be applied to OFLOG’s position within a ministerial setting and the potential for politicians to be selective in how they use data for judging local authorities that are not of their political persuasion. Whilst some may argue that the former Audit Commission may have been too powerful, it did provide a greater degree of transparency and objectivity at interpreting performance data.
Figure 1: Waste management
As my colleague in Inlogov, Dr Philip Whiteman, has recently argued, the new government should ensure that OFLOG is independent of government with a remit to focus on:
Working with the sector to identify councils at risk of failure to ensure that support can be provided from within the sector, minimising the need for government intervention.
Collecting, analysing, and reporting data to enable individual councils, groups of councils and the sector nationally to make progress with shared priorities agreed with government.
Developing intelligence from on-going engagement with councils.
Supporting improvement in local services and councils’ contribution to national outcomes through researching, synthesising, and disseminating good practice.
Working with academic institutions such as Inlogov to incorporate key lessons from existing and future research.
We can be confident that local government performance overall is strong, and sector-led improvement has demonstrated our collective commitment to continuous improvement. But with so much of the new government’s ambitious “Missions” depending on highly effective local government, we need to take a fresh look at how OFLOG can be further developed to identify and propagate good practice across the sector.
Jason is Director of the Institute of Local Government Studies (INLOGOV) at the University of Birmingham and was employed by the Audit Commission from 1994 to 2004. This article was first published in the August 2024 LARIA Newsletter. Email [email protected]
INLOGOV’s new report, Equipping Local Government to Deliver National and Local Priorities, is available here.
This blog was prompted partly by Vivien Lowndes’ and Phil Swann’s recent INLOGOV blog giving “Two cheers for combined authorities and their mayors”. Substantively, anyway, although the decisive stimulus was the realisation that most, if not all, of those present at the relevant ‘Brown Bag’ session would probably have been unaware that seated among them was the co-author of almost certainly the most comprehensive examination of this topic by any INLOGOV colleague over the years.
I refer to the appropriately labelled ‘long-read’, also masquerading as an INLOGOV blog and entitled Briefing Paper: Elected Mayors, published shortly before the 2017 elections of what I think of as the second generation of elected mayors – and produced by Prof Catherine Staite and a Jason Lowther.
Catherine, nowadays an Emeritus Professor of Public Management, had recently stepped down as Director of INLOGOV, in which capacity she had, among numerous other initiatives, both launched and regularly contributed to our/her blog. And, while I certainly recalled reading the Briefing Paper, I confess that, with his name meaning little to me at the time, I’d forgotten her co-author. Apologies, Jason.
He claimed, moreover, that he himself had “forgotten” it (email, 14/5), which I didn’t, of course, believe … until, a few days later and following some ‘research’, I discovered one of my own INLOGOV blogs, on the Magna Carta and 800 years of Elected Mayors, which I really had totally forgotten. Whereupon I realised too that I couldn’t actually recall much of what Catherine, I and other colleagues contributed to that decade of debate on elected mayoral evolution.
So, the remainder, the structure, and – I fear – the length of this blog were prompted, yes, by much of the media coverage of this month’s elections, and the sense that the spread and substance of mayoral government over the past decade aren’t fully recognised even by those who supposedly follow these things; and also by the notion that it would be a pleasing mini-tribute to Catherine to do so by identifying and italicising particularly some of her and colleagues’ INLOGOV blog contributions on these mayoral matters over the years.
We start, however, for the benefit of comparatively late arrivals, at the beginning of not the blog, but the concept. Mayoral government is a postulation you might expect to have found a supportive, even enthusiastic, reception in an Institute of Local Government Studies and it mainly did, albeit with perhaps a certain reservation. Directly elected mayors (DEMs) had played a fluctuating role in the Blair Government’s local government agenda from the outset. London, noted in Labour’s 1997 manifesto as “the only Western capital without an elected city government”, would have a “new deal”. Which took the form in 2000 of the creation of the Mayor-led Greater London Authority – in the manifesto, so no referendum required. Probably no reminder required either, but they’ve been: Ken Livingstone (Ind/Lab; 2000-08), Boris Johnson (Con; 2008-16); Sadiq Khan (Lab; 2016- ).
The Local Government Act 2000 then provided all English and Welsh councils with optional alternatives to the traditional committee system. Chiefly, following a petition of more than 5% of their electorate, they could hold a referendum on whether to introduce a directly elected mayor plus cabinet. There were 30 of these referendums in 2001/02, producing 11 DEMs – plus Stoke-on-Trent’s short-lived mayor-plus-committee system – three in London boroughs, but most famously Hartlepool United’s football mascot, H’Angus the Monkey, aka Stuart Drummond (Indep).
Ten referendums over the ensuing decade produced a further three mayors, prompting the now Cameron-led Conservatives to pledge in their 2010 manifesto to introduce elected ‘Boris-style’ mayors for England’s 12 (eventually 11) largest cities, with significant responsibilities including control of rail and bus services, and money to invest in high-speed broadband.
Birmingham voted 58% against, despite Labour’s having in Liam Byrne a candidate raring to go, and Coventry 64% against. There was speculation over whether the addition of a well publicised mayoral recall provision(CG) might have swung some of the lost referendums. But it was what it looked: an overdue, and to some welcome(Andrew Coulson), end of an episode(Karin Bottom);arguably “the wrong solution to the wrong problem”(Catherine Durose).
Since then, the referendums successfully removing elected mayors (Stoke-on-Trent, Hartlepool, Torbay, Bristol) have exceeded those creating new ones (Copeland, Croydon) – though, in fairness, those four removals were more than matched by five retention votes.
A ‘mayoral map’ at the end of that first decade would have looked something like the inset in my illustration of in fact the first 20 years of referendum results – numerous splotches of red for Reject, a few smaller green specks for Accept, and overall a patchy, somewhat arbitrary, experiment that on a national scale never really took off.
The mayoral concept, though, had also generated interest outside local government – the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR), for instance, advocating Mayors for Greater Manchester, the West Midlands, and Liverpool City Region to take the required ‘big’ decisions on housing, transport, and regional development. Prime Minister David Cameron too was a ‘city mayors’ fan, although what scale of ‘city’ wasn’t initially clear, until in 2014 what became known as the first ‘devolution deal’ (Catherine Needham) was announced with the Greater Manchester Combined Authority. Headed by an elected ‘metro-mayor’ (CG), comparable to the Mayor of London, the GMCA would have greater control over local transport, housing, skills and healthcare, with “the levers you need to grow your local economy”.
New legislation – the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016 – was required, allowing the introduction of directly elected Mayoral Combined Authority or ‘Metro Mayors’(Vivien Lowndes & Phil Swann) (+ Catherine Staite) in England and Wales, with devolved housing, transport, planning and policing powers.
The Combined Authority elections were held in May 2017 – not coinciding with the General Election(CG) as PM Theresa May had contemplated but, in contrast to Rishi Sunak, chickened out of – with perhaps usefully split results(CG). Elected were Andy Burnham (Lab, Greater Manchester), Steve Rotheram (Lab, Liverpool City Region), Ben Houchen (Cons, Tees Valley), Andy Street (Cons, West Midlands), Tim Bowles (Cons, West of England), and James Palmer (Cons, Cambridgeshire & Peterborough) – followed in 2018 by Dan Jarvis (Lab, Sheffield City Region). The map had started to change – even within the first hundred days (CG) – stutteringly under the less committed Theresa May and/or in several cases where groups of local authorities failed to agree – but eventually dramatically, as evidenced in the larger illustrated map. The Staite/Lowther ‘Briefing Paper’ was well timed.
A few years on, mayoral devolution has trailblazed across the country (CG) to a greater extent than even some commentators on this year’s local elections seemed to have difficulty grasping. As of March 2024, devolution deals had been agreed with 22 areas, covering 60% of the English population – most recently, in late 2022, North of Tyne, Norfolk/Suffolk, East Midlands, York & North Yorkshire; in 2023 Cornwall, Greater Manchester and West Midlands (‘Trailblazers’), Greater Lincolnshire, Lancashire, Hull/East Yorkshire; and so far in 2024 Buckinghamshire, Warwickshire and Surrey.
From next year, if you draw a straightish line from, say, Ipswich in South Suffolk up through about Alvechurch in South Birmingham, heading for Shrewsbury, at least five-sixths of the bits of England to your north will be under mayoral devolution. Which, to me anyway, seems pretty dramatic news, and considerably more interesting than the endless General Election Date speculation that passed this May for ‘Local Elections’ reporting.
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.
There are reasons to be cheerful about the fact that the newest component of English local government, the mayoral combined authorities, were in the headlines this spring. There were also reasons for caution, however, most notably the particular focus on two of the mayoral elections, in Teesside and the West Midlands, as a guide to the popularity (or not) nationally of Rishi Sunak and the Conservative Party.
This fact that combined authorities were in the news is a prompt to take stock of their development and impact with some thoughts stimulated by the discussion at a recent INLOGOV Brown Bag[1]session.
The media attention was attributable to the mayoral elections, with many of the incumbent candidates having established a national profile by, for example, challenging the government’s approach to Covid (Andy Burnham in Greater Manchester), defying political gravity and weak governance (Ben Houchen in Teesside) or crafting a new brand of active, compassionate Conservatism and challenging the government’s pruning of HS2 (Andy Street in the West Midlands).
The mayors have also disrupted the escalator assumption of British politics in which ambitious politicians use local government as a stepping stone to parliament and government. Burnham, Liverpool City Region’s Steve Rotherham and the new mayor of the East Midlands Claire Ward have each moved in the opposite direction.
The metro mayors undoubtedly have higher profiles than most council leaders. They have demonstrated impact beyond their statutory remit through soft power, particularly their ability to convene discussions and galvanise action on issues such as public health and homelessness.
Doubts remain about the sense of vesting so much power in a single individual. Only three of the twelve metro-mayors are women, showing the danger of equating ‘strong leader’ with ‘strong man’. More effort is needed on the part of political parties to diversify their mayoral candidate selection.
It is also valid to question whether, for example, an elected mayor in the West Midlands would have added more value as part of the city council’s governance rather than that of the wider city region. Some would argue that the city would benefit from the type of focussed political leadership that Mayor Jules Pipe provided in Hackney. Experience in both Liverpool and Bristol suggests that having a mayor at both city and city region level causes confusion.
There has been very little discussion about the role of council leaders as key players in the governance of combined authorities through their membership of the mayors’ cabinets. As one council leader in Greater Manchester is quoted[2] as saying: “We have to work with a mayor we did not want while he has to work with a cabinet he did not chose”.
The Greater London Authority model is very different, with a separately elected London assembly as well as a mayor. While this may seem more democratic, public awareness of the assembly is far lower than that of the mayor[3]. Perhaps it is time for a comparative review of these two very different sets of governance arrangements. In both cases, there is a strong argument for greater public involvement outside of the electoral cycle, both in setting up new combined authorities and to inform ongoing priorities.
The role of council leaders is inevitably linked with the wider question of the relationship between the combined authorities and their constituent councils. To date this has proved to be remarkably smooth, particularly given the often toxic precedent of county-district relations. The next period may be more testing. To date, councils and metro mayors have been united in coping with austerity, but difficult decisions about priorities will have to be taken should a new government make limited additional resources available. The increased interest of combined authorities and mayors in strategic spatial planning and housing will also raise challenging and potentially divisive issues.
The jury is out on the extent to which the establishment of combined authorities has led to substantive devolution of power from central government, although progress has been made in areas such as adult education, transport, health (in Greater Manchester) and mental health (in the West Midlands). While the new ‘trailblazer deals’ in Greater Manchester and the West Midlands promise a single funding settlement with central government, other combined authorities find themselves still bogged down in competitive bidding for relatively small pots of money.
One important feature of combined authorities is the way they are creating opportunities for innovation and testing new ways of working at a local level. To fully exploit the potential of this development it is important that arrangements are put in place to capture this learning and share it between combined authorities, and especially with newcomers like East Midlands, North East and York and North Yorkshire. There is also potential for metro-mayors to speak with a stronger collective voice in challenging and informing central government on issues affecting local and regional governance.
Finally, it is important to remember that combined authorities did not begin with a blank sheet of paper. The GLA and many of the combined authorities have similar boundaries as the GLC and metropolitan counties which were abolished by Margaret Thatcher in a fit of political pique in the 1980s.
Harold Macmillan pioneered regional arrangements for devolved delivery with regional boards to promote industrial productivity during the second world war and regional housing production boards to help meet his 300,000 a year housing target in the 1950s. Neither were well-received in Whitehall. John Prescott followed with his regional development agencies, abolished by Cameron’s coalition government, and his failed bid to create regional assemblies. What marks out combined authorities is the lack of a ‘one size fits all’ approach, with size, functions and governance arrangements varying around the country.[4] Indeed, only 50% of England’s population live in combined authority areas (so far).
Given this rocky terrain, it may be rash to vest too much hope in combined authorities and their mayors. But they clearly have the potential to disrupt our centralised politics and join-up aspects of regional governance after decades of damaging fragmentation.
Vivien Lowndes is Professor Emerita in the School of Government, University of Birmingham.
Phil Swann is studying for a PhD at INLOGOV in the Department of Public Administration and Policy, University of Birmingham, on the contribution of politicians to central-local government relations.
[1] INLOGOV’s Brown Bag sessions are informal monthly discussions on events in and around local government bringing together academics, researchers, students, practitioners and alumni. For further details please Phil Swann ([email protected])
[2] Blakeley, G and Evans, B. 2023 How metro mayors are getting things done – even if they have limited money and power. The Conversation June 28 2023.
[3] According to London Elects (londonelects.org.uk) in January 2020 58% of people were aware that a mayoral election was taking place compared with 32% for the assembly election (down from 40% in 2016).
[4] Durose, C. and Lowndes, V. 2021. Why are designs for urban governance so often incomplete? A conceptual framework for explaining and harnessing institutional incompleteness, Environment & Planning C: Politics & Space, https://doi.org/10.1177/2399654421990;
INLOGOV Blog 